Skip to content

Published on Leave a comment on Saline Nasal Rinses Reduce COVID Hospitalizations And Death

Well, this is interesting.... Saline nasal rinses (which are popular among persons with sinus issues) apparently is very helpful if one gets COVID-19. A recent study found that starting daily saline rinses two times per day after COVID-19 symptoms start, significantly lowers the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

To make your own saline nasal rinse: mix 1/2 teaspoon each of baking soda and salt in a cup of bottled or boiled (and then cooled) water. Put it into a saline rinse bottle or nasal bulb syringe and use.

In the study, among persons who did nasal saline rinses - less than 1.3% of the 79 study subjects age 55 and older who enrolled within 24-hours of testing positive for COVID-19 experienced hospitalization. No one died. Symptoms also resolved faster.

Among persons who didn't do nasal saline rinses: 9.47% of patients were hospitalized and 1.5% died in a similar group during the same time frame (Sept. 24 and Dec. 21, 2020).

By the way, all persons in the study were 55 or older, and had preexisting medical conditions such as obesity. Also, adding iodine to the nasal rinses did not make a difference. Plain saline rinses were sufficient.

From Medical Xpress: Twice-daily nasal irrigation reduces COVID-related illness, death

Starting twice daily flushing of the mucus-lined nasal cavity with a mild saline solution soon after testing positive for COVID-19 can significantly reduce hospitalization and death, investigators report. ...continue reading "Saline Nasal Rinses Reduce COVID Hospitalizations And Death"

Published on Leave a comment on Two Studies Find Vitamin D Doesn’t Prevent COVID

More studies are finding that supplementing with vitamin D is not living up to its original promise - that is, as a supplement that can prevent or treat all sorts of health conditions. Two recent large studies found that daily vitamin D supplementation in persons with or without a vitamin D deficiency didn't reduce the risk of getting COVID-19.

Both studies found that no matter the vitamin D dose - low (800 IU/day), high (3200 IU/day), or even taken as a cod liver oil supplement -  didn't prevent COVID infection, serious COVID, or any other respiratory infection. Very disappointing findings!

The researchers stress that both study results underscore that the COVID vaccines are the best way to protect a person from COVID-19 or a serious COVID illness. They advise that only persons with a vitamin D deficiency need vitamin D supplements. [Note: The best form of vitamin D is D3, which was given to the study participants.]

However, it must be pointed out that some other studies have found that vitamin D does lower how many respiratory infections a person gets each year (while other studies find no effect). So we'll see... more studies are ongoing.

From Medscape: Vitamin D Supplementation Shows No COVID-19 Prevention

Two large studies out of the UK and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit — as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation — in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not. ...continue reading "Two Studies Find Vitamin D Doesn’t Prevent COVID"

Published on Leave a comment on Health Harms Associated With Artificial Sweeteners

Another recent study found that consuming artificial sweeteners do harm. In August a study found that artificial sweeteners alter both the oral and gut microbiomes in a negative way. Other earlier studies found an association with high blood pressure, inflammation, weight gain, vascular dysfunction, and increased risk of cancer.

Now, a large study found that high consumption of artificial sweeteners is associated with increased risk of heart disease (cardiovascular disease), including heart attacks and strokes (cerebrovascular events).

What is high consumption of artificial sweetener? One individual packet of artificial sweetener or a 100 mL of diet soda is about 42.46 mg/day, while in this study high sweetener consumption is about 77.62 mg/day. So high consumption is not even 2 diet sodas or packets per day.

Bottom line: Artificial sweeteners are NOT a healthy or good alternative to sugar (or maple syrup or honey). Also, avoid high fructose corn syrup - that has its own problems. Artificial sweeteners are found in highly processed foods - try to also avoid those for your health.

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide. Avoiding sugar and instead consuming artificial sweeteners is not going to help you achieve health. But improving your overall diet will, such as eating a diet rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, legumes (beans).

From Medical Xpress: Study suggests possible link between artificial sweeteners and heart disease

A large study of French adults published by The BMJ today suggests a potential direct association between higher artificial sweetener consumption and increased cardiovascular disease risk, including heart attack and stroke. ...continue reading "Health Harms Associated With Artificial Sweeteners"

Published on Leave a comment on Ultra-Processed Foods and Risk of Colorectal Cancer

Once again, bad news about ultra-processed foods. American adults eat so much ultra-processed food that it's now about 57% of their daily calories. It's because these foods are convenient, durable, available everywhere, taste good, and frequently are less expensive than whole foods.

A large study found that eating lots of ultra-processed foods (e.g., prepackaged foods, fast foods) is associated with a higher risk of colon cancer in men. Specifically, a 29% higher risk when compared to men who ate the least ultra-processed foods.

This association was not found in women.

However, when the researchers looked at specific kinds or categories of ultra-processed foods that were eaten, they found differences in colorectal cancer risk. Higher consumption of meat/poultry/seafood based ready-to-eat-products and sugar sweetened beverages (soda!) was associated with a higher colorectal cancer risk in men. Higher consumption of ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes was associated with colorectal cancer in women.

