03.30.08
Posted in Discussion at 10:30 pm by drkristen
This letter was sent to one of my colleagues in Alaska:
I am writing to warn parents of a very scary experience that we just
went through with our preschool daughter, Tatum, who is 5 years old.
Last night my husband went to pick her up from gymnastics and
noticed that she wasn’t participating but sitting out, drinking from
her water bottle. She told him her throat was burning and he asked
her why that could be. She shrugged her shoulders and said she was
thirsty. He sent her into the group and she was very distracted,
wandering and not listening. He said she walked to the back of the
room a couple of times and behind an area that blocked his view - at
first he figured she was getting a drink. He noticed that each time
she returned to the mat she had her hand cupped in front of her and
after a minute she would drink whatever it was in her palm. She did
that two times before he finally walked around the line of parents
and saw that she was taking the hand sanitizer and drinking it. He
scolded her and told her she was in big trouble, sent her to put her
shoes on and watched as she stumbled, lurched and finally fell over
while trying to put her shoes on. She asked him why she was feeling
so dizzy. We had no way of telling how much she ingested but could
smell the fumes on her breath, her eyes were glassy and she was
unable to walk or stand up straight. She was intoxicated. After calls
to poison control, ER and her pediatrician three hours passed before
she ’sobered up’. We still don’t understand what the fascination
was - she had once said it ‘tasted good’ but it clearly didn’t feel
good! Her preschool teacher had informed us a couple of weeks ago
that she noticed Tatum squirting instant hand sanitizer on her hands
and licking her hands. We had banned it from our home partially
because we were trying to control her severe eczema/dry skin and
knew that it dried her out and partially because I’ve always
believed in using it sparingly - that it strips the skin of all
germs good and bad and that it wasn’t necessary for daily use. I
thought maybe this was why she was fascinated as she seemed to
always take a squirt of it if it were in reach - like in the car
when I jumped out to put the mail in the box. We told her it wasn’t
good for her but she said she loved the smell. I stopped even
carrying it because of the dry skin issues. After learning about her
licking it we warned her again and the teacher moved the bottle
higher on the shelf. We thought that she understood that it was
causing her hands to crack and bleed and that it was very poisonous
to eat. She listened and it seemed to be resolved until last night.
We’ve learned that the stuff they use for instant hand sanitizer is
an extremely high level of alcohol - not rubbing alcohol but stuff
that is equivalent to a shot of vodka. We read about other kids
doing the very same thing, some overdosing and being hospitalized
after falling unconscious. From what we’ve read it seems that
alcohol poisoning is extremely dangerous for young children
(obviously right) but it affects their blood sugar levels (which can
lead to comas) and affects their kidneys. This means that even
after ’sobering up’ they can be in danger. Never have a child vomit
because alcohol also suppresses gag reflex so they run a risk of
aspirating and choking. I am not on a crusade to ban a product that
does have health benefits for the community but would ask that you
read the attached links to similar experiences with preschool aged
children - one overdosed in a preschool classroom after licking the
stuff from her hand just once. I know it is a convenient thing to
have on hand especially for young classrooms but we’ve seen the risk
firsthand and it is very scary. Unfortunately, as with any
potentially hazardous substance this stuff should be monitored and
used under adult supervision. At the very least adults in charge of
tiny kids should be aware of this risk so they may prevent it from
happening to anyone else.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/sanitizer.asp thanks,
–Patient letter from:
Kristin Cox, ND
Rainforest Naturopathic Medicine
907-523-2102
326 4th St. #202
Juneau, AK 99801
Permalink
03.29.08
Posted in Health News & Tips, Discussion at 6:17 am by drkristen
You know the saying, “if you can’t pronounce it, you probably shouldn’t eat it.” Well, the same goes for your skin! Our skin, after all, is the first barrier of our immune systems, protecting us from the bad bugs, and housing some of the good bugs. Yes, just like our gut, there is just as an important amount of good bacteria on our skin that help us fight infection, and it is up to us to help maintain that flora and keep our skin healthy.
I’m really starting to see a lot of bad reactions to skin products lately, so I thought I’d post a couple things you should try to avoid when purchasing lotions, soaps and the like. These ingredients are:
Parabens - often used as a preservative, it has been linked to connections with cancer in some studies and it also has shown to act like estrogens, therefore affecting your natural hormone balance.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate - often used in soaps, toothpastes, shampoos and more, this can be irritating and damaging to the skin, eyes and even your central nervous system. I’ve seen several patients who break out into hives whenever using a product with this chemical even though it claims to be natural and derived from coconut.
Propylene glycol - often used in soaps and moisturizers, this can trigger allergic and immune responses causing hives, rash and itchiness.
