FDA Essentially Bans Trans Fats

June 18, 2015

small_food_packageNaturopathic Physicians have been educating the public and their patients on the dangers of trans fats (also known as hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils) for 30 plus years based on studies from the 1970’s showing a link between these artificial fats and heart disease.

Finally, the FDA, in an effort to prevent heart attacks and deaths, finalized its determination that the main sources of artificial trans fat are not safe. FDA gave food manufacturers until June 2018 to remove partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) from their products after concluding that the oils are not so-called GRAS, or generally recognized as safe.

It’s hopeful that our government is finally taking action and acknowledging the SIGNIFICANT impact that our food supply has on the state of health of our citizens, and the major economic burden the US shoulders to manage chronic illnesses that can easily be prevented by removing artificial chemicals, excess sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and the like from our food supply.

Research identified a relationship between folic acid deficiencies and birth defects as early as 1965. It was not until 1992 that the United States Public Health Service shared this critical knowledge with the country and recommended that all women of childbearing age, capable of becoming pregnant, consume 400mcg of folic acid per day. It took the scientific community almost 30 years to accept that a nutrient deficiency might cause a gross distortion in human neuronal development and to recommend supplementation. Tens of thousands of children were born during this time with preventable birth defects.

Let’s use common sense, and consider listening to the doctors who pay attention to the research as it comes available rather then waiting 30 years to act on it, and who are tirelessly working to educate the public on the importance of quality food and the power of nutritional medicine to prevent and treat disease.

In health,
Dr. Gina


Please Watch This

September 9, 2014

This trailer is worth watching. Let’s pray for leadership in this country that gets this.  Changing the way America eats, methodically removing refined sugar,  hydrogenated oils, pesticide laden and GMO products, and over-processed high gluten flour from our food supply will make massive changes over the next century in our country in terms of healthcare (particularly chronic diseases and mental health disorders) and the economy.   It will take a courageous leader or leadership group to see past the billions of dollars at stake by doing this, with a simple, long term, do-able plan of action, to realize the the return of healthier,  happier people and a more robust self-sustaining economy in our country.

In health,

Dr. Gina


Mammography…A Perspective Worth Reviewing

August 26, 2013

mature_healthy_womanOur female patients over 40 often ask whether or not they should receive  mammograms.  It can be confusing for women to make a decision because the information available through their doctors and elsewhere is conflicting. Below is an article published by Dr. Johnnie Ham on  Mercola.com that discusses his research on the mammography industry…valuable information for women to consider when making their own decision on whether or not to receive routine “preventive” mammograms.

In health,

Dr. Gina

By Johnnie Ham, MD, MBA

Many women are completely unaware that the science backing the use of mammograms is sketchy at best. As was revealed in a 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent.

There’s also the risk of getting a false negative, meaning that a life-threatening cancer is missed.

Unfortunately, even though some high-profile people agree that mammography has limitations as well as dangers, others prefer to ignore the science and continue to campaign for annual screenings without so much as a hint at the risks involved.

Now, they’ve unrolled “new and improved” 3D TOMOSYNTHESIS mammogram, which still requiring mechanical compression, and delivers 30 percent more radiation!

In order to make better informed decisions, I provide my patients with all of their screening options, their strengths and weaknesses, and I reinforce that they have a right to utilize those options. Some of the options may include; self and clinical breast exams, thermography, ultrasound and/or MRI. My role as a doctor is to diagnose and treat, but I am also an educator. I want my patients’ focus to be on prevention to improve their health and well-being.

The Industry of Cancer

Breast cancer has become big business, starting with the multi-billion dollar goliath, mammography. No other medical screening has been as aggressively promoted. My passion is providing integrative primary care as an MD for hundreds of patients. I also have over 23 combined years of military experience as an OB/GYN, trauma surgeon, experimental test pilot, and master army aviator.

My training prepared me to navigate through challenging, and sometimes life threatening situations. Unfortunately, most women do not have the training I received, yet they could certainly use some of it to help navigate through the fear based methods of the breast cancer industry.

The tide of thought on mammography’s benefits is rapidly changing as evidenced by recently published studies in the Archives of Internal Medicine,1 the Lancet Review,2 the British Medical Journal3 and the Nordic Cochrane Center;4 and the fact that the US Preventative Services Task Force5 and the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care.6

Why are Nearly All Health Care Professionals Not Following Current Mammogram Recommendations?

