Fw: DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 3, No 21) September 20, 2003

September 4, 2003

-

" Andrew W. Saul " <drsaul

<dynewsletter

Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:40 PM

DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 3, No 21) September 20, 2003

> (To UN: dynewsletter-

> To for free: news- )

>

> " You can't have everything. Where would you put it? " (Steven Wright)

>

> The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 3, No 21) September 20, 2003

> " Free of charge, free of advertising, and free of the A.M.A. "

>

> http://www.doctoryourself.com , a free online library of over 350 natural

> healing articles with nearly 4,000 scientific references.

>

> PHARMOPHILIA: Why Do Doctors Love Drugs So Much?

> " Modern medicine " may well be defined as " the experimental study of what

> happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human

bodies. "

> Politically powerful medical quackery is nothing new. Drug-and-cut doctors

> have been ignoring nature's laws for a long time, with disastrous results.

>

> " General Washington was taken in the night (in December, 1799) with a sore

> throat. The 'bleeder' being sent for, he took from him 14 ounces of blood.

> The following morning, the family physician arrived, and proceeded to

bleed

> him copiously, twice within a few hours, and again the same evening,

giving

> him thereafter a dose of calomel (mercury). Next morning he was given

> another dose. The next day another physician was called in consultation,

and

> the result was that they took an additional 32 ounces of blood from

General

> Washington. There was no alleviation of the disease. Ten grains more of

> calomel were given, followed by a tartar emetic in large doses. To his

> extremities blisters were applied, and to his throat poultices. "

>

> " General Washington died. "

>

> (from the Pittsburgh Health Club Newsletter, July 31, 1931)

>

> Former First President George Washington, the father of our country, died

> from a sore throat? No sir: he died from the treatment. Washington had the

> best scientific medical attention of his day. And? They bled him no fewer

> than five times in three days. Let's do the grisly arithmetic. The first

> bleeding removed 14 ounces; there were then three bleedings of unspecified

> quantity, collectively described as " copious " ; and then a final full quart

> was removed. Assuming that the three " copious " bleedings were also 14

ounces

> each, that is another 42 ounces lost. Adding up, we have:

>

> 14

> 14 x 3 = 42

> 32

> 88

>

> Some 88 ounces of blood was taken from George Washington. The human body

> contains about 10 units, that is to say 10 pints (5 quarts) of blood. 88

> ounces is pretty close to 3 quarts, or nearly 6 units; that's well over

half

> the blood in a person. Some estimates place Washington's total bleeding

> closer to 8 units.

>

> It doesn't take a conspiracy, nor does it require an assassin, to kill a

> great man. Stupidity will do it just as well.

>

> " The Dark Ages of Medicine are long over, " you say? If only that were

true.

> Let's take a short hop over to Britain for some very unsettling news that

> may well bring avoidable sickness and unnecessary death to millions.

>

> MOST VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS TO BE BANNED THROUGHOUT EUROPE:

> THE EU FOOD SUPPLEMENTS DIRECTIVE

>

> by P.M. Goodwin, United Kingdom

> Email: pm.goodwin

>

> The European Union Food Supplements Directive was passed by the EU

> Parliament on 13 March 2002, and became law in the 15 EU member states on

1

> August 2003.

>

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en0051005

> 7.pdf

>

> This legislation, if unchallenged, will have the effect of banning over

300

> vitamin and mineral forms and 5000 products from the European market, by

1st

> August 2005.

>

> By 2007, if not earlier, the Food Supplements Directive will also be

applied

> to other nutrient groups such as fatty acids and amino acids, with

similarly

> devastating results. Other EU legislation currently in the pipeline, such

as

> the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the

Pharmaceuticals

> Directive (which proposes to amend the definition of a medicine) threatens

> to remove still further categories of natural health products from the

> European market.

>

> Readers of this newsletter who live outside of the EU and who think that

> this legislation bears no relevance to them should think again however.

The

> Food Supplements Directive bears a strong resemblance to legislation now

> under discussion at a global level by the Codex Alimentarius committee (a

> little known commission of the United Nations World Trade Organization).

> Indeed, many of the architects of the Directive are also members of the

> Codex committee. If the Food Supplements Directive is not stopped it will

> strongly influence the deliberations of the Codex committee, who advocate

> similar tight restrictions on the sale of supplements. The USA would then

> come under strong international pressure to implement the Codex

> recommendations because of its' having signed up to the NAFTA and GATT

> international trade agreements. All decisions emanating from the Codex

> Alimentarius Commission are directly incorporated by the World Trade

> Organization (WTO) and will ultimately overrule all current national laws.

