Fish oil and a variety of dietary supplements used to ameliorate the symptoms of menopause were evaluated in a recent study to determine their possible association with breast cancer risk. In the study, researchers investigated the relationship between the consumption of fish oil, and menopausal supplements (black cohosh, dong quai, soy, and St. John's Wort), and the risk of developing breast cancer. The subjects were followed for up to 7 years to evaluate the incidence of breast cancer.
The results showed that the subjects' current use of fish oil was associated with a 32% reduction in the risk of developing ductal breast cancer, particularly those taking it for over 10 years. The use of the menopausal supplements did not affect breast cancer risk.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
What is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?
Carpal tunnel syndrome or, CTS, is a condition where a nerve (called the median nerve) is compressed in a relatively tight or restricted space (called the carpal tunnel), resulting in altered nerve function that includes numbness and weakness. In order to fully understand what CTS is, let’s devote this Health Update to better understanding the anatomy of the carpal tunnel.
The carpal tunnel is made up from 8 bones (2 rows of 4 carpal bones that are stacked on top of each other) that are arranged in the shape of a horse shoe. The “roof” of the tunnel is a ligament (transverse carpal ligament) that stretches tightly across the two ends of the horseshoe completing the formation of a tunnel – actually, an upside down tunnel when looking at the palm side of the wrist). The contents of the tunnel include 9 tendons and their covering (sheath), blood vessels and on top of all that just under the roof is the median nerve – the culprit that creates most of the symptoms of CTS. The cause of CTS is simply anything that causes the contents inside the tunnel to swell or become inflamed, which then compresses the median nerve up into the roof or ligament, pinching the nerve. This can create pain, numbness, tingling, the falling asleep sensation and weakness. It’s important to point out that the median nerve starts out from the neck, passes through the shoulder, past the elbow, through the wrist’s carpal tunnel and ends in the hand – specifically fingers 1, 2, 3, and part of the 4th finger. Therefore, the ENTIRE nerve must be looked at for all CTS cases as pinching can occur anywhere along its course from the neck to the hand.
The carpal tunnel is made up from 8 bones (2 rows of 4 carpal bones that are stacked on top of each other) that are arranged in the shape of a horse shoe. The “roof” of the tunnel is a ligament (transverse carpal ligament) that stretches tightly across the two ends of the horseshoe completing the formation of a tunnel – actually, an upside down tunnel when looking at the palm side of the wrist). The contents of the tunnel include 9 tendons and their covering (sheath), blood vessels and on top of all that just under the roof is the median nerve – the culprit that creates most of the symptoms of CTS. The cause of CTS is simply anything that causes the contents inside the tunnel to swell or become inflamed, which then compresses the median nerve up into the roof or ligament, pinching the nerve. This can create pain, numbness, tingling, the falling asleep sensation and weakness. It’s important to point out that the median nerve starts out from the neck, passes through the shoulder, past the elbow, through the wrist’s carpal tunnel and ends in the hand – specifically fingers 1, 2, 3, and part of the 4th finger. Therefore, the ENTIRE nerve must be looked at for all CTS cases as pinching can occur anywhere along its course from the neck to the hand.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Obesity and Weight Loss
The June 19th, 2010 edition of The Endocrine Society reports, “[According to a new study ,] Obese women with insulin resistance lose more weight after three months on a lower-carbohydrate diet than on a traditional low-fat diet with the same number of calories...” The study’s lead author, Raymond Plodkowski, MD, Chief of Endocrinology, Nutrition and Metabolism at the University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno wrote, “The typical diet that physicians recommend for weight loss is a low-fat diet… However, as this study shows, not all people have the same response to diets.”
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Dangers of Sunscreens
For years and years, we have known two things to be true. First, the sun is bad for you… therefore exposure should be limited. Most people don’t know this, but the sun has three types of “rays,” not just two.
The first is UVC. This ray usually does not reach our planet’s surface and this is good because it is believed only brief exposure to UVC rays is fatal.
