Dr Dingle the public health advocate
In his role over the last 25 years as a public health advocate Dr Dingle has ruffled many feathers, particularly on his stance against large pharmaceutical and junk food companies. As a result it is not unexpected that there are a lot of myths floating around about Dr Peter Dingle’s qualifications and so called sceptics on the internet trying to denigrate him. As a public health advocate Dr Dingle has been campaigning for truth in health on topics including processed breakfast foods, food additives, pesticide use, toxic chemicals in the home, heavy metal contamination and toxic pharmaceuticals for a long time. As a result of this he has been threatened and abused many times, but continues to stand up for what is right based on the evidence.
Dr Dingle’s Degrees
Dr Peter Dingle has a 4 year Bachelor of Education in science with a sub major in physical education dating back 3 decades. As a result in the early eighties Dr Dingle taught human biology and health education in year 12 and physical education and science throughout the years in high schools around Australia.
Dr Dingle’s second degree is a Bachelor of Environmental Science from Murdoch University and first class honours. Dr Dingle’s honours project was on the topic of exposure and health effects of pesticides used for termite control in WA. In 1994 Dr Dingle completed a PhD also at Murdoch University on the topic of health effects of chemicals and toxins people are exposed to in their home. Since then Dr Dingle continued to research in the area of health and the environment.
Dr Dingle’s teaching and research
Dr Dingle has held a teaching position at Murdoch University (where he obtained his later 2 degrees) teaching “Pollutants and Toxicology” and “Health and the Environment” since 1989 and coordinating the degree program in Health and the Environment.
Since taking on his academic position at Murdoch University Dr Dingle has had more than 25 honours students (full time research for a year), half a dozen Masters students (6 months to 2 years) and 4 PhD students (3-5 years) have graduate under Dr Dingle’s leadership.
In addition he has supervised literally thousands of undergraduate students over the years in their study of health and the environment and the topics they have written their essays which range from pesticides and pharmaceuticals to nutritional illnesses and cancer. Many of Dr Dingle’s undergraduate student have inspired his work as a public advocate. The latest was Nadia Uink and her original research on cholesterol deception lead to the research and publication of the book by the same name by Dr Dingle with Nadia as a co-author. Many of Dr Dingle’s students have also gone on to work in various careers in health and the environment from state and federal health authorities to careers in occupation health with large mining companies.
Beyond just a degree
A qualification however is not just an undergraduate degree. In fact most academics do not have qualifications specific to a narrow undergraduate area. They create new fields of research as a tangent to our earlier studies. That is why they stand at the cutting edge of their field. If they only accepted undergraduate or even PhDs as a qualification then at least 50% of academics would have no qualifications in the area they teach and research and are so called expert in, maybe even as many as 90%. For example, one professor of sustainable agriculture has a degree in biochemistry, not agriculture or sustainabilty. Another one has a degree in physics and is recognised as one of Australia's leading researchers in climate change, another professor teachers environmental management and did his undergraduate degree in botany. Peter Newman a well know professor in Sustainability did his original degree in organic lead chemistry, John Bailey the current Dean of Environmental Science did his degree in chemistry and started the course at Murdoch University in environmental law and impact assessment. Very few if any of the toxicologists working for the government have any actual qualification in toxicology. Usually it is biology, biochemistry or chemistry. A far cry from toxicology. And so the list goes on. David Suzuki a well-known environmentalist has a degree in biology and PhD in genetics. It is really what academics do in their research that builds their credibility in the field.
20 years of research and teaching is much greater than a simple undergraduate degree or diploma. Academics, like Dr Dingle live their profession, surrounding themselves with all the information, research and people to help you be a leader in the chosen field.
Dr Dingle has also been scoffed at because he is not a medical doctor but he is writing and speaking about health. On the contrary many doctors comment on nutrition and some adds on television suggest to go and see your doctor for health advice yet very few have any qualification in nutrition or lifestyle matters related to health, even worse they did not study it in any of their 5 years at university. This is compared to Dr Dingle’s 10 years of study at University on the topic and 20 years plus as a researcher in this field. There is extensive research in the scientific publications showing GP training has little or no nutrition. Even better just ask your doctor or look at their title on the wall. The leading GP health speakers in the country have no research or qualifications in nutrition or health. They are great at what they do but Medicine is not health.
While Dr Dingle began his research in environmental toxicology and the health effects of exposure to toxic substances, for the past 15 years, along with dozens of graduate research students (honours and PhD), and hundreds of hours of teaching and undergraduate research students and their essays he has been researching areas in nutritional toxicology from food additives, toxic effects of medications, foods and food labelling and healthy digestion and probiotics. This transition was natural because it deals with many of the same concepts. For example what is nutritious at one level is toxic at another, you have the same exposure routes and it is the same basic biochemistry and physiology. Both areas are quite similar and have a lot of overlap.
Nutritional toxicology is the study of nutritional and food substances and their contribution to or reduction of toxic effects on the human body. For example what are some of the toxic effects of some of the components of milk or the toxic effects of animal proteins. As well as the role nutrients have in the reduction of the effects of toxic substances. It became apparent that you cannot just study toxicology without studying the other side of the same equation.
To put the concept of research into perspective when Dr Dingle researches a topic it can be dozens or even hundreds of hours. For example, along with one of Dr Dingle’s students has been researching cholesterol together for the past 2 years. Not may other people if any in the country can make that claim.
Dr Peter Dingle has spoken at many international and national conferences as an expert on health. In January 2011 he spoke at an international conference in the US on health and wellbeing and was asked to be a key note speaker by the organiser for a conference later in the year on “Food and health”. At a national level Dr Dingle has been a keynote speaker at more than 20 professional conferences speaking on health and wellbeing. Including medical and veterinary conferences in Western Australia.
In the second half of 2011 Dr Dingle has been invited to run a course on nutritional medicine for fifth year chiropractic students at Murdoch University where he has done all his research and teaching for the past 20+ years. It is worth noting here that chiropractic students do significantly more on nutrition in their degree than do GPs.
