A school district in Bakersfield is attempting to cut costs by having other employers pick up the tab for their personnel if they are married. Here’s how it works: If your spouse has benefits through Aetna (picking a name at random), you would be required to get coverage through that plan.

Does that sound reasonable to you? Think about it for a moment. The school district would have to dig into an employee’s personal life to determine whether the spouse is employed, by whom, and whether he or she has coverage. Privacy concerns, anyone? Furthermore, what about co-habitors or domestic partners?

Another big trend, which is in the news everywhere‚ not just in Bakersfield, is the institution of wellness programs. Exactly what does that mean? The terminology is unremittingly perky and positive. Employees are encouraged to be proactive‚ with regard to their health. However, the devil is in the details.

In Bakersfield, one big insurer that covers 1800 people is introducing this program and will begin assessing all employees and covered family members for weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and lifestyle choices, such as smoking, among other things. Hmmmmm. Makes one wonder just how far this will go, doesn’t it?

What the insurer is planning is that if any covered individual has any risk factors, they will be moved into the wellness‚ program, where they can either participate or pay extra for their benefits ‚ as much as an extra $60 per month for employees at the lower end of the salary scale.

In other words, unless you take their drugs for hypertension and cholesterol, you will be punished. This goes a long way towards removing all of your personal choice and putting all the power in the hands of insurance companies.

If you have been following my newsletters, you know that there is no evidence that cholesterol-lowering drugs affect the incidence of heart disease or extend lifespan. And, they entail serious risks of heart failure, dementia and muscle destruction. All of these draconian measures are being imposed in the name of cost savings.

Many people in this country are anti-smoking; and, we have been acclimated to punishing people who smoke. But, that excuse is being used to get the camel’s nose under the tent.

What if you are overweight? At what point does the punishment begin if you refuse a lap band surgery or weight loss drugs? What if you ride a motorcycle? That is inherently dangerous, particularly here in Southern California. How much will your insurance premiums rise? Where will it end?

When presented with the risk to personal liberties these wellness programs entail, the CEO of the insurance company mentioned above acknowledged the danger, but stated, Health care costs are skyrocketing and employers have to do something, otherwise everyone’s ability to be covered is threatened. We are all in this together.

This is only one of the many dangers presented by mandatory, universal health care. We are giving away our personal freedom in the name of public benefit. Unfortunately, that leaves us in slavery and there is no benefit.

(Source: The Bakersfield Californian, Wednesday, December 7, 2011)

1 in 10 Americans suffers from osteoarthritis of the hand, which can be very debilitating. If you can’t button your clothes due to stiffness and pain, your quality of life decreases dramatically. The fact that a double-blinded study gave positive results is significant, even though the WebMD article that reports on the Swiss study discounts the result.

I have a couple of comments regarding the WebMD article that I believe are important.

First of all, the dosage of chondroitin sulfate in the study is modest, only 800 mg daily. If you will remember, the effective dose of CS for atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) is 4,000 to 6,000 mg daily. The maintenance dose is 1600 mg (twice as much as was taken in the study). Therefore, it is no surprise that the results are reported as “modest,” although they were statistically significant. The study group simply wasn’t given a high enough dosage.

Secondly, the article quotes an American “expert” who criticizes the study because, in Europe, CS is a prescribed drug; and the company that produces it funded the study. What is unmentioned in the article is the fact that the studies in the U.S. that have found no benefit from CS are also funded by drug companies – drug companies whose arthritis drugs compete directly with natural products in the American market.

Another important fact that is glossed over in the WebMD article is that a prior study conducted in the U.S. in 2006 by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine demonstrated that a mixture of chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine sulfate (the most common form of these supplements marketed in the U.S.) was somewhat effective in the treatment of moderate to severe osteoarthritic knee pain. Again, these doses were low. The highest dose of CS was 1500 mg. However, what the study result focuses on is that Celebrex® (a cox-2 inhibitor like Vioxx®) was the most effective in reducing pain. However, if you want to avoid the severe side effects associated with Celebrex®, including sudden cardiac death, it’s nice to know that there is a natural alternative for pain relief.

The article makes one valuable point. In supplements, quality is crucial. We only order our supplements from professional suppliers who do independent assays on their products, so that you can be sure you are getting what you have paid for.

On a purely personal note, I have been taking 6,000 mg of CS daily for the past 3 years (at least). The reason I take it is to avoid developing atherosclerosis, which leads to heart disease and blindness in diabetics. My most recent retinal exam revealed that I have absolutely no plague in my retinal arteries. In addition, I can report a marked decrease in my joint pain. Since I am allergic to fish, I don’t take the combination supplements that contain glucosamine. Instead, I take 3000 mg daily of methylsufonylmethane (MSM), in addition to pure CS. The combination has been very effective for me.

If you have concerns about atherosclerosis or osteoarthritis, please call and schedule a brief consultation appointment, so that I may assess your nutritional needs in this regard.

Last weekend I was appalled, once again, by Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld advising the public never take calcium supplements, because they raise the risk of heart attacks. He actually stated that you should obtain your calcium only from food, rather than supplements.

Because I found this information so outrageous, I went looking for the study (that’s right, ONE STUDY) upon which this health alert was based. And, what I found is very illustrative of how the system works. Perhaps the most important piece is to remember that drug companies have a huge financial interest in discrediting natural remedies, since they perceive supplement sales as cutting into their bottom line. In the footnotes, it is disclosed that the authors of the study received support from a variety of drug companies within the prior three years.

Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ 2010; 341:c3691) in May of 2010 and entitled “Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis,” this “research” involved scanning electronic databases for eligible studies to include in their statistical analysis. The stated objective was “to investigate whether calcium supplements increase the risk of cardiovascular events.” Given what the stated results are, I believe this objective reveals their bias.

Their study criteria were interesting. They selected only those studies where participants were diagnosed only with osteoporosis and were given more than 500 mg of calcium in a double-blind study (1/2 the group took a placebo instead). However, and this is KEY, no study was included where the participants were also given vitamin D, since the occurrence of adverse events drops precipitously when vitamin D is taken. No attention was paid to whether or not the study participants were concurrently taking bisphosphonates (Fosamax, Boniva, etc., commonly referred to as “osteoporosis drugs”). This is a glaring and substantive omission, as will become clear in a moment.

The conclusions reached were that “calcium supplements (without coadministered vitamin D) are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction . . . A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in the management of osteoporosis is warranted.” The proposed mechanism is that calcium deposits in the soft tissues of the body, increasing calcification in the coronary arteries (aka coronary artery disease, CAD).

Of course, once the popular media picked up the story, the advisory regarding vitamin D was completely dropped; and the headlines screamed, “Calcium Supplements Cause Heart Disease!“1 And, many sources recommended no one take calcium supplements.2

Let’s actually analyze this information. In the first place, there are two pertinent warnings with regard to prescribing osteoporosis drugs: i) they can’t be taken in the presence of low serum calcium, and ii) they cause calcification of the soft tissues, especially the esophagus, which makes it impossible for a person to swallow. Since the study participants were all diagnosed with osteoporosis as part of the meta-analysis criteria, how likely do you think it is that they were co-prescribed one of these drugs? And yet, the study design ignored these drugs as a risk factor for CAD, focusing instead only on calcium supplements. Therefore, how valid is the conclusion that the calcium supplements are causing the problem?

More interesting information is available in the magazine Life Extension, published in January of 2009.3 In that article, it was pointed out that calcium deficiency increases soft tissue calcification rates.4 This is because, when calcium is low in the blood, the body robs our bones of calcium and saturates our soft tissues. Many of our neurotransmitters are dependent on calcium channel activity, and nervous system function is the body’s first priority.

Another pertinent fact is that one of the primary substances that regulate calcium balance is vitamin K. However, heart patients are routinely warned against vitamin K and given warfarin (aka Coumadin), a blood-thinning drug, which inhibits normal vitamin K function in the body. The result: rapid development of osteoporosis and arterial calcification.5, 6 Talk about unintended consequences!

The article goes on to point out that in Japan, high doses of vitamin K are often prescribed instead of warfarin to avoid these serious side effects.7, 8, 9

So, perhaps a better conclusion to our meta-analysis would have been: “A reassessment of the risk of pharmaceuticals increasing the incidence of cardiovascular events should be undertaken”. How likely do you think that might be?

If you want to find out what your need is for calcium and vitamin D, call the Clinic and arrange for a customized blood panel and nutritional report.

References
1]  sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116193102.htm

2]  foodconsumer.org/newsite/Nutrition/Minerals/calcium_supplements_versus_myocardial_infarction_3107101054.html

3]  findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6839/is_2009_Jan/ai_n31344645/?tag=content;col1

4] Hsu HH, Culley NC. Effects of dietary calcium on atherosclerosis, aortic calcification, and icterus in rabbits fed a supplemental cholesterol diet. Lipids Health Dis. 2006;516.

5]  Gage BF, Birman-Deych E, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, Binder EF. Risk of osteoporotic fracture in elderly patients taking warfarin: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation 2. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jan 23;166(2):241-6.

6]  Schurgers LJ, Aebert H, Vermeer C, Bultmann B, Janzen J. Oral anticoagulant treatment: friend or foe in cardiovascular disease? Blood. 2004 Nov

7]  Bugel S. Vitamin K and bone health in adult humans. Vitam Horm. 2008;78:393-416.

8] Kaneki M, Hodges SJ, Hosoi T, et al. Japanese fermented soybean food as the major determinant of the large geographic difference in circulating levels of vitamin K2: possible implications for hip-fracture risk. Nutrition. 2001 Apr;17(4):315-21.

9]  Shea MK, Dallal GE, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. Vitamin K, circulating cytokines, and bone mineral density in older men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Aug;88(2):356-63.

You can also download associated articles as pdf files:

Effect of Calcium Supplements on Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Events: Meta-Analysis

Calcium Supplements Versus Myocardial Infarction: What You Need to Know

Protection Against Arterial Calcification, Bone Loss, Cancer, and Aging!

Calcium Supplements May Increase Heart Attacks in Older Women

Let me elaborate on what I have seen in my practice. Two or three examples will give you a window into what can happen. Several children in my practice developed severe cerebral palsy after being vaccinated – either at birth or at the age of 2 months. Several other children developed autistic symptoms after being vaccinated in infancy. In every case, the medical professionals claimed that the symptom pattern bore no relationship to the disability, leaving the parents without recourse or any help for the expensive and life-changing challenges they now faced.

In one particularly severe instance, the medical profession wanted to vaccinate the family’s second son, as well. Happily, the mother did extensive research on the Internet, discovering the increased incidence of adverse reactions in siblings of impaired children. This research completely changed her view on vaccine dangers. Happily, their second son is perfectly healthy – and unvaccinated. Of course, they’ve had to take a lot of heat from the medical profession, as a result.

