Podcasts about cochrane collaboration

Today we're tackling one of the biggest myths in modern nutrition: the idea that we need to restrict our daily sodium intake. For years, we've been led to believe that salt is the bad guy—linked to high blood pressure, heart disease, and a shorter lifespan. But that's just not the case. Today, we're diving into why salt isn't the villain it's made out to be—in fact, it's essential, especially if you follow a low-carb, ketogenic, or Paleo diet, or if you're using popular GLP-1 medications like semaglutide. We'll also spotlight a product that's getting it right: LMNT, an electrolyte drink mix that skips the sugar and delivers the salt your body actually needs. Stick around—this episode might just change how you think about hydration for good. The Salt Myth Let's start with where the myth came from. Americans average around 3,400 mg (3.4 grams) of sodium a day, but the FDA is doubling down, pushing us to cut back to under 2,300 mg (2.4 grams).  It's the same old anti-salt message—but is less really always better? They claim this will save hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing heart disease risk. Sounds noble—until you actually look at the data. Turns out, their case is built on: Cherry-picked epidemiology Exaggerated assumptions And some serious logical leaps Let's start with one of the largest global studies we have: The Intersalt Study, which looked at over 10,000 people across 48 populations. This study showed that there is no correlation between salt intake and blood pressure. In fact, the population with the highest salt intake had lower average blood pressure than the population with the least. Or take the Framingham Offspring Study, which found that people consuming under 2.5 grams of sodium per day actually had higher blood pressure than those consuming more. Still not convinced? A systematic review of the 2020 Cochrane Collaboration found that sodium restriction had virtually no meaningful impact on blood pressure in healthy people—and more consistent negative side effects than benefits. And here's the kicker: when the FDA says cutting sodium could save “500,000 lives,” that estimate is based not on sodium studies, but on data from hypertension drug trials. They essentially said: “Hey, these blood pressure meds work. So sodium restriction must work too.” That's not science. Now, does salt affect everyone the same? Of course not. People with chronic kidney disease or extreme hypertension might benefit from some restriction. But for the average person eating real food, staying active, or following a low-carb or GLP-1-supported lifestyle, salt is not the issue. You know what is? Sugar. A whole other podcast discussion we can have at a later date. *Salt and Heart Health If low-sodium diets were actually good for your heart, we'd expect to see that show up clearly in the research, right? But... we don't.  There was a major study published in JAMA back in 2011. Researchers looked at nearly 29,000 people with high risk for heart disease and tracked how much sodium they were consuming. And get this—the lowest risk of heart attacks, strokes, and cardiovascular death wasn't in the low-sodium group. It was in the moderate sodium group—those eating between 4 to 6 grams per day. People eating less than that? They actually had a 19% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes. And that's not a fluke. A 2018 review—also in JAMA—found little to no solid evidence that cutting salt intake improves heart failure outcomes either. I also want to touch on blood pressure and salt. When you don't get enough sodium, your body freaks out a bit. It ramps up hormones like aldosterone and renin to hold onto what little salt you have—but those same hormones also raise your blood pressure. Wild, right? Cutting salt can actually backfire for some people. And furthermore — your bones act as a backup sodium reservoir. So when you're running low, your body pulls sodium from your bones, along with calcium and magnesium, which over time can negatively affect bone health. Then come the symptoms: low energy, headaches, cramps, fatigue, even insomnia. If you're eating clean but feel like garbage, chances are you're not getting enough salt. Now to be clear, I'm not saying go eat or drink an unlimited amount of salt. Too much sodium isn't great either. But for most people—especially if you're active or following a low-carb or ketogenic lifestyle—the sweet spot is usually somewhere around 4 to 6 grams per day. That's just the baseline for feeling and functioning well.   *The Real Connection Between Salt and Hydration  Let's talk about hydration. It's not just about water. You've probably heard that you need eight glasses of water a day—but here's the thing: that's way too generic. Everyone's needs are different depending on your body weight, activity level, and environment.  A much better starting point would be to try drinking about half your body weight in ounces of water per day—so if you weigh 160 pounds, shoot for around 80 ounces. And if you're working out, sweating a lot, or living in a hot climate, you'll need even more to stay properly hydrated. Also what most people miss is that without enough sodium, your body can't retain that water effectively. Ever felt more dehydrated after chugging a bunch of water? That's what happens when you flush out electrolytes—especially sodium—without replenishing them. Sodium helps regulate: Fluid balance Muscle contractions Nerve function Blood volume and pressure If you're sweating, fasting, or simply cutting carbs, you're losing more salt than you think. And your body doesn't store sodium—so it needs to be replenished daily. Why Low-Carb and GLP-1 Users Need More Sodium If you're on a low-carb, Paleo, or keto diet, or using medications like semaglutide for weight loss, the bottom line is you need more sodium. When you reduce your carb intake, your insulin levels drop—and that's great for fat loss. But lower insulin also signals your kidneys to excrete more sodium. That's why people transitioning to low-carb often feel fatigued, get muscle cramps, or experience the dreaded “keto flu.” It's not carb withdrawal—it's sodium depletion. And with GLP-1 medications like semaglutide or tirzepatide, there's an added twist: appetite drops dramatically, which means many people aren't eating enough food to maintain electrolyte balance. Less food, fewer nutrients—including salt. If you're using these tools and feeling dizzy, nauseous, or weak, you may not be getting enough sodium. LMNT  Now let's talk solutions. One of the products that's completely flipped the hydration conversation is LMNT—that's L-M-N-T. It's an electrolyte drink mix developed by health experts and athletes who realized that most so-called hydration drinks were full of sugar and low on actual electrolytes. Each LMNT packet contains: 1000 mg of sodium 200 mg of potassium 60 mg of magnesium Potassium teams up with sodium to keep your cells working properly—it helps your nerves fire and your muscles move. Magnesium's like a multitasker for your body: it helps you make energy, repair DNA, build muscle, and even get better sleep.  How Much Salt Do You Actually Need? So, how much sodium is right for you? It varies, but here's a basic framework: The average low-carb or active adult likely needs 4,000–6,000 mg per day. If you're sweating a lot or fasting, that number can go even higher. And if you're on GLP-1 meds, make sure you're intentionally adding electrolytes to your day. Lastly, let's talk about something you'll see in a lot of hydration powders and supplements—like Liquid I.V.—and that's vitamin B12. Sounds good, right? But here's the thing: the form they use is usually something called cyanocobalamin. Now, yeah, it's technically B12, but it's not the best kind. It's synthetic, your body actually has to convert it into usable forms—like methylcobalamin—and not everyone does that well, especially if you've got liver issues or certain genetic mutations (e.g., MTHFR mutation). Also, Liquid I.V. contains around 536–584 mg of sodium per serving, depending on the flavor, which is about half the amount of sodium found in LMNT. While it still supports hydration, LMNT's higher sodium content is better suited for those needing more electrolytes, like on low-carb diets or during intense physical activity. So the next time someone tells you to “watch your salt,” consider asking: Why? If you're eating a whole-food diet, staying active, or managing your weight with GLP-1 meds, salt may be the very thing you're missing. Hydration isn't just about water—it's about electrolyte balance. And when you get it right, your energy, cognition, and performance all go up. Thank you for listening to The Peptide Podcast. If you enjoyed the show and want to support what we do, head over to our Partners Page. You'll find some amazing brands we trust—and by checking them out, you're helping us keep the podcast going.  If you found this helpful, don't forget to rate and share it with a friend who's still drinking plain water and wondering why they don't feel 100%. You can check out LMNT products by clicking the link in the show notes. Have a happy, healthy week!  

The Cochrane Collaboration has produced several systematic reviews of interventions focusing on the problem of antimicrobial resistance. In January 2025, these were added to with a new review about the role of community pharmacies and, in this podcast, Sadatoshi Matsuoka, talks with lead author Moe Moe Thandar from the National Center for Global Health and Medicine in Japan about this pressing issue.

The Cochrane Collaboration has produced several systematic reviews of interventions focusing on the problem of antimicrobial resistance. In January 2025, these were added to with a new review about the role of community pharmacies and, in this podcast, Sadatoshi Matsuoka, talks with lead author Moe Moe Thandar from the National Center for Global Health and Medicine in Japan about this pressing issue.

The Flu Vaccine: Science at its Worst   Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, December 20, 2024   Joshua Hadfield was a normal, healthy developing child as a toddler. In the midst of the H1N1 swine flu frenzy and the media fear mongering about the horrible consequences children face if left unvaccinated, the Hadfield family had Joshua vaccinated with Glaxo's Pandermrix influenza vaccine.  Within weeks, Joshua could barely wake up, sleeping up to nineteen hours a day. Laughter would trigger seizures. Joshua was diagnosed with narcolepsy, “an incurable, debilitating condition” associated with acute brain damage.[1]  Looking back, Pandermrix was a horrible vaccine.  Research indicates that it was associated with a 1400% increase in narcolepsy risk. A medical team at Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare recorded 800 cases of narcolepsy associated with this vaccine.  Aside from the engineered viral antigens, the other vaccine ingredients are most often found to be the primary culprits to adverse vaccine reactions. The Finnish research, on the other hand, indicated that the vaccine's altered viral nucleotide likely contributed to the sudden rise in sleeping sickness.[2] Although Pandermrix was pulled from the market for its association with narcolepsy and cataplexy (sudden muscle weakness), particularly in children, it should never have been approved and released in the first place.  The regulatory fast tracking of the HINI flu vaccines is a classic, and now common, example of regulatory negligence by nations' health officials. The failure of proper regulatory evaluation and oversight resulted in Joshua and over 1,000 other people becoming disabled for life. Settlements to cover lawsuits exceeded 63 million pounds in the UK alone.  No one should feel complacent and assume flu vaccine risks only affect young children. Sarah Behie was 20 years old after receiving a flu shot.  Three weeks later her health deteriorated dramatically. Diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome, a not uncommon adverse effect of influenza vaccination, four years later Sarah remains paralyzed from the waist down, incapable of dressing and feeding herself, and rotting away in hospitals and nursing homes.[3]  Flu vaccines are perhaps the most ineffective vaccine on the market.  Repeatedly we are told by health officials that the moral argument for its continued use is for “the greater good,” although this imaginary good has never been defined scientifically. Year to year, how effective any given seasonal flu vaccine will be is a throw of the dice. Annual flu vaccine efficacy rates in the US have demonstrated significant variability. Data from the CDC reveal efficacy estimates of approximately 39% for the 2020–2021 season, 37% for 2021–2022, 52% for 2022–2023, and a preliminary estimate of 50% for the 2023–2024 season.  Preliminary CDC estimates for this flu season estimates 34% likely efficacy. Although these are CDC's figures, independent figures are consistently much lower. At their best, flu vaccines in recent years are around 50% effective according to official health analysis. During some seasons, vaccine efficacy is a bust. For example, the 2014-2015 flu season strain match was such a failure that the CDC warned the American public that the vaccine was only 23% effective.[4]  Nevertheless, these rates underscore the vaccine's inconsistent protection. Studies such as those by Skowronski and Belongia further highlight flu vaccines' variability and force to question whether the vaccine is capable of providing any reliable protection.[5,6] Moreover, Cochrane Collaboration reviews, known for their rigorous analyses, consistently find that flu vaccines reduce influenza-like illness by only about 1% in healthy adults and have negligible impact on hospitalizations and mortality rates. This limited efficacy raises critical concerns about the vaccine's utility, particularly when weighed against its risks.  Perhaps the most useless flu vaccine that should have never been approved was Medimmune's live attenuated flu vaccine (LAIV) FluMist, which the CDC later had removed from the market because it was found to so ineffective—only 3 percent according to an NBC report.[6] However the real reason may be more dire, and this a fundamental problem of all live and attenuated vaccines: these vaccines have been shown to “shed” and infect people in contact with the vaccinated persons, especially those with compromised immune systems.  Consequently, both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated are at risk.  The CDC acknowledges this risk and warns “Persons who care for severely immunosuppressed persons who require a protective environment should not receive LAIV, or should avoid contact with such persons for 7 days after receipt, given the theoretical risk for transmission of the live attenuated vaccine virus.”[7]  According to the FDA's literature on FluMist, the vaccine was not studied for immunocompromised individuals (yet was still administered to them), and has been associated with acute allergic reactions, asthma, Guillain-Barre, and a high rate of hospitalizations among children under 24 months – largely due to upper respiratory tract infections.  Other adverse effects include pericarditis, congenital and genetic disorders, mitochondrial encephalomyopathy or Leigh Syndrome, meningitis, and others.[8]  The development and promotion of the influenza vaccine was never completely about protecting the public. It has been the least popular vaccine in the US, including among healthcare workers. Rather, similar to the mumps vaccine in the MMR, it has been the cash cow for vaccine makers.  Determining the actual severity of any given flu season is burdened by federal intentional confusion to mislead the public.  The CDC's first line of propaganda defense to enforce flu vaccinations is to exaggerate flu infections as the cause of preventable deaths.   However, validating this claim is near impossible because the CDC does not differentiate deaths caused by influenza infection and deaths due to pneumonia.  On its website, the CDC lumps flu and pneumonia deaths together, currently estimated at 51,000 per year. The large majority of these were pneumonia deaths of elderly patients. Yet in any given year, only 3-18% of suspected influenza infections actually test positive for a Type A or B influenza strain.[9]  As an aside, it is worth noting that during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, an extraordinary and unprecedented phenomenon occurred: influenza infections, which have long been a seasonal health challenge, seemingly disappeared. Federal health agencies such as the CDC attributed this sharp decline in flu cases to the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like mask-wearing, social distancing, and widespread lockdowns. However, this explanation raises critical questions about its plausibility. If these measures were effective enough to virtually eliminate influenza, why did they not similarly prevent the widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2? This contradiction highlights the need to critically examine the possible explanations behind the anomaly, questioning whether the disappearance of the flu was truly a result of public health measures or due to other factors such as diagnostic practices, viral interference, and disruptions to seasonal flu patterns. If these interventions were indeed effective, their impact should not have been so starkly selective between two similarly transmitted viruses. This contradiction undermines the plausibility of attributing the disappearance of flu cases solely to NPIs. A more plausible explanation for the disappearance of flu cases lies in the diagnostic focus on SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic. Individuals presenting with flu-like symptoms were overwhelmingly diagnosed for COVID-19 with faulty PCR testing methods rather than influenza, as public health resources were directed toward managing the pandemic. This prioritization inevitably led to a significant underreporting of flu cases. Furthermore, the symptoms of influenza and COVID-19 overlap significantly, including fever, cough, and fatigue. In the absence of influenza testing, many flu cases were wrongly diagnosed as COVID-19, further inflating SARS-CoV-2 case numbers while contributing to the perceived disappearance of the flu.  One of the more controversial findings in recent flu vaccine research involves the phenomenon of viral interference, wherein vaccinated individuals may become more susceptible to other respiratory pathogens. To date there is only one gold standard clinical trial with the flu vaccine that compares vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and it is not good news for the CDC, the vaccine makers, and the push to booster everyone with the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. This Hong Kong funded double-blind placebo controlled study followed the health conditions of vaccinated and unvaccinated children between the ages of 6-15 years for 272 days. The trial concluded the flu vaccine holds no health benefits. In fact, those vaccinated with the flu virus were observed to have a 550% higher risk of contracting non-flu virus respiratory infections. Among the vaccinated children, there were 116 flu cases compared to 88 among the unvaccinated; there were 487 other non-influenza virus infections, including coronavirus, rhinovirus, coxsackie, and others, among the vaccinated versus 88 with the unvaccinated.[10]  This single study alone poses a scientifically sound warning and rationale to avoid flu vaccines at all costs. It raises a further question: how many Covid-19 cases could be directly attributed to weakened immune systems because of prior flu vaccination? A 2019 study conducted by the US Armed Forces investigated the relationship between influenza vaccination and susceptibility to other respiratory infections, including coronaviruses. Analyzing data from over 9,000 individuals, the researchers found that people who received the flu vaccine were more likely to test positive for certain non-influenza respiratory viruses. Notably, influenza vaccination was associated with an increased likelihood of contracting coronaviruses and human metapneumovirus.[11] These findings suggest a complex interaction between influenza vaccination and susceptibility to different respiratory pathogens, and challenges the belief that flu vaccines provide greater benefits over risks. The same researchers' follow up study in in 2020 furthermore concluded that “vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.[12] Additional recent studies, such as those by Bodewes, which identified immune interference due to repeated annual flu vaccinations,[13] and Shinjoh, which highlighted increased viral interference in vaccinated children, provide further evidence of this relationship.[14] These findings challenge the prevailing assumption that flu vaccination has only positive effects on immune health and raise important questions about the broader implications of repeated annual vaccination. In a follow up study after the H1N1 swine flu scare, Canadian researcher Dr. Danuta Skowronski noted that individuals with a history of receiving consecutive seasonal flu shots over several years had an increased risk of becoming infected with H1N1 swine flu.  Skowronski commented on the findings, “policy makers have not yet had a chance to fully digest them [the study's conclusions] or understand the implications.”  He continued, “Who knows, frankly? The wise man knows he knows nothing when it comes to influenza, so you always have to be cautious in speculating.”[15] There is strong evidence suggesting that all vaccine clinical trials carried out by manufacturers fall short of demonstrating vaccine efficacy accurately. And when they are shown to be efficacious, it is frequently in the short term and offer only partial or temporary protection. According to an article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases, the only way to evaluate vaccines is to scrutinize the epidemiological data obtained from real-life conditions. In other words, researchers simply cannot -- or will not -- adequately test a vaccine's effectiveness and immunogenicity prior to its release onto an unsuspecting public.[16] According to Dr. Tom Jefferson, who formerly led the Cochrane Collaboration's vaccine analyses, it makes little sense to keep vaccinating against seasonal influenza based on the evidence.[17] Jefferson has also endorsed more cost-effective and scientifically-proven means of minimizing the transmission of flu, including regular hand washing and wearing masks. There is also substantial peer-reviewed literature supporting the supplementation of Vitamin D.  Dr. Jefferson's conclusions are backed by former Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine scientist Peter Doshi, PhD, in the British Journal of Medicine. In his article Doshi questions the flu vaccine paradigm stating:  “Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials' claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.”[18]         A significant body of research proves that receiving the flu shot does not reduce mortality among seniors.[19] One particularly compelling study was carried out by scientists at the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Not only did the study indicate that the flu vaccine did nothing to prevent deaths from influenza among seniors, but that flu mortality rates increased as a greater percentage of seniors received the shot.[20] Dr. Sherri Tenpenny reviewed the Cochrane Database reviews on the flu vaccine's efficacy. In a review of 51 studies involving over 294,000 children, there was “no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo. In children over 2 years of age, flu vaccine effectiveness was 33 percent of the time preventing flu. In children with asthma, inactivated flu vaccines did not prevent influenza related hospitalizations in children. The database shows that children who received the flu vaccine were at a higher risk of hospitalization than children who did not receive the vaccine.[21]  In a separate study involving 400 asthmatic children receiving a flu vaccine and 400 who were not immunized, there was no difference in the number of clinic and emergency room visits and hospitalizations between the two groups.[22]  In 64 studies involving 66,000 adults, “Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6 percent and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day. There was a change in the number of hospitalizations compared to the non-vaccinated. In further studies of elderly adults residing in nursing homes over the course of several flu seasons, flu vaccinations were insignificant for preventing infection.[23] Today, the most extreme wing of the pro-vaccine community continue to diligently pursue mandatory vaccination across all 50 states.  During the flu season, the debate over mandatory vaccination becomes most heated as medical facilities and government departments attempt to threaten employees and schools who refuse vaccination. Although this is deeply worrisome to those who advocate their Constitutional rights to freedom of choice in their healthcare, there are respectable groups opposing mandatory flu shots.  The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons “objects strenuously to any coercion of healthcare personnel to receive influenza immunization. It is a fundamental human right not to be subjected to medical interventions without fully informed consent.”  The good news is that the majority of Americans have lost confidence in the CDC after the agency's dismal handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Positive endorsement of the CDC would plummet further if the public knew the full extent of CDC officials lying to Congress and their conspiracy to commit medical fraud for two decades to cover=up evidence of an autism-vaccine association.  When considering the totality of evidence, the benefit-risk ratio of flu vaccination becomes increasingly problematic. The poor and inconsistent efficacy rates, combined with the potential for serious adverse reactions and the phenomenon of viral interference, clearly indicates that the vaccine does not deliver the public health benefits it promises. Public health strategies must balance the benefits of vaccination against its risks, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.  Imagine the tens of thousands of children and families who would have been saved from life-long neurological damage and immeasurable suffering if the CDC was not indebted to protecting the pharmaceutical industry's toxic products and was in fact serving Americans' health and well-being? One step that can be taken to begin dismantling the marriage between the federal health agencies and drug companies is to simply refuse the flu vaccine and protect ourselves by adopting a healthier lifestyle during the flu season.    NOTES [1] http://yournewswire.com/boy-awarded-174000-after-flu-vaccine-causes-permanent-brain-damage/  [2]  http://www.globalresearch.ca/finnish-scientists-identify-link-between-glaxosmithklines-swine-flu-vaccine-pandemrix-and-narcolepsy/5423154 [3] http://sharylattkisson.com/woman-paralyzed-after-flu-shot-receives-11-million-for-treatment/ [4]  http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/3/flu-vaccine-ineffective.html  [5]Skowronski DM, Leir S, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness by A (H3N2) phylogenetic subcluster and prior vaccination history: 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 epidemics in Canada. J Infectious Diseases, 2021; 225(8), 1387–1397. [6] Belongia EA, Skowronski DM, et al. Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence. Expert Review of Vaccines, 2023; 16(7), 743–759. [7]  Barbara Lo Fisher, The Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Virus Vectored Vaccines.  National Vaccine Information Center, 2014  [8]  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM294307.pdf  [9] Barbara Lo Fisher, “CDC Admits Flu Shots Fail Half the Time.”  NVIC, October 19, 2016 [10] http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-06-02/flu-vax-causes-5-5-times-more-respiratory-infections/  [11] Wolff GG. Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season. Vaccine. 2019 Oct 10;38(2):350–354.   [12] Wolff GG. (2020). Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel. Vaccine, 2020 38(2), 350-354.  [13] Bodwes F, Janssens Y, et al. The role of cell-mediated immunity against influenza and its implications for vaccine evaluation. Frontiers in Immunology, 2021 13, 959379. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.959379  [14] Sinojoh M, Sugaya N, et al. Effectiveness of inactivated influenza and COVID-19 vaccines in hospitalized children in the 2022/23 season in Japan: The first season of co-circulation of influenza and COVID-19. Vaccine, 2022; 41(1), 100-107.  [15]  http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-shot-linked-to-higher-incidence-of-flu-in-pandemic-year-1.1287363 [16]   Weinberg GA, Szilagyi PG. Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap. J Infect Dis 20210;201.1: 1607-610.  [17] ‘A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic', Der Spiegel, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119-2,00.html, [18] Dolshi P. "Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease." BMJ 2013;346: F3037.  [19] Simonsen L, Reichert T, et al. . Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population. Arch Intern Med Archives 2005;165(3): 265.  [20] Glezen WP, Simonsen L. Commentary: Benefits of Influenza Vaccine in US Elderly--new Studies Raise Questions. Internat J Epidemiology2006;35(2): 352-53. [21] 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Sociey, May 15-20, 2009 (quoted in , Sherri Tenpenny.  “The Truth about Flu Shots”.  Idaho Observer, June 1, 2009)  [22] ibid  [23] Ibid.