Some examples of research Dr Dingle has carried out includes
Research reports
Breakfast foods
Yoghurt and probiotic
Food labelling
Soft Drinks
Research students Thesis topic on
Cholesterol
Allergies and asthma
Food labelling
Breakfast foods
Grain consumption and breakfast foods
Nutritional qualities of take home dinners
Allergy and probiotics
Pesticides and health
Vaccinations
Developing health lifestyle programs (including living smart and seniors smart with my PhD students)
Healthy ageing (PhD)
Developing a health, environment and lifestyle program (PhD)
Effect of indoor air quality on causes and symptoms of asthma (PhD)
University text books Dr Dingle has written
Second and third year text books on:
Pollution and toxicology
Pollutants and the human environment
Health and the environment
Dr Dingle is currently writing a text book on
Nutritional and environmental toxicology (due 2011)
Workplace Wellness (Due 2012)
Public Essays (all referenced to scientific journals) on nutritional and environmental toxicology including:
Vitamin D
Milk the poison
Milk and calcium
Salt
Allergies and probiotics
Life expectancy
Meat
Mould
Sick homes and toxic chemicals
Probiotics
Cholesterol
Statin drugs
Medical research bias
Corrupt drug companies
Chocolate
Kids chemicals and cancer
Breakfast junk foods
Multiple Sclerosis
Vitamin D
Non ionising radiation
Organic food
Slow eating
Books
Dr Dingle currently has 8 books in print including
My Dog Eats Better Than Your Kids
The 6 week healthy eating planner
The great cholesterol deception
Scientific publications
Dr Dingle has more than 100 scientific papers published of which 90% or more relate to one aspect or another to health. For more information on this go to his profile at the Murdoch University website.
Thank god he is not a medical doctor
Finally it should be noted that Dr Dingle is not a medical doctor and has never said he is a medical doctor. Dr Dingle has a PhD which took 4 years of full time research after his initial degrees. A medical “doctor” has an honorary doctorate bestowed after completing a Masters on them while they practice medicine. When they stop practicing they can no longer claim to be a Dr. Dr Dingle has a complete doctorate which is a title he has all his life. So when the media says Dr Dingle does not have a medical degree they fail to acknowledge Dr Dingle will remain a Dr in the true sense of the qualification always.
Only a fool would say Dr Dingle has no qualifications in health.
To see some of Dr Dingle’s articles visit
Vitamin D
Raw eating
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Great feed back from a follower
Dear Peter
After I got your newsletter about your book & Dr. Kendrick's book, I decided to order them from our local library (Mandurah). Had to wait a little bit for Dr. Kendrick's, but when I read it, I found it a bit technical (I am not from a medical/nursing background), but very interesting. However, I had to wait quite a while for your book, and finally it came in about 6 weeks ago. Our local library must have got it in especially for me - I was the first person to borrow it the Librarian said!! Your book was much easier to read for a lay person, and as I had it out for a month (and read it in 3 nights) I lent it to a friend who also enjoyed it. Now I'm going to give 2 of my cousins (from Balcatta and Noranda) the name of your book so that they can order it from their libraries. I've dallied a bit doing this as their libraries will probably borrow it from the Mandurah Library; Dr. Kendrick's book came from another library, and that's why I had to wait a couple of weeks.
I started taking medicine for cholesterol back in 1990 and my husband was very annoyed that I took it - had just shifted down from Kalgoorlie to Mandurah and went to the doctor to have a skin cancer removed, and he put me onto medicine for cholesterol (which was a bit high) and menopause (which I didn't need)!! However, when my husband died early in 1992 I found I was forgetting to take both medicines and 3 weeks after he died I gathered up all his medicines and what was left of both of mine and took them to the chemist to dispose of. When I have told friends what I did they all say I should not have stopped taking them instantly, should have slowly decreased the dosage. But, I'll tell you what, it didn't make one scrap of difference to me just stopping. However after reading your book I realise that it has affected me by depleting my CoQ10 and since I have been taking that over the past 16 months I feel so much better; but didn't really realise this until I read your book.
My late husband and I were both into alternative medicine, though I did listen to that registered doctor in 1990. But since he died I have really got more into alternative medicine and feel better for it. I'm sure my vitamin tablets are far better for me than drug medicines. I had to have a shoulder operation 2 years ago and the nurse admitting me at St. John of God Hospital in Subiaco, couldn't believe I didn't take a drug medicine of any type at my age (I will be 73 in a couple of weeks).
I belong to OSWA and went to the February meeting, which you were not able to make. The talk went off very well even though you were not there. I know it's a bit late but I wish to convey my sympathies to you on the passing of your dear mother.
Yours sincerely
Margaret Green
Silver Sands.
After I got your newsletter about your book & Dr. Kendrick's book, I decided to order them from our local library (Mandurah). Had to wait a little bit for Dr. Kendrick's, but when I read it, I found it a bit technical (I am not from a medical/nursing background), but very interesting. However, I had to wait quite a while for your book, and finally it came in about 6 weeks ago. Our local library must have got it in especially for me - I was the first person to borrow it the Librarian said!! Your book was much easier to read for a lay person, and as I had it out for a month (and read it in 3 nights) I lent it to a friend who also enjoyed it. Now I'm going to give 2 of my cousins (from Balcatta and Noranda) the name of your book so that they can order it from their libraries. I've dallied a bit doing this as their libraries will probably borrow it from the Mandurah Library; Dr. Kendrick's book came from another library, and that's why I had to wait a couple of weeks.
I started taking medicine for cholesterol back in 1990 and my husband was very annoyed that I took it - had just shifted down from Kalgoorlie to Mandurah and went to the doctor to have a skin cancer removed, and he put me onto medicine for cholesterol (which was a bit high) and menopause (which I didn't need)!! However, when my husband died early in 1992 I found I was forgetting to take both medicines and 3 weeks after he died I gathered up all his medicines and what was left of both of mine and took them to the chemist to dispose of. When I have told friends what I did they all say I should not have stopped taking them instantly, should have slowly decreased the dosage. But, I'll tell you what, it didn't make one scrap of difference to me just stopping. However after reading your book I realise that it has affected me by depleting my CoQ10 and since I have been taking that over the past 16 months I feel so much better; but didn't really realise this until I read your book.
My late husband and I were both into alternative medicine, though I did listen to that registered doctor in 1990. But since he died I have really got more into alternative medicine and feel better for it. I'm sure my vitamin tablets are far better for me than drug medicines. I had to have a shoulder operation 2 years ago and the nurse admitting me at St. John of God Hospital in Subiaco, couldn't believe I didn't take a drug medicine of any type at my age (I will be 73 in a couple of weeks).
I belong to OSWA and went to the February meeting, which you were not able to make. The talk went off very well even though you were not there. I know it's a bit late but I wish to convey my sympathies to you on the passing of your dear mother.
Yours sincerely
Margaret Green
Silver Sands.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
More Deception
The studies on statins also report “relative risk,” not “absolute risk” or “real risk.” The relative risk reduction is highly misleading (5,6,7,8,9) if not deceptive. An example of relative risk is: if you have four people in a study who die in the placebo group (no drug) compared to three people who die in the drug treatment group—that is, four were expected to die but with the drug only three did—then there is a 25% relative risk reduction. However, to get this effect of saving one life you would have to treat 1,000 people and the real risk reduction is 0.1%. Relative risk is like adding 1+1 to get 11 or 2+5 to get 25 or more. How can the pharmaceutical companies and the researchers working for them get away with this? This is probably because (at least in my experience) most people are afraid of statistics.