>

> Although many US supplement companies have been led to believe that US

laws

> cannot be downgraded ( " harmonized " ) to WTO/Codex, close examination of WTO

> rules appear to make this almost inevitable; especially so considering the

> weak statutory wording of the 1997 FDA Modernization Act, which purports

to

> protect American health freedoms from harmonization to restrictive rules

> elsewhere.

>

> The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH)

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org

> is an international organization of scientists, practitioners, lawyers,

> public relations and media experts working specifically to amend European

> legislation in order to maintain the availability of innovative, safe and

> effective food supplements. While progress has been made in proposing

> amendments to the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the

> Pharmaceuticals Directive, the time for lobbying in respect of The Food

> Supplements Directive is over. The only option remaining now to eliminate

> the devastating effects of this Directive is a lawsuit. This is a costly

> process, and funds are very urgently needed. Please consider making a

> donation to the ANH legal campaign-fund at

> http://www.alliance-natural-health.org .

>

> Legal papers to challenge the directive have to be filed in London by the

> end of October, at the very latest or our window of opportunity will

close.

> The future rights of all people on this planet to buy safe and effective

> dietary supplements are now at stake, and a choice regarding whether or

not

> we are prepared to defend these rights must now be made by each and every

> one of us.

>

> HEALTH CLAIMS FOR FOODS TO BE PROHIBITED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

> by Paul Anthony Taylor, UK Health Freedom Advocate.

> Email: paulandpolly

>

> Not content with issuing the Food Supplements Directive, which intends to

> ban almost 300 nutrients and thousands of food supplement products from

the

> EU market by 1st August 2005, the European Union recently adopted a draft

> regulation on nutrition and health claims made for food. The press-release

> accompanying the draft regulations was issued on 16th July, and makes for

> some very interesting reading. See

> http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/newsletter/200307/1.htm

>

> Claiming that the regulations would " meet consumers' need for reliable

> information " and " give greater legal security to the food industry " , the

> press release also states that " European consumers have become more and

more

> interested in what they are eating and on how this may have an impact on

> their health. " Note the careful use of the word " may " . The EU are clearly

> not about to give any outright acknowledgement that poor food choices most

> certainly do damage the health of its citizens, as this might upset the

> large and powerful companies who manufacture junk-food and processed food.

>

> Pointing out that the 15 countries that make up the EU all have different

> laws governing health and nutrition claims, the press release goes on to

say

> that the European Commission has proposed to " harmonize " the rules

governing

> the use of these claims in relation to foods.

>

> For anyone unfamiliar with the workings of the EU, I should explain here

> that " harmonization " is one of the EU's favourite concepts. Indeed,

> harmonization is central to everything that the huge monolithic structure

of

> the European Union is all about. Individuality? Freedom of choice?

> Democracy? Forget it. In the EU, standards are always harmonized downwards

> to the lowest common denominator. A classic example of this occurred in

> April 2002, when the EU's Scientific Committee on Food, in its infinite

> wisdom, decided to set the " tolerable upper level " for niacin at a mere 10

> milligrams. How can that be, when the EU RDA for vitamin B3 is 18 mg? See

> for yourself at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out80j_en.pdf

>

> According to the press release, the proposed regulations will give

consumers

> a high level of protection by " prohibiting certain claims and establishing

a

> system for scientific evaluation of claims " . While stating that no food

> products will be prohibited as a consequence of the regulations (cue large

> round of applause from the junk-food lobby) the press release adds that

> claims made about foods will have to be " meaningful " and " substantiated by

> scientific evidence " . The same sort scientific evidence, presumably, that

> advocates a tolerable upper level for niacin of 10 mg.

>

> The press release then makes the truly astonishing claim that " the basic

> principle in nutrition is that there are no good foods and bad foods but

> rather good diets and bad diets. " Amazing. It also asserts that " in a

> long-term varied diet, all foods can be included " , and goes on to state

that

> because " foods bearing a claim will automatically be perceived as good

> foods. . . claims about the benefit of consuming a certain product may

lead

> consumers to eat too much of something that should only make up a small

part

> of a good diet. " And here comes the clincher: " It is therefore necessary " ,

> they say, " to restrict the use of claims on some foods based on their

> nutritional profile " . Clearly then, this legislation could be used to

> prevent, rather than allow, some nutrition and health claims being made

for

> foods, even when there is strong scientific evidence to support the use of

> such claims.