Next, are UVB rays. These have long been considered the “tanning rays.” They are strongest during the summer months when the Earth’s orbit is closest to the Sun. UVB rays are what produce a “sun tan.”
For many years, sunblocks and sunscreens only attempted to block UVB because science was unaware of the effects of UVA rays (the third type of sun ray) on the body.
UVA was believed to be the safe ray in the 1980s, which spawned the growth and popularity of the artificial sun bed industry – some dermatologists even backed this artificial tanning! But, science now believes UVA rays actually do more damage than UVB rays! UVA rays are not dependant on how far the Earth is from the Sun – so the effects are the same all year round.
What’s more, UVA penetrates light clothing and car windshields... even many hats. Over-exposure to the sun has been linked to premature aging and even deadly skin cancer... Which Brings Us To The Second “Truth”:
Limit exposure to the harmful rays of the sun by using high SPF sunscreens and sunblocks. For years, the sunblock industry has been booming with the promise their products protect you from the sun’s aging and cancerous rays.
But, research now says these “truths” are not so “true.”
For example, there is no consensus whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer. According to the Environmental Working Groups’ (ewg.org) finding, “The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen safety regulations say: FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer.” (FDA 2007).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation and writes “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a). Even worse, there is evidence emerging that sunscreen may actually INCREASE THE RISK OF SKIN CANCER!
Researches speculate the cause(s) may be lack of UVA protection by most sunscreen for over 30 years, improper usage, staying in the sun longer with sunscreens and some of the ingredients. One big problem is the SPF (sun protection factor) myth.
In 2007, the FDA published draft regulations that would prohibit manufacturers from labeling sunscreens over 50 SPF. The FDA stated that anything over 50 SPF was “inherently misleading.” Even an SPF of 50 can be misleading because of the way most people use sunscreen. In the real world, tests show people apply only one-half to one-fifth of the amount used when testing the sunscreen. A person using one-fourth the amount of sunscreen with an SPF of 30 only actually gets an SPF of 2.3. The same person using a sunscreen with SPF 100 ends up with only SPF 3.2. (The math is exponential, that’s why there are such drastic reductions in SPF.)
Then, there are the potential problems with the ingredients found in sunscreens. For example, oxybenzone, a common ingredient, is a known hormone disruptor. Retinyl palmitate (a form of Vitamin A also commonly used in sunscreens) may increase the risk of skin cancer.
According to Environmental Working Groups, “The publicly available data from FDA’s new study suggest that when used in sun-exposed skin care products, retinyl palmitate and related chemicals may increase skin damage and elevate skin cancer risk instead of protecting the skin.” Also, according to Environmental Working Groups, 41% of all sunscreens contain retinyl palmitate.
All of this may be surprising but what’s even more shocking is that the FDA first issued draft sunscreen regulations in 1978 and last updated the draft in 2007. The regulations are still not final, despite multiple announcements of impending completion. Until the agency formally issues its rules, companies are not required to verify their sunscreens work, including testing for SPF levels, checking waterproof claims or providing UVA protection. Nearly one in eight sunscreens do not block UVA rays. Many carry the seal of “The Skin Cancer Foundation.” According to the Environmental Working Groups, “The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) lends its logo to hundreds of sun protection products. SCF approval is easy, just document that your product has an SPF of at least 15 and provide results of basic tests (for SPF, skin reactions and water and sweat resistance, if such claims are made). SCF also requires that companies pay a $10,000 donation to join the Foundation’s ‘Corporate Council’ in order to have their products approved.”
Confused? If you are, then you are not alone. Here’s something that will make the most of the confusion disappear… Since sunscreens are probably not as safe as once thought, the best thing to do is stay out of the sun during its peak hours (10:00am – 2:00pm) and whenever possible, wear protective clothing instead of chemicals. Don’t forget, some sun is absolutely necessary for Vitamin D production and proper health. The amount of sun you should get depends on your skin type but you should NEVER burn.
The first is UVC. This ray usually does not reach our planet’s surface and this is good because it is believed only brief exposure to UVC rays is fatal.
