Dr. Hugo Rodier

Medical Biases

2009-06-30T14:03:00.000-07:00

I recently attended a review course to prepare for the Boards. For 4 straight days we started at 7 AM and finished at 9:30 PM. This intellectual boot-camp took place in Vegas, but the only fun thing I got to do was eat dinner by myself at the Paris buffet; a Japanese tourist and I were the only ones loading up on the veggies and sushi.

The course itself was brutal, but a great way to prepare. Interestingly, a couple of presenters epitomized the state of affairs in non-pharmaceutical medicine; one continually railed against the misguided over-reliance on many virtually ineffective pharmaceutical treatments, while the other reluctantly discussed some herbs and nutrients that have significant evidence and efficacy.

The latter doc warned that the evidence was thin and that there were significant side effects with those natural items. Yet, this presenter did not do likewise when it came to drugs. For example, black cohosh, approved for use in menopausal problems by the American Academy of Ob-Gyn, was said to be worthless and potentially dangerous. Yet, nothing was said about hormonal replacement with estrogen, which has been shown to increase the risk of cancer by the NIH since 2002.

Amazing: estrogen is OK, yet poor little black cohosh, which has never been associated with any cancers, is not.

What is really going on? It is simple; let me illustrate with another example:

Initially it was reported that hip padding/protectors did not reduce the risk of hip fractures in falls sustained by the elderly. Later, it was shown that they DO INDEED reduce the risk of hip fractures by a whopping 50%. It turned out that one of the authors of the negative study had not disclosed his financial ties with hip replacement surgeries.

“Follow the money.”

It is extremely naïve to deny the fact that our beliefs do not influence our intellect.

PS, I do not sell non-pharmaceutical products. Occasionally, I speak for companies that do.

Still around…

2009-06-08T09:13:00.000-07:00

Sorry I have not had time to blog.

I have been too busy studying for my Family Practice Boards (every 7 years.) It’s quite an ordeal for me; I have to memorize a lot of stuff (excessive pharmaceutical treatments taking precedence over nutritional, environmental and emotional issues) I don’t emphasize in my practice.

Nevertheless, I must remain up to date for many reasons, one of which is to get reimbursed by insurance companies who continue to dismiss the fact our practice saves them thousands of dollars, even though they have seen the future of health care; more social responsibility.

They are a bit concerned that their golden goose is threatened. Surely you saw right through their attempt to appear cooperative when the met with Mr. Obama last month at the White House, only to later oppose the plans to start a Public Health Insurance. Despite the plan being proposed to increase competition, a word they love, they fear they will be left in the dust.

If they truly believe in competition they would welcome the proposed addition. Perhaps they fear that, just like Medicare, the new plan will have a much lower cost due to lower overhead costs (more efficiency,) like Medicare; that is 5% compared to their bloated 15-25% overhead.

But, back to the Board Exam (next month.)

It turns out that this time around the exam-makers have finally added questions on non-pharmaceutical treatments; the evidence for some of these treatments cannot be denied any longer. They are asking doctors to bone up on treatments like:

Saw Palmetto: prostate problems
St John’s Wort: depression
Bilberry and other antioxidants: macular degeneration
Feverfew: migraines
Omega oils: heart and many other conditions
Sulfur: bladder
Vitamin D: osteoporosis, insulin resistance
Acetic acid, mineral/olive oils: ear canal infections
Capsaicin (red peppers:) shingles, burning mouth syndrome
Glucosamine: bones

Even though this is a very shy list, it is the first time my board exam includes this sort of things. I am sure the list will get longer. Maybe it will even be halfway decent by the time I retire….

Vaccine Fights

2009-03-05T12:19:00.000-08:00

Not a clinic day goes by without a worried mom asking my opinion on vaccinations. They are confused and afraid to do anything that may harm their children. I feel badly for them, victims as they are of mixed data on vaccinations and extreme positions taken by doctors who refuse to admit that there may be significant problems with vaccines and those who advocate that vaccinations are of the devil.

To those moms who are contemplating avoiding vaccinations altogether I tell them that this is not a good idea; our society would again be ravaged by deadly diseases we have forgotten about, like diphtheria, polio, measles, etc. If we lived in a perfect world without stress, overcrowding, unpolluted water and food we might get away without vaccines.

As an imperfect practitioner of the “middle way,” I decided early in my career that such a contentious issue cried out for a compromise until we came up with more rational and clear guidelines that would include not only hard data but the feelings, intuition and wishes of mothers who often get their children’s health issues right before the medical profession does.

Consequently, I have been sticking my neck out advising moms that they could delay immunizations until one year of age to wait for their children’s immune system to mature; then spread out the vaccines. Instead of blasting them with so many shots and challenges to their forming immune system, they could do one vaccine every other month, provided they feed their infants well (no sugar and trans-fats) and keep them out of day care centers.

I did just that with my own daughter who is now 8 years old. So far, I have seen not one case of health issues that might be blamed on this schedule of vaccinations or alleged side effects.

You can imagine my delight when I saw the report in the Salt Lake Tribune (March 4th 2009) reporting that many doctors are asking that the current schedule be reviewed; specifically, the timing and spacing of vaccines. Dr Sundwall, the Utah Department of Health director, Dr. Pavia, the chief of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the U. of Utah School of Medicine and 25 other doctors in Utah have expressed their opinion to the upcoming meeting of the Vaccine Advisory Committee in Washington DC later this month.

While most of these doctors are betting that the present schedule is safe, the fact that a dialogue is taking place is encouraging. Some of them apparently believe that the CDC statement that there is no link to health problems like Autism, while supported by present data, has not reassured many mothers who feel that the issue is far from settled.

I side with these mothers. Let us be as safe as possible, until the issue is settled to everyone’s satisfaction. I am afraid that economic interests have clouded the data, which happens too often when profits are to be had, even in the health care field.

Drugs Down the Toilet

2009-03-02T15:27:00.000-08:00

(Submitted for publication in the UMA Bulletin; I am an Editorial Board member)

“They have found that a lot of prescription drugs are turning up in our drinking water. People not only pee drugs into in the toilet but they also dump the unused prescriptions in it. They have found hormones, antibiotics and many other kinds of drugs. Depressing news, don’t you think? Don’t worry about it: drink the water; it also has antidepressants and xanax.”

Funny. Not funny. But Leno is right.

Articles like “Drugs Are in the Water” have documented that a significant number of fish in the Potomac and its tributaries are hermaphrodites. Feminization is seen with drug concentration as low as 5 part per trillion. Fish swim in waters where 10+ pharmaceuticals have been detected. Every bluegill, black crappie and channel catfish had levels of antidepressants. A survey of 139 streams showed that 80% contained prescription drugs and fragrances, sunscreens, etc. They survive biodegradation and wastewater treatment.

An AP study showed that most drugs are metabolized only 80% which explains why antibiotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, anticonvulsants and hormones re found in the drinking water of 41 million Americans. Twenty four major metropolitan areas were surveyed. Philadelphia had 56 types of drugs in its water. Unfortunately, this type of study is rarely made available to the public.

The problem is sure to be widespread since no tests are available to look for the problem. The EPA doesn’t know what to make of the whole thing: “a few parts per million of drugs in the water may or may not be a problem.”

I feel the problem seems obvious but we may be aware of only the tip of the iceberg; the effect of combinations of these chemicals and their additive/synergistic effect are not known. For sure we are seeing more antibiotic resistant bacteria.

In view of this pressing issue the Environmental Committee is contemplating bringing this issue to the floor of our upcoming House of Delegates meeting this year. Your input is welcome; we are not sure what measures we could take as doctors. But, in the meantime we encourage you to visit: http://www.medicationdisposal.utah.gov/disposal_locations_events.htm for a list of places where our patients could drop off unused prescriptions (police stations and pharmacies.) Perhaps we could display said list prominently in our clinics. Maybe we could insist that all pharmacies do likewise. While we cannot tell patients to cross their legs and not pee, we could become more conservative in our prescribing habits.

The JAMA on Drugs

2009-03-02T14:45:00.000-08:00

(Submitted for publication in the UMA Bulletin; I am an Editorial Board member.)

“Overdosed America” is a book by Dr. Abramson that documents how doctors are prescribing too many drugs. The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article on February 25th 2009 agreeing with the good doc.

Before you assume that I am blaming doctors let me say that in my opinion they are mostly victims as much as the patients who receive our prescriptions. Of course we all share a bit of the responsibility for the drugging of our society. Doctors have not made a significant effort to learn to treat the roots of diseases (nutrition, environment and Mind-Body-Spirit issues) and patients have grown to expect a pill to manage their every little symptom.

Doctors may excuse themselves by saying that their patients’ genetics are so strong that nothing will change their patients’ tendency to develop a given disease. This is an indefensible position when we study the fields of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics; yes, nutrition does modulate genetic expression. In fact, toxic environments and relationships also modulate genetic expression.

Patients may excuse themselves by saying it is too hard to change their lifestyle (an opinion shared by most doctors); they just want the latest pill they saw advertised on TV. In fact, in my own practice I have seen patients who feel I don’t listen to them because I don’t prescribe them the latest drugs advertised on TV for their symptoms nor thyroid and sex hormones, amphetamines and the newest psychoactive medications to help them lose weight. Rather than listen to my advice to change their diets, detoxify their environments and their relationships they find a practitioner next door who will eagerly pull out his/her smoking prescription pad.

For these and many other obvious reasons I rejoice in the JAMA’s courage to publish the article “Promoting More Conservative Practices.” So that you rejoice with me I am herein quoting from this article. The implications of the following statements are enormous:

• “Although medical and pharmacy curricula and journals are rich with information about drugs and treatment of specific diseases, there is a paucity of education on ways to become effective lifetime prescribers. Two recent reports from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) lamented the current state of pharmacology teaching and the disturbing extent of pharmaceutical industry influence at all stages of medical education. Given the well-documented prevalence of medication-related harm and inappropriate prescribing, such educational reform is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that patients are optimally treated… trainees need guiding principles to inform their thinking about pharmacotherapy to help them become more careful, cautious, evidence-based prescribers.”

• “These lessons are fundamental for teaching clinicians how to develop excellent prescribing skills, yet such fundamentals are absent or underempahsized in current medical pharmacy education… they also need to be taught a set of skills and attitudes that will help them approach claims for drugs, especially new drugs, more critically.”

• “Without a more cautious and more skeptical approach to using drugs, prescribers will lack the will and the skills to resist ubiquitous promotional messages encouraging them to reach for newer and often more expensive medications.”

• “Although the attitudes and behaviors recommended in our principles [see box below] should not be terribly controversial, taken together they represent a departure from current practice.”

• “From the founder of modern medicine Dr Osler to leading pharmacology textbooks, taking a more skeptical and conservative approach to pharmacotherapy has a long and honorable history in medicine… Rather than therapeutic nihilism, the approach of these guidelines aims to better respect the limitations of knowledge and more closely align clinicians with the interests of patients.”

Many doctors reading this article are dedicated to these simple principles. While not perfect in their prescribing I would guess they strive to follow the old dictum “primum non nocere” (first do no harm) to the best of their abilities.

Of all the recommendations in the box I would like to emphasize the first 3 under “think beyond drugs.” Many doctors reading this article no doubt have had these simple principles and their desire to implement the best ways to heal patients as the driving forces behind their pursuit of research highlighting nutrition, environmental issues and the Mind-Body-Spirit connection. In my own experience, applying the references I have found in our leading medical journals have helped me avoid and/or stop 80% of the prescription medications commonly used for chronic ailments, a figure that Dr Willet at Harvard Medical School has also documented.

More evidence

Interestingly, the same issue of the JAMA had related articles on how clinical practice “guidelines” are influenced by marketing more than hard evidence and how the “FDA exerts too little oversight of researchers’ conflicts of interest.” The article on the controversy surrounding the cholesterol lowering drug exetimibe/simvastatin is a good example of how prevention and nutrition are seldom part of serious discussions on treating heart disease.

The New England Journal of Medicine last month had an article along the same lines, “The Neurontin Legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation.” Before tackling the well-known drug neurontin/gabapentin, the article opens up by reminding us of the shady deals that allowed synthroid-makers to hide evidence that the generic levothyroxine is just as good. Then, it gives pointed examples and direct quotes from pharmaceutical executives who pushed their representatives to drive up sales by hyping neurontin to doctors. The drug reps claimed the drug had benefits that were never shown in their internal research.

The author feels that “drastic action is essential to preserve the integrity of medical science and practice and to justify public trust” and that the public and doctors need “public funding of peer-reviewed pharmaceutical research through a National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research that might be funded by a tax on all drug sales.”

I am sure you will agree with his final conclusion:

“Will our profession soon feel compelled to advocate for such actions to preserve our integrity, our social contract and ultimately our privileges?”

Perhaps the article in the same issue of the NEJM may help us shed some light on the “man behind the curtain:” “Money and the Changing Culture of Medicine.” Again, the article’s implications are so enormous that I choose to only quote from it:

This is the title of a remarkable article in the top medical journal in the world Here are its main points:

• “Assigning a monetary value to every aspect of a physician’s time and effort may actually reduce productivity, impair the quality of performance and thereby increase costs.”

• “Even the suggestion of money promotes behavior marked by selfishness and lack of collegiality.”

• “Medicine has marketplace elements that are inherent in any business-a physician receives payment for services. But there is also a communal relationship, an expectation and obligation to help when assistance is needed. In the current environment the balance has tipped toward market exchanges at the expense of medicine’s communal dimension. Many physicians we know are so alienated and angered by the relentless pricing of their day that they wind up having no desire to do more than the minimum required for the financial bottom line.”

The journal feels that the answer is “Patient-centered medical home,” or a “compassionate partnership…. [where] the insurer would pay a set fee for each patient cared for in the medical home to cover what is now not reimbursed time.” In my opinion this means that doctors would now have an incentive to learn about nutrition and motivational techniques to help patients change their toxic lifestyle. This would lead to more emphasis on prevention and a significant reduction in the cost of health care.

“Caregivers should be appropriately reimbursed but should not be constantly primed by money. Success in such a model will require collegiality, cooperation and teamwork-precisely the behaviors that are predictably eroded by a marketplace environment.”

The bottom line is money.

As the economy continues its downward spiral I cannot get enough reading in Economics. The last book I read was Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1776.) I highly recommend it, if you are willing to speed-read through the boring parts. The two things that struck me the most was his common sense and wisdom and how both sides of the political/economic spectrum misquote him to justify their own ideologies.

The supply siders (Republicans) emphasize how the invisible hand is going to take care of practically every thing while the demand siders (Democrats) emphasize government regulation. It turns out that Adam Smith wrote that both are necessary: business can only thrive when the law efficiently protects the right of business people to seek profits, but with the limitations necessary to respect labor and the land.

One thing is certain, says Adam Smith: when business people gather, they will always have the tendency to organize themselves to maximize profits even at the expense of the public. This is why regulation is necessary. And regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, particularly of their CME tactics and advertisement is sorely needed.

“The profession of medicine, in every aspect, clinical education, and research, has been inundated with profound influence from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This has occurred because physicians have allowed it to happen, and it is time to stop.”

Despite the clear and common sense advise from Adam Smith we will always be polarized when it comes to politics and economics. You would think that anyone interested in scientific reasoning would seek the middle ground he championed. But, it is not inherent in most people to think scientifically or objectively. This is why I enjoyed the article “On Second Thought…”

“When politicians [change their mind], they are tarred as flip-floppers. When lovers do it, we complain they are fickle. But scientists are supposed to change their minds when evidence undercuts their views. Dream on…But really, we shouldn’t be surprised. Proponents of a particular viewpoint, especially if their reputation is based on the accuracy of that viewpoint, cling to it like a shipwrecked man to flotsam. Studies that undermine that position, they say, are flawed.”

Which brings me back to us, doctors. You would think that most of us would be ready and excited to accept the scientific evidence in medical journals that highlights prevention, nutrition environmental toxins and the Mind-Body –Spirit connection. But, it seems that the scientific inquiry required to take the time is not in abundant supply. Could it be that Thomas Kuhn was right when he said that a scientific paradigm (i.e., “nutrition is a second class alternative”) topples when the last of its powerful adherents dies? Could it be that money has something to do with what scientists/doctors believe?

More on the Economy: Read History

2009-01-20T10:28:00.000-08:00

If you are reading this blog you are likely to be a baby boomer as I am. People our age read boring blogs like this one, as well as History books, besides watching the History Channel (a.k.a “Nazis 24/7.”) On the average, I read 1-2 history books a month. You may have read a previous blog I wrote about the tension of opposites between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I ended up concluding that Adams got a bum wrap in our history and that Jefferson was over-glorified in our pantheon of Founding Fathers. But, after digging a little bit more and studying the tension of opposites between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, I am dully chastised and ready to restore Jefferson to his rightful place in his rotunda by the pond in D.C.

As you recall, Hamilton was the main force behind the creation of our banking system. He said that “No society could succeed which did not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state” and that “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” He was behind the creation of the first National central bank as the first Secretary of the Treasury in 1791, which Jefferson fervently opposed. He knew from European history that a central bank would end up ruling the nation:

“[They] have tried and trodden every path of force in fruitless quest of the same objective, yet we still expect to find in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing… I believe that banks are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale… Already they have raised a money aristocracy… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

As strange as his statement may seem coming from one who was indebted all his life and died a ruined man (on the 4th of July, 50 years after 1776 and at the same time John Adams passed away) his words still ring true today, as we continue to print money out of thin air, which will fall on our children to pay. Despite his personal issues, Jefferson’s opinion on who really should be in charge of creating money is well addressed in our Constitution:

“To take a single step beyond the boundaries … of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power. The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed by this bill have not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.”

In other words, only Congress may create and regulate money, according to our Constitution, a point also emphasized by John Adams, who also despised Hamilton:

“Our whole banking system I ever abhorred, I continue to abhor, and I shall die abhorring… Every bank of discount, every bank by which interest is to be paid or profit of any kind made by the lender is downright corruption. It is taxation for the public for the benefit and profit of individuals.”

OK, that is a little too strong; we do need to have credit to start businesses.

Perhaps Adam Smith’s point of view is more moderate: business is a grand and noble enterprise, but it must be regulated because men will have a natural tendency to meet in secret to attempt to maximize profits and forget the public good.

Hamilton’s First Bank of the United States failed. But those who saw a gravy train in his banking ideas tried again in 1816 to create a central bank, which Andrew Jackson did away with, thus antagonizing powerful forces that almost derailed his presidency. He denounced the central bank as unconstitutional, as well as:

“A curse to the Republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.”

Lincoln himself may have been killed because of his opposition to another attempt to re-create a central bank, rather than reconstruction and abolition issues. The same is rumored of JFK who had the audacity to print money through the Treasury while bypassing the Federal Reserve.

But, the boys wanting to create money out of thin air finally prevailed: in secret, corporate America and leading bankers gathered on Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast in 1913 to plan the creation of the central bank that now rules our country, the Federal Reserve. They even got Wilson elected, a friend of Wall Street, by splitting the Republican vote; they knew that Taft and Roosevelt would not have allowed such a sneaky play.

This is how we fell in the hands of dishonest bankers who now keep our TARP money for themselves to buy other banks, instead of making our own money available to borrow to meet payroll and overhead in our small businesses, like the clinic I work with. What is the Federal Reserve? It is neither a part of the Federal Government nor a Reserve, unless we are talking about a “Reserve” for the “Moneyed Aristocracy.” Congressman Lindbergh in 1913 said that the Federal Reserve

“Establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth… When the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money power… will be legitimized. The new law (creating the Federal Reserve) will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”

Gary Allen, author of “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” (Concord Press, 1971; page 53) may be easily dismissed as a “conspiracy freak,” but it may be prudent to read what he says before doing so:

“Using a central bank to created alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international bankers to an exact science.”

Paul Walberg, one of the founders of the Federal Reserve candidly admitted that that any losses incurred from money created by them is to be covered by taxpayers:

“While technically and legally the Federal Reserve note is an obligation of the United States government, in reality it is an obligation, the sole actual responsibility for which rests on the reserve banks… The government could only be called upon to take them up after the reserve banks have failed.”

Those are fighting words. The number of people who are beginning to understand what is going on grows every day. Soon I hope said number reaches a critical mass, then, the words of Henry Ford may be fulfilled:

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Bankers have created a system that allows them to generate money out of money. Speculation and gambling, backed up by their smoke and mirrors they feel intellectually superior to have created, are nothing by tools of deception. Only hard work is the root of honest money in the long run. Anything else creates bubbles that are bound to pop. But such is the history of money (“The Ascent of Money”, Niall Ferguson; Penguin Press, 2008.)

We are bound to continue such roller coaster that enriches the rich and impoverishes the rest of us. Of course, we are not innocent. After all, we have the government we deserve. Our “affluenza” or the unrestrained consumerism that fails to fill the void within us that only love and fellowship can fill is the other side of the recessionary forces at play. We search for happiness through conspicuous consumption, thus bloating our economy with demands that are unrealistic and unsustainable. Corporations and bankers encourage such destructive habits by providing easy credit even when we don’t have the resources to pay back. Ultimately, it is our children who are left to foot the bill.

