Pharmaceutical Antibiotics Probably Promote Obesity

We may add obesity to the long list of iatrogenic (medicine-caused) disorders.

Katie Moisse of ABCnews online reports that antibiotics may promote obesity.

Her article refers to research done by Dr. Martin Blaser of New York University Langone Medical Center.  Blaser studies the effects of antibiotics on Helicobacter pylori — a bacterium that lives quietly in most but leads to ulcers in some.

In his animal research, Dr. Blaser found that:

"...antibiotics for H. pylori trick the body into eating more by disrupting hunger hormone levels. Indeed, mice given antibiotics get fatter than their untreated counterparts despite having the same diet."

Blaser published his concerns in an editorial in the August 24, 2011 issue of Nature under the title "Antibiotic overuse: Stop the killing of beneficial bacteria."  

I don't have access to that full text article, but in April of this year a team including Blaser published the results of a human intervention study in which they tested their hypothesis that altering intestinal flora with antibiotics influences appetite-regulating hormones and body mass: The effect of H. pylori eradication on meal-associated changes in plasma ghrelin and leptin (full text).


They found that people treated with antibiotics had a 6-fold increase in post-meal ghrelin, a 20 percent increase in leptin levels, and a 5 percent increase in body mass index 18 months after completing the course of antibiotics. 

 Science Daily reports that ghrelin "not only stimulates the brain giving rise to an increase in appetite, but also favours the accumulation of lipids in visceral fatty tissue." [1]  So antibiotics promote central abdominal obesity, the type associated with metabolic syndrome and increasing the risk of diabetes.

Even if this treatment had spectacular success in treating the main complaints of the patients involved, they might not appreciate the side effect of increased obesity.  But it gets worse.  The text contains this passage:

"At baseline, the 38 H. pylori-negative and 44 H. pylori-positive subjects did not differ significantly in median pain, non-pain, and satisfaction scores (data not shown). Among the 21 patients from whom H. pylori was eradicated, there were no significant differences between baseline and follow-up pain scores [Median (IQR) 9 (2-23) vs. 6 (2-15); p = 0.86], non-pain scores [13 (12-16) vs. 10 (10-18); p = 0.28], or satisfaction scores [13 (10-23) vs. 19 (12-20); p = 0.29]. Thus, the observed increase in BMI following eradication (Figure3) was not correlated with diminished dyspepsia that could increase appetite."  [Emphasis added]

According to these authors, pain levels did not differ between people who were H. pylori positive and those who were H. pylori negative.  This might suggest to some people (like myself) that H. pylori does not cause of the problem.  Further, treatment to eradicate H. pylori did not result in any significant reduction in dyspepsia (stomach discomfort).  This again suggests that H. pylori does not cause the problems experienced by the patients.

So, the destruction of H. pylori didn't give the patients significant relief from their main complaint (stomach discomfort), but it did make them fatter.  How do you like that for an effective treatment strategy? 

I hypothesize that the gut flora reflect the diet, and that imbalanced nutrition causes both H. pylori overgrowth and dyspepsia.   If you change the food flowing through the gut, you will change the flora.  Overgrowth of H. pylori only serves as a marker for a particular type of diet, and does not the cause the dyspepsia.  Killing off H. pylori doesn't give people relief from their gut complaints because their gut complaints arise from dietary and stress factors that remain unchanged by eradication of H. pylori.  

How about holiday weight gain?  Many people report gaining weight over the winter, which may coincide with increased (misguided) use of antibiotics for upper respiratory infections.

Not Just Obesity?

According to another article on ABC News online by Mikaela Conley,  "Blaser hypothesized that the overuse of antibiotics may even be fueling the 'dramatic increase' in many illnesses, including type 1 diabetes, allergies and inflammatory bowel disease by destroying the body's friendly flora, or protective bacteria" in his Nature editorial.

Some cancers appear related to antibiotic use as well.

Tamim et al reported finding a dose-response relationship between antibiotic exposure and breast cancer in Canada, with the highest antibiotic exposure linked to a nearly doubled risk of breast cancer:

"The incidence of breast cancer was higher in subjects who had more antibiotic prescriptions during the 1-15 years prior to the index date (RRs = 1.50, 1.63, 1.71 and 1.79 for the four quartiles, respectively, p-trend = 0.0001). Similar results were found when a number of units were considered. We did not find any effect of the timing of antibiotic exposure on breast cancer risk. Similar patterns of increased risk of breast cancer were detected for the specific antibiotic classes."