Welcome to the latest gut-busting episode of Join The Docs where the hilariously erudite Doctor Nigel Guest and the ever-witty surgeon Professor Jonathan Sackier tackle the subject of vitamins,where the humour cuts deeper than a surgeon's knife, and the topics are as enriching as a nutrition-packed smoothie! Prepare to be operated on with laughter as they dissect the bewildering world of vitamins with the precision of a laser-guided scalpel. Professor Sackier, endeavouring  to be erudite in the face of Doctor Guest's snipes, kicks things off by unravelling the A, B, Cs (and Ds, Es, and Ks) of vitamins, while Dr. Guest chimes in with anecdotes about patients Orange you glad you took the right vitamins today? As they delve deeper, The Docs tackle the heavyweight question of the century: Can you really overdose on vitamins? Dr. Guest recounts the A-mazing tale of a man who turned orange after consuming carrot juice. They both agree that while vitamins are essential, turning into a human carrot is not advisable. And while polar bears might be yummy, you might want to avoid their liver…with or without onions!Why should you chat with your doc? The dynamic duo doesn't stop there; they serve up a generous helping of advice on why you should chat with your doc before popping pills like candy. They share a chuckle over the image of a patient consulting Dr. Google, only to end up on a diet of nothing but kale and sunshine - not a bright idea.Speaking of sunshine, how important is it for your body to whip up that sweet, sweet vitamin D? Professor Sackier quips about his own sunbathing adventures, which involve more sunscreen than a beach party for vampires. That's one way to feel D-light.Do you follow  the hype surrounding dietary supplements? Before stitching up this episode, they address the elephant in the room: the myths surrounding dietary supplements. The Docs reference studies that suggest you might not live forever just because you eat vitamins like they're popcorn, despite what that infomercial with the shouting man might say.As the laughter subsides, they wrap up with a heartfelt plea for listeners to join the conversation, share their own funny vitamin stories, or ask questions that have been nagging them like a persistent mother-in-law.So, if you're ready for a dose of education with a side of chuckles, tune in to Join The Docs – the only podcast where you can improve your health knowledge without a prescription!—--DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed on Join the Docs are those of Dr. Nigel Guest, Jonathan Sackier and other people on our show. Be aware that Join the Docs is not intended to be medical advice, it is for information and entertainment purposes only - please, always take any health concerns to your doctor or other healthcare provider. We respect the privacy of patients and never identify individuals unless they have consented. We may change details, dates, place names and so on to protect privacy. Listening to Join the Docs, interacting on our social media, emailing or writing to us does not establish a doctor patient relationship.To Contact Us: For a deeper dive on this episode's issue, merchandise and exclusive content, head to www.jointhedocs.comFollow us on youtube.com/JoinTheDocs Follow us on instgram.com/JoinTheDocsFollow us on tiktok.com/JoinTheDocsFollow us on: facebok.com/JoinTheDocsFollow us on: x.com/JoinTheDocs

We all love to cite meta-analyses. They're the review studies where scientists take every single piece of research ever published on a particular question, and then calculate the overall “true” effect across all of them. Putting together all those studies is a much better way to get to the truth… isn't it?In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart give a intro to meta-analysis, and then talk about several major problems with the whole idea. Is meta-analysis—relied upon for making so many important scientific decisions, and cited in so many of our previous episodes—in serious need of a rethink?We're proud to be sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. If you're intrested in in-depth, data-rich articles on often-surprising topics relating to human progress, history of technology, and scientific discovery, there's no better place than WiP. Their most recent February 2024 issue is replete with articles on organ markets, vaccine challenge trials, the underappreciated power of silk, and much more. Check it out at this link.Show notes* Slide show from the Cochrane Collaboration on the basics of meta-analysis* Description of the GRADE guidelines for assessing study quality* Below is a funnel plot, a method of testing for publication bias in meta-analysis. Source: we asked an AI to randomly generate some data and display it in a funnel plot, just for illustration. This funnel plot is relatively symmetrical and probably wouldn't indicate much publication bias:* Criticism of funnel plots; Nature news reporting on the criticism* Stuart's Substack article on the homeopathy meta-analysis (and the retraction note for that meta-analysis)* The PET-PEESE technique for meta-analysis; and a criticism of it* Useful paper that compares between different bias-correction methods for meta-analysis* The p-curve website, which has the paper explaining the technique and a useful app where you can do your own p-curve* Stuart's Substack article on the meta-analysis on “nudges”* Further criticism of the nudge meta-analysis, with important points about “meaningless means” (and yet more criticism)CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

The Cochrane Collaboration has published more than 30 reviews on interventions for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Of these, a series of 6 systematic reviews specifically relating to surgical management were first published in 2016. These are currently being updated, with the update for one, on transvaginal mesh or grafts in transvaginal prolapse surgery being published in March 2024. In this podcast, one of the co-authors, Professor Christopher Maher speaks with lead author, Dr Ellen Yeung, a consultant urogynaecologist who works in Brisbane, Australia about the latest findings.

The Cochrane Collaboration has published more than 30 reviews on interventions for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Of these, a series of 6 systematic reviews specifically relating to surgical management were first published in 2016. These are currently being updated, with the update for one, on transvaginal mesh or grafts in transvaginal prolapse surgery being published in March 2024. In this podcast, one of the co-authors, Professor Christopher Maher speaks with lead author, Dr Ellen Yeung, a consultant urogynaecologist who works in Brisbane, Australia about the latest findings.

An introduction to OHA!, a tool currently being developed which aims to assist dentists in accessing the most reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness of common dental treatments. The OHA! repository has been purposefully crafted to be exceptionally selective and compact, ensuring that users can easily find straightforward and valuable answers to their dental clinical questions. During the presentation, Professor Paulo Nadanovsky will show two sample dental fact boxes (in draft form) that have been developed. One pertains to the success rate of root canal treatment, while the other focuses on the impact of shorter versus longer intervals between dental check-ups on oral health. Patients expect doctors to take action to help them, and the more treatment or diagnostic tests, the better they feel. Doctors genuinely want to help and can often come up with various treatment or testing options to try. Consequently, this leads to a situation where everyone becomes perpetual patients, regardless of their actual health needs and potential benefits – essentially, an overuse of healthcare. Furthermore, there is a pervasive illusion of certainty among healthcare professionals, including physicians and dentists. This illusion entails the belief that treatments are always effective, diagnostic tests are infallible, and there exists only a single, optimal treatment or management approach. Consequently, there is often a lack of systematic comparisons between the pros and cons of different options. To dispel this illusion of certainty, reduce excessive healthcare practices, and promote clear thinking when considering interventions, the provision of clear information is essential. The practice of evidence-based healthcare involves two distinct roles: that of evidence consumers and evidence producers. Consumers, including clinicians and the general public, often lack the expertise needed to evaluate and choose the most reliable evidence. Hence, it falls upon those producing healthcare evidence to assume the role of experts and develop tools that simplify the integration of the best available evidence into the decision-making process for clinicians and patients alike. Bio: Professor Nadanovsky graduated as a dentist in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He worked for a few years in the clinic (mainly periodontics), then migrated to public health and epidemiology and obtained a PhD from the University of London in 1993. He witnessed the birth of the evidence-based medicine movement and of the Cochrane Collaboration while working as a lecturer at the London Hospital Medical College and at University College London (afterwards it was renamed Queen Mary and Westfield College). Professor Nadanovsky taught evidence-based dentistry between 1993 and 1997 and since 1997 has been teaching epidemiology and evidence-based health care to physicians, dentists, nutritionists, and other health care professionals. He supervises PhD and MSc students, and his main interest is in overdiagnosis and overtreatment in health care in general, and more specifically, in dentistry.

  Der letzte Beitrag zum Thema PONV hier auf dem Blog liegt nun schon 6 Jahre zurück. Seitdem ist vor allem meine Hauptquelle, eine Analyse der Cochrane Collaboration zurückgezogen worden. Schade. Der Grund war, dass bis Juli 2017 67 der 737 analysierten Studien ihrerseits zurückgezogen wurden. Das verfälscht die Meta-Analyse natürlich schon gehörig. Zum Glück … Weiterlesen

Professor Peter C Gøtzsche is a medical researcher who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, was expelled from it after a show trial, and have published over 100 articles in the “big five” medical journals and several books about the corruption of science. https://www.scientificfreedom.dk/

A recent publication by the world-renowned scientific group, The Cochrane Collaboration, has shown that masks did little to nothing positive during the pandemic response. Following the release of this study, New York Times opinion writer, Zeynep Tufekci, along with the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Collaboration, Karla Soares-Weiser, threw the authors of the mask study under the bus. Jefferey Jaxen does a deep dive to uncover the important details of this story.

Does masking reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2? The Cochrane Collaboration tried to analyze the messy evidence around that question and re-ignited an incendiary political debate. What conclusion should we draw from their findings? There's lots of misinformation out there; there's also rampant misinformation about that misinformation. Don't be fooled by either of them. Join host Cameron English as he sits down with Dr. Chuck Dinerstein to break down these stories on Episode 39 of the Science Dispatch podcast: Do Masks Prevent COVID? (Spoiler Alert: Of Course, They Do) The ability of masks, especially high-quality ones, to prevent the transmission of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, is incontrovertible, but some commentators have come unglued on the subject. The Misinformation About Misinformation The misinformation about the 2016 and 2020 elections and the misinformation about COVID's origins and treatments are responsible for our disarray. That, at least, is what many of us believe, even though what is “disarrayed” differs quite a bit between MSNBC and FOX. Is misinformation so powerful that it overcomes the truth? Or is there something about human behavior that makes misinformation seem more powerful than truth? A new study suggests the fault lies more within us than “in our stars.”

Unser Interviewgast Helge Franke ist seit über 20 Jahren Osteopath und beschäftigt sich unermüdlich mit der wissenschaftlichen Untermauerung der Osteopathie. Er ist Autor der meisten systematischen Reviews zur Osteopathie (darunter auch für die Cochrane Collaboration), hat mit OSTlib eine eigene Datenbank für die Osteopathie geschaffen und das Institut für osteopathische Studien gegründet. Wenn die Community von der Boulevard-Presse, den Science Cops oder säuerlichen Schulmedizinern angegriffen wird, so wird er zu Hilfe gerufen um für Klarheit zu sorgen. So im 2. Teil dieses Knochenjob Interviews, in dem Franke mit Klaas darüber debattiert, wo es in der osteopathischen Wissenschaft noch hapert und was man für eine Verbesserung dieser Situation in die Wege leiten sollte - Have fun!

Unser Interviewgast Helge Franke ist seit über 20 Jahren Osteopath und beschäftigt sich unermüdlich mit der wissenschaftlichen Untermauerung der Osteopathie. Er ist Autor der meisten systematischen Reviews zur Osteopathie (darunter auch für die Cochrane Collaboration), hat mit OSTlib eine eigene Datenbank für die Osteopathie geschaffen und das Institut für osteopathische Studien gegründet. Wenn die Community von der Boulevard-Presse, den Science Cops oder säuerlichen Schulmedizinern angegriffen wird, so wird er zu Hilfe gerufen um für Klarheit zu sorgen. So auch in dieser Knochenjob Folge, in dem Franke auf den vermeintlich diffarmierenden und unsauber recherchierten Artikel aus der „Welt+“ von Edzard Ernst Bezug nimmt. Teil 2 kommt in 14 Tagen - Have fun!

Die renommierte Cochrane Collaboration ist wegen einer Studie zur Wirksamkeit von Corona-Schutz-Masken in die Kritik geraten: Ein Kernsatz legt nahe, dass sie wirkungslos sein könnten. Jetzt hat sich das Netzwerk für den Fehler entschuldigt.Kühn,, Kathrinwww.deutschlandfunk.de, Forschung aktuellDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

Hello everyone, and welcome back to Money Power Health. As you know, this podcast is about money, and power, and the role they play in shaping population health. I am particularly interested in the commercial determinants of health, the activities of the private sector, and the structures it operates in, that shape health directly and indirectly. One of the values of taking a commercial determinants lens to these issues, is that it allows us to consider commonalities in commercial incentives, strategies and tactics. A key example of this, is considering commercial influence on science and the generation of knowledge. That is what the topic of todays podcast is, and for this I am joined by Professor Lisa Bero. She is a Professor of Medicine and Public Health, and Chief Scientist at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado. She is Senior Editor, Research Integrity for the Cochrane Collaboration, and was co-chair of the Cochrane Governing Board from 2014-2019. She has pioneered the use of internal industry documents and transparency databases to understand corporate tactics and motives for research influence, and has developed a range of qualitative and quantitative methods for assessing bias in the design, conduct and dissemination of research. She also kindly contributed a chapter on industry influence on research for our book, the commercial determinants of health, published by Oxford University Press. In the podcast we talk about how she got interested in this area of research, some of her findings on the cycle of commercial bias in research, the impact of this work, how to communicate it to scientists and to the public, and of course, some advice for early career researchers. You can find more about her work here: https://www.cuanschutz.edu/centers/bioethicshumanities/facultystaff/lisa-bero-phd And some of the work she mentions with Alice Fabbri is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157979/ Here is an example of the use of meta knowledge research, in the context of research on the health effects of salt: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/1/251/2363485 The music for this podcast was composed and recorded by Daniel Maani. You can find out more about his music here: https://youtalktoomuch.band

A definitive study from the Cochrane Collaboration has solidified the uselessness of masking to prevent COVID-19 and other illnesses. However, more studies now show both vitamin D and exercise as cheap, empowering and extremely effective strategies against COVID.

