The Samsung Universe Tiny S5570 is a good machine Order valium Generic valium that operates on Android mobile phone Provigil adderall combined Provigil

About 300,000 guys Generic name for ativan Ativan withdrawal each year are told they Ambien cr side effects Ambien lunesta have erection dysfunction in the Buy xanax on Xanax effects usa on your own. A 3rd of these males do Klonopin anxiety Is klonopin good

You see clearly okay! Cialis (Cialis), currently the most VigRX Plus VigRX trusted medicine for Impotence is african mango extract african mango up for a number of Electronic cigarette safety Janty electronic cigarette Plaintiffs who won their viagra lawsuit in court in 2010 Viagra profits in not only the V2 electronic cigarette Electronic Cigarette sex injury in gentlemen. It might be the Raspberry Ketone Raspberry Ketones

There are plenty of things you'll want to be aware of Semenax Semenax on the list of Google android battle. Electronic Cigarettes Electronic Cigarettes 3-4 months earlier and buyers have expressed beneficial Buy Fioricet Fioricet it's really worth getting.

The way Att reverse phone lookup Reverse Phone Lookup

Time and less corporate interest reveals truth about statins

June 14th, 2013 by drmaurer 1 comment »

On January 16th, 2012 the Los Angeles Times printed a headline to lament, ”Lipitor patent ends; generic available: What now?”

What now? Now statins are not touted as a miracle drug and the truth comes out. Prior to January 2012, Pfizer had an interest in sending billions of dollars toward one-sided, manipulative marketing, which was disguised in the clothes of “clinical research”. Now we see a new set of headlines hit the press. I searched WebMD for statin headlines in the past 18-months. The drug has not changed, just the profit structure and therefore the one-sided corporate money stream and one-sided research headlines. Here is what we see now…

Feb 28, 2012 FDA Adds Warnings to Statin Label [diabetes, memory loss, high blood sugars] Reed Miller
Jun 11, 2012. Statins Linked to Fatigue in Randomized Study. Sue Hughes
Aug 13, 2012. Statins Linked With Development of Cataracts. Michael O’Riordan
Aug 22, 2012. Statin Potency Linked With Muscle Weakness. Nancy A. Melville
March 2013. Statin Therapy and the Risk for Diabetes Among Adult Women
Jun 05, 2013. Statins Linked With Risk of Musculoskeletal Injury. Michael O’Riordan

Many good books have been written by bright medical researchers that put a more realistic explanation of statin effects. Rarely, very rarely, should statins be used as primary prevention of heart disease.

For more reading see cardiologist Stephen Sinatra’s book co-written with Jonny Bowden, “The Great Cholesterol Myth: Why Lowering Your Cholesterol Won’t Prevent Heart Disease-and the Statin-Free Plan That Will”

-Dr Richard Maurer – The Blood Code

Steve Melchiskey liked this post

Vegetarianism and longevity: hoax, hype or delusion?

June 10th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

Vegetarians live longer? Or is it, educated married people who don’t smoke live longer? YOU Pick the headline.

JAMA is pathetic. The peer-review journal acknowledges that this study is based upon correlations with countless uncontrolled variables and is a weak-modeled questionnaire-based study that has not gone enough, but they published it anyway. Huh?

All the headlines in the vegetarian fundamentalist news blogs loved to write, “Vegetarians live longer.” The researchers note in their study conclusion, “Vegetarian groups tended to be older, more highly educated and more likely to be married, to drink less alcohol, to smoke less, to exercise more and to be thinner.”
The validity of any interpretation of longevity within the study was also tempered by the researchers; “This analysis is limited by relatively early follow-up. If dietary patterns affect mortality, they may do so with moderate effect sizes, via complex pathways, and with long latency periods.”
So is the vegetarian diet resulting in lower mortality in this study? Not likely at all.

Our entire evolutionary process and success (if that is what we want to call it) depends upon our access to nutrient dense digestible animal foods. (Health and the Rise of Civilization, by Mark Nathan Cohen).
The vegetarian myth is another book to shatter the fundamentalists’ arguments; the author obviously hit a nerve as the blogosphere is full of very emotional rebuttals. (The Vegetarian Myth, by Lierre Keith).

