Global Digital Store – Ebooks and Softwares

Tag: Drugs

  • Functional Medicine & Chiropractic In Treatment of Concussions

    Functional Medicine & Chiropractic In Treatment of Concussions

    [ad_1]

    Concussions are a form of traumatic injury to the head accompanied by temporary impairment of brain function. This kind of damage is often referred to as mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) or mild head injury (MHI) and is one of the most common kinds of external damage in the head and neck region.

    In 2013, about 2.8 million traumatic brain injury-related visits to the emergency department took place in the United States. Modern studies reveal that the most common mechanisms of TBI are:

    • Road traffic accidents
    • Falls
    • A hit by or against a certain object

    Roughly speaking, all concussions can be divided into two major groups: sports-related and not related to sports. Although the treatment in both cases is roughly universal, patients who had received a sport-related concussion often worry about how quickly they would be able to return to their training sessions, games and tournaments. A major part of the functional treatment of TBI is in explaining the importance of complete recovery before going back to physical activities: this is crucial not only for the patient’s health but also for his or her optimal physical performance.

    What Happens During A Concussion?

    Regardless of the specific mechanism of the damage, a concussion happens when there is an abrupt and extreme change in speed. For example, when a goalkeeper is hit by a ball in the head, he receives a huge local acceleration – and the skull, being a solid structure, is the first to respond accordingly by moving in the direction of the blow.

    The brain, on the other hand, is a “floating” structure suspended in cerebrovascular liquid in the skull, so it takes longer to change its direction and speed of movement. Thus, when a sudden blow to the head is received, the brain is smashed against the cranium, damaging the local soft tissues.

    Similarly, when a person is driving a vehicle such as a car or bike, a sudden stop (such as due to a road accident) would cause an abrupt decrease in speed which initially affects the skull: for the next moments, the brain would be still moving in the initial direction thus hitting the skull.

    The resulting symptoms from such damage may include:

    • Physical: headache (both local and diffuse), nausea, vomiting, increased sensitivity to light and sound, dizziness, seeing flashes of light or blinking stars, blurred vision, tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
    • Emotional and behavioral: depression, anxiety, sleepiness or insomnia, fatigue, irritability.
    • Cognitive: impaired memory and concentration, feeling “slowed down” or “in a fog.”

    But that’s just half of the problem. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, people who had suffered from a concussion have significantly increased risk of dying from other medical issues such as:

    • Seizures – 50-fold increase in risk.
    • Accidental drug poisoning – 11-fold increase in risk.
    • Infections – 9-fold increase in risk.
    • Pneumonia – 6-fold increase in risk.

    This is why a holistic treatment of concussions is crucial for the long-term health of each and every patient, as it should alleviate not only the initial symptoms, but prevent the development of subsequent health problems as well.

    The Conventional Approach to the Treatment of Concussions

    In terms of treating concussions, most doctors focus on the principle “prevent additional brain damage.” This is done mainly through the prescription of such medications as painkillers, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (to prevent brain swelling), antibiotics (to prevent infections during the recovery period), antidepressants, and rarely diuretics (to remove excess fluid from the body). Although such an approach is viable and brings a lot of benefits, it almost completely misses the non-brain damage from a concussion, as well as delayed long-term health issues.

    Granted, it’s better than nothing but it can hardly be considered an end-to-end therapy. Although this treatment is great in alleviating immediate manifestations, it does not decrease the long-term impact of the injury. In other words, the patient who chooses conventional treatment for his or her concussion might have to resort to medical care years after the injury, often unaware that the damage could have been avoided a long time ago. Luckily, different aspects of functional treatment have been proved to be successful in treating long-term outcomes of traumatic brain injury.

    Functional Medicine for the Treatment of Concussions

    The human brain is attached to the spinal cord, thus sudden movement of the former inevitably affects the latter. Even if the brainstem is abruptly shifted by a fraction of a millimeter, all sorts of health problems can arise in the entire body as a result of spinal root and nerve dislocation.