After growing up in Northern Wisconsin raised by a single mom and riding his snowmobile to school during harsh Winters, Dr. Scott Steele found his medical calling at West Point Academy and developed his passion for colorectal surgery over multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Join Alex, Avery, Biddy, and Jon for a special conversation with Dr. Scott Steele to hear more about his life and career journey.   OUR GUEST Scott R. Steele, MD, MBA, FACS, FASCRS, FPSCRS (Hon) is the Rupert B. Turnbull MD Endowed Chair in Colorectal Surgery and Chairman of Colorectal Surgery at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH.   A graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY, he was an active duty Army officer for over 20 years, serving as the Chief of Colorectal Surgery at Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, WA.  He has served 4 combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, being awarded the Bronze Star and Combat Medical Badge, amongst others.  He is on the editorial board for multiple national surgical journals including Annals of Surgery, Cochrane Collaboration, and had served as the Colon & Rectal Surgery Community Editor for the American College of Surgeons.  He is also an Editor for Surgery, Co-Editor for Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, and the Editor-in-Chief for Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.  Additionally, he is a reviewer for over 30 peer-reviewed journals.  He has also been appointed to the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery for the last several years, and currently serves as the President.  His contributions to the medical literature include over 300 peer-reviewed articles, 110 invited reviews and book chapters, 30 national practice parameters, guest editor for 5 volumes dedicated to colorectal disease, and currently is an editor on 12 textbooks in colorectal surgery.  He also received his MBA from Case Western University Weatherhead School of Business and Management in 2018, graduating with honors.   OUR CO-HOSTS Alex Jenny Ky, MD, FACS, FASCRS New York, NY Dr. Ky has been in practice for 22 years and is one of the busiest surgeons in her hospital.  She is a former president of the New York Colon and Rectal Society and currently serves as president-elect of the Chinese American Medical Society.  Married for 29 years, she is the proud mom of 3 children and in her spare time she enjoys playing golf and squash. Avery Walker, MD, FACS, FASCRS El Paso, TXAvery Walker is dually board-certified in General Surgery and Colorectal Surgery. He earned his medical degree at the University of Illinois in Chicago, his General Surgery residency at Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington, and his Fellowship in Colon and Rectal Surgery at The Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans. A former active-duty officer in the United States Army, Dr. Walker served 13 years as a general and colorectal surgeon with his most recent duty station in El Paso, TX at William Beaumont Army Medical Center. While there he was the Chief of Colon and Rectal surgery as well as the Assistant Program Director for the general surgery residency program. He currently practices colon and rectal surgery at The Hospitals of Providence in El Paso, TX. Dr. Avery Walker is married and has two daughters aged 13 and 9.   Biddy Das, MD, FACS Houston, TXDr. Bidhan “Biddy” Das has board certifications for both colon and rectal surgery, and general surgery. His passion for medical education and medical process improvement has resulted in book chapters and publications, and national and regional presentations on those subjects. Highlighting his medical expertise on fecal incontinence, he has been featured on patient education videos and national and international television and radio as a featured expert on these colorectal conditions. Dr Das also has a particular interest in surgeons redefining their careers -- he serves as both a software consultant and private equity consultant in Boston, New York City, and Houston.   Jonathan Abelson, MD, MS Arlington, MADr. Abelson was born and raised in Scarsdale, New York in the suburbs of New York City.  He has 2 older brothers and both of his parents are dentists.  Dr. Abelson went to college at University Pennsylvania, took 2 years off between college and medical school to work in healthcare consulting.  He then went to medical school at University of Virginia, returned to New York for general surgery residency at Weill Cornell on the upper east side of Manhattan.  Dr. Abelson then did colorectal fellowship at Washington University in St. Louis and am now at Lahey clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts for my first job after training. He is 2 years into practice and has a wife and two sons. His wife works in wellness consulting and they have a dog named Foster who we adopted in St. Louis.    

In this podcast Adam Smith interviews Craig Ritchie, Professor Psychiatry of Ageing from The University of Edinburgh and Jim Pearson, Director of Policy & Practice at Alzheimer Scotland. They discuss the recently launched Scottish Brain Health & Dementia Research Strategy. Prepared by Alzheimer Scotland, The Scottish Dementia Research Consortium and Brain Health Scotland, and endorsed by a broad range of national organisations, the strategy sets the direction of travel for research in Scotland by defining key areas with strategic actions. They explore how the policy was developed, what it hopes to achieve and how support for Early Career Researchers is a key feature of the policy. Review the policy at: https://www.sdrc.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Scottish-Brain-Health-Dementia-Research-Strategy-2021-min-1-1.pdf For more information on the organisations behind the policy: https://www.brainhealth.scot/ https://www.alzscot.org/ https://www.sdrc.scot/ Professor Ritchie is a Professor of the Psychiatry of Ageing at the University of Edinburgh having moved from his role as Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Mental Health at Imperial College London in October 2014. Craig is a leading authority on Clinical Trials in Dementia and has been senior investigator on over 30 drug trials of both disease modifying and symptomatic agents for that condition. Craig has published extensively on the topics of dementia and delirium. He is also one of the leading editors in the Cochrane Collaboration's Dementia Group. Additionally Craig leads the Alzheimer Society-funded PREVENT project; a major initiative nationally which will identify mid-life risks for later life dementia and characterise early changes of neurodegenerative disease, this is in addition to multiple other projects, including leading on Brain Health Scotland. Jim is Alzheimer Scotland's Director of Policy & Practice and is responsible for Alzheimer Scotland's public policy engagement. He has a background in welfare rights and a particular interest in promoting as well as protecting the rights of people living with dementia. He played a significant role in developing Scotland's Charter of Rights for people with dementia and their carers, which puts human and other legal rights at the heart of each commitment of Scotland's first and second dementia strategies. Jim also sit on the Board of Alzheimer Europe. You can find out more about our guests, and access a full transcript of this podcast on our website at: https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk/podcast ________________________ Finally, please review, like, and share our podcast - and don't forget to subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode. Register on our website to receive your weekly bulletin, and to access more great content – blogs, science, career support + much more https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk This podcast is brought to you in association with Alzheimer's Research UK and Alzheimer's Society, who we thank for their ongoing support.

Today's interview is with Greg Beattie, ex-AVN President and author of two Australian books on Vaccination. Find them on his website https://vaccinationdilemma.com/ Greg's two books are: 1. Vaccination: A Parent's Dilemma 2. Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines Ebook, Paperback Paper by Dr Peter Gotzsche, one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration, discussing increases in deaths after DPT vaccination: Expert Report – Effect of DTP Vaccines on Mortality in Children in Low-Income Countries Dr Peter Aaby's paper – Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection? Video – Dr Peter Aaby – DPT: this vaccine is killing children

There's so much uncertainty in the world right now, but one thing is for certain: 2021 is not any better than 2020. I know a lot of listeners have a ton of questions regarding today's topic on informed consent and navigating the current landscape. I went straight to the National Vaccine Information Center and asked them to be here. Theresa Wrangham is joining me today  She became the Executive Director in 2010 for the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a charitable non-profit organization founded in 1982 by parents of vaccine injured children. Theresa found that she aligned with NVIC's mission of preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and the defending of the informed consent ethic in U.S. vaccine laws and policies, due to her family's reactions to vaccines. Theresa coordinates NVIC's educational programs and outreach, monitors federal vaccine advisory committees, and is a consumer reviewer for systematic reviews of research undertaken by the Cochrane Collaboration. Her articles have been published in NVIC's newsletter, Mothering Magazine, The Autism File, Age of Autism and Pathways and she has been featured in local, national and international television, radio and print news reports and interviews. Theresa is also NVIC's representative to the CDC's Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) revision process.  Adult & Employee Vaccine Mandates – Discusses Civil Rights and employee rights; Emergency Use Vaccines (EUA) & Vaccine Injury Compensation - provides information on the federal law on EUA vaccines informing requirements and injury compensation; Vaccine Injury Compensation - Federal - provides information on injury compensation for licensed vaccines (non-EUA), the 1986 Act, and more; Protecting & Expanding State Vaccine Exemptions - grassroots advocacy for vaccine choice/informed consent to vaccination via NVIC's Advocacy Portal; NVIC's Disease and Vaccine webpages - referenced information to assist with decision-making;  NVIC's State Pages - contains information on state vaccine laws, requirements, and exemptions; NVIC's Vaccine Law and Policy Reform Guide - Gives overview of 1986 Act, state and federal vaccine landscape, research  needs and more - good primer to understanding the big picture; NVIC newsletter articles and vaccine reaction reporting options; NVIC.org NVICadvocacy.org TheVaccineReaction.org 

Depression is Just a Symptom that Something Needs to Change with Sandy Sanderson Did you know that it's absolutely normal to feel depressed from time to time? We can all have challenges and circumstances that knock us off our feet, make us feel vulnerable, trapped or defeated. Depression can result from just being over-tired and worn out. If we know how, we can recover from these ebbs and flows of life without damaging consequences and without the use of drugs. How can we actually recognize the danger signs?  Do you, or someone you know: Feel trapped in a revolving door of depression that keeps spinning with no apparent escape? Have a sinking sensation into quagmire, and can't see how to lift up above it? Feel lack of enthusiasm for what used to be your favorite passions in life? Feel like your mojo has retired, energy is at basement level, and brain fog prevails? Have a humor deficit and can't even raise a smile anymore? Feel like giving up or neglecting self-care? Then you could have what is commonly called depression.  Peter Gotzsche, founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, described depression as similar to a cold that you recover from with good rest and nutrition.   What happens too readily these days is dosing with drugs, which can often make the symptoms worse, slow down natural recovery and even make mental illness permanent.  Dr. Gotzsche said that the use of anti-depressants permanently changes the brain – and not in a good way. In 99% of cases, the onset of depression is preceded by chronic stresses or trauma.  This is largely due to the fact that excessive stress causes magnesium depletion, and low magnesium triggers anxiety and depression. Tune in and find out better ways to use nutrition and lifestyle practices in the management of mental health and wellbeing.  This is something all humans need to master! Bio: Sandy Sanderson, B.Arts. Uni NSW (1979) +Post grad studies (business / marketing) (QUT & Griffith Uni Qld) 1992-93 Publisher of ‘This Month on The Gold Coast' magazine 1998-2009 Founder and CEO of Elektra Magnesium 2008-present. After her health crisis in 2008 from years of stress overload and shift working as a magazine publisher, Sandy discovered that magnesium deficiency was the primary cause of stress-related diseases. Without enough magnesium cell metabolism and recovery is diminished. Transdermal magnesium helped Sandy to recover from heart arrhythmia and other symptoms of Hashimotos hypothyroidism. Since that time Sandy and her husband Peter, a formulating chemist, have been on the mission of their lifetime to develop an Australian range of natural magnesium body care products branded ‘Elektra Magnesium', which is packed full of nutrition and quality ingredients. These products are far more effective at delivering magnesium to cells via skin compared to oral tablets and powders. They also work great as anti-ageing natural skin care. www.elektramagnesium.com.au Video Version:  https://youtu.be/U9qMXb_H1gg Call in and Chat with Dr. Jamie during Live Show with Video Stream: Call 646-558-8656 ID: 8836953587 press #.  To Ask a Question press *9 to raise your hand Tune-in to “Love Never Dies” and discover for yourself why reconnecting and Dialoguing with Your Departed loved ones is the only way to dry your tears and transform your grief to joy! For more information about Dr. Turndorf follow her on Facebook: askdrlove and Twitter: @askdrlove and visit www.askdrlove.com.

Professor Sir Muir Gray, CBE, is a British physician who has held some of the most senior positions in public health, evidence based medicine and value in healthcare. Sir Muir has worked for the National Health Service in England since 1972. He founded the National Library for Health, and was the Director of the National Knowledge Service. He was the first person to hold the post of Chief Knowledge Officer of the NHS (England) as well as many more positions. Together with Sir Iain Chalmers, Muir was instrumental in establishing the Cochrane Collaboration. Sir Muir is an internationally renowned authority on healthcare systems and has advised governments of several countries.  More can be found at www.livelongerbetter.net and his book Sod Seventy! can be found at online bookstores. For those interested to learn more about the new postgraduate training in lifestyle medicine at James Cook University School of Medicine and Dentistry including a Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma and Masters program please find more at https://thegpshow.com/lmtraining/  If you find this podcast valuable, rating it 5 stars and leaving a review on iTunes, Spotify or Facebook is a huge help. You can also find me on Twitter or Instagram @drsammanger, and YouTube. If you would like to provide feedback or request a topic, please Contact Us. Thank you for listening and supporting.

Mit negativem Schnelltest ins Café: Solche Modellprojekte wie in Tübingen wollen ausprobieren, unter welchen Voraussetzungen Lockerungen möglich sein könnten. Gleichzeitig steigen die Inzidenzwerte und Fachleute fordern einen härteren Lockdown. Und nun? Darüber diskutieren Peter Glück und Dr. Dennis Ballwieser (ab Minute 1:17). Eine Forschungsarbeit der Cochrane Collaboration, einem unabhängigen Wissenschaftsnetzwerk, hat die Zuverlässigkeit von Schnelltests bewertet. Was das unter anderem für die Modellprojekte bedeutet. (ab Minute 10:26) Außerdem kommen wieder Ihre Fragen zum Zug. Zum Beispiel geht es darum, wie sich die Corona-Impfung mit anderen Impfungen verträgt und was Menschen beim Impfen beachten müssen, die Blutverdünner nehmen. (ab Minute 15:00)

