Month: August, 2010
Prolor study confirms potential of human growth hormone
| August 3, 2010 | 1:17 am | Uncategorized | 151 Comments

Prolor Biotech Inc. (AMEX: PBTH; TASE: PBTH), which develops proteins for therapeutic uses, today reported publication of a preclinical study in the latest online edition of “Endocrinology.”

The study shows that the human growth hormone linked to Prolor’s carboxyl terminal peptide (CTP) technology has significantly increased bioactivity compared with the commercially available human growth hormone. The study, written by Prolor’s researchers, will also be included in the September print edition of “Endocrinology.”

The company is developing CTP to provide growth hormone deficient adults and children with growth hormone therapy that requires only once-weekly or bi-monthly injections, rather than the multiple injections per week required by current human growth hormone regimens.

Prolor recently initiated a Phase II clinical trial of CTP, following a successful Phase I trial that suggested that CTP, in addition to meeting all safety and tolerability requirements, could potentially be effective when injected just twice per month.

Prolor’s chief scientific officer and lead author of the study Dr. Fuad Fares said “The publication of this study in “Endocrinology,.” considered to be one of the most authoritative biomedical research journals in the world, further validates the growing body of clinical and preclinical data supporting the ability of CTP technology to significantly extend the half-life and duration of action of therapeutic proteins,”

He added, “Therapeutic proteins are increasingly important treatments for a variety of diseases, and we believe the demonstrated ability of CTP technology to reduce the frequency of required injections could provide important benefits to the many patients who depend on these drugs. We look forward to completing the ongoing Phase II trial of hGH-CTP and anticipate initiating Phase III studies during 2011.”

Prolor’s share closed at $5.95 on AMEX on Friday, giving a market cap of $275.14 million.

Growth Hormone Ineffective for Anti-Aging
| August 3, 2010 | 1:14 am | Uncategorized | 153 Comments

In the quest for youth, many look to human growth hormone (HGH) as a miracle elixir.

Numerous books have touted its benefits as an anti-aging therapy, and a casual Internet search brings up dozens of sites pointing to its efficacy at staving off age-related changes in the body.

However, a recent review of published studies suggests that HGH provides few of the touted benefits for adults who are healthy. Worse, the side effects could mean that regular users are putting their health in jeopardy.

“The findings suggest that if someone is taking growth hormone to prevent or reverse aging, they should give it a second thought,” said lead researcher Dr. Hau Liu of Stanford University.

“This review suggests that there are modest or even minimal benefits associated with growth hormone, and HGH could be associated with significant side effects, including a trend toward diabetes and pre-diabetic conditions.”

Other medical experts who use HGH in their practices say the review sends an important message to consumers about the potential dangers of unapproved use of the hormone.

“This review doesn’t tell any of us who work in the field anything at all new,” said Dr. Mary Lee Vance, professor of medicine at the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center in Charlottesville. “But I think it is particularly important for those in the medical community and anyone else.”

The very fact that HGH is a problem at all may be surprising to some. But today, it is illegal to distribute HGH as an anti-aging therapy in the United States.

Despite this, previous research has estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 healthy American adults used growth hormone shots as an anti-aging therapy in 2004.

It is a situation that some say amounts to abuse of an otherwise useful therapy.

“I’m not against the use of growth hormone,” Vance said. “I prescribe a lot of human growth hormone myself, but for people who are deficient in it because of disease.”

Liu says most healthy adults who obtain HGH probably do so either online or through their doctors. Though use may be relatively common, he says the off-label prescription of HGH is particularly troubling.

“Growth hormone is an FDA-approved drug with FDA-approved indications,” Liu said. “Definitely, it is beneficial in certain conditions — children and adults with specific diseases.”

For those without these specific conditions, however, a daily dose of HGH could cause much more harm than good, Vance says.

“For a physician to prescribe human growth hormone off-label for a patient for whom it is not indicated raises some real questions,” she said. “First of all, it has not been approved and it has not been shown to be beneficial for healthy adults, and of course, it does have side effects.”

Some of these side effects include swelling, carpal tunnel syndrome, and the formation of breasts in men — a condition known as gynecomastia.

Research has also suggested that regular use of HGH in healthy adults can lead to diabetes and pre-diabetic conditions.

Cost is also a factor. Liu says that many people who use HGH off-label can end up paying thousands of dollars per year.