So, how is this vital information concealed from the public at large? It is important to understand that, in America, we have an enormous conflict of interest in health care. And, this conflict severely limits your health care choices. The problem is: American medical practice doesn’t acknowledge that there are any other authorities, except American research. The examples are endless, but I’ll provide a compelling one. There are literally thousands of research articles demonstrating the efficacy of herbs in human health. However, this research was all done outside of the U.S. — Europe, Australia and Japan are prime sources. But, herbs are dismissed in American medical practice. They are regarded as mere panaceas (although lately we’ve been hearing more and more about the “dangers” of these supposedly useless plants). The American medical profession always falls back on the old chestnut, “More research is needed.” As though no one knows anything about herbs! In effect, American hubris completely discounts all other professionals and the research they do. If an article on non-traditional medicine isn’t published in the United States, any research result is automatically suspect.

The mechanism for this information blackout is “peer review,” the gold standard of scientific and medical publishing in the U.S. This means that a research article must be approved by a panel of “experts” before it can be published in an accepted medical journal. (The word used to refer to these journals is “reputable,” automatically categorizing all other publications as “disreputable.” Clever, isn’t it?) In actuality, this process provides an excellent tool to control what is accepted “truth,” becoming the basis for our entire health care industry, including acceptable treatments and what claims insurance companies will honor.

This same scenario applies to chiropractic research. Where chiropractic is concerned so much has been lost. I have a garage full of research done in the 1950’s and 1960’s by well-trained scientists. However, no peer reviewed medical journal would accept their findings. And, thus, these research results are no longer in the public knowledge pool. The work done is a total loss. Today, a similar process is at work. Chiropractic research is only accepted for publication if it conforms to the medical model of mechanical alleviation of low back pain. The truly revolutionary effects that can be achieved — everything from NVD for neurological injury and internal disorders to cranial adjusting for head injuries and cerebral palsy or ADD — are dismissed out of hand because they don’t fit the prevailing medical paradigm. And, no amount of data will convince the powers that be otherwise.

This is not the fault of individual doctors. It is the result of a system dominated by drug companies and attorneys. Doctors are constrained by liability worries. Always wondering when the next resourceful young lawyer will discover a unique — and heretofore unknown — cause of action, a new way to sue for malpractice. Adhering to well-established standards of care protects the individual doctor to some degree from these overzealous entrepreneurial lawsuits.

However, it is the public that suffers. Have you ever wondered why a physician is so anxious to establish a diagnosis? Because once your illness has a name, the doctor knows exactly what to expect — how to treat it, how it will progress, whether you will live or die. Everything he or she needs to be protected from a potential malpractice lawsuit. The trouble is, in many instances, medical texts define many diseases as “incurable.” For these illnesses, your doctor knows that you can’t get better. She knows this because no one else treated for the same condition has ever gotten better, except for those rare cases labeled “spontaneous remission.” Voila! A self-fulfilling prophecy — one with no room for other options.

Of course, the missing piece is that there may be another treatment that offers hope. There’s a hint in those pesky, unexplained, “spontaneous” remissions, if only the medical community would pay attention. But, since the prevailing belief is that only a medical approach has any value, all other bodies of knowledge and treatment modalities are automatically excluded. Any patient who was treated by unorthodox means automatically gets dumped into the “spontaneous remission” category – thus, totally eliminating any chance to broaden the medical landscape. What a vicious circle!

I have come to believe very strongly that the most serious threat to the health of the American public is the number of doctors trained to know that you can never get well.

And, there are consequences to the medical profession’s assumption of omnipotence. Not only are some medical treatments ineffective; some of them are downright dangerous. This is certainly true of the medical model of “prevention through vaccination.”

Were you aware that, according to the Centers for Disease Control web site, all the cases of polio in the U.S. in the 1990s were the result of the attenuated virus vaccine? (When I recently went back to the CDC web site to provide a link for this article, I was unable to find it again.  Interesting, don’t you think?)  The “attenuated” virus still had the ability to infect. It was transmitted through exposure to infected fecal matter. So, who was most at risk? Parents changing dirty diapers and those individuals who were exposed to recently vaccinated people where there was a lack of hygiene. In 1999, the CDC and the United States government finally took action and mandated that only inactivated virus be used in polio vaccines.

The full story about vaccines is well documented. If you are interested in more detail, I highly recommend Dr. Tim O’Shea’s book “Vaccination I$ Not Immunization; The Sanctity of Human Blood.” You can obtain a copy of this book on Amazon.com or by contacting Dr. O’Shea directly at thedoctorwithin.com, or by calling his San Jose, California office at 408/298-1800. It contains hundreds of references — all documenting the dangers of vaccines. When last I was updated, the book was in its tenth edition, and I recommend it highly.

Although the side effects of vaccines are bad enough in themselves (brain damage, including cerebral palsy and mental retardation, and in extreme cases even death), we are creating a public health nightmare for the future. There are three examples that I believe will clearly illustrate the dangers.

The first is flu vaccine and Alzheimer’s Disease. There is a single documented study of the effect of the flu vaccine on cognitive abilities. It was done retrospectively for the decade 1970 to 1980. (Fudenberg, H., MD, “Hazards of vaccines.”, J Clin Investigation, vol 4, p. 97-105, 2000) The researchers found that adults given the vaccines five consecutive times in that ten-year period had a nine-fold increase in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. In drug research, a statistically significant effect may be as little as 15% or 20%. Here, we are talking about 800%! Why hasn’t anyone raised a hue and cry about the need for more studies to look into this potential threat? Why hasn’t the information been reported? Have you seen it anywhere?