Funny money created by greedy bankers and our unrestrained shopping are the forces behind the perfect storm that is buffeting our society today. The same bloating of the economy is reflected in our bloating waistlines and medicine cabinet redolent of drugs that treat the results of such poor lifestyles. And how is it that Americans have been slowly cooked in this messy pot? Just like the proverbial frog in hot water: slowly through history, while we were diverted from these historical facts by the well-proven Roman principle of governance: “bread and circus.” Governments know they can control us by providing plenty of cheap food and entertainment. Given those two things, we are deluded by claims of freedom, when in reality such freedom is limited to choices of junk food and mindless entertainment.

Could we be truly free as we claim to be? Yes, but this takes a committed effort to learning from history, becoming active politically and join like-minded people in implementing changes in our communities. Do we still need banks? Of course, but not the centralized banks that drain money form our local communities. Personally, I fired Chase bank and joined a very solvent local organization, American First Credit Union in Salt Lake City.

Speaking of Utah (don’t read if you are biased against this wonderful state), I have to bring up a matter well-known to us locals: the Book of Mormon. Wait! I am not a Mormon, but I feel it is amazing how that book hits it right on the head when it comes to describing what is happening today. In attempting to describe what created so many bubbles and busts in their history, one of their leaders in that book isolated “secret combinations,” or “Gadianton robbers” as the root causes. He went on to predict that, just like we see in the whole history of mankind, the same “combinations” would be at play “in the latter days.”

Will President-elect Obama fix these basic problems with our system? I don’t believe so, not when he picked the tax-dodging Chairman of the biggest Federal Reserve bank, the New York branch, Mr. Geithner. Now, I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican, but I did vote for Mr. Obama, who seems quite likable and sincere. But, I am afraid that his plans to fix our economy are nothing but new wine in old bottles. We need to get new bottles and do away with the Federal Reserve and foment capitalism with strong regulations.

The health of our economy is in critical condition because we have failed to learn form history.
I fear that our own health may get worse, unless:

We become more self sufficient
We created local links in our neighborhoods to support one another
We stop supporting corporations and consume locally to keep our money in our communities
We eat unprocessed food and quit junk food; their corporate ads are practically shoving it down our throats just to maximize their profits
We take advantage of this realignment of priorities and consume only what is necessary
We become better educated about self-healing modalities that are cheaper and less invasive.
We will always need our doctors in times of crisis, but 80% of health problems can be resolved by good nutrition, clean environments and good stress-coping mechanisms, which are primarily good social support networks.

As always, any period of suffering may be an opportunity to change and fix the cause of the suffering. Let us be optimistic about the future as we look at the past and learn its lessons. And let the Federal Reserve have the same fate that befell Hamilton.

Fixing the Economy: Fixing Our Environment’s Health with Green Technology

2008-12-03T12:44:00.000-08:00

We are anxiously plunging into an uncertain future. We watch the news each evening, soaking in every bit of information about the economy. Some of us read the latest books on the subject, including history books that may shed light on what is happening. Even though most experts don’t seem to be of much help in navigating the complexity of finances and banking, some pearls may be found in their debates. I am betting that Harold Wilson, Thomas Friedman and others who feel as they do are the eggheads with the best insights.

Dr. Wilson and Friedman propose that the 21st Century must be the century of Green Technology, much like the 20th Century was the century of Industrialization, when countries focused single-mindedly on production and utilization of energy and raw materials from the Earth without significant efforts to mitigate and minimize the literal raping of Mother Earth. The 20th Century planted the seeds for not only the environmental problems that are now coming home to roost, but also the economic woes we are having. Ironically, a cooling economy and a warming planet also present us with an opportunity to fix these problems, if we so choose, much like ancient Chinese wisdom tells us: a crisis can also be an opportunity for growth.

Wilson and many others feel that the development of Green Technology (wind power, bio-fuels like alcohol, solar and thermal energy, perma-culture, clean coal, etc.) is a must if we are to make it in the next few years. We have recently become aware of the ecologic imperative to do so; now, we must embrace an economic imperative.

Some economists feel that economies are always going through Bubble and Bust periods, mostly due to human nature and our penchant for spending money we don’t have. The Busts are then nothing but periods of adjustment so that we are forced to face the grim reality that we cannot live on credit from our children’s futures. And the Bubbles are nothing but New Technologies that spur growth that lasts a few decades until everyone has embraced said technologies. For example, the textile industry and the navy fueled the British Empire; the Spanish Empire was built on the riches of their South American colonies, and, more recently, the American Empire was built on not only its WWII victory, but the computer and the dot.com revolution. When those bubbles start to run out of steam, economies try to get cute with shortcuts like bundling bad debts (credit cards, housing, etc) to be sold as legitimate assets (CDOs) to unsuspecting gamblers throughout the world.

In other words, Green Technologies (producing Energy and cleaning our environment) have the potential to spur our economy out of the recession it is mired. The benefits are legion, including improving our physical and emotional health. As Chairman of the Environmental/Public Health committee for the Utah Medical Association I am very interested in bringing to the fore environmental issues that have been thoroughly documented to impact our health. But, I feel it is naïve to work in this often-controversial field without an understanding of the economic and energy issues that are involved. Even our National Security depends on how we manage energy issues in the future: we cannot continue to depend on foreign oil and expect to call our own shots in the international arena.

As physicians we have a duty to help our patients understand these intertwined issues so that they may become involved and a part of the solutions. For instance, the UMA's Environmental Committee has passed resolutions supporting clean air, wind power, and mass transportation in Utah. Concerned doctors like Michelle Hoffman have been working side by side with Mothers for Clean Air; David Jack and Katherine Wheeler have been working with the Adopt a School program to address “other energy” issues (obesity in children); Charles Langelier has been instrumental in starting an Environmental Medicine course at the Medical School, and Bryan Moench has been extremely active with Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and their efforts to limit Coal Mining pollution.

Let us be part of the solution: join our Environmental Committee’s efforts to work on all these fronts that have the potential to heal our communities in so many ways.

(Article submitted to the Utah Medical Association Bulletin for publication.)

1 “The Forgotten Man: a new history of the great depression;” Amity Shlaes, Harper Perennial, 2007,
“No Ordinary Time. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: the home front in WWII;” Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon & Schuster, 1994,
“The Ascent of Money: a financial history of the world:” Penguin Press, 2008
2 “The Future of Life;” Harold Wilson, Knopf Press, 2002.
"Hot, Flat and Crowded: why we need a green revolution- and how it can renew America," Thomas Friedman; Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2008.

Nutritional Economics of Health Care

2008-11-13T07:50:00.000-08:00

My 72- year-old mother cleans toilets at BYU. I cannot get her to retire to live with me. She wants to remain independent as long as she can and carry her own weight like many immigrants like her do. Yet, economic problems crushing them are likely to get significantly worse; I anticipate that this will finally motivate her to move in with me sometime next year.

As her paycheck shrinks she clings to hope that the future will be better for her. This is one of the reasons she voted for Senator Obama. The other reason is that she identifies with him, being half white (Basque) and half Chilean Mapuche. Understandably, she stayed up all night watching the news the night of the election, elated and basking in the glow of her idol’s ascendancy, just like millions did across the USA and the globe.

In the aftermath of the November election we all wonder if my mother’s hopes are well founded. Many in Utah disagree with her, to be sure. But, some pray that President-elect Obama is able to rescue our sinking economy for the sake of our whole country and our children’s future. And some of us may also share a degree of pride that our society finally concluded the Civil War and can get on with Reconstruction in earnest by electing a “mutt” to the Presidency[i] (Obama’s own words; besides, I am a mutt myself…)

As doctors we have a particular interest in Mr. Obama’s future administration: what will it do about our broken health care system?[ii] Will health care issues sink to the bottom of a very crowded “to do list?” Will “socialized medicine” come about to ruin/save our health care system?

The answer to these and many other questions will be evident soon enough. In the meantime I choose to focus on one single point about the economics of health care: will President-elect Obama fulfill his promise to save millions of dollars through prevention? In my opinion, that is the most important issue in health care. (If you feel it is the uninsured, consider that prevention would save millions that could be used to insure them or lower health insurance premiums enough to make it affordable for most people.)

“Putting prevention first [will] require political courage and a long term perspective. Unleashing the full preventive potential for public health is essential to build a healthier world.” [iii]

The Economics of Health

Our dependency on high-tech, pharmaceutical medicine has no doubt helped bring relief to millions of people. But, our single-minded focus on this type of practice has crowded out simpler and more humble modalities that are cheaper not only on the short term but in the long term. We spend great sums of money to treat the symptoms; yet, the roots of disease are seldom addressed.

The antecedents of disease (nutrition, lifestyles, addictions, poor relationships, toxins in the environment and emotional/spiritual/mental stress and economic stresses) often get only passing attention in academic/intellectual exercises that are seldom put into practice. Sometimes these factors leading to disease, despite having voluminous scientific evidence in our medical journals are considered “alternative medicine.”

“Clinical research involving pharmaceutical agents needs to focus more on the differential responses within diverse patient populations. This philosophy should be extended to the public to encourage healthy lifestyles rather than depending on the quick fix of drugs as panacea.” [iv]

Another way of stating these issues is that starting in medical school we focus on acute instead of chronic health care:

“Medical education should prepare students for the clinical problems they will face in their future practice. However, that is not happening for the most prevalent problem in health care today: chronic disease [which comprises] 78% of health expenditures… Chronic disease has dramatically transformed the role of the patient... [he/she] becomes experienced, is often more knowledgeable than the physician about the effects of the disease and its treatment, and has an integral role in the treatment process.... knowledgeable patients achieves better outcome. A collaborative physician improves both understanding by patients and health outcomes... Unfortunately, few if any medical schools are preparing their students adequately.” [v]

“As more and more Americans are afflicted with chronic diseases in which nutrition plays a key role, the need for improved nutrition training of physicians has never been more evident… Even though medical technology continues to make advances in the pharmacologic and surgical management of these chronic diseases, the cumulative evidence is that much of the morbidity and mortality associated with these conditions may be preventable through dietary and lifestyle modifications.” [vi]

Any discussion on health care reform is likely to focus on the high-tech approach mentioned above while ignoring Harvard’s Dr. Willet’s experience showing that 80% of health problems could be solved by simply helping our patients change their diets.[vii] My own pedestrian clinical experience confirms Willet’s research; by advising my patients to stay away from processed sugars and trans-fats I routinely see them stop 80% of their prescribed medications.

For example, I see 10-70% drops in serum cholesterol and 10-60 point drops in blood pressure. Most patients are able to stop oral hypoglycemic agents, antidepressants, anti inflammatory, acid-suppressant, migraine and many other drugs, thereby saving insurance companies significant amounts of money. Yet, I sometimes hear that such practice “is not the standard of care…”

The simple American Heart Association recommendations that patients be offered Essential Fatty Acids supplementation and that cholesterol-lowering agents not be used unless a diet trial has been seriously tried for 6 months is seldom implemented by physicians; no doubt they correctly guess that patients will not be receptive to diet and lifestyle modifications. But, could it be that our calling as doctors to be teachers and leaders to our patients takes a back seat to expediency and quick high tech fixes that are over-emphasized at dinner meetings sponsored by pharmaceutical companies under the guise of medical education? Could it be that our skills to help our patients with the “most powerful therapeutic force,” our relationship with them is being atrophied by reaching for the prescription pad?

“Advances of the past 70 years have clearly demonstrated the unity of the science of medicine with the art of medicine on behalf of the patient.” [viii]

I cannot profess to be exemplary in our calling as physicians, but I can say that I try to be more than just a technician or a hamster on a treadmill.[ix]

“The role of doctor is diminished to one of a competent technician who is interchangeable with any other with similar training… the same is applied to patients… they become interchangeable units of health need… These trends serve the politically powerful, because a system in which agents are interchangeable is much easier to control and organize… Mending through healing: dialogue between doctor and patient to discover coherent explanation of illness that makes sense to the affected person. This in turn, helps to reduce fear, uncertainty, and confusion, and by making room for optimism, boosts the body’s innate capacity for mending… “The irony is that the current destruction of the therapeutic capacity of doctors is occurring just as science is beginning to explain the mechanisms … of psych-neuro-immune-endocrine.” [x]

“The profession of medicine, in every aspect, clinical education, and research, has been inundated with profound influence from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This has occurred because physicians have allowed it to happen, and it is time to stop.” [xi]

I believe it is our calling to empower patients to manage their chronic health problems themselves by focusing on the antecedents of disease listed above.[xii] This is not easy, but it is cheaper and more economic, besides being the right thing to do.

Patients will always need emergent and acute care. Needless to say but necessary to state at this point, physicians who labor in stressful specialties dedicated to rescuing patients from serious complications of acute illness and from the clutches of death are providing incalculable and rewarding services to our society. Even as I write in the comfort of my home some of you are sacrificing entire weekends to man the trenches in Emergency and Operating Rooms. You make it possible for physicians like me to focus on chronic issues under less stressful circumstances; for that I am extremely thankful.

Again, by focusing on the need to shift our economics of health to chronic care I do not mean to discount the value of acute care. I merely wish to “balance our health account.” And now is the time to also thank those of you who focus on other issues in health care: the cost of lawsuits, the uninsured, mounting health care costs, any-willing provider, health insurance fraud, etc. You make it possible for me to focus on my own corner of health care. Again, I thank you.

Two more points on health care economics that don’t get much playing time:

One, the emerging understanding that our diets affect genetic expression.[xiii] By focusing on how food and environmental toxins affect the translation of our genes we may save significant amounts of money that otherwise are committed to more expensive high-tech genetic manipulation research:

I. “The recognition that nutrients have the ability to interact and modulate molecular mechanisms underlying an organism’s physiological functions has prompted a revolution in the field of nutrition… Nutrigenomics (diet influences gene function) and nutrigenetics (genes determine how food affects us) provide the necessary stepping stones to achieve the ambitious goal of optimizing an individual’s health via nutritional intervention.”

II. “Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics optimize health through the personalization of diet, provide powerful approaches to unravel the complex relationship between nutritional molecules, genetic polymorphisms, and the biological system as a whole… It is the integration of these technologies that provides the optimal means to unravel the effects of a biological challenge on an organism; thus, the concepts of systems biology, or integrated metabolism.”

III. “Whereas pharmaceuticals have a targeted approach aimed at restoring health, diet is a multi-parametric approach to preserve and/or optimize health. Indeed, the diet is compromised of a multitude of nutritional and chemical molecules each capable of regulating disparate biological processes, and thus cannot use an approach similar to the pharmaceutical industry, i.e., the “one drug one target” paradigm. Hence, nutrition is a true integrative science that is well positioned to benefit from the exploitation of novel technologies capable of assessing biological networks rather than single endpoints.”

IV. “Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, which aims to target a specific dysfunctional gene to improve health, the nutritional industry must manage health through a complex mixture of nutritional molecules. Thus, in comparison with a medical compound, consuming a diet drastically increases the number of molecular endpoints that are capable of influencing phenotype, and thereby places the field of nutrition in a prime position to benefit from the technological innovations brought forth by the post-genomic era.”

V. “Nutrition in the 21st century is poised to be an exciting and highly relevant field of research, as each new day is accompanied by advances in our understanding of how the interactions between lifestyle and genotype contribute to health and disease, taking us one step closer to achieving the highly desirable goal of personalized nutrition.”

VI. “Nutrigenomics describes the use of functional genomics tools to probe a biological system following a nutritional stimulus that will permit an increased understanding of how nutritional molecules affect metabolic pathways and homeostatic control. Nutrigenetics aims to understand how the genetic makeup of an individual coordinates their response to diet, and thus considers underlying genetics polymorphisms… Complex cell and molecular biology coupled with biochemistry and genetics are required if the ambitious goals of nutrigenomics are to be realized.”

VII. “Add these two terms to the list of Genomics (analysis of genes,) Transcriptonomics (how genes are copied for function,) and Metabolomics (how energy is produced.)”[xiv]

Which leads to point number two: metabolomics, or the Universal principles of Thermodynamics applied to cellular use of Solar Energy and Information (E&I) harnessed by plants through photosynthesis. Just as Virchow, the cellular biologist in the 1800s and the physicist David Deutsch predicted,[xv] doctors are beginning to understand that everything about our health and disease is a matter of how cells use E&I to carry out their assigned tasks as encoded in their respective DNAs.

The disruption of cellular membrane communication[xvi] due to Toxicity,[xvii] Oxidation,[xviii] Inflammation[xix] and Less optimal Mitochondrial function[xx] or Mind-Body issues that boil down to Love deprivation[xxi] inhibits the free flow of E&I that we get from food and our relationships with people and our environment.

In other words, food = energy and information, E&I. That food has Energy is evident enough. But the new science of xenohormesis adds that food is also Information.[xxii]

Just like Deutsch predicted, everything about our bodies is E&I The Universal principles of thermodynamics applied to our body are known as Metabolism. This is why list of diseases comprising the Metabolic Syndrome will likely continue to grow.

The economics of our society and the economics of our 50-100 trillion somatic cells obey the same principles of E&I. For that matter so do all spiritual constructs such as relationships with our loved ones, the planet and our deities.[xxiii]

When our terrain or cells composing tissues and organs and our DNA are not well nourished and suffer from environmental and emotional/spiritual toxicity, our cell membranes and DNA T.O.I.L. (Toxicity, Oxidation, Inflammation and Less optimal mitochondrial function.) This leads to cell membrane and DNA dysfunction, which inhibits the flow of messengers of E&I from cell to cell: think of insulin resistance, the modern scourge of our society. Of course, when this happens we see resistance to just about every other messenger of cell communication; for example thyroid resistance.[xxiv]

Perhaps the best example that E&I concepts can save our society millions of dollars is cancer:

“In spite of substantial progress in the development of anticancer therapies, the incidence of cancer is still increasing worldwide. Recently, chemoprevention by the use of naturally occurring dietary substances is considered as a practical approach to reduce the ever-increasing incidence of cancer… By making modifications in the diet, more than 2/3 of human cancers could be prevented…. Dietary chemopreventive compounds offer great potential in the fight against cancer by inhibiting the carcinogenesis process through the regulation of cell defensive and cell death machineries…The two major pathways that initiate apoptosis are extrinsic (death receptor-mediated,) and intrinsic (mitochondrial mediated.) Mitogenic and stress responsive pathways are involved in the regulation of apoptotic signaling. Noteworthy is the crosstalk between some of these pathways.” [xxv]

In my opinion, the ideas in the article “Nutrigenomics and Metabolism Will Change Clinical Nutrition and Public Health Practice.”[xxvi]

The Health of the Economy

Money is but a symbol of the E&I we amass through our work.

Some economists feel that our current crisis, as complex as it is, also obeys not only the principles of Thermodynamics but Occam’s razor, the Physics principle that states that out of all explanations and solutions behind any complex problem the simplest one is the correct one: these economists feel that we are crashing because we got into DEBT, which may be defined as robbing our children’s future E&I to pay for our AFFLUENZA.[xxvii] John Adams, John Maynard Keynes and Paul Krugman, the 2008 Economics Nobel Prize winner agree.[xxviii]

The explanations and smoke and mirrors used by those who would rather continue feeding the bubble that has sustained our credit-deficient economy is bound to confuse most of us. But, a close inspection of the terms we hear to explain the economic crisis reveal that they are nothing but “expert talk” to define E&I principles. For example, the practice of “pump and dump” to inflate the true value of stocks coupled with CDOs and derivatives like SVTs are sophisticated inventions that bundle investments representing illegitimate debt like subprime mortgages with more legitimate debts. In reality, we have an entire “subprime economy.”

Health insurance companies, the food industry and pharmaceuticals have followed the same business practices that have haunted Wall Street, resulting in an over-reliance on pharmaceutical and high tech tools in health care. These practices result in “subprime heath care,” which does not address the economics/metabolomics of our cells. Instead these practices rob E&I from our own future, postponing and sometimes keeping our cells from the lifestyle changes they need to fix their metabolism or use of E&I.

Our health insurance companies do not help doctors spend enough time with our patients; this results in hurried and dissatisfying encounters where we prescribe the drugs they see in TV ads, and thus continue to feed the “bubble of chronic disease.”

Conclusion

As my mother and all of us head into an uncertain economic and political future we all hope that President-elect Obama wisely navigates the divisive waters of party dogma and rhetoric for the good of our country and our children’s future as he has stated he will.[xxix] Will he strike a balance between income inequality issues and excessive regulation that may stifle free enterprise?[xxx] Will he help people understand that we cannot continue to live on E&I stolen from our children’s future? In the words of the “Great Debaters,”[xxxi] “we better pray that he does.”