“People are paying quite a bit for these growth hormone shots,” Liu said.

Proponents of the use of HGH as an anti-aging therapy say that the study does not take all available research into account.

“The Liu et al paper is flawed, as it is based on an incomplete compilation of clinical studies of HGH replacement in healthy adults,” said Dr. Ronald Klatz, president of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M), in a statement issued Monday.

“The A4M submits that thousands of published studies on hundreds of thousands of patients have demonstrated the clear benefits of adult GH replacement therapy, when utilized under proper clinical guidelines and at proper physiological dosages.”

Dairy: Beware of the Great White Hype
| August 3, 2010 | 1:10 am | Uncategorized | 74 Comments

Milk, it is said, is “the” source of calcium that helps kids grow up big and strong. Milk is alleged to contain vital nutrients and to help prevent osteoporosis. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, through its food dietary guidelines, says that everyone should get 2-3 servings of dairy every day. Milk is advocated by various government agencies, hoards of physicians, and a $200 million annual advertising budget of the dairy industry. Can we ever forget the mustachioed faces of countless numbers of celebrities decorating everything from newspaper ads to roadside billboards?

And yes, America has a love affair with milk. So much so that the average person consumes 600 pounds of dairy products every year, including about 420 pounds of fluid milk and cream, 70 pounds of various milk-based fats and oils, 30 pounds of cheese, and 17 pounds of ice cream (obesity epidemic anyone?). In total, the U.S. dairy farmers produce about 163 billion pounds of milk and milk products a year. It is udderly horrendous, if you’ll pardon the pun.

But what if the celebrities we love and trust were lying to us? What if milk doesn’t do a body good? Instead, what if milk is a major contributor to breast and prostate cancer, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and more? What if the U.S. government and dairy industry are in bed together to hide the ill effects of dairy consumption? They wouldn’t do that, would they? Well, according to Amy Lanou, Ph.D., the nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), besides the above, “milk has been linked to anemia, allergies, obesity, and ovarian cancer”.

So why, then, is milk regarded as wholesome, especially with the U.S. Dept of Agriculture? According to its mission statement, it is charged with “enhancing the quality of life for the American people by supporting the production of agriculture”?

Today’s USDA has the dual responsibility of assisting dairy farmers while promoting healthy dietary choices for Americans. Would you think that this creates a conflict of interest that puts at risk the objectivity of government farm policy and the health of the dairy-consuming public? Duh! Six of the eleven members assigned to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee have financial ties to the meat, dairy, and egg interests. Prior to the PCRM winning a lawsuit against the USDA claiming that they “unfairly promoted the special interests of the meat and dairy industries through its official dietary guidelines and the Food Pyramid”, the USDA refused to disclose such conflicts of interest to the public.

Historically, the USDA’s dietary guidelines have consistently reflected the industry’s push for greater consumption of both flesh and dairy. The USDA counters this by saying that the guidelines should be “reality-based”, arguing that what people should really be eating is moot because it doesn’t fit with the American lifestyle. Whaaat? What they are saying is that the USDA doesn’t even think it is reasonable to aspire to what constitutes as a healthy diet.

May 13, 2002 marked the passage of the farm bill in which dairy farmers and processors received, over 3 1/2 years, an additional $2 billion in subsidies, largely realized through price supports that inflate costs for consumers. Understand that dairy subsidies are a carryover from the Depression era when survival of small dairy farmers was considered essential to maintaining a national food supply. By the way, most of that $2 billion went to larger dairy farms in 12 northeastern states, hanging small farmers out to dry and actually encouraging the demise of family farms.

Another assertion of the suit brought by the PCRM against the USDA is that milk, as a staple in school lunch programs unfairly discriminates against non-whites who have a high incidence of lactose intolerance. There are about 50 million lactose intolerant adults in the U.S., including 15% of the white population, 70% of the blacks, and 80 to 97% of Asian, Native Americans, and Jews of European descent. These 50 million people suffer from a variety of digestive symptoms resulting from milk consumption and other dairy products, including gas, bloating, diarrhea, constipation and indigestion.