America’s Sacrificial Altar for Google, Wikipedia and the Pharmaceutical Empire   Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, December 3, 2020   Weekly, millions of people do Google searches for advice about their personal health, a large variety of illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, etc., drug and vaccine safety, and scores of other topics affecting physical and mental health.  They depend upon speed and accuracy to find the current scientifically based and clinically proven information. For the large majority of people, a personal medical condition or health crisis begins by turning exclusively to established medical, drug-based protocols. However, these treatments do not always relieve symptoms and very rarely reverse disease. Certainly they have not shown success to prevent them.    Consequently, increasingly people are seeking second and third opinions. More often than not Google will take a person immediately to Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales acknowledges that “60 to 70 percent of Wikipedia’s traffic originates from Google.  There is an assumption and a reasonable expectation that the information we find on Wikipedia is 1) accurate, 2) soundly researched and referenced from high quality and reliable resources, 3) written by credentialed writers and editors with expertise in the subject, 4) unbiased, and finally 5) objective and neutral. At a minimum it is assumed that content is scientifically validated and on matters of health and disease from the National Institutes of Health PubMed database. Whether it regards a pharmaceutical, surgical or radiological approach, or perhaps a more natural medical modality such as lifestyle change, nutrition, medical botanicals, Chiropractic and Chinese Medicine, information is expected to be accurately described. Then using our freedom of choice and informed consent, we can select the medical route that we believe would be most safe and effective.    Unfortunately, our four-year investigation into Wikipedia's treatment of health issues reveals exactly the opposite. Many individuals with outstanding credentials are terrified of having their biographies appear on the open-source encyclopedia. Once a person's biography is added she or he will no longer have control over its content. Often they will be faced with character assassination and denigration about their careers and life's work. Their biographies are frozen as if confined in a Russian gulag for a political crime. They may seek redress by reaching out to the media; but the media also is fully compromised.  They may seek open hearings on Wikipedia's backside to expose unfair behavior and misinformation but will be met either by deafening silence, ridicule or censorship. They may even seek redress from the IRS or state's attorney generals for Wikipedia's gross serial violations of its non-profit status. You enter a highly politicized ideological war and the encyclopedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), will do essentially nothing to correct errors or reprimand belligerent senior administrators and editors.    Much of Wikipedia’s chaos over unreliable health information is due to a relatively small group of non-credentialed, hate-filled individuals, popularly known as Skeptics. With Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales’ full support, Skeptics have hijacked the site and converted it into their personal social media platform to condemn all non-conventional and alternative medical therapies and its practitionersand voices who are critical of the dominant drug and vaccine based medical paradigm.   Since its founding certain editors realized that Wikipedia was prime game for writing entries and reshaping content as a means to proselytize their personal ideological agendas. This is due to the encyclopedia’s systemic vulnerabilities and its naïve belief that truth can emerge by reaching a faux democratic consensus.  In 2006 Wikipedia editor Paul Lee, a physical therapist in California’s Central Valley and an avowed Skeptic, started to reach out to internet Skeptic groups to recruit editors to advance the Skeptic mission to ridicule and discredit all forms of complementary and alternative medicine, marginalize those who question vaccination safety and efficacy, and attack critics of corporate commercial interests adversely impacting the nation’s health such as genetically modified crops, fluoridation, sugar and junk food, etc.    That year Lee posted on the International Skeptic Forum:   “I would like to invite webmasters and site owners to begin editing Wikipedia and SkepticWiki. There are many subjects for skeptics to get involved with, and we really need help. There are plenty of loons out there doing the editing right now, and far too few skeptics to keep them at bay. Any coordination of efforts should be done by private email, since Wikipedia keeps a very public history and “every” little edit, and you can’t get them removed. We don’t need any accusations of a conspiracy… I hope to see more skeptics in action!”   Lee also lists the subjects Skeptics should focus on, which include the National Vaccine Information Center, vaccine critics Barbara Loe Fisher and Viera Scheibner, Chiropractic, and complementary and alternative medicine. Lee happens to be the former list master for the pro-pharmaceutical and junk food friendly Quackwatch, a personal blog founded by a psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Barrett. Over time, Quackwatch and its Skeptic allies such as the Center for Inquiry and the Science Based Medicine blog have exponentially increased their presence on Wikipedia to become the single most cited references in the Skeptics’ arsenal to attack alternative medical therapies and the critics of conventional medicine’s power base. The consequence is that personal bias has trumped Wikipedia’s rules of objectivity and neutrality.   New York Times best-selling human rights author Edwin Black described the dangers Wikipedia poses for social progress in his article “Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge” published on the History News Network:   “…. Wikipedia, the constantly changing knowledge base created a global free-for-all of anonymous users, now stands as the leading force for dumbing down the world of knowledge. If Wikipedia’s almost unstoppable momentum continues, critics say, it threatens to quickly reverse centuries of progress… In its place would be a constant cacophony of fact and falsity that Wikipedia critics call a “law of the jungle.”[16]   Writing for the Huffington Post, journalist Sam Slovick posed a question we might ask ourselves every time we click into Wikipedia. "Has Jimmy Wales' marauding encyclopedic beast finally corrupted the Internet? Has Wikipedia lost all credibility, its purported neutral system compromised by toxic editors?” The most toxic Wikipedia editors now terrorizing the encyclopedia’s pages more often than not are the anonymous non-experts and computer hacks who identify themselves with this extreme militant form of scientific materialism. They also fiercely protect their own Skeptic pages from any citable truths that may cast them in a poor light.   Indeed commercial science is constantly attempting to develop new technological solutions through genetic engineering of crops, vaccines and novel patentable drugs, artificial intelligence, 5G wireless technology, etc. These are held up in the public's eyes as great achievements. On the other hand, you will rarely find Wikipedia or the mainstream media ever highlighting these technologies’ flaws and greater risks that undermine their commercial benefits; and certainly private corporations will never leak evidence about these risks and dangers.    For example, we accessed Wikipedia pages for each of the vaccines recommended on the CDC's childhood immunization schedule. In every case, adverse effects were undermined and the vaccines’ benefits were inflated. Not a single entry had a complete list of adverse effects as printed on the vaccine maker's manufacturing package insert – literature that is easily accessible on the CDC's website. Nor was there to be found a list of vaccine ingredients, many of which are scientifically shown to be toxic. Consequently a visitor to any given Wikipedia vaccine page accesses a very incomplete and twisted understanding of the vaccines' actual safety and efficacy profile.    We are also led to believe that if a scientific invention or a study for a new drug or vaccine appears in the peer-reviewed literature, it represents a gold standard. Consequently it is assumed that any controversy has been settled. A peer-reviewed paper becomes a scientific law unto itself if it favors tendentious interests. However, repeatedly the peer-reviewed journal system has proven to be unreliable. No decisive effort has been made to reform it. It is simply too profitable to disrupt.    But the Skeptics’ distorted and biased narratives about medicine and health are only one reason to be deeply worried about the WMF’s long-term mission to bring all medical knowledge to the inhabitable world.  By and large, Wikipedia Skeptics are not motivated by financial gain nor is there strong evidence of conflicts of interest with either the pharmaceutical industry or our federal health agencies.  Rather the Skeptic movement is more likely motivated by a cult-like ideology that is fanatically embraced by its followers with religious zeal.  Yet on the backside, WMF also has deep ties with the pharmaceutical industry and this takes us to its close relationship with Google for over a decade.    The Google-WMF association is no secret. There is plenty of evidence confirming Google’s preferential treatment of Wikipedia aside from the millions of daily Google searches that bring users directly to the encyclopedia.    Although Wikipedia editors take full advantage of flawed medical literature if the conclusions serve their purpose and agenda, Google, through its algorithmic modeling to censor voices challenging the medical regime’s status-quo, ignores efforts to determine whether the medical literature is bogus or not. Google’s mission is to protect the global medical regime -- not just private drug companies but also government health bodies and international organizations such as the World Health Organization.    No longer should Google be perceived solely as a technological platform to promote the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda. It is also a drug company itself. During the past seven years, Google's parent company Alphabet has launched two pharmaceutical companies. In 2013, it founded Calico, headed by Genentech's former CEO Arthur Levinson. Calico operates an R&D facility in the San Francisco Bay Area for the discovery of treatments associated with age-related diseases.  Two years later, Alphabet founded Verily Life Sciences (previously Google Life Sciences).  Both companies partner with other drug firms, including Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, and vaccine giants Pfizer and Sanofi. In October Verily launched an aggressive multimillion dollar campaign to expand Covid-19 testing in California’s most distressed communities in 28 counties. However, some counties are starting to sever their ties with the company. In order to qualify for the program’s Covid test people are required to have a Gmail account and provide highly sensitive personal information. Alphabet’s drug companies therefore are intricately linked to Google’s ambition to gather, control and own everyone’s personal information.   In 2016, Verily collaborated with the European pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline to form a third company, Galvani Bioelectronics, for the development of "bioelectronic medicines." Among its initiatives are nanotechnology for drug delivery and the development of “miniaturized, implantable devices that can monitor nerve signals in the body.” Galvani’s Chairman is Moncef Siaoui, Glaxo's former chairman of its global vaccines business who now serves as Trump’s appointed chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed.    Nor should it be forgotten that Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin’s former wife Anne Wojcicki also co-founded the biotech company 23andMe to develop personal DNA testing kits. In 2018 it entered a partnership with Glaxo to expand into drug development.    In January 2019, Google's president of Customer Solutions Mary Ellen Coe joined Merck's Board of Directors. Formerly working at the corporate consulting firm McKinsey and Company, her role at Google includes overseeing the firm's global advertising for contracted companies. Merck's chairman Kenneth Frazier remarked in a press release that Coe "will be a significant asset to Merck."   To better appreciate the enormity of the global pharmaceutical regime now unfolding, we need to fully acknowledge this nightmarish marriage between the tech and information-based companies, such as Google and the WMF, and Big Pharma. As the world's most advanced search engine, Google has gained control over the internet's most technically sophisticated surveillance systems and algorithms. Therefore the company has positioned itself to perhaps be the greatest potential threat to human health via the flow of information and data viewed on our laptops and mobile phones.    During the past five years, the pharmaceutical industry has shown a growing interest in the concept of virtual pharmacies, whereby drug companies can leverage their influence over consumers. Social media, notably Wikipedia, has become the consumer’s most utilized resource for gaining knowledge about disease, drugs and health. In a University of Sydney survey, Wikipedia was the first source of choice for gaining information about unfamiliar health topics, even among medical professionals. According to a 2013 joint analysis of this emerging trend, conducted by the University of Zurich and Johnson and Johnson, drug companies can use these virtual platforms to tackle the challenges they face in the financial market and even within medical communities. However, the analysis also recommended that the best strategy would be for Big Pharma to invest heavily in virtual companies and secure partnerships. This strategy is gaining steam whereby tech and social media companies such as Google and WMF are being absorbed into the pharmaceutical machinery and vice versa. The dire results from this marriage are already being felt as we now witness Wikipedia morphing into another mouthpiece for Big Pharma.    If Google's transformation into a drug company is not alone disturbing, the world's largest open source knowledge site is acutely entangled with the Silicon Valley giant and its pharmaceutical agenda. In early 2019, Google dumped $3.1 million into WMF’s coffers, which brings total contributions from Google and Sergey Brin to over $7.5 million. Curiously, the announcement of Google's endowment was made at the World Economic Forum at Davos. The donation also includes Google's intention to provide Wikipedia editors with its high tech learning tools. Wired Magazine published an article that further defines the Google-WMF relationship over the years. With respect to Google's generous contribution, journalist Louise Matsakis writes, "but the decision isn’t altruistic... Google already uses Wikipedia content in a number of its own products.... The company also has used Wikipedia articles to train machine learning algorithms, as well as fight misinformation on YouTube." Now with Jimmy Wales' intention to take on the cause of fighting "fake news" – a cause also aligned to his personal Skeptic ideology as the ultimate arbitrator that determines what is real or fake -- Skeptic editors have free access to advanced algorithmic apps to proceed with their agenda to scrub Wikipedia of content favorable towards alternative medicine or content critical of the pharmaceutical empire.    Yet Google’s and Jimmy Wales’ mutual interests go beyond the construction of a pharmaceutical ruled society.  Brin and Wales first sealed a close relationship during their early efforts to counter the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Together both executives, among others, signed a joint Open Letter to the federal government opposing SOPA, which was coincidently around the same time as Brin’s half-million dollar donation. In 2014, in a reaction against legal issues over privacy matters, Google created an “Advisory Council.” Wales was one of its founding members.    In 2012, Google’s charitable arm, Google.org, initiated a collaboration with WMF’s WikiProject Medicine “to further improve the quality of articles” by recruiting and hiring “professional medical editors.”  Dr. James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician and a seasoned senior Wikipedia administrator who frequently comes to the defense of Skeptic Wikipedians, sits on the WMF’s Board of Trustees. Heilman is one of the founders of the Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMF) to advance its mission to give “every single person free access to the sum of all medical knowledge.” WPMF now has collaborative relationships with the National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Cochrane Collaboration, the University of California at San Francisco, the Wellcome Trust and several open-access medical journals.    Recently during the Covid-19 pandemic, WMF has strengthened its ties with the global medical establishment. Last October it entered a collaboration with the World Health Organization to assure that public health information and data about Covid-19 is regulated in accordance with the latest pronouncements made by the anointed authorities in the institutional medical establishment. Wikipedia already contains over 5,200 Covid-related entries in 175 languages and these are largely based upon WHO sources. It is estimated that this content is accessed at least a million times a day.  Part of the WMF’s commitment is to monitor and censor “the spread of misinformation” according to the WHO’s criteria.  In a New York Times article reporting on the new partnership, if this initial pilot Covid-19 project succeeds, it will be expanded to launch additional efforts “to counter misinformation regarding AIDS, Ebola, influenza, polio and dozens of other diseases.”   So where exactly in the cesspool of modern medicine and the toxic food, vaccine and the agro-chemical industries are we to discover truth. Few in the scientific and federal health agencies can be trusted anymore. Most are compromised and this distortion of truth for global leverage clearly extends throughout Google and Wikipedia. Rarely is a mainstream journalist trustworthy, and no one can be certain whether a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed science journal or an medical entry on Wikipedia is reliable or not. Even clinical physicians on the front lines of healthcare work in the dark. It is only after large numbers of injuries and deaths due to Agent Orange, DDT, life-threatening vaccine adverse reactions, a Vioxx scandal, or an epidemic of corporate liable opiate drug overdoses that a light bulb eventually goes on. But only for a limited time before it is quickly forgotten and goes dark again.    The reason for American medicine turning into the nation's largest and deadliest battlefield is because scientific corruption is legally protected to proceed with impunity. The Surgeon General, the heads of federal health agencies, drug makers, the insurance industry, medical schools and professional associations, Google and WMF, and the media operate as a single voice that the American health system is the best in the world when it is surely not. Corporate interests and massive profiteering control everything. Modern medicine has morphed into a religious cult that is incapable of self-reflection about its own vulnerabilities and failures. This hubris of power and domination plagues Google and the WMF equally. And numerous patients are being played for fools.      The fact is that all players in the architecture of our medical system are vulnerable to corruption. Private industry and government know this perfectly. The checks and balances between private and public interests have collapsed. Today, the medical regime is a single entity. All of its parts are consolidated and entwined into a monolithic behemoth to protect its bottom line. In our opinion Google and WMF have been co-opted to serve as the guardians of this culture of corruption. Therefore they both are equally culpable in the widespread destruction of the nation’s public health.    Yet we mustn’t expect that the trajectory of an emerging global pharmaceutical hegemony will experience a collapse anytime soon. Rather, with the aid of Google and WMF, it will increasingly monopolize the medical discourse and define the national policies shaping public health. And this requires greater efforts to censor and silence the medical critics and honest investigative journalists bringing light to the medical and scientific flaws upon which health policies and laws are based through the virtual technological apparatus and information control Google and WMF provides. In short, tech companies now control and dictate orders to the morally-deficient incompetents in Washington.   Yet the emergence of a pharmaceutical regime as a natural consequence of humanity being in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is unfolding to the delight of Jimmy Wales and his Skeptic denizens who worship his messianic mission to make all knowledge free to the world’s population. But the question has always been “whose knowledge?” Skepticm’s “pseudo-knowledge,” of course. It is not uncommon to find Skeptics acknowledging Wales as one of their own. Wales has provided plenty of assistance to Skeptics and on occasion has come to their defense in discussion groups. Replying to comments Wales wrote on Quora to offer his assistance to rid the world of homeopathy, the co-founder of Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia Susan Gerbic replied:   “Jimmy you have already done more than anyone could possibly dream that can be done. You created the most amazing resource in the world. I mean that, not only in English but in every language possible…. Thank you. Allowing us editors to ‘do our job’ and keep these articles honest and correctly cited is enough. I can’t imagine what else you can do, my brain is teeny tiny compared to your mighty brain, if you come up with something please oh please let us in on it, we want to help.”   The pharmaceutical industry has no need to attack the competition of non-conventional and natural medicine on Wikipedia. Nor is there a need to hire or pay off Wikipedians to do this dirty work for them since Skeptics are already doing so freely or involuntarily, and Skeptic administrators receive the perks of being provided with Google’s algorithmic tools and apps to protect their message. It is a completely rigged game and Wales and the WMF seem to have every intention to keep it that way.   America’s 21st century technological god with a silicon-crafted body demands the sacrifice of the world’s children and elderly and persons for profit in its furnace of drugs and vaccines. John Milton and Beat poet Allen Ginsberg would surely agree. If alive we might hear Ginsberg howling against this devouring techno-Pharma empire on YouTube. From its humble beginnings, and with the technological resources and generous funding received from Google, Wikipedia has morphed into a chaotic war between truth and falsehoods amusingly ruled over by this postmodern Moloch. The dangerous fallout is that objectivity and ethics are being increasingly sacrificed on a cold virtual altar devoted to a perverted metaphysical realism disguised as medical science and fact.  

This week on MIA Radio we turn our attention to electroconvulsive therapy (known as electroshock in the US). It’s fair to say that ECT remains a controversial subject with proponents and detractors regularly disagreeing on its safety and efficacy. The number of psychiatrists willing to administer ECT, particularly in the UK, is in decline but we are still using it to administer electric shocks to the brains of an estimated 2,000 people each year. In this interview, we discuss a recent paper from the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry. The title is ‘Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Review of the Quality of ECT versus Sham ECT Trials and Meta-Analyses’ and it is written by John Read, Irving Kirsch and Laura McGrath. On MIA we have previously written about the study and its findings. We hear from two of the authors, Professor of Psychology John Read from the University of East London and Professor of Psychology Irving Kirsch from Harvard Medical School. We discuss: That the work aimed to review the quality of meta-analyses and any relevant clinical studies of ECT. How there have only ever been 11 studies that have compared ECT with sham ECT (SECT). Sham ECT is when the anaesthetic is administered but not followed by shocks to the brain. That in addition to reviewing the quality of the studies, the paper went on to consider the effect of placebo in the administration of ECT. That when reviewing the quality of studies, a 24-point scale was used and that the scorers were blinded to each other’s ratings. The 24-point scale included 5 basic Cochrane Collaboration criteria and an additional 19 quality indicators, some of which were specific to ECT procedures. The average quality score across all the studies was 12.3 out of a 24 maximum. One of the most important findings was that none of the studies reviewed were double-blind. The reason for this is that the patients can’t be blinded to the procedure because the adverse after-effects are very obvious. In reviewing the studies it was sometimes the case that only the treating psychiatrist was rating the effectiveness of the procedure, not the patient. The 5 meta-analyses themselves only contained between 1 and 7 of the eleven available studies. The recommendation from the paper is that the use of ECT should be suspended pending a properly controlled, rigorous clinical trial. That the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has decided to review their ECT recommendations in their depression guidelines, considering the review. That the Royal College of Psychiatrists has indicated that they will update their ECT position statement in light of the review. It has come to light recently that NHS Trusts in the UK are sometimes using out of date or incorrect information in their ECT guidance leaflets, an example of this is referring to ECT correcting a ‘chemical imbalance in the brain’. How the expectations of the treating doctor can influence the condition of the person undergoing the treatment. That the placebo effect can be large and long-lasting and that the more invasive the procedure, the larger the effect. That one of the characteristics of depression is the feeling of hopelessness and that when you are given a new treatment, it can instil a sense of hope which counters the hopelessness. That the call to prohibit ECT is because the negative effects of ECT are so strong, the fact that the evidence supporting it is so weak (especially in the long-term and beyond the improvement due to placebo) and that there are other means of addressing the difficulties that the person is dealing with. That placebos are, in essence, a type of psychological therapy. Links and further reading: Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Review of the Quality of ECT versus Sham ECT Trials and Meta-Analyses Richard P. Bentall: ECT is a classic failure of evidence-based medicine NICE guidance on the use of electroconvulsive therapy

In this episode of Talk Evidence, we'll be finding out if second waves are inevitable (or even a thing), how the UK's failure to protect it's care homes is symbolic of a neglected part of public life, and why those papers on hydroxychloroquine were retracted. This is Talk Evidence - the podcast for evidence based medicine, where research, guidance and practice are debated and demystified. Helen Macdonald, UK research editor for The BMJ, and Carl Heneghan, professor of EBM at the University of Oxford and editor of BMJ EBM, talk about some of the latest developments in the world of evidence, and what they mean. This week: 2.00 - Helen looking into a second wave - and finds out from Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, that a "wave" might be a misnomer. 12.00 - Mary Daly, professor of sociology and social policy at the University of Oxford, tells us where the UK went wrong with care homes, and what we'd need to do to stop it happening again. 31.20 - Carl and Helen discuss those hydroxy chloroquine papers, now retracted. This was recorded before that happened, but we decided to keep this section in, because they talk about the reasons the papers should be viewed with caution, and the importance of scrutiny of the data. Reading list: The talk from Mary Daly at Green Templeton College. https://www.gtc.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/event/covid-19-and-care-homes-what-went-wrong-and-why/

In this episode of Talk Evidence, we'll be finding out if second waves are inevitable (or even a thing), how the UK's failure to protect it's care homes is symbolic of a neglected part of public life, and why those papers on hydroxychloroquine were retracted. This is Talk Evidence - the podcast for evidence based medicine, where research, guidance and practice are debated and demystified. Helen Macdonald, UK research editor for The BMJ, and Carl Heneghan, professor of EBM at the University of Oxford and editor of BMJ EBM, talk about some of the latest developments in the world of evidence, and what they mean. This week: 2.00 - Helen looking into a second wave - and finds out from Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, that a "wave" might be a misnomer. 12.00 - Mary Daly, professor of sociology and social policy at the University of Oxford, tells us where the UK went wrong with care homes, and what we'd need to do to stop it happening again. 31.20 - Carl and Helen discuss those hydroxy chloroquine papers, now retracted. This was recorded before that happened, but we decided to keep this section in, because they talk about the reasons the papers should be viewed with caution, and the importance of scrutiny of the data. Reading list: The talk from Mary Daly at Green Templeton College. https://www.gtc.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/event/covid-19-and-care-homes-what-went-wrong-and-why/

Finally, the research is in: the Cochrane Collaboration, a team of the best minds from Harvard Medical School and the University of Massachusetts (UMASS) Hospital concluded in a meta-review of 28 research studies That Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) not only works but works better than other treatment alternatives. Here is a summary of the findings as reported in the March 12th, 2020 issue of the New York Times.AA has always had its detractors but is possible that some, not all, people can come around and believe AA is a worthwhile resource if they were presented compelling evidence.The most comprehensive study reported by the venerable New York Times conclusively demonstrated that AA was the most effective program among all those studied (27 studies in all) in getting and keeping people sober.Moreover, where AA was a part of a larger program, the success rate was better than other non-AA related approaches.“AA is the closest thing to a free lunch in public health, as it’s free and it’s everywhere.”Finally, there is one thing that science hasn’t been able to measure so far: the degree to which AA helps rebuild one’s personal character, for it’s not about just staying sober, it’s about growing up and holding ourselves accountable as honest citizens, no longer a menace to society.

Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche is a Danish physician, medical researcher, and former leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He is the co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, and was a former pharmaceutical representative for the company Astra-Syntex. Dr. Gøtzsche has been one of the leading figures speaking out about malpractice in the pharmaceutical industry, as well as many other health related industries. Subscribe to the Podcast on on Platforms! ➢ https://lnk.to/PowerProjectPodcast Support the show by visiting our sponsors! ➢Perfect Keto: http://perfectketo.com/power25 Use Code "POWERPROJECT" for 25% off and free shipping on orders of $29! ➢Piedmontese Beef: https://www.piedmontese.com/ Use Code "POWERPROJECT" at checkout for 25% off your order plus FREE 2-Day Shipping on orders of $99 ➢Icon Meals: http://iconmeals.com/ Use Code "POWERPROJECT" for 10% off ➢Sling Shot: https://markbellslingshot.com/ Enter Discount code, "POWERPROJECT" at checkout and receive 15% off all Sling Shots Follow Mark Bell's Power Project Podcast ➢ Insta: https://www.instagram.com/markbellspowerproject ➢ https://www.facebook.com/markbellspowerproject ➢ Twitter: https://twitter.com/mbpowerproject ➢ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/powerproject/ ➢ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/markbellspowerproject ➢TikTok: http://bit.ly/pptiktok FOLLOW Mark Bell ➢ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marksmellybell ➢ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MarkBellSuperTraining ➢ Twitter: https://twitter.com/marksmellybell ➢ Snapchat: marksmellybell ➢Mark Bell's Daily Workouts, Nutrition and More: https://www.markbell.com/ Follow Nsima Inyang ➢ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nsimainyang/ Podcast Produced by Andrew Zaragoza ➢ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iamandrewz #PowerProject #Podcast #MarkBell

Episode 282 brings you the COMPLETE guide on metformin! Every possible interaction, MoA, and question has been answered and summarized here on this episode! My goal for this is to truly summarize the full picture of metformin as too many people demonize it for reasons that literally are so insignificant, they should barely even be paid a notice. So with that in mind, get your notepads ready, this one is FULL of information! And yes, a few references for those of you that wish to read further!   REFERENCES 1. Lamanna C, Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Effect of metformin on cardiovascular events and mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011;13(3):221–228. [PubMed] 2. Franciosi M, Lucisano G, Lapice E, Strippoli GF, Pellegrini F, Nicolucci A. Metformin therapy and risk of cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71583. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 3. Cohen RD, Woods HF. Clinical and biochemical aspects of lactic acidosis. Philadelphia: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1976. 4. Metformin hydrochoride. Boxed warning. [October 6, 2015]. Available at: https://dailymed​.nlm​.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl​.cfm?setid​=b8004451-7b26-425b-b5ea-cbb1b08e30e3&type=display. 5. Inzucchi SE, Lipska KJ, Mayo H, Bailey CJ, McGuire DK. Metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2014;312(24):2668–2675. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 6. Gan SC, Barr J, Arieff AI, Pearl RG. Biguanide-associated lactic acidosis. Case report and review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(11):2333–2336. [PubMed] 7. Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris C. Systematic review of current guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin. Radiology. 2010;254(1):261–269. [PubMed] 8. Kajbaf F, Arnouts P, de Broe M, Lalau JD. Metformin therapy and kidney disease: a review of guidelines and proposals for metformin withdrawal around the world. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(10):1027–1035.[PubMed] 9. Calabrese AT, Coley KC, DaPos SV, Swanson D, Rao RH. Evaluation of prescribing practices: risk of lactic acidosis with metformin therapy. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(4):434–437. [PubMed] 10. Emslie-Smith AM, Boyle DI, Evans JM, Sullivan F, Morris AD. Contraindications to metformin therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes--a population-based study of adherence to prescribing guidelines. Diabet Med. 2001;18(6):483–488. [PubMed] 11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises warnings regarding use of the diabetes medicine metformin in certain patients with reduced kidney function. [June 16, 2016]. Available at: http://www​.fda.gov/Drugs​/DrugSafety/ucm493244.htm. 12. Stevens LA, Coresh J, Greene T, Levey AS. Assessing kidney function—measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(23):2473–2483. [PubMed] 13. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centred approach. Update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabtologia. 2015;58(3):429–442. [PubMed] 14. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes and CKD: 2012 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(5):850–886. [PubMed] 15. Flory JH, Hennessy S. Metformin use reduction in mild to moderate renal impairment: possible inappropriate curbing of use based on food and drug administration contraindications. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):458–459. [PubMed] 16. Salpeter SR, Greyber E, Pasternak GA, Salpeter EE. Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(4) CD002967. [PubMed] 17. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. [October 20, 2015]. Available at: http://www​.oecd.org/about​/membersandpartners​/list-oecd-member-countries.htm. 18. Eurich DT, Weir DL, Majumdar SR, et al. Comparative safety and effectiveness of metformin in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure: systematic review of observational studies involving 34,000 patients. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(3):395–402. [PubMed] 19. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(6):461–470. [PubMed] 20. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):604–612. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 21. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 22. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; [October 6, 2015]. Available at: http://www​.effectivehealthcare​.ahrq.gov/index​.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports​/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=318. 23. Santaguida PL, Raina P, Ismaila P. The Development of the McHarm Quality Assessment Scale for adverse events. 2012 24. Viswanathan M, Ansari M, Berkman N. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); Mar 8, 2012. [October 6, 2015]. Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions. [Internet] 2008-. Available from: http://www​.ncbi.nlm.nih​.gov/books/NBK91433/ 25. Andersson C, Olesen JB, Hansen PR, et al. Metformin treatment is associated with a low risk of mortality in diabetic patients with heart failure: a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Diabetologia. 2010;53(12):2546–2553. [PubMed] 26. Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA. Improved clinical outcomes associated with metformin in patients with diabetes and heart failure. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(10):2345–2351. [PubMed] 27. Weir DL, McAlister FA, Senthilselvan A, Minhas-Sandhu JK, Eurich DT. Sitagliptin use in patients with diabetes and heart failure: a population-based retrospective cohort study. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2(6):573–582. [PubMed] 28. Wang Z. Converting odds ratio to relative risk in cohort studies with partial data information. Journal of Statistical Software. 2013;55(5):1–11. 29. Dechartres A, Altman DG, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Association between analytic strategy and estimates of treatment outcomes in meta-analyses. JAMA. 2014;312(6):623–630. [PubMed] 30. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. [PubMed] 31. Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003;22(17):2693–2710. [PubMed] 32. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–406. [PubMed] 33. Richy FF, Sabido-Espin M, Guedes S, Corvino FA, Gottwald-Hostalek U. Incidence of lactic acidosis in patients with type 2 diabetes with and without renal impairment treated with metformin: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2291–2295. [PubMed] 34. Eppenga WL, Lalmohamed A, Geerts AF, et al. Risk of lactic acidosis or elevated lactate concentrations in metformin users with renal impairment: a population-based cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2218–2224. [PubMed] 35. Romero SP, Andrey JL, Garcia-Egido A, et al. Metformin therapy and prognosis of patients with heart failure and new-onset diabetes mellitus. A propensity-matched study in the community. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166(2):404–412. [PubMed] 36. Ito H, Ohno Y, Yamauchi T, Kawabata Y, Ikegami H. Efficacy and safety of metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in elderly Japanese patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2011;11(1):55–62. [PubMed] 37. Sterner G, Elmståhl S, Frid A, et al. Renal function in a large cohort of metformin treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. British Journal of Diabetes and Vascular Disease. 2012;12(5):227–231. 38. Zhang X, Harmsen WS, Mettler TA, et al. Continuation of metformin use after a diagnosis of cirrhosis significantly improves survival of patients with diabetes. Hepatology. 2014;60(6):2008–2016. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 39. Becquemont L, Bauduceau B, Benattar-Zibi L, et al. Cardiovascular Drugs and Metformin Drug Dosage According to Renal Function in Non-Institutionalized Elderly Patients. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015[PubMed] 40. Ekström N, Schiöler L, Svensson AM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of metformin in 51 675 patients with type 2 diabetes and different levels of renal function: A cohort study from the Swedish National Diabetes Register. BMJ Open. 2012;2:4. Article Number: e001076. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 41. Aguilar D, Chan W, Bozkurt B, Ramasubbu K, Deswal A. Metformin use and mortality in ambulatory patients with diabetes and heart failure. Circulation: Heart Failure. 2011;4(1):53–58. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 42. Masoudi FA, Inzucchi SE, Wang Y, Havranek EP, Foody JM, Krumholz HM. Thiazolidinediones, metformin, and outcomes in older patients with diabetes and heart failure: an observational study. Circulation. 2005;111(5):583–590. [PubMed] 43. Morgan CL, Mukherjee J, Jenkins-Jones S, Holden SE, Currie CJ. Association between first-line monotherapy with sulphonylurea versus metformin and risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events: a retrospective, observational study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014;16(10):957–962. [PubMed] 44. Roussel R, Travert F, Pasquet B, et al. Metformin use and mortality among patients with diabetes and atherothrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1892–1899. [PubMed] 45. Evans JM, Doney AS, AlZadjali MA, et al. Effect of Metformin on mortality in patients with heart failure and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(7):1006–1010. [PubMed] 46. Inzucchi SE, Masoudi FA, Wang Y, et al. Insulin-sensitizing antihyperglycemic drugs and mortality after acute myocardial infarction: insights from the National Heart Care Project. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(7):1680–1689. [PubMed] 47. Shah DD, Fonarow GC, Horwich TB. Metformin therapy and outcomes in patients with advanced systolic heart failure and diabetes. J Card Fail. 2010;16(3):200–206. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 48. Tinetti ME, McAvay G, Trentalange M, Cohen AB, Allore HG. Association between guideline recommended drugs and death in older adults with multiple chronic conditions: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2015;351:h4984. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 49. Ampuero J, Ranchal I, Nunez D, et al. Metformin inhibits glutaminase activity and protects against hepatic encephalopathy. PloS One. 2012;7(11):e49279. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 50. Nkontchou G, Cosson E, Aout M, et al. Impact of metformin on the prognosis of cirrhosis induced by viral hepatitis C in diabetic patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(8):2601–2608. [PubMed] 51. Blonde L, Rosenstock J, Mooradian AD, Piper BA, Henry D. Glyburide/metformin combination product is safe and efficacious in patients with type 2 diabetes failing sulphonylurea therapy. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2002;4(6):368–375. [PubMed] 52. Cryer DR, Nicholas SP, Henry DH, Mills DJ, Stadel BV. Comparative outcomes study of metformin intervention versus conventional approach the COSMIC Approach Study. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(3):539–543. [PubMed] 53. Garber AJ, Larsen J, Schneider SH, Piper BA, Henry D. Simultaneous glyburide/metformin therapy is superior to component monotherapy as an initial pharmacological treatment for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2002;4(3):201–208. [PubMed] 54. Gregorio F, Ambrosi F, Manfrini S, et al. Poorly controlled elderly Type 2 diabetic patients: the effects of increasing sulphonylurea dosages or adding metformin. Diabet Med. 1999;16(12):1016–1024. [PubMed] 55. Hanefeld M, Brunetti P, Schernthaner GH, Matthews DR, Charbonnel BH. One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(1):141–147. [PubMed] 56. Marre M, Howlett H, Lehert P, Allavoine T. Improved glycaemic control with metformin-glibenclamide combined tablet therapy (Glucovance) in Type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled on metformin. Diabet Med. 2002;19(8):673–680. [PubMed] 57. Schweizer A, Dejager S, Bosi E. Comparison of vildagliptin and metformin monotherapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11(8):804–812.[PubMed] 58. Bannister CA, Holden SE, Jenkins-Jones S, et al. Can people with type 2 diabetes live longer than those without? A comparison of mortality in people initiated with metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy and matched, non-diabetic controls. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014;16(11):1165–1173. [PubMed] 59. Bodmer M, Meier C, Krahenbuhl S, Jick SS, Meier CR. Metformin, sulfonylureas, or other antidiabetes drugs and the risk of lactic acidosis or hypoglycemia: a nested case-control analysis. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(11):2086–2091. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 60. Huizinga MM, Roumie CL, Greevy RA, et al. Glycemic and weight changes after persistent use of incident oral diabetes therapy: a Veterans Administration retrospective cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(11):1108–1112. [PubMed] 61. Leung S, Mattman A, Snyder F, Kassam R, Meneilly G, Nexo E. Metformin induces reductions in plasma cobalamin and haptocorrin bound cobalamin levels in elderly diabetic patients. Clin Biochem. 2010;43(9):759–760. [PubMed] 62. Roumie CL, Hung AM, Greevy RA, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sulfonylurea and metformin monotherapy on cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(9):601–610. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 63. Wang CP, Lorenzo C, Espinoza SE. Frailty Attenuates the Impact of Metformin on Reducing Mortality in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. J Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2014;2(2) [PMC free article] [PubMed] 64. Tzoulaki I, Molokhia M, Curcin V, et al. Risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed oral antidiabetes drugs: retrospective cohort study using UK general practice research database. BMJ. 2009;339:b4731. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 65. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2016. [June 30, 2016]. Available at: http://care​.diabetesjournals​.org/content/39/Supplement_1. 66. Bolen S, Tseng E, Hutfless S, et al. Diabetes Medications for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: An Update.Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 67. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(1):140–149. [PubMed] 68. Tuot DS, Lin F, Shlipak MG, et al. Potential impact of prescribing metformin according to eGFR rather than serum creatinine. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(11):2059–2067. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 69. Palmer SC, Mavridis D, Nicolucci A, et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events Associated With Glucose-Lowering Drugs in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis. Jama. 2016;316(3):313–324. [PubMed] 70. MacDonald MR, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, et al. Treatment of type 2 diabetes and outcomes in patients with heart failure: a nested case-control study from the U.K. General Practice Research Database. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(6):1213–1218. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 71. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Office of Research & Development. VA CSP Study No. 597: Diuretic Comparison Project. [August 29, 2016]. Available at: http://www​.research.va​.gov/programs/csp/597/ 72. Canadian Diabetes Association. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Pharmacotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes. [June 30, 2016]. Available at: http://guidelines​.diabetes​.ca/bloodglucoselowering​/pharmacologyt2-(1) 73. Gong L, Goswami S, Giacomini KM, Altman RB, Klein TE. Metformin pathways: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2012;22(11):820–827. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 74. Weir MA, Gomes T, Mamdani M, et al. Impaired renal function modifies the risk of severe hypoglycaemia among users of insulin but not glyburide: a population-based nested case-control study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(6):1888–1894. [PubMed]      •••SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS•••   (COACHING) Alex - www.theprepcoach.com   (FREE OPEN FORUM w/ EXCLUSIVE VIDEOS) http://www.theprepcoachforum.com   (SUPPLEMENTS) www.projectad.me___use discount code “BFR25” to save off your order!   (RESEARCH CHEMS) www.maresearchchems.net___use discount code “alex15” to save off your order!   (SPECIALTY SUPPS) www.masupps.com___use discount code “alex20” to save off your order!   (INJECTABLE L-CARNITINE) www.synthetek.com___use discount code “alexkikel” to save off your order!   (BULK SUPPLEMENTS) www.truenutrition.com___use discount code “AXK5” to save off your order!       •••FIND THE EPISODES•••   ITUNES:https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/beastfitness-radios-podcast/id1065532968   LIBSYN:http://beastfitnessradio.libsyn.com   VIMEO: www.vimeo.com/theprepcoach        •••PREP COACH APPAREL•••   https://teespring.com/stores/the-prep-coach-apparel    

In an article written by Jason Kane for PBS News Hour, he states that the United States spends $8,233 per person on health care annually. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/“According to the CMS (Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Spending), the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare last year, up significantly from $7,700 in 2007. Healthcare spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023.” http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/15/the-average-american-spends-this-much-on-healthcar.aspxCompare this with American incomes: the Federal Reserve Economic Data website states that in 2015, median personal income in America was observed at $30,240 and mean personal income was at $44,510.Median Income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672NMean Income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MAPAINUSA672NAffordable Care ActACA Pros: http://www.aarp.org/health/health-insurance/info-08-2013/affordable-care-act-health-benefits.htmlBenefits of ACA: http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/23/13719388/obamacare-health-insurance-repeal-trumpACA CONS: Taxation as a punishment for not signing up, rising costs of insurance premiums, high deductibles from $10k – $50k.ACA for CA state in 2017: Rising costs of insurance premiums and medical insurance in CA state: “But as Californians receive their premium rates for next year, some — including those who make too much to qualify for those government subsidies — are learning their hikes will be far higher than the average statewide increase of 13.2% announced by the state insurance exchange in July.” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-covered-california-premiums-20161026-story.htmlACA for WA State 2017: Rising costs of insurance premiums and medical insurance in WA state: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/health-insurance-premiums-rise-here-in-state-but-not-as-high-as-elsewhere/Professor Peter C Gøtzsche graduated as a Master of Science in biology and chemistry in 1974 and as a physician in 1984. He is a specialist in internal medicine; worked with clinical trials and regulatory affairs in the drug industry 1975-1983, and at hospitals in Copenhagen 1984-95. With about 80 others, he helped start The Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 with the founder, Sir Iain Chalmers, and established The Nordic Cochrane Centre the same year. He became professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis in 2010 at the University of Copenhagen.Peter has published more than 70 papers in “the big five” (BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, Ann Intern Med and N Engl J Med) and his scientific works have been cited over 15,000 times. Peter has also authored 3 other books.“Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime” written in 2013 by Professor Peter C Gøtzsche.“Mammography: Truth, Lies and Controversy” by Peter C Gøtzsche.“And screening has not reduced the number of advanced cancers, 3 which is a prerequisite for screening to work. In Denmark, the overdiagnosis was 33% after 17 years with screening, 4 in good agreement with the 30% estimate from the trials.”http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(12)61216-1.pdfDr. Atul Gawande's TED Talk from March 2012:https://www.ted.com/talks/atul_gawande_how_do_we_heal_medicine?language=enThe Atlantic, November 29th, 2016. In the article it describes Cuba's healthcare system, which costs 1/10th of what America's costs and achieves higher life expectancy as America. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/cuba-health/508859/Open-ended question: Should we have to continue to pay for true healthcare out of our pockets and savings? Is healthcare a human right?Other Resources:NPR – “How do pharmaceutical companies establish drug prices”http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465748256/how-do-pharmaceutical-companies-establish-drug-pricesOnly 13% of all orthodox medicine has been proven to have benefit AND another 23% is shown to have likely benefit:http://www.dcscience.net/garrow-evidence-bmj.pdfStats on people with Diabetes in USA — CDC says 30 million diagnosed in 2017:https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdfThis is equal to just over the population of Texas and around 85% of the population of Canada.Prices getting spikedhttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/whats-behind-skyrocketing-insulin-prices/http://www.wsj.com/articles/mylan-faces-scrutiny-over-epipen-price-increases-1472074823http://www.businessinsider.com/epipen-cost-increase-healthcare-insurance-2016-8Life Expectancy Drops in the USA for unknown reasons according to NPR:http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-findsGeneric Medications FAQ from the FDA Link:https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/buyingusingmedicinesafely/understandinggenericdrugs/ucm167991.htm