>

> Europe may not perhaps be the best place to live in future if you want to

> remain healthy. But before any North American readers start to think that

> they are safe from this sort of nonsense, consider this:

>

> On 10th July, only six days before the EU press release was unveiled, the

> FDA's Task Force on Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition

> announced " a new process to provide more science-based, FDA-regulated

> information on product labels about the health consequences of foods and

> dietary supplements " claiming that " this process will improve information

on

> dietary health benefits for consumers and will encourage product

> manufacturers to compete based on scientifically demonstrated health

> benefits of their products. " See the press release at

> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00923.html

>

> Co-incidence, or collusion?

>

> (Editor's note: We must not let the people of Great Britain and Europe get

> hung out to dry by the pharmaphilic (drug-loving) politicians. It is time

to

> step up to the plate and take a swing. Evidently, one D-Day was not enough

> to insure a free Europe. One of Winston Churchill's favorite quotations

was,

> " The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. " It is still true.

>

> For more information:

> http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news & ID=17

> http://www.iahf.com/europe/20030718a.html )

>

> SIGN THE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-FLUORIDE PETITION

> by Paul Connett, PhD

> Email: pconnett

>

> " For many months a team of scientists, who met at the International

Society

> for Fluoride Society's conference in New Zealand in January, have been

> circulating among their colleagues an appeal and petition which is calling

> upon those governments which fluoridate their water to bring some

integrity

> into their promotion of the practice.

>

> " This petition has already gathered hundreds of signatures from 38

> countries. Those signing include Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in

> Medicine in 2000, from Sweden; Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, former

> President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research; Professor

Samuel

> S. Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer; and Ted Schettler, MD, MPH,

> Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network, USA. The

> petition and list of signers can be viewed online at:

> http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm

>

> " Those wishing to add their names should send an email to

> info and put the words " Integrity Petition " as their

> subject line.

>

> 1) Please give your name (and your highest degree, if relevant);

> 2) Your affiliation for identification purposes;

> 3) Your town, state, and nation.

>

> " Also, to underscore why we are calling for integrity in the fluoridation

> debate, we have compiled articles documenting some of the more blatant

cases

> of scientific fraud and suppression in the promotion of fluoridation (e.g.

> the firing of Dr. William Marcus from the EPA, the firing of Dr. Phyllis

> Mullenix from the Forsythe Dental Institute, the altering of

recommendations

> from the Surgeon General's 1983 panel, etc). See compilation at:

> http://www.fluoridealert.org/suppression.htm .

>

> " When you read first the petition you might be disappointed that it is not

> stronger. It does not ask for an immediate halt to water fluoridation.

> However, if you read the six demands in the petition, I think you will

agree

> that if a government was to go along with any one of them it would

> completely undermine water fluoridation.

>

> 1) If any government were to truly examine the literature objectively and

> comprehensively, and applied standard toxicological procedures to their

> regulatory decision, it would have to reject fluoridation, just as it has

> been rejected by most industrialized countries.

>

> 2) If they collected the levels of fluoride in our bones it would be

> abundantly clear that a lifetime's (or even half a lifetime's)

accumulation

> of fluoride will lead to fluoride levels in many people likely to cause

> arthritic symptoms and an increased risk of hip and other fractures.

>

> 3) If they stopped using industrial grade (and toxicologically untested)

> hexafluorosilicic acid, they would find the use of pharmaceutical sodium

> fluoride cost prohibitive.

>

> 4) If they lifted the overhanging fear of reprisals from the average

> dentist, research scientist and government official, many more would

reject

> this archaic form of mass medication.

>

> 5) If they were honest about the miniscule (if any) benefits of

> fluoridation, and stopped their exaggerations, no official in his or her

> right mind would gamble with such a complex variety of health risks.

>

> 6) If the promoters were ever to come on to a public platform and defend

> this practice in an open public debate, it would be clear to all that they

> have no defense for a practice which defies common sense, medical ethics

and

> standard toxicological and regulatory procedures.

>

> In short, the promoters cannot retain both fluoridation and their

integrity.

> If we can get the academic, scientific, professional and all those who

work

> actively to protect human health to insist on integrity, fluoridation is

> doomed.

>

> (For more information, email Dr. Connett at pconnett or

> ggvideo )

>

> SCIENTISTS: INTEGRITY NEEDED ON FLUORIDE'S HEALTH RISKS

> (Media release from Fluoride Action Network, September 2, 2003)

>

> Hundreds of leading scientists and public health activists from across the

> globe issued a joint statement today, urging governments promoting

> fluoridation to " bring some integrity into the debate " and stop what those

> who organized the petition call a cover-up of the public health risks

posed

> by decades of adding fluoride to drinking water. The petition and list of

> signers is available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm . It

will

> be published in the October issue of The Ecologist.

>

> Water fluoridation was introduced in the 1950s in an attempt to reduce

> dental cavities. However, many studies now point to long-term health

> worries, including arthritis, hip fracture and accumulation in the pineal

> gland.