[i] CBS News, November 7th 2008

[ii] “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” Institute of Medicine; National Academy Press, 2001

[iii] J. Lancet 2002;360:1343

[iv] “The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism” JAMA 2008;300:1580

[v] “Chronic Disease: the need for a new clinical education,” JAMA 2004;292:1057

[vi] “An Evidence-Based Approach to Medical Nutrition Education,”

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2006;83(supp):929s

[vii] Book “Eat, Drink and Be Healthy” and several JAMA publications

[viii] “The Most Powerful Therapeutic Force,” JAMA 2002;287:1909

[ix] “How Should Hamsters Run? Some Observations About Sufficient Patient Time in Primary Care,” British Medical Journal 2001;323:266

[x] “Objectification of Physicians and Loss of Therapeutic Power,” J. Lancet 2007;369:886

[xi] “Industry Manipulation of Medical Science,” JAMA 2008;299:1800, 1813, 1833

[xii] “A Systems Approach to Patient-Centered Care,” JAMA 2006;296:2848

[xiii] “Epigenetics, a Window on Gene Dysregulation, Disease,” JAMA 2008;299:1249 &

“Epigenetics at the Epicenter of Modern Medicine,” JAMA 2008;299:1345

[xiv] “Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics: the emerging faces of nutrition,” J. FASEB 2005;19:1602

[xv] Book “The Fabric of Reality;” Penguin Books, 1997

[xvi]“Building Signaling Connections,” J. Science 2003;300:1461-1604

[xvii] “Hormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists,”

J. Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 2008;27:1451

[xviii] “Is Oxidative Stress the Pathogenic Mechanism Underlying IR, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease? The common soil hypothesis revisited” J. Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis Vascular Biology 2004;24:823

[xix] “The Energy Request of Inflammation” J. Endocrinology 2006;147:4550

[xx] Book “Mitochondrial Medicine,” J. Circulation 2008;117:2431, 2492

[xxi] Books “The Biology of Belief,” Bruce Lipton; Elite Books, 2005,

“Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers,” Robert Zapolsky; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1994 &

“Love and Survival,” Dean Ornish; Harper Collins, 1998

[xxii] “Nutritional Hormesis,” European J. Clinical Nutrition 2007;61:147

[xxiii] See Doctrine and Covenants Section 88 or any other religion’s holy writ, like Kabbala, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

[xxiv] J. Annals of Internal Medicine 1995;123:572

[xxv] “Apoptosis by dietary factors,” J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:233

[xxvi] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2007;86:542

[xxvii] Nouriel Roubini; New York Times Magazine, August 17 2008

[xxviii] Book “The Great Unravelling;” W.W. Norton & Company, 2003

[xxix] Book “Team of Rivals,” Doris K. Goodwin; Simon & Schuster, 2005

[xxx]Book “The Forgotten Man,” Amity Shlaes; Harper Perennial, 2007

[xxxi] Film with Densell Washington, 2007

The Economy and Our Health

2008-10-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

Even though I am not an economist I feel the need to say a few things about what is happening in our country. After all, I am a semester short of a master’s in Health Administration and I read voraciously on Economics, Politics, Anthropology, History and other related subjects. As a doctor I feel that what is happening in our society deeply affects my health and that of my family, friends and patients.

In my opinion our Fascist system of government (politicians and corporations in bed together) is finally threatening to kill the golden goose. A country’s economy is but a reflection of people’s hard work, not the electronic shenanigans Fat Cats engage in on Wall Street. The infamous “revolving door” ensures that the elite who rule Washington leave government to become CEOs or advisors to corporations who handsomely reward them with golden parachutes. And it works the other way around, too. For example, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Does that tell you anything? Even Newt Gringrich feels Mr. Paulson should have resigned over this deal.

Big Pharma, Big Food and Health insurance companies are part of the problem. This is why our Health Care system is in chaos. Sadly, these problems were entirely predictable by those who read history: it has happened in every country. Now it is our turn.

I am not saying that business or money themselves are bad things. On the contrary, business is such a big part of our nature that some people feel Homo sapiens would be more accurately named “Homo economicus.” (J. Science 2002;296:1243) Adam Smith said that “business is a grand and noble enterprise.” What is often forgotten is that Adam Smith also said that

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices… It is impossible to prevent such meetings… but the law ought not to facilitate such assemblies, much less render them necessary.” (“The Wealth of Nations.”)

Adam Smith added, “Most of the world troubles come from somebody not knowing when to stop and be content.” (“Theory of Moral Sentiment.”) Inexorably, corporations, institutions and the people running them start with the goal to do good but end up hell-bent on doing well. In the name of restricting government and deregulating to help the “invisible hand” make us all better off, corporations and the richest have done away with rules that were there to protect us from this unmitigated greed. I say the “invisible hand” is now visibly reaching deeper into our back pockets…

Perhaps Ronald Reagan’ swords in a 1965 speech are more convincing:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote for themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority… always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Now, the Fat Cats want golden parachutes made from the “largesse of the public treasury” as they scramble for the exit door. They want our tax money with no strings attached because they have grown used to “corporate welfare” from their cronies in the government. Never mind us struggling with our rising health insurance premiums and mortgages. We didn’t have the money to fix Health Care or fund Alternative Energy programs, but all of a sudden we have $700 billion to give away. Hopefully by the time the bailout is voted into law American swill also get a rescue package and strings do get attached.

I am compelled to opine on how we got into this mess: ever since the dawn of mankind those with the most marbles control the game. Even though the European revolutions and our own in the USA appeared to give control to common folk, those with the most marbles never went away. They just learned to play the game differently. But, slowly and sometimes overtly, those with the most marbles reassert their control over ANY form of government we care mention.

They learned to give us “bread and circus” or cheap food and cheap entertainment with many choices to feel like we are free. We get bombarded by childish commercials to entice us to spend money we don’t have; but there is always the 9 credit cards an average American carries. With them, we can “keep the economy growing and be true patriots.” In my opinion a true patriot saves money and avoids being brainwashed by corporations who stoke our immature fires of instant gratification through “conspicuous consumption.”

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that by overspending we get in trouble. No matter how the denizens of Wall Street spin the situation, it simply boils down to deregulation leaving us vulnerable to Darwinian Capitalism and getting in debt. Our government continues to shift income from the majority to the few who know how to game the system. The result is massive debt both in government and our own finances

Our Founding Fathers warned us about all this. Lincoln, Jackson and Eisenhower said it very clearly themselves. The results are clear: Fascism does not work. Unfortunately, We The People deserve any form of government we end up with. Take it from Lincoln: “All forms of government end up in a plutocracy.”

Will the Democrats fix this mess? I doubt it. Are the Republicans more capable? Probably not.

In my opinion, both are nothing but puppets of our “shadow government.” They want us to fight and attack each other with stupid kindergarten issues. The more we buy into the rhetoric coming from both parties the more “the man behind the curtain” wins. So, as we go into the Presidential elections I hope we don’t continue to attack each other and end up divided right down the aisle, again…

No doubt some will say that I am a conspiracy freak. Maybe I am, but Fascism is a historical fact and it is out in the open; there is no conspiracy when the signs of greed are so patently exposed for all to see. Surely many in Utah (the reddest state, where I live) will say I am a pinko liberal. I am not. Remember that Rockefeller condemned competition at the top and together with J.P. Morgan, Ford, Vanderbilt and other Robber Barons financed, yes, financed Karl Marx and the Communist Revolution. Look it up… “It’s déjà vu all over again.” They always bet on both sides and then cuddle up to the winning side. So, before you start partisan rhetoric, think twice about who wins when we indulge in partisan dogma.

What else can we do? Buy gold and follow your churches’ advise to support each other in your local communities. (See October newsletter.) Become as self-sufficient as possible. Get out of debt. Stop eating garbage food that is driving 85% of your health problems. Continue to read about more natural ways to maintain and restore health, such as the items you see documented in this newsletter.

I cannot see writing about nutrition without discussing the forces at play that may compromise our ability to feed and shelter ourselves properly in the future. This month I review again two articles on this topic from previous issues.

“Future Health Consequences of the Current Decline in US Household Income,”
JAMA 2007;298:1931

People with incomes below $50,000 have shorter lifespan. They are more likely to receive poor health care. Education, race, environment also play a role.
Poverty has gone up from 11.7% to 12.6% since 2000. The numbers of those with incomes of $8,000 below poverty level increased by 45%. Except for the rich, personal income has decreased. Income inequality is widening. A booming economy is only benefiting the rich. The ratio between CEOs’ incomes and that of their employees has gone from 26 in 1965 to 245 in 2002.
These trends will likely result in worse health in all Americans but the rich. There will be more uninsured people. The answer: education in an information society. 40% more heart disease is seen in those without a High School diploma.

“Poverty and Health” by Robert Sapolsky. J. Scientific American, December 2005, p92

During a typhus epidemic in Europe there was more disease in the poor
Those in power always subjugate the powerless.
Conventional explanation that the poor lack health care and have harmful lifestyles does not explain health discrepancy. Chronic stress of poverty does; the poor feel poorer. “Poverty gets under the skin.” The poor have no outlets to express frustration.
Stress harmful when there is no sense of control, no knowledge of how long stress will last and there are few outlets to frustration. Stress is evidence of conditions worsening and lack of social support. Primates have higher cortisol levels (sign of stress) when subordinate.
Income inequality correlates with health much better: every step down Socio Economic Status, SES increases poor health: the poorest have a 10-fold increase in diseases.
Of all Western nations the US has the steepest gradient or income inequality: poorest white males in America die a decade earlier than the richest.
American nuns study: they shared living conditions, diet, etc, but still the SES 50 years earlier, when they joined, determined patterns of disease. These problems are not seen in Canada or Denmark where they have smaller inequality.
Endless reminders of poverty, having one’s nose rubbed in it make stress worse.
Spending money on public works is not a priority for the rich. They prefer to keep taxes for themselves, not public good. This is known as the “secession of the wealthy.” The more unequal the community, the more the wealthy oppose public works.
Ichiro Kawachi from Harvard talks about “Social Capital:” people feeling like they have a sense of community. With low social capital we see poorer health. He added that…

“America has neglected its social safety nets, while making it easier for the most successful to sit atop the pyramid of inequality… All measures of social epidemiology are worsening in the USA. Of Western nations, America has the greatest income inequality (40% of the wealth is controlled by 1%,) and the greatest discrepancy between expenditures on health care (#1 in the world) and life expectancy (#29 as of 2003.)”

Suggested reading:
“The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin; American Media, 1994.
“No Ordinary Time: Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt,” Doris K. Goodwin; Simon &
Schuster 1994.
“Politics of Fortune” by Jeffrey E. Garten; Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
“Wealth and Democracy,” by Kevin Phillips; Bradway Books, 2002.
“The Soul of Capitalism,” by William Greider; Simon & Schuster, 2003.
“Team of Rivals: the political genius of Abraham Lincoln,” Doris K. Goodwin; Simon &
Schuster. 2005.
“The Shock Doctrine,” by Naomi Klein; Metropolitan Books, 2007.
“Free Lunch: how the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense
(and stick you with the bill,)” by David C. Johnston; Penguin Group, 2007.
“Unequal Democracy: the political economy of the new gilded age,” by Larry M. Bartels;
Princeton University Press, 2008.
“Fleeced,” by D. Morris and E. McGann; HarperCollins, 2008.

More “Low Carb” Misunderstandings

2008-07-22T09:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, the New England of Medicine published an article showing that “low carb” diets help people lose more weight than both the Mediterranean and the “low fat” diets. Sure enough, before the ink dried on this study we started seeing the general public react in predictable ways, like wolfing down sausages, red meat, and all kinds of high fat and animal based foods.

While more studies are welcome in the “alternative” field of nutrition (yes, the National Institute of Health considers nutrition an alternative,) most studies are done by researchers who view this burgeoning field through their training-induced reductionist lenses. In other words, many studies seem oddly detached from significant variables, like economic, political and behavioral issues. They also tend to ignore the fact that weight is not the most important variable when we talk about nutrition. Often, these studies also neglect to consider that the kind of food we eat is one thing, while the way we process it in our intestines is another. Then, the new recognition that food itself influences the hormonal connections between our gut and the “thermostat” we have in our brain (hippothalamus) is often ignored. In other words, what kinds of food tend to mess up our thermostats and thus perpetuate our deranged metabolisms is not accounted for in these studies.

Last of all, the issue of addiction, yes addiction to certain foods is seldom addressed.

In my opinion, all these factors may be simply summarized in one short sentence: people become addicted to PROCESSED FOODS, such as refined carbs, which are laden with high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, preservatives, food colorings, artificial sweeteners and many other questionable molecules that alter our metabolism, or the way our thermostat works.

I know that many will disagree with this statement. No doubt they will drag out the worn-our refrain “calories in = calories out.” But, as stated above, many factors influence how we handle the calories we consume. Some will also argue that no one diet is OK for all of us. I agree with this statement, but with reservations. Some people do better as vegetarians, while others do best avoiding grains. But, on the whole, WE ALL NEED TO GET OFF PROCESSED FOOD.

This is the main issue with our nutritional problems. Focusing on slight differences, like “low carb” vs. “low fat” is like choking on a gnat and swallowing a camel. In my opinion, these studies are little more than “paying attention to the man behind the curtain.” Yes, Big Food stands to benefit by diverting attention away from their processed garbage with studies like this. In the meantime, Big Food continues to produce processed foods that have repeatedly been shown to be toxic and addictive. Since they are cheaper than natural foods, people tend to eat them, forced by a deteriorating economy. The “bottom line” is that our bottom line and Big Food’s get bigger….

Still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: have these “low carb, low fat” studies, and the “calories in = calories out” studies born good results? Have we been getting any thinner? The answer is a resounding NO.

Here is what I feel the problem is, practically stated: we need carbs in the form of complex carbs, such as what we find in fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains. We need fats such as the ones contained in fish nuts, olives and several other vegetable-based fats. If we wish to eat animal fats, they would be best to come from lean, organic poultry. To continue to demonize all fats and all carbs is not only unscientific but harmful.

So, you wish to eat the right diet for you?

Start with the ABCs and lick your sugar addiction. Once you do that, focus on filling up with veggies, fruits and nuts. If you need more food, add the grains and legumes. If you wish to eat animal protein, reach for poultry and fish. After that, you could experiment with more “advanced” concepts. But, first things first.

The fields of Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics may help you determine whether you, like most people, may eat all types of GOD GIVEN FOODS (as opposed to processed foods.) Or, you may need to refrain from all animal meat (book “The China Study,”) or refrain from grains (book “The Paleo Diet.”) But, it is more practical to try both extremes for a while, rather than checking out your genetic information.

But, again, those two extremes are not the norm, but the exceptions. Besides, nobody does well eliminating whole groups of food.

And refined foods are not “food groups,” like Big Food would like you to believe.

More on Drugs to Treat Kids’s Cholesterol

2008-07-16T07:18:00.000-07:00

I hope you read the blog I posted before this one. Were you upset? Well, the New York Times was (editorial, Sunday July 13th, 2008) and so were a lot of doctors across the country. Yes, about 13% of children have an elevated cholesterol. Yes, some of them have a genetic problem that cause the elevation. The docs who recommended these drugs for kids are saying they were misunderstood; they only intended to treat those 1/500 kids with said genetics issues. “I don’t see it as a major groundswell for the indiscriminate use of lipid-lowering drugs,” said one of the panel docs.

What do you think?

In my opinion, either the recommending docs are extremely naïve, or they are not old enough to remember (probably both) what happens in health care when a drug is first introduced “for only a few people.” For example, Listerine was introduced as a disinfectant in the Operating Room; now we all gargle it before a hot date. The purple pill for really bad ulcers was introduced when I was in Medical School to use only when everything else failed. Now, everyone takes it OTC for gastritis and reflux. I saw a commercial where they recommend it before you eat pizza…

The most glaring example is what happened to antidepressants. Only used for patients who were in really dire straights, now everyone gets it for any little “bump on the road” of life.
So, what is Big Pharma going to do with the marketing of these drugs recommended only for 1/500 kids? Is it hard to imagine that after a while, any kid having weight problems is going to be put on these drugs? What will the message be to these kids? They will soon learn, if they have not already, that any problem needs a pill. Oh, but they don’t like taking pills. Well, let’s put the drugs in their ice cream or in their jell-o…

Then there is the matter of nutrition: I still hear docs say that food will not correct a cholesterol problem. This is blatantly wrong (see blogs above.) Besides, the new field of “Nutrigenomics” (see cover issue of Discover Journal, November 2007) makes it very clear that diet may improve genetic profiles in any disease, including cholesterol problems. True, there will be a few patients, adult and children, where diet fails. In those patients, we would do well to check their thyroids, diabetic tendencies, levels of iodine, vitamin D, etc, etc, before prescribing a pill.

If so many adults are having side effects from these drugs, can you imagine what we are exposing our children to, for the rest of their lives? There is very little data on how these drugs will affect them long term. The studies we do have followed kids on these drugs for only two years. Also, we must remember that kids metabolize differently than adults. How do we know if they are going to have less/more side effects? Some docs feel these drugs may mess up kids’ hormones, especially those that regulate their development.

As I feared, the New York Times editorial reports that the American Academy of Pediatrics has received contributions from Big Pharma. Three of the docs on the recommending committee have been employed as consultants and as researchers for the drug companies that make cholesterol-lowering drugs: as always, “follow the money.”

Seeing REDDER Now That Kids are Involved

2008-07-11T20:25:00.000-07:00

This morning, July 7th 2008, the American Pediatric Association lost my respect: they announced that in view of the obesity epidemic and pre-diabetes in our children, they now recommend that kids 8 years and older take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol.

Before we outline the problems with this recommendation, we must try to understand where they are coming from. No doubt, they care about children and wish to prevent the onset of heart disease, now widely documented to start at an early age. This is wonderful. Nobody disagrees with this worthy goal.

BUT, and that is a big but, starting drugs on children is likely to impress upon their minds that a medical problem is to be managed with a pill. Will it surprise anyone to see these children grow up to pop a pill for any health issue they encounter? This is great… for Big Pharma, who likely influenced the panel of docs at the American Pediatric Association who made the recommendation to use these drugs.

Sure, they did mention diet; but did you know that any doctor in private practice who emphasizes diet is said to be a quack? This attitude flies in the face of the American Heart Association’s recommendation that TLC, Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes like diet should be tried for 6 months, before drugs are used.

You may say that children have no chance to implement TLC measures when their own parents cannot give up their addiction to refined sugars and trans fats. Therein lies the problem. So, therein is the solution, that is, educating people so that they may open their eyes and wake up to the fact that Big Food and Big Pharma have a commercial interest in people remaining uneducated and unable to implement the simplest of nutritional interventions to save themselves, and their children from premature heart disease and diabetes.

Let us say that most people will fail to face their addiction to refined foods. OK, then, some kind of intervention is justified. In that case, why don’t we look at the evidence to see that cholesterol-lowering drugs have significant problems and questionable benefits? Instead, we could give children a much safer item, RED RICE, which was prominently featured in the American J. Cardiology this year (See blog “Seeing RED.”) The Mayo clinic just proved that RED RICE, fish oil and a good diet are the equivalent of Zocor 40 mg and without the side effects (J. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2008;83:758.)

Now, why didn’t the American Academy of Pediatrics even consider RED RICE? Could it be that the industry making this item, which has been persecuted by Big Pharma, doesn’t have the resources to influence those who are making the recommendation to start statins on our kids? Did you know that Big Pharma has literally taken RED RICE makers to court, arguing that RED RICE is much like a drug, so much so that it should not be sold over the counter? Never mind that it is from RED RICE that Big Pharma got the first of the statin drugs. Talk about throwing grandpa out in the cold… and never mind that now statin makers want to approval to have their drugs sold over the counter.

But, there is another reason why we will not see RED RICE or TLC emphasized to our kids: any doc who tries to do so is labeled a quack. Because I have done this, there are some docs in my community who feel that I am just that, a quack. They have so judged me without ever meeting me, without discussing the evidence in our own journals, without visiting my website, and without even looking up the evidence that fills our medical journals, as you can see by studying my newsletter and blogs.

One such doc, Dr. W______, recently traumatized and verbally abused a patient we had in common by lecturing her that she should not see quacks like me. His attitude is not only immature but unethical, subject to legal repercussions and plain wrong and close-minded. My patient left his office in tears. She contacted me in agony, deeply hurt and wondering what she could do about this episode. I advised her to forget about it, since these types of docs and people like him will never change. Truly, we cannot put new wine in old bottles. Perhaps she will write to Dr. W., to make him aware of his faux-pas, perhaps not.

After all, patients are to be encouraged to find the health care they prefer, without recrimination from their docs. Interestingly, my patient happened to be a highly trained and educated health care worker herself, who, looking at the evidence, and the healthy results from nutritional therapies, has made the choice to postpone pharmaceutical solutions to her problems, unless TLC, nutrition and kindness fail.

So, I am seeing RED some more, because now children will be brainwashed when it comes to metabolic problems. I am seeing RED because of Drs like Dr. W. And I am seeing RED because the perverse economic incentives that drive this madness are not likely to go away in the near future.

Since seeing RED is not good for me, I am seriously considering retiring from this madness. After 25+ years of fighting ignorance, prejudice and close mindedness, I am tired, and somewhat hopeless that our society can turn this thing around. So, don’t be surprised if, just like my hero George Carlin, I just fade into the sunset one of these days…

Seeing RED Rice

2008-06-12T13:24:00.000-07:00

ABC news reported Monday, June 9th, 2008, that the American J. Cardiology published an article documenting that red rice lowers mortality by 43% in patients who have had a heart attack. Well, this is not news, since there have been many reports that this nutrient works. In fact, the first statin drug to lower cholesterol, lovastatin, was derived from red rice, a fact that ABC did not address at all, even though the authors, Chinese doctors, made it a point to include that vital information in their paper.