But interestingly, eating yogurt and dairy based desserts were negatively associated with colorectal cancer risk in women - it's as if they were protective. Perhaps the beneficial microbes in the dairy foods?

Ultra-processed foods are ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat foods made of little or no whole foods. Instead, they are mostly made of substances derived from foods. They typically have many added ingredients such as additives, artificial colors, preservatives, stabilizers, sugars, artificial sweeteners, salt, flavorings, and hydrogenated fats.

Examples are frozen meals, soft drinks, hot dogs, cold cuts, fast food, packaged foods (including cookies and cake), candies, instant soups, and sweet or savory packaged snacks.

Studies also show that ultra-processed foods cause negative or harmful changes in the gut microbiome (microbial community of bacteria, viruses, fungi). Higher consumption is associated with a higher risk of a number of chronic diseases and cancer.

From Science Daily - New study links ultra-processed foods and colorectal cancer in men

For many Americans, the convenience of pre-cooked and instant meals may make it easy to overlook the less-than-ideal nutritional information, but a team led by researchers at Tufts University and Harvard University hope that will change after recently discovering a link between the high consumption of ultra-processed foods and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. ...continue reading "Ultra-Processed Foods and Risk of Colorectal Cancer"

Published on Leave a comment on Federally Funded Research Won’t Be Behind Paywalls In the Future

Finally, it looks like soon everyone will be able to read the published scientific research articles that were funded by US taxpayer dollars. Instead of being behind a journal's "paywall" - which means you have to pay money to read the article (e.g. $40. !!), we will be able to read it for free.

According to the directive issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), this must occur no later than December 31, 2025.

It is incredibly frustrating to read the abstract (very short summary) of a research article, but not be able to read the actual article. Especially when you know that we (you and I) paid for the research to take place. The only beneficiaries of that system are the journal publishers, who make oodles of money off of research articles that they got for free. Blech...

There has been a move towards open access (everyone has free access) of published research anyway, and this will just hasten it. One noteworthy open access publisher is PLOS (plos.org) and another open access journal is Environmental Health Perspectives (receives support from the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences).

This is great! And should have happened years ago.

From The Scientist: No More Paywalls on Federally Funded Research: White House

In 2013, a memo from then-head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren directed federal agencies to come up with a plan to make all the research they fund freely available to the public within 12 months of publication. Today (August 25), the current acting head of the same office, Alondra Nelson, released a memo that goes a step further, mandating that agencies ensure their research is available in publicly accessible repositories immediately on publication, by December 31, 2025 at the latest.  ...continue reading "Federally Funded Research Won’t Be Behind Paywalls In the Future"

Published on Leave a comment on After Using Lead Ammunition, Lead Fragments Remain In the Hunted Meat
Lead buckshot Credit: Wikipedia

If you use lead bullets or buckshot when hunting wild game or birds, then some of the lead will get into you when you eat the meat. Even after the bullet or buckshot is removed, tiny lead fragments remain that can not be easily seen. A recent study found this is also true with wild pheasants that were killed with lead buckshot or pellets.

Studies show that even after the bullet is removed from a dead animal, numerous very small lead fragments remain in the soft tissue. In deer, lead fragments have been found as far away as 45 cm from the lead bullet's path. Lead shotgun pellets also fragment into small pieces when they are fired into gamebirds and waterfowl.

The researchers purchased carcasses of wild pheasants (all shot by hunters on farmland in the UK) from a butcher shop. All the pheasant carcasses contained tiny metal (lead) fragments, and most contained a large number of them - 75% had more than 15 small fragments. These could be seen on the micro-CT scanner, which shows more than x-rays.

Very important: Studies find that the more people eat meat killed using lead ammunition - the higher their blood lead levels. This is because they are eating the small lead fragments in the meat. These fragments are too small to be easily detected and removed by the consumer during food preparation or while eating.

Bottom line: Avoid eating any meat that was killed with lead ammunition. Lead is toxic when ingested, and there is no save level. Instead, hunting should be done with non-lead ammunition.

From Science Daily: Pheasant meat sold for food found to contain many tiny shards of toxic lead

Eating pheasant killed using lead shot is likely to expose consumers to raised levels of lead in their diet, even if the meat is carefully prepared to remove the shotgun pellets and the most damaged tissue. ...continue reading "After Using Lead Ammunition, Lead Fragments Remain In the Hunted Meat"

Published on Leave a comment on Physical Activity May Be More Important Than Genes In Longevity

For a long time we thought that our genes determine how long we will live (longevity). A new study says not so fast - how we live is more important than our genes. Specifically, how much physical activity and sedentary time (time spent sitting) both have an effect on whether we die early or later, no matter our genetic make-up.

Researchers found that among older women - having higher weekly amounts of light, moderate, or vigorous physical activity was associated with a lower risk of early death. Having higher amounts of sedentary (sitting) time was associated with a higher risk of early death. It didn't matter if there was a genetic predisposition for longevity or not - the findings applied to everyone.

Bottom line: Get off the sofa or out of your chair and move, move, move. All types of physical activity are good for longevity and to lower risk of disease. While this study looked at older women, the findings are also thought to apply to older men.