Next, are UVB rays. These have long been considered the “tanning rays.” They are strongest during the summer months when the Earth’s orbit is closest to the Sun. UVB rays are what produce a “sun tan.”
For many years, sunblocks and sunscreens only attempted to block UVB because science was unaware of the effects of UVA rays (the third type of sun ray) on the body.
UVA was believed to be the safe ray in the 1980s, which spawned the growth and popularity of the artificial sun bed industry – some dermatologists even backed this artificial tanning! But, science now believes UVA rays actually do more damage than UVB rays! UVA rays are not dependant on how far the Earth is from the Sun – so the effects are the same all year round.
What’s more, UVA penetrates light clothing and car windshields... even many hats. Over-exposure to the sun has been linked to premature aging and even deadly skin cancer... Which Brings Us To The Second “Truth”:
Limit exposure to the harmful rays of the sun by using high SPF sunscreens and sunblocks. For years, the sunblock industry has been booming with the promise their products protect you from the sun’s aging and cancerous rays.
But, research now says these “truths” are not so “true.”
For example, there is no consensus whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer. According to the Environmental Working Groups’ (ewg.org) finding, “The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen safety regulations say: FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer.” (FDA 2007).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation and writes “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a). Even worse, there is evidence emerging that sunscreen may actually INCREASE THE RISK OF SKIN CANCER!
Researches speculate the cause(s) may be lack of UVA protection by most sunscreen for over 30 years, improper usage, staying in the sun longer with sunscreens and some of the ingredients. One big problem is the SPF (sun protection factor) myth.
In 2007, the FDA published draft regulations that would prohibit manufacturers from labeling sunscreens over 50 SPF. The FDA stated that anything over 50 SPF was “inherently misleading.” Even an SPF of 50 can be misleading because of the way most people use sunscreen. In the real world, tests show people apply only one-half to one-fifth of the amount used when testing the sunscreen. A person using one-fourth the amount of sunscreen with an SPF of 30 only actually gets an SPF of 2.3. The same person using a sunscreen with SPF 100 ends up with only SPF 3.2. (The math is exponential, that’s why there are such drastic reductions in SPF.)
Then, there are the potential problems with the ingredients found in sunscreens. For example, oxybenzone, a common ingredient, is a known hormone disruptor. Retinyl palmitate (a form of Vitamin A also commonly used in sunscreens) may increase the risk of skin cancer.
According to Environmental Working Groups, “The publicly available data from FDA’s new study suggest that when used in sun-exposed skin care products, retinyl palmitate and related chemicals may increase skin damage and elevate skin cancer risk instead of protecting the skin.” Also, according to Environmental Working Groups, 41% of all sunscreens contain retinyl palmitate.
All of this may be surprising but what’s even more shocking is that the FDA first issued draft sunscreen regulations in 1978 and last updated the draft in 2007. The regulations are still not final, despite multiple announcements of impending completion. Until the agency formally issues its rules, companies are not required to verify their sunscreens work, including testing for SPF levels, checking waterproof claims or providing UVA protection. Nearly one in eight sunscreens do not block UVA rays. Many carry the seal of “The Skin Cancer Foundation.” According to the Environmental Working Groups, “The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) lends its logo to hundreds of sun protection products. SCF approval is easy, just document that your product has an SPF of at least 15 and provide results of basic tests (for SPF, skin reactions and water and sweat resistance, if such claims are made). SCF also requires that companies pay a $10,000 donation to join the Foundation’s ‘Corporate Council’ in order to have their products approved.”
