More practical advice for radiation exposure

In the years between 1981 and 2000, 50 people from around the world died from radiation exposure through local accidents of various causes, most of them not from nuclear reactors. Some were workers and some were from the public. In these accidents, hundreds of others were often exposed and became sick. In Spain, 11 people died from a linear accelorator accident. In Brazil, 4 died and hundreds were exposed from an abandoned medical test machine. I haven't been able to find records to see if these exposures caused further deaths from cancers, etc.

So in preparing for disasters, besides earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., it is good to be prepared for a radiation exposure. We have talked about possible supplements to take in previous blogs. Listed here are some practical things to do if exposed acutely to radiation.

1. Account for family members and loved ones. Remember that often even when cell phone networks may not be working, texting will.

2. Take shelter. Find a place where windows and doors were not open during the exposure.

3. Remove clothing. After reaching a non-contaminated place immediately remove your clothes and put them in a plastic bag and place them outside. This will remove 90% of the contamination. You can later have authorities dispose of the bag safely.

4. Take a shower. Gently wash rather than scrub so there is not danger of breaking skin and gettting contamination inside. Use plenty of soap and water. Gently blow your nose and wipe your eyes with a gentle cloth. Pay special attention to feet, especially if there was any contact with radioactive water. Put anything used for cleaning in a plastic bag for disposal.

5. Seal out contaminants. Use plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal windows and doors, or if that is not possible, to create a sealed room of plastic walls. Close vents and flues, and anything else with the possibility of bringing outside air inside. If you have one, use a HEPA air filter to remove contaminants inside. This is a good product to have for your home anyway.

6. Consider respirator face masks. Regular face masks are not effective as they are not tight enough and some smaller particles can get through. However, respirator masks are quite protective. For more information go to www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/factsheets/respfact.html.

7. Take potassium iodide and other supplements. See previous blogs for more information on these.

8. Consider taking Prussian Blue. In severe, acute exposure, there is a prescription medication called Prussian Blue that reduces the half life of Cesium and Thallium, allowing them to leave the body more quickly and thus reducing exposure damage. It must be prescribed by a doctor, so be sure and have access to your physician and a pharmacy. For more information on Prussian Blue go to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp.

9. Have other emergency supplies on hand. Things you would need in any emergency, such as a battery powered or hand crank radio, flashlight, etc., food, clean water, etc.

10. Be psychologically ready for disasters. The most difficult tole taken in disasters is psychological. Lives are disrupted and there is much fear about what is going to happen in the next days, months and years. Chronic fear and anxiety are often more harmful to the body than the things the body may be exposed to. Preparation reduces the fear, but if there is undue anxiety over the future and possible disasters, work through these with a trusted counselor.

Of course, none of us want to face the possibilities of going through what the Japanese are currently going through. But simple preparations and knowledge of what to do in any disaster reduces fear and risk.

Until we meet again,

Dr. Judi

Baking Soda for Radiation?

I have had connections with some excellent physicians, and learned of another simple remedy for radiation exposure that the army recommends: baking soda. Oral baking soda diminishes the severity of the changes that uranium creates in the kidneys. Bathing in baking soda (1-3 pounds per bath, depending on severity of exposure) and in magnesium salts (magnesium chloride or epsom salts) binds to uranium on the skin and some soaks into the body. Sodium bicarbinate has been used to clean soil contaminated with uranium. You can also boil baking soda in water and breathe the steam (carefully!) as a nebulizer to bind with any uranium breathed into the lungs. So keeping 10 or more pounds of baking soda on hand is an inexpensive preparation.

Other home remedies that have been shown to help:

High dose vitamin C

Chlorella and spirulina

Miso soup and seaweed

Cilantro

Internal consumption of edible clay and clay baths

Sulphur-rich foods like broccoli, cabbage and mustard greens

Chlorophyll and chlorophyll-rich foods such as wheat and barley grass

Pine bark extract, green tea extract, grape seed extract, dandelion root extract

Gingko biloba

Aloe vera and curcumin (tumeric) for skin damage

Some of these things may be good to use after CT scans and other diagnostic and treatment radiation exposure as well.

Until we meet again,

Dr. Judi

How much potassium iodide should I take?