Currently, the USDA requires that every public school in the country serve milk with a push by some of our elected officials to offer financial incentives to schools that install milk vending machines. To add insult to injury, students cannot get free or subsidized alternatives to milk, like juice or soy milk, without a doctor’s note. So, for the 70% of the black kids and the 90% of the Asian kids in public schools, a negative response to lactose intake is practically mandated by the U.S. Government. In essence, these huge dairy subsidies and broad-based promotions of milk by the government’s school lunch program is a form of economic racism that isolates minorities and encourages them to ingest something they are intolerant of or allergic to.

Girls in the U.S. are beginning to menstruate at younger and younger ages. According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, some girls are now experiencing the effects of puberty as young as three years of age. Fifty years ago the incidence of breast cancer risk among U.S. women was one in twenty. As of 2001, that percentage has grown to one in eight women.

Why is that? Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH)! BGH is a naturally occurring hormone produced by milk cows. Closely resembling the natural growth hormones in human children, the presence of BGH in milk has been shown to significantly elevate hormone levels in people, creating many growth problems. And that’s not even accounting for the use of artificial hormones. Enter Recombinant BGH (rBGH), an unnaturally occurring, genetically engineered hormone produced by Monsanto. As you know, Monsanto has made other fine humanitarian and ecological contributions such as Agent Orange and PCBs.

Through a series of research cover-ups and a network of conflicting interests with government policymakers, and we’ll get to that in Part 3, Monsanto, in 1994, managed to get approval for Posilac, which is Monsanto’s commercial form of rBGH and increases cow’s milk production by 15-25%. According to Monsanto, over a quarter of U.S. milk cows are now herds supplemented with Posilac. The majority of the country’s 1,500 dairy companies mix rBGH milk with non-RBGH milk during processing to such an extent that an estimated 80-90% of the U.S. dairy supply is contaminated.

What Monsanto doesn’t tell consumers is that this supplementation of additional growth hormones is causing secondary sex characteristics to appear earlier in young children, especially girls. Monsanto also doesn’t tell consumers that rBGH injected cows produce extremely high levels of Insulin Growth Factor -1 (IGH-1), a cancer promoter that occurs naturally in the human bloodstream at levels that generally do not result in tumors. Monsanto and the FDA refuse to acknowledge research directly linking elevated levels of IGF-1 to increased risk of breast and prostate cancer. To make matters worse, Monsanto and the FDA colluded in ’93 and ’94 to block labeling requirements for rBGH milk (even today Monsanto and the FDA block labeling of genetically engineered food). So, the average dairy consumer has no idea that they are increasing their own risk of getting cancer.

Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world, except the U.S., Canada, and Japan, and the 15 nations of the European nations, have banned rBGH milk. Yet, in the face of facts and the majority opinion of the global political and scientific community, Monsanto and the U.S. continue to endorse rBGH milk for general consumption. At the same time try to figure out why there is an increase in breast cancer deaths and the continually declining age of puberty for girls.

It’s not rocket science to see that milk is bad for people and that money is more important than concern for the welfare of the people, but what about the effect on the cows that produce that milk? The life expectancy of the average cow under natural conditions is about 25-30 years; on the typical factory farm, where well over half of U.S. milk cows live, they live only 4-5 years. Think about how you would feel if your life span was decreased by over 80%. What happens, because of adding Monsanto’s Posilac to the cow’s feed, is that it causes them to suffer from mastitis, which is a bacterial infection of the udder, cystic ovaries, and uterus disorders. Aside from the harm to the cows, guess where these illnesses wind up? Yes, through discharges that go into the milk and ultimately to you.

By keeping dairy cows constantly pregnant, which is the only way the cow can produce milk, it creates baby calves. Enter the veal industry. Since the male calves are useless to the farmers and have no economic value, an economic value had to be created. “Hey, let’s figure out a way to sell ‘em and make money”. As the true caring and compassionate farmers that they are, these male calves are taken away from their mothers, immobilized in small wooden crates to keep their flesh tender, and fed fake food so people can “enjoy” their soft flesh after they are slaughtered. In 2001, over a million veal calves were slaughtered in the U.S.

The bottom line is that it boils down to an all familiar story: big business and the U.S. Government have joined forces to dupe the American consumer. The USDA tells us to drink more milk while subsidizing large dairy farms and federally mandating dairy consumption and flesh eating for schoolchildren. The government spends billions to buy unused milk and dairy products, while the industry spends almost $200 million every year promoting dairy consumption. Meanwhile, the FDA and Monsanto conspire to pollute the already unhealthy dairy supply with a genetically engineered hormone banned virtually everywhere else in the world. Ain’t the road to profit at any cost, grand?