In studies by the Medical Research Council dating back to the late 1980s, researchers found that of 1,000 men ranging in age from 35 to 64 who received treatment for mild hypertension over five years, there were six fewer strokes and two fewer cardiovascular events than would be expected.(10,11) The real risk reduction over five years was 0.9%. Ten years later, a study of Pravachol® was released in the media, with much fanfare, as having a 22% drop (relative risk, not real risk) in mortality. However, when one looks at the numbers and statistics behind the calculations, treating 1,000 middle-aged men who had hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) and no evidence of a previous myocardial infarction with pravastatin for five years resulted in seven fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes, and two fewer deaths from other causes than would be expected in the absence of treatment.(12) The real risk reduction, however, was a mere 0.9%, less than 1% or nine lives out of 1,000 when treated for five years. The research was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical (West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study). Conservatively, put another way, researchers treated 1,000 people for five years at a total cost of over $5 million to save seven people from CVD. One might wish to compare this to the cost and efficacy of adopting healthy lifestyle choices.
In the Heart Protection Study in the United Kingdom, more than 20,000 participants aged 40 to 80 years with high risk of cardiovascular disease but average-to-low levels of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were treated with 40mg daily of simvastatin (marketed under several trade names including Zocor). Of 20,500+ study participants, 577 on statins died from a heart attack, 701 not treated died from a heart attack. That is a 25% relative risk reduction over five years. Sounds good, doesn’t it? The real percentage improvement is actually 1.7%. Over the five-year study(13), they saved 25 people per year in a high-risk population with previous cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, renal impairment or diabetes. These are seriously ill people and the researchers still achieved a benefit of only 1.7%. Researchers neglected to mention that around 30,000 people were not allowed in or dropped from the study and not counted in the percentage of people with side effects. There were 10,269 people on statins and 10,267 people on a placebo.(14)
A study of 90,056 participants combining 14 randomised trials looked at the best outcome for people who had pre-existing conditions: 47% had pre-existing chronic heart disease, 21% had a history of diabetes and 55% a history of hypertension. The death rate was 8.5% among the statin group compared to 9.7% in the control group. This difference represents 1.2% (15).
The well-known JUPITER study compared a placebo group to a statin-taking group. The study found that there were 68 heart attacks in the placebo group and 31 heart attacks in the drug treatment group—a 58% relative risk reduction. There were 64 strokes in the placebo group, compared to 33 strokes in the treatment group, a relative risk reduction of 48% (16). Sounds good, doesn’t it? However, the drug treatment group had 8,901 participants in it. In real terms, the heart attack risk went from a very low 0.76% to 0.35% and the risk of stroke went from 0.72% to 0.37%. Effectively, if you treat 300 people with expensive and dangerous drugs you might save one life. Under the best possible scenario, the real risk reduction was well under one half of one percent. The real risk reduction of consuming a handful of raw mixed nuts is much higher. It is interesting to note that one of the risk factors used to select the participants in the study was C- Reactive Protein (CRP) an indicator of inflammation, the real cause of CVD.
In an independent assessment of the same statistics in 2010 titled “Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER Controversy. A Critical Reappraisal “ by Michel de Lorgeril and her 8 colleagues found that “the JUPITER Study” was severely flawed (17). This recent analysis did a careful and independent review of both results and methods used in the Jupiter Study and reported that the “trial was flawed”. In an unprecedented attack on the study they (scientist other than myself usually don’t say boo even when it is serious) stated that “The possibility that bias entered the trial is particularly concerning because of the strong commercial interest in the study.” In other words the big pharmaceutical money influenced the study. And concluded "The results of the trial do not support the use of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and raise troubling questions concerning the role of commercial sponsors.” This is a scathing attack in scientific terms of the earlier drug company sponsored study. Scientist do not go out of their way to create waves but these ones have not just found different results but also criticised the earlier studies link with pharmaceutical industry. It highlights not only that the studies don’t show any significant results but these studies and the education of our doctors is strongly influenced by the drug companies.(18)
More recently, a study reported in the BMJ was a meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials of about 70,000 people followed for an average of four years. In these trials, people with risk factors for cardiovascular disease but no history of existing disease were randomized to receive statins or no treatment. The relative risk reduction was 12% for total mortality, 30% for coronary event and 19% for a cerebrovascular event (stroke). However, the real risk reduction was 0.6%, 1.3% and 0.4% respectively. The actual number needed to treat to save one life was 167. Despite this outcome the authors of the study concluded, “In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly (statistical not clinical) improved survival and large (statistical) reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events.” (“emphasis added.”). In fact, the authors had significant associations with the drug companies and failed to mention it was statistically significant but not clinically significant. Again, busy medical professionals tend to read only the abstracts; claims like this are pretty convincing, though very misleading.
More telling however, is the latest findings in June 2010 where two major independent studies, one the re analysis of the Jupiter Study reported above and the other “A Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229 Participants” (don’t worry about the title) by Ray Kausik and 6 other independent researchers. The study, wait for it, found the use of statins in high-risk individuals was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality. That is, they don’t save lives. Their data combined from 11 studies with 65 229 participants followed for approximately 244 000 person-years, a very big study, reported that this “meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.” In other words they don’t save lives even in a high risk group. Even if you have all the elevated risk factors these drugs don’t work.
How many more studies to we need to do to show these drugs don’t work.
(5) Fidan, D., B. Unal, et al. (2007). "Economic analysis of treatments reducing coronary heart disease mortality in England and Wales, 2000–2010." QJM 100: 277-289.
(6) Franco, O.H., A. Peeters, et al. (2005). "Cost effectiveness of statins in coronary heart disease." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 927-933.
(7) Franco, O.H., E.W. Steyerberg, et al. (2006). "Effectiveness calculation in economic analysis: the case of statins for cardiovascular disease prevention." Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 60: 839-845.
(8) Capewell, S. (2008). "Will screening individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events deliver large benefits? No." British Medical Journal 337: a1395.
(9) Nuovo, J., J. Melnikow, et al. (2002). "Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials." Journal of American Medical Association 287: 2813-2814.
(10) Medical Research Council Working Party (1985). "MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results." British Medical Journal 291: 97-104.
(11) Miall, W.E. and G. Greenberg (1987). Mild Hypertension: Is There Pressure to Treat? An account of the MRC trial. New York, Cambridge University Press.
(12) Shepherd, J., S.M. Cobbe, et al. (1996). "Prevention of coronary heart disease with Pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia." New England Journal of Medicine 333: 1301-1307.
