Become a Patron!

Jimi's Daily Health Articles

Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Common Medical Procedures
Endanger Your Brain

Before you have any kind of surgery, especially if you are middle-aged or older, you need to be aware of the brain damage that often results from general anesthesia – the kind where you lose consciousness.

Studies now show that this problem has been drastically underestimated by medical professionals.

Being “put under” and operated on can fog up your thinking and memory skills after the procedure is over. And probably worst of all is the patient may never completely recover the lost function.

I’m about to undergo a medical test myself that involves general anesthesia. I’ve made the decision that the test is necessary and there’s no really good choice. But it’s not a decision I take lightly. . .

Here’s why I’m concerned. . .

Continued below. . .

Special Message From Lee Euler, Editor
Mental decline is now hitting people
in their 40s - here’s why
Terrifying research shows that roughly 9 out of 10 of American adults may be at risk of a syndrome that’s skyrocketing cases of cognitive decline, dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Sure, mental decline used to be an “old person’s disease”, but we’re now seeing early signs of dementia in adults as young as 45.

But it doesn’t have to happen to you.

I watched my mother lose her mind to dementia. So when it came for me, in my 40s, I was ready to halt and reverse this devastating “memory thief”.

Leading-edge research has revealed a neural fuel that can help recover your memories, sharpen your thinking and restore independence in as little as four weeks!

Your doctor’s not going to tell you about it (in fact, chances are he’s unknowingly warned you against it), the health blogs rarely discuss it, and there’s nothing in the grocery store that can give your brain what it needs.

You cannot afford to snooze on this—your mind, memory and very independence are at risk.
>Click here to read on and I’ll tell you everything you need to know.

According to a study at the Mayo Clinic, surgery and anesthesia lead to a measurable, albeit slight, decline in cognitive abilities. The problem is greater for seniors than for younger patients.

The research, which involved 2,000 people, showed that being anesthetized for an operation in your later years often leads to long-term declines in brain function.1

The effects on the brain are usually not huge, but in people who are already experiencing some mental slippage – even if the loss is subtle and not very obvious – the additional changes following surgery can significantly impair thinking and memory.

The Mayo researchers note that the link in older people between undergoing anesthesia and then experiencing memory problems has been debated for quite a while. And they also highlight the fact that lab studies on animals suggest that inhaled anesthetic drugs may cause brain changes that increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease. (I guess the other option may be to get the drugs by injection.)

This anesthesia-caused brain problem has become so widespread, the medical community has come up with a name for it – "perioperative cognitive dysfunction" (PND). And according to a report by a medical group put together to study the problem, the condition occurs most frequently in patients in their sixties and older.2

According to this report, PND after anesthesia can consist of delirium – the patient becomes disoriented, suffers illusions, and becomes unable to understand where they are – or the result may also be a general decline in memory and cognitive abilities. That decline can occur immediately after surgery and anesthesia or set in as much as a year later.

"The majority of patients have no apparent cognitive issues after surgery, but some patients describe having what they call 'brain fog,' which can last for weeks to months, but then generally clears up after that," says researcher Roderic G. Eckenhoff, who is the vice chair for scientific activities of the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Ad Hoc Committee on Perioperative Brain Health Initiative. "They'll say, 'I can't do the crossword puzzle anymore, or I can't find my car anymore.”3

Making Surgical Decisions

In researching what to do when deciding for or against surgery, I have learned there is no one-size-fits-all general recommendation that applies to everyone.

It seems to me that when you’re getting up in years and you’re over the age of 60, if there’s an alternative to surgery for a problem you have, you should avoid surgery if at all possible – and especially surgery that requires general anesthesia.

But you should also know that some researchers believe it’s the stress of surgery – not necessarily anesthesia – that can cause brain issues.

I can easily believe this. I’m a firm believer in “energy medicine” – a general term that encompasses most of what conventional doctors don’t or won’t believe about healing. I think being cut open is being cut open, regardless of whether you’re conscious or not while it happens. It’s an enormous trauma that registers on the whole body, not merely the small part of it that produces “consciousness” (and by the way, no one quite knows what consciousness is anyway.)

Surgery Generates Inflammation

Even in terms of conventional medicine, surgery is a bigger trauma than any surgeon is likely to tell you.

“Most surgery causes peripheral inflammation,” says Dr. Eckenhoff. “In young people, the brain remains largely isolated from that inflammation, but with older people, our blood-brain barrier becomes kind of leaky. That contributes to neuroinflammation, which activates a whole cascade of events in the brain that can accelerate the ongoing aging process.”