In my office, I run blood tests on everyone. I see the fall-out of vegetarianism. About 40% of women are severely low in iron, another 20% are severely low in B12, and some people have a total cholesterol level that is too low (<150). I frequently hear patients tell me this misguided claim, “I have a really healthy diet, I don’t any eat red-meat”. Once I help them see the faulty mindset about their diet and they correct the deficiencies within their diet, the changes are dramatic. I have seen MS symptoms disappear; fatigue, anxiety, and restless leg syndrome all go away, you have to know what is right for you and avoid believing in loudest blogger.

The Blood Code, coming soon, will help you understand a little bit about yourself and your dietary needs. Your Blood Code will allow you to stand up to the assault of headlines telling you that you should do this or that diet. Vegetarianism is just that…an “-ISM”: A belief that is accepted as authoritative by an exclusive group. Rational science and rational thought must not rely on “ism” doctrines.

Supplemental Vitamins: Are they harmful or helpful..or both?

June 10th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

I was asked to respond to an opinion column in the New York Times Sunday June 8th, by Paul Offit, a vocal skeptic of anything he terms, “alternative medicine”. He notes the famous, albeit 20-year old 1994 study that used beta-carotene, vitamin E and placebo in smokers to assess the cancer protective effects of these antioxidants. There was not protection and in fact, the beta carotene group had higher lung cancer rates. The result raised doubt about the overwhelming health benefit of single high does nutrients. I read a recent article about the ubiquity of added folic acid in processed foods and that illness could result due to the imbalance of folic acid compared to the companion B vitamins, especially B12.

Dr. Offit posits that the vitamins themselves are not necessary and potentially harmful to your health and longevity. For every study like the beta-carotene/smoker that displays a harmful effect of a nutrient pill, there are vastly more that show that small amounts of supplemental vitamin D protect against a myriad of illnesses and that those that take multiple vitamins are protected from many other cancers. Dr. Offit offers a trite black and white view of nutrients. Perhaps he is frustrated from responding to the misguided self-help plans that the “worried-well” follow when they feel they need to take over twenty supplement pills per day based upon the advice of a Dr. Oz, faddish blog, or their trusted alternative practitioner. Dr. Offit uses studies to pound his message home but suffers from the WYSIATI error; “What You See Is All There Is”, if you go back twenty years and conveniently pick out only the negative studies, you can provide a compelling one-sided argument.

True: if you start mega-dosing vitamins, or taking high doses of single nutrients, there is the possibility of more harm than good. It is also safe to say that the risk of harm is less than for OTC and Rx medications. Like politics, the vitamin question has gone radical. On one side are the Offit-Egos stating, “alternative medicine and vitamins are unnecessary, potentially harmful wastes of time.” On the other side are the Oz-like opportunists that tout the harmless but wildly effective magic pill for virtually every ill.

Your answer is in the middle. If you want my opinion, you should be closer to the skeptic side of the middle. A low dose, well-balanced nutritional supplement plan allows the vital gaps to be filled-in. Few people are making broth out of cartilaginous marrow bones, and few are eating local nutrient dense foods like oysters and sardines with the skin on and bone in. The USDA estimates that over 60% of Americans do not get even the low-ball RDA of Magnesium, other nutrient inadequacies affect about 20-40% of the U.S. population.

#1 – Avoid single nutrients except at the recommendation of a very qualified health care provider. #2 – As your daily plan, take a partial dose of a broad complex of nutrients; I take two of a 6-a day formula. #3 – Take some extra minerals with mostly magnesium. Vitamins do not stand alone, they are “supplements”, that is to say they supplement your diet. Keep it simple. I agree with Dr. Offit, there is not a magic pill out there, but the volume of research does support a sensible nutritional supplemental plan for your and my health and longevity.

-Dr. Maurer
I hope that in my coming book and website, The Blood Code, I can bring the converstation to the middle and give you a rational guide to your dietary, fitness and nutritional habits.

Three Reasons Berberine Sulphate Should Not Be Used For Blood Sugar Control

June 4th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

Why I do not recommend berberine extract to improve blood sugars

If you have perused the online recommendation for high blood sugars, you have no doubt come across berberine sulphate. Berberine is the extracted alkaloid from the Oregon Grape/Barberry family of plants it has potent hypoglycemic effects and since around 1990, has been confirmed as a useful substance to help improve blood sugars, while lowering insulin and central body fat distribution. It has won a reputation for being “like metformin”, the common drug for type 2 diabetes. Since I have been writing The Blood Code, I have been combing research in depth to try to help people find all the tools to help them recover their insulin sensitivity and reverse type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes. So why don’t I promote the use of this natural plant medicine?