Nearly every woman age 40 and older continues to be told by their primary care physician, their gynecologist, the media, self-proclaimed advocacy groups, and even their medical insurance carrier, “get your annual mammogram!” despite the fact that nearly every recent authoritative study concludes that women should know all of the facts before agreeing to a mammogram screening. Yet nearly all health care professionals insist on mammograms. If a woman dare refuse, she may be chastised or worse, threatened. These efforts have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion, “I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get a mammogram.” Women need to stop this runaway train, not only for their sake, but for the sake of their daughters.

In November 2012, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Dr Archie Bleyer, MD from The Oregon Health Sciences Center, and his co-author, Dr H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H., from Dartmouth, challenging the validity of mammogram screenings and concluded that mammograms have little to no influence in the reduction of the number of women who ultimately die of breast cancer.7

Thirty years of US government data studied found that as many as 1/3 of cancers detected by mammography may not have been life threatening, and that over 1 million women have been over-diagnosed; leading to unnecessary treatments involving disfiguring surgeries; radiation and chemotherapy. They also showed that mammogram screenings have increased from about 30 percent of women 40 and older in 1985, to about 70 percent of women screened, proving how effective we have been at convincing women they need to get a mammogram.

I have witnessed this strategy for decades and I have seen the profound psychological effect it has had on many of my patients. This paradigm has seriously misled women regarding the actual effectiveness, and the benefits vs. potential dangers of mammograms. They also have women confused about the erroneous belief that mammography is their only tool. Some women actually believe mammograms can prevent cancer, or do not realize they have the right to say, no!

Most women comply with the current “gold standard” in fear of the ravages of breast cancer, convinced their annual mammogram will save their life through early detection. It is nearly impossible for them to negate decades of slick marketing, annual reminders from radiology imaging centers and the exploitation of October’s Breast Cancer Awareness month blitz. All of these efforts beautifully packaged, tied up with a pretty pink ribbon.

I take my oath to do no harm very seriously. After many years of research, clinical practice; and due to my wife’s personal experience with mammography, I cannot in good conscience recommend mammograms. I inform my patients that mammograms are considered the current “gold standard”, but I also make certain they know the facts about the screening and that there are other screen tools available.

Facts and Persisting Concerns: Mammograms

More women are refusing mammograms. This is reflected in the dramatic decline of 4.3 percent in 2010. Previously, mammography use had increased annually by 1 percent between 2005 and 2009. Mammograms:

  1. Are incorrect 80 percent of the time (providing a false negative or false positive)
  2. Require repeated ionized radiation that can cause cancer
  3. Use compression, which can damage breast tissue or potentially spread cancer
  4. Are not effective for up to 50 percent of women (women with dense breasts or implants)
  5. Can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment of non-invasive cancers
  6. Can lead to the disturbing practice of “preventative” double mastectomies

What is Mammography Industries Solution?

The “new and improved” 3D TOMOSYNTHESIS mammogram, still requiring mechanical compression, and 30 percent more radiation! We know all levels of ionizing radiation can cause cancer but, astonishingly, radiologists still want you to have your traditional mammogram screening first, followed by tomosynthesis mammogram for those with dense breasts or an area of suspicion. When my local Radiology Community approached me in an effort to disprove my concerns, I posed one simple question: Can you show me, one well-designed study that proves screening mammography has improved ultimate survival rates? I am still waiting for their answer.

We cannot prove that screening mammography improves the ultimate survival rate. A quick look at the SEER data would suggest treatment has improved, by a decline in the death rate since 1998 of 1.9 percent.8 For every 1,000 women in this country, today 125 will ultimately be diagnosed with breast cancer. Of those 125, over 40 will be over-diagnosed, and receive treatment they never needed, and suffer the potential psychological consequences of a cancer diagnosis. That leaves about 80, of which 28 will die of breast cancer. The decline since 1998 in the death rate means that for our 28 women who would have otherwise died from breast cancer, 2 more out of 1000 women diagnosed with breast cancer survived due to over a decade of treatment advances.

But, we really don’t know what actually saved those 2 women, of the 125 diagnosed with breast cancer for every 1,000 women in our group. If we attribute anything to lifestyle changes we have emphasized recently (which has been shown repeatedly to work), then either we wipe out any improved survival rate from decades of treatment advances, or worse, we cause death to some of those 40 women who were over-diagnosed!