Tamim et al also reported a dose-response relationship between antibiotic exposure and prostate cancer in Canada, with the highest exposure linked to an almost tripled risk of prostate cancer:

"Antibiotics exposure (number of prescriptions) during the period of 1-15 years in the past was significantly associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer; RR = 1.69, 2.61, 2.71, and 2.83 for the 4 quartiles, respectively, p-trend = 0.0001. When number of units was taken as the exposure definition, similar results were found. We did not find any effect of the timing or class of antibiotic exposure on prostate cancer risk. We found a dose-dependent association between antibiotics exposure up to 15 years in the past and risk of prostate cancer. However, the lack of temporal trends and the absence of class specific effects suggest a noncausal relationship."

Both of these studies suggested a noncausal relationship between antibiotics and cancer.  Since the relationship seems fairly strong on a statistical basis, I would guess that people who use antibiotics often have cancer-promoting lifestyles, whereas those who avoid antibiotic use have cancer-preventive lifestyles.  The habits that make people prone to infections also make them prone to cancers.

Prevalence of Antibiotic Abuse

Conventional physicians most commonly prescribe antibiotics for upper respiratory, sinus, or ear infections, despite the fact that most of these events involve viruses or fungi (sinuses), which are not susceptible to antibiotics. 


Apparently, according to Blaser, the average American child will receive 10 to 20 courses of antibiotics by the time he is 18 years old, and one-third to one-half of pregnant women will receive them during pregnancy. 

This means that the average American probably has disrupted gut flora and increased ghrelin levels before reaching adulthood.

The Herbal Alternative

I haven't used antibiotics for 30 years. 

If I, Tracy, or one of my patients needs help with an acute respiratory illness, I use acupuncture and herbal remedies.  Often the early application of the appropriate herbal formula can reduce the duration of a 'cold' or 'flu' to 3 days or less, compared to the 7 to 10 days typical for these challenges.

For my patients with chronic stomach discomfort associated with ulcers (or not), I use diet changes and if necessary, herbal medicines, with good results.

Evolutionary biology supports the use of herbal antimicrobials.  Plants need to defend themselves against viruses, bacteria, and fungi without pharmaceutical aid.  Natural selection favored the survival of plants that could fend off microbes, so those plants that could produce antimicrobial compounds survived evolution and those that could not, did not.

Plenty of scientific research shows various herbs have strong antimicrobial activities.  For example, following traditional Chinese medical practice, I use formulas containing forsythia fruit to treat sore throats and acne.  Qu et al reported on the antibiotic properties of forsythia components:

"Forsythiaside was found to possess strong antioxidant and antibacterial activity but forsythin was much weaker. Owing to these properties, the study can be further extended to exploit the possible application of forsythiaside as an alternative antioxidant and antibacterial agent of natural origin."

The "possible application"? Physicians trained in Chinese medicine have been using this herb for centuries!

Notice their reductionistic approach based on their limited knowledge.  They believe that forsythiaside is 'stronger' than forsythin because the former performed better in their test than the latter. 


This reflects the pharmaceutical approach, which so far focuses on taking one agent, isolating it and increasing the dose, hoping to find some dose of that one compound that will take down all of the cells in the microbial colony.  This ignores the variability of individual microbes which almost guarantees that no one compound will kill all individual microbial cells in a colony.


Its like thinking that 100 highly amplified violins will produce the same music (have the same effect) as a 100-piece symphony consisting of a dozen different instruments.  Using the example above, people who focus only on one plant compound like forsythiaside because it appears 'strongest' in some laboratory test forget that their test is limited by what they think they know.  They think forsythin is less important because it performed worse on their test. 

But forsythias produce 'weaker' chemicals like forsythin for some purpose, probably unknown to these researchers and to myself.  Not knowing the reason, we can't assume that the 'stronger' compound is the better one in a natural context.

I would wildly guess that in nature, some microbes will survive a huge dose of the 'strong' compound but die on contact with a small dose of the 'weak' compound.

The benefit of whole herbs lies in their provision of multiple antimicrobial compounds, each acting slightly differently from the others, resulting in a whole that exerts a greater effect than any single part--just like a symphony exerts a greater effect than 100 amplified violins.   The multiple angles of defense against microbes provided by a whole herbal extract increases the chance that it will weaken all microbes it contacts, and reduces the opportunity for the microbial colony to develop resistance to any one of the herbal compounds.  

Plants evolved their approach to controlling microbes over millenia.  Do we really think we can by dicking around with our limited intelligence improve on an approach that evolved by a process that we don't and will never understand completely?  