The docs also reported that red rice is extremely safe and well tolerated. They saw no side effects while following up on 4,870 patients. But, despite the glowing results, ABC consulted with their medical experts, who cautioned people not to take red rice, because it can have “serious muscle and liver problems,” and that it is very difficult to get a standard dose of red rice from nutraceutical companies. The ABC reporter concluded that it was difficult to know how to take this report on red rice, given the two conflicting opinions.

What is going on here?

In my opinion, Big Pharma cannot stand by and allow this kind of report take form their sales of statin drugs. First of all, ABC and every other network are raking in millions of dollars in TV ads about these drugs.

Second, red rice has been around for hundreds of years, with similar results available in many major journals. Its safety has been documented ad nauseum. True, it also has a tendency to curtail the absorption of the antioxidant CoQ10, a fact that Big Pharma continues to deny as a problem in their statin drugs, despite European pharmaceuticals admitting to it, and advising patients to supplement CoQ10.

The decreased availability of CoQ10 is why statin drugs themselves have significant problems with the liver and muscles. In fact, any athlete can tell soon after initiating these drugs that their muscle function is somewhat compromised. So, here is a case of the kettle calling the tea pot black. Never mind that 4,870 patients taking red rice experienced very few, if any side effects on that study.

When pharmaceuticals first isolated the molecule HMG Coenzyme reductase inhibitor from red rice, they threw away the rest of the rice, arguing that those other antioxidants, sterols, etc were not strong enough, or relevant. Talk about arrogance: they know better than Mother Nature, aka God. This is typical of the poor understanding of natural pharmacology that Big Pharma has. Of course, by isolating the active molecule like that, they may claim they have found a drug. Then, they may patent it, and rake in profits for a long time.

Red rice is hard to find in the USA. Big Pharma made sure the FDA designated red rice as a drug, so, it cannot be sold over the counter. Ironically Big Pharma is now trying to sell their own statins OTC. So, when it benefits Big Pharma, red rice is a drug. But, they still claim it doesn’t work well, and if it does, it is too strong and it may hurt you. Do you see RED rice, too?

Elections 2008

2008-06-12T13:06:00.000-07:00

Now that we know who the final two candidates for the Presidency are we can start fighting about who is going to be better for our country. Focusing on the health care issue, I feel that the best candidate just lost (Clinton,) and that the second best is Barack Obama. No, I am not a Democrat. In fact, I feel both parties are puppets in the hands of Big Business, much like it was in America at the time of the “Robber Barons,” when Teddy Roosevelt carried a big stick.

No, I am not complaining about fascists governments, where big corporations practically dictate how elected officials behave. I feel this is the way it has always been in the history of the world. Within a few years of starting any form of government, big business and the wealthy get in bed with government. To “kick against the pricks” (biblical sharp spikes to keep cattle in line to the slaughter, not the street meaning) is unwise, especially when we don’t understand the human tendency to respect our alpha dogs: the rich, the famous and the powerful.

These natural forces have contributed to the chaotic situation we have in health care: how could they not have? Health care is run by big businesses and corporations that have their long fingers in the political process and do not want to lose their power: insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, the AMA and many industries that produce expensive and less than ideal gadgets to care for people (mammograms, bone densitometries, surgery equipment, etc,) at the expense of cheaper modalities, like teaching patients one-on-one about TLC, “Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes.”

I remember vividly crying in the Jefferson monument when I read his statement about opposing tyranny over the hearts of men. But, since my high school education in Idaho, I had misunderstood the nature of the debate that Jefferson and John Adams sustained through most of their political careers. Encouraged by our public schools, most of us have sided with the more colorful, handsome, powerful, French-leaning Jefferson and his populist message. Like me, most of us felt that Adams was a rigid New Englander who favored the rich, not the common folk. Thanks to Mr. McCollough’s recent work, I have changed my views and “turned coat.”

Now I see Jefferson, the slave owner, as somewhat idealistic and not as well grounded in reality as Adams was. While Jefferson made quite a splash with his “government for the people, by the people and of the people,” the more austere and frugal non-slave owner Adams maintained that there would always be wealthier people in any society who would naturally tend to abuse their positions of power and influence to curtail the freedoms of the common folk. Realistically, he maintained that the rule of law was the best way to keep those tendencies from overwhelming the more humble segments of our society.

Even though most modern countries have left behind aristocratic forms of government, I feel that their powerful descendants never relinquished power. Their wealth and assets stayed in their families, and so did their powerful influence in their respective countries’ affairs. They have done so, some times covertly and often overtly. Most of these families are internationally related, which has fueled globalization, under the guise of joining people together for us commoner’s benefits.

Again, I am not complaining: this is human nature. Tongue in cheek, the journal Science has proposed that “homo sapiens” be changed to “homo economicus.” I agree. In fact, John Adams says it best: business is a grand and noble enterprise.” (“The Wealth of Nations.”) However, he also stated that “most of the world troubles come from somebody not knowing when to stop and be content.” (“Theory of Moral Sentiment.”)

It is in our nature to trade and barter. Even daily personal communications and relationships are a form of commerce, if you will. If we can do it with respect for one another, protected by the rule of law, it does not matter what color we are, what society we live in, what sex, or age, or even whether we like each other or not (it would be nice if we did...)

With these thoughts in mind, I have been deeply moved to see Senator Obama win the Democratic Party’s nomination, about the same time that I finished reading his most favorite book, “Team of Rivals,” which talks about Lincoln’s leadership style. Hopefully senator Obama will adopt the same lofty ideals if he is elected President, and surround himself with the brightest leaders in the country, from both parties, including those who have openly criticized him during the campaign, including senator Clinton. (That Lincoln was one of the most prominent Americans to warn us that powerful special interests could jeopardize our democracy is very interesting to me.)

I feel that senator Obama’s election is a hopeful reflection of how Adams and Jefferson together helped shape our country: yes, we do have a government of the people, for the people and by the people,” and the rule of law has made it so. But, our democracy is still in peril of being swallowed up by corporations, the military complex and who knows what other groups who will always attempt to impose their special interests by pushing their agendas through our sacred halls of government. Senator Obama’s election is a grand example that there is still hope for us common folk, even though blue collar workers may view him as a typical Harvard-elitist.

Also, I am delighted to see a man of mixed racial background achieve this position in our country for personal reasons. I, too have a mixed racial background. Growing up and well into my young adulthood, my background was a source of much turmoil and conflict. But, as I matured, I see such a background as an asset, even though I occasionally experience a cold handshake, a condescending stare and, thankfully, a rare outright racial putdown. Today, my friends and I joke about my Chilean, Basque and French ancestry, with the secure knowledge that I am an American first and foremost. I wish I could say that such a mixed heritage has not been problematic for some of my patients. But, I have solid evidence that a significant number of complaints about my practice, while couched on billing, miscommunication and my failed attempts to lighten up dealings with humor, are veiled displays of lack of respect because of my skin color.

But I digress.

Senator Obama’s historic run for the Presidency touches “half-breeds” like me in a very personal way. But, if you are 100% white, or of another race, I hope that you too find his unprecedented success inspiring. After all, it is an awe-inspiring example, as he puts it, of our quest for a “more perfect Union.”

Who knows… we may even get a health care system that is better, more democratic, and more in keeping with the rule of law, instead of the covert and overt health care system we have that clearly favors special interests. Even though the ‘business of America is business,” our next President’s administration would do well to return to solid principles of government, like the Roman “salus populi suprema lex,” or “the health of the people is the supreme law of the land.” Perhaps we may shine a more discriminatory light on the Roman dictum that now rules, “bread and circus.” If the powerful wish to control the masses they make food and entertainment readily available and even addicting, so that people think themselves to be free because they can choose between many different brands of bread and circus, while remaining ignorant of key social issues that have the most impact on their lives.

As November approaches, let us vote for the candidate that we feel is best prepared to stand up for the rule of law so that we the people may have better health and a better chance of a successful pursuit of happiness. For me, that means senator Obama. But, I won’t hold my breath that he will drive the more Darwinian money changers from our temples of commerce.

Have a Cup of Joe, or Not

2008-05-27T08:34:00.000-07:00

I wish I had clear and unambiguous advice for you when it comes to coffee.

As you will see, the data are mixed. After reviewing the following articles, you may get a sense that it is likely OK (I do,) if not abused. Coffee reminds me of alcohol. By now you must have been living on the Moon if you have not heard that alcohol is OK in moderation, that is, less than 12 oz of wine, 8 oz. of beer, and 2 oz. of hard liquor a day. Even elderly people may safely follow these recommendations (J. American Geriatric Society 2007;55:49.) In fact, consumed in moderation, alcohol reduces insulin resistance (J. Metabolism Clinical and Experimental 2005;54:306,) like coffee does (J. Metabolism Clinical and Experimental 2007;56:599.) Consequently, alcohol reduces the risk of heart problems by 38% (J. Family Practice News, April 1st, page 1.)

But, you will still hear about articles saying that coffee may worsen our risk of pre-diabetes (J. Annals Nutrition & Metabolism 2006;50:407.) Coffee also has been reported to increase insulin levels after a meal, but not the fasting levels of sugar. One researcher showed that sugar after meals may improve by 20 % if diabetics get off coffee altogether (J. Endocrinology Practice 2007;13:239.)

I feel the problem is drinking too much coffee, particularly if your liver does not detoxify it very well. Coffee in excess increases the risk of non fatal heart attacks, if the person has a slow CYP1A2 allele, or gene for detoxification, which impairs coffee metabolism in the liver (JAMA 2006;295:1135.)

Weak adrenal glands, perhaps from genetics, or too much trauma, emotional, and/or physical, also have a lot to say on how you handle coffee. People with a tendency to TOIL (Toxicity, oxidation, inflammation and less optimal mitochondrial function-see newsletter archive) in the cell membranes lining their esophagus, and stomach, may get symptoms of reflux, and even gastritis with too much coffee. I am one of them, so, I am forced to limit my coffee to one cup a day and with meals only. My dad woke up dead from a bleeding ulcer. I am afraid I inherited his poor tendency to molt the lining of my stomach, which is brand new every 36 hours.

Compounding the problem is the possibility of an addicting personality, which would make it very hard to stop at one or two cups a day, since caffeine has an addictive potential. Again, this is the same as alcohol. The American Medical Association recommends that you limit your alcohol intake to one, or two drinks a day, and don’t start drinking if you don’t drink now, since you don’t know how you will react when faced with the potential of developing an addiction. I would advice you to do the same with coffee. A moderate amount has been defined as less than 4 cups a day. This seems excessive to me, so, I limit myself to one cup a day, with meals, and never in the morning, or late at night.

Get yourself a cup of Joe, or not, and read the highlights of one of the best articles I have seen on coffee: “Is coffee a functional food?” (British J. Nutrition 2005;93:773.)

Coffee has a lot of antioxidants (flavonoids, phenolic compounds, theobromine, xanthine, nicotinic acid, trigonelline, quinolinic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid, and hydroxycinnamic acids.) This is why it is the single most important source of antioxidants in the USA, which is really a reflection of how low the American diet is on fruits and veggies (Scranton University report, August 29th, 2005. Reuters News.) Coffee’s maximum antioxidant activity is found when it is roasted medium.

Other drinks have antioxidants, too. The most are found in green and black tea, then, in descending order, coffee, coca cola, red wine, carrot juice, apricot nectar, and white wine. Coke is on the list because they add teobromines, caffeine, and vitamins. Too bad they also add HFCS, artificial sweeteners, preservatives, colorings, and acid. More below.

Unfiltered Italian coffee raises glutathione levels (the strongest antioxidant.)
Coffee decreases the absorption of potassium, magnesium, and manganese
On the average, the average caffeine content is 58-259 mg/serving
Coffee is best decaffeinated through the supercritical CO2 method. Arabian coffee is 70% caffeine free. Ethopian Coffea arabica 94% caffeine free.
Coffee decreases early morning drive sleepiness for about 30 minutes, following no sleep, and 2 hrs after sleep restriction.
Coffee reduces breast cancer risk, except in obese women. It decreases liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis gall bladder stones, asthma, sugar levels after a meal, and it also decreases the risk of diabetes, and the risk of cardiovascular events.
Coffee increases body temperature, energy expenditure, testosterone, potency and sexual activity in elderly women.

It improves mood, lowers risk of suicide, increases speed of processing information, and improves cognitive performance. Coffee induces better neurologic outcomes, ADD improvement, lower risk Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. It also improves the dopamine system, so that it is useful in alcohol and drug addiction. Cappuccino may be used to treat the dry mouth seen with tricyclic antidepressants.

But, problems may be seen after 4 cups a day: withdrawal syndrome, short sleep, increase in blood pressure, increase inflammation, and lower infant birth weight
Coffee decreases the oxidation of LDL lipids, AJCN 2007;86:604

[More evidence:
J. Archives Internal Medicine 2006;166:1190
Coffee reduces risk of cirrhosis, especially alcoholic cirrhosis
J. Diabetologia 2006;49:2618
Coffee reduces risk of mortality of heart disease in diabetics type II
J. Circulation 2006;13:2045
Coffee does not increase risk of heart disease]

Diet Soda also Makes You Gain Weight - A Lesson in Sweeteners

2008-05-21T14:50:00.000-07:00

Soda pop is truly an addiction in this country. Many will violently object to my use of the word “addiction,” which I take as proof I am barking up the right tree. The purveyors of this poison have convinced people that “diet pop,” sweetened with artificial molecules is not associated with weight gain. Well, they have been lying all along, a fact that has been discussed in many publications, but none as reputable as the recent article in the JAMA, May 14th, 2008, page 2137.

Will this article finally convince the public that these drinks are poisonous? I doubt it. In my experience, Americans have not hit rock bottom, yet, when it comes to addictions to processed food in general and “liquid candy” in particular.

The JAMA article highlights the disruption diet pop and the artificial sweeteners cause on our “thermostat” that regulated our metabolism in the brain, thus raising the risk of not only obesity but diabetes as well. Sadly, the study din not address another little problem compounding the disruption in our metabolism: cell membrane toxicity, oxidation, inflammation and less mitochondrial function (TOIL) that triggers insulin resistance.

So, even though diet soda pop has no calories, it still makes us obese and more prone to diabetes. So much for the “calories in = calories out dogma,” which I have addressed elsewhere.

But, soda pop, diet, regular or “zero” has many other problems as well; neurology issues and even osteoporosis have been associated with it. I will never forget the dental article that recommended drinking pop with a straw, since pop rots our teeth enamel….Great. Why not get a straw long enough that comes out the rear end?

If you study the history of artificial sweeteners you will get very angry; the producers of these poisons have fudged the data from day one, when aspartame was created. It turns out that in general, artificial sweeteners are derivatives of pesticides and other industrial chemicals: no wonder our cell membranes are TOILing.

If you have the time, check out the following chapter, which is part of my updated version of my book “Sweet Death,” soon to be published. Here is a teaser: Donald Rumsfeld, the former Bush cabinet member was the CEO of the company that came up with the concept of artificial sweeteners for the first time…

SWEETENERS = METHADONE

The amount of caloric sweeteners consumed per person per year in the United States has increased from 38 pounds in 1880, to 149 pounds, or 1 cup a day in 2005. This increase mirrors the increase in refined sugars, and our exploding epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Since so many people have bought into the lies perpetuated by the manufacturers, and marketers of artificial sweeteners, a quick overview of how we stumbled across these sweet poisons will help you see that using them is much like going from the frying pan to the fire. If you wish to read a more detailed account of this problem, read “Sweet deception,” by Dr. Mercola (Nelson books, 2006.)

You will see that these toxins contribute to our cell membranes’ toxicity, or TOILing, which compromise cell communication, increase IR, and affect our metabolism (“What role has nutrition been playing in our health? The xenohormesis connection,” J. Integrative Medicine 2007;6:22.) In other words, these sweeteners still contribute to obesity and IR by increasing TOIL and messing with our brain thermostat of energy handling (JAMA 2008;299:2137.)

Since artificial sweeteners are marketed to avoid “sugar,” and “lose weight,” the analogy of using the very toxic drug methadone to overcome an opioid addiction is not that far fetched.

Consider the source

Artificial sweeteners were discovered by accident. Take for instance, saccharin, the first sweetener we were lied about. Saccharin is a derivative of toluene, which is a clear liquid produced in the process of making gasoline from crude oil, and in making carbon residues from coal. Toluene is used in paints, paint thinners, fingernail polish, lacquers, adhesives, and rubber. Of course, it is very toxic. An accidental spill on the hand of its discoverer turned out to taste sweet, and the rest is history (J. Chemische Berichte 1879;12:469.)

Monsanto, well known for its lies and dirty-dealing in pesticides, was founded just to promote saccharin in 1901, with its main customer at the time some rinky-dink company called Coca Cola. Monsanto has gone on to include pesticides in the genetic code of many crops, so that about 60% of food produced in the USA has pesticides altering the genes of these foods. Remember that Monsanto developed pesticides from leftover nerve gas from World Wars I & II. The damage these poisons are causing to our metabolism will become more obvious in the next few pages. Suffice it to say that most governments and banks in Europe have voiced concerns about Monsanto’s dealings with what we now call “genetically modified organisms,” or GMOs.

In 1912, saccharin was banned, because of emerging data on side effects and health risks. But, saccharin was soon back in the market, because the World Wars in 1914, and 1939 created shortages of sugar. Any reservations about saccharin were swept under the carpet, dspite data showing an association with cancer in laboratory animals, especially bladder tumors (J. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1985;23:491.) Saccharin was allowed to remain on the market only because the public could not do without its sweet fix. This is why saccharin had a label warning people that it can cause cancer in animals. But, this label was removed in 2001.

Animal studies

The animal testing concept is a very curious thing. It is widely used to test and approve pharmaceutical products: But, it is dismissed by critics, when it comes to testing of potential toxins. What this double standard? Many feel that animal testing results are a very good approximation of the toxicity of chemicals humans are exposed to. What is good for the goose, is also good for Gus, and Gayle.

“In the absence of adequate data on humans, it is biologically possible and prudent to regard agents and mixtures for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals as if they presented a carcinogenic risk to humans” (International Agency for Research in Cancer, Supplement 1987.)

More sweet lies

Soon, other artificial sweeteners began to appear. Cyclamate was accidentally discovered in 1937 by a researcher working on fever-lowering drugs. The sweet byproduct of his work, cyclamate was also banned. Studies on rats and dogs showed that cyclamate caused testicular atrophy, and reduced sperm counts (same as other xenoestogens, like pesticides.) But, the main reason cyclamate was banned, was because its consumption would have exceeded the acceptable daily intake of 300 mg/day. Cyclamate was the main ingredient of Sweet’N Low®, which now is composed of saccharin and dextrose.

Alitame (Aclame™) was discovered in 1979. It is made from the amino acids l-aspartic and d-alanine. It appears safer than other sweetener to date, but it is closely related to aspartame, which has been associated with significant deceptive practices. Besides, alitame has not been tested in combination with other sweeteners. To this day, alitame has not been approved for use in the USA, although, it is being used in Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and China.

Acesulfame-K (Ace-K, Sunnett®) was also discovered by accident, while researchers worked in the production of fertilizers. It contains methylene chloride, which has been found to be a known carcinogen, as well as the reason for headaches, mental confusion, depression, liver problems, kidney problems, bronchitis, nausea, lack of balance, and visual disturbances in many people. But, these claims were found not to be significant enough by the FDA (BMJ1996;313;386.)

Neotame is aspartame plus 3-di-methyl-butyl. The latter is listed as one of the most toxic chemicals by the EPA. Yet, it was approved for general use in 2002, with the support of laboratory data produced by Monsanto. No independent laboratories have produced any data on neotame’s safety.

Like Sweet’N Low, other products are blends of artificial and natural sweeteners. They combine the artificial garbage described above, plus, sucralose, xylitol, and high fructose corn syrup. They are supposed to save you money, but they really don’t. They do hide the chemical after-taste of the artificial ingredients, and they do make it very convenient for marketers to come up with new products.

Artificial sweet politics: Aspartame

All the data discussed below appeared in the New York Times, February 12th, 2006 issue. Aspartame is best known as NutraSweet® and Equal®. It has been found to increase the risk of cancers like lymphomas and leukemias at quantities equivalent to 4-5 servings of diet soda in a 150-pound-person. The study was conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences. They showed that the original studies by Searle Pharmaceutical, back in the 70’s, showing aspartame to be safe, were flawed (J. Biology Psychiatry 1993;34:13.) Donald Rumsfeld, former secretary of defense under G.W. Bush, was the CEO at the time.

Searle only tested 280-688 rats, which were not allowed to live more than two years. A new study tested 1,900 rats, and checked them for problems after 3 years, or the human equivalent of 53 years, which is when we start getting cancers. Searle was at the time also criticized by an FDA report stating that their studies were “poorly conceived, carelessly executed, or inaccurately analyzed or reported.” The FDA also cited a lack of training by the scientists analyzing tissue samples, a “substantial” loss of information because of tissue decomposition, and inadequate monitoring of feeding doses.

A grand jury investigation in Chicago looked into these irregularities, plus Searle’s “concealing of material facts, and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of the drug aldactone and the food additive aspartame.” However, the grand jury was never convened, because Mr. Skinner, then the US attorney for the Chicago area, left that low-paying position to work for a high-paying law firm representing Searle. Do you smell a rat going through a revolving door? ☺

The FDA didn’t give up. They continued to question the data from Searle, even pointing out that there was an increase in brain tumors, too. An FDA board of scientists recommended to withhold approval, but a review of Searle’s tumor slides by academicians paid by Searle showed that there were no problems with aspartame. In 1981, aspartame was dimmed safe by the FDA’s Mr. Hayes, who left the agency the year after to work for Burson-Masteller, the public agency handling Searle at the time.