My personal experience may be illuminating. You may be aware of Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld, who is the medical expert on Fox News every Sunday morning. In October of 2009, after one of his morning broadcasts wherein he routinely touts drugs and vaccines, I called this study to his attention. In his nasty and dismissive email, he said that since the CDC doesn’t acknowledge that study, it is meaningless. But why would the CDC dismiss such a potentially alarming side effect? More on that topic in a moment.

This nasty effect on the brain is probably the result of the mercury used to preserve the vaccine. Although, nobody knows for sure since no further research has ever been done. An additional word of caution: Some of my patients have been told that a vaccine is “mercury free.” Maybe that’s because the person they asked — a nurse or nurse’s aid — didn’t know that thimerosal, the preservative in vaccines, is actually an organic mercury compound; and, therefore, much more easily absorbed than the inorganic mercury that we all played with as children. The CDC web site actually states that a vaccine may be labeled “preservative free” if the thimerosal is “diluted out” during the purification process, even though the vaccine still contains traces of the chemical! No one knows if a safe level of thimerosal even exists; it is that toxic. And, in 2009, there was no mercury-free version of the swine flu vaccine available. After all, without mercury, the vaccine has a very short shelf life.

The second example I want to illuminate really makes me angry, because the “at risk” population is unborn babies and infants. Let me explain a few inconvenient background facts first. The vaccine under discussion is MMR — short for mumps, measles and rubella. More about mumps later — that’s my third example. Right now, I want to focus on measles and rubella.

Both of these are normal, self-limited childhood diseases. A case in childhood imparts lifelong immunity — an immunity that protects the fetus in the womb and that can be passed through mother’s milk to the breastfed infant. Why is this important? Because these viruses are very damaging to the nervous system of underdeveloped humans. Rubella (or, German measles) can pass through the placenta and severely damage the child within, resulting in blindness, deafness, heart defects and mental retardation. Measles (or rubeola) is a relatively minor disease when contracted during childhood, but in infancy — while the immune and nervous systems are underdeveloped — measles can cause life-threatening pneumonia and encephalitis. (The Merck Manual, 16TH Ed.)

And, the unacknowledged, and unpublicized, fact is that vaccination does not impart this type of lifelong, transmissible immunity. I say “unpublicized” because vaccination is routinely referred to as “immunization,” leading to the false impression that a vaccinated little girl has a lifelong immunity that will protect her — and also her future babies — from further exposure to these viruses during the infants’ most vulnerable life stage. Not so! A young woman vaccinated in childhood has no immunity to protect either herself or her unborn child, unless she gets “booster” shots.

But, there’s an additional problem: Giving the MMR vaccine to teenage girls has caused severe arthritic side effects. The Ontario, Canada, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care reports, “Up to one in four teenage girls and adult women may get painful swelling of some joints within one to three weeks after vaccination. . . . . chronic arthritis may occur.” So, 25% of women may have an arthritic effect from the MMR, attributable to the Rubella vaccine. For many it is transitory, but do you want your daughter to be the one who develops permanent, rheumatoid-like arthritis? So, another shot is not the answer.

If you’re wondering why I am quoting Canadian statistics, it’s because the American health care system has not made this information available. The first hit on a Google search is the Ontario web site. When I searched the web site of the CDC, there was NO information concerning these effects of the Rubella vaccine. When I looked at the tab entitled “Vaccine Safety and Adverse Events Reporting,” there was no information concerning actual adverse effects, but a great deal of reassuring double-talk about how safe vaccines are. In fact, the first topic is “How do you know if vaccine information you find on the internet or in other sources is accurate?” The article then goes on to discredit all other sources of information. The CDC is the official American government source for public health information. So, why such an effort to discredit well-documented research? Do you think there may be something else going on here? Read on, for more detail regarding the power behind the scenes. For me, what comes to mind is the old saying, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

My third example concerns mumps and adult males. All little boys should be exposed to mumps, so that they develop lifelong immunity prior to puberty. In little boys, mumps is a self-limiting, febrile disease of approximately two weeks’ duration. In men, it can be devastating. In adults, the target organ is not the salivary glands in the cheeks, but the glandular tissue in the testes. The testicles become hugely swollen, hot and excruciatingly tender. The end result can be sterility. So, I urge you, if you are a man who was vaccinated as a child, but who never had the mumps, to stay away from young children who could infect you. I don’t have enough data to comment upon whether exposure to children who have recently received the MMR vaccine could be a source of infection — as they are in polio. And, I wasn’t able to find any information in my on-line research. I just urge you to err on the side of caution.

What are the medical community’s solutions to these problems? More vaccines! Now, children are scheduled for upwards of 60 such injections before they start kindergarten! And, the number is rising. What are we doing? And, why aren’t we asking more questions? Particularly, in light of the fact that it has now been established in veterinary medicine that one of the side effects of veterinary vaccines is cancer? My cats’ vet explained that he only gives these shots in the extremities — so that he can amputate the malignancy. And, no, I still won’t let him vaccinate my animals.

One final comment on a subject that is no longer in the public awareness: When vaccines were first introduced, the loudest objections were raised by scientists in the field of virology. Their concerns were based upon the ability of viruses to splice themselves into DNA strands. I don’t believe that this concern has ever been adequately addressed – or that anyone has ever even examined it. We are, essentially, conducting an uncontrolled experiment on our children’s genetic future.

Now for the important questions: How many of the American public are aware of these facts? Why aren’t these devastating side effects common knowledge?