    This is why spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), as a form of chiropractic treatment, proves to be so effective in treating traumatic events of the cervical spine, which are often accompanied by concussions. Besides improving long-term outcome, it also decreases pain, increases the range of motion, and alleviates local muscle spasm.

    [ad_2]

    Source by Ann Barter

    Views: 0

  • A Substantive Due Process Challenge to the War on Drugs

    A Substantive Due Process Challenge to the War on Drugs

    [ad_1]

    Substantive Due Process Analysis of the Incarceration of Drug Offenders

    A. Framework

    In Washington v. Glucksberg, Chief Justice Rehnquist described the framework for substantive due process analysis:

    Our established method of substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Second, we have required in substantive-due-process cases a “careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. Our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial “guideposts for responsible decisionmaking,” that direct and restrain our exposition of the Due Process Clause. As we stated recently in Flores, the Fourteenth Amendment “forbids the government to infringe . . . ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”

    Applying this method, one must first examine freedom from incarceration to determine if it is a fundamental right. If so, government policies that require the incarceration of offenders, including drug offenders, must serve compelling interests and be narrowly tailored to achieve them. This article assumes for the sake of argument that drug problems give rise to compelling state interests. It then reviews the interests asserted by the government in its pursuit of its drug war policies and the results of those policies to determine whether the policy of incarcerating drug offenders is narrowly tailored to those asserted interests.

    B. The Fundamental Liberty Interest: Freedom from Incarceration

    Federal and state laws subject drug offenders to incarceration. Incarceration is a tremendous deprivation of liberty that triggers the protections of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has recognized this right on a number of occasions. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS for example, the court held:

    [I]t is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf–through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty–which is the “deprivation of liberty” triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause . . . .

    Perhaps the earliest explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right under substantive due process came in Allgeyer:

    The ‘liberty’ mentioned in [the fourteenth] amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.

    An 1891 law review article noted that Blackstone described “freedom from restraint of the person” as “perhaps the most important of all civil rights,” and that Lord Coke felt “the liberty of a man’s person is more precious to him than everything else that is mentioned [in the Magna Charta].” Blackstone states that “the rights of all mankind . . . may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property.” Indeed, the original Latin in the Magna Charta’s “law of the land” clause uses the term “imprisonetur.”

    No court has invalidated a criminal statute through the application of substantive due process analysis to the fundamental right of freedom from incarceration. At the same time, no court has ruled to the contrary. The Supreme Court avoided the question in Reno v. Flores:

    The “freedom from physical restraint” invoked by respondents is not at issue in this case. Surely not in the sense of shackles, chains, or barred cells, given the Juvenile Care Agreement. Nor even in the sense of a right to come and go at will, since, as we have said elsewhere, “juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody,” and where the custody of the parent or legal guardian fails, the government may (indeed, we have said must) either exercise custody itself or appoint someone else to do so.

    This analysis would not apply to adult drug offenders. The Fourth Circuit also avoided addressing freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right in Hawkins v. Freeman:

    Hawkins’s rhetorical reference to the right as being “freedom from unjust incarceration,” and that of amicus, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, as the “right to be free from arbitrary incarceration,” are issue-begging generalizations that cannot serve the inquiry. A properly precise description can, however, be found in the facts and legal authorities relied upon by Hawkins in support of his claim. From these, we deduce that the precise right asserted is that of a prisoner to remain free on erroneously granted parole so long as he did not contribute to or know of the error and has for an appreciable time remained on good behavior to the point that his expectations for continued freedom from incarceration have “crystallized.”

    Hawkins is distinguishable because it deals with an inmate whose parole was revoked. In any event, the casual dismissal as an “issue-begging generalization” flies in the face of nearly 800 years of common law tradition and over a century of Supreme Court decisions recognizing freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right. Indeed the language of the Supreme Court’s Ingraham decision supports the application of substantive due process proposed in this paper:

    While the contours of this historic liberty interest in the context of our federal system of government have not been defined precisely, they always have been thought to encompass freedom from bodily restraint and punishment. It is fundamental that the state cannot hold and physically punish an individual except in accordance with due process of law.