Of a total of 166 studies on aspartame, 74 were financed by the industry. They cited no problems at all. Of the 92 independent studies, 84 identified adverse effects: “far too much to be a coincidence.” Yet, studies financed by the industry keep coming out that aspartame is not a problem (Annual Meeting American Association for Cancer Research, April 5th, 2006, Salt Lake Tribune.)

Most studies on aspartame only looked for tumors, without realizing that it is also a potent neurotoxin, and endocrine disrupter. This is why many psychiatrists see more depression, ADD, and panic disorders in people consuming aspartame, which is detoxified into formaldehyde in the body, a very toxic in itself. Do you want to be picked before you die? Eat aspartame. ☺

When you realize that 10% of the aspartame you consume becomes methanol, or wood alcohol, you may want to make some changes in your life. It turns out that one can of diet soda has 16 milligrams of methanol. The EPA has determined that this dangerous substance should not be consumed over 8 milligrams a day. Even at cold temperatures, methanol can also break down into formaldehyde, which may disrupt cellular function, and DNA (J. Seminars in Cancer Biology 1998;8:255.) The World Health Organization has determined that exposure to formaldehyde should not exceed 0.05 ppm (www.epa.gov.)

In addition to the lymphomas documented above, aspartame may cause headaches, depression, mental retardation (through PKU mechanism,) seizures, and visual disturbances. These symptoms have one thing in common: disturbance of the blood brain barrier, BBB. As noted elsewhere, cells shrivel up when they are TOILing, thereby causing leakiness of the tissues they compose. This is also seen in the brain, where toxins now may leak through the previously-thought impregnable BBB. Perhaps the most dramatic presentation of this problem is the often-documented phenomenon of inverted vision with aspartame. Some people have suffered from a total flipping of the visual field, so that they have the sensation of being upside down. Even more dramatic, is blindness itself (J. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology1978;45:201.)

Other documented side effects of aspartame include: genetic damage, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness, sleeping problems, burning skin, musculo-skeletal problems, gastrointestinal symptoms, nausea, palpitations, lack of concentration, infertilily, low birth weight, memory deficits, and dexterity impairment. All told, roughly one million people have experienced reactions to aspartame (FDA, April 20th, 1995.)

If you want to know more about aspartame, read “Aspartame disease: an ignored epidemic,” written by H. Roberts, M.D. (Sunshine Sentinel Press, 2001.)

What about Splenda®, and Equal®?

After all that data about aspartame, do you really believe that Splenda, and Equal are OK? If you do, I have some land in the Everglades I would like to sell you. ☺

Splenda and Equal are sucralose, a chlorinated artificial sugar derivative up to 600 times sweeter than sugar. It was also discovered by accident, while researchers were trying to come up with a new insecticide by using sulfuryl chloride. It took over 11 years of twisting the FDAs arm to get Splenda approved in 1998. There are only 6 published human studies on sucralose. The longest one was only 13 weeks, but Mc Neil, the makers of Splenda, reported an unpublished study lasting 6 months. All these studies focused on Splenda’s effects on diabetics, not the general population. In total, they involved 191 people, hardly a reassuring number.

Three animal studies lasted about two years, using about 200 rats, and a few dogs (J. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000;38:s91.) Yet, McNeil claims that “more than 100 studies conducted over a 20 year period” have established the safety of Splenda. These data may be true, but, the studies are unpublished, and not available to the public. Furthermore, almost all those studies were conducted by McNeil. Do you still want to but my land? ☺

Despite clear evidence that chloride compounds are not safe, Splenda now is found in practically all processed foods. This has led to significant exposure, which now has been linked, in the short term, to agitation, seizures, hallucinations, respiratory problems, irregular heartbeat, cough, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, skin rashes, headaches, dizziness, paralysis of the face, tongue, and extremities, respiratory failure, ear, nose, and throat irritation, blurred vision, and pulmonary edema. Other than that, Splenda is very safe. ☺

In the long term, Splenda has been linked to the following problems in animals, mostly rats: lack of appetite, central nervous system disturbances, reduced growth rate, decreased red blood cells, shrunken thymus, decreased thyroid function, mineral losses, decreased urination, enlarged colon, enlarged liver and brain, shrunken ovaries, enlarged and calcified kidneys, increased adrenal cortical hemorrhaging, and increased cataracts.

Do you really want to continue eating this garbage?

Only 15% of Splenda is absorbed, leaving the rest to irritate your intestines. Irritable bowel syndrome, a problem that afflicts 25% of people, may well be caused, or aggravated by artificial sweeteners. Add all the refined sugar, the trans-hydrogenated fatty acids, the ibuprofen-like drugs, etc, and you got yourself a real irritable tummy.

Splenda is glucuronidated, or detoxified in the liver, which means it is fat soluble, thus contradicting McNeil’s claims that it is only water soluble. This is a major point in considering the safety of Splenda, which is described as eliminated by the gastrointestinal system “without side effects.” But, this has been shown to be false (J. Food and Chemical Toxicity 2000;38:s111.) Splenda is furthermore metabolized into 21 compounds, most of them chlorine-based, thus creating a very acidic environment (J. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000;38:s1.) Can you imagine what these products are doing to our natural intestinal flora? In addition to that, these by-products have been shown to cause infertility, brain damage, liver toxicity, depletion of the antioxidant glutathione, genetic changes, and low birth weight in rats (J. Reproduction and Fertility 1978;52:153.)

Do you think that the 250,000+ toxins released into the air and water around the sucralose plant in McIntosh, Alabama may be affecting the people living close by? The neighbors think so.

A study on 18 pregnant rabbits showed disturbing results, which NcNeil blamed mostly on the effects of tube feeding. Most of the mommy rabbits aborted their fetuses, and showed significant gastrointestinal disturbances, Yet, NcNeil reported no effects whatsoever (J. Food and Chemical Toxicity 2002;38:s43.) If it is so safe in rabbits, why has Splenda not been tested in pregnant women? Do you think it is safe in children? An independent study on mice by Japanese researchers found significant damage to intestinal organs and induced DNA damage, concluding that more extensive studies should be undertaken (J. Mutation Research 2002;519:103.)

Don’t let the “ose” ending in sucralose fool you. This is not a natural sugar, as the makers of Splenda would like you to believe. The Sugar Association and the makers of Equal (Merisant) sued Mc Neil for making these false claims. In 2007, the suit was settled for an undisclosed amount (Salt Lake Tribune, May 12th, 2007.)

But, it is true that Mc Neil adds dextrose and maltodextrin, which are refined corn syrups in starch form. They do this to make the chemicals more palatable, affordable and easier to handle and bake with. The end result is a much more expensive sweetener. The bottom line is that Splenda is 99% sugar. So, it is a lie that Splenda has no calories, and it is “sugar-free.” You end up paying more for Splenda than you would have by buying straight sugar. Dr. Bernstein, author of “Diabetes Solutions” (Little Brown and Company, 2003) urges people not to consume Stevia, or any artificial sweeteners.

Poor Stevia…

This herb is very safe. Mother Nature does a better job. Stevia reduces IR, which means it helps at the cell level (J. Drug Chemistry Toxicity 1997;20:3.) This is why it lowers blood pressure (J. Clinical Therapeutics 2003;11:2797,) and reduces cavities. So, why are we not using it in processed foods? If you guessed that the artificial sweeteners have played dirty politics to keep it off the market, you are correct. Do you think that the American Herbal Products Association and Lipton are going to compete with the armies of lawyers, PR agents, and lobbyists on the payrolls of Pfizer, Monsanto, Johnson & Johnson, Abbot laboratories, and Hoechst? The former presented compelling evidence that Stevia has no safety issues in 1994, but the FDA turned down Stevia for consideration as a sweetener under GRAS status, which allows for grandfathering of old sweeteners and other supplements.

Because of this, Stevia/ Sucanat® may be used as a sweetener, if you added as a powder or pill, but it may not be used in the production of industrialized foods. If you want more information on how to use Stevia, including your cooking and baking, get “Stevia cookbook,” by Donna Gates and Dr. Ray Sahelian. Many countries use Stevia, most notably Japan, where the last 30 years of use have resulted in no reported side effects, since it is completely safe (“Stevia rebaudiana: Nature’s sweet secret,” Dr. Roberts, Vital Health Publishing, 1996.) They even use it in their version of Diet Coke™.

Healthier sweeteners, yes, but, and that is a BIG BUTT ☺

OK, you cannot lick the sugar addiction, so, you want safer sweeteners. They are available, BUTT, can you afford the extra calories? If you are really skinny, maybe you can get away with these unnecessary extra calories, BUTT, most of us cannot afford this luxury, since we struggle with genetic tendencies to IR as we age.

Raw organic honey has been shown to be quite safe, and it has many health benefits to boot. However, most of the honey available is neither raw, nor organic. To be considered raw, honey has to be guaranteed not to have been heated over 117F, which destroys a significant amount of micronutrients in honey. However, raw honey may be contaminated. This is why it must be avoided by pregnant, and nursing women, and infants under one year old. Immunocompromised people, the elderly, and those taking statin drugs should avoid raw honey, to lessen the risk of exposure to botulism. Only about a third of honey available in the USA is considered natural. The rest is likely produced by feeding bees high fructose corn syrup.

Date sugar is 85% sucrose. It has minerals, beta carotene, B vitamins, folic acid, and fiber. It does not dissolve very well, and you cannot bake with it. Most people use it by sprinkling it over recipes, or to sweeten a smoothie. Date sugar has been shown to help ADD children, because of its high concentration of the amino acid tryptophan, which has a calming affect. Date sugar and honey are less processed, thus preferable to the more refined ones discussed next, BUTT…

Barley malt is made from the sprouted grains of barley, and it contains mostly maltose. It is not very good for cooking, and it will spoil if not refrigerated. In the USA, barley malt is mostly camouflaged high fructose corn syrup. The FDA does not appear to care about this deception, because they believe HFCS is OK. Real barley malt is high in fiber, so it helps relieve constipation and irritable bowel syndrome.

Brown rice syrup comes from fermenting brown rice, which involves significant processing that loses many micronutrients. Brown rice syrup is mostly maltose, so, it is less sweet than sugar. It may be used in most recipes, but, it is hard to bake with.

Lo Han Kuo is the momordica fruit, which is in the same family as cucumbers, and melons. It has a licorice flavor, which is the main reason it is not used very much. It is up 250 times sweeter than sugar, without calories. It has been used in China as a cooling nutrient in many diseases, and it has a very good safety record.

Maple syrup is sap from maple trees. It has lots of trace minerals, and it is 90% sucrose. It should be refrigerated. Organic brands are more expensive, therefore better, since they avoid formaldehyde used in the processing of regular brands. Maple syrup may be used for baking.

Molasses are leftovers from sugar refining out of sugarcane and sugar beets. As such, they contain all the nutrients that the sugar industry discards to come up with the addicting sugar you crave. What a world we live in…Molasses are 50% sugar, and the other 50% is water, amino acids, and minerals. They are a very good source of the latter. The lighter molasses are, the more sugar they have.

Sucanat® comes from drying up the juice from sugarcane. So, it is much less processed, and it still has molasses in it. It is very expensive. Food companies use it to avoid labeling their products “sugar,” thus violating an FDA regulation. This is another deception, since it is as toxic and addicting as sugar. It may be used in baking, but it burns more readily.

Turbinado sugar is regular sugar with a small amount of molasses added to call it “natural.” Other products, like agave syrup, claim to be natural as well, but it is really high fructose inulin syrup, similar to HFCS, and just as toxic. The FDA is doing nothing about this garbage being sold as a healthy alternative, even in health food stores.

Fructo oligo saccharides, FOS, is a soluble fiber. Yet, that is not what you may be getting when you buy products with FOS, since it is often nothing but fructose. Another blow to truth in labeling. Fructose itself is natural, but it is often highly processed, and even replaced with outright HFCS in the refined products you buy.

Fruit juice concentrates are one of the best examples of deceiving labeling, and nothing is being done about it. They are nothing but sugar, and they are just as toxic as the worst refined products you find. The companies using them have done such a great job marketing these products, that I often find strong resistance from patients whose addiction to concentrated juices makes it hard to believe that they are not what they appear to be. These juices in crease IR (J. Nutrition 2007;137:2121.)

The IR is worsened by the lack of fiber in these juices, which makes the sugar in them more damaging, since fiber mitigates the high raise in sugar absorption from the intestines. These so-called natural juices are also pasteurized, which destroys the enzymes and micronutrients found in fruits. Worst of all, they increase obesity in children, particularly those below the poverty line, who love the sweet taste, and partake of these juices as a token, and misplaced effort to eat healthy (J. Pediatrics 2006;118:2066.)

Perhaps this will convince you: a half a cup of whole orange segments has 59 calories and 14 grams of carbs, whereas a half a cup of orange concentrate has 226 calories, and 54 grams of carbs. How will you feel when you watch those orange juice commercials, now?

Sugar alcohols (polyols) are a mixture of the two, yet, they are labeled “sugar-free,” despite having half the calories of sugar. Polyols are found in just about every product you buy, especially those chocolate bars trying to pass as a healthy alternatives. It is true that sugar alcohols are found in low levels in fruits and veggies, but in such company, they do not cause any problems. It is the highly processed polyols that are questionable, since they may raise fat levels in the blood, which may cause bloating, diarrhea, dehydration, malnutrition, and even an increase in tumor formation. There is only one polyol that appears to be good for us, and that is xylitol (see below.) It has been shown to be low in the glycemic index, which means it is low in sugar (J. Nutrition Research Review 2006;16:163.) More on the glycemic index below.

Another deceptive polyol is tagatose, or naturalose®. It tries to pass itself for natural fructose extracted from the heating of dairy. Yet another deception designed to facilitate your sugar addiction. The health claims are equally false, but the indigestion it may cause is very real. Just as phony are the natural, sugar-free claims of shugr™, which is nothing but a mixture of the some of the sweeteners described above. Perhaps the worst example of the marketing going on to maintain people’s addictions is senomyx®. It is a chemical that fools your taste buds into thinking that what you are eating is more sweet, and salty. Kraft, Nestle, Coca Cola and Campbell soups plan to use it. They will not be required to list senomyx on their labels by its name, since only a tiny amount is required to fool you, in more ways than one. ☺ Your only warning will be “artificial flavors.”

The BIG BOTTOM LINE

Not convinced, yet? Then, you are really addicted, aren’t you? Perhaps this will help you break away: artificial sweeteners in general increase the risk of cancer in humans by 30% if consumed over 1.7 grams/day (J. Annals of Oncology 2001;10:1460.)

Unfortunately, artificial sweeteners have an impact on our thermostat in the brain, and our cell membranes throughout the body. They perceive sweeteners as flat out sugar. Consequently, one may avoid calories by eating sweeteners, but not the hormonal messages we discussed above, and the cell membrane toxicity caused by these agents. In other words, artificial sweeteners do not correct the obesity problem: they make it worse. The resulting TOIling leads to IR, metabolic problems, hormonal dysfunction (thyroid, adrenals, etc,) poor brain-gut connection, hypothalamus, and pre frontal cortex dysfunction.

Artificial sweeteners are still interpreted as toxic agents, much like the refined sugars you are trying to replace. Yes, they do not have the calories you fear, but they also lack the micronutrients you need to avoid oxidation, inflammation, toxicity, and lack of E&I at the cellular level. Have you ever seen people losing weight white indulging on those items? As you will see below, toxins, like artificial sweeteners still cause people to gain weight: “the data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain that would consuming the same food sweetened with high-calorie sugar” (NSNBC.com, February 11th, 2008.)

Your consumption of sweeteners also tells me you are still in the throws of a sugar addiction. If you just quit sugar, in a few weeks your taste buds, and your thermostat will be functioning much better, so that you may taste the natural sugars in all foods. Then, consuming refined sugars is correctly perceived as too sweet, and too toxic. You will also fix your thermostat, and will then be able to “obey your hunger.” Please, believe me. Quitting sugar will make it so that fruits, legumes, and whole grain breads will be sweet enough to satisfy your sugar cravings. Truly, using sweeteners is much like using methadone to quit a narcotic addiction: it just prolongs the addiction.

Autism and Vaccines: Are We Being Objective?

2008-05-13T15:18:00.000-07:00

By now you have heard that some people, mostly mothers of autistic children, feel that vaccines may be the reason, or one of the reasons behind the epidemic of autism we are witnessing. You probably have also heard that just about all docs feel there is no causal relationship between autism and vaccines (American J. Medical Genetics 2007;143A:1397.)

Yet, there may be enough evidence to keep an open mind, particularly after today’s report that a former NIH director feels the data have not been analyzed objectively, so causation cannot be ruled out. She feels the economics of finding a relationship would be devastating, which is what keeps docs from being more aggressive about this issue (CBS News, May 12th, 2008.) I agree with her opinion.

Imagine what would happen if we were to unequivocally implicate vaccines; would moms stop vaccinating their children? Would the vaccines industry collapse under the weight of lawsuits? Not to justify a timid approach in looking for hard evidence, but the consequences of settling this issue in favor of observant moms are downright scary. While understandable, the continuous reticence to be painfully objective in examining the data cannot be justified any longer.
For one, it is not very scientific to categorically deny a relationship between vaccines and autism, since the examination of the data leaves much to be desired. Second, it seems that a lot of these children have been found to have dangerously high mercury levels (thimerosal is used as a preservative in vaccines,) despite reassurances that said neurotoxic heavy metal was reported to have been eliminated from vaccines. Third, moms’ observations that their kids seem to come down with autistic characteristics right after they get a battery of immunizations cannot be dismissed as merely wives tales. We have learned from past experiences that moms’ keen and loving opinions are not to be ignored offhand, particularly on the grounds of some shaky, intellectual theory that may well be heavily influenced by economic interests.

In my opinion, a middle-of-the-road approach makes the most sense; I feel that the problem cannot be solely the mercury, or some other toxic substance, or all our children would have autism. Rather, I feel that it is likely a genetically inherited inability to detoxify the mercury (or another toxic substance) that is at play. In other words, we are all exposed to mercury, but we see autism only in those children who cannot eliminate it effective, thus building up higher levels in their brains (“Risk of autism disorder in affected offspring of mothers with a glutathione S-Transferase P1 haplotype,” J. Archives Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 2007;161:356.)
This hypothesis would explain not only autism, but many other diseases. It is always a combination of nature and nurture, isn’t? To continue to insist on a clear answer between the two is not only unrealistic but unscientific. Such immature dichotomy only serves the special interests of those who would rather protect their gains, instead of serving the public.

The interplay of genes and the environment reminds me of a patient who felt I had belittled him while trying to answer his query that he felt picked on when he noticed that despite his excellent lifestyle, he was sicker than those who indulged in questionable health habits. My feeble analogy was not well received: when the wolf attacks a flock of sheep, he overtakes the weakest ones first. So it is with our lifestyles: bad habits catch up first in those who have a genetic tendency to a given disease, sometimes despite their best efforts to be healthy.

Inevitably, we have to ask why the incidence of autism is climbing. Some opine that it is merely a better recognition of the disorder. While this may be true, I feel that a more toxic environment and poor diets have contributed the most. Poor diets in children, who are addicted to processed foods, contribute to poor detoxification of pollutants like mercury. Remember the new field of nutragenomics, which makes clear that our diets significantly influence genetic manifestation: the better we eat, the better our genes are copied, which leads to better function in every organ, including detoxification on our intestines, liver, kidneys, lungs and skin.

What can we do about all this?

First, we need to be more supportive of mothers, whose intuitive observations often precede scientific validation.

Second, we need to continue our crusade for cleaner foods and environments.

Third, we need to muster the courage to objectively examine the data on vaccines and a possible link to autism.

Fourth, we need to find a more flexible approach to immunizing our children, rather than eliminating vaccines altogether. In my opinion, children who can be kept from daycare centers are likely to do well if they postpone vaccines until they are one year old, when their immune system is more developed. Then, they could get one vaccine at a time, instead of the powerful cocktails they now get, which, in my opinion, may easily overwhelm their nascent immunity.

I am sure these opinions are likely to upset just about everyone: those who propose eliminating vaccines and those who see nothing wrong with them will probably let me have it. I will not respond, since, just like attitudes about soy, vaccines have become imbued with religious-like fervor. I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and that we will all be open to further research, for the sake of our children and their long-suffering parents.

For the record, I have a child who suffers from Asperger Syndrome (milder autistic-like problem) in my family.

"To E or not to E" in Cancer?

2008-02-19T16:02:00.000-08:00

“To E or not to E” in cancer?

Despite lots of evidence through the years that very good diets, and the antioxidants therein are helpful to prevent and treat cancer, poor studies still come out once in a while that not only reflect a very poor understanding of nutrition but what antioxidants really are, and how they function. The February issue of the J. Clinical Oncology published an article warning that antioxidants at high dose may be harmful in the treatment of cancer. Before we discuss the role of nutrition and antioxidants in cancer, lets review what modern Oncology has to offer:

“The war on cancer: an anatomy of failure, a blueprint for the future.”