So while the American public can answer the absurd industry question, “Got Milk?” with a resounding, mustachioed “YES”, the better question might be whether people have gotten screwed in the process. In 1990, the Monsanto Company commissioned scientists to inject a bunch of laboratory rats with an early variant of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), aka rBGH. The 90-day study demonstrated that rBGH was linked to development of prostate and thyroid cancer in rats.

Monsanto, our friend who gave us Agent Orange and spent 40 years covering up the effects of PCBs, was about to seek approval for Posilac, the company’s commercialized form of rBGH. The study linking rBGH to cancer was submitted to the FDA , but somehow Posilac was still approved in 1994. With fingers pointing in both directions, those with opinions argue about who had the bigger part in the cover-up – Monsanto or the FDA. The results of the study, in fact, were not made available to the public until 1998, when a group of Canadian scientists obtained the full documentation and completed an independent analysis of the results. Among other instances of neglect, the documents showed that the FDA had never even reviewed Monsanto’s original studies (on which the approval of Posilac had been based), so in the end the point had no bearing on whether or not the report had contained all of the original data.

The FDA’s complicity continued; Michael Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer for many years, left in 1976 to become a staff lawyer for the FDA (Taylor was recently appointed by President Obama as the Dept of Agriculture head). In 1991, Taylor was appointed to the office of FDA’s Deputy Commissioner, serving in that capacity until 1994. The administration approved rBGH in 1993. While at the FDA, Taylor also wrote the policy exempting rBGH and other biotech foods from special labeling, considered by most to be a major victory for Monsanto. Ten days after Taylor’s policy was finalized, his old law firm, still representing Monsanto, filed suit against two dairy farms that had labeled their milk rBGH free.

As soon as the Government Accounting Office released a report covering all of this, Taylor was removed to work for the USDA, as the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, a position he held from 1994 to 1996. After holding positions at both the FDA and the USDA, Taylor went back to working for Monsanto, this time directly as the corporation’s Vice President of Public Policy.

Michael Taylor wasn’t the only government employee with an obvious conflict of interest. At the same time that Taylor left Monsanto for the FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller, once Monsanto’s top scientist, was also hired by the FDA to review her own scientific research conducted during her tenure at Monsanto. This is worth repeating. A woman who was once Monsanto’s top scientist was hired by the FDA to review her own scientific research while she was with Monsanto. So much for “…for the people”. In her role as FDA scientist, Miller made the official decision to increase the amount of permissible antibiotic residues in milk by a hundred-fold, in part to counter the increase of mastitis in cows due to overuse of artificial growth hormones. These incestuous relationships between industry and the U.S. government are the norm rather than the exception. Decisions at the FDA are made primarily by advisory boards comprised of scientists and executives from the dairy and meat industries, with a few university academics thrown in for good measure.

A word of good advice to adhere to: If man made it and you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it!

We live in a world governed by greed, dishonesty, and lack of compassion. To survive we must rely on our innate intelligence and on what our bodies tell us. We must shake ourselves free from the pharmaceutical-medical-insurance cartel and put the control of our health back into our hands. We, in order to achieve good health and a good quality of life, must transcend the endless messages we are bombarded with through the various media outlets and be sensible. To get on the road to recovery, to lose our dependence on prescription meds, to cure our ills and not just relieve symptoms, we must eliminate the causes from touching our lips. Flesh foods, found in anything that walks, runs, flies, crawls, or swims and dairy products, are loaded with artery clogging saturated fat.

Processed foods, refined grains, sugary foods like sodas, cookies, cakes, etc., and eggs, have to go. The yolks are high in cholesterol and the whites because of their hardening effect, are used as a base in aircraft paint because they can withstand the effects of extreme weather conditions.

If you don’t believe this and you still eat eggs, the next time you eat eggs, don’t wash your dish for a day or two and see what happens. Then decide if you want to continue putting this in your body.

Take the time to prepare you own meals, slow down, and try to relax. Even get involved in a meditation process. There are so many avenues of education available to you.

Life is too short to not make the most of it. Only you can make you truly well. You are your own best investment.

Let today be the day you take the first step in the marathon of life.

Aloha!