(13) Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group (2002). "MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: A randomised placebo-controlled trial." Lancet 360: 7-22.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaborators, C. Baigent, et al. (2005). "Efficacy and safety of cholesterol lowering treatment: Prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins." Lancet 366: 1267-1278.
(16) Ridker, P.M., E. Danielson, et al. (2008). "Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein." New England Journal of Medicine 359(21): 2195-2207.
(17) Ray, K.K., S.R.K. Seshasai, et al. (2010). "Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants." Archives of Internal Medicine 170(12): 1024-1031.
(18) de Lorgeril, M., P. Salen, et al. (2010). "Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy: A critical reappraisal." Archives of Internal Medicine 170(12): 1032-1036.
In studies by the Medical Research Council dating back to the late 1980s, researchers found that of 1,000 men ranging in age from 35 to 64 who received treatment for mild hypertension over five years, there were six fewer strokes and two fewer cardiovascular events than would be expected.(10,11) The real risk reduction over five years was 0.9%. Ten years later, a study of Pravachol® was released in the media, with much fanfare, as having a 22% drop (relative risk, not real risk) in mortality. However, when one looks at the numbers and statistics behind the calculations, treating 1,000 middle-aged men who had hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) and no evidence of a previous myocardial infarction with pravastatin for five years resulted in seven fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes, and two fewer deaths from other causes than would be expected in the absence of treatment.(12) The real risk reduction, however, was a mere 0.9%, less than 1% or nine lives out of 1,000 when treated for five years. The research was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical (West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study). Conservatively, put another way, researchers treated 1,000 people for five years at a total cost of over $5 million to save seven people from CVD. One might wish to compare this to the cost and efficacy of adopting healthy lifestyle choices.
In the Heart Protection Study in the United Kingdom, more than 20,000 participants aged 40 to 80 years with high risk of cardiovascular disease but average-to-low levels of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were treated with 40mg daily of simvastatin (marketed under several trade names including Zocor). Of 20,500+ study participants, 577 on statins died from a heart attack, 701 not treated died from a heart attack. That is a 25% relative risk reduction over five years. Sounds good, doesn’t it? The real percentage improvement is actually 1.7%. Over the five-year study(13), they saved 25 people per year in a high-risk population with previous cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, renal impairment or diabetes. These are seriously ill people and the researchers still achieved a benefit of only 1.7%. Researchers neglected to mention that around 30,000 people were not allowed in or dropped from the study and not counted in the percentage of people with side effects. There were 10,269 people on statins and 10,267 people on a placebo.(14)
A study of 90,056 participants combining 14 randomised trials looked at the best outcome for people who had pre-existing conditions: 47% had pre-existing chronic heart disease, 21% had a history of diabetes and 55% a history of hypertension. The death rate was 8.5% among the statin group compared to 9.7% in the control group. This difference represents 1.2% (15).
The well-known JUPITER study compared a placebo group to a statin-taking group. The study found that there were 68 heart attacks in the placebo group and 31 heart attacks in the drug treatment group—a 58% relative risk reduction. There were 64 strokes in the placebo group, compared to 33 strokes in the treatment group, a relative risk reduction of 48% (16). Sounds good, doesn’t it? However, the drug treatment group had 8,901 participants in it. In real terms, the heart attack risk went from a very low 0.76% to 0.35% and the risk of stroke went from 0.72% to 0.37%. Effectively, if you treat 300 people with expensive and dangerous drugs you might save one life. Under the best possible scenario, the real risk reduction was well under one half of one percent. The real risk reduction of consuming a handful of raw mixed nuts is much higher. It is interesting to note that one of the risk factors used to select the participants in the study was C- Reactive Protein (CRP) an indicator of inflammation, the real cause of CVD.
In an independent assessment of the same statistics in 2010 titled “Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER Controversy. A Critical Reappraisal “ by Michel de Lorgeril and her 8 colleagues found that “the JUPITER Study” was severely flawed (17). This recent analysis did a careful and independent review of both results and methods used in the Jupiter Study and reported that the “trial was flawed”. In an unprecedented attack on the study they (scientist other than myself usually don’t say boo even when it is serious) stated that “The possibility that bias entered the trial is particularly concerning because of the strong commercial interest in the study.” In other words the big pharmaceutical money influenced the study. And concluded "The results of the trial do not support the use of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and raise troubling questions concerning the role of commercial sponsors.” This is a scathing attack in scientific terms of the earlier drug company sponsored study. Scientist do not go out of their way to create waves but these ones have not just found different results but also criticised the earlier studies link with pharmaceutical industry. It highlights not only that the studies don’t show any significant results but these studies and the education of our doctors is strongly influenced by the drug companies.(18)
More recently, a study reported in the BMJ was a meta-analysis of 10 randomized clinical trials of about 70,000 people followed for an average of four years. In these trials, people with risk factors for cardiovascular disease but no history of existing disease were randomized to receive statins or no treatment. The relative risk reduction was 12% for total mortality, 30% for coronary event and 19% for a cerebrovascular event (stroke). However, the real risk reduction was 0.6%, 1.3% and 0.4% respectively. The actual number needed to treat to save one life was 167. Despite this outcome the authors of the study concluded, “In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly (statistical not clinical) improved survival and large (statistical) reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events.” (“emphasis added.”). In fact, the authors had significant associations with the drug companies and failed to mention it was statistically significant but not clinically significant. Again, busy medical professionals tend to read only the abstracts; claims like this are pretty convincing, though very misleading.
More telling however, is the latest findings in June 2010 where two major independent studies, one the re analysis of the Jupiter Study reported above and the other “A Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229 Participants” (don’t worry about the title) by Ray Kausik and 6 other independent researchers. The study, wait for it, found the use of statins in high-risk individuals was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality. That is, they don’t save lives. Their data combined from 11 studies with 65 229 participants followed for approximately 244 000 person-years, a very big study, reported that this “meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.” In other words they don’t save lives even in a high risk group. Even if you have all the elevated risk factors these drugs don’t work.
How many more studies to we need to do to show these drugs don’t work.
(5) Fidan, D., B. Unal, et al. (2007). "Economic analysis of treatments reducing coronary heart disease mortality in England and Wales, 2000–2010." QJM 100: 277-289.
(6) Franco, O.H., A. Peeters, et al. (2005). "Cost effectiveness of statins in coronary heart disease." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 927-933.
(7) Franco, O.H., E.W. Steyerberg, et al. (2006). "Effectiveness calculation in economic analysis: the case of statins for cardiovascular disease prevention." Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 60: 839-845.
(8) Capewell, S. (2008). "Will screening individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events deliver large benefits? No." British Medical Journal 337: a1395.
(9) Nuovo, J., J. Melnikow, et al. (2002). "Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials." Journal of American Medical Association 287: 2813-2814.