If You Have Dense Breasts it is Even Worse

Breast density laws have now been passed in California,9 Connecticut, New York, Virginia and Texas making it mandatory for radiologists to inform their patients, who have dense breast tissue (40 to 50 percent of women) that mammograms are basically useless for them. Dense breast tissue and cancer both appear white on an X-ray, making it nearly impossible for a radiologist to detect cancer in these women. It’s like trying to find a snowflake in a blizzard. A law is now being considered at a Federal level as well.

Some radiologists already provide density information to their patients, and encourage them to utilize other options like thermography, ultrasound and/or MRI. I believe it reasonable for a woman to trust that her radiologist is not withholding vital density information. Unfortunately, many have kept this potentially lifesaving data from women for decades, and our government agencies have failed to protect them from this unethical practice.

I know it is extremely difficult to navigate through all of the contradicting information and study findings. It would better serve women if efforts, money and resources were utilized on educating women on cancer prevention, being that 95 percent of disease is lifestyle related. Yet 40,000 women continue to die of breast cancer each year. The only way to reduce this number is through utilizing preventative therapies.

Basic Cancer Prevention Strategies

As mentioned above, many women are completely unaware that the science backing the use of mammograms is sorely lacking, and that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them. Many also do not realize that the “new and improved” 3D tomosynthesis mammogram actually delivers even MORE ionizing radiation than the older version. This is not a step forward…

Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on prevention.

A few simple, yet great options to assist in your efforts to avoid breast cancer are: making sure you are getting enough vitamin D, K2 and iodine; that you utilize lymphatic massage; use stress management techniques, exercise often, and balance your hormones naturally. It is also wise to eat a Mediterranean diet consisting of organic foods. Avoid processed and GMO foods; and toxic environments.

In my practice, I recommend breast thermography, even for young women to get a baseline, but also combine the imaging not only with a review of the findings, but more importantly, as a venue to educate women on breast health. It is far more effective to prevent breast cancer, than it is to wait until it is there and then treat it. We are all different so make sure you consult with your doctor and do your own research before utilizing any of these suggestions.

The advice I give all of my patients is to be your own health advocate, do your own research and always ask questions before agreeing to any therapy or treatment, screening and/or procedure.

About the Author:

Dr. Johnnie Ham, MD, former Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army Medical Corps, is the Medical Director of Coastal Prestige Medical Services, Pismo Beach, CA. Coastal Prestige Physicians offer top-notch comprehensive healthcare, with an emphasis on evidence-based primary care and preventive health for all ages.


Protect the Hawaiian Islands. Take Action and Support Bill 2491 TODAY!

July 30, 2013
Kilauea Lighthouse

Lighthouse on the Island of Kauai

Below is an urgent call to action by the good folks at Food Democracy Now! regarding the unprecedented “Right to Know” Bill 2491 that will prohibit open air testing of experimental pesticides and experimental GMO’s while publicly disclosing pesticide use on the Hawaiian islands.   Please watch the quick video from international surfing champion Kelly Slater who says it simply and clearly.

What is happening in Hawaii needs to be addressed immediately.  I have lived on Kauai, my daughter was born there, and I am considering a  second medical office on the island. Clearly there is a great need there for purification…too much of a need!  Kauai is a beautiful place that, like all of the Hawaiian islands, serves as a glaring reminder of the importance of respecting and living in harmony with nature.  Nature freely shares its  vibrant colors, nourishing foods and healing capabilities. It has sustained us since the beginning of time, and has the ability to nourish all, yet is being abused in many, many inhumane ways.  The island and its children should not be used as a testbed for toxic chemicals that taint the air and water supply.

Please read below and take action today.

In health,

Dr. Gina

___

You may have spent your honeymoon or a childhood vacation in Hawaii, or just dreamed of someday walking on the islands’ beautiful beaches, but chances are, whatever your experience of Hawaii, it likely doesn’t include the harsh reality of it being the agri-chemical testing ground that it’s become in recent years.

Right now a major battle is heating up on the islands regarding pesticides and experimental GMOs that could impact our collective future and we need your help.

In the past four months, GMO activists in Hawaii have held the largest protests and marches to stop Monsanto in the history of the islands. While widely known as a beloved tourist destination to millions of vacationers worldwide, in reality Hawaii has a dark side that Monsanto and the giant chemical and biotech companies don’t want you to know about.