    The Court also stressed this fundamental liberty interest in Foucha v. Louisiana, a case involving the confinement of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity:

    Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action. “It is clear that commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.” We have always been careful not to “minimize the importance and fundamental nature” of the individual’s right to liberty.

    While the Foucha Court indicated that “a State may imprison convicted criminals for the purposes of deterrence and retribution,” the remark was dicta and did not involve any discussion of substantive limits on the police power. In Meachum v. Fano the Court made a similar remark in the context of a case dealing with prison conditions: “[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him.” Again there was no discussion of substantive limits on the police power. Indeed the previous sentence noted: “The Due Process Clause by its own force forbids the State from convicting any person of crime and depriving him of his liberty without complying fully with the requirements of the Clause.”

    Recently in Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court noted:

    The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the Government to “depriv[e]” any “person … of … liberty … without due process of law.” Freedom from imprisonment–from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint–lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.

    Freedom from incarceration is not just a fundamental right. It is the one of the most fundamental of rights.

    C. Identifying the State’s Interests

    Governmental drug policy interests identified in federal statutes include “demand reduction,” “supply reduction,” and “reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand for illegal drugs.”

    Federal law sets specific goals for the National Drug Control Strategy. These include:

    “Reduction of unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the population”;

    “Reduction of adolescent unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the adolescent population”;

    “Reduction of the availability of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine”;

    “Reduction of the respective nationwide average street purity levels for cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine”; and

    “Reduction of drug-related crime.”

    Goals are also set forth with regard to drug-related crime:

    (i) reduction of State and Federal unlawful drug trafficking and distribution; (ii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed by persons under the influence of unlawful drugs; (iii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining unlawful drugs or obtaining property that is intended to be used for the purchase of unlawful drugs; and (iv) reduction of drug-related emergency room incidents . . . .

    D. Defining “Narrow Tailoring” in the Context of Substantive Due Process

    Assuming that the governmental interests are compelling, we must determine whether the incarceration of drug offenders is narrowly tailored to achieving them. The government must show that its policy passes strict scrutiny. The concept of narrow tailoring is not well defined in the context of substantive due process, but has been fairly well defined in regard to the First Amendment and Equal Protection. Equal Protection cases also arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education the Supreme Court held: “Under strict scrutiny the means chosen to accomplish the State’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose.” In a footnote, the Court described narrow tailoring in even further detail:

    The term “narrowly tailored,” so frequently used in our cases, has acquired a secondary meaning. More specifically, as commentators have indicated, the term may be used to require consideration of whether lawful alternative and less restrictive means could have been used. Or, as Professor Ely has noted, the classification at issue must “fit” with greater precision than any alternative means. “[Courts] should give particularly intense scrutiny to whether a nonracial approach or a more narrowly-tailored racial classification could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense.”

    It is important to note here that a policy that does not advance the government’s interests violates substantive due process regardless of how it compares with the alternatives. If it does not accomplish its purpose, logic dictates it cannot be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish its purpose.

    E. Advancing Governmental Interests

    Congress has identified certain tools for assessing the national drug control strategy. The National Household Survey is the measure for “unlawful drug use.” Similarly, “adolescent unlawful drug use” is to be measured “by the Monitoring the Future Survey of the University of Michigan or the National PRIDE Survey conducted by the National Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education.” On these measures, the goals are not being reached.

    The measure of adolescent drug use that was specifically identified by Congress, illicit drug use in the past 30 days, worsened in 2001. More than 25% of US twelfth graders reported using illicit drugs in the past 30 days. That is nearly double the figure for 1992 and more than eight times the stated goal of 3%. Over 40% of 12th graders tried an illicit drug in the past year.

    The PRIDE Survey and National Household Survey show similar results.