First, the mechanism for berberine extract is very unclear. For decades it has been a well-researched herbal treatment for intestinal Giardia and it’s use came with warnings to avoid take long-term use due to the potential undesirable antimicrobial effect in the gut. Second, significant gastrointestinal side effects are well documented and up to a third of people in the studies had to adjust or stop treatment due to nausea, diarreha and carmping. The third reason is due to evidence that one of the primary mechanisms for berberine extract is to prevent post-meal absorption of glucose and potentially other important nutrients. This reminds me of the fake-fat product “Olestra” that let you eat fatty chips and never absorb the fat, although you’d stain your underwear on a daily basis. If you are trying to limit the amount of glucose you absorb from a meal, you should probably think of that before the meal, not after. You can better limit post meal absorption of glucose by just not eating the glucose to begin with, rather than taking something that has over a 30% chance of causing digestive distress, nausea and diarrhea.

While this extract is currently available over the counter, at this time, I do not recommend pursuing this herbal extract as therapy for hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes. The nutritional plan for The Blood Code involves taking the core supplements to prevent deficiency, not some miracle pill that lets you eat your cake too. —Dr. Maurer. The Blood Code (c)

Jun Y, et. al. Efficacy of Berberine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Metabolism. 2008 May; 57(5): 712–717.

Do you know someone the “incretin” drug for type 2 diabetes?

May 20th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

“Safety of Incretin-Based Therapies Hotly Debated”. The headline from WebMD drew my attention. Incretins were part of the treatment that caused more death in the more aggressively “drug-managed” type 2 diabetics. The article begins by stating that researchers express concern about the safety of “incretins” – a class of drugs that raise insulin to lower blood glucose. They do indeed lower glucose but raise the risk of so many diseases that the wisdom of the drug’s use is in question. Your goal, when you follow your Blood Code, is the opposite, it is to lower insulin and improve your insulin sensitivity.

So where is the debate? The article continues, ONE researcher, Dr. Michael A, Nauck, “begs to differ.” One M.D. against years of clinical data makes a debate? I looked up Dr. Nauck’s conflict of interest statement, published on an article from 2012 on WebMD. Is it possible for someone to have millions of dollars of pharmaceutical interest at stake and legitimately provide a debate that impacts your life and medical treatment? Decide for yourself, these are his active conflicts of interest.

Type 2 diabetes is reversible with properly advised dietary and fitness intervention. The scientific community must not put a sugar-coating on a class of drugs that comes with significant if not excessive risk. Conflict of interest aside, the medical industry is here to serve the greater good of the public, right? Right?

Faculty and Disclosures: http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/772418
Michael A. Nauck, MD, PhDServed as an advisor or consultant for: Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Berlin-Chemie AG; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Diartis Pharmaceuticals; Eli Lilly and Company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; GlaxoSmithKline; Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc.; MannKind Corporation; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novo Nordisk; sanofi-aventis; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.; Versartis, Inc.; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Berlin-Chemie AG; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Diartis Pharmaceuticals; Eli Lilly and Company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; GlaxoSmithKline; Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc.; MannKind Corporation; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novo Nordisk; sanofi-aventis; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.; Versartis, Inc.; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Received grants for clinical research from: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Berlin-Chemie AG; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; MetaCure Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novo Nordisk; Roche; Tolerx, Inc.

7 minutes of exercise to reverse insulin resistance on your Blood Code

May 14th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

12resistance exercises in 7 minutesI continually remind people with insulin resistance that aerobic exercise is inadequate to really turn around the metabolic thriftiness that they are so good at. We need 5-10 minutes of resistance exercises after a walk, run or bike ride. A friend and follower of the Blood Code sent me this article from a terrific writer for the New York Times. Rather than hearing the reasons to do the exercise, it helps to see a diagram and just do it. Thanks to Gretchen Reynolds from The Times – http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/

Blood Code Fitness Principles: If you have any insulin resistance, do weight resistance twice per week, and on the other days, put a few resistance/srenuous exercises at the end a walk, even if your walk is only a few minutes long! The most important take home message is “no days off”. This is truest for those with insulin resistance and hypothyroid…fitness is a daily lifestyle not an occasional event. And while you won’t be an elite athlete at 10 minutes per day, you will maintain your healthier life.