(10) Medical Research Council Working Party (1985). "MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results." British Medical Journal 291: 97-104.
(11) Miall, W.E. and G. Greenberg (1987). Mild Hypertension: Is There Pressure to Treat? An account of the MRC trial. New York, Cambridge University Press.
(12) Shepherd, J., S.M. Cobbe, et al. (1996). "Prevention of coronary heart disease with Pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia." New England Journal of Medicine 333: 1301-1307.
(13) Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group (2002). "MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: A randomised placebo-controlled trial." Lancet 360: 7-22.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaborators, C. Baigent, et al. (2005). "Efficacy and safety of cholesterol lowering treatment: Prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins." Lancet 366: 1267-1278.
(16) Ridker, P.M., E. Danielson, et al. (2008). "Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein." New England Journal of Medicine 359(21): 2195-2207.
(17) Ray, K.K., S.R.K. Seshasai, et al. (2010). "Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants." Archives of Internal Medicine 170(12): 1024-1031.
(18) de Lorgeril, M., P. Salen, et al. (2010). "Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy: A critical reappraisal." Archives of Internal Medicine 170(12): 1032-1036.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Statin Statistics: Lies and Deception
In an independent meta-analysis (when a number of studies are put together to achieve more statistical power) of randomized controlled trials in patients without CVD, statin therapy decreased the incidence of major coronary and cerebrovascular events and revascularizations but not coronary heart disease or overall mortality.(1) Taking statins for a number of years will not reduce mortality: “Primary prevention with statins provides only small and clinically hardly relevant improvement of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality.”(2) “Hardly relevant” means there is virtually no clinical benefit; as the authors of these particular studies are independent, they gain nothing by stating this. Another review found that “current clinical evidence does not demonstrate that titrating lipid therapy (trying to lower cholesterol with statins) to achieve proposed low LDL cholesterol levels is beneficial or safe.”(3) In other words, lowering lipids has no real benefit and has the potential for adverse effects. Following up on this, in a major independent review of studies funded by the Ministry of Health of British Columbia (Canada) on statins and primary prevention, researchers reported that “statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.”(4) This is a government report carried out by an independent university yet its findings are still ignored.
The problem really comes down to vested interests and the abuse of statistics. To overcome the limitations of small studies, vested parties combine many studies into a meta-analysis. The researchers themselves select the studies used in the meta-analysis. A fundamental problem is that researchers with direct links to drug companies have the authority to select the most positive studies and ignore the rest—including independent studies not funded by pharmaceutical companies. Despite this, they have still not been able to show any clinically significant findings.
As readers of the scientific journals, we should not be confused between statistical significance and clinical significance. For an outcome to be “statistically significant” means that the outcome was likely result of the treatment—whether the result was 100% effective or less than 0.1% effective. That is, if you treat 1,000 people to save one life (0.1%) it may be statistically significant but it is not clinically significant. “Clinical significance” means 20% to 30% or more. The drug companies’ most positive studies on statins for prevention of CVD report statistical significance, mostly 1% or less, and none have found any clinical significance.
Busy medical professionals don’t have time to review the statistics; few of them may be aware of the different ways the statistics are manipulated. So if the experienced professionals don’t understand the results of these studies, how do we expect the media or public to understand?
(1) Thavendiranathan, P., A. Bagai, et al. (2006). "Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials." Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 2307-2313.
(2) Vrecer, M., S. Turk, et al. (2003). "Use of statins in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke. Meta-analysis of randomized trials." International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 41(12): 567-577.
(3) Hayward, R.A., T.P. Hofer, et al. (2006). "Narrative review: Lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: A solvable problem." Annals of Internal Medicine 145(7): 520-530.
(4) University of British Columbia (2003). "Do statins have a role in primary prevention? A review by the Therapeutics Initiative of the Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics of the University of British Columbia." Therapeutics Letter (48).
The problem really comes down to vested interests and the abuse of statistics. To overcome the limitations of small studies, vested parties combine many studies into a meta-analysis. The researchers themselves select the studies used in the meta-analysis. A fundamental problem is that researchers with direct links to drug companies have the authority to select the most positive studies and ignore the rest—including independent studies not funded by pharmaceutical companies. Despite this, they have still not been able to show any clinically significant findings.
As readers of the scientific journals, we should not be confused between statistical significance and clinical significance. For an outcome to be “statistically significant” means that the outcome was likely result of the treatment—whether the result was 100% effective or less than 0.1% effective. That is, if you treat 1,000 people to save one life (0.1%) it may be statistically significant but it is not clinically significant. “Clinical significance” means 20% to 30% or more. The drug companies’ most positive studies on statins for prevention of CVD report statistical significance, mostly 1% or less, and none have found any clinical significance.
Busy medical professionals don’t have time to review the statistics; few of them may be aware of the different ways the statistics are manipulated. So if the experienced professionals don’t understand the results of these studies, how do we expect the media or public to understand?
(1) Thavendiranathan, P., A. Bagai, et al. (2006). "Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials." Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 2307-2313.
(2) Vrecer, M., S. Turk, et al. (2003). "Use of statins in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke. Meta-analysis of randomized trials." International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 41(12): 567-577.
(3) Hayward, R.A., T.P. Hofer, et al. (2006). "Narrative review: Lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: A solvable problem." Annals of Internal Medicine 145(7): 520-530.
(4) University of British Columbia (2003). "Do statins have a role in primary prevention? A review by the Therapeutics Initiative of the Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics of the University of British Columbia." Therapeutics Letter (48).
WorkPlace Wellness
Something I have been working on for a long time, and currently writing on as part of an upcoming book, is Workplace Wellness (WW). WW is really about looking after the health and wellbeing of the workers and the research shows it pays off for employers. The cost of poor health on personal and professional productivity is high and includes stress, absenteeism, presenteeism, low morale, low productivity, poor concentration and focus, low output, and risks increase sick leave, disability and more.
Many factors influence employee productivity; the list includes family issues, work environment, relations with other employees, autonomy, perceived control and health. However it is possible to relate health to many of these issues and it could be inferred that having good health will assist people to overcome these problems. The level of health is one of the most important factors enhancing and maintaining productivity in the labor force, affecting both the quantity (working time) and quality (productivity) of employees. By investing in the health of the organizations human resources, employee services and the general workplace environment, a positive impact on productivity can be observed.
The number of wellness promotion programs in an occupational setting has positively increased over the past 20 years. These programs have the potential, if properly designed and correctly implemented, to simultaneously increase employee health and employer profitability; by preventing occupational disease and injury and promoting positive employee lifestyle behaviors. Health is an extremely important determinant of an employees capacity to work productivity as even a skilled employee who enjoys their job, has job autonomy, a pleasant work environment, good relations with colleagues and is well compensated can still have very low productivity levels when they are sick or injured at work (presenteeism) or if they are absent (absenteeism). Health should be seen as not only the absence of disease but the presence of physiological and psychological wellness, this is the key to a highly competent and productive workforce.