For over 20 years, the Hawaiian Islands have become ground zero for open air field trials of the biotech industry’s toxic chemicals and experimental GMO crops. Tests have shown that the biotech industry’s harmful chemicals are contaminating local air and water sources that expose island residents and vacationers alike.

Even worse, at least 10 schools on Hawaii are only 100 yards away from GMO chemical fields, potentially endangering Hawaii’s school children’s health for the sake of profits for the chemical and biotech companies.

But the Hawaiian people have had enough and want the right to know if they and their children are being exposed to toxic pesticides.

This Wednesday, July 31, a public hearing is being held by the Kauai City Council regarding a common sense “Right to Know” bill – Bill 2491 – that puts public health ahead of biotech profits by limiting Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs). It prohibits open air testing of experimental pesticides and experimental GMO’s while publicly disclosing pesticide use on the islands. This bill is unprecedented and necessary but needs your help to pass.

Tell the leaders of Hawaii it’s time to stop poisoning paradise and start protecting the islands’ biodiversity, its people and tourists or you’ll take your next vacation elsewhere! As long as they poison paradise, you’re boycotting Hawaii for good! Every voice counts!

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/998?t=7&akid=927.442904.VTJgsM

Each year, tourists spend more than $14 billion on Hawaii’s islands to experience the paradise of sandy beaches and soak in the sun, not the chemical and biotech industry’s toxic pesticides and experimental GMO pollen. Last year, more than 8 million tourists visited the tropical paradise that employs more than 167,000 island residents who make a living supporting tourism.

Currently citizens of Kauai have no legal right to know what toxic chemicals are being sprayed in their communities, but passing Bill 2491 could change that.

Toxic Pesticide Drift Impacts Local Schools and Children

Tests have confirmed that at least 3 Restricted Use Pesticides contaminated a local school on the Garden Island of Kauai, such as the toxic herbicide Atrazine, which has been banned in Europe since 2004 due to serious health problems, including cancer, birth defects and reproductive issues.

In 2005, Atrazine, manufactured by Syngenta, was found in Kauai’s drinking water and in 2006 and 2008 children and teachers at a school in Waimea were sickened on several occasions, including one incident where at least 10 children were rushed to the local hospital.

This doesn’t sound like the island paradise that is promoted by the Hawaiian tourism industry, does it?

Yes on Bill 2491 – A Reasonable Public Disclosure Bill About Pesticides and GMOs!

Bill 2491 specifically applies only to large industrial agricultural operations that use large amounts of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP’s). 99% of these very toxic substances are used by just 5 companies on Kauai – Syngenta, BASF, Pioneer DuPont and Dow, who occupy nearly all of the leased agricultural lands in west Kauai – over 15,000 acres in close proximity to schools, residences, churches, and hospitals.

According to University of Hawaii Professor Dr. Hector Valenzuela, every year, giant biotech chemical corporations spray at least 99 different pesticides on Hawaii.  On Kauai, they dump over 36,000 pounds of 22 different types of Restricted Use Pesticides and an additional estimated 160,000 pounds of General Use Pesticides (glyphosate, Round Up and other).

Tell the leaders of Hawaii as long as they poison paradise, you’re boycotting Hawaii for good! Every voice counts!

What happens in Hawaii, doesn’t stay in Hawaii! Please use your voice today to tell Hawaii’s leaders that you’re paying attention and expect them to support the people, not Monsanto and Syngenta!

Surfing Legend Kelly Slater on The Current Threat to Hawaii

For more about what’s going on in the Hawaiian Islands and why they need to be protected, take a look at this short film with surfing legend and 11 time ASP surfing champion Kelly Slater,

Thanks for participating in food democracy,

Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team

To follow the ongoing efforts to stop experimental pesticides and GMOs and the battle to save Hawaii, visit Hawaii GMO Justice Coalition and Food Democracy Now! on Facebook.

PS * If you live on Kauai, the public hearing is on Bill 2491. Please show your support by attending this important hearing.

Because of the intense public debate that has taken place in the past year in Hawaii, public officials are expecting record attendance. As a result, the location of the public hearing has been moved from its original venue.