Book review JAMA 2006;295:2891

The top 5 cancers (prostate, breast, lung, colon, and pancreas) have changed little since 1995
Improvement in mortality 1% for 10/28 most common cancers mostly due to food refrigeration, better diet and hygiene, better supportive care, and early detection
19^th century bacteriology influenced cancer theory. Misunderstanding has lingering consequences: “generation of scientists and scholars, misguided by flawed hypothesis, often commit their talents and energy as well as human and financial resources, in an unproductive pursuit of a false lead.”
“More pervasive and counterproductive [idea] developed… that cancer cells, like bacteria, are foreign invaders that must be eradicated at any cost. The result has been more aggressive cytotoxic chemotherapy with few cures and an inefficient trial-and-error drug development strategy that continues today.”
Main two ideas of modern oncology: exploit differences between normal and cancer cells, and drugs must be cytotoxic to be successful
“Drug development… remains mostly anchored in this century-old, conceptually antiquated, technically inefficient, labor intensive, costly, and low yield ‘hit-and-miss’ (mostly miss) screening approach engineered and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.”
“The cell-killing paradigm has failed to achieve its objective… how does this system persist?…The increasing prominent role of the pharmaceutical industry in drug development… career advancement, relationship between productivity and job security, salary sources, and growing dependence on pharmaceutical companies for funding.”
“The information pipeline, generated by clinical researchers and supported by their sponsors and publishers, fosters standards of care that are reinforced by financial incentives and the extraordinary capacity of physicians for self-delusion, and by unrealistic expectations of consumers nurtured by the media.”
Future: prevention, target underlying molecular genetic defects, focus on patient outcome, not tumor measurements.

OK, now let’s look at the field of nutrition and antioxidants:

“Patients have always asked questions during or after diagnosis about, for example, diet. Until recently, most oncologists gently replied, ‘it doesn’t matter.’ I suspect those days are drawing to a close... Tobacco cessation, reduced fat intake, extremes in diet and increased exercise may alter prognosis and outcome in patients with cancer” (J. Lancet 2004;363:1005 .) “Drawing to a close…” for sure. Let’s look at the evidence:

Perhaps the best article I have seen in a while is “Apoptosis (cell death) by dietary factors” (J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:233.) Here are the main points:

· “In spite of substantial progress in the development of anticancer therapies, the incidence of cancer is still increasing worldwide. Recently, chemoprevention by the use of naturally occurring dietary substances is considered as a practical approach to reduce the ever-increasing incidence of cancer.”

· “By making modifications in the diet, more than 2/3 of human cancers could be prevented…. Dietary chemopreventive compounds offer great potential in the fight against cancer by inhibiting the carcinogenesis process through the regulation of cell defensive and cell death machineries.”

· “Apoptosis, a form of programmed cell death, plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of tissues and organ systems by providing a controlled cell deletion to balanced cell proliferation. The last decade has witnessed an exponential increase in the number of studies investigating how different components of the diet interact at the molecular and cellular level to determine the fate of a cell. It is now apparent that many dietary chemopreventive agents with promise for human consumption can also preferentially inhibit the growth of tumor cells by targeting one or more signaling intermediates leading to induction of apoptosis.”

· “The two major pathways that initiate apoptosis are extrinsic (death receptor-mediated,) and intrinsic (mitochondrial mediated.) Mitogenic and stress responsive pathways are involved in the regulation of apoptotic signaling. Noteworthy is the crosstalk between some of these pathways.”

· Nutrients found to work in apoptosis:

ECGC Green tea

Curcumin Turmeric

Genistein Soy

I3C Cruciferous

Sulpharanes Cruciferous

Beta carotenes Veggies

Resveratrol Grapes

Isothiocyanates Cruciferous

Luteolin Celery, green pepper, peppermint

Lycopene Tomatoes

Anthocyanins Pomegranate, wolfberry, plankton, algae

Delphidin Pigmented fruits, berries

Lupeol, sylimarin Mango, olive oil, herbs

Gingerol Ginger

Capsaicin Red pepper

Sulfur Onions garlic

Let me translate: Everything about the Universe and our bodies is based on Energy and Information (E&I.) The way our cells use this E&I is key to health and disease, including cancer. So, the way cells and their DNA use the E&I we get form food has to be the main way we are going to defeat and prevent cancer. Cells send each other messages of E&I through a network of cell communication that also requires energy to perform optimally (“Tumor biology: how signaling processes translate to therapy,” “Metabolic targeting as an anticancer strategy: dawn of a new era?” J. Science 2007;316:1.)

Once we understand that the processing of E&I produces antioxidants, or free radicals, or reactive oxygen species, then we may see why we need good food, full of antioxidants to neutralize these antioxidants for cells to work better. This is what we call our metabolism. Think of any motor you own: it cannot perform well if you give it substandard fuel and you don’t allow it to discharge the byproducts of combustion.

Now you may see why poo-poing antioxidants does not make sense. Besides, “antioxidants” are not just megavitamins: all micronutrients, all molecules contained in our food act like antioxidants. Those oncology reports that discount vitamins fail to understand these concepts.

OK, let’s be as careful and conservative as possible: don’t take antioxidants when you are getting filled with chemotherapy, because the antioxidants may inhibit the destructive action of these super-cocktails that are generally overused in the last 3 months of patients’ lives and cost too much. I feel that it is OK and advisable to consider using antioxidants of all stripes before and after your oncology does his/her thing. Hopefully, they will start to read nutrition journals, particularly the J. Nutrition and Cancer.

Just to make these points as clearly as possible, and to reassure you that the medical literature in support is quite extensive, I have included many references for you. Ignore them if you are in too much of a hurry…

References

Ginseng reduces cancer fatigue

Flaxseed slows growth of prostate cancer

Am Soc Clin Oncol Annual Meeting, 2007

B complex, glutathione reduce oxidative stress in liver cancer

European J. Nutrition 2007;46:293

CoQ10 potentiates Interferon in melanoma Rx with surgery

J. Melanoma Research 2007;17:177

Phytoestrogens improve prognosis of breast cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2007;56:3

Bread enriched with green coffee extract increases resistance to oxidative stress and genotoxic activity in human cells of liver and colon

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2007;56:182

Antitumor, antimutagenic, antioxidant effects of pine needles

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2007;56:162

Resveratrol (skin of grapes) regulates mRNA expression to reduce risk of cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2007;56:193

Resveratrol induces cell death in colorectal cancer cells

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:922

Resveratrol fights breast cancer

J. Pharmacology 2007;80:134

Quercetin reduces risk of colon cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:1021

… and leukemia, J. Carcinogeneisis 2007;28:2105

Green tea reduces risk of breast cancer

J. Carcinigenesis 2007;28:1074

Significant chemopreventive effects of curcumin/turmetic

J. Adv Exp Med Biol 2007595:149

Sulphorapane (cruciferous) reduces risk of lung cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:1058

Genistein (soy) potentiates the growth inhibitory effect of vitamin D on prostate cancer cells

J. Mol Cell Endo 2005;241:49

“Assessment of the anti-genotoxic, anti-proliferative, and anti-metastatatic potential of crude watercress extract in human colon cancer cells,”

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;55:232

Fat, fiber, vegetables and micronutrients improve survival in post menopausal women with breast cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;55:132

Curcumin/turmeric lowers risk of colon cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;55:185

Curcumin lowers risk of prostate cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:1188

Quercetin (bioflavonoid) increases glutathione, and reduces ROS to potentiate paclitaxel in treatment of hepatomas

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;55:201

Pomegranate for lung cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:163

Caffeine lowers risk of skin cancer,

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:199

Garlic inhibits cancer cell invasion

J. Carcinogenesis 2005;28:23

Solar UVB and Vitamin D decrease risk of ovarian cancer

Am J. Preventive medicine 2006;31:512

Phytoestrogens improve prognosis of breast cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2007;56:3

Genistein and quercetin supress growth of breast cancer cells,

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:93

No evidence of prostate cancer from phytoestrogens

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2007;56:31

D-limonene

· Citrus peel reduces risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, J. Nut Cancer 2000;37:161

· Reduction o risk of Breast cancer, J. Carcinogenesis 1989;10:781

Olive oil, J. Life Extension, September 2007, page 93

· High content of omega oils and polyphenols

· Modulation of cell signaling: reduction of heart disease, cancer and arthritis, J. Lipids 2004;39:1223

· Better lipid profile, J. Ann Int Med 2006;145:333

· 2 oz a day reduce CRP, Europ J. Clin Nut, March 21^st, 2007

· Cancer risk reduction, Europ J. Cancer Prevention 2004;13:319, J. Curr Pharm Biotech 2006;7:495

· Less inflammation in arthritis, J. Nut 2005;21:131

· Oleocanthal in olive oil reduces inflammation like ibuprofen, J. Nature 2005;1:45

· Olive oil reduces H. pylori, J. Agri Food Chem 2007;55:680

· Sunlight and frying compromise olive oil

The American Institute for Cancer Research held an International Conference about Nutrition and Cancer in Washington, D.C. All the proceedings were published in the J. Nutrition, December 2004;134#12s. Here are the main points:

· Calorie restriction leads to less cancer, p3391s

· Omega 3 oils inhibit intestinal tumors, p3392s

· Chlorophyllin decrease cancer triggered by grilled meat.

· Tomatoes, I3C decrease prostate cancer through Glutathione pathway.

· Lack of Vitamin A compromised respiratory epithelium: lung cancer.

· More fiber, less cancer, p 3393s

· Personalized nutrition to work on phenotypes, p3513s

· 30-40% of cancers prevented by diet, 3515s.

· One drink per day increases breast cancer by 10%.

· “It is essential that medical education be adjusted so that future physicians are prepared to deliver health care focusing on the maintenance of wellness, as well as the treatment of disease.” P3516s

· Selenium protects against cancer through Glutathione, p2899s

· Gazpacho is high in Vitamin C: it decreases oxidative stress, p3021s

· Different levels of Glutathione determine oxidative stress and genetic mutation, 3173s

· Phytochemicals also help regulate enzymes, metabolize xenobiotics and carcinogens, modulate receptors and cell signaling, and protect DNA form damage, p3175s.

· Lycopene has highest antioxidant activity. It is potentiated by Vitamin E, 3175s.

· Teas suppress tumors through antioxidant effect, 3177s.

· Antioxidants suppress apoptosis (E, NAC), 3179s.

· Adjunctive AO therapy does not reduce radiation or chemotherapy benefits. Carotenoids, vitamins, Glutathione, NAC have been used with no problems. Procedures better tolerated and patients lived longer. The group without supplementation had one tumor develop. The supplementing group had none develop, 3182s.

· Radiation reduces tissues antioxidants, 3207s.

· Antioxidants induce apoptosis in cancer cells and reduce painful side effects form radiation treatment.

· Vitamin E results in 15% increase in apoptosis of Glioblastoma multiforme.AO decrease damage I Chronic diseases.

· Vitamin C reduces peroxinitrates, marker of H. Pylori in gastritis, 3196s.

· AO progressively less as disease advances, 3197s.

· Glutathione determines sensitivity to oxidative stress, 3205s.

· Prostate cancer prevention: detoxify carcinogens. Main one: glutathione, 3211s.

“Therapeutic applications of Whey protein,” J. Alternative Medicine Review 2004

· Biological components (lactoferrin, betalactoglobulin, alpha-lactalbumin, glycomicropeptide and immunoglobulins) have immune-enhancing properties. Also antioxidant, antihypertensive, antitumor, hypolipidemic, antiviral, antibacterial and chelating agent. They also help with exercise, building muscle mass, decreasing obesity and Osteoporosis.

· The primary mechanism of action is conversion of Cysteine to Glutathione. The latter is being investigated as anti-aging agent (J. Clin Invest Med 1989;12:343)

· The main proteins in milk are Casein (80%) and Whey (20%) Whey from buttermilk has Lipid Sphyngomyelin (it does not from cheese) Casein curds in stomach. Whey doesn’t. It is absorbed better and has slower transit through intestines.

· Fermented foods, milk have been associated with treatments for practically all ailments, i.e. Syra in Iceland.

· Whey is rich in all amino acids

· Lactoferrin: iron-binding glycoprotein. Non enzymatic antioxidant high in colostrum. It activates natural killer cells and it has anti-inflammatory, antifungal and antibacterial properties.

· Immunoglobulins: all of them

· Beta-lactoglobulin: half of proteins in Whey. Not found in human milk. It modulates lymphatic system. It reduces blood pressure through ACE inhibition (J. Dairy Res 2000;67:53) and it lowers cholesterol (J. Japan Soc Nut Food Sci 1996;49:303.)

· Alpha-Lactalbumin: 1/4 of proteins in Whey. Main protein in human milk. It is a chelator, so it decreases oxidative stress (J. Toxicology 1999;137:169.)

· Lactoperoxidase: Most abundant enzyme. All other digestive enzymes found in Whey. It catalyses peroxidation which go on to kill many bacteria.

· Glycomacropeptide: Protein without Phenylalanine to treat PKU.

· Bovine Serum Albumin: 15% of Whey protein

· Cancer treatment: Through Glutathione increasing in tissues, which stimulate immunity detoxify potential carcinogens (J. Anticancer Res 2000;20:4785 & J.Oncology 2001;19:221) Whey chelates Iron, which causes mutations and oxidative damage in tissues (European J. Cancer Prevention 1996;5:36.) Benefits in Colon cancer (J. Nut Cancer 2000;38:192,) Prostate cancer (J. Toxicol in Vitro 2003;17:27,) Bladder, Breast, Neuroblastoma, Mesothelioma, lung, Lymphoma, Osteosarcoma (J. Imm Invest 2002;31:137.)

· Hepatitis treatment: HCV and transaminases dropped (J. Med 2000;31:283.)

· HIV treatment: Glutathione goes up (typically low in HIV) Europ J. Nut 2002;41:12

· Antimicrobial: H. Pylori eradicated 100% when added to triple antibiotics, which eradicate HP 77% of the time (J. Clin Gastroent 2003;36:396.) Strep throat: better results with Whey added to abx (J. Biochem Cell Biol 2002;80:119.) Lactoferrin active against gut flora and Candida (J. Austr Dairy Tech 1988;5:16 and J. Applied Bacteriol 1994;77:208.)

· Exercise: it increases Glutathione, decreases inflammation and tendency to infections in overtraining.

· Obesity treatment: it increases lipolysis and increases muscle mass

· Colic and infant formula: richer in Probiotics.

· Osteoporosis: Milk Basic Protein increses bone mass more than calcium

· Gastrointestinal support: through Glutathione production. Less ulcers from alcohol

· Wound healing, even after surgery

“Genistein,” J. Skin and Allergy News, November 2005, page 22

· Major active constituent of soy. Potent antioxidant and chemopreventive activity, AJCN 2005;57:135

· 1/5 of more than 4,500 peer review studies focus on anticancer activity: inhibition of tyrosine kinase, influence on cell cycles, delay of photoaging, J. Adv Exp Med Biol 2004;546:121

· Thus, is is associated with the prevention and treatment of breast, prostate and skin cancer, AJCN 2005;81s:284s, J. Nutrition 2003;133:3811s

· As shown below, it can help in the prevention and treatment of postmenopusal symptoms, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular issues, J. Nutrition 2003;133s:3811s

· It enhances the effects of radiation in the treatment of breast and prostate cancer, J. Adv Exp Med Biol 2004;546:121

· Reduces alopecia, J. Exp Derm 2003;12:30

· Reduces growth of renal cancer, J. Urology 2004;64:389

· Reduces incidence of prostate and bladder cancer, AJCN 2005;81s:284s

· Reduces photoaging from UVB exposure, J. Nutrition 2003;133:3811s, especially when coupled with NAC, J. Invest Derm 2003;120:835

· It enhances melatonin production in whites: more protection, J. Adv Exp Med Biol 2004;546:121

· Equol lotion lowers skin tumor incidence, J. Photochem Photobiol 2005;81:32

It inhibits H202, ROS, TPA, while increasing glutathione activity, J. Nut Can 1996;25:1

“N-Acetyl-Cysteine, NAC” J. Skin and Allergy News, August 2006, page 36

· Derivative from amino acid L-cysteine. NAC is cell-permeable, water soluble

· NAC is a precursor to Glutathione, the most powerful antioxidant, Int J. Tox 2004;23:239

· NAC is used as a drug (Mucormist) to treat Tylenol overdoses in ER

· Powerful antioxidant, free radical scavenger against toxic exposures, Int J. Toxicology 2004;23:239

· It reduces risk of cancer, J. Cancer Letters 1999;147:109

· It delays tumor formation by 38%, J. Nutrition Cancer 2002;43:59

· NAC protects against light damage. Good to slow down photoaging, J. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 2002;298:289, J. Invest Derm 2005;124:70

· Damage from UVC lamps in mice delayed 90 days when NAC was given, J. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:657

· NAC reduces reactive oxygen species in the skin, J. Biochem… 2004;319:321

· NAC delays toxic effect of Ibuprofen-like drugs, J. Photochem Photobiol 2003;77:343

· Carotenoids reduce risk of prostate cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;53:127

Quercetin reduces activity of oral cancer cells

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;53:220

Olives induces apoptosis in human colon cancer cells

J. Nutrition 2006;136:2553

“Immunity and antioxidant capacity in humans is enhanced by consumption of a dried, encapsulated fruit and vegetables juice concentrate,”

J. Nutrition 2006;136:2606

Quercetin reduces risk of cancer

J. Clin Vaccine Imm 2006;13:319

Glutathione genotype and cruciferous intake: reduction of breast cancer risk

J. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:1876

Sulpharanes decrease risk of osteosarcoma

J. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:1768

Substituting non-animal fat for animal fat reduces risk of ovarian cancer

J. Nutrition 2006;136:2362

Curcumin reduces risk of colon cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:1636

Fruits and berries decrease DNA oxidative damage

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;54:143

Antioxidants lower risk of gastric cancer

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;55:71

Mastic oil from pistacia lentiscus helps inhibit growth of leukemia cells through attenuation of angiogenesis

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;55:86

Billberry extracts induce gene expression, lower cancer risk

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;54:94

Black chokeberry reduces risk of cancer

J. Food Science 2006;71:C480

Ellagic acid and natural sources of ellagitannins reduce risk of intestinal tumors in mice

J. Nutrition and Cancer 2006;54:79

Vitamin D deficiency increases risk of gastric lymphomas

Scandinavian J. Gastroenterology 2006;41:673

Glycyrrhizin/Licorice injections decrease risk of cancer in Chronic Hepatitis C

J. Digestive Diseases and Science 2006;51:603

Alternative Medicine Review 2005;10:230,

J. Skin and Allergy News, March 2007, p24 & April 2007, p30

Sweetwood, Glyzyrrhiza glabra. Member pea family
Components: triterpene saponins, flavonoids, polysaccharides, pectins, simple sugars, amino acids, mineral salts. Yellow color from flavonoids (liquiritin). Isoflavone glabridin has antioxidant activity and estrogen like activity
Main constituent glycyrrhizic acid processed by Beta glucuronidase in intestines, and metabolized to glucoronide and sulfate in Liver
Lichochalcone A from Chinese licorice has anti-inflammatory anti tumor properties inmouse skin papilloma, (J. Planta Med 1999;57:221.) Also, it has shown antimicrobial, antiparasitic properties (J. Int Immunopharm 2002;2:545.)
Lichochalcone A also has antioxidant properties in the SOD, xanthinesystems, J. Bioorg Med Chem 1998;6:339.) It is also considered a phytoestrogen with antitumor activity (J. Anticancer Res 2000;20:2653.)
Anti tumor activity, i.e., breast cancer, J. Cancer Research 2000;60:5704

British J. Nut 2007;97:823

EFA for cancer cachexia

Folate, riboflavin reduce risk of endometrial cancer

J. Cancer Epi Biomarkers 2007;16:281

Lower CEA levels in breast cancer when Tamoxifen is helped by riboflavin, CoQ10, and niacin

J. Biol Pharm Bull 2007;30:367

Highest levels of Folate, B12 lower risk of breast cancer 36%

J. Cancer Epidem Biomarkers 2006;15:443

JAMA 2006;296:1371

Fatty fish reduces risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma

JAMA 2006;296:32

“Vitamin E derivative packs anticancer punch.”

Am J. Epidemiology 2006;163:645

Ginseng improves survival and quality of life in patients with breast cancer

J. Leukemia Research 2006;30:707

Green tea may produce clinical improvement in CLL

Antioxidants reduce risk of prostate cancer

J. National Cancer Institute 2006;98:245

Am J. Epidemiology 2005;162:1114, J. Arch Int Med 2006;166:2478

Exercise lowers risk of breast cancer

Vit C helps curb DNA damage in diabetics

J. Diabetic Med 2005;22:1347

Selenium reduces risk of prostate cancer

J. Cancer Cause Control 2005;16:1125

2 cups of tea decrease risk of ovarian cancer by 46%, with each additional daily cup conferring an 18% lower risk

J. Arch Int Med 2005;165:2683

American Society Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, March 2006

What, you are still reading? I hope it is because you have an academic interest in antioxidants, and not because you have been diagnosed with a cancer…

J. Clinical Pharmacology 2003;74:288

Prenatal vitamins reduce risk of leukemia by 36%, neuroblastoma by 57%

J. Leukemia Research November 30^th, 2005

Green tea increases rate of remissions in Leukemia

J. Cancer Research 2006;66:1234

Green tea/Catechins reduce premalignant prostate lesions and symptoms of BPH

J. Ethnopharm 2004;90:161

Mangosteen: antioxidant, antiproliferative in breast cancer,

J. Biochem Pharm 2002;63:73

Inhibition of oxidation, inflammation in Glioma cells by mangosteen

J. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:287

I3C lowers risk of colon cancer. It works by increasing detoxification of Xenoestrogens

J. Lancet 2005;366:1558

Cruciferous veggies lower risk of lung cancer

Am J. Clinical Nutrition 2006;83:331

EPA incorporated into plasma better in elderly than young, so, the former have more anti-prostaglandin activity from EPA

NEJM 2006;354:684

Calcium and Vitamin D do not lower risk of colon cancer. This study did not use Magnesium, and they did not use the better dose of Vitamin D, 1,000 IU. They only used 400 IU. Furthermore, they followed patients for only 7 years, which is less than the latency of colon cancer.

Canadian Medical Association J. 2006;174:937

Vitamin C IV to raise levels above 1,000 micromols/liter are toxic to may types of cancer cells. Patient got two 30 gm IVs every week for three months, then 30 gm once a month for 4 years. Now, he is free of metastasis from primary bladder cancer

J. Nutrition 2006;22:136 & J. Pain Symptom management 2006;32:551

L-carnitine 2 gm three times a day reduces fatigue in cancer patients

British J. Nut 2005;94:510

EFA reduce risk of colon cancer

J. Lancet 2005;366:1558

Broccoli, cabbage decrease risk of lung cancer

J. National Cancer Institute 2005;97:1494

Soy does not increase cancer. It may decrease it.

J. Medical Oncology 2005;22:129

Lysine, Proline, Ascorbic acid, and green tea extract significantly suppressed tumor growth of breast cancer cells in mice.

J. Clinical Oncology 2005, July 18^th

Antioxidants decrease adverse effects of radiation therapy in head and neck cancer

J. Tumori 2005;91:135

L-Carnitine reduces chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

J. Nutrition 2005;135:2124

EPA suppresses cell proliferation in breast cancer xenografts in rats

J. Proceedings National Academy of Science, September 12^th, 2005;102:13604

Vitamin C 10 gm IV helps fight cancer. It destroyed most cancer cells in vitro

They used it 5 days a week for three weeks

JNCI 2005;97:396

Higher concentrations of major vitamin E fractions lowers Prostate cancer risk

J. Skin and Allergy News, March 2005, page 45

Glutamine (30 gms/day) limits radiation injury in breast cancer

J. Nutrition 2005;135:592

Lycopene reduces risk of Prostate cancer

J. FASEB 2005;272. J. Nutrition 2005;135:287

Lycopene inhibits growth of prostate cancer cells.

J. Nutrition 2005;135:129

Beta carotene decreases risk of colon cancer.

American J. Epidemiology 2005;161:153

Carotenoids lower risk of Breast cancer.

AJCN 2005;81Number 1Supp

“Polyphenols and glutathione synthesis regulation” (page 277s) is their main mechanism of action. They increase the intracellular concentration of Glutathione, the most potent of all antioxidants. Glutathione is indispensable in gene regulation, enzyme activation, protein function, immune system function and prevention of oxidation. Consequently, “glutathione is important in many diseases and regulation of intracellular glutathione concentrations is one mechanism by which diet influences disease development.” This is why glutathione has been shown to be helpful in Parkinson’s disease (page 281s and J. Biol Chem 2002;277:48295) regression of tumors, HIV and lung disease.

JAMA 2005;293:86

Magnesium lowers the risk of colon cancer

J. Family Practice News, February 2005, page 82

Childhood soy reduces chances of future breast cancer risk.

J. Skin and Allergy News, January 2005, 18

Quercetin (flavonoid in fruits and veggies) lowers risk of skin cancer.

J. Neurology 2005;64:26

Vitamin E to prevent neuropathy after chemotherapy.

J. Archives of Internal Medicine 2004;164:2335

After 7.5 years vitamins and minerals lower cancer incidence.

J. Urology 2004;172:2426

Phytoestrogens form Belamcanda chinensis have antiproliferative effect on Prostate cancer cells in vitro.

JNCI 2004;96:921

Calcium carbonate prevents against colon polyps

International J, Cancer, October 2004

Resveratrol in red wine reduces risk of prostate cancer

British J. Nutrition 2004;91:805

Probiotics lower the risk of colon cancer

J. Nat’l Cancer Institute 2004;96:1015

Calcium lowers risk of colon cancer

J. Cancer, July 15^th, 2004

EFA decrease wasting in cancer treatment

Am J. Epi 2004;160:68

AO reduce risk of lung cancer in smokers

JAMA 2004;292:358

Vitamin K2 decreases risk of Hepatocellular carcinoma.

J. Nutrition 2004;134:1181

Dietary fiber decreases CRP

J. Nutrition 2004;134:1134

Breast cancer risk is inversely associated with intake of cruciferous veggies

J. Nutrition 2004;134:1145

B-sitosterol (phytosterol) protect against breast cancer

AJCN 2004;79:s1199-1146

Symposium on CLA: it boosts immune function, but it may decrease peripheral insulin sensitivity. CLA can be helpful in Hyperparathyroid treatment.

AJCN 2004;79:1029

Low antioxidant status associated with more adverse side effects of chemotherapy in children with ALL.

J. Herbalgram 2004;62:50, JNCI 2003;95:1563

Prostate cancer lowered 25% in rats fed tomato powder. Also lower risk of skin and stomach cancer

AJCN 2004;79:935

EFA lower risk of cancer

AJCN 2004;79:362

Vit D reduces risk of cancer. Minimum dose is 1,000 IU

Int J. Cancer 2004;108:733

Grape seed extract inhibits advanced prostate cancer growth

J. Nutrition 2004;134:482

Butyrate protects against colon cancer. It’s made by probiotics

Annual Meeting American Association of Cancer Research, Orlando, 2004

Vitamin E decreases risk of bladder cancer.

J. Lancet 2001;358:641

Less colon cancer with Vit D

J. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention 1998;7:391

Vit D decreases prostate cancer

J. Nutrition 2001;131:3056S

Macrobiotic diet lowers risk of Cancer

J. Nutrition 2000;130:2127

Phytosterols fight cancer

J. Nutrition Research 1989;9:383

EFA reduce mammary tumor development

J. Nutrition 2003;133:3748S

Folate and MTHFR polymorphism affect cancer risk

Am J. Clin Nut 2004;79:80

Low selenium linked to Esophageal, gastric cancer and heart disease, Strokes and higher mortality.

AJCN 2004;79:274

Plant foods, fibers reduce risk of rectal cancer.

J. Nutrition 2003;133:3819s

Genistein for photoprotection.

J. Nutrition 2003;133:3794s

A multivitamin is OK in cancer treatment.

Am J. Clinical Nutrition 2003;78:1219

Lycopene, Beta carotene reduce colon cancer risk.

J. Nat’l Cancer Instit 2003;95:1556

Zinc reduces risk of Prostate cancer

Am J. Epidemiology 2003;158:621

Past, not present use of multivitamins reduces risk of colon cancer

JAMA 2004;292:358

Vitamin K lowers risk Liver cancer by 20%

British J. Urology 2001;88:63

Acetyl-L-Carnitine 1gm BID better than tamoxifen

NEJM 2003;348:2595

Mediterranean diet lowers mortality due to coronary disease and cancer

J. Nat’l Cancer Institute 2003;95:906

Soy reduces risk of Breast cancer

J. Pharmaceutical Biology 2002;40:s6

Anticancer effects of Soy.

J. National Cancer Institute, June 18^th, 2003

Miso soup three times a day reduces risk of Breast cancer.

J. Agricult Food Chem 2002;50:2926

Raspberry (Ellagic acid) reduces risk of Liver cancer. Ellagic acid from pomegranate induces glutathione in Liver (J. Carcinogenesis 1996;17:265.)

J. Lancet 2003;361:1487, 1491, 1496

Fiber decreases risk of Colon cancer

J. Proc Nat’l Acad Sci, April 2003

L-Theanine: 5 cups a day of tea increases immune system function.

J. Nutrition 2001;131:3056s, 3047s

“The microbiotic diet in cancer.” “Specific amino acid deficiency (arginine) alters the expression of genes in human melanoma and other tumors.”

J. Lancet 2003;361:861

Selenium, Vit E, Lycopene, Phytoestrogens reduce risk of Prostate cancer.

Int J. Cancer 2002;99:238

Vegetarians reduce risk of breast cancer.

J. Breast Cancer Research 2003;5:R59

One egg a day reduces risk of Breast Cancer in teens.

J. Current Opinion Clin Nut Metab Care 2001;4:433

“Fatty acid regulation of gene expression.”

J. Breast Cancer Research 2003;5:R59

One egg a day reduces the risk of Breast Cancer

J. Nutrition 2001;131L:3041s

“Short change fatty acids inhibit invasive colon cancer...”

J. Cancer Research 2001;61:1477

“Combination of phenylbutyrate and 13-cis-retinoic acid inhibits prostate tumor growth and angiogenesis.”

J. Nutrition 2001;131:3109s

“Insulin, IGF-1 and colon cancer.”

J. Int Cancer Therapies 2002;1:7

“Nutritional and botanical (bromelain, curcumin) modulation of the inflammatory cascade (iecosanoids, cyclooxygenases and lipoxygenases as an adjunct in cancer therapy.”

J. Int Med 2001;250:280, J. Gastroenterology 2002;123:985 and Am J. Clin Nut 2002;76:889

Fruits and veggies to prevent cancer.

J. Agricult Food Chem 2002;50:2926

Raspberry reduces risk of Liver cancer.

Am J. Clin Nut 2002;76:865

Catechins delay tumor onset.

J. Cancer Research 1992;52:4021

Limonene regresses mammary carcinomas

I just wanted to rub it in a bit. Hard to believe that despite all the evidence, some oncologists still tell their patients that diet has nothing to do with cancer, or with its treatment…

Beta glucoronidase function of intestinal flora needed for food-borne carcinogens to become genotoxic. In other words, gut detoxification reduces the risk of cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:2419

Macrobiotics diet reduces cancer.

J. Nut 2001;131:3056s

Arginine deficiency alters genes = cancer

J. Nut 2001;131:3047s

Fatty acids regulate gene expression

J. Curr Opinion Clin Nut Met Care 2001;4:433

Fish oil suppresses tumor necrosis factor

Am J. Clin Nut 2002;76:454

SCFA inhibit invasive colon cancer

J. Nut 2001;131l:3041s

Bromelain reversibly inhibits invasive properties of Glioma cells

J. Neoplasia 2001;3:469

“Pyridoxal Supplementation Reduces Cell Proliferation and DNA Synthesis in Estrogen Dependent and Independent Mammary Carcinoma Cell Lines”

J. Nutrition 2001;131:2227

Cruciferous veggies fight cancer

J. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:1413

Veggies with Sulfur reduce cancer risk (onions, garlic, cruciferous.)

AJCN 2006;84:1027

Aerosolized Vitamin A prevents formation of pre malignant cells in bronchial dysplasia

European Respiratory Soc Annual Congress, 2001 in Berlin. J Respiratory Reviews, November 2001, p 18 [The articles that showed that Vitamin A is toxic were done on Scandinavian Vodka drinkers who also smoked a lot: their Livers were not in shape, so they could not handle the extra Vitamin A.]

Low fat diet prevents recurrence of breast cancer

J. Family Practice News, January 15^th, 2007, p1

Breast Cancer Symposium, sponsored by Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, 2005

Glutamine cubs radiation dermatitis

“Melatonin for cancer,” J. Family Practice News, February 15^th, 2006, page 60

· Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative effects.

· Anticancer effects: downregulation of oncogene expression, inhibition of growth factors, suppression of linoleic acid uptake by tumor cells, and antiangiogenic effects

· Melatonin also modulates sytostatic and cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy agents, J. Clinical Oncology 2002;20:2575.

· 10 randomized trials of melatonin and cancer, a total of 643 patients. They got chemotherapy and melatonin 20 mg IM. None in placebo group achieved a complete response, but 5% did in the melatonin group. Partial response was seen in 29% of melatonin group, but only 15% in placebo group. One year survival was 51% in melatonin group, and 23% in chemo alone group. Chemotherapy toxicity was significantly lower with melatonin, European J. Cancer 1999;35:1688.

· Patients with small cell lung cancer got chemo, and 20 mg oral melatonin. A complete response was seen in 4% of melatonin group, and none in chemo alone group. A partial response was seen in 31% of melatonin, and 18% in chemo alone. None of the patients treated with chemo alone were alive in 2 years, while 6% were in melatonin group. The latter had better quality of life, J. Pineal Research 2003;35:12.

· Patients with brain and renal cancer showed relative risk reductions ranging from 20-57% when they took melatonin, J. Pineal Research 2005;39:360.

J. Nutrition 2007;137:964

Soy helps mitigate effect of xenoestrogens on prostate

J. Nutrition 2007;137:999

Diet high in fruits and low in meat decreases colon cancer

Am J. Gastroent 2005;100:2789

Chicken lowers risk of colon polyp regrowth

J. Am Coll Card 2005;46:1864

Phenolic compounds (anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti clotting) improve endothelial function

JAMA 2004;292:671

“To ‘E’ or not to ‘E,’ vitamin E’s role in health and disease is the question.” Mostly gamma tocopherol reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Delta and gamma tocotrienols Reduce the risk of breast cancer

J. Biochemistry and Biophysiology 1994;200:1136

Lipoic Acid 600 mg protects against radiation.

J. National Cancer Institute 1999;91:535. J. Lancet 2000;356:724.

American J. Epidemiology 2001;151:693. JAMA 2001;285:769

Fruits and vegetables affect genes that fight cancer.

J. Patient Care, July 2000, p 85

Dr. Gonzales’ treatment of pancreatic cancer has been refunded by the National Institute of Health. With the Mediterranean diet, coffee enemas and digestive enzymes, he has prolonged the life of pancreatic cancer patients from an average survival of 6 months to 3.5 years.

European J. Cancer Prevention 1998;7:253

Refined sugars predispose to cancer.

J. National Cancer Institute 1999;91:529. J. Digestive Diseases Science 2001;46:86

National Institute of Environmental Health, July 2001

Saturated fats, red meat, especially grilled and well done lead to cancer.

European J. Cancer Prevention 1998;2:s63.

European Prospective Investigation of Cancer and Nutrition, London, July 2001

High fiber diets prevent cancer

J. American College of Nutrition 1999;18:13

Antioxidants protect us.

J. Biochemistry Biophysiologic Research Communications 1995;212:172

Co Q 10 helps prevent cancer.

J. Trends in Neurosciences, July 2005

People with Parkinson’s Disease seem to have a lower risk of getting cancer. The link appears to be a gene related to how we handle CoQ10

J. Science 2005;309:48

“Mitochondrial DNA mutations, oxidative stress and aging.”

European J. Cancer 1996;32a:1340

Melatonin, too.

American College of Nutrition 2000;19:563s

Lycopine in tomatoes helps prostate cancer.

J. Carcinogenesis 1985;6:1735

N-acetyl-cysteine helps the liver to detoxify.

J. National Cancer Institute 2000;92:1753

Selenium helps prevent prostate cancer.

J. Gynecology Oncology 2004;93:320

Selenium potentiates chemotherapy in Ovarian cancer

J. Lancet 2000;356:724

Maceration of glucosinolates (in cruciferous vegetables) produces the enzyme Mirosinase, which produces Indole-3-carbinol, phenyl isocyanate, and sulphorane, which modulate gene expression.

J. Oncogene 2001;20:2927

I3C inhibits cell growth and apoptosis in GI tract and prostate cells.

J. Carcinogenesis 2001;1:22

Glutathione in isothiocyanates for induction of phase 2 detoxification enzymes.

J. European Gastroenterology Hepatology 2001;13:1041

“Anticancer therapy: diversion of polyamines in the gut.”

J. Prostate 2001;46:98

Genistein helps.

J. Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2001;86:3045, J. Lancet 1997;350:990

J. Env Health Presp 1995;103:103 and J. Nut and Cancer 2001;39:132

Soy reduces risk of breast and ovarian cancer in premenopausal women. Soybean saponins inhibit cell proliferation in colon cancer cells.

J. Nutrition 2001;131:3095s, 3027s

“Soy for breast cancer survivors...” “Phytochemicals from cruciferous plants protect against cancer by modulating carcinogen metabolism.”

J. Clinical Cancer Research 2001;7:2041

Omegas 3 increase potency of doxirubicin

J. Carcinogenesis 1999;20:1831 and J. Nut Cancer 1996;26:159, 2000;37:187

Flaxseed oil decrease breast cancer.

J. Med Hypothesis 2003;60:615

EPA and COX2-I for Mantle Cell Lymphoma

JNCI 2001;93;1872

Lycopene protects against prostate cancer by helping prevent oxidative DNA damage.

Annual Digestive Disease Week, San Francisco 2002

Vitamin K improves survival of Liver cancer patients.

J. Nutrition and cancer 2001;41:165

Ovarian cancer cells inhibited by isoflavones

J. Nutrition and cancer 2001;41:57 and J. Nutrition 2001;131:3294

I3C and DIM reduce cervical cancer.

J. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:1767

Efficacy of I3C

J. Nutrition 2003;133:2448s

I3C and DIM regulate transcription of Breast cancer cells.

J. Cancer Epidem Biomarkers Prev 1995;4:877

Watercress to reduce risk of lung cancer.

Vitamin D and cancer: (J. Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 2001;11:237. Same concepts in British J. Nutrition 2003;89:552

· “Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence?” Vitamin D at current RDA is too low. A lack of Vitamin D is associated with Osteoporosis, disturbed muscle function, Tuberculosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Multiple Sclerosis, Inflammatory Bowel disease, Hypertension, Cancer, Diabetes.

· Toxic above 40K IU. 400IU requirement set from quantity of Vit D in one tsp of cod liver oil. Too low for adults, whose skin loses ability to make vit D. Best 1,000IU

· D2 made by yeast assumed to be the equivalent of D3, needed by humans, but it is not

· Vit D deficiency associated with poor peripheral thyroid activation, immune function, cancer, Syndrome x, and MS

· Non-bone consequences of Vit D deficiency:

· Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, bladder, esophagus, kidney, lung, pancreas, rectum, stomach and corpus lutei cancers.

· MS, High blood pressure, J. Bone and Mineral Res 2001;16:1115

· Diabetes, pneumonia, tuberculosis, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer.

· “Sunlight (Vitamin D) may reduce the risk of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma,” Armstrong BK, Annual Meeting American Association for Cancer Research, Orlando, 2004. J. Family Practice News, November 2004, page 67.

Vitamin D3 reduces tumor burden of Thyroid cancer

J. Endocrinology 2004;145:5840

Vitamin D lacking in colon cancer

J. Nutrition 2005;135:2350

From a forum in San Diego, February 23^rd, 2002 (Am. J. Clin Nut 2002;75supp:)

· * P349 Vitamin C before Stem cell transplant in breast cancer increases success rate.

· * P388 Phytoestrogens lower risk of hepatocellular cancer

· * P418 Glycine helps colon cancer.

Lycopene, the antioxidant responsible for the red color of tomatoes:

· Scavenger for reactive oxygen species. Twice as powerful as betacarotene

J. Critical Rev Food Sci 2000;40:1

· Anticancer effects, particularly on Lung, Prostate, Colon

J. Nat’l Cancer Instit 1999;91:317, J. Pharmaceutical Biology 2002;40:59s

· Best bioavailability from tomato paste

J. Nut 2002;132:404

So, was that enough?

The French Paradox and Vytorin

2008-01-28T09:19:00.000-08:00

(Submitted for publication in the Bulletin of the Utah Medical Association, where I am an Editorial Board member.)

I just got back from Montreal, Canada, the home of Sir William Osler, M. D., father of modern medicine, where I gave a health talk to my frog cousins, the French Canadians. About the same time, I was asked to be the official doc for the French Embassy in Utah, and the news on vytorin hit the fan, I mean, the news stands. The combination of these events reminded me of a couple of French paradoxes. The best known French paradox is the fact that the French eat a lot of high cholesterol foods, yet their rate of heart disease is lower than Americans.

The less known French paradox is the fact that Americans never even thought to apologize to the French about the war in Iraq (the war has a lot to do with our health.) France was the most vocal in opposing this failed war from the outset. Americans then embarked on a shameless vilification of the French, without any restraints on the prejudicial undercurrents underlying the endless jokes at the expense of the French. Now that the majority of Americans have also come to oppose the war, a simple “je regrette” would be the polite thing to do.

Another “je regrette” may be in order from pharmaceuticals that have heavily promoted their cholesterol-lowering agents so aggressively that doctors and patients seldom put any significant efforts into changing patients’ diets before prescribing these drugs. The story on vytorin has resurfaced the French paradox, at least among doctors like myself who feel that “food is the best medicine.”