–Richard Maurer

Tamoxifen and Evista Recommendation for Cancer Prevention is an Insult to Basic Math

April 17th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

When drug company interests enter preventative medicine….

This week, there was a “expert panel” report from the Annals of Internal Medicine that hormonal drugs taken long term can reduce the incidence of breast cancer. Sounds compelling doesn’t it? If a woman is at higher risk of breast cancer, there is a pill to take. Let’s do the math from the study, ready?
Of 1000 high risk women, 24 would be likely to get cancer within 5-years, this is 2.5%. If all of them took the drug, there would be 8 fewer cases of breast cancer over the 5-years, 1.6% of the women, for a total reduction of less than 1%.

But of the 1000 women who might take the drug, 6-7 would likely develop blood clots and there would be 4 extra cases of uterine cancer. There is also the issue of hot flashes, severe vaginal dryness and accelerated cataracts. Just the extra clots and cancers add up to about 1.1%.
The researchers suggest that doctors could maybe guess who is at lower risk of having a stroke and heart attack and use the drugs on only them. The NYT headline? “Panel Report Urges Breast Cancer Drugs for Healthy Higher Risk Women.”

The insanity that I present is something I confront daily as the drug industries bully their way into preventive wellness. Common drugs that are taken long term include Metformin to prevent diabetes and Statins to lower heart attack risk and aspirin for stroke prevention– These drugs are proven to either shorten your life or add complications without any life extension. Prevention of illness is through your lifestyle, your diet and your nutrition. Know what you are prone to through a smart assessment of blood tests and then find the habits that promote your healthiest expression. There is not a drug for this.

Yours in lifelong wellness,

Dr. Richard Maurer
The Blood Code©

TMAO protein and heart disease silliness.

April 12th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

The headlines have been spinning the wrong story. But spin is good for publishing no matter whether it is right or wrong. People have torn copies of their New York Times for me with questions about the “newly vilified TMAO chemical from red meat.” Let’s see what this study really displays. If you are interested, the study is at: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3145.html

The study headlines were mistakenly about red meat. The study was not at all about red meat, even though the six subjects ate 8-ounces of steak for the test, nothing but lean steak. The study subject was really the human gastrointestinal microbiota. This term refers to the gut bacteria that live inside the human colon. The bacterial landscape is a new and exciting area of study, and there are researchers well on their way to mapping the total microbiota genome. Genetics of these bacteria aside, we fully accept that there is a beneficial and inseparable relationship between our digestion and absorption and the gastrointestinal bacteria. And lo, there is a bacteria that feeds on L-carnitine, a protein found in all animal meats such as fish, poultry and red meat, which produces a compound that can then be turned into another compound in your liver and KaPow – TMAO! You now have a potentially inflammatory compound that can cause vascular disease in rats.

The researcher posits that antibiotics could be a therapy for atherosclerosis treatment.

The silliness starts right there. This is such a wildly preliminary study, the only reason I can see to posit a drug therapy is to gain company funding. Since the steak intake and the L-carnitine capsules are the only medium of intake that has been studied, what is the effect of soluble fiber with meat intake? The anti-atherogenic effect from compounds in vegetables? How about fermented foods, like sauerkraut or crème fraiche to promote GI bacterial health? How do all these traditional dietary factors affect the harmful effects of a nothing-but-meat test diet.

It is not a sensational story to state that we have inseparably co-evolved with the microbiota that is in and on us. So, In light of the newly spun TMAO headlines, my recommendations:

1) Don’t be in the top 10% of meat eaters. Be in the middle.
2) Eat cultured foods at least two meals per day like a couple spoonfuls of sauerkraut or some plain yogurt
3) With any meat serving, assure at least two vegetable servings. This is healthy and part of most traditional cuisine.
4) Fats should be an integral part of any meat intake. The subject of the study is a pure protein; traditional and natural fats in your protein-rich meal prevent the overindulgence of meat proteins.

Thanks for reading
-Dr Maurer of The Blood Code ©

It’s the Excess Processed Meat that Will Kill You…Not the Red Meat!