Because the media and the FDA are controlled by the drug companies and vaccines represent huge profits. I have first hand experience with the controlled media. In 2005, during the height of the West Nile virus incursion into Southern California, I wrote a well-documented article concerning the efficacy of medicinal quality St. Johns’ Wort in the prevention and treatment of West Nile virus. My publicist posted the article on a web site where media professionals look for material to publish. We got well over 100,000 hits, but no one picked it up for publication. When we shopped it around to broadcast outlets, the individual reporters were very interested in the herb for personal use, but we were flatly told, “Nothing gets on the air that isn’t AMA approved.”

Of course, if you think about it, there’s a big conflict here. The advertising dollars from drug companies represent a huge percentage of any station’s income. The medical profession and the pharmaceutical houses constitute a powerful (and wealthy) unholy alliance when it comes to what health information you are allowed to receive.

You may find it shocking that I assert that the FDA is controlled by the drug companies. But, think about it. First of all, the FDA is funded in large part by the fees paid by the drug companies for approval of their drugs. And, it is common knowledge that for many years directors of the FDA have typically retired to lucrative positions with major drug companies.

The disinformation campaign, disseminated via the media, has far-reaching tentacles. The bird flu scare is just the most recent example. SARS was the “disease of the year” in 2003. Were you frightened by all of the media announcements? Did you know that only slightly over 8,000 people worldwide contracted the disease, and only 774 died? No one in the United States died, and only 8 people became ill after traveling to a part of the world where SARS was endemic. Yet, if you listened to the news you would be certain that we were all going to die from an unstoppable pandemic. Yet, by October 6, 2004, there were no reported cases of SARS anywhere in the world. So, what was the point? Do you suppose the idea was to condition the American people into accepting the idea that a vaccine was their only protection?

In 2006 and 2007, we had the H5N1 virus (bird flu) hysteria. Again, I believe, this was a manufactured “epidemic” designed to frighten the populace into accepting vaccines. As of March 2007, The World Health Organization web site reported that there had only been 281 human cases worldwide. It’s true; there is a very high mortality rate — 169 of those individuals died. But, all of these cases occurred in parts of the world where people live with their poultry and are regularly exposed to their blood and feces. H5N1 is not transmissible from human to human, nor is there any evidence that, even if it does mutate to become transmissible between humans, it will still be so virulent. Mutations are unpredictable, at best.

So, what’s the point of all this media angst? With the litany of horrors and the reportage of how hard doctors are working to produce the vital vaccines that will save us all from the next pandemic, people become conditioned to accept vaccines unquestioningly. Gradually, vaccines become sacred icons whose efficacy can’t be questioned by any sane person. Only “kooks” raise objections to these scientific marvels.

There are many factors at work here, but one of the biggest ones is an economic consideration. Drug companies spend millions of dollars developing new drugs and vaccines — a good example is Tamiflu, developed by Roche Holding AG.

First a bit of historical background: Were you aware that in 1999 the drug manufacturer Roche Holding AG brought out the first patented drug to treat viral diseases? Perhaps you’ve heard of Tamiflu. As reported by WebMD in 2006, in most markets, sales of Tamiflu”were well below the company’s expectations. But that changed in 2005, when WHO recommended governments stockpile antiviral drugs, such as Tamiflu. . . . Consequently, sales of Tamiflu from January to June 2005, were nearly double the number in 2004.” It is also interesting that Roche is the sole manufacturer of Tamiflu and has stated that there was no question of relinquishing its patent, which is protected until 2016. This was in response to then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan’s suggestion that the usual patent rules may have to be suspended if there is an outbreak of avian flu. His suggestion was that other companies could also make the medicine, increasing the supply.

In the spring of 2007, media coverage was saturated with advertisements advising the public to “consult your doctor” at the first sign of flu symptoms. You see, one of the shortcomings of Tamiflu is that it’s only effective if taken during the first 48 hours of infection. During that time, most people are so miserable that they take to their beds. Furthermore, in the era of HMO health care, how many Americans can hope to schedule a doctor’s appointment within 48 hours? Dream on!

There are other problems: Tamiflu has only been “proven” effective against influenza strains A and B, not the bird flu strain. Furthermore, a partial list of the side effects includes: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bronchitis, stomach pain, dizziness and headache. Forbes on October 14, 2005 (FoxNews) published an article that pointed out that the bird flu was showing resistance to Tamiflu.

However, none of that is important to the manufacturer. Their fortune is made; world governments are stockpiling their product while the patent is still active. No generic, low cost version here! I wonder whether those stockpiles are preserved with thimerosal? That’s the only way to maintain the doses in long-term storage.

I want to bring one, last disturbing fact to your attention. Are you aware that The Patriot Act contains provisions for mandatory mass vaccination in the event of biological attack? The penalties for refusal include federal prison. Since there is a strong underground of opposition in the U.S. to vaccination, I believe there is a planned public information (or, disinformation, if you agree with my views) campaign to accustom the American public to the notion that vaccines are harmless and lifesaving. However, as I hope I have made clear, this is far from the proven. I, for one, do not intend to be a casualty of vaccine hysteria.

First, some background. More than 50 million prescriptions were written for statins in Britain in 2008, an increase of 80% from just 4 years earlier. see article: A Nation of Pill-poppers. However, it turns out that this avalanche of ingested chemicals entails some unintended consequences.