    The drug war has also failed in its other goals. The Monitoring the Future Survey tracks how twelfth graders perceive the availability of drugs. Reducing availability is an explicit goal of the drug war. The perceived availability of marijuana in 2001 was slightly higher than in 1975. The figures for harder drugs are more disturbing. From 1975 to 1986, roughly 20% of twelfth graders said heroin was easy to get. That number shot up in the late 1980s and has remained consistently higher than 30%. Cocaine remains widely available to our youth, with nearly 50% of twelfth graders saying it is easy to get. The survey began measuring the availability of ecstasy in 1989, when only 22% of twelfth graders felt it was easy to get. In 2001, that number went over 61%, having jumped from 51% the year before.

    Drug war policies are not achieving the stated drug war goals. They cannot be “specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish their purpose” because they are not accomplishing their purpose. Drug use has not been reduced in any significant way, and levels of drug use are far above the stated goals. Our children have easy access to drugs. We can’t even keep drugs out of jails. The drug war and the incarceration of drug offenders have also failed to achieve secondary goals regarding supply, demand, purity, drug-related health problems and drug-related crime. The policy of incarcerating drug offenders does not “directly advance[] the governmental interest asserted.” The War on Drugs is not working.

    F. Alternative Means

    Even if a court is persuaded that incarceration advances the government’s interests, the government must also show that its policy choice fits better than the alternatives. Critics of the drug war encompass a broad spectrum of backgrounds, and the range of “solutions” is just as wide. Libertarians and others favor outright legalization of drugs. The legalization of marijuana is a somewhat popular variation of overall legalization, and there are other variations such as the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and decriminalization of drugs or marijuana. Another leading approach, known as harm reduction, looks at drugs from a public health perspective.

    The effectiveness of some of these alternatives is difficult to assess. Even so, certain comparisons can be made. Advocates of treatment point to studies showing that treatment is much more effective than incarceration. Spencer notes:

    The recidivism rate for first time Dade County drug offenders was sixty percent, but for those who successfully completed the Dade County Drug Court treatment programs, the recidivism rate reported by Dade County officials was only seven percent. Drug court treatment programs are also cost effective. It costs Florida only $2,000 to put a drug offender through a drug court program, as compared to $17,000 per drug offender for incarceration. As a result, other drug court programs are being established throughout the country.

    Similarly, a Rand study found treatment to be seven times more cost-effective than current supply-control policy in reducing cocaine consumption.

    G. The Incarceration of Drug Offenders is Not Narrowly Tailored

    Incarceration involves a far greater infringement of fundamental rights than alternatives which are both more effective and less intrusive. The incarceration of offenders is not advancing the state’s asserted interests. The drug war is not narrowly tailored, failing the Supreme Court’s “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” as described by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The laws requiring the incarceration of drug offenders are therefore unconstitutional, if substantive due process analysis is applied.

    IV. CONCLUSION

    It is true that the approach suggested in this paper would limit the police power. Constitutional protection of individual rights exists for that very purpose. We face coercive government action, carried out in a corrupt and racist manner, with military and paramilitary assaults on our homes, leading to mass incarceration and innocent deaths. We can never forget the tyranny of a government unrestrained by an independent judiciary. Our courts must end the War on Drugs.

    For the full article, with endnotes, see: http://www.redlichlaw.com/crim/substantive-due-process-drug-war.pdf

    [ad_2]

    Source by Warren Redlich

    Views: 0

  • Animal Self-Medication: Do Wild Animals Heal Themselves?

    Animal Self-Medication: Do Wild Animals Heal Themselves?

    [ad_1]

    What do wild animals do when they get sick? Unlike domestic pets, animals in the wild have no access to the range of treatments provided by owners or vets. Do wild animals know how to heal themselves?

    Growing scientific evidence indicates that animals do indeed have knowledge of natural medicines. In fact, they have access to the world's largest pharmacy: nature itself. Zoologists and botanists are only just beginning to understand how wild animals use plant medicines to prevent and cure illness.

    There's a name for it

    The emerging science of Zoopharmacognosy studies how animals use leaves, roots, seeds and minerals to treat a variety of ailments. Indigenous cultures have had knowledge of animal self-medication for centuries; many folk remedies have come from noticing which plants animals eat when they are sick. But it is only in the last 30 years that zoopharmacognosy has been scientifically studied. Biologists witnessing animals eating foods not part of their usual diet, realized the animals were self-medicating with natural remedies.