This is written as a post-script to the previous blog. Again, there is little likelihood that we will get this kind of radiaton exposure at this time, so this is written for information for future reference, something to keep in our emergency supply of food.

The following is the FDA recommendations for dosages of potassium iodide if there is radiation exposure:

Exposures greater than 5 cGy:

Birth through 1 mo. - 16 mg.

1 mo. through 3 yrs. - 32 mg.

3 yrs. through 18 yrs. - 65 mg. (adolescents > 150 lbs. use adult dose)

Exposures greater than 10 cGy:

18 yrs. through 40 yrs. - 130 mg.

Exposures greater than 500 cGy:

Adults over 40 yrs. - 130 mg.

Potassium iodide protects for approximately 24 hours, and should be dosed daily until the risk no longer exists. First dose priority should be given to pregnant females and neonates, but a repeat dose should be given only if there is not proper evacuation and sheltering for them.

Persons with known iodine sensitivity should avoid potassium iodide, as should individuals with dermtitis herpetiformis, hypocomplementemic vaculitis, extremely rare conditions associated with an increased risk of ioding hypersensitivity. Individuals with multinodular goiter, Graves' disease, and autoimmune thyroiditis should be treated with caution -- especially if dosing extends beyond a few days.

Do not take ACE inhibitor blood pressure medication such as captropril, enalapril or lisinapril, or potassium sparing diuretics with the potassium iodide or the levels of potassium may go too high causing heart arrhythmias.

DO NOT take this amount of potassium iodide as a preventative measure. It will not serve the body and may harm it without the radiation to replace. If you want to use iodine and/or potassium iodide to reduce the affects of future exposure, take 500 mcg to 1 mg a day (MUCH less than the recommended dose for exposure) for at least 2 weeks to make sure the body has adequate iodine for all of its needs. You can continue to take 250 - 500 mcg. after the first two weeks to keep you level stable.

Until we meet again,

Dr. Judi

What to do for radiation exposure

With all of the fears of the Japanese nuclear reactor meltdown, potassium iodide is becoming hard to find. I personally don't believe that here in Utah we will have a large exposure, but there may be higher levels of radiation to deal with than normal.

Potassium iodide is going to be helpful, but for larger exposures it is not enough. First of all, the potassium iodide will help protect the thyroid, which is very susceptible to radiation, which can cause thyroid cancer. However, if you have low iodine levels in your body as many Americans do (in testing levels in my own patients up to 75% have low levels), just starting potassium iodide will not give you enough iodine to protect you. It takes several weeks on iodine supplements for the levels to rise to adequate levels to protect your thyroid. Iodine is also important for your breasts and other organs. So you may want to ask your doctor to check your blood iodine levels. If exposure is imminent and you don't have time to check your levels, a week or two of exta iodine will not hurt you.

Iodine and iodide work differently in different organs in the body. A better supplement would be one that uses both iodide and iodine, such as Iodoral or Lugol's solution.

The potassium in potassium iodide is also supposed to protect the body from cesium. However, you would have to overload on potassium iodide to get enough potassium, and that wouldn't be healthy for your thyroid. So it would be important to take extra potassium as well as the potassium iodide. Most supplements only contain 99 mg of potassium, so during radiation exposure you should take at least 5 a day (500 mg). If your kidneys are normal your body will handle that much well. If you have kidney failure your body already stores potassium.

Multiple trace minerals also have very important functions in the body. Taking adequate amounts of trace minerals will reduce the amount of radioactive minerals taking hold in the body.

Potassium and potassium iodide/iodine are not enough to protect from the heavier metals such as uranium and strontium90. Strontium90 and other heavy metals can be removed by EDTA chelation (IV if acute exposure), but the uranium molecule is too large for EDTA. By taking a humic/fulvic acid supplement, the uranium molecule is reduced and more easily removed from the body.

A good detox formula to assist the glutathione pathway used by the cells to remove toxins includes:
Alpha Lipoic Acid 100-300 mg.
N-acetyl cysteine 500 mg three times a day
Selenium 200 mcg
Vitamin C 4,000-6,000 mg.
Vitamin E (preferably mixed toxopherols) 800-1200 IU
Anti-oxidants to reduce the damage caused by toxins

Taking 12-15 capsules of chorella a day will also help remove heavy metals.