Many studies have shown the benefit of health programs in the workplace. There is an increasing awareness that these programs may play a significant role in achieving improved organizational productivity and, for commercial enterprises, increased profitability. Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings The Effects of Behavioral Risks on Absenteeism and Health-Care Costs in the Workplace
Just one percent improvement in productivity of a person on $40000 per year assuming their output is double the value of their income ($80000) would return to the company approximately $800 per employee.
Other benefits include
• improved morale
• Increased attraction/Retention of staff
• job satisfaction,
• satisfaction with supervision,
• increased organizational commitment
• increased productivity
• reduced time loss from work/disability
• short-term health benefit cost savings
• long-term health benefit cost savings
• quality of life
• lower insurance rates
• lower legal liability
The value of health promotion programs in support of employee attraction, retention, and morale was clearly demonstrated when Glaxo Wellcome was named the best place to work in North Carolina in 1999 by the North Carolina Business Journal. These programs were cited as among the reasons people viewed Glaxo Welcome as a terrific company. In 1999, Glaxo welcome received the Everett Koop National health award, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Corporate Health Award, the American Association of Occupational Nurses Business Recognition Award. By prescription: Glaxo Wellcome has all the right ingredients to be the best place to work in North Carolina.
Citibank (Financial Services Bank) initiated a comprehensive Health Management Program in 1994, and reported the program had a positive Return on Investment, ranging from $4.56 to $4.73 saved per dollar spent on the program. The savings were even higher when absenteeism-related savings were added to health related costs, at $6.70 savings per dollar invested. Ten studies of worksite health promotion programs documented an average of $3.93 of health care benefit for each dollar of cost. Six studies of worksite health promotion programs documented and average of $5.02 of absenteeism cost savings for each dollar of program cost. So why aren’t you doing it?
A return on investment evaluation of the Citibank, N.A. Health Management Program.
Many factors influence employee productivity; the list includes family issues, work environment, relations with other employees, autonomy, perceived control and health. However it is possible to relate health to many of these issues and it could be inferred that having good health will assist people to overcome these problems. The level of health is one of the most important factors enhancing and maintaining productivity in the labor force, affecting both the quantity (working time) and quality (productivity) of employees. By investing in the health of the organizations human resources, employee services and the general workplace environment, a positive impact on productivity can be observed.
The number of wellness promotion programs in an occupational setting has positively increased over the past 20 years. These programs have the potential, if properly designed and correctly implemented, to simultaneously increase employee health and employer profitability; by preventing occupational disease and injury and promoting positive employee lifestyle behaviors. Health is an extremely important determinant of an employees capacity to work productivity as even a skilled employee who enjoys their job, has job autonomy, a pleasant work environment, good relations with colleagues and is well compensated can still have very low productivity levels when they are sick or injured at work (presenteeism) or if they are absent (absenteeism). Health should be seen as not only the absence of disease but the presence of physiological and psychological wellness, this is the key to a highly competent and productive workforce.
Many studies have shown the benefit of health programs in the workplace. There is an increasing awareness that these programs may play a significant role in achieving improved organizational productivity and, for commercial enterprises, increased profitability. Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings The Effects of Behavioral Risks on Absenteeism and Health-Care Costs in the Workplace
Just one percent improvement in productivity of a person on $40000 per year assuming their output is double the value of their income ($80000) would return to the company approximately $800 per employee.
Other benefits include
• improved morale
• Increased attraction/Retention of staff
• job satisfaction,
• satisfaction with supervision,
• increased organizational commitment
• increased productivity
• reduced time loss from work/disability
• short-term health benefit cost savings
• long-term health benefit cost savings
• quality of life
• lower insurance rates
• lower legal liability
The value of health promotion programs in support of employee attraction, retention, and morale was clearly demonstrated when Glaxo Wellcome was named the best place to work in North Carolina in 1999 by the North Carolina Business Journal. These programs were cited as among the reasons people viewed Glaxo Welcome as a terrific company. In 1999, Glaxo welcome received the Everett Koop National health award, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Corporate Health Award, the American Association of Occupational Nurses Business Recognition Award. By prescription: Glaxo Wellcome has all the right ingredients to be the best place to work in North Carolina.
Citibank (Financial Services Bank) initiated a comprehensive Health Management Program in 1994, and reported the program had a positive Return on Investment, ranging from $4.56 to $4.73 saved per dollar spent on the program. The savings were even higher when absenteeism-related savings were added to health related costs, at $6.70 savings per dollar invested. Ten studies of worksite health promotion programs documented an average of $3.93 of health care benefit for each dollar of cost. Six studies of worksite health promotion programs documented and average of $5.02 of absenteeism cost savings for each dollar of program cost. So why aren’t you doing it?
A return on investment evaluation of the Citibank, N.A. Health Management Program.
Power Lines and Electrical Devices
The ever-increasing use of electrical appliances, along with the consequent demand for electric power, have greatly increased awareness of possible risks from electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies. In particular, concern has been raised about power lines. This concern has, in some cases, led to strong opposition to the installation of transmission facilities, which has delayed or even prevented their licensing. The proximity to power lines in suburbs usually means less demand for the properties and lower real estate values due to concerns about raising families near these powerful sources of electromagnetic radiation.
The idea that such fields might be deleterious has been seriously considered only since 1979, when researchers suggested, on the basis of a case-control study conducted in Colorado, that the fields associated with power lines and domestic electric wiring might cause cancer in children. At the time the idea seemed bizarre—power lines were such a normal part of everyday life and they had not been shown in laboratory experiments to have any effect that appeared to be even remotely connected with the development of cancer. During the past 25 years, however, numerous epidemiological studies have suggested a link between leukaemia and brain cancer in adults and exposure to similar and higher frequency fields at work places. Residential-based studies have found similar links. The findings are, however, difficult to interpret. One reason for this is that neither leukaemia, nor brain cancer, is a single entity; each consists of a variety of conditions that differ in childhood and adult life and may—and in some cases definitely do—have complex causes.