    When a pregnant African elephant was observed for over a year, a discovery was made. The elephant kept regular dietary habits throughout her long pregnancy but the routine changed abruptly towards the end of her term. Heavily pregnant, the elephant set off in search of a shrub that grew 17 miles from her usual food source. The elephant chewed and ate the leaves and bark of the bush, then gave birth a few days later. The elephant, it seemed, had sought out this plant specifically to induce her labor. The same plant (a member of the borage family) also happens to be brewed by Kenyan women to make a labor-inducing tea.

    Chimps take their medicine

    Not only do many animals know which plant they require, they also know exactly which part of the plant they should use, and how they should ingest it. Chimpanzees in Tanzania have been observed using plants in different ways. The Aspilia shrub produces bristly leaves, which the chimps carefully fold up then roll around their mouths before swallowing whole. The prickly leaves 'scour' parasitical worms from the chimps intestinal lining.

    The same chimps also peel the stems and eat the pith of the Vernonia plant (also known as Bitter leaf). In bio-chemical research, Vernonia was found to have anti-parasitic and anti-microbial properties. Both Vernonia and Aspilia have long been used in Tanzanian folk medicine for stomach upsets and fevers.

    It is only the sick chimpanzees that eat the plants. The chimps often grimace as they chew the Vernonia pith, indicating that they are not doing this for fun; healthy animals would find the bitter taste unpalatable.

    Nature's pharmacy for all

    Wild animals won't seek out a remedy unless they need it. Scientists studying baboons at the Awash Falls in Ethiopia noted that although the tree Balanites aegyptiaca (Desert date) grew all around the falls, only the baboons living below the falls ate the tree's fruit. These baboons were exposed to a parasitic worm found in water-snails. Balanites fruit is known to repel the snails. Baboons living above the falls were not in contact with the water-snails and therefore had no need of the medicinal fruit.

    Many animals eat minerals like clay or charcoal for their curative properties. Colobus monkeys on the island of Zanzibar have been observed stealing and eating charcoal from human bonfires. The charcoal counteracts toxic phenols produced by the mango and almond leaves which make up their diet.

    Some species of South American parrot and macaw are known to eat soil with a high kaolin content. The parrots' diet contains toxins because of the fruit seeds they eat. (Even the humble apple seed contains cyanide.) The kaolin clay absorbs the toxins and carries them out of the birds' digestive systems, leaving the parrots unharmed by the poisons. Kaolin has been used for centuries in many cultures as a remedy for human gastrointestinal upset.

    Survival of the medicated

    So, how do animals know how to heal themselves? Some scientists believe that evolution has given animals the innate ability to choose the correct herbal medicines. In terms of natural selection, animals who could find medicinal substances in the wild were more likely to survive. Other observations have shown that, especially among primates, medicinal skills appear to be taught and learned. Adult females are often seen batting their infant's hand from a particular leaf or stem as if to say "No, not that one."

    Wild animals don't rely on industrially produced synthetic drugs to cure their illnesses; the medicines they require are available in their natural environment. While animals in the wild instinctively know how to heal themselves, humans have all but forgotten this knowledge because of our lost connection with nature. Since wild animals have begun to be observed actively taking care of their own wellbeing, it raises questions of how we approach healthcare with natural remedies, not just for ourselves but for our companion and farm animals too.

    [ad_2]

    Source by Gary Le Mon

    Views: 0

  • Don’t Ignore These Telltale Signs of Drug Abuse in Teens

    Don’t Ignore These Telltale Signs of Drug Abuse in Teens

    [ad_1]

    Drug abuse has for a long been a problem among teenagers with peer pressure as the key factor driving it. Despite being well documented, parents and caregivers tend to ignore the apparent symptoms of drug abuse in the growing children. The early instances of drug abuse evoke far greater health consequences in this age group than in any other group.