Confused? If you are, then you are not alone. Here’s something that will make the most of the confusion disappear… Since sunscreens are probably not as safe as once thought, the best thing to do is stay out of the sun during its peak hours (10:00am – 2:00pm) and whenever possible, wear protective clothing instead of chemicals. Don’t forget, some sun is absolutely necessary for Vitamin D production and proper health. The amount of sun you should get depends on your skin type but you should NEVER burn.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
New Vitamin D Study
A new Vitamin D has found a significant correlation between Vitamin D levels and obesity. Low Vitamin D levels correlate with higher fat deposition, increased waist circumference, and increased insulin levels. Many current physicians who deal with nutritional issues are recommending Vitamin D supplementation at levels between 2,000 and 5,000 I.U./day.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Vitamins and Supplements Under Attack...Again
Most are familiar with those commercials on television promoting prescription drugs that supposedly offer relief from a variety of ailments, if one would only pressure one’s doctor to obtain them. They have become a source of great entertainment and amusement to some, the kicker coming at the end of each commercial when the FDA-approved medication’s obligatory litany of warnings and dangerous side effects is recited: “Tell your doctor if....” and “Side effects may include.....” Some of the warnings are mild like diarrhea and constipation, some list serious effects like cancer or tuberculosis, and others admit that sometimes even death can result.
The point here is that these are all FDA-approved drugs being advertised and used extensively. Drugs that can cause serious diseases like lymphoma. Drugs that can kill. The FDA’s dismal safety record is well documented; even PBS ran a Frontline special that investigated and exposed the FDA’s unsafe drug record, the influence of Big Pharma inside the FDA, and lack of long-term testing and medical review of many, many dangerous drugs. The FDA seldom removes a drug from the market even after it proves to be harmful or deadly, however they do post quarterly reports with details of the latest potentially dangerous side effects of drugs currently under investigation.
Nonetheless, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants this same FDA, with its dismal safety record, to regulate dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002 (text of this bill posted on Senator McCain's website), that McCain has introduced with one cosponsor, would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to “more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers.”
Under attack by the DSSA is the once-protected field of supplements, as they have always been considered food. Potencies would have to be reduced to comply with what appears to be a plan modeled after the European Food Safety Authority. A new list of “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” would be “prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary,” in the future. That’s a bit like being handed a blank check and told to fill it out later as one wishes. It could certainly be used to severely limit access to, and even production of, hundreds of life-sustaining and essential mineral, herb, and vitamin products.
All ingredients contained in each supplement would have to be disclosed at the time the company registers all of its “manufactured, packaged, held, distributed, labeled or licensed,” products with the FDA. An onerous burden would be placed on the shoulders of suppliers and retailers of dietary supplements, as they would have to “obtain written evidence” from the seller that the product is registered as required by law, and keep that documentation on file. Monetary penalties for non-compliance “may, in addition to other penalties imposed in this section, be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds derived from the manufacture, packaging, holding, distribution, labeling, or license of such dietary supplement.” Those are very broad dictates and most likely subject to even broader interpretation.
The McCain bill would change existing mandatory serious adverse reporting regulations, requiring minor adverse effects to be reported as well so that the FDA could arbitrarily pull supplements off the shelves or reclassify them as drugs. This immediate recall authority would be granted to the “Secretary upon determination,” that there is a “reasonable probability” that the product is “adulterated” or “misbranded.” Adulterated in this bill takes on a whole new expanded definition: “A dietary supplement which contains a new dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) unless there is a history of use or other evidence of safety.” The development of new products that contain newly discovered nutritional components may be entirely quashed.
The hypocritical contrast between the regulation of drugs that can kill and the proposed hyper-regulation for food products -- vitamins, minerals, herbs -- is as plain as the nose on everyone's face.
A Pandora’s box of intended and unintended legal complications and government harassment of nutritional supplement manufacturers and sellers could very well be unleashed if this bill is passed. There are already existing laws on the books that protect consumers from misbranded, fraudulent, or contaminated products. Granting the FDA additional regulatory authority over nutritional supplements seems a bit suspicious, especially considering the influence the enormous pharmaceutical industry has wielded over the research, development, and approval process inside the FDA. Let’s face it, the FDA has been no friend and often has been positively antagonistic toward the nutritional supplement industry. Therefore one wouldn’t set the wolf to guarding the sheep without dire consequences.