Andrea Cipriani is NIHR Research Professor at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at the NHS Foundation Trust in Oxford. His main interest in psychiatry is evidence-based mental health and his research focuses on the evaluation of treatments in psychiatry, mainly major depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Dr Cipriani is author of 267 peer reviewed scientific publications (Scopus), mainly systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials in psychopharmacology, however in the past few years he has also been investigating relevant issues in epidemiological psychiatry and public health, like patterns of drug consumption, risk of serious adverse events (most of all suicide and deliberate self harm) and implementation of treatment guidelines. Being interested in the methodology of evidence synthesis, Dr Cipriani has now a specific focus on network meta-analysis and individual patient data meta-analysis, trying to assess the validity, breadth, structure and interpretation of these statistical approaches to better inform the mental healthcare decision-making process. He is currently Editor in Chief of Evidence-Based Mental Health (ebmh.bmj.com) and also on the Editorial Board of the Lancet Psychiatry, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry and the Cochrane Collaboration for Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis

Andrea Cipriani is NIHR Research Professor at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at the NHS Foundation Trust in Oxford. His main interest in psychiatry is evidence-based mental health and his research focuses on the evaluation of treatments in psychiatry, mainly major depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Dr Cipriani is author of 267 peer reviewed scientific publications (Scopus), mainly systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials in psychopharmacology, however in the past few years he has also been investigating relevant issues in epidemiological psychiatry and public health, like patterns of drug consumption, risk of serious adverse events (most of all suicide and deliberate self harm) and implementation of treatment guidelines. Being interested in the methodology of evidence synthesis, Dr Cipriani has now a specific focus on network meta-analysis and individual patient data meta-analysis, trying to assess the validity, breadth, structure and interpretation of these statistical approaches to better inform the mental healthcare decision-making process. He is currently Editor in Chief of Evidence-Based Mental Health (ebmh.bmj.com) and also on the Editorial Board of the Lancet Psychiatry, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry and the Cochrane Collaboration for Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis

A conversation with Dr. Christine Borgman and Dr. Irene Pasquetto about their Cochrane Collaboration presentation "How and why do scientists reuse others’ data to produce new knowledge? Background, Foreground, and Beyond" Dr. Borgman on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SciTechProf Dr. Pasquetto on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IrenePasquetto

Did you know that a regular bottle of Gatorade contains 34g of sugar? That’s over 8 teaspoons of sugar! The WHO recommends that

This week, a very special conversation with a maverick British medico who set up a tiny research centre in Oxford and watched it grow into a global collaboration of over 40,000 people across 130 countries. Three decades on, the Cochrane Collaboration now produces the world's most trusted health evidence that's used by patients, health professionals, researchers and policy makers around the world every day. Cochrane co-founder Iain Chalmers joins Ray to look back on the origins of the organisation and the extraordinary life of its namesake, Archie Cochrane. Iain also reflects on his work beyond the collaboration - from working in refugee camps in Gaza to teaching children in Uganda how to detect ‘bullshit' health claims and more recently, establishing the James Lind Alliance. It's no surprise he's received the BMJ's most prestigious award for a lifetime of achievement in healthcare, along with a knighthood from the Queen.

This week, a very special conversation with a maverick British medico who set up a tiny research centre in Oxford and watched it grow into a global collaboration of over 40,000 people across 130 countries. Three decades on, the Cochrane Collaboration now produces the world's most trusted health evidence that's used by patients, health professionals, researchers and policy makers around the world every day. Cochrane co-founder Iain Chalmers joins Ray to look back on the origins of the organisation and the extraordinary life of its namesake, Archie Cochrane. Iain also reflects on his work beyond the collaboration - from working in refugee camps in Gaza to teaching children in Uganda how to detect ‘bullshit' health claims and more recently, establishing the James Lind Alliance. It's no surprise he's received the BMJ's most prestigious award for a lifetime of achievement in healthcare, along with a knighthood from the Queen.

Carol Lefebvre gives a talk for the Evidence based healthcare seminar series. Carol Lefebvre will address the shift in focus over the last 20 years away from purely ‘literature searching', i.e. only searching databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed for published literature, such as journal articles and books for identifying studies for evidence synthesis. She will consider the ever-increasing role of unpublished data sources such as trials registers and regulatory agency sources. Carol Lefebvre is an Independent Information Consultant and was previously the Senior Information Specialist at the UK Cochrane Centre in Oxford from 1992 to 2012. She is a founder member of the Cochrane Collaboration. She is Co-Convenor of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group, serves on the Cochrane Methods Executive and is lead author on the searching chapter of The Cochrane Handbook. She also co-led the development of the Cochrane standards for searching (MECIR). She was awarded an M.Sc. in Library and Information Science from the University of Loughborough (UK) in 1985 and an Honorary Fellowship of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in 2007. She now focusses on teaching and consultancy in information retrieval for evidence synthesis, such as systematic reviews, health technology assessment and guideline development.

Carol Lefebvre gives a talk for the Evidence based healthcare seminar series. Carol Lefebvre will address the shift in focus over the last 20 years away from purely ‘literature searching’, i.e. only searching databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed for published literature, such as journal articles and books for identifying studies for evidence synthesis. She will consider the ever-increasing role of unpublished data sources such as trials registers and regulatory agency sources. Carol Lefebvre is an Independent Information Consultant and was previously the Senior Information Specialist at the UK Cochrane Centre in Oxford from 1992 to 2012. She is a founder member of the Cochrane Collaboration. She is Co-Convenor of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group, serves on the Cochrane Methods Executive and is lead author on the searching chapter of The Cochrane Handbook. She also co-led the development of the Cochrane standards for searching (MECIR). She was awarded an M.Sc. in Library and Information Science from the University of Loughborough (UK) in 1985 and an Honorary Fellowship of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in 2007. She now focusses on teaching and consultancy in information retrieval for evidence synthesis, such as systematic reviews, health technology assessment and guideline development.

Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:17:28 +0000 https://evidenzbasierte-pharmazie.podigee.io/46-sonderfolge-evidenz-geschichte-n-wenn-systematisches-wissen-leben-rettet f1c40e126a76209034e5dc9c7cbb460a Eine Horror-Vorstellung: Das überlieferte medizinische Wissen ist falsch. Man hätte es besser wissen können, wären nur alle Studien zu der Fragestellung gemeinsam ausgewertet worden. Und dieses Versäumnis kostet Menschenleben. Mit dieser Erfahrung gründet der britische Arzt Iain Chalmers die internationale Cochrane Collaboration, die bis heute systematische Übersichtsarbeiten erstellt. Alle Quellen und weiterführende Literatur gibt es auf der Podcast-Seite bei Podigee. 46 full no Dr. Iris Hinneburg

Evidence Aid is an international initiative to improve access to reliable evidence that will help people and organisations make well-informed decisions about interventions, actions and strategies in the disaster setting. It focuses on systematic reviews as the most reliable source of research evidence, maximising the power of existing research, avoiding undue emphasis on single studies and reducing the waste associated with research that is ignored or not accessible to decision makers. Evidence Aid is knowledge champion for influencers of the humanitarian sector, including funders, policy makers, NGOs, and humanitarian professionals. Evidence Aid was established by members of the Cochrane Collaboration after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004. It provides access to information relevant to disaster risk reduction, planning, response, recovery, resilience and rehabilitation. This presentation will discuss the need for Evidence Aid, and describes its activities. Read more and listen to the Q&As here. MC - Evidence Aid: Using Systematic Reviews to Improve Access to Evidence for Humanitarian Emergencies Veterinary Evidence TodayEdinburgh, 1-3 November 2016

Eine Horror-Vorstellung: Das überlieferte medizinische Wissen ist falsch. Man hätte es besser wissen können, wären nur alle Studien zu der Fragestellung gemeinsam ausgewertet worden. Und dieses Versäumnis kostet Menschenleben. Mit dieser Erfahrung gründet der britische Arzt Iain Chalmers die internationale Cochrane Collaboration, die bis heute systematische Übersichtsarbeiten erstellt.

  Nesse episódio eu, Heric Lopes, conto com a presença dos fisioterapeutas Leonardo Dias, Larissa Merenda e Laura Loturco para discutir o alongamento muscular na atividade física. Participação especial de Rurik Tullio. Confira!   Esse podcast é parte do canal Fisio na Pauta. Nesse canal, assuntos relevantes serão discutidos usando a ciência e o ceticismo como pedras fundamentais. Nossa intenção é oferecer informação sobre saúde, ciência, reabilitação e claro... Fisioterapia!   Esse podcast é uma produção independente elaborado por voluntários dispostos a disseminar conhecimento em prol da evolução da ciência da Fisioterapia.   O conteúdo do programa é meramente informativo e nada de ser utilizado como conselho médico, uma vez que o conteúdo científico está constantemente evoluindo. Em caso de sintomas e/ou dúvidas, recomendo procurar um profissional da área da saúde.   Você pode acompanhar o Fisio na Pauta Podcast das seguintes maneiras: website: www.fisionapauta.com.br email: contato@fisionapauta.com.br Twitter: @fisionapauta Facebook: @canalfisionapauta Instagram: fisionapauta   Deixe seu comentário no iTunes!   Quer colaborar e apoiar o canal Fisio na Pauta? Acesse:   http://www.fisionapauta.com.br/apoie/   Ouça, divulgue, compartilhe!   Músicas: Captain Planet - Enter the Esperanto - www.youtube.com/watch?v=20OPSVdDw…6Vx1Cl1CA&index=1 The Touré-Rachel Collective - Azawade - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0VXjKwYHs Márcio Cardoso - Alongar os Afetos (feat. Carlinhos Patriolino) - Terra EnCantada: Canções de Acordar.   Referências bibliográficas: Baxter, C., Mc Naughton, L. R., Sparks, A., Norton, L., & Bentley, D. (2017). Impact of stretching on the performance and injury risk of long-distance runners. Research in Sports Medicine, 25(1), 78-90.   Muanjai, P., Jones, D. A., Mickevicius, M., Satkunskiene, D., Snieckus, A., Rutkauskaite, R., ... & Kamandulis, S. (2017). The effects of 4 weeks stretching training to the point of pain on flexibility and muscle tendon unit properties. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(8), 1713-1725.   O’Sullivan, K., McAulliffe, S., & Lehmann, G. (2014). Injury Prevention and Management among Athletic Populations: To stretch or not to stretch. Sports Rehabilitation, 3, 624-628.   Junior, R. M., Berton, R., de Souza, T. M. F., Chacon-Mikahil, M. P. T., & Cavaglieri, C. R. (2017). Effect of the flexibility training performed immediately before resistance training on muscle hypertrophy, maximum strength and flexibility. European journal of applied physiology, 117(4), 767-774.   Page, P. (2012). Current concepts in muscle stretching for exercise and rehabilitation. International journal of sports physical therapy, 7(1), 109.   Freitas, S. R., & Mil-Homens, P. (2015). Effect of 8-week high-intensity stretching training on biceps femoris architecture. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(6), 1737-1740.   Marshall, P. W., Cashman, A., & Cheema, B. S. (2011). A randomized controlled trial for the effect of passive stretching on measures of hamstring extensibility, passive stiffness, strength, and stretch tolerance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(6), 535-540.   Weppler, C. H., & Magnusson, S. P. (2010). Increasing muscle extensibility: a matter of increasing length or modifying sensation?. Physical therapy, 90(3), 438-449.   McHugh, M. P., & Cosgrave, C. H. (2010). To stretch or not to stretch: the role of stretching in injury prevention and performance. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 20(2), 169-181.   Jamtvedt, G., Herbert, R. D., Flottorp, S., Odgaard-Jensen, J., Håvelsrud, K., Barratt, A., ... & Oxman, A. D. (2010). A pragmatic randomised trial of stretching before and after physical activity to prevent injury and soreness. British journal of sports medicine, 44(14), 1002-1009.   Bacurau, R., Monteiro, G., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., Cabral, L., & Aoki, M. (2009). Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. Journal of  Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 304–308.   Barnes, K., & Kilding, A. (2015). Running economy: Measurement, norms, and determining factors. Sports Medicine – Open, 1–15.   Bonacci, J., Chapman, A., Blanch, P., & Vicenzino, B. (2009). Neuromuscular adaptations to training injury and passive interventions. Sports Medicine, 39(11), 903–921.   Herbert, R., de Noronha, M., & Kamper, S. (2011). Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration, 7, 1–50.   High, D., Howley, E., & Franks, B. (1989). The effects of static stretching and warm-up on prevention of delayed-onset muscle soreness. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(4), 357–361.   Nelson, A., Driscoll, N., Landin, D., Young, M., & Schexnayder, I. (2005). Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 449–454.   Saunders, P., Pyne, D., Telford, R., & Hawley, J. (2004). Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Medicine, 34(7), 465–485.   Thacker, S., Gilchrist, J., Stroup, D., & Kimsey, D. (2003). The impact of stretching on sports injury risk: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 36 (3), 371–378.   van Mechelen, W., Hlobil, H., Kemper, H., Voorn, W., & de Jongh, H. (1993). Prevention of running injuries by warm-up, cool-down, and stretching exercises. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 711–719.   Wilson, J., & Flanagan, E. (2008). The role of elastic energy in activities with high force and power requirements: A brief review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(5), 1705–1715.   Wilson, J., Hornbuckle, L., Kim, J., Ugrinowitsch, C., Lee, S., Zourdos, M. ... Panton, L. (2010). Effects of static stretching on energy cost and running endurance performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(9), 2274–2279.   Young, W., & Wand Elliott, S. (2001). Acute effects of static stretching, proprioceptive neuromus- cular facilitation stretching, and maximum voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 72, 273–279.

  Nesse episódio eu, Heric Lopes, conto com a presença dos fisioterapeutas Leonardo Dias, Larissa Merenda e Laura Loturco para discutir o alongamento muscular na atividade física. Participação especial de Rurik Tullio. Confira!   Esse podcast é parte do canal Fisio na Pauta. Nesse canal, assuntos relevantes serão discutidos usando a ciência e o ceticismo como pedras fundamentais. Nossa intenção é oferecer informação sobre saúde, ciência, reabilitação e claro... Fisioterapia!   Esse podcast é uma produção independente elaborado por voluntários dispostos a disseminar conhecimento em prol da evolução da ciência da Fisioterapia.   O conteúdo do programa é meramente informativo e nada de ser utilizado como conselho médico, uma vez que o conteúdo científico está constantemente evoluindo. Em caso de sintomas e/ou dúvidas, recomendo procurar um profissional da área da saúde.   Você pode acompanhar o Fisio na Pauta Podcast das seguintes maneiras: website: www.fisionapauta.com.br email: contato@fisionapauta.com.br Twitter: @fisionapauta Facebook: @canalfisionapauta Instagram: fisionapauta   Deixe seu comentário no iTunes!   Quer colaborar e apoiar o canal Fisio na Pauta? Acesse:   http://www.fisionapauta.com.br/apoie/   Ouça, divulgue, compartilhe!   Músicas: Captain Planet - Enter the Esperanto - www.youtube.com/watch?v=20OPSVdDw…6Vx1Cl1CA&index=1 The Touré-Rachel Collective - Azawade - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0VXjKwYHs Márcio Cardoso - Alongar os Afetos (feat. Carlinhos Patriolino) - Terra EnCantada: Canções de Acordar.   Referências bibliográficas: Baxter, C., Mc Naughton, L. R., Sparks, A., Norton, L., & Bentley, D. (2017). Impact of stretching on the performance and injury risk of long-distance runners. Research in Sports Medicine, 25(1), 78-90.   Muanjai, P., Jones, D. A., Mickevicius, M., Satkunskiene, D., Snieckus, A., Rutkauskaite, R., ... & Kamandulis, S. (2017). The effects of 4 weeks stretching training to the point of pain on flexibility and muscle tendon unit properties. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(8), 1713-1725.   O’Sullivan, K., McAulliffe, S., & Lehmann, G. (2014). Injury Prevention and Management among Athletic Populations: To stretch or not to stretch. Sports Rehabilitation, 3, 624-628.   Junior, R. M., Berton, R., de Souza, T. M. F., Chacon-Mikahil, M. P. T., & Cavaglieri, C. R. (2017). Effect of the flexibility training performed immediately before resistance training on muscle hypertrophy, maximum strength and flexibility. European journal of applied physiology, 117(4), 767-774.   Page, P. (2012). Current concepts in muscle stretching for exercise and rehabilitation. International journal of sports physical therapy, 7(1), 109.   Freitas, S. R., & Mil-Homens, P. (2015). Effect of 8-week high-intensity stretching training on biceps femoris architecture. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(6), 1737-1740.   Marshall, P. W., Cashman, A., & Cheema, B. S. (2011). A randomized controlled trial for the effect of passive stretching on measures of hamstring extensibility, passive stiffness, strength, and stretch tolerance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(6), 535-540.   Weppler, C. H., & Magnusson, S. P. (2010). Increasing muscle extensibility: a matter of increasing length or modifying sensation?. Physical therapy, 90(3), 438-449.   McHugh, M. P., & Cosgrave, C. H. (2010). To stretch or not to stretch: the role of stretching in injury prevention and performance. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 20(2), 169-181.   Jamtvedt, G., Herbert, R. D., Flottorp, S., Odgaard-Jensen, J., Håvelsrud, K., Barratt, A., ... & Oxman, A. D. (2010). A pragmatic randomised trial of stretching before and after physical activity to prevent injury and soreness. British journal of sports medicine, 44(14), 1002-1009.   Bacurau, R., Monteiro, G., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., Cabral, L., & Aoki, M. (2009). Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. Journal of  Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 304–308.   Barnes, K., & Kilding, A. (2015). Running economy: Measurement, norms, and determining factors. Sports Medicine – Open, 1–15.   Bonacci, J., Chapman, A., Blanch, P., & Vicenzino, B. (2009). Neuromuscular adaptations to training injury and passive interventions. Sports Medicine, 39(11), 903–921.   Herbert, R., de Noronha, M., & Kamper, S. (2011). Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration, 7, 1–50.   High, D., Howley, E., & Franks, B. (1989). The effects of static stretching and warm-up on prevention of delayed-onset muscle soreness. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(4), 357–361.   Nelson, A., Driscoll, N., Landin, D., Young, M., & Schexnayder, I. (2005). Acute effects of passive muscle stretching on sprint performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 449–454.   Saunders, P., Pyne, D., Telford, R., & Hawley, J. (2004). Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Medicine, 34(7), 465–485.   Thacker, S., Gilchrist, J., Stroup, D., & Kimsey, D. (2003). The impact of stretching on sports injury risk: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 36 (3), 371–378.   van Mechelen, W., Hlobil, H., Kemper, H., Voorn, W., & de Jongh, H. (1993). Prevention of running injuries by warm-up, cool-down, and stretching exercises. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 711–719.   Wilson, J., & Flanagan, E. (2008). The role of elastic energy in activities with high force and power requirements: A brief review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(5), 1705–1715.   Wilson, J., Hornbuckle, L., Kim, J., Ugrinowitsch, C., Lee, S., Zourdos, M. ... Panton, L. (2010). Effects of static stretching on energy cost and running endurance performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(9), 2274–2279.   Young, W., & Wand Elliott, S. (2001). Acute effects of static stretching, proprioceptive neuromus- cular facilitation stretching, and maximum voluntary contractions on explosive force production and jumping performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 72, 273–279.