Added to that, I even found a study performed in Australia that shows angioplasty and catheterization of your heart and coronary arteries – when you don’t even undergo general anesthesia – may lead to brain fog and other cognitive issues.4

But certainly if you need a coronary artery opened up with a catheterization procedure, you might have to take the risk of a consequent memory problem. It’s your call.

One thing I can say with confidence: If you already have noticeable memory problems, you should avoiding unnecessary surgery and anesthesia. The studies I’ve seen show that those who are already slipping a bit are at the highest risk of seeing even more loss of function after surgery.

Best Regards,
mail

Lee Euler
Publisher

References:

1 https://bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(18)30461-6/abstract
2 https://bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(17)54082-9/abstract
3 https://khn.org/news/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-memory-loss-after-surgery/
4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907560/
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Thanks Dale, I hope they do and it saves them the pain and anguish that I have gone through no matter what their disease is. The whole medical system isn't aimed at helping the patients anymore it's a high profit syndicated business IMHO:mad::mad:
 
Last edited:
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Jimi said:
Thanks Dale, I hope they do and it saves them the pain and anguish that I have gone through no matter what their disease is. The whole medical system isn't aimed at helping the patients anymore it's a high profit business:mad::mad:
Click to expand...

Here is a good example of just how very little they care about your health, they can't make money on well people:gaah:
The censorship war on health information escalates as Facebook deletes health group for advocating low-carb eating habits and good nutrition
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-28-censorship-war-on-health-information-escalates-facebook.html
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Are We Just One Year Away from a
Total Cure for Cancer?
Scientists are very cautious when it comes to making claims about a potential new drug. Their statements are studded with ifs, buts and maybes.

It’s not hard to understand why. The newspapers are full of stories about promising drugs that flunked their human trials.

No matter how well they performed in treating cells cultured in a glass dish – and even in animal trials -- when tested in humans the vast majority of new drugs fail. So we don't expect any scientist to claim they have a cure for cancer.

But a non-scientist might.

And that's just what Dan Aridor, chairman of the board of a biopharmaceutical company, announced earlier this year.

Is he full of hot air, or are his researchers on to something? Let’s take a look. . .

A smarter way to attack cancer cells

Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies, Ltd (AEBi) was founded in 2000 in the Weizmann Science Park in Israel.

Since then, the company has been working on ways to apply a targeted cancer therapy that is far more successful than existing approaches.

Targeted therapy works by homing in on specific genes or proteins that are unique to cancer cells, with the aim to either stop their growth or kill them.

One form of targeted therapy uses monoclonal antibody drugs which allow antibody proteins to bind to specific antigens on the surface of the cancer cell. The drug might carry a second drug to destroy the tumor, or may be capable by itself of encouraging the immune system to attack it.

Original expectations for this type of drug were high, but their use has been limited. The approach targets certain mutations that are the “signature” of the cancer cell, and it turns out there are thousands of such mutations, with new ones developing all the time. This renders the drugs ineffective, and on top of that they have unpleasant side effects.

Phage display is a way of improving the way antibody drugs are produced. A phage is a virus that binds to bacteria. The method allows scientists to study how proteins interact on a large scale. By doing so they can select proteins with a very high affinity for a specific target.

By 2006 AEBi was able to prove the effectiveness of a novel form of this technology called SoAP that would allow the development of more effective drugs with fewer side effects.

After another 13 years of development, Mr. Aridor was confident enough to make the following announcement in the Jerusalem Post:

"We believe we will offer in a year’s time a complete cure for cancer.

"Our cancer cure will be effective from day one, will last a duration of a few weeks and will have no or minimal side-effects at a much lower cost than most other treatments on the market.

"Our solution will be both generic and personal."

Wow. That's quite a statement. What’s it based on?

Prevents cancer cells mutating

Mr. Aridor and Ilan Morad, PhD, research scientist and CEO of AEBi, stated in the Jerusalem Post article that their treatment is called MuTaTo (multi-target toxin). More important than the name is the astounding claim that it’s "on the scale of a cancer antibiotic - a disruption technology of the highest order."

Rather than use phage display for antibodies, they carry out a similar process using peptides, which are smaller segments of protein, cheaper and easier to produce.

MuTaTo targets at least three peptides at specific overexpressed receptors on the cancer cell. Attached to the peptides is a toxin that attacks cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed.

Explaining how their drug was different, Dr. Morad told the Post, "We made sure that the treatment will not be affected by mutations; cancer cells can mutate in such a way that targeted receptors are dropped by the cancer.

"The probability of having multiple mutations that would modify all targeted receptors simultaneously decreases dramatically with the number of targets used.