>

> Swedish Nobel laureate (Medicine, 2000) Dr. Arvid Carlsson was one of over

> 300 prominent individuals and organizations from 38 countries who signed

the

> international petition. " The amount of fluoride in fluoridated tap water,

> often used for mixing baby formula, is 100 times higher than the level in

> mothers' milk, " said Carlsson. " I am worried what this will do the baby's

> developing brain cells. "

>

> Harvard trained PhD chemist Albert Burgstahler, editor of the journal

> Fluoride, echoed Carlsson's concerns. " The latest work from China,

published

> earlier this year in Fluoride, indicates a lowering of IQ in children

> drinking water at less than twice the recommended fluoride level used in

> artificially fluoridated water, " said Burgstahler. " There's practically no

> margin of safety here. "

>

> In an article in the September 2003 issue of the journal Australasian

> Science, Australia's Dr. Mark Diesendorf, former professor of

environmental

> science, wrote that, " Instead of debating the issue in open scientific

> forums, promoters are trying to maintain fluoridation by political power. "

>

> Dr. Hardy Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at the University of

> Toronto and former president of the Canadian Association of Dental

Research,

> stressed that fluoride's effect occurs largely from direct contact with

the

> tooth's exterior. " The majority of dental researchers now believe there's

> little benefit in actually swallowing fluoride, " said Limeback.

>

> The petitioning group included Pat Costner, senior scientist for

Greenpeace

> International; Dr. Lynn Margulis, recipient of the 1999 US National Medal

of

> Science; the Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia; and the toxics

> campaign directors for Greenpeace in Australia, India, Japan, Norway, the

> Philippines and Thailand.

>

> Dr. Paul Connett, professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New

> York, organized the joint communique. " Health authorities in the few

> remaining fluoridating countries are hushing up key new studies that show

> the serious disruptive effects fluoride has on the body, " said Connett.

> " Unless this rift between honest science and public health policy is

mended,

> it poses a threat not just to those who are forced to drink fluoridated

> water, but to every other public health policy that relies on the public's

> trust in government. "

>

> MORE TELEVISION, FATTER CHILDREN

> " A study conducted by doctors at Tufts University Medical School and

Harvard

> School of Public Health has confirmed the observation that the more

> television a child watches, the greater the likelihood that he or she will

> develop a serious weight problem. This conclusion was based on evidence

from

> approximately 7,000 six- to eleven-year-olds and almost as many

adolescents.

> " They found that for both age groups, but particularly for adolescents,

> those who watched the most TV were significantly more obese or

" super-obese "

> than other children who spent less time watching TV. For every additional

> hour adolescents spent watching TV, the number who were obese rose 2

> percent.

> " Which comes first, obesity or TV-watching? One speculation is that

> overweight youth are more likely to become withdrawn and isolated which

may

> result in decreased physical activity and possibly more TV watching. The

> researchers, however, suggest that obesity in the children in this

> particular study occurred as a result of TV viewing, because it was

> determined that they spent about the same amount of time alone, with

> friends, and engaging in other leisure activities as normal-weight

> children. "

>

> (Tufts University Diet and Nutrition Letter, Vol. 3, No. 5, July 1985.)

>

> And in the 18 years since 1985, the number of obese and super-obese

children

> has greatly increased.

>

> So has TV watching. I have in my possession this excerpt from a syndicated

> newspaper column:

>

> " The average television viewer will watch 25,659 hours of TV " in a

ten-year

> period. " That is 1,069 days or 2.9 years. "

>

> Wow.

>

> Hey, Mom, where's the remote?

>

> EAR INFECTIONS

> This next item was sent to me 20 years ago, and it remains important:

> " The New England Journal of Medicine of February 10, 1983 reported the

> results of a three-year study of decongestant-anti-histamine combination

> drugs which doc-tors use in treating children with serious middle ear

> infections. The study showed that these combination drugs were no better

> than a placebo (dummy pill) and that they caused unpleasant side effects.

> Yet, 91 percent of the more than 1,687 ear specialists questioned believed

> these drugs were effective, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence to

> support that belief. "

> The paper's abstract says:

> " In a double-blind, randomized trial of 553 infants and children who had

> otitis media with effusion ( " secretory " otitis media), we compared the

> efficacy of a four-week course of an oral decongestant-antihistamine

> combination (pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, 4 mg per kilogram of body

weight

> per day, and chlorpheniramine maleate, 0.35 mg per kilogram per day) with

> that of placebo. Among patients with initially unilateral disease,

> resolution of middle-ear effusion occurred at four weeks in 38 per cent of

> those treated with placebo and 34 per cent of those treated with drug (P =

> 0.74). Among patients with initially bilateral disease the corresponding

> proportions were 19 and 21 per cent, respectively (P = 0.67). Side effects

> were reported more often among drug-treated than placebo-treated patients.