When: 1:30pm -Wednesday, July 31, 2013 (arrive early)

Where: Kauai Veterans Center, 3215 Kapule Highway in Lihue facility

Sources:

1. “Attorney: Pesticides at WCMS Violates Federal Law”, The Garden Island, July 14, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1000?t=15&akid=927.442904.VTJgsM

2. “The Truth About Bill 2491 Relating to Pesticides and Genetically Modified Organisms”, Gary Hoosier’s Blog, July 20, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1001?t=17&akid=927.442904.VTJgsM

3. “GMO Debate: Kauai’s Struggle for Health and the Environment”, Honolulu Civil Beat, July 17, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1002?t=19&akid=927.442904.VTJgsM

4. “GMO & Pesticide Experiments in Hawaii: The Poisoning of Paradise”, Huffington Post, July 2, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1003?t=21&akid=927.442904.VTJgsM

5. “GMO & Pesticide Experiments in Hawaii: Part 2, Kauai’s Right to Know”, Huffington Post, July 25, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1004?t=23&akid=927.442904.VTJgsM


A Pharmacist’s Perspective on Drug-Nutrient Interactions and the Value of Nutritional Medicine

January 30, 2012

An interesting commentary below…by a registered pharmacist, released through the Orthomolecular News Service, about the importance of including nutrient deficiencies in the mix, when considering pharmaceutical medications for the prevention or treatment of disease.

In health,

-Dr. G

___

Confessions of a Frustrated Pharmacist

by Stuart Lindsey, PharmD.

I’m a registered pharmacist. I am having a difficult time with my job. I sell people drugs that are supposed to correct their various health complaints. Some medicines work like they’re supposed to, but many don’t. Some categories of drugs work better than others. My concern is that the outcomes of treatment I observe are so unpredictable that I would often call the entire treatment a failure in too many situations.

How It Started

In 1993, I graduated with a BS in Pharmaceutical Sciences from University of New Mexico. I became pharmacy manager for a small independent neighborhood drug store. Starting in the year 2000, nutrition became an integral part of our business. The anecdotal feedback from the customers who started vitamin regimens was phenomenal. That same year, my PharmD clinical rotations began with my propensity for nutritional alternatives firmly in place in my mind. On the second day of my adult medicine rotation, my preceptor at a nearby hospital informed me that he had every intention of beating this vitamin stuff out of me. I informed him that probably wouldn’t happen. Three weeks later I was terminated from my rotations. The preceptor told my supervisor at UNM that there were acute intellectual differences that couldn’t be accommodated in their program. What had I done? I was pressuring my preceptor to read an article written by an MD at a hospital in Washington state that showed if a person comes into the emergency room with a yet to be diagnosed problem and is given a 3,000-4,000 mg bolus of vitamin C, that person’s chance of dying over the next ten days in ICU dropped by 57%! [1]

One would think that someone who is an active part of the emergency room staff might find that an interesting statistic. His solution to my attempting to force him to read that article was having me removed from the program.

Pecking Order

The traditional role of the pharmacist in mainstream medicine is subordinate to the doctor. The doctor is responsible for most of the information that is received from and given to the patient. The pharmacist’s responsibility is to reinforce the doctor’s directions. The doctor and the pharmacist both want to have a positive treatment outcome, but there is a legally defined ‘standard of care’ looking over their shoulder.

The training that I received to become a PharmD motivated me to become more interested in these treatment outcomes. After refilling a patient’s prescriptions a few times, it becomes obvious that the expected positive outcomes often simply don’t happen. It’s easy to take the low road and blame it on “poor compliance by the patient.” I’m sure this can explain some treatment failure outcomes, but not all. Many (indeed most) drugs such as blood pressure regulators can require several adjustments of dose or combination with alternative medicines before a positive outcome is obtained.

Wrong Drug; Wrong Disease

One drug misadventure is turning drugs that were originally designed for a rare (0.3% of the population) condition called Zollinger-Ellison syndrome into big pharma’s treatment for occasional indigestion. These drugs are called proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). [2] After prolonged exposure to PPIs, the body’s true issues of achlorhydria start to surface. [3]

These drugs are likely to cause magnesium deficiency, among other problems. Even the FDA thinks their long-term use is unwise. [4]

The original instructions for these drugs were for a maximum use of six weeks . . . until somebody in marketing figured out people could be on the drugs for years. Drug usage gets even more complicated when you understand excessive use of antibiotics could be the cause of the initial indigestion complaints. What you get from inserting proton pump inhibitors into this situation is a gastrointestinal nightmare. A better course of medicine in this type of case might well be a bottle of probiotic supplements (or yogurt) and a few quarts of aloe-vera juice.