In this perverted overly-regulated country, food is now toxic, and drugs and chemicals are safe for ingestion, no matter the harm that results. This inversion should remind us that those who best have the consumers health and safety interests at heart are the consumers themselves. It is big government that has a proven track record of not protecting the public. And it is big government that is seeking to take away yet another individual freedom, the right to choose one’s own treatment. (Where is the pro-choice crowd on this one; the ones that claim, “my body, my choice?”)
Contact your federal legislators and urge them not to cosponsor, support, or vote for such a power-grabbing, bill. Let them know Americans want unrestricted access to nutritional supplements, and the government out of their health choices.
Sen. McCain described his bill as a “no brainer.” For constitutionalists it’s a “no brainer” that it should be rejected for the dictatorial, power-grabbing, choice-limiting attack on the nutritional marketplace and individual freedoms that it is.
The point here is that these are all FDA-approved drugs being advertised and used extensively. Drugs that can cause serious diseases like lymphoma. Drugs that can kill. The FDA’s dismal safety record is well documented; even PBS ran a Frontline special that investigated and exposed the FDA’s unsafe drug record, the influence of Big Pharma inside the FDA, and lack of long-term testing and medical review of many, many dangerous drugs. The FDA seldom removes a drug from the market even after it proves to be harmful or deadly, however they do post quarterly reports with details of the latest potentially dangerous side effects of drugs currently under investigation.
Nonetheless, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants this same FDA, with its dismal safety record, to regulate dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002 (text of this bill posted on Senator McCain's website), that McCain has introduced with one cosponsor, would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to “more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers.”
Under attack by the DSSA is the once-protected field of supplements, as they have always been considered food. Potencies would have to be reduced to comply with what appears to be a plan modeled after the European Food Safety Authority. A new list of “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” would be “prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary,” in the future. That’s a bit like being handed a blank check and told to fill it out later as one wishes. It could certainly be used to severely limit access to, and even production of, hundreds of life-sustaining and essential mineral, herb, and vitamin products.
All ingredients contained in each supplement would have to be disclosed at the time the company registers all of its “manufactured, packaged, held, distributed, labeled or licensed,” products with the FDA. An onerous burden would be placed on the shoulders of suppliers and retailers of dietary supplements, as they would have to “obtain written evidence” from the seller that the product is registered as required by law, and keep that documentation on file. Monetary penalties for non-compliance “may, in addition to other penalties imposed in this section, be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds derived from the manufacture, packaging, holding, distribution, labeling, or license of such dietary supplement.” Those are very broad dictates and most likely subject to even broader interpretation.
The McCain bill would change existing mandatory serious adverse reporting regulations, requiring minor adverse effects to be reported as well so that the FDA could arbitrarily pull supplements off the shelves or reclassify them as drugs. This immediate recall authority would be granted to the “Secretary upon determination,” that there is a “reasonable probability” that the product is “adulterated” or “misbranded.” Adulterated in this bill takes on a whole new expanded definition: “A dietary supplement which contains a new dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) unless there is a history of use or other evidence of safety.” The development of new products that contain newly discovered nutritional components may be entirely quashed.
The hypocritical contrast between the regulation of drugs that can kill and the proposed hyper-regulation for food products -- vitamins, minerals, herbs -- is as plain as the nose on everyone's face.
A Pandora’s box of intended and unintended legal complications and government harassment of nutritional supplement manufacturers and sellers could very well be unleashed if this bill is passed. There are already existing laws on the books that protect consumers from misbranded, fraudulent, or contaminated products. Granting the FDA additional regulatory authority over nutritional supplements seems a bit suspicious, especially considering the influence the enormous pharmaceutical industry has wielded over the research, development, and approval process inside the FDA. Let’s face it, the FDA has been no friend and often has been positively antagonistic toward the nutritional supplement industry. Therefore one wouldn’t set the wolf to guarding the sheep without dire consequences.
In this perverted overly-regulated country, food is now toxic, and drugs and chemicals are safe for ingestion, no matter the harm that results. This inversion should remind us that those who best have the consumers health and safety interests at heart are the consumers themselves. It is big government that has a proven track record of not protecting the public. And it is big government that is seeking to take away yet another individual freedom, the right to choose one’s own treatment. (Where is the pro-choice crowd on this one; the ones that claim, “my body, my choice?”)
