ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS,OMEGAS, SATURATED FATS

Why do "healthy" people die of heart attacks?
(1)

... the culprit is a fatty acid!
...The killer fatty acid is called non-esterified fatty acid, or NEFA for short; if you consume too many omega-6 fats and not enough omega-3 fats, you can end up with all sorts of health problems. But now we know there's a more immediate problem with omega-6 fats: when they're converted to too much NEFA, it can result in a sudden heart attack!...
Taking carnitine and fish oil can stop NEFA and save your life. But there are so many more things you can do... There are safe, natural, inexpensive ways to lower your triclycerides, fibrinogen, homocysteine, and more...You can get these omega-3s by eating walnuts, flaxseeds, leaf lettuce, and cold-water fish. Be careful with the fish, though. Much of it is tainted with mercury and PCBs. The safest bet is to eat wild salmon from Alaska.

After all, even the American Heart Association agrees that Omega 3 fatty acids can help...

Promote healthy heart functions...
Maintain healthy cholesterol levels...
Keep your blood pressure right where it's supposed to be...
Support a healthy cardiovascular system...


*******************
On a related note: a blog entry on how to decrease blood viscosity thinning blood
(2)

To thin the blood naturally making blood pressure much less a problem, and blood lipids not so much of a problem *Curry powder *Cayenne pepper *Ginger*Paprika *Thyme *Cinnamon *Dill *Oregano *Turmeric *Licorice *Peppermint.
Cayenne and cinnamon help to thin the blood and heat us up too, but you could try this instead:Chocolate and turmeric. Not since the love story of Shah Jahan and his beloved Mumtal, for whom he constructed the Taj Mahal, has such an intriguing union come out of India. Before you quickly dismiss it as too strange for your taste buds, consider this: India boasts a much lower-than-average incidence of age-related memory decline, and health experts are attributing it to the abundant use of turmeric in their cuisine. The health benefits don’t stop at the top, either. Trickling all the way down to the very tips of your toes, fragrant turmeric promotes healthy circulation and antioxidant protection for every one of the cells, while simultaneously warming and soothing the joints. With such compelling facts as these, the wise course for each one of us is to look for creative ways to incorporate more of it into the diet.
This month we’re taking the chill out of winter by turning up the heat on hot cocoa, In the South American tradition of mixing the cacao bean with hot spices.

******************

(3)

Deficiencies in EFAs can lead to reduced growth, a scaly rash called dermatitis, infertility, and lack of ability to fight infection and heal wounds. Lack of omega-6 fatty acids, however, is extremely rare in diets of those living in certain Western countries, particularly the United States, as well as Israel. In fact, North American and Israeli diets tend to have too much omega-6, particularly in relation to omega-3 fatty acids. This imbalance contributes to long-term diseases such as heart disease, cancer, asthma, arthritis, and depression. A healthy diet should consist of roughly one omega-3 fatty acids to four omega-6 fatty acids. A typical American diet, however, tends to contain 11 to 30 times more omega-6 than omega-3 fatty acids.
In contrast, a Mediterranean diet is made up of a healthier and more appropriate balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. The Mediterranean diet includes a generous amount of whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, olive oil, and garlic; plus, there is little meat, which is high in omega-6 fatty acids.
There are several different types of omega-6 fatty acids. Most omega-6 fatty acids are consumed in the diet from vegetable oils as linoleic acid (LA; be careful not to confuse this with alpha-linolenic acid [ALA] which is an omega-3 fatty acid). Linoleic acid is converted to gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) in the body and then further broken down to arachidonic acid (AA). AA can also be consumed directly from meat, and GLA can be ingested from several plant-based oils including evening primrose oil (EPO), borage oil, and black currant seed oil.

A better balance of Omega-3 and Omega-6 should be four[even five]-to-one
Currently in our modern diets:
(4)

It is estimated that in the current average western diet this ratio lies at 20 'Omega 6' :1 'Omega 3' or five times more Omega 6 than there should be. The proportion of Omega 6 is provided in the form of linoleic acid from cooking oils and vegetable margarine usually made from safflower, sunflower, corn or soyabeans. This is not to say that we all eat too much Omega 6 - many people are believed to be deficient in Omega 6, especially if they have not converted to using vegetable oils or margarine instead of the dairy alternatives.* see note below

*NOTE: I do not recommend the use of any cooking oils, if you must use an oil, use coconut oil, all others become toxic when heated, THAT INCLUDES OLIVE OIL, use only uncooked olive oils. [actually olive oil and garlic on salad is very healthy]

Too much animal fats, polyunsaturated and trans fats lead to illnesses that doctors prescribe drugs for, which often make the situation so much worse.

excessive levels of Omega 3 may reduce blood clotting time
excessive levels of Omega 6 increases the risk of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD).

So moderation and balance is Key! Eat healthy, raw locally grown whole fods and non-medicated range-fed meats, lots of healthy pure water and you will be so healthy!