March 8th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

The headlines just can’t get it right. On my complementary and metabolic medical news subscription, here is the headline that I woke to this morning. “Red and Processed Meat Tied to Early Cancer and Cardiovascular Death.“

I assumed that the headline was written by someone who did not actually read the article,and I believe I was correct in that assumption. I remain in awe that this kind of rubbish journalism can persist. When I linked to the full journal article, the authors’ conclusions were quite clear. Here are the bullet points, all directly quoted from the article.

• In the EPIC cohort, a high consumption of processed meat was related to moderately higher all-cause mortality. After correction for measurement error, red meat intake was no longer associated with mortality, and there was no association with the consumption of poultry.
• Also, several vegetarian studies did not find increased all-cause mortality among non-vegetarians compared with vegetarians
• We observed a consistent association between processed meat consumption and total mortality but not between red meat consumption and total mortality.
• In contrast to the US cohorts, there was no statistically significant association of red meat consumption with risk of cancer or cardiovascular mortality.

They make note that those that are at the highest quintile of processed meat consumption were more likely to be smokers, so that might be confounding. It is noted throughout their study report that the prior US studies combined processed meat and red meat. When viewed separately, red meat is not associated with cancer or cardiovascular disease, especially if researchers control for smoking and lifestyle factors.
What is processed meat? If you buy meat, and it has a list of ingredients on the package, it is processed.
Unprocessed Red meat: Ground hamburger (not leaner than 85%!) – Go where a butcher grinds it fresh. roasts, steaks, lamb cuts, etc.

Processed red meats: sandwich meats (ONE slice of sandwich ham often has a full 600-mg of sodium. A quarter of a days need.), flavored bacon, processed sausages, hot dogs and any meat product that has an ingredient list. Remember, we do not actually know what it is about the processed meat that is a problem, is it the preservatives, the excess salt, the oxidation and degradation of the fats due to aeration and excessive storage times? “Organic” sandwich meat may not be the answer. Seek meats that are real, traditional and without added flavorings, preservatives, sweeteners or excessive salt.

So why do the headlines always demonize red meat? When we assume something is tru, we should heed the quote of Mark Twain, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” We need to end the misinformed color discrimination of meat! Go big Red!

Dr. Richard Maurer
The Blood Code and MaineMetabolism

Rohrmann S, et al. Meat consumption and mortality – results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine 2013 11:63 [http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-11-63.pdf]

A Mediterranean Diet Does What???

February 26th, 2013 by drmaurer No comments »

White beans served daily with a meal in Florentine cuisine, Italy (Small)This study is so wildly over hyped. The NYT even put it on the front page. Older Spaniards who have high heart disease risk, such as smoking, high blood pressure or diabetes, were put in one of three groups. One ate a huge handful of nuts. The other was told to eat 4 TBS of olive oil. But both of these groups were also regularly told to avoid “commercially made cookies, cakes and pastries and to limit their consumption of dairy products and processed meats.” The “control group” was told to eat a low fat diet.

The first two groups were given intensive guidance initially then quarterly meetings with a nutritional team and given gifts of olive oil and “non-food gifts”. The low fat group was given one instructional visit and then received an annual leaflet.

The researchers claim that the low fat group did not comply and the therefore the study design failed. But with 18 doctors listed on the research paper, they were not going to let a failed study…fail. So they made up what they wanted. The failed third-arm of the study, they decided to rename a control group. A control group needs to get the same extraneous treatment as the study group, like quarterly meetings and “non-food gifts”. It is known that diabetics improve their longevity and reduce their complications merely by meeting more frequently with office staff. Prior studies have also shown that it doesn’t even matter what they talk about, just being cared for makes people have less cardiovascular disease.

Maybe a low-fat diet caused an increased incidence of heart disease. Remember, they did ot actually have a control group in the study. Assuring that a 70 year old Spaniard eats 4 TBS of olive oil a day is probably of little change to their normal life. And perhaps the low fat group did make changes and lowered some fat and raised their carbohydrate intake, which raised their risk of stroke.
It is not about whether we “believe” in the Mediterranean diet, it is about good science. For that, the New England Journal of Medicine should be ashamed.

Ramón Estruch, et al. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet. NEJM Feb 25, 2013.

Eric Maurer liked this post