    One of the reasons behind the increase in the severity of repercussions of drug abuse is that during adolescence both body and mind are still in the process of development. Apart from the fact that drugs can alter brain chemistry and structure, illicit drug use among teenagers can increase vulnerability to motor crashes and instigate risky sexual behavior. Additionally, drug abuse increases suicidal tendencies, assaults, symptoms of mental health conditions and dropout rate at schools.

    Illicit drug use also entails legal and social consequences, such as increase in incidents of violence, criminal activities and neglect, as well as a higher likelihood of abusing drugs in later life. In addition, pregnant teenage girls who continue engaging in drugs are at risk of harming the fetus and themselves in many ways.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

    Nurturing and caring for a teenager is no easy task. The bumpy journey of growth that includes a number of transitional phases, ranging from hitting puberty to adolescence, yearning for dependence to realizing independence, “I love you” to “I hate you,” to confronting life without a safety net to making sense of it all, can mislead parents, guardians and caregivers, especially when their children are on drugs.

    Even in the absence of any evidence, it is important that parents who feel that something is wrong with their children trust their hunch and take significant remedial actions, such as talking to their children or seeking professional help.

    One of the most practical tools to address the problem of drug abuse among teenagers is communication. Usually, drug-using teenagers develop traits that assist them in concealing their growing addiction-related practices.

    They also spend their time incommunicado. When a teenager displays odd behavioral patterns, such as not being themselves after a social event, being vague about the details of the movie watched, getting home beyond curfew, avoiding interaction or getting close to their parents, it is best to investigate to safeguard their health and life.

    Some of the below-mentioned warning signs specified by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can assist parents in keeping a check on their adolescent children:

    • A change in peer group
    • Carelessness with grooming
    • Poor academic performance
    • Increased absenteeism
    • Loss of interest in favorite activities
    • Changes in eating or sleeping habits
    • Deteriorating relationships with family members and friends

    Although the 2016 Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of drug use among American teenagers suggests decline in the past year use of illicit drugs, except marijuana, alcohol and drug use amidst teenagers is a major public concern. In addition, there is substantial evidence that drug use in early years increases the likelihood of a teenager developing substance use disorder and the symptoms of mental health conditions in their adulthood. However, early intervention is known to reduce and treat these conditions more successfully compared to those who let the abuse linger or get treated late.

    Pull the plug on drugs

    The earliest warning signs of drug abuse among teenagers are changes in their behavior and mannerism. Usually, addressing a teenager’s drug abuse habits can be an unpleasant ordeal, which is at times riddled with extreme opposition from the patient.

    Therefore, it is important that parents communicate with their adolescent children about the life-threatening consequences of drug abuse. They should also discuss about the ways that can assist in overcoming the challenge of drug abuse. They can guide their children in the right direction through their love and care.

    [ad_2]

    Source by Courtney Whetstone

    Views: 0

  • Jimmy Carter's Cancer Cure

    Jimmy Carter's Cancer Cure

    [ad_1]

    Jimmy Carter's cancer cure has been a breakthrough and godsend for many people expected to negotiate this terrible disease. The big difference is his treatment was successful without the use of traditional and nauseating chemotherapy.

    Cancer is the second leading cause of death behind heart disease. That's more than 1600 Americans every day. If you ever watched a friend or family go through chemotherapy, you know how awful and sickening that can be. Worse yet, some doctors use chemotherapy for certain cancers which never have responded to that treatment.

    Trying to find research that shows if chemotherapy works or not is difficult. We know that 97% of all patients who receive this treatment are deceased in less than five years. But, simple studies comparing those treated versus those who are not to evaluate if life is extended cannot be found. Yet, most oncologists want to inject this into you and tell you its the only way.

    Earlier this year, 91 year old Jimmy Carter announced his cancer cure after using new immune boosting medications. He was suffering from metastatic (spreading) melanoma to his brain and liver. Jimmy Carter was given a combination of Keytruda, surgery, and radiation therapy to send his cancer into remission.