Check out what the Natural Skincare Authority has to say about these and other chemicals. These are even often found in ORGANIC products! Just because it’s organic doesn’t necessarily mean 100% natural, and vice versa. I even looked at my own collection of natural products, some of them pretty high-end, and I only have 3 things that don’t include the above chemicals! And that includes my toothpaste! So, if you want to clean out your medicine cabinet like I’m about to do, be sure to read those labels first 
What better excuse to go shopping?
Permalink
03.28.08
Posted in Research at 7:09 am by drkristen
Interesting aspect between liberal and conservative brain function:
Are Political Brains Wired Differently?
Researchers look at associations between political identities and neurocognitive differences.
Psychologists have noticed consistent cognitive and decision-making differences between liberals and conservatives. These researchers aimed to observe similar neurocognitive differences by examining the process of conflict monitoring, defined as detecting a mismatch between habitual response and that required for a current situation. This process can be tested with a “Go/No-Go” paradigm, where a frequent Go response (e.g., push a computer key when you see “M”) becomes habitual, and a No-Go stimulus (e.g., do not press a key when you see “W”) is presented infrequently. Monitoring the conflict between habitual and required responses is mediated by the anterior cingulate cortex and can be detected with event-related potentials and with error-related negativity (ERN), which peaks at 50 ms after an incorrect response.
Here, 43 right-handed subjects rated their political attitudes on a 10-point scale (8 were self-rated conservatives) and underwent a computer-based Go/No-Go task. On No-Go trials, liberalism was associated with greater accuracy and with significantly greater ERN activity than was conservatism. The authors suggest that liberalism is associated with sensitivity to cognitive conflict.
Comment: Some might conclude from this study that conservatives don’t change their responses when they need to. However, the authors also note that in some tasks, it may be beneficial to persist in a response. Readers must reflect on a large caveat: Very few subjects rated themselves as conservative and none as highly conservative (compared with 5 subjects who rated themselves as very liberal); this is unsurprising considering the strongly liberal populations in the study’s locations, New York University and UCLA. It is more accurate to characterize the groups as more-vs.-less-liberal than as liberal-vs.-conservative. Would the findings be replicated with a more conservative subject group from a “red state”? Are these changes learned or inherited? Are they malleable?
— Jonathan Silver, MD
Published in Journal Watch Psychiatry November 5, 2007
Citation:
Amodio DM et al. Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nat Neurosci 2007 Oct; 10:1246. [Medline abstract]
Copyright © 2007. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Permalink
03.26.08
Posted in Research at 1:53 am by drkristen
Eureka! They finally agree!
Is High-Fructose Corn Syrup the New Trans Fat?
Researchers link excessive fructose intake with obesity, cardiovascular disease, and renal disease epidemics.
Some evidence suggests that high consumption of fructose plays a role in the epidemics of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. In the U.S., these epidemics have been paralleled by a rise in sugar consumption. High intake of free fructose (found in high-fructose corn syrup, but not in sucrose) is associated with hypertension and hyperlipidemia in animals and with dyslipidemia and insulin resistance in adults. Further, small particle size of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is associated with obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and central adiposity in older children and adults. Investigators in Switzerland examined the relation between dietary fructose consumption and obesity, distribution of body fat, plasma lipids, and LDL particle size in a convenience sample of 74 children (age range, 6–14 years) recruited from schools and pediatric clinics; 43 children were overweight (mean BMI, 23.4), and 31 were normal weight (mean BMI, 15.9).
Dietary intake was measured by two 24-hour dietary recalls and a 1-day weighed food record. LDL particle size, triglycerides, and serum cholesterol were measured after a 12-hour fast. Overweight children had significantly higher plasma triglyceride levels, lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels, and smaller LDL particle size than normal-weight children. LDL particle size was associated with overall adiposity and central adiposity. The only dietary factors that correlated significantly with LDL particle size were total fructose intake and grams of fructose per 1000 kcal consumed; higher fructose consumption was inversely associated with LDL particle size, independent of adiposity. Fructose intake did not correlate with any other lipid variable.
Comment: Disentangling the effects of excessive dietary fructose from those of excessive dietary fat is difficult. The authors of this study and of an accompanying editorial and review provide plausible mechanisms for the deleterious effects of fructose consumption. They posit that fructose may not induce satiety to the same extent as glucose, perhaps because fructose does not stimulate release of insulin or leptin or inhibit secretion of hormones known to affect satiety. Moreover, fructose is the only sugar that raises serum uric acid concentrations; high uric acid levels are known to have negative cardiovascular effects. In fact, lowering uric acid levels reduces blood pressure in adolescents with new-onset hypertension. Once inside liver cells, fructose can enter pathways to form glycerol, the essential component of triglycerides.
Despite efforts to lower fat intake during the past 2 decades, obesity levels have continued to rise. At the same time, fructose intake has increased. In a recent meta-analysis, consumption of soft drinks (which contain high-fructose corn syrup) was associated with increased caloric intake and body weight. Beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup provide little nutritional value and displace essential nutrients from children’s diets. Perhaps fructose deserves the same kind of scrutiny as trans fat and the same type of interventions aimed at reducing intake.