Residential studies do not always directly measure exposure, but frequently use surrogates. These surrogates might include the distance of the residence from overhead power lines or electrical transmission stations or the wiring configurations in the vicinity of the residence, which could be classified as “high” or “low” according to the presence or absence of transformers and the characteristics of the local electricity supply cables. However, in three Scandinavian studies in 1993, children who lived in houses within broad corridors around power lines had higher than normal rates of leukaemia and brain cancer. Other studies have shown similar results: the incidence of leukaemia with residential exposure equal to or greater than 0.2 uT (or 0.25 uT in the Danish series) was 2.1 times that in the unexposed population. A recent study in Canada, in which participants wore personal monitoring devices, supports a link between magnetic field exposure and an increased risk of childhood leukaemia. Evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults has been supported by studies that have suggested occupational hazards for leukaemia and cancer of the brain. Magnetic fields and childhood cancer—a pooled analysis of two Scandinavian studies
In a three-year study of some 570 people in Auckland, New Zealand researchers found that people living within 20 metres of high-tension power lines were three times as likely to have asthma, twice as likely to experience major depression, twice as likely to suffer from immune deficiencies (including allergies and dermatitis) and more likely to have diabetes than those who did not live within such proximity to power lines. http://aktinovolia.net/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-that-EMFs-are-hazardous.pdf
Researchers have also found significant evidence that occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields may reduce melatonin levels. Melatonin levels appear to be affected by the intensity and length of exposure as well as time of day it occurred; levels did not return to normal when workers were away on weekends. Melatonin, produced by the body, regulates sleep cycles and is a potent antioxidant that protects us from cancer. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/150/1/27.short
The magnetic field strength produced by overhead lines depends mainly on the current flowing and distance from the line. Unlike the voltage, the current may change considerably during the day according to the demand for energy and, therefore, the magnetic field from power lines will be highly variable, reaching its maximum values when the load is highest—that is, when many people are using electrical appliances. Objects and buildings provide little or no screening for the magnetic field. In other words, even though it is safer to be farther from power lines, buildings don’t block out the magnetic field.
Exposure to electromagnetic radiation from appliances in buildings is also an area of growing concern. The results from measurements in some offices show that magnetic induction levels are within the range 0.2 3.2 uT close to typical office devices such as personal computers and photocopiers, while at the writing desks and in usual conditions the mean value is equal to 0.37 uT, with a maximum value of 1.4 uT. Most new computers have a screening device on the front but unfortunately not behind the computers so don’t sit behind a computer. In a few buildings we have investigated, wiring ran inside internal columns in the buildings, with people working right next to the columns. The exposure was extremely high and resulted in many health complaints. Devices to measure electromagnetic radiation are relatively cheap and can be obtained from some electrical stores.
In the home environment, the most significant exposure is likely to come from electrical equipment, clocks and lights in the bed head or near where people sleep. In addition, exposure can be considerable if the bed backs onto a wall that has a circuit board behind it. In general the bedroom should not have too many electrical devices in it and none near the area where one’s head is during sleep.
The idea that such fields might be deleterious has been seriously considered only since 1979, when researchers suggested, on the basis of a case-control study conducted in Colorado, that the fields associated with power lines and domestic electric wiring might cause cancer in children. At the time the idea seemed bizarre—power lines were such a normal part of everyday life and they had not been shown in laboratory experiments to have any effect that appeared to be even remotely connected with the development of cancer. During the past 25 years, however, numerous epidemiological studies have suggested a link between leukaemia and brain cancer in adults and exposure to similar and higher frequency fields at work places. Residential-based studies have found similar links. The findings are, however, difficult to interpret. One reason for this is that neither leukaemia, nor brain cancer, is a single entity; each consists of a variety of conditions that differ in childhood and adult life and may—and in some cases definitely do—have complex causes.
Residential studies do not always directly measure exposure, but frequently use surrogates. These surrogates might include the distance of the residence from overhead power lines or electrical transmission stations or the wiring configurations in the vicinity of the residence, which could be classified as “high” or “low” according to the presence or absence of transformers and the characteristics of the local electricity supply cables. However, in three Scandinavian studies in 1993, children who lived in houses within broad corridors around power lines had higher than normal rates of leukaemia and brain cancer. Other studies have shown similar results: the incidence of leukaemia with residential exposure equal to or greater than 0.2 uT (or 0.25 uT in the Danish series) was 2.1 times that in the unexposed population. A recent study in Canada, in which participants wore personal monitoring devices, supports a link between magnetic field exposure and an increased risk of childhood leukaemia. Evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults has been supported by studies that have suggested occupational hazards for leukaemia and cancer of the brain. Magnetic fields and childhood cancer—a pooled analysis of two Scandinavian studies
In a three-year study of some 570 people in Auckland, New Zealand researchers found that people living within 20 metres of high-tension power lines were three times as likely to have asthma, twice as likely to experience major depression, twice as likely to suffer from immune deficiencies (including allergies and dermatitis) and more likely to have diabetes than those who did not live within such proximity to power lines. http://aktinovolia.net/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-that-EMFs-are-hazardous.pdf
Researchers have also found significant evidence that occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields may reduce melatonin levels. Melatonin levels appear to be affected by the intensity and length of exposure as well as time of day it occurred; levels did not return to normal when workers were away on weekends. Melatonin, produced by the body, regulates sleep cycles and is a potent antioxidant that protects us from cancer. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/150/1/27.short
The magnetic field strength produced by overhead lines depends mainly on the current flowing and distance from the line. Unlike the voltage, the current may change considerably during the day according to the demand for energy and, therefore, the magnetic field from power lines will be highly variable, reaching its maximum values when the load is highest—that is, when many people are using electrical appliances. Objects and buildings provide little or no screening for the magnetic field. In other words, even though it is safer to be farther from power lines, buildings don’t block out the magnetic field.
Exposure to electromagnetic radiation from appliances in buildings is also an area of growing concern. The results from measurements in some offices show that magnetic induction levels are within the range 0.2 3.2 uT close to typical office devices such as personal computers and photocopiers, while at the writing desks and in usual conditions the mean value is equal to 0.37 uT, with a maximum value of 1.4 uT. Most new computers have a screening device on the front but unfortunately not behind the computers so don’t sit behind a computer. In a few buildings we have investigated, wiring ran inside internal columns in the buildings, with people working right next to the columns. The exposure was extremely high and resulted in many health complaints. Devices to measure electromagnetic radiation are relatively cheap and can be obtained from some electrical stores.
In the home environment, the most significant exposure is likely to come from electrical equipment, clocks and lights in the bed head or near where people sleep. In addition, exposure can be considerable if the bed backs onto a wall that has a circuit board behind it. In general the bedroom should not have too many electrical devices in it and none near the area where one’s head is during sleep.
Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation
There is so much confusion nowadays about the pros and cons of radiation I thought it best to try and clarify it as best I could. People are exposed to non-ionising radiation through natural sources such as the sun as well as human-generated sources: computers, microwaves ovens, mobile phones, radar systems and power lines. From the sun, UV radiation is a major concern related to sunburn, skin damage and skin cancer. Too much sun can have a negative effect on one’s immune system. On the other hand, without enough exposure to the sun, the body does not produce vitamin D. But more on that at a later date.