    "These drugs work by tearing down defenses tumors erect against immune cell eradication. (1)" This Life Extension article mentions three approved immune drugs also called check point inhibitors: Yervoy, Opdivo and Keytruda. In the past, cancers with multiple gene mutations were more difficult to treat. With these new drugs, it is multiple mutations that respond most favorably. The article points out another study that injected the immune drug interleukin-2 directly into cancer tumors. All 11 patients in the study responded with a complete absence of malignant cells in a compete srinkage of the tumor.

    In terms of treating breast cancer, a similar protocol called photodynamic immunotherapy was used. It begins with sending a photosensitizing agent to the tumor. This enables the immune system to mount a response. Survival rates of these 15 women was similar or exceeded conventional methods. Except in this case, there was no mastectomy, no radiation, no chemotherapy and no serious side effects. For more information about this therapy, call the Strategic Cancer Alliance at 1-610-628-3419.

    In conclusion, not everyone responds as well as Jimmy Carter. But, the architecture for treating cancer is clearly changing. Rather than kill the cells, the medications augment your immune response. In this case, we have some studies that actually show results. Now you have a choice and can ask your oncologist about this new immunotherapy. Finally, a new day has arrived for cancer treatment and survival rates.

    (1) Life Extension Mag 2016 June "Immune-Modulating Cancer Drugs" Vol.22, No.6 p84-92.

    [ad_2]

    Source by H Lee Johnson

    Views: 0

  • How To Prevent Alcohol And Drug Addiction

    How To Prevent Alcohol And Drug Addiction

    [ad_1]

    Drug addiction is a serious disorder. If not treated, it can lead to crises like loss of employment, living quarters and important relationships. And as if this weren’t enough, this kind of addiction can cause illness and even death. Drug addiction is multi-layered and has a variety of causes as well as contributing factors. With the knowledge we have today, Simplistic anti-drug campaigns, such as the “Just Say No” program back in the 1980’s, and even more complex programs like “War on Drugs” is not very effective. The reason for this is that these campaigns do not address the root causes of drug addiction but battles the symptoms not the causes of drug addiction.

    When most people consider a drug addiction problem, their minds go automatically to old movies or TV-series. A junkie trembling on a street corner, selling her own body for her next fix, or a tragic, pale old man lying in a gutter with a needle in his arm, or even a college girl snorting a line of crystal meth in a frat house bathroom during a wild party. These images are powerful indeed, but drug addiction generally creeps up in a slow but determined pace. Months or years are passing, during which time the addicted person is still able to function in a job, maintain a place to live as well as keeping relationships going. A drug or alcohol addiction problem generally passes slowly through several phases. Just because someone you know has not lost everything he or she owns to drugs does not have to mean that he or she does not have a drug addiction problem.

    One of the most insidious drug addiction is prescription drug addiction, followed closely by alcohol addiction. Let’s face it; we are a nation of pill poppers and alcohol beverage drinkers. Since we were children we learned that if something hurts, we should take a pill to make the pain disappear. We also see that children are being prescribed drugs such as Ritalin in increasing amounts, as parents and doctors smudge the line between active, healthy kids and kids with a true Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). All the time we are bombarded with advertising for pain relievers, sleep medication and a lot of other remedies; prescribed and over the counter. Seen from this point of view, prescription drug addiction is not hard to understand. We hardly question the doctor thoroughly about the risk of dependency on any medication, since using medicine for almost any problem is so widely accepted. It’s so easy to take the drug without question and before we know it, we may have developed a prescription drug addiction.

    Alcohol addiction is almost as easy to develop for much the same reason. We live in a culture of drinking. We often go out for cocktails after work or drinking beer with friends during a sports event slowly gives way to having one, two, three, even six or eight beers every night. It feels normal to continually re-visit the bar during a night at a pub. Next thing we identify is a full-blown alcohol drug addiction.