— Alain Joffe, MD, MPH, FAAP
Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine December 12, 2007
Citations:
Aeberli I et al. Fructose intake is a predictor of LDL particle size in overweight schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 Oct; 86:1174. [Medline® Abstract]
Johnson RJ et al. Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 Oct; 86:899. [Medline® Abstract]
Bray GA. How bad is fructose? Am J Clin Nutr 2007 Oct; 86:895. [Medline® Abstract]
Copyright© 2007. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved
Permalink
03.24.08
Posted in Research at 7:10 am by drkristen
Here is another interesting snippet I got today. If it’s affecting fertility, it’s probably affecting other things too. Check out what Dr Mercola has to say about it and check out his snazzy radiation-reducing cellphone headset. I’ve heard good things and am going to purchase one soon!
Does Cell Phone Use Lower Sperm Counts and Impair Male Fertility?
High cell phone use could signal low sperm count.
Cell phones — used today by 700 million people worldwide — remain wildly popular despite reports that the emitted radiofrequency electromagnetic waves could have detrimental effects on bodily systems. In a study conducted at a fertility clinic in Ohio, investigators assessed the effects of cell phone use on several sperm parameters in 361 men who were undergoing infertility evaluations. Men with known chronic conditions that might be associated with impaired spermatogenesis were excluded.
The men were divided into four groups based on reported daily active cell phone use: no use; <2 hours; 2–4 hours; and >4 hours. Multivariate analysis revealed that mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology differed among the four groups, with sperm quality decreasing as cell phone usage increased.
Comment: An important limitation of this study is the failure to control for certain factors that might confound the association between cell phone use and semen quality (e.g., drug use, occupation). Nevertheless, the intriguing possibility of a relation between cell phone use and semen quality ought to be explored further in different populations, including men who are not being evaluated at fertility clinics. Might cell phone use really affect male fertility? Hold the phones!
— Robert W. Rebar, MD
Published in Journal Watch General Medicine February 21, 2008
Citation:
Agarwal A et al. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: An observational study. Fertil Steril 2008 Jan; 89:124. [Medline® abstract]
Permalink
Posted in Research at 6:48 am by drkristen
I recommend and use honey on a regular basis, and found this little snippet interesting. Coming from the allopathic world, this is pretty good! I don’t appreciate the “comment” at the end, but I guess they have to make it sound suspicious…after all…honey can be dangerous. 
I think only 14% of kids having “honey side effects” is better than what they get from over-the-counter meds! Remember though, on a honey serious note…never to give honey to a child under 1 year old.
Honey for Cough
It works, but it was associated with hyperactivity and insomnia.
The ineffectiveness and adverse effects of over-the-counter (OTC) preparations for coughs and colds in young children have been highly publicized (Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Sep 12 2007 and Feb 14 2007). Is honey a safe and effective alternative? In a double-blind trial, researchers randomized 105 children (age range, 2-18 years) with coughs attributable to upper respiratory tract infections to receive single bedtime doses of buckwheat honey, honey-flavored dextromethorphan (DM), or placebo. Parents completed symptom questionnaires the night before and the night after treatment.
Virtually all outcomes significantly favored the buckwheat-honey group. For example, parents in the honey group reported a mean 1.9-point improvement in cough frequency (reduction from 4.0 to 2.1 on a 6-point scale), compared with changes of 1.4 and 0.9 in the DM and placebo groups, respectively. Similar results were reported for cough severity and parent’s and children’s sleep. Mild side effects (e.g., hyperactivity, nervousness, insomnia) were significantly more common in the honey group than in the DM and placebo groups (5 patients vs. 2 and 0, respectively).
Comment: At first glance, these results might suggest “out with OTC preparations and in with honey” for cough. But not so quick! The percentage of children in the honey group who experienced mild side effects (14%) indicate that this practice would swap an ineffective medicine (DM) with a remedy associated with side effects that likely would concern most parents.
— Howard Bauchner, MD
Published in Journal Watch General Medicine January 3, 2008
Citation:
Paul IM et al. Effect of honey, dextromethorphan, and no treatment on nocturnal cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007 Dec; 161:1140. [Medline® Abstract]
Copyright © 2007. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Permalink
03.23.08
Posted in Discussion at 3:23 am by drkristen
Good Magazine made this great graphic. Feel free to click on it to check it out!
I’ll write more soon, promise! It’s just been a busy couple of weeks.
Permalink
03.15.08
Posted in Discussion at 3:41 am by drkristen
I’ve been getting a lot of the same questions lately, so I decided to publish some of them here.
Can you prescribe drugs?