SOURCES
(1)http://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/heartattack/
(2)http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/2007/12/thinning-no-not-hair-blood.html
(3)http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/omega-6-000317.htm
(4)http://www.vibrantlife.co.uk/health_information/general/nutrition_deficiency_essential_vitamin_minerals.asp

It's a start

My daughter, Meredyth Warren from Long Beach, California, the pharmacist's assistant who is in college to be a pharmacist and doesn't believe in Natural Medicine wrote this:

Fatal Drug Advertising:
The Lessons of Vioxx

In 2000, pharmaceutical giant Merck spent $160 million on DTC (direct-to-consumer) advertising for its newly approved prescription arthritis drug Vioxx. That figure tops the expenditures of Pepsi and Budweiser each that year to promote their top products (National Institute for Healthcare Management 5). This advertising blitz started just months after the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) had approved Vioxx (Abramson 23). Advertising works. By the end of 2000, Vioxx sales reached $1.5 billion (National Institute for Healthcare Management 2). In the ensuing few years, troubling evidence regarding the severe and potentially fatal side-effects of Vioxx began to emerge, including studies showing that Vioxx might double the chances of heart attacks and or strokes (Abramson 35). Merck continued to advertise Vioxx to everyone, even after being reprimanded more than once by the FDA for not including a fair representation of this important information in their ads (Abramson 32). Merck eventually discontinued sales of Vioxx voluntarily in 2004(Burke 1753). This action came too late for many consumers. As noted by healthcare ethicist Leonard J. Weber, by the time that Vioxx was pulled, there were already millions of people taking it at serious risk to their health (2). While the exact number of patients adversely affected by Vioxx is still unknown, in a study of drugs belonging to the same family as Vioxx (known as COX-2 inhibitors) it was concluded by Dr. Campen, et al. that the drug Vioxx alone could have been responsible for over 100,000 serious heart attacks and strokes in the few years it was on the market (479). If the FDA continues to allow drug companies to advertise their prescription products to consumers, it is obvious that changes in policy are necessary in order to protect the public. The Vioxx debacle clearly shows the glaring inadequacies in the current FDA regulations of DTC prescription drug advertising.
Once a drug has been approved by the FDA, no waiting period currently exists to prevent that drug from being marketed to consumers immediately. This proved to be especially problematic in the case of Vioxx. In an article this year for Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, authors Bell and Kravitz conclude that DTC advertising can be most dangerous when it involves newly approved drugs that have not had time enough on the market to prove themselves. Often, the risks of a new drug aren’t apparent until it has been given to enough people to evaluate its dangers (361). They go on to propose that a newly approved prescription drug should be given 2 years to prove itself as both effective and safe before it is marketed to consumers. This waiting period would allow physicians some time to become more familiar with the drug and its limitations when compared to other therapies that are already available (361). Mass marketing of Vioxx before its risks and limitations could be assessed, caused unnecessary injury and death. As Dr. John Abramson points out, Vioxx was prescribed to far too many people. The drug should have been limited to arthritic patients on steroids, who had no history of cardiovascular disease, and who had exhibited adverse stomach problems while taking NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) such as Naproxen (36). This is a far cry from what actually happened in the Vioxx case. Patients were asking for Vioxx, and being prescribed it, for any type of ache and pain imaginable. The pharmaceutical industry may complain that a two year moratorium on DTC after the drug is approved is an unfair burden, but as Drs. Bell and Kravitz point out, a waiting period may be advantageous for the drug industry as well. “A [2 year] moratorium reduces the inherent financial liabilities that accompany the mass adoption of understudied new drugs“(361). Merck may just agree in light of the ongoing court battles it faces because of Vioxx. As Todd Zwillich reports in an article for The Lancet, Merck has reserved $675 million to fight lawsuits resulting from Vioxx that could lead eventually to losses in the billions of dollars (1673).
DTC marketing of prescription drugs began a decade ago, when the FDA relaxed its restrictions (Nelson 25). At that time, the FDA thought that the restrictions in place would be sufficient to protect the public. The FDA would have the power of regulatory letters to admonish companies running misleading ads, and force them to pull such ads from the airwaves. However, in a report by the GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office), it was noted that the FDA’s method of admonishing drug companies for false or misleading advertising fell far short of what was necessary to protect the public (2). The letters, which are meant to force companies to comply with regulations, can do nothing more than force the company to pull the ad that violates FDA regulations. The GAO found that it took the FDA an average of 8 months to issue such a letter. This was too late in most cases to stop the ad in question. The letters also couldn’t prevent the same company from running similar and just as misleading ads in the future (7). Vioxx is a good example of how little power the FDA‘s regulatory letters have. According to Dr. John Abramson, the FDA sent two regulatory letters to Merck regarding their Vioxx ads. The first letter was issued in 2000 and accused Merck of putting out ads that misrepresented Vioxx, namely that Merck’s ads didn’t give sufficient weight to evidence that the drug could have potentially dangerous cardiovascular side effects. The second, in 2001, came after a press release entitled “Merck Confirms Cardiovascular Safety Profile of Vioxx”. The FDA was particularly upset with Merck for putting out this press release considering that they had already warned the company the previous year about their misleading ads (36). Merck‘s response was to continue to aggressively push Vioxx on unsuspecting consumers even in the face of repeated admonishments by the FDA, and with the knowledge that their product could possibly cause undue harm. The FDA needs better tools at its disposal to deal with DTC ads that mislead consumers. The FDA should have the ability adequately deal with drug companies that refuse to follow the law. Instead of issuing hollow warnings, a drug company in violation of FDA rules could be warned once, then be imposed monetary fines if they continued to run false or misleading advertisements for their products.
Since the FDA changed its guidelines in 1997, DTC advertising has exploded. According to the GAO, over $4 billion was spent in 2005 by drug companies in DTC advertising alone (5). Consumers are being bombarded daily by radio and television ads that encourage them to “ask their Doctor” if a particular drug is “right for them”. There is no question that these ads work. What can be questioned, however, is whether there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect the public from undue harm resulting from the drugs that these ads are touting. The drug companies may cry foul if told that they cannot advertise their newly approved drugs to everyone with a television or radio, but the lessons of Vioxx should not be ignored. No drug should be considered safe enough to be advertised to the masses until it has been on the market long enough to assess its true risks. Then, once DTC advertising of a new drug starts, the FDA needs to act swiftly and strongly to curtail misleading ads so as to assure the safety of the American public.

K.
I asked her to lambast Gardasil next.