According to my copy of Chinese Medical Herbology and Pharmacology by John Chen PhD, PharmD, OMD, L.Ac., the essential oil of forsythia fruit (Chinese: Lian Qiao):

" ...has demonstrated a broad specturm of inhibitory effects against Staphylococcus aureus, Diplococcus pneumoniae, Bacillus dysenteria, alpha-hemolytic streptococcus, beta-hemolytic streptococcus, Neisseria catarrhalis, Salmonella typhi, E. coli, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Bacillus proteus, Boretella pertussis, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, leptospira, and some dermatophytes and influenza viruses." (p. 175)

This provides only one example of literally dozens of antimicrobial herbs in the herbal pharmacopiae. 

With this knowledge, I just say no to pharmaceutical antibiotics.

Swine Flu Protection

If you think that immunization provides a safe hedge against the flu (swine or seasonal), you might want to reconsider. Today, MSNBC reported that a city nurse given the seasonal flu immunization two weeks ago has now developed paralytic Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

It appears that an outbreak of paralytic syndromes also occurred in 1976 when in response to a swine flu outbreak at Fort Dix in New Jersey, 46 million Americans got the immunization. On November 4, 1979, the CBS news program 60 Minutes aired the following video report of their investigation into the 1976 swine flu immunization, which left 4,000 people claiming injury, two-thirds of them with permanent neurological damage or dead due to paralysis that occurred after immunization.





So what do you do if you want to avoid Toxic Vaccine Syndrome and don’t take the immunization?

How to protect yourself from swine flu:

1. Vitamin D3:
a) Get your levels tested through Grassroots Health.
b) Take 2000-4000 IU daily of D3 until you get your blood test results.
c) Get as much direct sunlight as possible, without sunscreen, between 10am and 3pm, with as much skin exposed as practical.
d) Maintain levels at 50 to 70 ng/ml. Many people will need 4000 IU daily to reach and maintain this level in the winter.
e) If you feel an infection coming on, take 10,000 IU daily for 3 days or until the infection passes. Pregnant or lactating women should limit the emergency dose of D3 to 4000 IU per day.

2. Vitamin A (retinol):
a) Eat 4 ounces of liver once weekly, or take 1 teaspoon of cod liver oil daily.
b) If you feel an infection coming on, either eat liver, or take 10,000 IU of fish liver oil source vitamin A for three days in a row. Pregnant or lactating women can eat a serving of liver, but should limit the emergency dose of isolated vitamin A to 5000 IU per day.

3. Eat saturated fats, especially coconut milk or oil, or butter fat. Coconut products and dairy fats provide antiviral fatty acids (lauric, caproic, caprylic, and capric acids)

4. Avoid sugar, corn syrup, honey, fruit juices, etc. A 100 gram dose of sugar can depress your macrophage activity by 50% for more than 4 hours.

5. Reduce carbohydrate intake. Diets high in carbohydrate raise blood sugar levels, which suppresses the immune response. Eat a paleo diet of meat, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, as outlined in my book, The Garden of Eating.

6. Take herbs

For prevention:

If you have frequent exposure to infectious disease (e.g. schoolteacher) and history of frequent upper respiratory infections, I recommend ongoing use of Jade Windscreen (Yu Ping Feng San) throughout the flu season. This contains a high dose of astragalus root (Huang Qi), which raises white blood cell production. I have found it very effective for such situations.

For treatment:

a) Gan Mao Ling: A very potent antiviral combination of Ilex root, Isatis root, Evodia root, Chrysanthemum flower, Vitex fruit, and Honeysuckle flower. You can take it as a preventive in case of known exposure. Indications: Sore throat, swollen lymph nodes, fever, headache, body aches, sinus infection, ear infection, influenza, early stage measles. Contraindicated in cases with strong chills, and used with caution by people with hemorrhagic disorders or on anti-coagulant therapy.

b) Yin Qiao Jie Du Pian: Available in prepared pills. Superior for acute sore throat and swollen glands. Contraindicated in cases with strong chills.

c) Ban Lan Gen Chong Ji: An instant herbal tea available in many Asian groceries or Chinese herb stores. Use for epidemic toxins and seasonal toxic pathogens presenting with swollen, painful, sore throat, high fever, red and swollen eyes and ears, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, abscesses, boils, carbuncles, furuncles. Contraindicated in cases of with strong chills, and use with caution in hemorrhagic disorders or with patients on anti-coagulant therapy.


d) Gan Mao Jie Du Chong Ji: An instant herbal tea available in many Asian groceries or Chinese herb stores. For upper respiratory tract infection, cold and flu, especially with fever, neck pain, body aches, headache, sore throat, runny nose or nasal congestion. Contraindicated in pregnancy, diabetes, and cases of strong chills. Contains sugar.