Contact your federal legislators and urge them not to cosponsor, support, or vote for such a power-grabbing, bill. Let them know Americans want unrestricted access to nutritional supplements, and the government out of their health choices.
Sen. McCain described his bill as a “no brainer.” For constitutionalists it’s a “no brainer” that it should be rejected for the dictatorial, power-grabbing, choice-limiting attack on the nutritional marketplace and individual freedoms that it is.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Can Chiropractic Help Headaches?
Headaches are a common complaint in patients presenting for professional care, including chiropractic management. Patients with headaches seek chiropractic care because they find manipulation or adjustments applied to the cervical spine and upper back region are highly effective in reducing the intensity, frequency and duration of the headache pain. This is because the cervical spine / neck, is often the origin of the headache as the three nerves in the upper neck (C1, 2 and 3) pass through the thick, overly taught neck muscles in route to the scalp / head. When the muscles of the neck are in spasm, the nerves get “pinched” or squeezed by the overly tight muscles resulting in headache pain. Each nerve runs to a different part of the head and therefore, pain may be described as “…radiating over the top of head (sometimes into the forehead and eyes),” or, into the head and over the ear, sometimes reaching the temple. Also, an area located in the back and side of the head is the area where the C1 nerve innervates, so pain may also be reported in that location. When more than one of the C1-3 nerves is pinched, the whole side to the top of the head may be involved.
In the October 2009 issue of The Spine Journal, Western States Chiropractic College, Center for Outcomes Studies, reported benefits are obtained with the utilization of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic cervicogenic headaches. The word “chronic” means at least 3 months of headache pain has been present. This new study compared 2 different doses of therapy using several outcome measures including the pain grade, the number of headaches in the last 4 weeks and the amount of medication utilized. Data was collected every 4 weeks for a 24 week period and patients were treated 1-2 times/week and separated into either an 8 or a 16 treatment session with half the group receiving either spinal manipulative therapy or a minimal light massage (LM) control group.
The results of the study revealed the spinal manipulation group obtained better results than the control group at all time intervals. There was a small benefit in the group that received the greater number of treatments with the mean number of cervicogenic headaches reduced by 50% in both pain intensity and headache frequency.
The importance of this study is significant as there are many side effects to medications frequently utilized in the treatment of headaches. Many patients prefer not taking medications for this reason and spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) offers a perfect remedy for these patients. Couple SMT with dietary management, lifestyle modifications, stress management, and a natural, vitamin/herbal anti-inflammatory (such as ginger, turmeric, boswellia) when needed, a natural, holistic approach to the management of chronic headaches is accomplished.
In the October 2009 issue of The Spine Journal, Western States Chiropractic College, Center for Outcomes Studies, reported benefits are obtained with the utilization of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic cervicogenic headaches. The word “chronic” means at least 3 months of headache pain has been present. This new study compared 2 different doses of therapy using several outcome measures including the pain grade, the number of headaches in the last 4 weeks and the amount of medication utilized. Data was collected every 4 weeks for a 24 week period and patients were treated 1-2 times/week and separated into either an 8 or a 16 treatment session with half the group receiving either spinal manipulative therapy or a minimal light massage (LM) control group.
The results of the study revealed the spinal manipulation group obtained better results than the control group at all time intervals. There was a small benefit in the group that received the greater number of treatments with the mean number of cervicogenic headaches reduced by 50% in both pain intensity and headache frequency.
The importance of this study is significant as there are many side effects to medications frequently utilized in the treatment of headaches. Many patients prefer not taking medications for this reason and spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) offers a perfect remedy for these patients. Couple SMT with dietary management, lifestyle modifications, stress management, and a natural, vitamin/herbal anti-inflammatory (such as ginger, turmeric, boswellia) when needed, a natural, holistic approach to the management of chronic headaches is accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)