Fwd: DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWS (Vol. 3, No 24) November 5, 2003

[Guest guest]

" Andrew W. Saul "

DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWS (Vol. 3, No 24) November 5, 2003

Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:25:36 -0400

 

 

To for free: news- )

 

" Vitamins characteristically prevent what they relieve. " (Evan Shute, M.D.)

 

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 3, No 24) November 5, 2003

 

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

 

Written and copyright 2003 by Andrew Saul, PhD, of

http://www.doctoryourself.com, an online library of over 350 natural healing

articles with nearly 4,000 scientific references. Commercial use of the

website or the contents of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited.

 

AT LAST: YOU CAN NOW ORDER MY NEW BOOK, " DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing

that Works "

 

And getting your copy directly from me means you also get it autographed. I

am pleased to add that this large book costs only $19.95, plus shipping.

Please go to http://www.doctoryourself.com/order.html for information.

 

CAN SUPPLEMENTS TAKE THE PLACE OF A BAD DIET?

 

They'd better.

 

In spite of decades of intense and well-funded mass education, " 70 percent

of all adults and children in the U.S. do not eat the recommended five to

nine servings of fruits and vegetables a day for good health, " according to

an April 25, 2002 press release by the National Cancer Institute. (1) And

when a " serving " of fruit may be a 6-ounce glass of juice and a " serving " of

a vegetable is a mere half-cup of beans, it really makes you think.

 

Since at least half of all Americans take vitamin supplements every day, one

might be tempted to say that, to a considerable degree, the people have

already answered this article's title's question. The public now, finally,

has the support of orthodox medicine. After years of disparaging

supplements, the Journal of the American Medical Association has recently

published the recommendation that every person take a multivitamin daily

(2,3), saying that " (S)uboptimal intake of some vitamins, above levels

causing classic vitamin deficiency, is a risk factor for chronic diseases

and common in the general population, especially the elderly. " Therefore,

JAMA's intent goes beyond routine nutritional insurance for widespread

bad-to-borderline diets. The goal is stated in the article's title: Vitamins

for chronic disease prevention in adults. It is a sensible idea whose time

should have come generations ago.

 

Supplementation's harshest critics have traditionally railed against

vitamins (especially in large doses) as being outright " dangerous " and at

the very least " a waste of money. " Even as late as this year, the New York

Times (4) expanded the attack to question folic acid supplementation and

even the practice of taking a daily multivitamin, saying, " vitamin

supplements cannot correct for a poor diet (and that) multivitamins have not

been shown to prevent any disease. "

 

The NY Times may have neglected to emphasize the real story: people eat

terribly.

 

Though eating less fat, more Westerners are more obese than ever before, and

in the United States, an astounding 80% of persons over the age of 25 are

overweight. Nearly two-thirds of all Americans (more than 120 million

people) are overweight or obese, according to the 1999-2000 National Health

and Nutrition Examination. (5) Protein and sugar intake is still

astronomically high and fruit and vegetable consumption is still

ridiculously low.

 

While vitamin supplements do not produce weight loss, persons trying to lose

weight face a nutritional adequacy problem of their own. Approximately 50

million Americans admit to being " on a diet " at any given time. Virtually

all popular unsupplemented weight loss plans are nutrient deficient. For

many, eating less food means eating fewer food-source vitamins. Taking

supplements can be seen as especially important for all people that are

dieting.

 

Dieticians have set themselves the heroic but probably unattainable goal of

getting every person to eat well every day. Even if obtained, such vitamin

intake as good diet provides is inadequate to maintain optimum health for

everyday people in real-life situations. Tens of millions of women have a

special concern. Oral contraceptives lower serum levels of B-vitamins,

especially B-6, plus niacin (B-3), thiamin (B-1), riboflavin (B-2), folic

acid, vitamin C and B-12. (6). Ladies, when is the last time your physician

instructed you to be sure to take supplemental vitamin C and B-complex

vitamins as long as you are on the Pill?

 

Furthermore, government vitamin recommendations are so low as to resemble a

test so easy, a standard so minimal, that you would think no one can

possibly fail. For example, the US Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for vitamin

E is 30 International Units. It is widely appreciated that at least 100 IU

of vitamin E (and probably 400 IU or more) daily is required to prevent a

great deal of cardiovascular and other disease. Yet it is literally

impossible to obtain 100 IU of vitamin E from even the most perfectly

planned diet.

 

To demonstrate this, I've challenged my nutrition students to create a few

days of " balanced " meals, using the food composition tables in any nutrition

textbook, to achieve 100 IU of vitamin E per day. They could attempt their

objective with any combination of foods and any plausible number of portions

of each food. The only limitation was that they had to design meals that a

person would actually be willing to eat. As this ruled out prescribing whole

grains by the pound and vegetable oils by the cup, they could not do it. Nor

can the general public. Most people do not even get 30 IU of vitamin E a

day. In fact, most get only 17 IU. (7)

 

" Supplements " by definition are designed to fill nutritional gaps in a bad

diet. They fill in what may be surprisingly large gaps in a good diet as

well. In the case of vitamin E, doing so is likely to save millions of

lives. The New England Journal of Medicine had two articles in the May 20,

1993 issue (8,9) showing that persons taking vitamin E supplements had an

approximately 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease. Nearly 40,000 men and

87,000 women took part in the studies. The more vitamin E they took, and the

longer they took it, the less cardiovascular disease they experienced.

 

A 1996 double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 2,002 patients with clogged

arteries demonstrated a 77% decreased risk of heart attack in those taking

400 to 800 IU of vitamin E. (10) Again, such effective quantities of vitamin

E positively cannot be obtained from diet alone. 800 IU is 2,667% of the US

RDI for vitamin E. Is that a lot, or is the government recommendation too

low?

 

Even a modest quantity of vitamin C prevents disease and saves lives. Just

500 mg daily results in a 42 percent lower risk of death from heart disease

and a 35 percent lower risk of death from any cause. (11) Since two-thirds

of the population is not eating sufficient fruits and vegetables, the only

way to close the gap is with vitamin supplements.

 

To illustrate how extraordinarily important supplements are to persons with

a questionable diet, consider this: Children who eat hot dogs once a week

double their risk of a brain tumor. Kids eating more than twelve hot dogs a

month (that's barely three hot dogs a week) have nearly ten times the risk

of leukemia as children who ate none. (12) However, hot-dog eating children

taking supplemental vitamins were shown to have a reduced risk of cancer.

(13) It is curious that, while theorizing many " potential " dangers of

vitamins, the media often choose to ignore the very real cancer-prevention

benefits of supplementation.

 

Critics also fail to point out how economical supplements are. For

low-income households, taking a two-cent vitamin C tablet and a three-cent

multivitamin, readily obtainable from any Wal-Mart or discount store, is

vastly cheaper than getting those vitamins by eating right. The

uncomfortable truth is that it is often less expensive to supplement than to

buy nutritious food, especially out-of-season fresh produce. And those who

wish to follow Linus Pauling's perennially wise recommendation to take daily

multi-gram doses of vitamin C can do so easily and cheaply. Few people can

afford to eat several dozen oranges a day.

 

Since the ancient Egyptians, through the time of Hippocrates, and right up

to the present, poor diet has been described and decried by physicians.

Little has changed for the better, and much has changed for the worse.

Though nutritionists place a nearly Puritanical emphasis on food selection

as our vitamin source, everyone else eats because they are hungry, because

it makes them feel better, and because it gives such hedonistic pleasure. No

one likes the " food police. " Telling people what they should do is rarely an

unqualified success, and with something as intensely personal as food, well,

good luck. We could, of course, legislate Good Food Laws and make it against

the law to make, sell, or eat junk. That is as likely to work as

Prohibition. It presents me with novel images of seven-year-olds bootlegging

Kool-Aid and their parents running Twinkies across state lines.

 

Our somewhat less draconian choice of " noble experiment " has been to

educate, to implore, and to exhort the citizenry to be " choosy chewers, " to

" eat a balanced diet " and follow the food groups charts. The result? Obesity

is more prevalent and cancer is no less prevalent. Cardiovascular disease is

still the number one killer of men and women. " Health is the fastest growing

failing business in western civilization, " writes Emanuel Cheraskin, M.D.,

in Human Health and Homeostasis. (14) " We can say with reasonable certainty

that only about six percent of the adult population can qualify as

'clinically' healthy. " (p 9) We can try to sort out each of the many

negative behavior variables (such as smoking) which certainly must be

factored in. When we have done so, we are left with the completely

unavoidable conclusion that our dinner tables are killing us.

 

The good diet vs. supplement controversy may be reduced to four logical

choices:

 

a) Shall we eat right and take supplements and be healthy?

 

b) Or, shall we can eat eight and take no supplements, be vitamin E and C

deficient for our entire lifespan, and greatly increase our risk of sickness

and death at any age?

 

c) Or, shall we can eat wrong and take no supplements, and be even worse

off?

 

d) Or, shall we can eat wrong, but take daily vitamin supplements, and be a

lot less sickly than if we did not take supplements?

 

While each of these four options constitutes a popular choice, there is one

best health-promoting conclusion: Supplements make any dietary lifestyle,

whether good or bad, significantly better. Supplements are an easy,

practical entry-level better-nutrition solution for the public. A

television-educated populace is more likely to take some tablets than to eat

organ meats, wheat germ, bean sprouts and ample vegetables. Media

supplement-scare-stories notwithstanding, taking supplements is not the

problem; it is a solution. Malnutrition is the problem.

 

In 1998, the American Association of Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure

Surveillance System reported the following fatalities from vitamin

supplements:

 

Adult multiple vitamins: 0

 

Pediatric multiple vitamins: 0

 

(And, incidentally, there were no deaths from vitamin C, vitamin E, folic

acid, nor from any other vitamin whatsoever.) (15)

 

On the other hand, according to David DeRose, M.D., M.P.H., " 300,000

Americans die annually from poor nutrition choices. " (16)

 

As it has been for thousands of years of human history, so the malnutrition

problem remains with us today. Only in the last century have supplements

even been available. Their continued use represents a true public health

breakthrough on a par with clean drinking water and sanitary sewers, and can

be expected to save as many lives. But as long as USDA Food Stamps may be

used to buy a box of doughnuts, but are not allowed by law to be used to buy

multivitamins, there is a task in front of us. Vitamin supplements, like air

bags, can save lives. We should advocate them without ceasing.

 

(Reprinted with permission from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine,

2003; Vol. 18, Numbers 3 and 4, p. 213-216. All 16 references for this

article are posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/replace.htm.)

 

TAKE THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR DOCTOR AND THE NEWS MEDIA

 

The effectiveness and especially the safety of vitamin supplements has been

set out once and for all in a special issue of the Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine. The combined Third/Fourth Quarter issue (Vol 18, Numbers 3 & 4)

contains a dozen, highly detailed and thoroughly referenced papers which

show the exceptional safety and therapeutic power of vitamins A, niacin,

B-6, B-12, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin D, and vitamin E. This special

Journal issue, which is over 100 pages in length, will solidly refute any

person's " vitamins may be harmful " pitch. I urge readers to obtain a copy,

entitled " The Safety and Efficacy of Vitamins. " It is available from JOM for

US $25, postage included to the USA ($US 35.00 overseas). It is money very

well spent.

 

The address to order from is:

 

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

 

16 Florence Ave.

 

Toronto, Ontario CANADA

 

M2N 1E9

 

(A reminder for USA readers: your order letter to Canada will need a stamp

for 60 cents.)

 

The Journal's email is centre and their website is

http://www.orthomed.org.

 

 

" BREAST CANCER Victims More Likely to Die if They Smoke: Women who smoke are

2.5 times more likely to die from their breast cancer, " says a press release

by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Oct. 2,

2003. I do not doubt that for a minute. And probably one of the key reasons

that smokers die sooner is that smoking steals vitamin C from the body.

 

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/mccormick.html)

 

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/mccormick1951.html)

 

HOW TO STOP SMOKING

 

Vitamin C sprayed into the mouth during cigarette smoking gradually reduces

the craving to smoke. Food consumption also declines, as do hunger cravings.

By the end of one study, smoking behavior was either reduced or stopped

completely. This unusual example of vitamin C's versatility was published in

Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1993:337, p 211-213.

 

Isn't it a wonder that we have never been told about THIS particular bit of

research?

 

YOUR NEXT QUESTION:

 

" Where can I buy vitamin C spray? "

 

Beats me. Plus, I think you are better off making your own, fresh, every

day. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) powder is cheap. You can probably find a

sprayer at the dollar store. Mix as much of the crystalline vitamin C as

will dissolve in a couple of ounces of water and spray the back of your

throat every time you want a cigarette. This not only helps you stop

smoking; it also helps control hunger cravings and reduce that old

nicotine-withdrawal weight gain syndrome. (That reference once again: Drug

and Alcohol Dependence, 1993:337, p 211-213)

 

PROPOSED ANTI-SUPPLEMENT LAW IS WRONG

 

by attorney Robert K. Baker

 

RKB

 

Senate Bill 722 is bad law. It gives those who would prescribe dietary

supplements a choice: Do you want to be destroyed by unnecessarily

burdensome regulatory requirements; or destroyed by arbitrary enforcement

proceedings. Either way, the net effect will be to cripple the most

promising trends in modern medicine and deprive tens of millions of

Americans of the right to choose a demonstrably beneficial treatment.

 

As S 722 is written (full text at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/limitUSA.htm), if a patient is prescribed a

combination of vitamin B supplements or antioxidants, and shortly thereafter

develops a hangnail, the physician, compounding pharmacy, and hospital are

each required to make a written record of the incident, investigate it

further, and then file a report with the FDA.

 

Note well, there is no requirement that there be any evidence the " Adverse

Dietary Supplement Experience " is related to the supplement. Equally

oppressive, there is no requirement that the " Adverse Dietary Supplement

Experience " be of any consequence. The choice of the term " Adverse Dietary

Supplement Experience " to describe an event that has no necessary

relationship to supplements, and has no requirement the consequences of the

experience be significantly harmful, speaks volumes about the agenda of the

drafters of this legislation.

 

Patients often see doctors because they are not well. Supplements are

prescribed for some patients. In life, patients sometimes get worse before

they get better. As defined in the statute, every such patient has had an

" Adverse Dietary Supplement Experience. " A file must be opened, an

investigation conducted, and a report must be filed each time this happens.

 

On the other hand, a careful reading of the Bill informs that some of its

objectives will appeal to legislators. " Consumer protection " is a positive

in the minds of most politicians. In politics, appearances count. The

co-sponsors are not generally considered to be pals with the patent medicine

companies: Senators Durbin, Clinton, Schumer, and Feinstein.

 

It might be beneficial to require manufacturers to report information that

comes to their attention, regardless of how reliable, that one of their

products may have resulted in death, created a life threatening condition,

caused a significant disability, or may have a potential for harm to

pregnant women. Standing alone, it is difficult to oppose such a reporting

requirement. Similarly, increased reporting on effects of stimulants may

merit careful consideration. Certainly recent experience has created some

legitimate concern about the relatively greater potential of stimulants for

abuse.

 

S. 722 goes far beyond these arguably reasonable goals, and it is for these

reasons that the motives of its supporters should be inherently suspect. If

there is no legitimate purpose for laws that facilitate abuse by a known

abuser, then the proponents should be required to defend the proposed law in

a public forum.

 

Mobilizing opposition to defeat the legislation may be useful. Having a Plan

B, however, is worthy of consideration. Plan B might be to force

comprehensive hearings. Hearings would provide an informed basis for

eliminating those ambiguities and limiting the scope of the Bill to what is

necessary to protect the public interest. (Editor's note: Or, make the

Senate pass S. 1538 instead, introduced by Senators Tom Harkin and Orrin

Hatch, which is an excellent alternative to the draconian S. 722. More on

this at http://www.doctoryourself.com/limitUSA.htm.)

 

FDA'S ANTI-SUPPLEMENT BIAS

 

If the FDA were in fact an independent regulatory agency whose enforcement

practices were guided by Neutral Principals, the legislation might not be as

dangerous to the publics' health. The FDA has repeatedly demonstrated it is

not such an agency.

 

Guided by " Neutral Principles " means that the FDA would not arbitrarily use

its enforcement discretion to favor one approach over another. It would not

exploit ambiguities in the legislation to snare unwary health care providers

of whom it disapproves. It would not promote legislation clearly designed to

create an atmosphere of fear. More bluntly, Neutral Principles would bar the

FDA from seeking to undermine Natural Medicine for the benefit of the patent

drug companies. ( " Natural Medicine " as used here to refers to any practice

of medicine that includes the use of supplements in combination with or

separately from patented drugs).

 

What are the differences in approach? The FDA, along with the AMA, the APA

and a majority of " traditional " physicians, favor the use of patented

substances - alien molecules - over those molecules that are identical to

those naturally found in the human body. For traditionalists, the only

proper " medicine " is that which treats symptoms of conditions resulting from

identifiable pathologies with patented medicines. Often without regard to

their day to day functioning, relatively symptom free patients are

pronounced " cured. " This view, in its common form, devalues a comprehensive

individual diagnosis and treatment approach that focuses on minimizing the

likelihood pathogens or imbalances will take hold and cause harm. If the

pathology has already taken hold, Natural Medicine, often in combination

with traditional medicine, seeks to improve the body's natural defenses to

the illness.

 

" FDA Medicine " means if it is in the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR), it is

good medicine, and if it is not in the PDR, it is bad medicine. Some

believers in FDA Medicine, including politicians, honestly believe in the

correctness of their view. No opportunity to educate them in a public forum

should be ignored. This may be such an opportunity.

 

Hearings are a necessity because it is important the legislators have a

clear understanding of the reality to which these new FDA powers will be

applied. Only with such an understanding can their probable effects on the

public's health be fairly assessed. It is the Senate's obligation to make an

informed assessment. (And our obligation to compel them to do so. Ed.)

 

The FDA has, over time, viciously demonstrated its uncritical embrace of FDA

Medicine by the use of Gestapo-like tactics that impair or destroy those

whose science supports different conclusions. This history of hostility is

one appropriate subject of the hearings. Given the agency's history, how

much enforcement discretion is appropriate?

 

S. 722: EXPENSIVE FOR THE CONSUMER

 

Broadly speaking the FDA has two requirements for a patented medicine: First

that it does no harm, and second that it is efficacious. There are a handful

of labs that have the FDA's blessing to conduct the " does no harm " tests.

Unless we have hearings, what will be missing from the debate is the fact

that most of these labs are beholden to the patent drug companies.

Substantial sums are paid for testing patent medicines. Because of their

alien nature, the patent drug testing revenues are much greater - by a

factor of ten or more -- than any supplement testing fees are ever likely to

be. It is important for the Senate to investigate reported instances where

these labs were unwilling, at any price, to conduct the " does no harm " tests

for manufacturers of products not created by the patent medicine

brotherhood. If such tests are difficult to obtain, then by ordering such

tests, the FDA effectively bans use of the supplement.

 

Second, these tests are expensive. Because most supplements cannot be

patented - the same reason they are affordable for ordinary people - the

profit margins will not support the kind of testing and surveillance costs

paid by the patent medicine giants. This combination of lower costs and

greater cost effectiveness for some treatments, considered against the fact

supplements have a dramatically lower risk of any genuinely adverse

consequences, requires consideration of whether such costs might properly

and most efficiently be born by the government, not individual doctors,

compounding pharmacies, and hospitals.

 

Whether the quality of Americans' health care has been impaired because

there is more money to be made treating patients with alien molecules than

treating them with bio-identical molecules is another proper subject for

these hearings. Profitability of a drug has no necessary relationship to its

efficacy. It has a high correlation, however, to whether the drug will

receive the FDA's blessing, whether it will be broadly advertised, and

whether it will widely be prescribed. By restricting the use of supplements,

it is a fair inference the profitability of the patent drug business will

benefit.

 

S. 722 TRIES TO STOP ORTHOMOLECULAR PHYSICIANS

 

Perhaps most significant, for Natural Medicine health care providers, there

is no exception in S. 722 for supplements dispensed by or at the direction

of a physician. Ordinarily a doctor can prescribe any drug [but may not ship

it in interstate commerce] he chooses for the treatment of a disease or

condition unless that drug is expressly prohibited by positive law. Thus,

Viagra has been used to treat certain circulatory disorders even absent

symptoms that prompt its more popular use.

 

The procedures the government must follow to prohibit a doctor from

prescribing a patented drug for a particular use, are far more rigorous than

those the FDA would be required to follow to completely ban a supplement.

Making it easier to remove supplements from the market than it is to remove

patented drugs from the market is discriminatory. It is also an indefensible

interference with the doctor's judgment of what is in the best interest of

the patient. The substantially greater incidence of serious adverse side

effects associated with patented medicines makes it clear that good public

policy would make it easier to bar patented drugs, than to bar supplements.

In the context of this legislation, the relative risk of the two treatment

approaches would be an appropriate subject for Senate hearings.

 

Is each doctor, each compounding pharmacy, or each administering hospital

required to have a written policy for ongoing surveillance of the literature

on each " Dietary Supplement " prescribed? The burden of literature surveys

should be on the FDA, not on individual physicians, pharmacies, or

hospitals. If one thousand doctors have their name on prescriptions for the

same supplement dispensed to one thousand different patients, the

requirement for one thousand literature surveys is not regulatory, it is

punitive. Its only purpose can be to destroy entire category of health care

providers. It is a de facto attempt to regulate them out of existence. There

is no parallel requirement for traditional doctors or pharmacists who

dispense patent medicines.

 

Similarly, the word " associated " is an unfortunate choice. As noted, if a

patient is prescribed a vitamin, and a few days later has a stroke, such an

event would be " associated " with the taking of the vitamin. Broad language

may make the FDA's information gathering program more comprehensive, but the

burden is far out of proportion to any conceivable public benefit. Could the

FDA choose not to proceed in such a case? Yes. Would it? Depends! Whether

the FDA commences an enforcement proceeding may well turn on whether the

health care provider has gotten crossways with the FDA. Has the Target been

annoying? Is it good public policy to place health care providers in this

legal no man's land? Does it engender respect for law? Does it serve the

public interest? Does it make any contribution to a healthier America? The

answer to each of these questions is " of course not. " They need to be asked.

 

Perhaps most serious, placing the bar for supplements above that for

patented drugs is likely to inhibit physicians from prescribing any

treatment that could be claimed by the FDA to involve a " Dietary

Supplement. " The result is likely to be greater riches for the patented drug

businesses, longer recovery periods, longer hospital stays, more pathology,

more rapid progression of degenerative conditions.

 

There is a trauma center in a major city that administers mega doses of

anti-oxidants to severely injured patients. It shall remain unnamed because

such a practice, it is feared, might create dysfunctional turmoil among the

more conventional staff. A substantial number of its trauma patients have a

longer than usual stay in the hospital as a result of the anti-oxidant

mega-doses. The reason the stay is longer is because they did not die of

massive organ failure - a common risk in such cases. The increased stay in

the hospital is as a " result of " the administration of life-saving

mega-doses of antioxidants. As such it is expressly classified by S. 722 as

a " Serious Adverse Dietary Supplemental Experience " resulting from the

ingestion of supplements. Can the hospital be required to perform extensive

and expensive studies of the anti-oxidants for the next three years? Yes.

Can it be required to have a lab perform expensive tests that demonstrate

the antioxidants do no harm, even though such doses have been given millions

of times to millions of patients with no adverse effect? Yes. Do the

requirements of the statute serve any lawful purpose in the circumstances

described? No. Might the enormous and unnecessary burden resulting from

practicing effective medicine be an incentive for the hospital to stop such

life saving procedures? Yes. If it does stop such procedures, will more

trauma patients die of organ failure? Yes. Proponents of the legislation

should be required to explain why these results are in the public interest.

 

S. 722 GOES THE WRONG WAY

 

The focus of 21st century medicine is shifting away from treating only the

symptoms of existing disease and degenerative conditions and toward

maintaining homeostasis by improving bodily functions and processes with

molecules biologically identical to those found in a healthy body. By so

doing, the objective is to improve resistance to disease and slow the aging

process - the essence of preventive medicine. There is overwhelming

scientific evidence and experience that this approach benefits patients.

 

This legislation would deny scores of Americans the benefit of the best

medical judgment of their doctors. It would take away the patient's right to

choose Natural Medicine, either as part of a comprehensive treatment plan,

or as a separate treatment. Tens of millions have, in varying degrees,

already embraced this approach. The Senate Committee needs to hear from

them. Passage of this legislation in its present form will surely retard if

not destroy what may be the last best hope for genuine health care reform

and improving the public's health at a reasonable cost.

 

(About the author: Robert Baker devoted thirty years to dealing with the

pathology of American business and public policy issues, first as Special

Assistant to then Deputy Attorney General Warren Christopher, and later in

private practice as a business litigator. Currently he is on sabbatical.)

 

WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS TODAY, AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE SENATE BILL 722!

 

Here's how: Get both your Senators' addresses (easy to do) at

http://www.congress.org (or http://congress.org/congressorg/home). You can

send an email letter to them directly from that website, but remember this:

A HANDWRITTEN, PLAIN-OLD U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 37-CENT LETTER DIRECTLY FROM

YOU **ALWAYS** HAS MORE IMPACT. When you write, be sure to **ask for a

response** from your senators. . . and please share those responses with me

at drsaul.

 

How about we start with a look at this one?

 

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS IS ANTI-VITAMIN

 

Senator John Edwards (North Carolina, mail) sent this

reply on October 17 to a Newsletter reader:

 

 

" I understand your concerns about limiting patients' access to alternative

and complementary medical therapies. Alternative medicine has worked very

well for many people, and I believe that everyone has the right to choose

their own medical treatment. However, I also think that therapies that have

not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use

may pose some risk, and it is important that patients try these therapies

under proper supervision. "

 

Senator John Edwards

United States Senate

225 Dirksen Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

 

 

Newsletter reader and letter-writer Ray Ellis' comments:

 

" Mr. Edwards seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he

says, " I believe that everyone has the right to choose their own medical

treatment. " Then he says just the opposite by writing, " However, I also

think that therapies that have not been approved by the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) for clinical use may pose some risk, and it is

important that patients try these therapies under proper supervision. If we

are to take Mr. Edwards' second quote at face value, he believes that no one

should have access to any therapy (nutritional, alternative, complementary

or otherwise) unless and until the FDA says it's okay, and even then only

" under proper supervision. "

 

Thank you for taking action. You make good points, Mr. Ellis. I hope your

Senator is listening.

 

WATER YOU'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS?

 

Found on the front label of a one-gallon jug of " Upstate Farms Distilled

Water " :

 

" See back panel for nutrition information. "

 

Didn't ANYBODY pay attention during high school chemistry?

 

 

 

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

service marks of Andrew W. Saul. All rights reserved.

 

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. (585)

638-5357.

 

Best wishes,

A. Saul

 

Contributing Editor

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

http://www.orthomed.org

 

My website: http://www.doctoryourself.com

 

(Subscriptions to my DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER by email are free for the

asking. Just send a blank email to

news- )

 

JUST RELEASED! My brand new book, DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing that

Works. " Please go to http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html for more

information.

 

(Persons interested in my previous book PAPERBACK CLINIC: A Simplified

Manual of Natural Therapeutics, may obtain it directly from me at 8 Van

Buren Street, Holley, NY 14470, USA for $34.00 postpaid in the USA; US

$40.00 to Canada, and US $55.00 airmail to all other countries. I will be

happy to autograph your copy if you so request with your order. Reviews of

this book are posted at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html )

 

 

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search