WHAT DOCTORS DON’T TELL YOU - E-NEWS BROADCAST No. 172 - 14 July 2005

[Guest guest]

" WDDTY e-News " <e-news

WDDTY e-News Broadcast - 14 July 2005

Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:23:22 +0100

 

WHAT DOCTORS DON'T TELL YOU - E-NEWS BROADCAST No. 172 - 14 July 2005

Please feel free to email this broadcast to any friends you feel would

appreciate receiving it.

 

 

 

NEWS CONTENT

 

 

EU DIRECTIVE: Maybe it's not so bad after all

SUNSHINE: It's good for you, in moderation, of course

BREASTFEEDING: It may even help eyesight

USELESS DRUGS: Add antibiotics and eye drops to the list

 

 

 

EU DIRECTIVE: Maybe it's not so bad after all

 

Despite what you may have read in your newspaper, it wasn't all doom

and gloom this week about the EU's Food Supplements Directive. Yes,

the European Court of Justice took the very unusual step of

disregarding the Advocate General's recommendation to scupper the

directive. Yes, that means the restrictions on vitamins and

supplements come into force throughout all EU nations in two weeks'

time, on August 1.

 

But, no, you probably won't notice any difference. In this case it's

the angel that's in the detail, and it's all to do with the Positive

List. In its original form, the Directive would allow onto the list -

and so, suitable for sale - only those natural ingredients that a

manufacturer could prove were safe. This would cost the manufacturer

around £250,000 per ingredient, so a multi-vitamin might cost about

£750,000 to get onto the list.

 

Campaigners such as the Alliance for Natural Health argued that it was

absurd to have to prove as 'safe' nutrients that are in our food, and

which have been taken in some form or another for many hundreds of years.

 

The European Court of Justice agrees, and in allowing the Directive

has also added more than a fair share of common sense to the

regulations. For a start, the justices have decided that any nutrient

that's already consumed as part of our regular diets doesn't have to

be included on the Positive List. They have also decided that the

burden of proof should fall on the regulator, who would have to prove

that a nutrient wasn't safe. It's enough for a manufacturer to submit

an ingredient to the Positive List, and then it's down to the

regulator to disallow it, and give a full explanation of its decision.

As a result, the UK's Food Standards Agency said that it doesn't know

of one supplement that would be banned under the revised directive.

 

The next hurdle is determining what is a 'safe upper limit' for

vitamins and supplements. The danger is that the EU may, by default,

adopt the Codex guidelines, which are being shaped by German and

French delegates (see Enews no. 170). If they succeed, we will see

levels drop dramatically in liberal countries such as Britain and

Holland.

 

All of this means that the tremendous work of the Alliance goes on,

and they still need your support and any contributions you can make.

Donations can be made on their website

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org

 

 

 

HEADLINE OF THE WEEK

 

" Prevention of postpartum depression should start after delivery " -

British Medical Journal, 2 July 2005

 

 

 

SUNSHINE: It's good for you, in moderation, of course

 

Our children are not getting enough sunlight. Parents, worried by the

very effective campaigns about sunbathing and skin cancers, are

keeping children away from the sun - and so depriving them of a vital

health source.

 

The body synthesizes sunlight into vitamin D, which helps build strong

bones, and the sun's rays reduce the risks of some cancers, and it's

thought they can also protect against multiple sclerosis.

Some experts are so worried by sunlight starvation that they've asked

skin cancer awareness groups to stop campaigning.

Fine, but if you're a parent trying to strike the right balance, how

much is enough sunlight to be healthy without increasing the risk of

skin cancer? There are several responses, but they amount to the same

thing. Scientists reckon we need to expose our face, hands and arms

two to three times a week to an extent where you can just see a slight

reddening of the skin, technically known as a level of 1 MED (minimal

erythema dose). Exposure should be increased to 2 MED a week if just

the face and hands are getting the sun.

 

This is not very helpful if you're not at one with your MED

measurements, and it's hardly practical to advise a child to look out

for any slight reddening of the skin.

So this has been interpreted that being outdoors for five to 10

minutes three days a week during the summer months is sufficient for

vitamin D production. This would be true if you're in direct

sunlight, if the sun is strong, if there aren't clouds in the sky, and

if there aren't any tall buildings around. Oh yes, and if you're

lying flat on the ground.

 

If all these conditions aren't met, children who have been outside for

several hours still haven't had sufficient direct sunlight to start

vitamin D synthesis.

 

The key certainly seems to be about reddening skin. Perhaps, after

all, you do need to hover around your children before slapping on the

sun protection cream. But do this only after the skin starts to turn

red. That's 1 MED to you.

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2005; 331: 3-4).

 

 

 

BREASTFEEDING: It may even help eyesight

 

The more we research, the more we learn about the importance of breast

milk and the start it can give us in life. A new study has found that

it might even improve our eyesight.

In a study of 797 schoolchildren aged between 10 and 12, myopia was

less prevalent among those who had been breastfed. Even those who

were only partly breastfed still had better eyesight than children who

were given no breast milk.

The study cannot draw a direct causal connection between good eyesight

and breastfeeding, but there are plenty of signs that point us in that

direction. Breast milk is full of micronutrients that are missing

from formula milk, including docosahexaenoic acid, which helps the

healthy development of neurons and photoreceptors related to vision.

(Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005; 293: 3001-2).

 

 

 

USELESS DRUGS: Add antibiotics and eye drops to the list

 

Several studies remind us that there are plenty of drugs that don't

work, but we keep on taking them anyway.

Antibiotics are regularly given for treating cough, even though some

doctors are having second thoughts about prescribing them. A new

study of 800 patients with a cough suggests they should have more than

second thoughts, and might just as well throw away the prescription

pad. The study divided the group into three: those who were given

immediate antibiotics, no antibiotics, or a prescription they could

use if their cough hadn't improved after two weeks. Those who had

immediate antibiotics didn't fare any better than those who weren't

given antibiotics. After 10 days their cough was as bad as the one

suffered by the other two groups - and older people given antibiotics

actually suffered a worse cough than their counterparts who took nothing.

 

Chloramphenicol eye drops, which are routinely prescribed for children

with conjunctivitis, are equally useless. A study has discovered that

they are so ineffective that the researchers urge doctors to stop

prescribing them, and instead should advise parents on good eye

hygiene. The drug was tested against a placebo on a group of 326

children with bacterial conjunctivitis. The placebo group fared just

the same as the children taking the eye drops, suggesting the drug had

no positive effect at all.

(Sources: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005; 293:

3029-35 (antibiotics study). Lancet, 2005; June 22 web study doi

10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66709-8 (eye drops study)).

 

* Some drugs are more than just useless. They're dangerous as well.

The guilty are named in the WDDTY book Secrets of the Drug Industry,

and it's yours by clicking on this link:

http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=341.