Global Wellness

Chiropractic Care | Lewiston, ID | Joan P. Burrow DC NMD

Leave a comment

A Silver (well, molybdenum) Bullet

Are you sensitive to automobile exhaust, smoke, perfume, or for that matter any commercialized or synthetic odor?

Do you hold your breath to get past the display of candles and avoid the cleaning products aisle altogether?

Do you experience headaches when you drink red wine with sulfates or get
close to a chlorinated pool?

Are one of those people who are overly sensitive to carbohydrates?

Neurotoxicity due to the inability to break down acetaldehydes may be a factor.

A neurotoxin is a substance that is toxic to the brain.   Acetaldehyde is a neurotoxin that comes from both our environment and from normal metabolism within our body.  It can become a problem if it accumulates abnormally. Excessive exposure can cause poor memory, lethargy, depression, irritability, and headache.

Acetaldehyde is very common. You can be exposed simply by breathing air.  Virtually anything with the scent is a source of acetaldehyde – room air deodorizers, candles, cleaners, perfumes and everything else that is scented.   Acetaldehyde is also an important part of food flavorings and is often added to milk products, baked goods, fruit juices, candy, desserts and soft drinks.

Our body produces acetaldehyde while processing an alcoholic beverage.  Intestinal Candida albicans is also a source of endogenous acetaldehyde. Candida albicans live by fermenting sugar to produce energy and the waste byproduct of this energy production is acetaldehyde.

In order to break down acetaldehyde, we need molybdenum, iron, niacinamide and riboflavin.  Most people have enough iron.  A molybdenum deficiency is often the reason many individuals suffer symptoms from even low level acetaldehyde exposure.

There is a fairly easy test to see if you would benefit from supplementing molybdenum.  If the inability to break down acetaldeydes is a factor for you, molybdenum may be your silver bullet.

1 Comment

Neck pain?

Annals of Internal Medicine published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing Manual Therapy, Physical Therapy, or Continued Care by a General Practitioner for Patients with Neck Pain in 2002:

Neck pain is a common problem in the general population, with point prevalences between 10% and 15% (1–3). It is most common at approximately 50 years of age and is more common in women than in men (1, 2, 4–6). Neck pain can be severely disabling and costly, and little is known about its clinical course (7–9). Limited range of motion and a subjective feeling of stiffness may accompany neck pain, which is often precipitated or aggravated by neck movements or sustained neck postures. Headache, brachialgia, dizziness, and other signs and symptoms may also be present in combination with neck pain (10, 11). Although history taking and diagnostic examination can suggest a potential cause, in most cases the pathologic basis for neck pain is unclear and the pain is labeled nonspecific. Conservative treatment methods that are frequently used in general practice include analgesics, rest, or referral to a physical therapist or manual therapist (12, 13). Physical therapy may include passive treatment, such as
massage, interferential current, or heat applications, and active treatment, such as exercise therapies. . .

Results: At 7 weeks, the success rates were 68.3% for manual therapy, 50.8% for physical therapy, and 35.9% for continued care. Statistically significant differences in pain intensity with manual therapy compared with continued care or physical therapy ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 on a scale of 0 to 10. Disability scores also favored manual therapy, but the differences among groups were small. Manual therapy scored consistently better than the other two interventions on most outcome measures. Physical therapy scored better than continued care on some outcome measures, but the differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: In daily practice, manual therapy is a favorable treatment option for patients with neck pain compared with physical therapy or continued care by a general practitioner.

Find the entire paper at

Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:713-722.