The DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 5, No. 8 for May, 2005 )

[Guest guest]

" Andrew W. Saul " <drsaul

dynewsletter

 

 

 

 

The DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 5, No. 8 for May, 2005 )

Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:52:03 -0400

 

 

 

 

To SUBSCRIBE for free: dynews-

 

" In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In

practice

there is. " (Yogi Berra)

 

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 5, No. 8 for May, 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.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

 

Too Many Bob Newhart Records: Homeostasis at Work

 

Pharmaphilic Phacts

 

Book Review: The Truth About the Drug Companies

 

Vitamin E Media Scare

 

Nutritional Medicine Today Conference Information

 

Vitamin Safety Poll

 

Help Wanted: OMNS

 

Help Wanted: Expansion Project

 

Readers Ask

 

IV Vitamin C Fights Tetanus

 

Update on Upper Limits

 

For the Real Story About Fluoride

 

Unstress Your Life: Part Three

 

 

TOO MANY BOB NEWHART RECORDS

 

That's my excuse. I admit that I enjoy saying, in my very quiet,

almost

accountant-like voice:

" If Abraham Lincoln were to describe the germ theory, I think he

might

have done it something like this: 'You can infect some of the people

all of

the time, And infect all of the people some of the time; But you cannot

infect all of the people all of the time.' "

Now to say it loudly: This should be recognized as an absolute law of

medicine.

The big question, of course, is, Why? Why do some people have high

resistance to illness? Why do some people get sick looking at a picture

of a

germ? Certainly their level of nutrition, perhaps more than any other

single

factor, is reason number one. I think " germs " are a much smaller

reason.

I first learned this in 10th grade, not from my bio teacher, but

from the

sickest kid in school: my lab partner, Mike. (If you haven't just

finished

eating, and if you have no immediate culinary plans, may I add that the

whole disgustingly delightful story awaits you at

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

It has long been fashionable to blame bacteria and viruses for our

ills.

Almost no one blames our lousy American diets. And now, ulcers and even

cardiovascular disease are being attributed to germs. And those darned

birds

are causing all that flu. (Or are they?

 

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/03/02/bird_flu_sars_biowarfare_or_a_pa\

ndemic_of_propaganda.htm

 

)

All this cannot help but make you panic just a little.

And personally, I think it's intended to. Some businesses, and a lot

of

people that invest in them, stand to make a pile of money if they can

keep

you frightened and on edge. Such a state makes you into an obedient

follower, and most especially, a willing consumer.

It's my turn. Now to REALLY scare you. I have just discovered a

life-threatening new epidemiological phenomenon, and I am announcing it

right here, right now:

Saul AW. Soiled dishes syndrome (SDS): An overlooked public health

disaster in the making. (J Overblown Med Anxiety. 1:1, April 2005.)

Abstract:

" A major epidemic is looming on the horizon, largely due to hurried

housewives, careless bachelors, lazy teenagers and slovenly college

students. It is called Soiled Dishes Syndrome (SDS). SDS is caused by

food

particles, lipstick traces, grease, grime, milk rings and other

culinary

crud left on cups and cutlery by sloppy dishwashers in a hurry.

Suspected

for decades by patrons of every Greasy Spoon restaurant on the planet,

SDS

is certain to spread an extraordinary variety of viruses and bacteria

at a

truly alarming rate. If you've ever shared a student apartment kitchen

sink

with way too many others, you have been exposed to SDS. If you've ever

eaten

off plates and silverware that were not autoclaved for at least an

hour, you

are at risk of pushing up the daisies. If you've ever had your own kids

do

the dishes. . . well, words fail me.

What can be done? Absolutely, positively nothing. Even if you are a

scrupulously careful dishwasher yourself, sooner or later you will eat

off

dishes that look clean but actually still have two or three (million)

invisible bacteria on them. Then, over the lips, past the gums, look

out

stomach, here they come.

The situation is hopeless. Nasty microbes are simply everywhere. Dire

problems are expected for babies who put their fingers in their mouths

(Soiled Fingers Syndrome, or SFS), toddlers who put toys in their

mouths

(Toddler Toy Syndrome, or TTS), and adults who put anything but a

brand-new

toothbrush in their mouths (AWPABABNTBITM).

Vaccinations for SFS, TTS, and especially AWPABABNTBITM are needed

immediately. It is recommended that a million zillion tax dollars be

granted

to the pharmaceutical industry without delay.