It depends on the state license. Here in Oregon, we can prescribe most pharmaceuticals except for some psych-meds and a few heart meds. In fact, we get many more hours in our pharmaceutical education at NCNM than the students in the allopathic medical school up the hill from us. We have to be well educated in all pharmaceuticals, whether we can prescribe them or not, to make sure of any contraindications with alternative medicine - and their are a LOT! Just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean you can take it all willy-nilly with other meds, or take as much as you want! Our medicine is powerful - it has to be to have been around for thousands of years! You should always tell your doctor about any natural supplements/herbs you are taking. MDs are becoming more and more educated on herbal/natural contraindications, and hopefully soon it will be implemented in medical schools all over the country.
Will I have to change my diet?
This is probably the most common question I get with first time patients! Everyone is so worried about cutting their favorite foods out, I think it even inhibits people from coming to see me in the first place. I know people’s limits, and I’m willing to work around those to a point. But if it is significantly affecting your health, then yes, I will probably have you cut some common allergens out of your diet for a while. Let me also say, that once people do become aware of their food allergies, and realize how much better they feel when they don’t eat those foods, most enjoy cutting it out, making exceptions for special occasions. Food allergies are more and more common with what we eat nowadays. And this could be an important side to your whole health. Look out for my upcoming blog on fasting for more info!
Am I going to have to take a bunch of supplements?
This is where I may differ from some naturopaths. I’ve had people come in with literally a Rubbermaid container full of supplements that they take on a daily basis!! Many were given to them by NDs and many were self-prescribed. My goal as a practitioner is to get you living well through lifestyle and nutrition. Sometimes, it may take some time taking some supplements while we work on those lifestyle choices, but the goal is to not take many supplements at all, and hopefully that goal will be met sooner rather than later!
Are naturopathic remedies/herbs researched? Why are some of them not approved by the FDA?
There has been a TON of research on naturopathic medicine. What upsets me is that people don’t put the same weight in clinical evidence as they put in double-blind studies. Herbs have been used with much clinical experience for literally thousands of years. Same thing with food/nutrition. One thing that surprised me to learn was that aspirin was created before the FDA was created, and if it had to go through the same trials today, it would not pass. Mainly because it’s contraindicated with so many other pharmaceuticals - check any drug reference! Funny how so many people take this seemingly harmless over-the-counter med and don’t think about the other prescriptions they are taking. Seriously, there has been more and more research on naturopathic medicine. You should check out PubMed, the premiere research source online or simply use google to find the research going out there. We have an amazing research facility at NCNM and we’re always looking for study participants. Check out their website here.
So, those are really the most common questions. Feel free to ask more as I’m happy to answer them to the best of my ability!
Permalink
03.07.08
Posted in Discussion at 6:49 am by drkristen
I know I’m always looking on ways to buy green when I have to spend money on something, so I thought I’d share a great resource. The Green Guide, published by National Geographic has some excellent links and resources on ways to buy green, even if it means trying to figure out what type of fish to buy for a healthy dinner!
Check out their green products guide for more info!
Permalink
03.05.08
Posted in Discussion at 6:46 am by drkristen
Imagine my delight when I came home from a long day at work and found a box of joy at my back door. Yup, today I received my first CSA (community-supported agriculture) box of fresh, local, organic produce packed to the brim with apples, pears, rutabagas, kale, lettuce (I forgot how beautiful real lettuce was!), oranges, celery, onions, broccoli and fingerling potatoes. After the past few weeks, with barely enough time to sleep much less go to the grocery store, I finally broke down and subscribed to a local CSA program, Organics to You. For a mere $30 per bin, we’ll get a lovely package like this every 2 weeks (more often once we get used to cooking again once our schedules relax), and now I always have a healthy snack to grab when I’m running out the door. They even included some great recipes using the produce we received! We spend at least $60 on produce in a month, so this may actually be saving us money! Not to mention our hard-earned dollars go straight to the source - our local farms. Plus, our diet will consist of seasonal fruits and veggies, which let’s face it, should be the healthiest way our bodies should nourish themselves. Do we really need those grapes from halfway across the world in the dead of winter? This particular company also allows you to add non-produce items such as local, organic eggs, dairy and breads. They have a bin designed for every household from small to large, you can choose what percentage is fruit and what is veggie, and they even have special add-ons for kids such as baby carrots and other easy finger foods.
I can’t stress enough what a lifesaver this can be to busy households, not only time and money-wise, but health-wise as well. It’s so funny to me that when we get stressed out, we either eat nothing, or eat crap from anywhere we can get it, just to get some “nourishment.” We need to reconnect our relations with food, and being part of a CSA is a great way to start without making many changes to your daily schedule. I know I’ve posted about this before, but I just had to reiterate as I sit here with a warm, full belly of fresh veggies and apple slices for dessert.
Check out this website for CSAs in your area or google “Organic delivery in (your city),” and start eating real, local, organic food!
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