Many doctors are recognizing there are problems with overusing PPI’s, but many still don’t get it. An example of this is my school in NM had a lot of students going onto a nearby-impoverished area for rotations. They have blue laws in this area with no alcohol sales on Sunday. The students saw the pattern of the patients going into the clinics on Monday after abusing solvents, even gasoline vapors, and having the doctors put them on omeprazole (eg. Prilosec), long term, because their stomachs are upset. This is medicine in the real world.

Reliability or Bias?

Mainstream medicine and pharmacy instill into their practitioners from the beginning to be careful about where you get your information. Medical journals boast of their peer review process. When you discuss with other health professionals, invariably they will ask from which medical journal did you get your information. I actually took an elective course in pharmacy on how to evaluate a particular article for its truthfulness. The class was structured on a backbone of caution about making sure, as one read an article, that we understand that real truthfulness only comes from a few approved sources.

I was never comfortable with this concept. Once you realized that many of these “truthfulness bastions” actually have a hidden agenda, the whole premise of this course became suspect. One of my preceptors for my doctoral program insisted that I become familiar with a particular medical journal. If I did, she said, I would be on my way to understanding the “big picture.” When I expressed being a little skeptical of this journal, the teacher told me I could trust it as the journal was non-profit, and there were no editorial strings attached.

Weirdly enough, what had started our exchange over credibility was a warm can of a diet soft drink on the teacher’s desk. She drank the stuff all day. I was kidding around with her, and asked her if she had seen some controversial articles about the dangers of consuming quantities of aspartame. She scoffed at my conspiracy-theory laden point of view and I thought the subject was closed. The beginning of the next day, the teacher gave me an assignment: to hustle over to the medical library and make sure I read a paper she assured me would set me straight about my aspartame suspicions, while simultaneously demonstrating the value of getting my information from a nonprofit medical journal. It turned out that the article she wanted me to read, in the “nonprofit medical journal,” was funded in its entirety by the Drug Manufacturers Association.

Flashy Pharma Ads

As I read the literature, I discovered that there is very decided barrier between two blocks of information: substances that can be patented vs. those substances that can’t be. The can-be-patented group gets a professional discussion in eye-pleasing, four-color-print, art-like magazines. This attention to aesthetics tricks some people into interpreting, from the flashy presentation method, that the information is intrinsically truthful.

The world’s drug manufacturers do an incredibly good job using all kinds of media penetration to get the word out about their products. The drug industry’s audience used to be confined to readers of medical journals and trade publications. Then, in 1997, direct-to-consumer marketing was made legal. [5]

Personally, I don’t think this kind of presentation should be allowed. I have doctor friends that say they frequently have patients that self-diagnose from TV commercials and demand the doctor write them a prescription for the advertised product. The patients then threaten the doctor, if s/he refuses their request, that they will change doctors to get the medication. One of my doctor friends says he feels like a trained seal.

Negative Reporting on Vitamins

A vitamin article usually doesn’t get the same glossy presentation. Frequently, questionable vitamin research will be published and get blown out of proportion. A prime example of this was the clamor in the press in 2008 that vitamin E somehow caused lung cancer. [6]

I studied this 2008 experiment [7] and found glaring errors in its execution. These errors were so obvious that the experiment shouldn’t have gotten any attention, yet this article ended up virtually everywhere. Anti-vitamin spin requires this kind of research to be widely disseminated to show how “ineffectual” and even “dangerous” vitamins are. I tracked down one of the article’s original authors and questioned him about the failure to define what kind of vitamin E had been studied. A simple literature hunt shows considerable difference between natural and synthetic vitamin E. This is an important distinction because most of the negative articles and subsequent treatment failures have used the synthetic form for the experiment, often because it is cheap. Natural vitamin E with mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols costs two or three times more than the synthetic form.

Before I even got the question out of my mouth, the researcher started up, “I know, I know what you’re going to say.” He ended up admitting that they hadn’t even considered the vitamin E type when they did the experiment. This failure to define the vitamin E type made it impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion. I asked the researcher if he realized how much damage this highly quoted article had done to vitamin credibility. If there has been anything like a retraction, I have yet to see it.