http://LearnTrueHealth.com/vaccines Watch the trailer! http://realimmunity.org https://worldwidechoice.org   Developing Real Immunity http://learntruehealth.com/real-immunity/ It has been the norm for decades to have ourselves vaccinated, thinking this would protect us from diseases. But do vaccines do the job? Apparently, more and more studies show that vaccines do more harm than develop real immunity.    To those who are seeking real immunity, well, today's your lucky day.  For today's episode, I'm having a repeat guest---Dr. Cilla Whatcott!    For the listeners who weren't able to catch Dr. Cilla Whatcott on episode 137 here on Learn True Health, my guest is a staunch advocate of homeoprophylaxis. Homeoprophylaxis helps build real immunity to infections.  Most importantly, it is safe and efficient alternative compared to vaccines.  The Truth About Vaccines   Whatcott is set to launch her Real Immunity video documentary series in 2018. While it is currently still in production, I'm inviting everyone to watch "The Truth About Vaccine," by Ty Bollinger.  Like his other project, "The Truth About Cancer" video documentary series, the educational films are both available on my website.   I find it so shocking that a significant majority remain clueless about the gravity of the controversy surrounding vaccines. Did you know a main ingredient of vaccines is using aborted babies? Yes, you read it right. Babies!    And it doesn't stop there. Vaccines contain mercury, heavy metals, glyphosate and other harmful components.    From what I heard, "The Truth About Vaccines," will be offered online for free. Hence, please do watch the series and share it with someone who you know could benefit from it.   So is there real immunity using natural methods? The answer is a big YES! Furthermore, building immunity naturally does not cause disease.    Dr. Cilla Whatcott's Mission   "Mahatma Gandhi once said that the power elicited by fear is nowhere near as effective as the power elicited by love," said Whatcott. Whatcott firmly states that her primary goal is to provide a wealth of knowledge to parents about vaccines. She likewise aims to educate more people about homeoprophylaxis in particular. "This should be the mantra of all parents because, in Western medicine, fear drives us to take vaccines. And ultimately, our love for our children guides us in all the decisions that we make," Whatcott said.   Effectiveness Of Homeoprophylaxis    Homeoprophylaxis one form of immunity building. It is an integral part of developing real immunity naturally by at least 90%.    "Our birthright is having a robust immunity. That's how nature created us. We gain that immunity through contact with bacteria and viruses," Whatcott said. "We also develop real immunity by making sure we have a healthy gut biome especially in the first two years of life." Apparently, Homeoprophylaxis is popular in countries like India, Mexico, Cuba and South America. It is, however, unfortunate that it is not widely popular in the United States yet.   Alarming Statistics   I empathize with Dr. Whatcott. Growing up in Canada and coming to live in the United States, I thought the culture and mindset would be the same. Boy, I was wrong. I had culture shock!   It was a rude awakening when I found out that despite having to pay a substantial amount for health care, a lot of Americans suffer from a lot of health issues. Some of these problems are high infant mortality rate, cancer rate, obesity, and diabetes.    Furthermore, a lot of us have to deal with seasonal allergies.  But I realized that most of these illnesses are caused by an unhealthy diet. In fact, we think going to a doctor is health care when in fact it is merely disease management.   Remaining Optimistic   Whatcott, however, is hopeful that more people, especially parents, are slowly trying to choose natural alternatives for better health. She claims her client base is steadily rising since people now look for doctors who can connect with patients.   "I have more parents coming to see me and who want to do it naturally. The mere fact that you can sit and listen to a client that is healing right there," said Whatcott.  I likewise share Whatcott's frustration whenever I hear medical doctors giving the wrong drugs or administering the wrong dosage. What is even more appalling is that they hardly put importance in embracing a healthy diet. It is infuriating!   Developing A Healthy Immune System    Many factors lead to a healthy immune system.  Like a smooth-running factory, real immunity entails having a good nutritional support and metabolism.   "Doctors can't tell you about nutrition. They are not trained in nutrition at all. It is outside their scope of practice," Whatcott declares. Miller's Study   Whatcott also mentions a significant study done by medical research journalist Neil Z. Miller. Miller's study on critical vaccines showed that measles, mumps, chicken pox, prevent chronic diseases.    Furthermore, the study indicates that lymphomas, tumors, ovarian cancer are prevented when you develop measles, mumps, and chicken pox. Now, the big question is---"So why are we preventing ourselves from getting them?"    Whatcott affirms that the three last health conditions are not deadly diseases. Western medicine stresses the need for us to be vaccinated to prevent those health conditions from happening.     Furthermore, Whatcott says there was a surveillance study conducted about chicken pox in 1995. That time, the rate of shingles went up because chicken pox is a retro virus.   "If the immune system is stressed, it can come out as shingles. But when you get an external boost from other people having chicken pox, it tones your immune system and keeps you healthy," explains Whatcott.   Goldman's Findings   Speaking of shingles, Whatcott mentions another significant study that was conducted by Dr. Gary Goldman. Goldman had a background in computer science and worked as a data analyst on the project.   However, Goldman quit in 2002. Apparently, his superiors, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), were trying to suppress the findings on shingles. Consequently, he managed to have his study published in the Vaccine journal in 2003.   The Truth About Flu Vaccines   Whatcott also reveals another mind-blowing controversy.  This time, about the flu vaccine. According to her, Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit organization doing meta-analysis says the flu vaccine when administered to patients under the age of 2 years old, is no better than placebo.    "The flu vaccine was proven by studies that it does not prevent flu-related hospitalizations.  Bottomline, there is no benefit," Whatcott said. According to a study done in 2012, flu vaccine increases the antibodies for a particular strain. However, Whatcott says the innate arm of the immune system is compromised. Hence, people with the flu vaccine are more prone to pick up other varieties of flu strains.    "Antibodies are not the gold standard of immunity. The gut biome, nutritional status, emotional environment are the things that build immunity," explains Whatcott. "Your innate health and immunity are what keeps you healthy long-term and prevents chronic disease,"   I strongly agree with what Whatcott said.  Honestly, I think a flu shot might help you a little bit. But it disarms the immune system as a whole. That is why a lot of people nowadays are diagnosed with autoimmune disease.    Real Immunity Video Documentary    Whatcott's video project promises to be a wealth of information about how to develop real immunity naturally. Insights from Chinese medicine, functional medicine, and chiropractic methods will be included in the film.   The documentary will likewise interview client testimonials and experts like Jeanne Ohm, editor of Pathways Magazine, as well as Dr. Andy Wakefield. Wakefield is a pediatric gastroenterologist who wrote a paper saying his study found measles virus in the bowels of the children who were given vaccination shots.   Remote Practice   Whatcott primarily holds practice in Minneapolis. With over a decade of helping families, her practice also extends to providing services online.   Having changed the lives of many people over the years, Whatcott aims to educate more people about the dangers of vaccines. Promoting homeoprophylaxis is just one way of erasing the fear of omitting vaccines from our life.   "Anything that we do just to maintain our health status is going to build immunity. The primary elements to achieve optimal health is through nutrition, exercise, sleep, healthy relationships and rational emotions," Whatcott said.   Cilla Whatcott is a board-certified classical homeopath with a B.A. from Arizona State University, a diploma from the four-year professional program at Northwestern Academy of Homeopathy, and a Ph.D. in Homeopathy.   She is an instructor at Normandale Community College and the author of“There Is a Choice: Homeoprophylaxis," and co-author of "The Solution - Homeoprophylaxis.”   Whatcott is also the executive director of Worldwide Choice. She likewise offers individualized homeoprophylaxis programs for adults and children.    Whatcott has been a guest lecturer in France, Scotland, Ireland, Indonesia, the USA, and Canada, and featured in episode 7 of The Truth about Vaccines. She has organized and directed international conferences in 2015 and 2016 about homeoprophylaxis.    Whatcott also has published articles in several periodicals and magazines. She likewise has a certification as a CEASE therapist for reversing vaccine injury.   Get Connected With Dr. Cilla Whatcott!  World Wide Choice Family Homeopathy Care Twitter Learn True Health - vaccines Book by Dr. Cilla Whatcott There Is a Choice - Homeoprophylaxis Recommended Readings by Dr. Cilla Whatcott Dissolving Illusions - Suzanne Humphries (Vaccines) Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies - Neil Miller (Vaccines) Impossible Cure -  Amy Lansky (Homeopathy) The Complete  Homeopathy Handbook - Miranda Castro (Homeopathy)     The Links You Are Looking For: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Become A Health Coach Learn More About The Institute for Integrative Nutrition's Health Coaching Certification Program by checking out these four resources: 1) Integrative Nutrition's Curriculum Guide: http://geti.in/2cmUMxb 2) The IIN Curriculum Syllabus: http://geti.in/2miXTej 3) Module One of the IIN curriculum: http://geti.in/2cmWPl8 4) Get three free chapters of Joshua Rosenthal's book: http://geti.in/2cksU87 Watch my little video on how to become a Certified Health Coach! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDDnofnSldI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this episode made a difference in your life, please leave me a tip in the virtual tip jar by giving my podcast a great rating and review in iTunes! http://bit.ly/learntruehealth-itunes Thank you! Ashley James http://bit.ly/learntruehealth-itunes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enjoyed this podcast episode? Visit my website Learn True Health with Ashley James so you can gain access to all of my episodes and more! LearnTrueHealth.com http://learntruehealth.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need Help Ordering The Right Supplements For You? Visit TakeYourSupplements.com, and a FREE health coach will help you! http://takeyoursupplements.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn How To Achieve Optimal Health for From Naturopathic Doctors! Get Learn True Health's Seven-Day Course For FREE! Visit go.learntruehealth.com http://go.learntruehealth.com/gw-oi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I made a low-carb, gluten-free cookbook just for you! Download your FREE copy today! Visit learntruehealth.com/free-health-cookbook http://learntruehealth.com/free-health-cookbook ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join Learn True Health's Facebook community group! Visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/LearnTrueHealth or search Learn True Health on Facebook! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Follow the Learn True Health podcast on social media! Share with your friends and spread the word! Let's all get healthier & happier together! Learn True Health - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/2LearnTrueHealth Learn True Health - Twitter: https://twitter.com/learntruehealth Learn True Health - Medium: https://medium.com/@unstoppable_ashley Learn True Health - Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/healthpodcast Learn True Health - YouTube: http://bit.ly/LTH-YouTube-Subscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/2LearnTrueHealth Twitter: https://twitter.com/learntruehealth Medium: https://medium.com/@unstoppable_ashley Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/healthpodcast YouTube: http://bit.ly/LTH-YouTube-Subscribe Music: bensound.com

The Cochrane Collaboration assessment of hepatitis C drug trials comes under review from our resident hep C expert Carla Treloar, while Annie Madden digs deeper into the drug decriminalisation debate as the World Health Organisation and the United Nations wade into the debate. For more info: https://csrh.arts.unsw.edu.au/research/podcast-speakeasy-with-annie-madden-and-carla-treloar/

When researchers publish a new study on chronic fatigue syndrome, a group of patients cry foul—and decide to investigate for themselves. A landmark study on chronic fatigue syndrome sets off a multi-year battle between patients and scientists. On one side, we have a team of psychiatrists who have researched the condition for decades, and have peer-reviewed studies to back up their conclusions. On the other, a group of patients who know this condition more intimately than anyone and set out to expose what they think is bad science.     (Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)   A note to our listeners: This episode references studies that are both controversial and complex. Our interest is always to provide accurate and complete information to our listeners, and to provide context in which the science we cover can be understood. To that end, we’d like to share additional information on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Two systematic reviews (studies of studies) by The Cochrane Collaboration examine cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise as treatments for ME/CFS. These may help contextualize the findings of the PACE trial and aid our listeners in drawing their own conclusions.   GUESTS Julie Rehmeyer, author of "Through the Shadowlands" Michael Sharpe professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University David Tuller, journalist and visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley Ivan Oransky, journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch   FOOTNOTES The PACE trial home page, includes trial materials, FAQ, and links to the papers that came out of the trial. The PACE trial data and readme file. Virology Blog including David Tuller’s original three part series criticizing PACE (“Trial by Error”), as well as responses from the authors, and more. Patients’ first reanalysis (published on the Virology Blog) of the PACE recovery paper. They later published the re-analysis in the journal Fatigue and the PACE researchers responded to the patients’ re-analysis. PLOS ONE expression of concern, including a response from the authors. Retraction Watch’s recap of the legal proceedings regarding Alem Matthees’ request for anonymized trial data.   CREDITS This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton. Fact-checking help by Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky.  

When researchers publish a new study on chronic fatigue syndrome, a group of patients cry foul—and decide to investigate for themselves. A landmark study on chronic fatigue syndrome sets off a multi-year battle between patients and scientists. On one side, we have a team of psychiatrists who have researched the condition for decades, and have peer-reviewed studies to back up their conclusions. On the other, a group of patients who know this condition more intimately than anyone and set out to expose what they think is bad science.     (Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)   A note to our listeners: This episode references studies that are both controversial and complex. Our interest is always to provide accurate and complete information to our listeners, and to provide context in which the science we cover can be understood. To that end, we’d like to share additional information on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Two systematic reviews (studies of studies) by The Cochrane Collaboration examine cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise as treatments for ME/CFS. These may help contextualize the findings of the PACE trial and aid our listeners in drawing their own conclusions.   GUESTS Julie Rehmeyer, author of "Through the Shadowlands" Michael Sharpe professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University David Tuller, journalist and visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley Ivan Oransky, journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch   FOOTNOTES The PACE trial home page, includes trial materials, FAQ, and links to the papers that came out of the trial. The PACE trial data and readme file. Virology Blog including David Tuller’s original three part series criticizing PACE (“Trial by Error”), as well as responses from the authors, and more. Patients’ first reanalysis (published on the Virology Blog) of the PACE recovery paper. They later published the re-analysis in the journal Fatigue and the PACE researchers responded to the patients’ re-analysis. PLOS ONE expression of concern, including a response from the authors. Retraction Watch’s recap of the legal proceedings regarding Alem Matthees’ request for anonymized trial data.   CREDITS This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton. Fact-checking help by Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky.  

Anita Gross talks with Rachael Lowe from Physiopedia about her research work relating to neck pain. In particular the development of systematic reviews and clinical treatment toolkits. As part of this month’s (Feb 2014) Physiopedia Members Learn Topic on the Cervical Spine we have been very fortunate to be able to record a 40 minute interview with Anita Gross from McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. Anita coordinates the Cervical Overview Group, a group that conducts and maintains systematic reviews for the Cochrane Collaboration on neck pain. She chairs the Head and Neck, Arm, Hand (HaNSA) Research Group at McMaster University, School of Rehabilitation Sciences. Her most recent work relates to the International Collaboration on Neck (ICON) project – a multidisciplinary group who are synthesizing evidence about the management of neck pain, including practice patterns and opinions from various health disciplines.