> Decongestant-antihistamine combinations do not appear to be indicated for

> the treatment of otitis media with effusion in infants and children. "

> (EI Cantekin, EM Mandel, CD Bluestone, HE Rockette, JL Paradise, SE Stool,

> TJ Fria, and KD Rogers. Lack of efficacy of a decongestant-antihistamine

> combination for otitis media with effusion ( " secretory " otitis media) in

> children. Results of a double-blind, randomized trial. New England Journal

> of Medicine. Vol. 308:297-301, No. 6, Feb. 10, 1983.)

>

> The good news is that ear infections can be effectively treated by

> alternative means.

> And yes, though my kids rarely got earaches, they did get them. Here is

how

> we got rid of them: http://www.doctoryourself.com/earache.html

>

> THERE'S NO SMOKING IN THEATERS; SO HOW ABOUT NO SMOKING IN MOVIES?

> by Stanton Glantz, PhD, Professor of Medicine, UCSF.

>

> " The Lancet reported data June 10 indicating that smoking depictions in

> Hollywood movies are responsible for recruiting over half of new young

> smokers. Applied to the country as a whole, this amounts to 390,000 U.S.

> teens annually; thus, on-screen tobacco promotion by major studios could

be

> responsible for killing 100,000 Americans a year - more than die from

> murder, suicide, drunk driving, illegal drugs, and AIDS combined.

>

> " Smoking has doubled in Hollywood movies over the past decade and is now

at

> the highest level since 1950. Tobacco companies claim they stopped paying

> for product placement ten years ago, and the 1998 Master Settlement

> Agreement between major tobacco firms and state Attorneys General makes

> payola a legal breach, yet studios have persisted in displaying

identifiable

> tobacco brands in the hands of stars. In 2002, the industry released more

> kid-rated movies with smoking than R-rated ones. Last year, two out of

every

> three U.S. live action films kid-rated PG or PG-13 contained smoking or

> tobacco imagery.

>

> " For authoritative background on Big Tobacco's relationship with Hollywood

> and the voluntary safeguards being urged on the movie industry,

exhibitors,

> and the video aftermarket, visit www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu. "

>

> Dalton, M.A., Sargent, J.D., et. al (2003) Effect of viewing smoking in

> movies on adolescent smoking initiation: A cohort study. The Lancet

> 362(9380):281-285.

>

> Glantz, S.A. (2003) Smoking in movies: A major problem and a real

solution.

> The Lancet 362(9380):281-285.

>

> Sargent, J.D., Dalton, M.A., et. al (2003) Modifying exposure to smoking

> depicted in movies: A novel approach to preventing adolescent smoking.

Arch.

> Pediatric Adolesc. Med. 157:643-648.

>

> THOUGHT FOR A LIFETIME

> A 159-year-old man was being interviewed on TV and was asked a predictable

> question: " How did you manage to live for so long? "

>

> He answered, " I never, ever, argue with anyone. "

>

> The interviewer did not believe this, and pressed him about it. " Surely

> there was something else that you did: lifestyle, stress reduction, diet,

or

> exercise! "

>

> The old man listened, and then said, " Maybe you're right. "

>

> Privacy Statement:

> We do not sell, and we do not share, our mailing list or your email

address

> with anyone. We never send out advertisements of any kind. You may notice

> that there is no advertising at http://doctoryourself.com and no

> advertising in this newsletter. We have no financial connection with the

> supplement industry. We do not sell vitamins or other health products,

> except for Dr. Saul's books, which help fund these free public services.

>

> FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ALL to this newsletter are available with a blank

> email to

> news-

>

> AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This newsletter is not in any way offered as

> prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity

or

> physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health

program

> necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no

one

> should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it

from

> a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision.

>

> " DOCTOR YOURSELF " " DoctorYourself.com " and " Doctor Yourself Newsletter "

are

>

> Copyright c 2003 and prior years Andrew W. Saul drsaul.

> Permission to reproduce single copies of this newsletter FOR

NON-COMMERCIAL,

> PERSONAL USE ONLY is hereby granted providing no alteration of content is

> made and authorship credit is given. Additional single copies will be sent

> by postal mail to a practitioner or patient, free of charge, upon receipt

of

> a self addressed envelope with THREE first-class stamps on it (offer good

in

> the USA only), to Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, NY 14470 USA.

>

September 4, 2003