    How harsh (or maybe great) it may sound, you are the only person that can prevent alcohol or drug addiction, due to the choices or decisions you make. Although addiction is classified as a disease, it may well be one of the few diseases that people choose to get. Each drug or alcohol addicted person started their life as an addict by making a choice. You are free to make the same choice or you can choose to not allow drug addiction to be your disease. It’s your choice and whether you like it or not, it is the price you have to pay for being a human with a free will.addiction a seat in your life. It’s up to you.

    [ad_2]

    Source by David Richards

    Views: 0

  • What Is Regenerative Medicine?

    What Is Regenerative Medicine?

    [ad_1]

    When Adrienne Shapiro’s daughter Marissa was diagnosed with sickle cell disease, the doctors said that she would not live till her first birthday. However, when Marissa managed to live past that benchmark, it did not mean the end of Adrienne’s worries. In fact, it was the beginning of many painful years of blood transfusions and immunological disorders. When an improperly matched blood transfusion caused a severe reaction leading to the removal of Marissa’s gall bladder and temporary kidney failure, she was unable to receive further blood transfusions.

    However, luckily for Marissa a project sponsored by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), headed by Don Kohn, MD at UCLA, was starting a clinical trial. The objective of the project was ‘to remove bone marrow from the patient and fix the genetic defect in the blood-forming stem cells. Then those cells can be reintroduced into the patient to create a new, healthy blood system.’The success of this clinical trial has given hope to Adrienne that with the help regenerative medicine her daughter will be able to lead a healthy and pain-free life.

    The Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison describes ‘Regenerative Medicine’ as ‘a new scientific and medical discipline focused on harnessing the power of stem cells and the body’s own regenerative capabilities to restore function to damaged cells, tissues and organs.’

    Stem cells that are found in the umbilical cord blood of new born children have the ability to renew and regenerate themselves. A stem cell, through the process of mitosis, can divide itself to either become a specialized cell like a brain cell or muscle cell, or remain a stem cell. They are also able to repair internal damage caused by any type of disease, disorder or trauma. Stem cell transplantation, stem cell grafting and regenerative medicine are some of the ways in which these cells are used to cure disorders and illnesses.

    Regenerative medicine includes a wide range of scientific disciplines, such as biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology and immunology. Scientists from these fields have been conducting research and studies in this domain and have identified three methods of using regenerative medicine. They are cellular therapies, tissue engineering and medical devices and artificial organs.

    Cellular Therapies – In this method, cellular materials, in most cases adult stem cells, are extracted and stored and then injected into the site of injury, tissue damage or disease. These cells, thereafter, repair the damaged cells or regenerate new cells to replace the damaged ones.

    Tissue Engineering – This method is related to the field of biomaterials development and utilizes a combination of functioning tissues, cells and scaffolds to engineer a fully functioning organ which is then implanted into the body of the receiver in place of a damaged organ or tissue.

    Medical Devices and Artificial Organs – When a body organ fails, the most common method of treatment is to replace it with a donor organ. Donor organs are not easily available and can pose as a hindrance in such cases. Even if a donor is available, he or she may need to take immunosuppressant drugs before the transplant and these drugs have been known to cause side-effects. In such circumstances, medical devices that imitate the function of the failed organ can be used, instead of transplantation. An example of one such device is the ventricular assist device (VAD) that is used in place of heart transplants.

    Since regenerative medicine deals with the use of stem cells, it occasionally requires embryonic stem cells for research purposes. This use of embryonic stem cells can often give rise to questions regarding ethics and legality. The laws and regulations concerning regenerative medicine are different in different countries. Creation of human embryos for research is only legally permitted in three countries. Majority of the countries only allow extraction of cells from surplus IVF embryos. A recent study, related to human embryonic stem cells (hECS) research policy, was conducted which revealed that UK, Sweden and Belgium were very permissive in authorizing the creation of human embryos for research, whereas, Luxembourg, Austria, Poland and Ireland had no laws regarding hECS. The legislations regarding hESC in most other countries range between being mildly restrictive to very restrictive.

    Regenerative medicine is the future of modern medical treatments. Scientists are conducting clinical trials and studies every day to further enhance and improve in this area of medicine.

    [ad_2]

    Source by Richa Verma

    Views: 0