A study published in The British Medical Journal in May of 2010 revealed that for every 10,000 high risk women treated with statins, the plus side would be approximately 271 fewer cases of heart disease and 8 fewer cases of esophageal cancer. However, the negative impact included 74 patients with liver dysfunction, 23 with acute renal failure, 307 with cataracts and 39 with muscular weakness (myopathy). This totals 443 female patients with negative effects from these drugs. The figures were similar for men, except the rates of myopathy were higher. (BMJ 2010;340:c2197).

These risks persisted throughout the course of therapy and were highest in the first year. The risks of developing one of these problems decreased within 1 to 3 years after stopping use of the drug. Query: Do you know anyone who has ever been taken off a cholesterol-lowering drug? I certainly don’t. Besides which, many of the injured people have suffered irreversible damage.

Do you find this alarming? Apparently the medical profession doesn’t. In an editorial published in the same edition of The British Medical Journal two senior cardiologists opined that while statins are not entirely free of adverse events, when used according to prescribing guidelines, the benefits outweigh the risks.

This new research result needs to be assessed in light of other studies demonstrating memory loss and cognitive problems in fully 50% of patients taking statin drugs. 56% of patients in another case study noted improvement in their mental faculties when the statin was removed. [case report] There are a handful of “observational” studies – no parameters given – claiming that there was a lower risk of dementia among patients receiving statins. This is typical of what I see in the medical literature. Any studies that indicate pharmaceuticals may be harmful are quickly buried by “research” (paid for by the drug companies, of course} that seems to show the opposite. In many cases, actual adverse outcomes are buried by using parameters that are too broad to isolate a specific risk group.

With regard to statins, they are now being almost universally prescribed for lower and lower total cholesterol levels. In the medical world, there is no such thing as cholesterol levels that are too low. However, there is a correlation with an increase in malignant disease in patients whose cholesterol levels fall below 150. This is particularly true for men. Low Cholesterol & Increased Cancer Risk

I have commented on this before, but let me simply reiterate the down side of statins, in addition to the items mentioned above.

1. Since these drugs not only limit cholesterol production, but also eliminate the production of enzyme CoQ10 in the body, they inevitably lead to heart failure. The drug companies are aware of this, but refuse to publicize these facts.
2. Cholesterol is one of the most important chemical substances in our body. We use it to make all of our steroid hormones, including sex hormones and adrenal (stress) hormones. It is also found in every cell membrane in our body and is essential to the health of neurons. Remember, brain tissue is largely composed of fats; and cholesterol functions as an anti-oxidant for fats.
3. Men taking these drugs suffer a decrease in their total testosterone levels, resulting in sexual dysfunction and the development of “man boobs.”

Atherosclerosis (blockage of the arteries) – cited as the primary problem caused by high cholesterol – is not really due to elevated cholesterol levels in itself. It is caused by oxidized, or damaged, cholesterol. Yet, the medical laboratories no longer offer the test for cholesterol oxidation.

In truth, the emphasis on cholesterol levels and statin medications is due to the fact that the pharmaceutical companies have found a compound to alter cholesterol production in the body. Despite the barrage of advertising, the truth is that the Framingham study (the single largest longitudinal study regarding heart disease in the U.S.) found almost no correlation between cholesterol levels and heart attacks. The authors of the study admitted as much in an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1987.

So, the choice is up to you. You can follow the accepted “wisdom,” or you can question the “experts” and take responsibility for your own health. There are natural, effective and healthful alternatives. The drug companies are now trying to capitalize on these natural remedies by offering patented, synthetic (and in, many cases, harmful) versions of beneficial compounds. Watch for my next newsletter wherein I will discuss this issue.

If you want assistance in customizing a program to optimize your health, please contact the Clinic and make an appointment for a consultation.

By the way, you can also download associated articles as pdf files:
A Nation of Pill-poppers  (use link above.  This link is coming)
Some Statins Have Unintended Effects and Warrant Closer Monitoring, Study Finds

Some alarming news came across my desk yesterday.  Everyone who is interested in natural health care should take note:

Both the FDA and the FTC have threatened Dr. Andrew Weil, the famous alternative M.D., with criminal prosecution.  Natural News Article The specific incident involved Dr. Weil recommending an herbal formula containing astragalus for its immune-boosting properties.  The actual text of the FDA letter read, “If your firm fails to take corrective action immediately, FDA may take enforcement action, such as seizure or injunction for violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act without further notice.”

In essence, the FDA is protecting the drug industry by muzzling information about safe and effective, natural alternatives to vaccines.  You may have noticed that TV commercials are still being aired, encouraging everyone to get vaccinated against H1N1 “before it’s too late.”  Too late for what?  The hyped pandemic has never materialized, and many people have decided the risks of the vaccine far outweigh the dangers of the flu.  And, as a result, the drug companies have taken a big hit to their bottom line.

Here’s the problem:  Everything Dr. Weil said is true and is validated by research that has been conducted outside the U.S.  However, the FDA continues to agitate for more control over nutritional supplements, including incredibly expensive drug trials for natural substances. These products can never be patented – thereby, severely limiting the potential for any company to ever recoup their R & D costs.  In fact, only large drug companies can afford the expense of these mandated U.S. drug trials. Clinical research done overseas into the activity of herbs and vitamins is inadequate, according to the FDA.