By now we are all familiar with the small study that showed no significant improvement in endothelial thickness in the carotids after taking vytorin. The study concluded in 2006, but the drug companies would not released the results until now, despite pressure from the FDA to do so since the conclusion. The companies even tried to change the study’s end points after the results were available: at the outset, they checked three places in the carotid artery for endothelial thickness, but they proposed to report only one place after the results were in.

Granted, the study was rather small and it has not been published, yet. Also, the patients they enrolled had LDL cholesterol levels above 300, which are not seen in our clinics on a regular basis. In all fairness, it is premature to abandon the use of these drugs on the strength of this study. But, the controversy on the cholesterol “theory” has gained new life. Many doctors are beginning to question the cholesterol theory, joining many other doctors who never quite bought into it from the beginning, as reported in the New York Times, January 17th and 27th, 2008. The letters to the editor in response to these articles reflected a wide gamut of opinions (NYT February 3rd. 2008,) despite the “evidence,” which tends to be interpreted with a subjectiveness that belies our medical commitment to objectivity.

An article in the J. Business Week reviewed what we have seen in our medical journals over the years, yet these kinds of articles, which are not financed by the pharmaceuticals, do not seem to be quoted too much at the dinners sponsored by them (“Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?” J. Business Week, Cover issue, January 28th, 2008, page 52.) Here are the main points:

Statins only help those who already have had a heart attack. No benefits for men over 65 and women of any age. A small benefit is seen for middle age men, but no reduction in total deaths, or hospitalizations.
If guidelines for cholesterol were followed, 40 million Americans would be taking these drugs. Who made the guidelines? A group of doctors whose majority was taking money from the companies that make these drugs.
The best Rx for cholesterol, the Mediterranean diet, is not emphasized enough.
“Lipitor reduces the risk of heart attacks by 36%,” (*) says Dr. Jarvick, the team leader on the first artificial heart implantation in the early 80s. But, the asterisk on the package insert says that the 36% figure comes from the fact that 3% fewer patients taking a sugar pill had a heart attack, compared to 2% taking Lipitor: one fewer heart attack for 100 people taking the drug for five years, paying $1,000/year. When patients are made aware of these numbers, most opt out.
The only large study paid by the government showed no benefit from these drugs.
Avandia lowers sugar, but no benefits otherwise: “avandia is almost the poster child for everything that is wrong with our system,” Dr. Hoffman, NEJM article.
“It is almost impossible to find someone who believes strongly in statins who does not get a lot of money from industry,” Dr. Hayward, U. Michigan Med School
“I now see it as a myth that everyone should have their cholesterol checked,” Dr. Brody, U. of Texas.

Many doctors feel that the real problem is the oxidized-inflamed cholesterol that becomes sticky when the liver is not well nourished, and under the influence of too much insulin and glucose in the bloodstream. The same thing happens to the lining of our arteries, the endothelium, which becomes sticky from inflammation and oxidation, since they are also nutritionally compromised. This problem leads to “leaky arteries,” which the oxidized cholesterol tries to patch up. This healthy elevation of cholesterol is compromised by the stickiness of both the cholesterol and the lining of the arteries, resulting in a “Velcro-like” reaction that leads to plaque formation. Who said all this? Linus Pauling, whose emphasis on nutrition as an extremely important factor in health and disease has been vindicated by the explosion of solid research into the biochemistry of nutrition.

Why do the French have much lower incidence of heart disease, despite consuming more cholesterol than Americans? They eat the Mediterranean diet, which is higher in antioxidants.

“Oxidized LDL in plasma is a prognostic marker of subclinical atherosclerosis development in clinically healthy men,” (J. Internal Medicine 2004;256:413) reviews this concept, and it even tells us that the oxidation of cholesterol can be used as a sign of future trouble in healthy men. The Mediterranean diet lowers oxidized LDL (J. Nutrition 2005;135:410,) and the CRP (J. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 2006;50:20, J. Ann Int Med 2006;145:1) Furthermore, insulin resistance contributes to LDL oxidation (J. Diabetologia 2005;48:741.)

One could argue that the Statin drugs are quite safe, so, we could use them liberally to lower cholesterol. This is probably correct, considering these drugs are derivatives of Fermented Red Rice, which has been use in China for Millennia to treat heart problems by lowering the oxidation of cholesterol. By extracting only the most powerful molecule from red rice, the one that acts on HMG Coenzyme reductase, the antioxidants from fermented red rice, which were contributing to the healing of “leaky arteries,” are not there to mitigate potential problems with the “stronger” statin drugs (European J. Cardiovascular Rehabilitation 2007;14:438.) However, muscle and liver inflammation have been reported with these drugs, even subclinically. Also, in November 2003, the HHS announced that babies whose pregnant mothers took these drugs have a higher rate of congenital defects.

The Lyon, France study of the Mediterranean diet (J. Circulation 1999;99:779) showed less heart attacks and angina in people eating this diet, compared to the Standard American Diet (SAD,) despite both groups having the same blood pressure, weight, and LDL cholesterol about 160. Consider this quote from the editorial on page 733:

“70% reduction in all-cause mortality and non-fatal sequelae... [with the Mediterranean diet.] At a time when health professionals, the pharmaceutical industries and the research funding and regulatory agencies are almost totally focused on lowering plasma cholesterol levels with drugs, it is heartening to see a well conducted study finding that relatively simple dietary changes achieved greater reductions in risk of all-cause and coronary disease mortality than any of the cholesterol-lowering studies to date... [this] unprecedented reduction in risk for CHD was not associated with differences in total cholesterol levels between the control and experimental groups.”

That the problem in heart disease is not fats and cholesterol was reported in the 70's by 5 studies sponsored by the NIH. However, Mevacor produced a study about the same time showing that lowering cholesterol reduced the risk of heart attacks, Despite the earlier negative studies, and thanks to aggressive marketing from the pharmaceutical producing this drug, most doctors were convinced that cholesterol was the problem. The New York Times magazine, on July 7th, 2002 (“What if Fat Doesn’t make you Fat?”) reemphasized what the most prestigious scientific journal in the world revealed about this concept a few months before (“The Soft Science of Dietary Fat,” J. Science 2001;291:2536.) Yet, why did the Mevacor study show a reduction of heart disease? Statin drugs are anti-inflammatory/antioxidant agents. This concept was again revisited in the NEJM, January 6th, 2005;352:20: these drugs showed better clinical outcomes by lowering the CRP, a marker of inflammation, “regardless of the resultant level of LDL cholesterol.”

No doubt many doctors will disregard these issues, that is, the French paradox itself, and continue to ignore the mounting evidence that the cholesterol story needs to be edited a bit. For sure, patients who have overwhelming genetic problems with their cholesterol will need to stay on pharmaceutical products with the help of doctors like Paul Hopkins.

In my opinion, our beliefs will likely be influenced by who signs our checks, notwithstanding the research available to us. One thing is for sure: the FDA is unlikely to help solve this thorny issue, unless it undergoes radical changes, because it lacks the science and the staffing to look at the controversy effectively: “today, not only can the FDA not lead, it cannot keep up with the advances in science” (“FDA’s Science Infrastructure Failing,” JAMA 2008;299:157.)

In my opinion, this controversy becomes a mute point when we truly believe and convince our patients that “food is the best medicine” (Hippocrates; Sir William Osler,) and strictly follow the American Heart Association’s recommendation to always use TLC first: Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes for the first 6 months, before reaching for the prescription pad. I seldom see a need to use statins, since my patients are highly motivated to do just that. Besides, fiber (“Guar Gum: a miracle therapy for hypercholesterolemia, hyperglycemia, and obesity,” J. Clinical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2007;47:389,) resveratrol (“Resveratrol Improves Mitochondrial Function and Protects Against Metabolic Disease by Activating SRT1 and PGC-1 alpha,” J. Cell 2006;127:1109,) omega oils (J. Lancet 2007;369:1090,) fermented red rice (J. Chinese Medicine 2007:1:4,) vitamin D3 (“Are statins analogues of vitamin D?” J. Lancet 2006;368:83) isoflavones (American J. Clinical Nutrition 2007;86:938) and antioxidants in general (J. Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis & Vascular ogy 2006;26:689) have shown to be helpful.

Perhaps most important in matters of the heart is how we love and respect each other and other cultures. Clogged up coronaries can be reversed with diet and good relationships (Dr. Dean Ornish’s books “Reversing Heart Disease,” 1990 and “Love and Survival,” 1998.)

“Je ne regretted pas” stirring the pot a bit…

Machu Picchu and Health

2007-12-28T09:20:00.000-08:00

If you have not been to Machu Picchu, I hope to inspire you to go there someday, hopefully with someone you love. These braindroppings about health and Machu Picchu might be a bit of a stretch, but hear me out:

You have to be in good health to go there, especially if you want to climb the steep peak you see behind the ruins on those PBS documentaries when there is nothing else on TV. Waini Picchu, the peak, takes about 45-60 minutes to climb. In some spots, you have to hang on to steel-like ropes to prevent a very rapid descent back to the valley.

The altitude makes the climb a bit harder. My recently failed thyroid made it even more interesting for me. Luckily, my clinic called me with the results of a routine thyroid test I had taken the day before leaving. They reached me as I boarded the plane to Lima, so I couldn't buy any thyroid replacement until I got to Cuzco, the ancient Inca capital, which is 4 hours away from Machu Picchu by train.

[The history of the whole area came alive for me as I read Isabel Allende's book "Ines of my soul," which I highly recommend, especially if you are on your way to Chile, my native land. Ines Suarez was Pedro de Valdivia's lover. They were the main people responsible for the colonization of Chile, which is rather unique, since the Spaniards never defeated the Chilean Indian, the Mapuche. After a 100 year war, they settled on a truce that lead to the eventual displacement of these valiant Americans, who were the only tribe on the Western hemisphere to put up such a fight.]

But, the most impressive thing for me was not the ruins of Machu Picchu, which were quite a show, especially looking down from Waini Picchu, but the people I met at the top of the climb. There were Americans, Peruvians, Spaniards, Israelis, Koreans, Chinese, Italians, Argentinians and French. It seemed to me we all left our baggage down below: flushed with the excitement of having made a difficult climb, looking down on the magnificent ruins, we delighted in each other's company and experiences and similarities. We experienced the "brotherhood of man," for a few moments. And that is a very healthy thing to feel these days.

To B or not to B

2007-11-20T09:27:00.000-08:00

After years of evidence-based research on B vitamins and their effect on the brain and the treatment of depression, dementia and other neuropsychiatric conditions, the pharmaceutical industry has seen the light, and it is green, as in money.

Deplin, the newest drug to treat depression is nothing but MTHFR (Methyl Tetra Hydor Folate Reductase, if you must know,) a form of folic acid that some 15% of people cannot metabolize from dietary folic acid. When you consider that most people are not getting enough folic acid and B-complex vitamins in general, we may see one of the reasons why depression is slated to become the #2 disease in the USA in a few years.

A beautiful drug rep, smiling to beat the ban (is it me, or does Big Pharma always recruit good-looking reps to push their drugs?) handed me this article: “The role of folate acid in depression and dementia” (J. Clinical Psychiatry 2007;68s:28.) Great, now Linus Pauling may rest in peace: he published an article in the prestigious journal Science clear back in 1968, called “Orthomolecular Psychiatry,” in which he showed that B complex, omega oils, and several other antioxidants are quite helpful for depression, especially in those who require more of these micronutrients to just get by, let alone avoid depression (J. Science 1968;160:265.)

Since Pauling’s research came out, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of studies vindicating his work, but just about all that work has been dismissed as “alternative.” But, when mainstream pharmaceuticals adopt this type of research as theirs, one may safely conclude that the evidence all of a sudden has become mainstream knowledge. Do you feel that perhaps marketing and money has something to do with this?

The “same” thing happened with SAMe, another metabolized B-complex molecule: it is a drug in Europe to treat depression as effectively as the gold standard for those drugs, the Tricyclic antidepressants. Melatonin is another example: long considered quackery, melatonin is now the active ingredient of Rozerem, the latest sleeping pill, now marketed as non-habit forming and very safe.

It is amazing to me how after a few months, these new drugs mysteriously reject their humble and natural ancestry: they are only referred to by their trade names. The Zocor-like drugs to lower cholesterol are derivatives of fermented red rice. Alpha lipoic acid, an antioxidant that lowers insulin resistance became a drug in Europe. Guggulipid is an herb-turned drug in India, and Metformin is a diabetic drug derived from Galega officinalis, an herb.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that now pharmaceutical companies are peddling “snake oil:” Omega oils are now sold as the drug “Lovaza.”

Bees Taking Over the Evening News?

2007-10-03T08:25:00.000-07:00

The ads on TV pushing drugs are getting out of hand. Or, am I the only one about to give up on the National TV news in the early evening? It seems like just about every commercial features a drug. Let me quote from the New England J. of Medicine before proceeding:

"Correctly done is the operative term. Too often, advertising fails to achieve its highest aim. We now have ads on TV that show people walking through meadows as the name is subliminally flashed, and there are birds singing and bees copulating... we've got to cut that out, because that is not what direct to consumer advertising is supposed to be... The industry needs to respond to consumers and physicians, who seek more balanced communication of risks and benefits” ("To inform or persuade? Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs" NEJM 2005;352:325.)

The FDA on September 11th, 2007, reported on more deaths by pharmaceutical drugs than the terrible events of 9/11 (J. Archives of Internal Medicine, September 2007.) Since 1998 we have known that about 100,000 people die each year from drug reactions or mistakes, which accounts for the 2nd most common cause of all deaths, a fact that is often omitted from medical statistics.

We will always need drugs. I am sure that either us, or a loved one has benefited tremendously from a drug. I almost kicked the bucket myself last month, had it not been for a timely diagnosis and a couple of drugs (I got caught in a thyroid storm that over-stimulated my heart almost to the point of a heart attack: great way to lose weight, but I don’t recommend it…).

My point is that the wonderful benefits of the pharmaceutical revolution may have reached diminishing returns because of over-use. Many books have been written about this issue in the last few years by a variety of authors, including former editors of the New England Journal. If you look at my website http://www.hugorodier.com/ and click on my newsletter, you may find some of those titles. My favorite ones are “Overdosed America” by Abramson and “The Truth about the Drug Companies” by Angell.

I don’t wish to belabor the point that others have made far better than I. Perhaps it’s time that we do something simple about this to articulate our dissatisfaction with this state of affairs. Perhaps we could stop watching the National news. The networks would quickly notice and perhaps get those “copulating bees” off the air.

I hereby propose that we let our friends, loved ones and acquaintances know of our displeasure. We may even ask them to do the same with their contacts. Imagine what could happen if this chain were not broken. I know; you don’t like those chains you get about some religious thought or a cheese joke. This is no joke and some of us may get pretty religious if we get wacked by an overzealous drug.

Have a good day, HRod

Childhood Obesity -- An Ecological Solution

2007-09-05T13:12:00.000-07:00

This from “Childhood obesity,” JAMA 2007;298:920:

“In addressing this disturbing trend and preventing its spread, physicians are challenged to look to the broader environment. Successful treatment will require improving the health of individual patients and the larger community (an “ecological model.”) For physicians, this means reviving their traditional role as trusted advocates for good health of the public.”

Amen: as doctors, we need to recapture our community role in public health. The greatest improvements in longevity and health have come from simple interventions in the community, such as sanitation and clean water, and not from drugs or expensive technologies. We need to step out of our busy offices to meet the health challenges threatening our fellowmen, especially our children. There is no bigger threat than the epidemic of obesity cutting short their lives.

The JAMA specifically mentions what we could be doing in this arena:

“The “ecological model” suggests that doctors must get involved in the community, not just in their exam rooms. Doctors are to (1) demand that all food available in schools meet USDA nutrition guidelines; (2) require daily physical education and active recess for K-12 grades; (3) help parents and kids organize energy-burning “walking school buses” along safe routes; (4) campaing for sidewalks, playgrounds, bike paths and recreational facilities; (5) advocate for eliminating unhealthy foods; (6) call for supermarkets to provide affordable produce; (7) insist that hospitals eliminate fast food outlets and (8) advocate healthy lifestyles and healthy communities using public venues.”

Next month, docs at the Utah Medical Association will begin a program called “Adopt a School,” whereby UMA members and any other community doctor will adopt a school of their choice to implement these measures. Dr. Wheeler, a former UMA president is spearheading this worthy endeavour.

Forget About It -- Alzheimer's to Increase 285%!

2007-09-05T13:00:00.000-07:00

By the year 2050, the incidence of Alzheimer’ disease will have increased by 285% in the USA (J. Alzheimer’s Dementia 2007;3:s168.)

Truly “Alzheimer’s is the health care crisis of the 21st century.” (J. Neurology Reviews, volume 15, page 1.) Yet, very little research money is going to this problem, while we spend as a society billions of dollars to get huge erections and perky boobs: sadly, we won’t remember what to do with them.

Here are some tips on what you could do to lower your risk of winding up in a nursing home trying to remember why you are there:

Avoid second hand smoking: if you have been exposed for 30 years, your risk of dementia goes up 30 %. Imagine what smoking directly does.
Avoid al the factors that lead to heart disease, particularly insulin resistance, or pre-diabetes: lose weight. Eat the Mediterranean diet and avoid refined sugars and transfats.
Consider going vegetarian.
Supplement omega oils, especially DHA.
Supplement B-complex vitamins, especially folic acid and SAMe.
Optimize bowel function.
Supplement COQ10 and antioxidants.
Supplement sex hormones if necessary, including DHEA.
Avoid unnecessary general anesthesia
Avoid aluminum in antiperspirants and pop cans.
Consider red wine.
If you like herbs: sage, huperzine and curcumin/turmeric.
Learn to play a musical instrument, avoid being lonely and exercise more.
Consider coffee: it helps women remember more. Do they really need any help remembering what their men have done wrong?

Sunshine, Laws and the Pharmaceutical Companies

2007-07-09T16:00:00.000-07:00

"Sunshine laws and the pharmaceutical companies," JAMA 2007;297:1255

"For-profit industries do not share the same ethical norms to which physicians and other health care professionals must adhere. Their primary commitment is to create shareholder value, not maintaining an altruistic commitment to patients. But at some point the leadership of the pharmaceutical industry and their board of directors must begin to recognize that growing public and professional mistrust could substantially detract from their value."

You probably think I am going to slam Big Pharma. No, they are doing fine bringing bad press upon themselves. They don't need my help. I wanted you to see this article, because I feel the nutraceutical industry would do well to adhere to the same standards that doctors are beginning to ask of Big Pharma. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Soon, we will see more and more pressure on the supplement industry. "Codex alimentarius" is a set of regulations that are coming from across the Pond to make it very hard for regular folks to get supplements, unless they are of pahrmaceutical grade. Many feel the real motivation is to bring supplements under Big Pharma's umbrella. But, this is not the main reason to motivate nutraceuticals to be as scientific and safe as possible. The best reason, in my opinion, is outlined in that article above: "maintaining an altruistic commitment to patients.

"Nutraceuticals often indulge in doctor bashing, and condemn the pharmaceutical approach across the board. While they often speak from having been hurt, and they may have a point, sometimes the attacks are driven by financial motivation. I don't begrudge anyone the need to make money. But, I feel a whole lot of these ego-driven attitudes could take second place to the wellbeing of the patient.

Nutraceuticals have done an excellent job adopting the same marketing techniques that corporate America, and Big Pharma have perfected. No problem there. But, for nutraceuticals to continue to demonize Big Pharma, while also putting profits first, is not going to end well with the natural products industry. Just watch what is happening to Big Pharma.

Often, I am asked to speak for Nutraceutical companies. Some of them give me the feedback that I don't discuss "the solutions" (their products) very well. I wonder if they went out for sandwiches when I covered the part where I say that 90% of health problems go away when people quit eating processed, refined sugars and transfats, to which most people are addicted, including the people running those nutraceuticals. I do mention their products, which are very helpful, IF one quits eating kilograms of garbage. How could a product of mere milligrams compete with kilograms of junk food?

It is not fair for their great products to compete in such an overwhelmingly uneven field. In fact, I often tell those companies that they will sell more, if they simply adopt this very basic principle, because people will trully be healed, by changing their diets first, and supplementing their products second. Then, clients will be more likely to come back, and continue to supplement, because they will trust the person advising to take those supplements. They will see in that person someone who is trully committed to helping them, not just another "pill-pusher."

If one is more motivated by sales, then, a quick sale of a product may indeed be achieved. But, the patient will not heal in the long run, and very likely will be disappointed in the product. They may never come back, and what is worse, that person may lose faith in the concept of supplementing, and call it "quackery." Sad, but this could be avoided, if nutraceuticals would focus on doing what is best for the patient, instead of sales. Again, it is not fair to pit their products against the tsunami of sugar -addiction in our country.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Any doctor selling ANYTHING, whether it be a drug, or a nutritional supplement, without first emphasizing a thorough change in diet, is running the risk of putting sales ahead of the patients' best interest. Now, if the patient refuses to change their lifestyle, and just want to pop a pill, then, I feel that could be dully noted in their chart, to remind the patient of their decision, when they come back, not having healed.

Fortunately, there are two nutraceutical companies who ask me to speak on a regular basis, who have understood these vital concepts, and their businesses are driven by social responsibility first, and profits second. Not surprisingly, their sales are doing very well. I salute them, and predcit that they will be left standing at the end, for having done the right thing."