I would love to say that I have all of these supplements available on my www.springtreehealth.com website, but alas, as yet I do not. But they are all available on the internet and many in health food stores. Our SuperMulti Plus does have adequate amounts of trace minerals and selenium, along with good levels of vitamin E (tocotrienols) and anti-oxidants. If you are taking or needing the Glucose Balance, it also contains Alpha Lipoic Acid.

We all pray that there will be no need for radiation exposure treatment. But there are already many toxins and even radiation in the environment, and utlizing some of this may be important for many of us, whether the Japanese reactor has a meltdown or not.

My heart, like all of us, goes out to the Japanese people in this time of tragedy and suffering. I do pray that angels are surrounding and assisting in the cooling down, and pray for the men and women working on it to save and protect the Japanese and the world.

Until we meet again,
Dr. Judi

Dr. Judi's Dream Team

Hello! I'm Jason, Dr. Judi's son. I do occasional technical work on her blog so I have the access to sneak in as a guest writer while while she's busy healing. She knows nothing about this; hopefully she'll forgive my intrusion.

I invite you to consider being a part of Dr. Judi's Dream Team.

My mother, Dr. Judi, is a very busy woman. She spends an incredible amount of her time and her heart on healing people. She knows the trust that people put in her and works hard to be an excellent doctor so she can help her clients. This includes spending more time with clients than most doctors, staying on the cutting edge of medical advances so that she can offer the best solutions, and being open to proven solutions, whether or not they fit within the current culture of medicine.

In doing this Dr. Judi has developed a strong reputation for success with difficult-to-diagnose and chronic conditions. Client after client with problems like diabetes, fibromyalgia, autism, environmental illnesses, and anxiety disorders have experienced real relief through her work. But you already know this—that's why you read this blog.

What you may not be aware of, is that she has also discovered a variety of barriers to healing deeply entrenched in the traditional medical establishment. Barriers that she has had to work through herself in order to reach the level of success that she has. Barriers like compartmentalized specialization, a lack of awareness of the heavy impact of emotions on health, and a focus on isolated data rather than on whole people.

Dr. Judi really wants to change this. Because of her success, she has so many more people that want to see her than she has time to see. Her waiting list for appointments is often months long. She just doesn't have enough time herself to see them all.

For over a decade, Dr. Judi has been steadily working on a private dream, a vision of starting a Medical School/Healing Center. This Medical School/Healing Center would be designed to remove these barriers from the medical establishment and to create healing opportunities for many more people than she can treat herself. By shifting medical education's focus from rote memorization and intense competition to results-based healing, she can plant the seeds for a generation of doctors that connect with their patients as a rule, rather than as an exception. By exposing students to global medical research, she can open their eyes to astounding results that are being achieved in other countries. Yes, this would also be a research school, applying hard numbers and statistics using cutting edge methods like Active Control Study Design to alternative medicine to see what is a real opportunity, and what is snake oil.

Dr. Judi had an opportunity to test out part of her vision while she was an Area Medical Representative for the LDS Church in South America. A number of missionaries for the LDS Church were ending their proselyting early because of mental, emotional, and physical health issues. They couldn't find help out in the mission field, so they were returning home for medical treatment, with varying degrees of success. Dr. Judi (Hermana Moore at the time) was living in a hostel near the LDS Temple in the area, and began a program of having missionaries with significant health issues stay there at the hostel where she could work on an intense, whole person healing program with them, for a period of a few days to several weeks. After her program started, the number of missionaries going home because of unsuccessful medical care dropped drastically. Almost without fail, every missionary that went through her program was able to successfully complete their proselyting commitment.

Dr. Judi isn't unfamiliar with teaching in medical schools. A few years after she graduated from medical school herself, she was asked to return to that same school to teach other students. And she has served on the Utah Licensing Board of Osteopathic Physicians, the licensing body that determines who is and is not qualified for a D.O. medical license in the State of Utah.

This isn't just some vague desire. Over the past decade, Dr. Judi has met with a variety of people who have wanted to fund her project. She was approached by Utah Valley University officials (when it was UVSC) to see whether it would work to open the school in association with the university. She has been in negotiations with a number of people on purchasing land to start the school. She has contact with experienced, qualified professionals that want to teach at her school.