Microwave radiation or Microwaves are extremely high frequency radio waves on the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. While some microwaves and radiofrequency radiation occur naturally—the sun, the earth and the ionosphere create natural sources of low-level RF and MW radiation fields—the incidence of non-naturally occurring radiation has increased dramatically with the advance of technology. Microwaves can be used to carry satellite signals for communication in televisions, AM and FM radio, computers, global positioning systems and mobile phones. Microwaves can also be used to generate heat through the extremely rapid reversal in the polarity of electrons affected by magnetic and electric fields via a tube called a magnetron—this occurs in almost every kitchen and restaurant throughout the industrialised world, with the ubiquitous microwave oven.
Microwaves and radiofrequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. Yet very little is known about the results of exposure to microwaves; even less is known about the relative dangers of different sources of microwaves. We do, however, know that microwaves can be reflected, transmitted or absorbed by matter in their path. Absorption occurs in matter that contains moisture, including human beings.
Living organisms absorb microwaves and radiofrequency energy at the molecular, cellular, tissue and whole-body levels. Heating of internal organs is a consequence of the absorption of energy. The energy is absorbed by water within the tissue; therefore, tissues with high water density and low blood density—such as the eyes and testes—are particularly vulnerable.
Scientists have known for a long time about the capacity of RF radiation to cause this type of heating and have discovered that prolonged exposure to RF radiation can lead to health problems such as fatigue, reduced mental concentration and, in the case of very high levels, cataracts. These effects are similar to subjecting a person to an extremely warm environment. Other possible thermal effects include foetal abnormalities, decreased thyroid function, cardiovascular mortality, impaired ability to perform complex tasks and the suppression of behavioural responses, gonadal function and natural killer cell activity. Studies have shown that environmental levels of microwaves and radiofrequency energy routinely encountered by the general public are far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there is concern for whole body heating amongst the elderly and those on specific medications that affect thermoregulatory function. Also of concern are people with cardiac and circulatory problems, those with implanted medical electronic devices (e.g., heart pacemakers), fever sufferers, infants and pregnant women.
The majority of studies in this area are concerned with cataracts, arguably the major hazard associated with microwave radiation. A cataract is a clouding of the lens within the eye. Authorities concerned with producing safety standards agree that little is known with any real certainty about the effects of microwave radiation beyond its thermal effects. However, microwave studies contain too many shortcomings to rule out the possibility that microwaves cause adverse health effects.
The recognition of non-thermal effects has been highly controversial, due to conflicting and inconclusive studies. Studies are complex, investigating possible effects of microwave radiation—from cancer to effects on the operation of all systems and parts of the human body. Cancer studies have examined cancers of the breasts, lungs, testicles and brain, as well as ocular melanoma and leukaemia. Other studies have included assessments of the relationships between radiation and cardiovascular disease, birth defects and hormone secretion rates. Research has also shown the effect of microwaves on reducing a cell’s ability to perform apoptosis, that is when the cell terminates its own life as a part of the life cycle of the cell, increasing the risk of spontaneous mutations, including cancer.
An example of the controversy surrounding microwaves occurred with a 1990 leaked draft EPA report in the USA, recommending that radiofrequency microwave radiation be considered a “possible human carcinogen.” The White House moved quickly to suppress the draft and commissioned another report, which stated that there was no EMF cancer risk. Unfortunately, politics has its influence in too many places it should not.
Microwave radiation or Microwaves are extremely high frequency radio waves on the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. While some microwaves and radiofrequency radiation occur naturally—the sun, the earth and the ionosphere create natural sources of low-level RF and MW radiation fields—the incidence of non-naturally occurring radiation has increased dramatically with the advance of technology. Microwaves can be used to carry satellite signals for communication in televisions, AM and FM radio, computers, global positioning systems and mobile phones. Microwaves can also be used to generate heat through the extremely rapid reversal in the polarity of electrons affected by magnetic and electric fields via a tube called a magnetron—this occurs in almost every kitchen and restaurant throughout the industrialised world, with the ubiquitous microwave oven.
Microwaves and radiofrequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. Yet very little is known about the results of exposure to microwaves; even less is known about the relative dangers of different sources of microwaves. We do, however, know that microwaves can be reflected, transmitted or absorbed by matter in their path. Absorption occurs in matter that contains moisture, including human beings.
Living organisms absorb microwaves and radiofrequency energy at the molecular, cellular, tissue and whole-body levels. Heating of internal organs is a consequence of the absorption of energy. The energy is absorbed by water within the tissue; therefore, tissues with high water density and low blood density—such as the eyes and testes—are particularly vulnerable.
Scientists have known for a long time about the capacity of RF radiation to cause this type of heating and have discovered that prolonged exposure to RF radiation can lead to health problems such as fatigue, reduced mental concentration and, in the case of very high levels, cataracts. These effects are similar to subjecting a person to an extremely warm environment. Other possible thermal effects include foetal abnormalities, decreased thyroid function, cardiovascular mortality, impaired ability to perform complex tasks and the suppression of behavioural responses, gonadal function and natural killer cell activity. Studies have shown that environmental levels of microwaves and radiofrequency energy routinely encountered by the general public are far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there is concern for whole body heating amongst the elderly and those on specific medications that affect thermoregulatory function. Also of concern are people with cardiac and circulatory problems, those with implanted medical electronic devices (e.g., heart pacemakers), fever sufferers, infants and pregnant women.
The majority of studies in this area are concerned with cataracts, arguably the major hazard associated with microwave radiation. A cataract is a clouding of the lens within the eye. Authorities concerned with producing safety standards agree that little is known with any real certainty about the effects of microwave radiation beyond its thermal effects. However, microwave studies contain too many shortcomings to rule out the possibility that microwaves cause adverse health effects.
The recognition of non-thermal effects has been highly controversial, due to conflicting and inconclusive studies. Studies are complex, investigating possible effects of microwave radiation—from cancer to effects on the operation of all systems and parts of the human body. Cancer studies have examined cancers of the breasts, lungs, testicles and brain, as well as ocular melanoma and leukaemia. Other studies have included assessments of the relationships between radiation and cardiovascular disease, birth defects and hormone secretion rates. Research has also shown the effect of microwaves on reducing a cell’s ability to perform apoptosis, that is when the cell terminates its own life as a part of the life cycle of the cell, increasing the risk of spontaneous mutations, including cancer.
An example of the controversy surrounding microwaves occurred with a 1990 leaked draft EPA report in the USA, recommending that radiofrequency microwave radiation be considered a “possible human carcinogen.” The White House moved quickly to suppress the draft and commissioned another report, which stated that there was no EMF cancer risk. Unfortunately, politics has its influence in too many places it should not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