From Science Daily: Physical activity may have a stronger role than genes in longevity

Previous research has shown that low physical activity and greater time spent sitting are associated with a higher risk of death. Does risk change if a person is genetically predisposed to live a long life? ...continue reading "Physical Activity May Be More Important Than Genes In Longevity"

Published on Leave a comment on Sugar Substitutes Alter Gut Microbiome

All of us want to have a healthy gut microbiome (the microbial community of viruses, fungi, and bacteria). For health reasons many people try to lower their intake of sugars. However, ingesting artificial or non-nutritive sweeteners such as stevia, sucralose, aspartame, or saccharin may also have an effect on the body.

A recent study in both humans and mice found that these sugar substitutes cause gut microbiome changes and had an effect on a person's glycemic response (blood sugar levels). Saccharin and sucralose significantly impaired glucose tolerance in healthy adults - it impacted their glycemic response even at doses below FDA allowances (average daily intake or ADI).

The non-nutritive sweeteners also had an effect on the oral (mouth) microbiome. Each sweetener had a different and distinct effect on both oral and gut microbiomes. And the effects varied in each person, due to everyone having a different (unique) microbiome.

Earlier studies found negative health effects from sugar substitutes (e.g., higher incidence of diabetes, higher risk of cancer, gut microbiome changes). So be cautious until more is known. One of this study's researchers suggested drinking only water.

From Medical Xpress: Non-nutritive sweeteners affect human microbiomes and can alter glycemic responses

Since the late 1800s non-nutritive sweeteners have promised to deliver all the sweetness of sugar with none of the calories. They have long been believed to have no effect on the human body, but researchers publishing in the journal Cell on August 19 challenge this notion by finding that these sugar substitutes are not inert, and, in fact, some can alter human consumers' microbiomes in a way that can change their blood sugar levels. ...continue reading "Sugar Substitutes Alter Gut Microbiome"

Published on Leave a comment on Restoring Hair With Low Doses of A Common Medicine

Hair loss is a huge concern among adults, especially as they age. This week the NY Times printed an article about an inexpensive medicine that works amazingly well to restore hair. The treatment is to take a small dose of minoxidil daily and this results in hair growth.

This is the same hair loss treatment drug that is typically applied directly to the scalp (it's the active ingredient in Rogaine). But taken as a very low-dose pill it works even better. Taken in this low dose pill form is taking it "off-label" , which is a common practice in dermatology. Minoxidil is also an anti-hypertensive medicine (at higher doses).

The before and after photos in the article are fabulous - from very thin to lush, thick hair.

Excerpts from the New York Times: An Old Medicine Grows New Hair for Pennies a Day, Doctors Say

The ads are everywhere — and so are the inflated claims: Special shampoos and treatments, sometimes costing thousands of dollars, will make hair grow. But many dermatologists who specialize in hair loss say that most of these products don’t work. ...continue reading "Restoring Hair With Low Doses of A Common Medicine"

1

Published on 1 Comment on Study Finds No Effect From Two Sinus Products

This month a number of persons asked me about the probiotic Lactococcus lactis (in Probiorinse) and whether it works. This product is marketed to people with sinusitis or sinus infections, with the message that it improves the sinus microbiome and sinus health. Does it?

Unfortunately, the research says no. A well-done study published last year found that the bacteria Lactococcus lactis (Probiorinse) doesn't help to improve sinus symptoms in those with sinus issues. Yes, that bacteria is found in the sinuses, but it is not a keystone bacteria (one with a big effect) in sinus health.

The study compared the Probiorinse (Lactococcus lactis) product to Xlear (xylitol) and regular saline rinses.

The researchers tested xylitol, the probiotic Lactococcus lactis, and ordinary saline rinses separately for one month in a group of persons with chronic sinusitis. They found that none of these improved sinusitis symptoms or sinus microbial diversity (the sinus microbiome). In other words, there were no significant differences among the 3 groups.

Those with chronic sinus problems still had them at the end of the study, and their sinus microbiomes and symptoms were still very different from those of the healthy participants.

By the way, another study analyzed Lactoccocus lactis (using the product Probiorinse) against some strains of harmful bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) collected from persons with chronic sinusitis and found "no effect on 4 strains, a modest inhibitory effect on one strain, and a modest proliferative effect on one" (it increased this harmful strain!). Basically no effect - not a good result.

Bottom line: Stick with ordinary saline rinses to help with sinus congestion. The medical view is that saline nasal irrigation is recommended because it helps a little with nasal stuffiness or congestion, even though this effect is temporary (a few hours?). Also, try the probiotic Lactobacillus sakei, which is a keystone bacteria in the sinuses and which kills/dominates over many harmful bacteria (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus - a problem bacteria in many with sinusitis).

Excerpt from the 2021 study by Lambert PA, et al., in the medical journal  Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology:  Microbiomics of irrigation with xylitol or Lactococcus lactis in chronic rhinosinusitis

No significant trends in alpha or beta diversity as a result of treatment were observed. SNOT‐22 score did not change significantly following treatment with xylitol, L. lactis, or saline. [Translation: the microbiome (alpha and beta diversity) didn't change, and symptoms (SNOT-22 score) didn't change]