All of this is imposed under the guise of “public interest,” but here’s the dirty little secret:  Natural remedies are not dangerous!  There wasn’t a single death caused by dietary supplements in 2008.  And, the FDA is well aware of this since the statistic comes from a peer-reviewed journal in their own field – Clinical Toxicology.¹ Not even the so-called “dangerous” vitamins A, B, C, D and E (or the herbs we have heard so many cautions about) have caused any harm.  As a side note, this year we discovered that the much-maligned vitamin D is actually critical to prevention of both a variety of cancers and, most recently, heart disease. Vitamin D and Heart Disease

Not one person died from nutritional supplements.  Yet, every year over 100,000 people die from FDA-approved prescription drugs. Drug Reactions In addition, prescription drugs cause as many as 2.2 million adverse reactions every year.² The only person I know who has publicized this is Dr. Gary Null on his Life Extension web site. Dr. Null’s article

Yet, the FDA would have you believe that what the public needs protection from is the natural health industry!

The behind-the-scenes story is that the FDA has a very telling conflict of interest.  The law establishing the FDA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act passed in 1992, authorized fees to be paid to the FDA by the drug companies, making the FDA dependent upon the very industry it is supposed to regulate.  In fact, more than half of the FDA’s staff are drug industry-paid employees who are “approving” drugs.

And, since that law was passed in 1992, 13 prescription drugs, which have caused hundreds of deaths, have had to be withdrawn from the market.³ Contrast this to the safety record of vitamins, herbs and homeopathy.

What’s worse is that the FDA, in collusion with corporate America, has established a history of suppressing natural, safe and effective alternatives.  If you have been reading my newsletters, you are aware of the fact that statins (aka cholesterol-lowering drugs) cause congestive heart failure.  Merck, the company that brought these drugs to market, has known about this side effect from the beginning, but they have never educated practicing physicians about the importance of supplementing with CoQ10 to prevent this life-threatening condition.

But, it’s even worse than that.  Merck patented a combination drug that includes CoQ10 with the statin, but they never brought it to market. They patented the combination and just let it sit in limbo, simply to keep it out of the prescription market.  By patenting the combination, they protected their bottom line by preventing other drug companies from introducing a product that could save thousands of lives.

And, to this day, the average practicing M.D. doesn’t know about the need for CoQ10 when prescribing these dangerous drugs.

So, from whom does the public need to be protected?

I strongly urge you to contact your Senators and Congressperson whenever you hear of a further attempt to regulate the natural health industry.

And, please do not believe the misleading propaganda (call it what you will: “spin” or “outright lies”) that regularly appears on the news. The drug companies are engaging in an all out disinformation campaign to undermine support for the natural health community and, eventually, eliminate your access to alternative medicine completely.

References:

¹ Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL, 2008 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 26^th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2009).  47, 911-1084.

² Schardt, David.  “Are Your Supplements Safe?” Nutrition Action Healthletter 2003; 30(9): 3-7.

³ The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It by Marcia Angell M.D., published by Random House, 304 pp.

I first heard about the product last fall and wondered if it was too good to be true.  I purchased a “starter kit” to test it out and began taking it shortly before Thanksgiving. The results have been really stunning and we purchased a supply so that you, too, could benefit from this amazing formula.

A doctor friend and I shared the first purchase, since we both wanted to try it.  In just two weeks, she lost 8 lbs, taking 4 tablets per day.  I only took 2 per day, and I lost 4 lbs.  Since then, although I haven’t lost a lot of pounds, I have lost an additional 2 or 3 inches off my waist and hips, actually going down a whole pant size over about 4 months.  In addition, I am losing much of the abdominal fat that has dogged me for years. All of this without dieting, without working out, and without making what I was eating the focus of my life.  Like me, you, too, probably are too busy to integrate another time-consuming regimen into your life.

I have not yet had the opportunity to check out the other claims for this product, but they include:

1.         Lose an average of 28 pounds and 6” off their belly in just 10 weeks, with no change in diet or exercise habits.  This information was from a study in Lipids in Health and Disease, published in 2009.  (Since this is an average number, your results may vary.

2.         Experience improvements in blood sugar, cholesterol and triglycerides.

3.         Have more energy; more stamina and improved mood.

All of these changes are attributable to a new herb (Irvingia gabonesis) discovered in the forests of West Africa.  This herb resets your metabolism, allowing you to naturally resist the production of new fat cells.  There are 3 metabolic signals that Irvingia resets:  a)  it re-sensitizes your body to leptin (the hormone that shuts down hunger and signals our fat cells to burn as energy); b) it improves your sensitivity to insulin by up-regulating adiponectin); c) and it reduces the enzyme that turns blood sugar into fat (glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase).

I find it interesting that the mechanism for re-sensitizing the body to leptin involves reducing c-reactive protein (CPR) levels, a critical inflammatory marker that is also used as an indicator of cardiovascular risk.  The study hasn’t been done yet, but it may actually reduce CPR and thus reduce cardiovascular risk, as well.

The product is called Primal Lean and the dose is 2 per day (1 before breakfast and 1 before lunch or dinner, depending upon which is your largest meal).  A one-month supply costs only $56.50.

If you want to get started on a simple, straightforward way to improve many aspects of your health and wellbeing, call the office today and order a supply.

A second study, performed at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City revealed that women who had taken these drugs for an extended length of time (8.5 years on average) had “old” thighbones.  Normally, bone is about 20% new, 60% middle-aged and 20% old, as the bone remodels and replaces.  In the study, 90% of the bone from women taking these drugs is “old.”  This makes the bone extremely vulnerable to fracture, because of the body’s inability to repair micro-damage.  Micro-damage can be caused simply by climbing stairs, over-exercising, even dancing.

However, don’t think the medical recommendation is to stop taking these drugs.  Far from it!  Women are still being encouraged to take these dangerous drugs long-term.