BTW, I have no financial interests in any of these products, unless of course you get them from my office.

Sources:

Sanchez A, Reeser J, Lau H, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 26, 1180-1184

Bernstein J, Alpert S, Nauss K, Suskind R. (intr. by C.S. Davidson). DEPRESSION OF LYMPHOCYTE TRANSFORMATION FOLLOWING ORAL GLUCOSE INGESTION. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, Apr 1977; 30: 613 (abstract only published).

New Study Shows Pharmacological Foundation of Chinese Herbal Medicines

As documented in Wild Health, a book suggested to me by Todd Hargraves, a frequent commenter on this blog, not only humans, but many other species have used herbal medicine for literally millions of years. I call herbal medicine Paleolithic or primal because it originated long before even the advent of agriculture, let alone the emergence of modern allopathic medicine.

Anyway, researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston have found that ancient Chinese herbal formulas used primarily for cardiovascular indications including heart disease may produce large amounts of artery-widening nitric oxide.

Science Daily reported on this study:

"The results from this study reveal that ancient Chinese herbal formulas 'have profound nitric oxide bioactivity primarily through the enhancement of nitric oxide in the inner walls of blood vessels, but also through their ability to convert nitrite and nitrate into nitric oxide,' said Nathan S. Bryan, Ph.D., the study's senior author and an IMM assistant professor."

Traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) used primarily for cardiovascular indications commonly contain three to 25 herbs, administered as tablets, elixirs, soups and teas. In this study, the researchers tested DanShen (salvia root), GuaLou (trichosanthis fruit) and other herbs purchased at a Houston store to determine their ability to produce nitric oxide.

They also tested the capacity of the store-bought TCMs to widen blood vessels in an animal model. They found that each of the TCMs tested relaxed vessels to various degrees.

Allopathic medical practitioners commonly assert that herbal medicine "doesn't work" or suggest it is mere "folklore." Worse, they often assert that modern pharmaceuticals are "safer" than "untested" herbs. Packaged with this comes the belief that our ancestors were stupid for believing that plants provided medicines.

Allopathic physicians learned these beliefs in medical schools funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Since herbs are non-patentable competitors for patented drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry, the industry has done everything possible to prevent, suppress, and eliminate the practice of herbal medicine in the U.S., and internationally, including telling lies about herbs and getting licensing laws passed that effectively outlawed the practice of herbal medicine.

For example, consider how the FDA demonized Ephedra. Ephedra is an excellent bronchodilator that Chinese physicians traditionally used to treat asthma. The FDA removed Ephedra from the market after collecting 100 cases where people had died while voluntarily using it. All Ephedra-related deaths in America occurred among people using the herb improperly, without the guidance of a trained herbalist, and for purposes not endorsed by traditional OM herbalists (energy-enhancement, weight loss). Moreover, in none of the cases did the evidence clearly show that the Ephedra caused the deaths.

Aside from this being another sure-to-fail attempt at prohibition, comparatively, aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have much worse safety records than Ephedra. According to James Fries, M.D., of the Stanford University School of Medicine, about 76,000 Americans are hospitalized and 7,600 die each year from gastrointestinal bleeding caused by aspirin and other NSAIDs. Yet these remain on the market, approved by the FDA.

Moreover, the FDA still allows OTC sales of psuedoephedrine, the patented copy of the natural compound. I wonder who this benefits.....

Shows how you can always count on the wisdom and benevolence of the government. I believe that if we did not have the government (FDA, state medical licensing boards, FCC, etc.) protecting NSAIDs from competitive market forces by suppressing natural alternatives (FCC suppresses information about alternatives), we would have far fewer deaths from NSAIDs because people would naturally seek the safer alternatives.

And since herbal medicines are not protected by profit-generating patents (another way the government increases costs of drugs, etc.), and anyone can grow herbs, the cost of medical care would go down.

But then the Statist economists would start complaining about deflation, since you know that it would kill our economy if the cost of living declined, resulting in a decline of the GDP. Or so they believe.

Anyway, as this study of TCMs shows, the continuing denigration of our ancestors and diatribe against Paleolithic medicine that forms part of conventional "wisdom" does not stand up to critical analysis.