Unfortunately, my mother doesn't have the time to work on all these projects. To write business plans and proposals, to manage a non-profit entity that would head up the project. To raise funds and negotiate real estate purchases and establish marketing strategies. All of her time is taken up healing her clients.

Dr. Judi needs a team of experienced, qualified people that see the incredible possibilities that lie in her vision, her dream, and are willing to step in and pick up a part of the load to make it happen. People who have had success creating big projects from the ground up. People who see the need for change and growth in the medical establishment, and who are ready to take action to make it happen.

Dr. Judi knows what needs to be done. But she can't do it herself. You, however, may have the experience, the skills, the contacts to move her vision forward. Or you may know someone who does. Are you interested in being a part of Dr. Judi's Dream Team?

Jason

P.S. I love you, Mom!

How are Environmental Toxins Affecting Our Children?

This CNN special shows how the many chemicals in our food, water and environment are affecting our children. I urge you to watch it.

TOXIC AMERICA:

http://www.fliqz.com/aspx/permalinkblank.aspx?vid=da7b1310d17940cd9785f79a52464b4d

Until we meet again,
Dr. Judi

Are Statins Beneficial in Preventing Heart Disease?

If you are taking a statin drug to prevent heart disease even though your cholesterol levels may be normal, think again.

The following is quoted from Family Practice News, Volume 40, Issue 12, Pages 10-11 (July 2010):

Studies Dispute Statins Benefits for Prevention

The only large clinical trial to find that statins reduce mortality in patients taking them for primary prevention—a group that comprises 75% of statin users—was so seriously flawed that its conclusions were termed “clinically inconsistent” and invalid by one group of researchers and “extreme and exaggerated” by another, according to separate reports.

In the first critique of the 2008 JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention) trial, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril of Université Joseph Fourier and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Grenoble, France, and his associates, analyzed the methods and findings of this only major study to claim that rosuvastatin produced a striking decrease in mortality in low-risk patients who have no evidence of coronary heart disease. These findings, which immediately provoked controversy, “have undoubtedly propelled many healthy persons without elevated cholesterol levels onto long-term statin treatment,” Dr. de Lorgeril and his colleagues said.

First among its major flaws, JUPITER was terminated early and apparently without proper justification according to the study's own protocol prespecifications. Early termination, a practice confined largely to industry-sponsored trials, tends to introduce biases that exaggerate the benefit and minimize the long-term harm of the treatment being assessed, according to the researchers. In this case, it also meant that the study was stopped just as mortality curves between the statin group and the control group had begun to converge, “suggesting that the borderline significant difference between groups may have disappeared” if follow-up had not been prematurely terminated, they wrote.

The main justification for terminating JUPITER was explained as an “unequivocal reduction in cardiovascular mortality” with statin therapy. Yet the JUPITER investigators did not include data on cardiovascular mortality in their published report. Readers would have to infer this result by extrapolating from data on a table. When examined closely, however, that data showed identical cardiovascular mortality between the treatment groups.

“Such a lack of effect on cardiovascular mortality [together] with a strong effect on nonfatal complications strongly suggests a bias in the data set and should have led to the continuation of the trial rather than to its premature ending,” Dr. de Lorgeril and his colleagues asserted.

Second, the ratio of fatal to nonfatal MI was so low as to be “incredible.” In particular, the case-fatality rate in the placebo group was only 8% when it would be expected to be about 50%, “a clinical inconsistency that suggests a major flaw in the study.” Moreover, the case-fatality rate with rosuvastatin was 29%, which implies that the “beneficial” drug actually tripled the case-fatality rate, they noted.

Third, JUPITER failed to explain why a strikingly high number of deaths—19 of 31 deaths in the rosuvastatin group and 25 of 37 deaths in the placebo group—were attributed to cardiovascular causes other than MI or stroke. Proponents of the JUPITER study argued after its publication that this referred to causes “such as aneurysm rupture.”

“Would this mean that in the same period of time there were 6 fatal infarctions and 25 fatal aneurysm ruptures in the placebo group? This is highly unlikely,” Dr. de Lorgeril and his associates said.

JUPITER also failed to report data on sudden cardiac deaths, which is surprising given that this is “the simplest and most reliable diagnosis in cardiology” and that it usually comprises 65%-70% of total cardiac mortality. “The way sudden cardiac death is reported—or not reported—may be a good indicator of the quality of the methods used in a trial,” they noted.

Equally important to these methodological flaws, the JUPITER trial involved several conflicts of interest.

“It was conducted by a sponsor with obvious commercial interests. Nine of 14 authors of the JUPITER article have financial ties to the sponsor. The principal investigator has a personal conflict of interest as a co-holder of the patent for the C-reactive protein test” that figured prominently in the rationale for statin therapy.

In addition, the monitoring board that made the decision to halt the trial early was chaired by an investigator who “has been and still is involved in many other industry-sponsored lipid-lowering trials,” Dr. de Lorgeril and colleagues said (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170:1,032-6).

“In conclusion, the results of the JUPITER trial are clinically inconsistent and therefore should not change medical practice or clinical guidelines.” Given that all 12 of the other large cholesterol-lowering trials conducted so far have failed to show any benefit from statins as primary prevention, it appears that “the presumed preventive effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs have been considerably exaggerated,” they said.

In the second study, Dr. Kausik K. Ray of the University of Cambridge (England) and his associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects on all-cause mortality of statins versus a placebo or control therapies on all-cause mortality. They restricted their analysis to data on high-risk patients with no known cardiovascular disease and included previously unpublished data, “to provide the most robust information to date” on statins as primary prevention in this patient group.

The meta-analysis involved 65,229 men and women in predominantly Western populations, with approximately 244,000 person-years of follow-up. There were 2,793 deaths during an average of 4 years of follow-up.

All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients taking statins and those taking placebo or control therapies. This suggests that “the all-cause mortality reduction of 20% reported in JUPITER is likely to be an extreme and exaggerated finding, as often occurs when trials are stopped early,” Dr. Ray and his colleagues said (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170;1024-31).

This meta-analysis shows that statin therapy as primary prevention in high-risk patients is less beneficial than is generally perceived, and it can be inferred to be even less helpful in low-risk patients.

One of Dr. de Lorgeril's associates served as an expert in litigation involving the pharmaceutical industry (not involving rosuvastatin). Dr. Ray and an associate reported financial ties to the majority of companies that market lipid-lowering agents; other associates reported ties to Pfizer Inc., Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck & Co.

My Take
Both Critiques Are On-Target
These two critiques offer valuable insights and likely will reignite the long-simmering controversy over the use of statins as primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

Dr. de Lorgeril's critical analysis highlights several anomalies in the JUPITER trial data. In particular, early termination of the study allowed for inflated estimates of benefits, understated harms, allowed the findings to be published earlier (and hence used to advantage in marketing), and reduced the cost of the trial—which all significantly benefited the industry sponsor and a financially invested research team.

Tens of billions of dollars of revenue for the sponsor over the patent life of the drug were at stake in the JUPITER trial, as well as potentially millions of dollars in royalties for the principal investigator. And with three-quarters of statin users taking the drugs for primary prevention, enormous revenues are at stake.

The analysis by de Lorgeril et al. clearly demonstrates why research must be free of incentives to find a particular desired result.

Dr. Ray's report presents what is to date the cleanest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of pharmacological lipid lowering for prevention.

The results make it clear that for primary prevention in the short term, statins' benefits are very small. And in the long term, although sincere advocates on both sides will try to convince us otherwise, we really must admit that we do not know.

LEE A. GREEN, M.D., is in the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. He reported no financial conflicts of interest. His comments appeared in an editorial (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010:170;1007-8).

From Archives of Internal Medicine

PII: S0300-7073(10)70742-8
doi:10.1016/S0300-7073(10)70742-8

Dr. Judi here: Statin medications have a lot of side effects which have an insidious onset and are hard to tell that the statin is causing them, including muscle pain and memory loss.

Other studies have shown that the best benefit from statins comes from those with high cholesterol and high cardiac c-reactive protein between the ages of 40-60. It is interesting to note that the elderly do not receive benefit from lowering their cholesterol. In fact, those with the lowest cholesterol have higher death rates than those with higher cholesterol. So when your doctor tells you that the statin drugs are the new wonder drug, look at benefits vs. the risks, do some research, and determine what is best for you.

Until we meet again,
Dr. Judi