Why do I say “finally”? If you’ve been a client at our Clinic, you know that I have been saying this for years. And, it isn’t in your best interest to wait for the medical community to catch on to the facts. To improve your bone density and strength, a combination of calcium, vitamin D and strontium (depending upon your blood picture) is much safer, and more effective than these drugs.  Contact us today if you have been told you are at risk for (or have) osteoporosis.

The side effects were simple:  abundant hair growth, improved HDL levels, improved connective tissue integrity and joint flexibility.  The chondroitin also prevented clot formation.  See the article  Discussion of Chondroitin Sulfate for an in-depth discussion of how it works and further medical references.  Be sure to scroll down to the section on cardiovascular health.

I immediately began prescribing high doses of CS for people whose hair was thinning and for those with cholesterol deposits in their arteries.  The results are now in and the results range from some improvement to amazing.

First, the “some improvement.”  Some people noticed a marked increase in their hair growth.  For others, the results were not as good.  The dosage was high 6,000 to 8,000 mg per day – dropping to 1600 mg for maintenance after 9 to 10 months.  The combination of improving thyroid function with iodine supplementation and CS seemed to work the best.   (Watch up-coming newsletters for more on the importance of iodine supplementation.)

In the “amazing” category are the results with atherosclerosis (aka, hardening of the arteries, or plaque deposits).  In order to monitor plaque deposition, I have been examining the retinal field; since that is the only place you can visualize the arteries without expensive imaging studies.  After as little as 3 or 4 months on high dose CS, I began to see changes in the retinal field.  People whose arteries were “copper wire” in appearance – indicating severe plaque deposition – began to show improvement.  And, at 6 months, the changes were even more marked; the arteries no longer looked like wires, there were only intermittent speckles of plaque.  By 9 to 12 months, several of my patients had complete resolution of the abnormalities in their retinal arteries.

In addition, I had another pleasant surprise.  A second indicator of what is medically called “hyperlipidemia,” which is basically high blood fats, including cholesterol, began to clear up.  The indicator is called a senile arcus and is a cloudy, half moon shape at the top of the iris of the eye (the colored part).  It looks dull and opaque from the fatty deposits.  These, too, began to diminish and are now practically all gone.

Another “amazing” result was that, at the same time, I had a patient with right-sided heart failure.  His response to CS was truly amazing.  Within about 5 weeks, all of his symptoms had resolved and the right side of his heart had returned to normal.  I attribute this amazing result to the CS restoring the integrity of his connective tissues, which cause him severe problems.

This is exciting news, since all of the pharmaceuticals recommended to correct problems with blood fats have serious problems, ranging from heart failure to liver problems to dementia and memory loss in older people.  These drugs are among the most widely used – and most toxic – on the market.

The only downside that I see to taking CS is that you must take it daily to continue to receive the benefits.  Once your arteries are clear, the dose drops to 1600 mg per day, which is four capsules.  However, given the fact that it keeps your blood vessels young and resilient, I consider this a minor inconvenience, at best.

Today on the news I heard an announcement that stunned me.  Welcome to Brave New World.  The FDA is pursuing and shutting down anyone on the Internet that offers “cures” for the swine flu – other than the FDA endorsed vaccine, Tamiflu or Relenza.

What’s wrong with this picture?  First of all, there is no proof that Tamiflu or Relenza “cure” the flu.  In the first 24 hours, there is some beneficial effect; however, side effects include:  skin reactions, bizarre behavior, nausea and vomiting.  (And, this is from the official  Tamiflu web site)

The effects in children are even more severe.  As reported in the UK Guardian in July of 2009 over half the school children given Tamiflu had adverse effects, including nearly 1/3rd who felt “sick”, nearly ¼ who reported headaches and more than 1/5th who reported stomach aches.

An article published in the London Times on-line edition in August 2009 went so far as to say children with the flu not be given Tamiflu due to the fact that side effects outweigh the benefits. One of the authorities quoted stated that “the only benefit found in the study was that children who took Tamiflu or Relenza were back to normal between half a day and a day earlier. His advice to GPs was ’not to rely on Tamiflu as a treatment to reduce complications’ or to think of it as a ‘magic bullet’. The antivirals had little or no effect on asthma flare-ups, ear infections or the likelihood of a child needing antibiotics.”

Another web site reports on even more alarming symptoms, although it tries to minimize them:  “More serious side effects have also sometimes been reported. According to the FDA, ‘there have been reports (mostly from Japan) since Tamiflu became available of patients causing self-injury or experiencing delirium (confusion, hallucinations, speech problems) while using Tamiflu.’ While these ‘reports were mostly in children,’ it is still not known if they were actually caused by taking Tamiflu”.

And then there is all of the adverse effects associated with vaccines.  You will have to decide for yourself whether or not you want to expose your children and yourself to those. (See my article “Swine Flu Vaccine Alert” for more.)

To me, the most frightening piece of this picture is that those of us who prefer to provide natural, alternative therapies are now being targeted by the government as “scammers” and “quacks.”  Apparently, free speech does not apply to health care.  Where will it end?

There is plenty of documented, scientific evidence that St. John’s Wort is effective against encapsulated viruses – like the influenza viruses. (see my article “West Nile Virus & St. John’s Wort”) And, I have clinical evidence that Thymunose (an immune stimulant) shortens the course of the illness, without any of the serious side effects of the prescription drugs.

I find it frightening that the FDA can step in and limit our health care choices.  And, there is no recourse from the government. However, I feel it is my responsibility to tell my clients what I know about strategies to keep themselves and their families healthy.