This week, we talk to Professor Peter Gøtzsche who is Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark. Professor Gøtzsche graduated as a master of science in biology and chemistry in 1974 and as a physician in 1984. He is a specialist in internal medicine; worked with clinical trials and regulatory affairs in the drug industry and at hospitals in Copenhagen. He co-founded The Cochrane Collaboration and established The Nordic Cochrane Centre in 1993. In 2010 he became a professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Peter has published more than 70 papers in the mainstream medical journals and his scientific works have been cited more than 15,000 times. He is also an author and his books include Deadly medicines and organised crime: how big Pharma has corrupted healthcare published in 2013 and in 2015 he published Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. I was keen to talk to Professor Gøtzsche about his background in research, his views on antidepressant prescribing and how pharmaceutical manufacturers have influenced mental healthcare. There are few with his knowledge and understanding of psychiatric medications. #antidepressants #antipsychotics #benzodiazepines #withdrawal #tapering #mental health

The misrepresentations and ignorance surrounding arguments about fluoridation never cease to amaze me. Let me share with you a few of them: There is still a common belief that countries which fluoridate water have less tooth decay than non-fluoridated countries. This is completely untrue. Yes US with its fluoridated water did experience a big decline in tooth decay in the past 60 years. But the same decline in tooth decay took place in European countries and other in developed countries which had no fluoridation. The World Health Organization has made clear that there is no difference in decay between the small number of developed countries that do fluoridate their water and the majority that do not. In truth the majority of developed countries do not fluoridate their water. Actually, more people drink fluoridated water in the US alone than in the rest of the world combined. In Western Europe 97% of the population drinks water with no fluoride added to it. What few people know is that fluoride affect many parts of the body besides the teeth. It has the ability to interfere with the functions of your brain for instance. Studies conducted in China have shown quite clearly that fluoride lowers the intellectual abilities of people. You see fluoride disrupts our endocrine system. There is even recent research that shows fluoride can increase the severity of many kinds of diabetes. And since diabetes became widespread in the last 40 years this is something to be taken seriously. It has long been known by those informed that being exposed to fluoride interferes with good thyroid function. There is even a lot of information about how fluoride can increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. All of these important pieces of information come from the national research Council in the United States who did a scientific review of of the effects of drinking fluoride in water. Few people realize that fluoride is the only "medicine" which is added to public water. Of course chlorine is added to water to control the bacteria that may be present but this is not a medicine either. Many keen on bringing fluoridation into countries like New Zealand—and there is right now a big push to do this—have concocted all sorts of arguments such as claiming that fluoride is a "nutrient". National Academy of Sciences has vehemently confirmed that this is not the case. Meanwhile most countries in Europe have completely rejected fluoridation because they are aware that the water supply is a totally inappropriate way to deliver a fluoride—most definitely not a "medicine." With a medicine it is the patient who has the right to decide which medicine or drug to take. Fluoridation of the water as is done now in the UK, Ireland, a few areas of the United States and, if government has its way, is soon to be forcibly introduced to the whole of New Zealand. This is ridiculous of course since fluoride in water brings virtually no benefit to teeth. Fluoridation although it may provide good PR for dental trade associations it is bad medicine. What is needed is not fluoridated water making people more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity, but rather an improvement in diet eliminating high levels of sugar and junk food. It is sadly true that children from low income families have high levels of tooth decay. Education is the answer not fluoridation. Another aspect of fluoridation which very few people are aware of is that fluoride's toxic effects are cumulative. According to a 500 page scientific review fluoride can negatively affect your bones, brain, and even your blood sugar levels. Actually there are more than 100 studies published illustrating the harm that fluoride does to the brain alone as well as another 43 studies showing how fluoride can reduce the IQ in children. Here are some of the conditions which fluoridation and overexposure to fluoride can lead to: muscle disorders arthritis increased tumor and cancer rates damage sperm and increased infertility inhibited formation of antibodies and immune system disruptions there is no way that fluoride should be ingested through the waters we drink this is why the EPA’s research laboratory have classified fluoride as "a chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity." Not long ago Paul Connett PhD, director of the fluoride action network (FAN) was asked to debate Mike Berridge PhD of New Zealand's Malaghan Institute of Medical Research on the topic of whether or not it would be wise to fluoridate date all of New Zealand's water. It's an important issue both in the United States as well as in New Zealand and the few countries in the world where water fluoridation is still used. At the moment only 52% of the population of New Zealand gets fluoridated water. The government has proposed legislation that requires men to introduce water fluoridation for the entire country. This is an important short video. I highly recommend that you watch it on You Tube then, given the information above decide for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjkpMofBFfQ In 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration which is considered the gold standard in evidence-based reviews released a comprehensive review pointing out truths that are nearly impossible to dispute. Fluoride does not work to prevent cavities yet is is clear that it causes harm. What concerns me is that in New Zealand where until now fluoridation has been something that the local councils and the population itself were consulted as to whether or not to bring fluoridation into the area in which they live. What the New Zealand government has now done is remove this possibility completely so that they and they alone have the right to decide if the entire country is to be fluoridated. What ever happened to our democracy?

The misrepresentations and ignorance surrounding arguments about fluoridation never cease to amaze me. Let me share with you a few of them: There is still a common belief that countries which fluoridate water have less tooth decay than non-fluoridated countries. This is completely untrue. Yes US with its fluoridated water did experience a big decline in tooth decay in the past 60 years. But the same decline in tooth decay took place in European countries and other in developed countries which had no fluoridation. The World Health Organization has made clear that there is no difference in decay between the small number of developed countries that do fluoridate their water and the majority that do not. In truth the majority of developed countries do not fluoridate their water. Actually, more people drink fluoridated water in the US alone than in the rest of the world combined. In Western Europe 97% of the population drinks water with no fluoride added to it. What few people know is that fluoride affect many parts of the body besides the teeth. It has the ability to interfere with the functions of your brain for instance. Studies conducted in China have shown quite clearly that fluoride lowers the intellectual abilities of people. You see fluoride disrupts our endocrine system. There is even recent research that shows fluoride can increase the severity of many kinds of diabetes. And since diabetes became widespread in the last 40 years this is something to be taken seriously. It has long been known by those informed that being exposed to fluoride interferes with good thyroid function. There is even a lot of information about how fluoride can increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. All of these important pieces of information come from the national research Council in the United States who did a scientific review of of the effects of drinking fluoride in water. Few people realize that fluoride is the only "medicine" which is added to public water. Of course chlorine is added to water to control the bacteria that may be present but this is not a medicine either. Many keen on bringing fluoridation into countries like New Zealand—and there is right now a big push to do this—have concocted all sorts of arguments such as claiming that fluoride is a "nutrient". National Academy of Sciences has vehemently confirmed that this is not the case. Meanwhile most countries in Europe have completely rejected fluoridation because they are aware that the water supply is a totally inappropriate way to deliver a fluoride—most definitely not a "medicine." With a medicine it is the patient who has the right to decide which medicine or drug to take. Fluoridation of the water as is done now in the UK, Ireland, a few areas of the United States and, if government has its way, is soon to be forcibly introduced to the whole of New Zealand. This is ridiculous of course since fluoride in water brings virtually no benefit to teeth. Fluoridation although it may provide good PR for dental trade associations it is bad medicine. What is needed is not fluoridated water making people more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity, but rather an improvement in diet eliminating high levels of sugar and junk food. It is sadly true that children from low income families have high levels of tooth decay. Education is the answer not fluoridation. Another aspect of fluoridation which very few people are aware of is that fluoride's toxic effects are cumulative. According to a 500 page scientific review fluoride can negatively affect your bones, brain, and even your blood sugar levels. Actually there are more than 100 studies published illustrating the harm that fluoride does to the brain alone as well as another 43 studies showing how fluoride can reduce the IQ in children. Here are some of the conditions which fluoridation and overexposure to fluoride can lead to: muscle disorders arthritis increased tumor and cancer rates damage sperm and increased infertility inhibited formation of antibodies and immune system disruptions there is no way that fluoride should be ingested through the waters we drink this is why the EPA’s research laboratory have classified fluoride as "a chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity." Not long ago Paul Connett PhD, director of the fluoride action network (FAN) was asked to debate Mike Berridge PhD of New Zealand's Malaghan Institute of Medical Research on the topic of whether or not it would be wise to fluoridate date all of New Zealand's water. It's an important issue both in the United States as well as in New Zealand and the few countries in the world where water fluoridation is still used. At the moment only 52% of the population of New Zealand gets fluoridated water. The government has proposed legislation that requires men to introduce water fluoridation for the entire country. This is an important short video. I highly recommend that you watch it on You Tube then, given the information above decide for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjkpMofBFfQ In 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration which is considered the gold standard in evidence-based reviews released a comprehensive review pointing out truths that are nearly impossible to dispute. Fluoride does not work to prevent cavities yet is is clear that it causes harm. What concerns me is that in New Zealand where until now fluoridation has been something that the local councils and the population itself were consulted as to whether or not to bring fluoridation into the area in which they live. What the New Zealand government has now done is remove this possibility completely so that they and they alone have the right to decide if the entire country is to be fluoridated. What ever happened to our democracy?

On this episode of Latest in Paleo, we look at recent research regarding dietary fiber, indicating benefits to health and appetite control. One study suggests the lack of gut microbiome diversity seen in people who don't eat much fiber may be passed down to future generations. And finally, is the fiber hype entering fad territory or is it legit? We also take a look at claims a Cochrane Collaboration co-founder has leveled against the pharmaceutical industry; he says they fit the definition for organized crime. This is really a must-listen segment. Also this week, we feature a Human Movement Update after the News & Views, and we look at which exercises might be most effective for the brain. The Documentary Recommendation, Moment of Paleo, and After the Bell segments all relate to The Overview Effect; how seeing things from a higher level can drastically change our thinking. Enjoy the show! Links for this episode:This Episode's homepageLatest in Paleo on Facebook - News hunters and gatherers post your links here.Full List of Recommended Books & AudiobooksWhole: Rethinking the Science of NutritionWatch PLANETARY Online | Vimeo On Demand on Vimeofoodconsumer.org - Dietary fiber may lower cardiovascular disease riskHigher dietary fiber intake in young women may reduce breast cancer risk | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBarley Bread Can Reduce Appetite, Cut Blood Glucose Levels, And Lower Your Risk Factors For DiabetesLow-fiber diets mess up gut microbes—and changes can become heritable | Ars TechnicaFiber Is the Next Protein : Food Network | Healthy Eats – Food Network Healthy Living BlogDIETARY FIBER: How Did We Get Where We Are? - Annual Review of Nutrition, 25(1):1Peter Gotzsche, founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, visits Australia to talk about dangers of prescription drugsWhy I think antidepressants cause more harm than good - The Lancet PsychiatryThe Hidden Harm of Antidepressants - Scientific AmericanProsecuting Doctors in Prescription Drug Overdose Deaths - Room for Debate - NYTimes.comShould we really be taking so many prescription drugs? - Thrive Health: Health & Wellness from the Chicago Sun-TimesPrescription for harm: Dangerous drug mix leaves woman fighting for life - Chicago TribunePhysical exercise increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis in male rats provided it is aerobic and sustained - Nokia - 2016 - The Journal of Physiology - Wiley Online LibraryWhich Type of Exercise Is Best for the Brain? - The New York TimesStudy: Exercising while young alters gut microbes and leads to a healthier brainPeople Who Exercise May Have Bigger Brains | TIMEMidlife exercise blood pressure, heart rate, and fitness relate to brain volume 2 decades laterCouch Potatoes May Have Smaller Brains Later in LifeStudy Says Exercise During Middle Age Maintains Brain Size - YouTubeThe Overview Effect - YouTubeOVERVIEW | Planetary CollectiveVisit PuraKai to shop for eco-friendly clothing and stand-up paddle boards. Be sure to use coupon code "latest in paleo" for 15% off all clothing purchases.

Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:45:04 +0000 https://evidenzbasierte-pharmazie.podigee.io/24-ebpharm-magazin-im-dezember 30fd8a071bb0dfae2039ba6a85b02388 Darum geht es in der Dezember-Ausgabe des Magazins zur evidenzbasierten Pharmazie: Mit Peter Mahlknecht von Cochrane Österreich spreche ich darüber, wie man sich als Apothekerin oder Apotheker am besten im Bereich der evidenzbasierten Pharmazie fortbilden kann. In der Reihe zur Diagnostik geht es um ein Osteoporose-Screening, das manche Apotheken anbieten. Und der Blick über den Tellerrand geht zu den deutschsprachigen Angeboten der Cochrane Collaboration. Die ausführlichen ShowNotes mit allen Links und Hintergrundinformationen finden sich auf meinem Blog. Musik Ausschnitte aus „I dunno“ von grapes, unter CC BY 3.0 Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International Lizenz. 24 full no Dr. Iris Hinneburg

This week, we talk anemia — a fairly big topic! As an aside, another great study resource for you: Dr. Mike Kirlew’s CCFP podcasts, from Sioux Lookout, Ontario. His lectures are focused on OSCE content rather than the 99 Topics, which I think complements this podcast nicely. I find his lecture style a bit too energetic for me, but the content is fantastic, and he has a knack for simplifying complex content. This week's links: Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. - Cochrane Collaboration (2012) Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock (2014) Evaluation of anemia in the adult according to the mean corpuscular volume - UpToDate Iron Studies Interpretation - Perth Haematology Anemia in Adults: A Contemporary Approach to Diagnosis - Mayo Clinic Proceedings (2003) Red Cell Folate Testing: Unwarranted and Overutilized in the Era of Folic Acid Supplementation (2010) Iron Needs in Babies and Child - Canadian Paediatric Society

Paul Glasziou discusses a new Lancet Series 'Research: increasing value, reducing waste'.

In this week's podcast we hear from Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration about the problem of publication bias – and a tool that could help researchers dowse for hidden data. Also, Brian Deer discusses his features and explains why it's been so long from the original publication of Wakefield's work in the Lancet to the revelations just published in the BMJ. And David Payne talks to us about the new BMJ iPad app.

Rajiv Chowdury, a research associate from the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge, explains why eating whole fish is better than fish oil - at least when it comes to cerebrovascular disease. Also this week Peter Doshi and Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration talk about the BMJ's open data campaign, and how publishing correspondence with Roche, the WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might reveal the missing data on Tamiflu.

Monat für Monat wird eine Flut an wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten publiziert – für den einzelnen Arzt kaum überschaubar. Seit 20 Jahren trägt die Cochrane Collaboration mit ihren Reviews dazu bei, dieser Flut Herr zu werden: Über 28 000 Mitglieder arbeiten weltweit daran, aktuelle medizinische Informationen auf Qualität und Evidenz zu prüfen und zusammenzufassen.

Monat für Monat wird eine Flut an wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten publiziert – für den einzelnen Arzt kaum überschaubar. Seit 20 Jahren trägt die Cochrane Collaboration mit ihren Reviews dazu bei, dieser Flut Herr zu werden: Über 28 000 Mitglieder arbeiten weltweit daran, aktuelle medizinische Informationen auf Qualität und Evidenz zu prüfen und zusammenzufassen.

Jim Al-Khalili talks to the pioneering health services researcher, Iain Chalmers, who was one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration. Once described by one writer as 'The Maverick Master of Medical Evidence'. Iain Chalmers trained as a doctor, eventually specialising in obstetrics. But early in his career, he started to question the basis of everything he was trained to do and this set him on a very different path: to champion treatments based on the best available evidence, first in his own field and then across healthcare. It's a journey that has at times challenged the foundations of medical practice. In 1992, he was appointed Director of the Cochrane Centre, which led to the foundation of the Cochrane Collaboration, dedicated to ensuring that patients, doctors and researchers have access to unbiased information about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, across the world. Iain wants to reduce uncertainty in medicine so that patients can make sensible choices about their care. There are now 30,000 Cochrane members world wide, from Brazil to Belgium, Spain to South Africa. He's been hugely influential both within medicine but across all areas of social policy and the inspiration for a generation of evidence-based, sceptical enquirers such as Ben Goldacre. A frequent irritant of the medical establishment Iain become one of them when he was knighted for services to healthcare in 2000. Having spent his career trying to change the mindset of the medical community from the inside, he's now pushing from the outside, arguing that patients' concerns should drive the medical research agenda. Producer: Rami Tzabar.

The 2012 Wolfson College Haldane Lecture was given by leading health services researcher Sir Iain Chalmers, currently Coordinator of the James Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK. Sir Iain Chalmers is a leading health services researcher who has spent the past 30 years trying to ensure that health professionals and patients have free access to unbiased evidence of the effects of medical and other treatments. Sir Iain qualified in medicine in the mid-1960s. He practised as a clinician for seven years in the UK and the Gaza Strip, and then became a full time health services researcher with a particular interest in assessing the effects of health care. Between 1978 and 1992 he was founding director of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit in Oxford. Between 1992 and 2002 he was founding director of the UK Cochrane Centre, which convened the meeting that inaugurated the Cochrane Collaboration, a not-for-profit, international organization that prepares, maintains and publishes systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. Since 2003, he has coordinated the James Lind Initiative to promote public and professional acknowledgement of uncertainties about the effects of healthcare interventions, and research to address these uncertainties.

Here's an extended version of Shelley Schlender's interview with Dariush Mozaffarian on Salt.  Note that in the interview, Shelley asks Dr. Mozaffarian to comment on some of the assertions made in the popular press, Scientific American story, It's Time to End the War on Salt."  The interview mentions a citation in the popular press article about the Cochrane Collaboration's view on salt.  After the interview, Mozaffarian's pointed out this more recent assessment from the Cochrane Collaboration: The most recent on salt and blood pressure is below: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD004937. Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure. He FJ, MacGregor GA. Here are the verbatim conclusions from that report: "CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that a modest reduction in salt intake for a duration of 4 or more weeks has a significant and, from a population viewpoint, important effect on blood pressure in both individuals with normal and elevated blood pressure. These results support other evidence suggesting that a modest and long-term reduction in population salt intake could reduce strokes, heart attacks, and heart failure. Furthermore, our meta-analysis demonstrates a correlation between the magnitude of salt reduction and the magnitude of blood pressure reduction. Within the daily intake range of 3 to 12 g/day, the lower the salt intake achieved, the lower the blood pressure." Additionally, Mozaffarian suggests that people interested in this topic check out a meta-analysis by the British Journal of Medicine Titled, Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular disease: meta- analysis of prospective studies. Last but not least, for a recent speech by Mozaffarian that provides even more detail on these topics, click here.

Background: Several systematic reviews have summarized the evidence for specific treatments of primary care patients suffering from depression. However, it is not possible to answer the question how the available treatment options compare with each other as review methods differ. We aim to systematically review and compare the available evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological, and combined treatments for patients with depressive disorders in primary care. Methods/Design: To be included, studies have to be randomized trials comparing antidepressant medication (tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), hypericum extracts, other agents) and/or psychological therapies (e.g. interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, behavioural therapy, short dynamically-oriented psychotherapy) with another active therapy, placebo or sham intervention, routine care or no treatment in primary care patients in the acute phase of a depressive episode. Main outcome measure is response after completion of acute phase treatment. Eligible studies will be identified from available systematic reviews, from searches in electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Central), trial registers, and citation tracking. Two reviewers will independently extract study data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's corresponding tool. Meta-analyses (random effects model, inverse variance weighting) will be performed for direct comparisons of single interventions and for groups of similar interventions (e.g. SSRIs vs. tricyclics) and defined time-windows (up to 3 months and above). If possible, a global analysis of the relative effectiveness of treatments will be estimated from all available direct and indirect evidence that is present in a network of treatments and comparisons. Discussion: Practitioners do not only want to know whether there is evidence that a specific treatment is more effective than placebo, but also how the treatment options compare to each other. Therefore, we believe that a multiple treatment systematic review of primary-care based randomized controlled trials on the most important therapies against depression is timely.