"Instead of attacking receptors one at a time, we attack receptors three at a time – not even cancer can mutate three receptors at the same time."

MuTaTo also has many other advantages.

When stressed by chemotherapy, tumors activate detoxification mechanisms to pump away the drugs or modify them so they are no longer effective. But this process takes time. The Israeli scientist believes their toxin is so strong it's highly likely to kill the cancer before it can detoxify it.

It gets even better.

Destroys cancer stem cells

Chemotherapy is targeted to some degree because cancer cells are fast-growing, unlike most normal cells. However, cancer stem cells are slow-growing. These are resistant to chemotherapy, continue to grow, and cause metastasis.

In fact, cancer stem cells used to be called multi-drug resistant (MDR) cancer cells, and their ability to survive chemotherapy was a mystery. They are the reason why cancer patients are so often given the all-clear only to see the disease return several years later.

Because most targeted receptors on the tumor also exist in the stem cells, MuTaTo's multiple-target attack ensures the cancer stem cells will be destroyed as well, according to Dr. Morad.

Another advantage:

Tumors are able to put up shields to prevent large molecules like antibodies from gaining access. But peptides are very small and are structurally flexible. This allows them to get around the tumor's defenses.

Side effects would also be reduced because, unlike chemo, which attacks healthy cells and cancer cells alike, MuTaTo is highly specific with strong affinity to the receptors on the cancer cell. Even where normal cells display the same targeted protein, they rarely overexpress it.

"This makes a great difference between the two kinds of cells and should decrease the side effects dramatically," Dr. Morad added.

Eventually he expects the treatment to be personalized for each patient. A biopsy would reveal exactly which proteins are overexpressed. The patient would then receive a molecule cocktail customized for his or her tumor.

The evidence for this highly optimistic scenario is mentioned at the end of the Jerusalem Post article. It’s all based on experiments in petri dishes and one in mice. The latter was described as inhibiting cancer cell growth while having no effect on normal cells.

Mr. Aridor, as I said, is optimistic: "Our results are consistent and repeatable."

His forecast of a cure within one year refers to when the first human trial will begin. So under the best scenario this will not be available to the general public in one year and perhaps not for a number of years.

Experts lambaste claims

In science, the normal practice is to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal, not to put out a statement in a newspaper, so AEBi’s tactics have not gone down well with the medical community.

Len Lichtenfeld, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said "this is far from proven as an effective treatment for people with cancer, let alone a cure." He added, "the odds are it won't be successful."

I’m inclined to agree. There’s many a river to cross before we can be sure this is a cancer cure.

Vince Luca, assistant professor of Cancer Biology at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida was dismissive: "There are over 200 human cancers. Finding a cure for even one or two would be a major accomplishment. Claiming to cure them all is impossible."

Now, that I don’t agree with as stated. But if he’s speaking specifically about conventional “targeted” approaches, he’s probably right. That’s why the much older monoclonal antibody approach didn’t pan out: Too many strains of cancer.

A scathing attack was launched by Dr Ben Neel, director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York. He described AEBi’s claims as "yet another in a long line of spurious, irresponsible, and ultimately cruel false promises."

Comments from other medical experts included "selling unicorns," "unfounded," and "unethical."

Wired, a magazine devoted to new technologies, was seething. They described the Post article as a "fake cancer cure story" and that "peddling false hope is immoral."

Irresponsible or just well-meaning but desperate?

AEBi surely must have expected such a reaction, so why did its officers elect to go public in such an unorthodox way?

When Dr. Morad later spoke to The Times of Israel, he explained that "advancing the research and developing more targeting peptides...takes a lot of work and we are a small company. Publishing an article takes a lot of effort and a lot of funds, and this we can’t afford."

Although AEBi hopes to start a trial in a year, this will take place only if it can raise the money. The article was presumably a tactic for raising funds.

I’m not without hope that their technology will eventually be a success.

On the surface, their novel multi-targeted approach appears to have a great deal of merit and may prove to be far better than existing conventional treatments. Even Dr. Lichtenfeld admitted, "It is certainly possible this approach may work."

William Reveill, emeritus professor of biochemistry at University College Cork in Ireland, sounded a rare positive note amid the chorus of critics:

"Despite the widespread international skepticism that greeted AEBi’s announcement, I have a feeling that AEBi is on to something special."

But we’re not going to know for quite a while. . .
 
Last edited:
inspects

inspects

Squonkamaniac
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Big Pharma will do everything in their powers to fight off any potential cancer cure.....Cancer is BIG business, more than anything I can think of....$500 billion+++ a year....!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

VU Sponsors

Top