Illness is Not Caused by Drug Deficiency

If you’ve made it this far in reading this article you have discerned that I’m sympathetic to vitamin arguments. I think most diseases are some form of malnutrition. Taking the position that nutrition is the foundation to disease doesn’t make medicine any simpler. You still have to figure out who has what and why. There are many disease states that are difficult to pin down using the “pharmaceutical solution to disease.” A drug solution is a nice idea, in theory. It makes the assumption that the cause of a disease is so well understood that a man-made chemical commonly called ‘medicine’ is administered, very efficiently solving the health problem. The reality though, is medicine doesn’t understand most health problems very well. A person with a heart rhythm disturbance is not low on digoxin. A child who is diagnosed with ADHD does not act that way because the child is low on Ritalin. By the same logic, a person with type II diabetes doesn’t have a deficit of metformin. The flaw of medicine is the concept of managing (but not curing) a particular disease state. I’m hard pressed to name any disease state that mainstream medicine is in control of.

Voltaire allegedly said, “Doctors are men who pour drugs of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, into human beings of whom they know nothing.” Maybe he overstated the problem. Maybe he didn’t.

References:

1. Free full text paper at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422648/pdf/20021200s00014p814.pdf

Also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422648/?tool=pubmed

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2777040 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1697548

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21509344 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21731913

4. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/
SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm245275.htm

5. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa070502#t=articleResults

6. Media example:
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Nutrition-Vitamins/2008/8-02-29-VitaminEMay.htm .

OMNS’ discussion at: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n18.shtml

7. Original article at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258445/?tool=pubmed or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258445/pdf/AJRCCM1775524.pdf

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

Find a Doctor

To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, Ph.D. (USA)
Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org


California, Children and Cancer

July 14, 2011


It seems that the best way to preserve constitutional freedom of choice for physicians AND for patients in our world today is through grassroots efforts that demand our right for freedom.

Here in California, we have the most oppressive and restrictive law in the nation on scientific advancement for treatment of Cancer!

Under the current law it may be a criminal offense for physicians to offer any therapy beyond Chemotherapy, Radiation and Surgery. A physician can permanently lose their license to practice medicine and if criminally convicted, will go to jail.

California Citizens for Health Freedom (CCHF), a non-profit organization, is introducing a bill in January 2012 to change the law. I serve on the Board of Directors for this organization.

The bill, available on www.Citizenshealth.org, will make safe and effective integrative treatment of cancer legal in our state. Physicians and licensed Naturopathic Doctors will be able to offer the treatment.

It will have full disclosure so patients will understand the treatment and be protected against fraud.

It will give parents and care providers’ the right to select a treatment approach from licensed medical professionals.

Under current law if parents do not agree to have their child have chemotherapy, radiation and/or surgery treatment, the government has the right to remove the child from your home!

Healthcare professionals, corporate friends, and family…if you have been affected by cancer in any way, and/or feel passionate about the freedom to chose the care you or your loved one or your patient receives, please contact us  at frontdesk@healthbridgehealing.com to support the efforts of CCHF.  Please put “California Cancer Bill” in the subject heading. As a board member I have agreed to help raise 50K for CCHF to ease the pressure of passing this bill. Please help me in raising these necessary funds to take back your freedom of choice.

Corporate and individual support will be generously reciprocated with a logo (if desired) and website presence on the CCHF website citizenshealth.org.

We are also seeking greater legislative support for this bill. For more information please contact Frank Cuny at the California Citizens for Health Freedom at 530-534-9758.

Thank you for taking action to support freedom of choice in healthcare, for Californians, doctors and their patients.

Respectfully,

Dr. G


Support Your Freedom of Choice in Cancer Care

July 4, 2011

Dear Friends, Patients, Colleagues and Family,

Happy Fourth of July!!!

On this day that we celebrate freedom, I urge you to please support the right of doctors and consumers to have access to ALL available cancer therapies that work to heal the body and improve quality of life.

In support and honor of the tireless work of the California Citizens for Health Freedom (I know this to be true, firsthand, as a Past President and long time Board Member of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association and as a current Board Member of CCHF) to gain access to cancer therapies for all doctors and their patients, beyond the standard trio of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.  I have personally donated $600 today, with a commitment of $25 per month so that the California Cancer Bill crafted by CCHF will become law.

Blessings of peace and continued freedom in healthcare for all,

-Dr. G

P.S. Please donate to the California Citizens for Health Freedom (CCHF) now, to support freedom of choice in healthcare & cancer care today!


%d bloggers like this: