DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 5, No. 4 for February 5, 2005)

[Guest guest]

" Andrew W. Saul " <drsaul

 

 

DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 5, No. 4 for February 5, 2005)

 

Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:38:02 -0500

 

 

 

To for free: news-

 

" The work of the doctor will, in the future, be ever more that of an

educator, and ever less that of a man who treats ailments. "

 

[Dr. Sir Thomas J. Lord Horder of Ashford (1871-1955), physician to

several

British monarchs, including Elizabeth II]

 

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 5, No. 4 for February 5, 2005)

 

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

 

Written and copyright 2005 by Andrew W. Saul of

http://www.doctoryourself.com , which welcomes over 1.5 million

visitors

annually. Commercial use of the website or the contents of this

Newsletter

is strictly prohibited.

 

IT WAS MORE OR LESS A NORMAL LECTURE until I started talking about

vitamin

C. I made routine mention that cooking destroys vitamin C. Presently, I

added that almost all animals, such as rats, make their own vitamin C.

Fully

expecting to move on, I was stopped by a student question that I

probably

should have seen coming:

 

" If rats make their own vitamin C, are rats a good source of vitamin

C? "

 

" Yes, " I answered, " If you eat your rats raw. "

 

Well, that's technically true, isn't it?

 

The student, presumably a future news anchor, then asked how much

vitamin C

is in a rat. You have to be ready for these things, you know.

 

" According to Lendon Smith, M.D., (who cites Burns JJ et al. J Biol

Chem

207:679, 1954; Salomon LL, Conney AH, et al. NY Acad Science, 92:115,

1961.

Burns JJ. Am. J. Med. 26:740, 1959.), 'If we base our needs on the

amounts

other mammals manufacture . . . it comes to 2-4 grams daily in the

unstressed condition. Under stress, 70 kg of rats make 15 grams of C.' "

 

RATS STATS

 

So we did some math. Though some are much larger, an average rat weighs

about 1/4 of a kilogram. That works out to about 53 mg of vitamin C in

a

well-stressed 9-ounce rat. According to the Journal of the American

Dietetic

Association (April, 2002), a glass of newly-purchased ready-to-drink

orange

juice provides 45 milligrams of vitamin C.

 

The frozen concentrate provides more. So does a bigger rat.

 

Of course, just because a rat makes 53 mg of vitamin C does not mean

that

all of it is in the rat at one time. A rat uses it. But then, orange

juice

loses it.

 

 

In fact, the amount of vitamin C in ready-to-drink brands of orange

juice

can fall " to zero within four weeks after opening, " says the American

Dietetic Association. " (P)revious studies have shown vitamin C

deficiencies

among U.S. adults have risen from five percent to 16 percent in the

past 20

years. . . Pasteurized, ready to serve orange juice typically contains

25

percent less vitamin C per serving than frozen concentrates, a result

in

part of heat destroying the vitamin C. "

(http://www.eatright.org/Public/Media/PublicMedia_10234.cfm)

 

Looks like you'd have to eat those rats raw.

 

All right, wait a minute.

 

I do not recommend stressing your rats. I do not recommend eating rats,

be

they raw, well-done, or otherwise.

 

But there is a message to my madness:

 

First off, Dr. Francis M. Pottenger, Jr.

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v5n1.txt) was right: animals thrive

on

raw food, and they make their own vitamin C to boot. When they are

eaten by

carnivores, they ARE raw food. Raw foods, rats included, are a good

source

of vitamin C.

 

Cooked foods aren't. Heat destroys vitamin C. Nutrition textbooks, plus

McDonald's and all the other purveyors of French fries, can now please

stop

claiming that fries provide vitamin C simply because potatoes do. By

the

time the fast-food potato is ultra-processed and dredged out of a deep

fryer's 340-degrees Fahrenheit boiling oil, the vitamin C is gone

without a

farewell kiss. Oil-less fries are cooked at even higher blast-air

temperatures of 400 to 500°F. Nuttin, honey.

 

 

The moral of the story? We humans would do well to eat our food raw

whenever

practical. Not being much of a rat-eater myself, I'd recommend lots of

salads and raw fruits and fresh, well-chewed nuts. Add to this whole

grains

and legumes (beans, peas, lentils) which you need to cook if you do not

sprout them. Scrupulously clean raw milk, if you can get it, is

excellent.

If you can't, cheese and yogurt are very close to a raw food because of

their high, beneficial microorganism count.

 

Since we do cook so much of our food, and we are under stress, and we

do get

sick, we truly need vitamin C supplementation. And though it is an

excellent

preventive, even a mostly raw diet does not provide enough ascorbate to

cure

serious illness. Therefore, I say, take vitamin C with every meal, and

between meals as well.

 

THREE PILLARS OF ASCORBATE WISDOM

 

Remember the Fire Triangle? No, it is not a Bermuda hangout for psychic

arsonists. If you ever were a Boy Scout, or went to a good wilderness

camp,

you know that to make a fire, you need three things: fuel, oxygen, and

kindling temperature. With vitamin C therapy, the magic triangle is

QUANTITY, FREQUENCY, AND DURATION.

 

In previous Newsletters, and at my website, there has been ample

discussion

about " quantity. " And " duration " is a no-brainer: take lots until you

are

well, pal. And then, of course, keep a maintenance dose going.

 

So let's talk about that third, often overlooked, and very important

leg of

the triangle: frequency.

 

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

 

Divide and conquer disease, that is. By dividing the dose ALL THROUGH

THE

DAY, our absorption of ascorbate is greatly enhanced. You can achieve

three

times higher vitamin C blood concentrations with oral-dose vitamin C

than

has generally been believed. With an " oral dose of 3 g (3,000 mg

vitamin C)

every 4 hours, pharmacokinetic modeling predicted peak plasma vitamin C

concentrations of 220 micromol/L. " (Padayatty SJ, Sun H, Wang Y,

Riordan HD,

Hewitt SM, Katz A, Wesley RA, Levine M. Vitamin C pharmacokinetics:

implications for oral and intravenous use. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr

6;140(7):533-7.) That is good.

 

Intravenous ascorbate is, of course, even better: " Peak predicted urine

concentrations of vitamin C from intravenous administration were

140-fold

higher than those from maximum oral doses. . . Only intravenous

administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine

concentrations

that might have antitumor activity. " Families of cancer patients take

note.

 

IN MEMORIAM

 

I am sorry to inform my readers that Dr. Hugh D. Riordan,

world-renowned

cancer researcher and Associate Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine, recently and unexpectedly died just this January. Dr.

Riordan,

whose name you noticed in the Annals of Internal Medicine paper

referenced

above, was I believe the world's foremost physician-expert in the field

of

intravenous ascorbate therapy for cancer

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/riordan1.html). Though Hugh saved many,

many

lives with his treatment, this is a reminder to all of us that great

physicians and cherished friends alike are on this earth for a limited

time,

known only to the Almighty.

 

I was just talking with Dr. Riordan on the very day he would die. That

morning, he telephoned me, and my answering machine initially picked up

the

call saying, " No one is available to take your call. Please leave a

message. " Hugh said, " I'd like to speak to No One, since No One is

available

to take my call! " I picked up and said, " Hi, Hugh; This is No One, " and

we

laughed.

 

He then said that he'd just that morning put up his new book, Medical

Mavericks III, for free reading at his orthomolecular.org website, and

he

wanted me to take a look at it. We also discussed our new

Orthomolecular

Medicine News Service, in which he'd taken a personal and guiding

interest.

(An update on the OMNS is coming in the next Doctor Yourself

Newsletter.)

 

I told Hugh I was lately remembering his lighthearted, inspirational

words

from the close of the 2003 Toronto Nutritional Medicine Today

conference,

which were, " Roses are red; Violets are blue; Orthomolecular is good

for

you. " I said to him, " I think I have a sequel for you, doctor: " Roses

are

red; You've all heard it said; Orthomolecular for you; you heard it

from

Hugh! " We laughed some more. He then mentioned that he wrote limericks

in

high school, but " They were, " he said with a grin I could detect even

over

the phone, " Not for publication. "

 

If there is one thing that is certain in an uncertain world, it is

this:

Hugh wanted our good work to go on. With his healing message, and his

scholarly and joyful life as an example, we will do our best to share

with

the world what Dr. Hugh Riordan knew, taught and lived.

 

We celebrate Hugh's life and the lives he so kindly and wisely touched.

God

bless the soul of this wonderful physician.

 

READ DR. RIORDAN'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE

 

You can download and read Hugh's last and just-published book, Medical

Mavericks, Volume III, at no charge, from

 

http://orthomolecular.org/mavericks3.shtml .

 

TEMPUS FUGIT

 

Time flies. A good melancholia-shaking saying is: " If not you, then

who? If

not now, when? " In other words, the best gift we ever receive is to be

here

now. That, I am reliably informed, is likely why this is called " The

Present. "

 

YOU SAY IT'S MY BIRTHDAY?

 

It is indeed. My 50th birthday is Feb 5, 2005. How about that: a

fiftieth on

Feb fifth of '05. And, if you don't mind, I'd like to tell you what I'd

like

for my birthday.

 

At the turn of this new year, in what turned out to be my last email

from

him, Dr. Riordan presented me with what proved to be his final wishes.

All

of them centered on getting the message of megavitamin therapy to the

public, through the media. Hugh called this " Increasing the Awareness

of

Orthomolecular " medicine.

 

One specific desire of his was to have as many people as possible,

everywhere, write a Letter to the Editor of their hometown newspaper,

calling personal attention to the validity and value of orthomolecular

(nutritional) healing.

 

So here's a thought for you: If you'd like to make a gift to me on my

50th,

it would be to type out a hurray-for-vitamins letter and mail it in to

your

favorite newspaper, big or small, and to a TV news program. Tell them

how

vitamins are good for your family. Tell them how nutrition keeps your

kids

healthy. Tell them how vitamins helped you when drugs failed. Do it for

Hugh!

 

You can use any of the following points if it will help you compose

your own

letter:

 

ORTHOMOLECULAR (NUTRITIONAL) MEDICINE TALKING POINTS

 

* There is not even one death per year from vitamins. Pharmaceutical

drugs,

properly prescribed and taken as directed, kill over 100,000 Americans

annually.

 

* Restoring health must be done nutritionally, not pharmacologically.

All

cells in all persons are made exclusively from what we drink and eat.

Not

one cell is made out of drugs.

 

* Most Americans fail to eat the US RDA for several vitamins and

minerals.

 

* Nutrient therapy increases individual resistance to disease; drug

therapy

generally lowers resistance to disease.

 

* The number one side effect of vitamins is failure to take enough of

them.

 

* Supplements are not the problem; they are the solution. Malnutrition

is

the problem.

 

* With vitamin therapy, speed of recovery is proportional to the dosage

given. As there is a certain, large amount of fuel needed to launch an

aircraft or a spacecraft, there is a certain, large amount of nutrients

needed to cure a sick body.

 

* Many persons unaware of the power of simple and safe vitamin therapy

are

in this position because of contradictory and confusing media

reporting.

 

* Bias against vitamin supplements usually proceeds from persons and

industries who stand to lose when cheap, natural health care succeeds.

Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have a vested (cash) interest in

disease.

 

Use any of the above if you dare, and be sure to ASK FOR A RESPONSE.

Please

send me a copy of your letter, and especially of the reply you get

back,

would you?

 

No gift wrapping necessary. Copies to drsaul,

please.

 

For more information on orthomolecular medicine, please do a search at

http://www.doctoryourself.com for " Hoffer " and another for " Riordan. "

 

Dr. Riordan's own websites are http://www.orthomolecular.org and

http://ww.brightspot.org . Be sure to watch " The Vitamin Song " animated

video!

 

READERS ASK

 

Recently, it has been falsely alleged in the media that vitamin C is

somehow

bad for diabetics. At my readers' request, here follows an article by

the

University of Manchester's Dr. Steven Hickey that you will find very

informative. Read on and see how fast yet another " vitamin scare story "

melts in the sunlight of reason.

 

DOES VITAMIN C HARM DIABETICS?

 

by Steve Hickey, PhD

 

Dr Saul asked me to comment on a report in Science News (Science News,

Jan.

1, 2005. 167:1) that 300mg of supplemental vitamin C may actually

promote

the clogging of arteries. It was yet another highly publicised vitamin

C

scare story. Perhaps we should generate a new " scientific " law for

studies

of vitamin C:

 

Scare stories claiming that vitamin C supplements damage health

guarantee

worldwide publicity for the researchers. This publicity is directly

proportionate to the weakness of the supporting data.

 

It follows that studies with no data will gain maximum publicity. The

corollary is:

 

Studies indicating large benefits of vitamin C supplements will be

ignored,

no matter how strong the evidence. Furthermore, the establishment will

denigrate the researcher and the experiments.

 

People may remember the medical response to Linus Pauling's claims that

vitamin C could cure the common cold, heart disease or cancer.

 

My first thought on receiving Dr Saul's request was that I had not seen

a

supplement of less than 500mg of vitamin C in my local health food

store for

a number of years. The most popular amount per tablet appeared to be

1000mg.

The higher doses dominated the shelves and sales.

 

It is rather strange that the medical studies on vitamin C supplements

generally relate to very low intakes in terms of the amounts used by

many

people who supplement. I realised that to perform an experiment with

the low

doses generally studied, I would have to go out of my way to find a

supplier. It is not that, say, 300mg tablets are unavailable, just I

would

have to find a different supplier and possibly import the supplement.

 

Both heart disease and stroke result from atherosclerosis and local

damage

to blood vessels. According to many studies, doses of vitamin C below

500mg

per day are ineffective in preventing the build up of damage in the

blood

vessel walls. In the year 2000, neurologist Dr Paul Wand did a study

for the

Life Extension Foundation to refute an earlier and inaccurate claim

that

vitamin C damages arteries [www.lef.org]. Wand indicated that some

studies

define " high dose, " inaccurately, as only 250-500 mg a day of vitamin

C,

whereas the serious vitamin user often consumes between 2,000 and

12,000 mg.

Wand found that 30 of 34 studies at 500mg or above indicated benefit in

heart disease. In four studies below 500mg, only one study in four

showed

benefit. My investigations with Dr Hilary Roberts for our recent book,

Ascorbate (reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v5n2.txt),

confirmed this relationship.

 

The questionable health gain for doses below 500mg is not surprising.

When

the dose is low, the benefits may be undetectable. By way of

comparison,

most people would not expect half a child's aspirin to cure an adult

headache. With such low doses, the expected magnitude of the effect is

small

and large carefully controlled trials may be necessary to find the

effect.

Moreover, such large-scale studies are often prohibitively expensive

and

generally inconclusive. The results obtained may merely indicate

variation

in other factors or minor problems with the design of the experiment.

The

real question for supplement takers is, " What dose is effective, if

any? "

 

The correct supplemental dose of ascorbate in diabetes is

pharmacological

rather than nutritional. An attempt to treat a disease requires a

larger

dose than that needed by the healthy individual. There is general

agreement

that an intake of about 10mg will prevent scurvy in most people.

However, a

dose of 300mg is a low supplemental dose, even for healthy individuals

wishing to prevent disease. Doses proposed for the treatment of illness

are

far larger.

 

Diabetes is an illness that involves damage to blood vessels and

increased

risk of heart disease and stroke

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/diabetes.html). Indeed, one theory for

this

increased risk of heart disease in diabetes is that it causes a

shortage of

vitamin C in the tissues. This hypothesis is secondary to the idea that

heart disease and stroke may be prevented or treated using large doses

of

ascorbate.

 

The tissues of a diabetic may be in a state of scurvy. Diabetics are

under

oxidative stress, which, it is claimed, may be prevented by higher

doses of

vitamin C. Vitamin C is synthesised from glucose in most animals (but

not

humans), and the molecules are similar. Some of the transporters that

pump

glucose into cells also pump oxidised vitamin C, which is called

dehydroascorbate. Once inside the cell, the vitamin C is reduced back

to its

original form. Therefore, cells can accumulate both glucose and vitamin

C by

the same mechanism. When glucose in the blood is very high, the cells

will

accumulate less vitamin C, as they will pump the more abundant glucose

preferentially. The claim that low dose supplements damage blood

vessels in

diabetics should be viewed in its biological context. A likely

explanation

is that the intakes studied were simply too small to be effective in

providing benefit.

 

Let us look at the particular study in question (Jacobs, Jr. DR et al.

Am J

Clin Nut, Nov 2004). Firstly, the researchers invert the theory that

high

dose supplements of vitamin C will prevent or cure heart disease.

Reversing

such an idea is often a useful approach in science. The phrase " Always

invert! " is a quote attributed to several famous mathematicians and

scientists over the centuries. However, the reasons given for

suggesting

that vitamin C my harm diabetics are misleading. The researchers

suggest

that vitamin C in a test tube can act as an oxidant. Biologically,

vitamin C

is generally considered an antioxidant and this is its main role in the

body. In certain circumstances, it can act as an oxidant, as can many

other

antioxidants, such as vitamin E. This oxidant action can be beneficial,

for

example it may be involved in the action of vitamin C in killing cancer

cells while leaving normal cells unharmed.

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/riordan2.html and

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

 

The other explanation for the suggestion that vitamin C might be

harmful is

that it can glycate proteins. This is where the argument becomes a

little

silly. To make my point, I did an internet search for the meaning of

glycation and came up with a definition that began " the process by

which

glucose links with proteins and causes them to bind together. " If we

were

being more accurate, we might use the term carbohydrate rather than

glucose,

as glycation can occur with other sugars and related molecules.

However,

glycation is normally associated with glucose, the very substance that

is

raised in the blood of diabetics.

 

Even in healthy people or supplement takers, blood glucose

concentration is

about 100 times higher than vitamin C concentration. Glycation is often

caused by glucose. In diabetics, the level of glucose in the blood is

considerably higher and will cause glycation with increased risk of

tissue

damage. Glycation is a well-documented effect in normal diabetics. As a

result, diabetic patients are probably the least suitable subjects for

an

experiment to test the possibility that vitamin C causes glycation.

 

It is interesting that the paper claims to distinguish food-derived

vitamin

C from supplemental ascorbate. Only the vitamin C in supplements are

claimed

to be harmful! However, vitamin C is ascorbic acid and has a single

molecular structure; the body has no way of knowing whether a

particular

ascorbic acid molecule came out of a tablet or a grape. It is

irrational to

say that vitamin C from a supplement is harmful, whereas that from food

is

not. I can think of two possible explanations for such a claim. The

first is

that they mean to imply that some component of food is synergistic with

vitamin C and increases its benefits. In this case, we would like to

know

what these factors are. Isolating such factors might have substantial

health

implications, if they exist. The second explanation is that the

researchers

are prejudiced against supplements and wish to dissuade people from

taking

them.

 

When Jacobs' paper was published, I identified several problems with

both

the study design and the interpretation of the data. I emailed one of

the

researchers, requesting a copy of the data and asking some scientific

questions. For example, I asked how this study relates to higher doses

of

vitamin C, intakes more appropriate for diabetics. I found it hard to

believe the conclusions could be derived correctly from the

experimental

results, and wished to check them for myself. My concern was that the

media

publicity would influence diabetics into coming off supplements, and

their

health might be harmed as a result. Unfortunately, I have not yet

received

an answer to my request.

 

 

What conclusions can we reach? The paper concerns diabetic people, who

are

highly likely to develop heart disease. These subjects need

pharmacological

doses of ascorbate, at least gram levels of intake, but the study

involved

lower, nutritional doses. By looking at low intakes of vitamin C, it

was

claimed that vitamin C supplements may be harmful. This result does not

appear to have relevance to vitamin C supplement takers, who consume

500mg

of vitamin C or more. If I had diabetes, I would be consuming high

doses of

vitamin C, several grams a day in divided doses. A diabetic, in

particular,

would not want to risk low-level scurvy.

 

(end of Dr. Hickey's article)

 

IF YOU HAVE BEEN SCARED OFF OF VITAMIN E, here is a new website that

will be

well worth your visit: http://www.vitaminefacts.org/

 

CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED AGAINST DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS

 

by Bill Sardi

 

At a time when the Food and Drug Administration is under criticism for

approving unsafe drugs, and when pharmaceutical companies are being

called

to task for not disclosing negative studies of their products, a

concerted

effort is being launched against dietary supplements. The obvious

reason:

don't let the public discover dietary supplements as alternative to

prescription drugs that can duplicate the biological action of most

prescription medicines with far lower costs and far fewer side effects.

 

Harvard Medical School, in a joint effort with the FDA and the

Institute of

Medicine, has released a report that says: " Unlike drugs, which must be

proven safe before they can be sold, the current law allows sale of

supplements unless the Food and Drug Administration can prove them

harmful. "

The assumption is that prescription drugs are safer than supplements

because

they have undergone an FDA approval process. But a review of data from

the

US Poison Control Centers indicates vitamin and mineral supplements are

linked with few if any deaths over the past few years and deaths linked

to

use of herbal products, except for ephedra, are few. (Editor's note: If

you

have ever seen child-resistant caps on a supplement bottle, it is

usually

thanks to iron. According to Maryland's Union Hospital, since 1986

there has

been an average of two deaths per year " associated with " iron

supplements.

www.stayinginshape.com/4union/libv/k09.shtml. There is not even one

death

per year from vitamins. http://www.doctoryourself.com/safety.html)

 

For comparison, just the use of non-steroidal pain relievers like

aspirin

and ibuprofen cause an estimated 16,000 deaths annually. Side effects

from

properly used prescription drugs, administered by nurses in hospitals,

result in over 100,000 deaths annually. The FDA approval process does

not

guarantee safety.

 

Public Citizen, the Ralph Nader group, indicates 181 FDA-approved drugs

should be recalled because they are not as safe as other drugs or are

ineffective. An FDA drug reviewer, Dr. David Graham, had to publish his

report on the hidden dangers of Vioxx outside of the country in the

British

Medical Journal. His job was later threatened for not following FDA

protocol

even though an estimated 139,000 Americans died prematurely from the

use of

Vioxx.

 

Many drug side effects are the result of nutritional deficiencies

caused by

the medications themselves. But the FDA is stubbornly resistant to warn

the

public how to avoid drug side effects by taking companion supplements.

For

example, statin cholesterol-lowering drugs deplete the body of coenzyme

Q10

which can result in a mortal condition called rhabdomyolysis.

Acetaminophen

(Tylenol) is toxic to the liver and acetaminophen use is the leading

cause

for liver transplants. The antidote for acetaminophen poisoning is

N-acetyl

cysteine, a sulfur-based dietary supplement. The FDA has resisted

appeals to

combine these nutrients into the drugs or mandate that supplements be

prescribed as companions.

 

Another mistaken complaint is that dietary supplement manufacturers

don't

have to report adverse reactions as do drug companies. Yet the FDA is

obviously working in league with the drug companies to hide negative

reports

that could trigger the recall of many drugs.

 

Another false assumption in the report is that dietary supplements

interfere

with prescription medications. Hilary Tindle, MD, a research fellow at

Harvard Medical School, and lead author of the report, says: " This is

especially critical as more becomes known about the adverse effects

associated with individual dietary supplements as well as their

interactions

with prescription drugs. " But vitamins and minerals are essential for

life

and it is the drugs that interfere with the nutrients, not the other

way

around.

 

There is a concerted effort to regulate dietary supplements, which is

in

reality a smoke screen to limit dosages of vitamins and minerals that

can

replace many prescription drugs. For example, high-dose vitamin B6 and

vitamin C reduce blood pressure equally as well as prescription

medications

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/hypertension.html). High-dose folic acid

is a

safe anti-depressant. High-dose vitamin D is as effective as many blood

pressure pills. High-dose vitamin C can prevent a form of unstable

plaque

that causes most sudden-death heart attacks. Pharmaceutical companies

are

attempting to patent altered vitamin D molecules to treat cancer when

high-dose vitamin D is inexpensive and has the same biological action.

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/dvitamin.htm)

 

Later in the year, CODEX, a trade organization linked with the World

Health

Organization, hopes to limit dosages of vitamins and minerals under the

presumption high doses cause significant side effects. The Institute of

Medicine report appears to be softening up the public for these

limitations.

 

The report discloses the real reason for restrictions against dietary

supplements, in their own words: " In the past five years the biggest

change

was an increase in use of herbal supplements. " The pharmaceuticals

companies

see herbal remedies advancing while their problematic nostrums are

being

discredited.

 

The dietary supplement industry is continually characterized as some

giant

behemoth that must be curbed. The industry was responsible for $18.7

billion

in sales in 2002. For comparison, the sales of just one class of drugs,

statins for cholesterol, nearly equal the entire annual sales of

dietary

supplements. (Editor's note: The pharmaceutical industry's combined

annual

sales are close to $500 billion.)

 

Both the Harvard and Institutes of Medicine reports advised users of

dietary

supplements to disclose their supplement regimens to their doctors. But

doctors are poorly educated in the use of vitamins, minerals and herbal

products and would offer little help to consumers.

 

(Editor's note: I enjoy Mr. Sardi's free email newsletter, for which

you can

sign up at http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp)

 

CODEX UPDATE

 

Before all Europe, and ultimately the USA and Canada, lose access to

vitamin

supplements, be sure to check the latest at

 

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex2004pat.htm

 

MOOD FOOD

 

" What you eat can make you sad, glad or even mad, say nutritionists.

Jane

Szita gets a taste for mind-altering diets. "

 

(from the Holland Herald, December 2004, p 24-25.)

 

(Editor's note: Holland Herald is the in-flight magazine of KLM Royal

Dutch

Airlines. It makes me smile to think that thousands of slightly bored

travelers are even now miles in the sky, munching their in-flight

snacks,

waiting for their in-flight movie. . . and learning about

orthomolecular

medicine. Reprinted with the kind permission of the author and KLM's

publisher, Media Partners http://www.mediapartners.nl .)

 

While we all know that food affects our waistlines, few are aware that

it

can also influence our emotional make-up. According to growing numbers

of

nutri-tionists, getting to grips with the fact that food is

psychoactive is

essential for our well-being. For, just as the modem diet has triggered

an

obesity epidemic, so food researchers reckon it's a major culprit

behind

widespread depression and other mental disorders.

 

For most of us, " mood food " awareness is limited to indulging in a bar

of

choco-late to lift the spirits, a coffee to aid concentration, or a

plate of

oysters as a romantic first course.

 

High on nuts

 

Treating all foods as cocktails of mind-altering drugs may take some

getting

used to, but the upside is that eating the right things may dispense

with

the need for drugs such as sleeping pills or anti-depressants. " A

couple of

handfuls of cashew nuts delivers the same dose of serotonin naturally

as

Prozac does artificially, " says Andrew Saul, a New York-based natural

medicine consultant and author of Doctor Yourself.

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html) " It's simple chemistry. "

 

A great deal of mood food research focuses on serotonin, the feel-good

hormone, which is produced naturally by foods containing tryptophan

(such as

poultry, nuts and beans). While trypto-phan is found in many common

foods,

the diet needs to be rich in carbohydrates for the body to use it

effectively - one reason dieters get depressed.

 

In one experiment, Oxford University psychiatrist Dr Philip Cowen found

that, just seven hours into a tryptophan-free diet, two-thirds of

people

started to show signs of depression. When given tryptophan again, their

mood

improved.

 

Brain power

 

But tryptophan is not the only nutrient necessary for healthy brain

chemistry. Another is niacin (vitamin B3). During the Great Depression

(1892-1933), people in the American South showed high rates of mental

illness thanks to a diet of niacin--poor corn. When given supplements,

many

of them recovered completely. Then Dr Abram Hoffer, a Canadian

psychiatrist,

saw major improvements in psychotics and schizophrenics after

administering

large doses of niacin during the 1950s.

(http://www.doctoryourself.com/review_hoffer_B3.html) This year, a new

study

revealed that a high-niacin diet lowers the risk of Alzheimer's disease

by

70%.

 

Then there's the omega-3 fatty acid, found in foods like oily fish and

walnuts. This can relieve depression, even in cases where drug therapy

has

failed. " The brain is all fat, " points out Joseph Hibbeln, a

psychiatrist

and biochemist from the National Institutes of Health, Washington DC.

Which

explains why low-fat diets get people down. High protein foods - meat,

eggs,

cheese, nuts - are also mood- enhancers. they keep us on the ball

because

they break down into amino acids, such as tyrosine, which increase

performance-enhancing dopamine and norephinephrine.

 

A violent diet?

 

Growing evidence also suggests links between food and violence. In

2002, a

British study of young offenders found that nutrient supplements

(vitamins,

minerals and fatty acids), caused a 37% drop in violent offences.

 

Stephen Schoenthaler, a criminologist at California State University in

Long

Beach, notes that improving the quality of the diet routinely improves

the

behaviour of 20% of offenders. He emphasizes that criminals tend to be

from

the poorest, and therefore least well-nourished, sectors of society.

The

Dutch Ministry of Justice is currently doing its ovyp study on violent

,

offenders and nutrition, with a view to implementing diet changes in

prisons.

 

" The problem with the modem diet is processed food, " says Gert

Schuitemaker,

who heads the Ortho Institute, a Dutch nutritional campaigning body.

" It's

nutritionally poor, and contains additives which are often toxic for

the

brain. " So why aren't we all already. taking supplements or adapting

our

daily menu? " You can't make much money out of vitamins " says Andrew

Saul,

citing the $500 billion in sales of the pharmaceutical companies last

year

as a major disincentive to the promotion of healthy eating. " Doctors

and

psychiatrists hardly study nutrition, " adds Schuitemaker. " They are

trained

to apply a pharmaceutical solution, without considering diet. "

 

It wasn't always so. Hippocrates, the Greek physician known as the

founder

of medicine, insisted, " Let food be your medicine and medicine be your

food. " And in earlier times it was taken for granted, for example, that

eating lettuce reduced anxiety, while quince relieved depression.

 

Scrap that prescription

 

The modem situation is illustrated by the escalating rate of Ritalin

prescriptions in the USA and Europe, to counter an epidemic of

behavioural

problems in children - although pediatrician Benjamin Feingold obtained

excellent results from simply getting affected children to eat an

additive-free, low-sugar diet, as long ago as the 1970s. " Giving

children

Ritalin, while allowing them to eat food stuffed with additives, makes

no

sense at all, " says Andrew Saul.

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

 

The beauty of mood food is, there's nothing to lose. At the very least,

a

healthy diet benefits the body, with no side effects; overdosing on

cashew

nuts is virtually impossible.

 

But how about those mood-food cliches, oysters and chocolate? Well,

oysters

are high in tryptophan, which will do no harm, but nutrition experts

reckon

the best aphrodisiacs are celery (for women) and bananas (for men). As

for

chocolate, it's phenylethylamine which produces an endorphin effect

akin to

being in love (or lust). You are what you eat, indeed.

 

DIETARY DILEMMA?

 

Then DON'T eat processed foods or additives.

 

GO EASY ON sugar, caffeine, alcohol, chocolate.

 

DO EAT poultry, nuts, cheese, seeds, pulses and legumes - for a

serotonin

boost. Walnuts, flax seeds, oily fish (mackerel, salmon, herring, tuna,

etc) - for omega-3 fatty acids. Mushrooms, tomatoes, chicken, tuna,

asparagus, salmon and pork - for niacin.

 

Websites:

 

www.foodmoodproject.org

 

www.healthandnubition.co.uk

 

www.doctoryourself.com

 

www.ortho.nl (Dutch only)

 

www.whfoods.com

 

www.patrickholford.com

 

(end of the Holland Herald article)

 

DID YOU KNOW:

 

That a male giraffe is over six feet tall AT BIRTH?

 

Did you know that the US RDI for dietary fiber is set so ridiculously

low

that it can be met by eating eight Russell Stover Chocolate Fudge

Truffle

Eggs?

 

Did you know that Food Stamps can be used to buy " Froot Loops " and

" Twinkies, " but Food Stamps can NOT used to buy vitamins?

 

Did you know that the US RDA for vitamin C for humans is less than 5%

of the

government's vitamin C standards for Guinea pigs and monkeys?

 

READ DR. KLENNER'S CLINICAL GUIDE FOR FREE

 

Dr. Lendon Smith's edition of Dr. Frederick R. Klenner's Clinical Guide

to

the Use of Vitamin C is now available online for free reading!

 

My long-time readers (yes, you!) have long been pestering me for copies

of

this amazingly valuable and relatively rare 68-page book.

 

Your wishes have been answered. Dr. Klenner's Clinical Guide is now

posted

in its entirety at

 

http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/198x/smith-lh-clinical_guide_1988.htm

 

 

 

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 2005 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.

 

 

For information about my book, " DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing that

Works "

please go to http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html .

 

Subscriptions to my DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER by email are free for

the

asking. Just send a blank email to

news-

 

" Don't feel you owe me any respect; you can listen or not, as you

please. "

(Benjamin Franklin)

 

 

 

 

--