Until a vaccine is developed, here are two ways to protect yourself:

1) Don't eat fresh food, because fresh food is not sterile.

(Unsterilized

Food Syndrome)

2) Do not drink directly from a pop can, blow a whistle, or ever,

EVER

play a harmonica, trumpet or clarinet. (Unsterilized Everything Else

Syndrome) We expect summer camp counselors and philharmonic horn and

woodwind sections will soon be dropping like flies. "

(End of abstract)

I hope you know that I am kidding. (You do, don't you?) Yet, as

Lincoln

said, quoting what the girl said as she put her foot into her stocking,

" It

strikes me that there is something in it. "

Exposed to a limitless quantity of potential pathogens every day, it

is

nothing short of remarkable how nearly 7 billion people manage to be

alive

at one time on this utterly unimaginably unsterile Earth.

Thank heaven for homeostasis, the body's active promotion of life.

I used to define homeostasis for my high school students by (badly)

impersonating John Travolta's dancing in Saturday Night Fever. I'd do

his

famous one-hand-pointing-up-and-out, one-hand-pointing-down-and-away

move,

and smoothly say:

" Stayin' Alive. "

Nobody missed the homeostasis question on the exam.

Dr. Emanuel Cheraskin explains homeostasis with more skill (and

vastly

more dignity) than I can.

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

It is the preference of Nature to keep you alive. Your anatomy was

assembled and grown without regard for your opinion. Your physiology

carries

on immeasurably complicated biochemistry every second of your day,

night,

and life without ever asking you how. (

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

I maintain that a healthy body will fight, and beat, the vast

majority of

viral and bacterial invaders IF the nutrient intake dosages are

sufficiently

high for prevention, and, if need be, astronomically high for cure of

serious illnesses.

The prescription? It's the simplest imaginable: Follow a healthy

lifestyle. Live right, exercise right, eat right, and get your rest.

Take

your vitamins every day, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

And while you're at it, keep washing those dishes. I mean, why push

your

luck?

NOW IT'S TIME FOR SOME PHARMAPHILIC PHACTS

 

DID YOU KNOW

That 2.3 million Americans per year serve as human subjects for

pharmaceutical company drug testing? Each subject is usually paid

anywhere

from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars for their participation.

DID YOU KNOW

That pharmaceutical companies set up patient support or advocacy

groups to

attract specific subjects for their clinical trials?

DID YOU KNOW

That doctors are paid an average of $7,000 per patient for every

patient

they enroll in a drug study?

How about those zingers, eh? If you like them, you'll love the book

they

came from. And here it is:

 

BOOK REVIEW

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DRUG COMPANIES

by Marcia Angell, M.D.

(NY: Random House, 2004. 266 pages, plus notes and index)

Reviewed by Andrew W. Saul

" Is there some way (drug) companies can rig clinical trials to make

their

drugs look better than they are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Trials

can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time. "

Typically, any author making such an uncompromising statement would,

just

for starters, be denounced for unjustified hostility to pharmaceutical

medicine. For the coup de gras, the writer would be dismissed as an

unqualified quack.

Not this time. This is the stentorian voice of Dr. Marcia Angell,

former

Editor-In-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. A highly

respected

and established medical insider (twenty years with NEJM ), she does not

shrink from employing the alternative health movement's most derogatory

epithet, " big pharma, " to attack an industry which, she says, " will do

almost anything to protect exclusive marketing rights. " Dr. Angell

fairly

rips into her discussion of patent-prolonging, profit-piling,

non-innovative

" me-too " drugs, which she reveals as the true bread-and-butter of the

modern

pharmaceutical industry.

And as for the few truly new blockbuster drugs, Dr. Angell shows that

clinical trials are often rigged. This disgrace goes way beyond mere

bias;

it is blatant dishonesty. One " way to load the dice, " she writes, " is

to

enroll only young subjects in trials, even if the drugs being tested

are

meant to be used mainly in older people. Because young people generally

experience fewer side effects, drugs will look safer. " Another of the

" common ways to bias trials is to present only part of the data - the

part

that makes the product look good - and ignore the rest. " She adds, " The

most

dramatic form of bias is out-and-out suppression of negative results. "

Several dollars per pill is a lot of money, most especially for the

uninsured. Incredibly, people without health insurance pay the highest

drug

prices, says Dr. Angell. And those prices are high not because of R & D,

but

because of S & P (sales and promotion). Pharmaceutical companies, she

says,

" do whatever they can to obscure the fact that in 2001 consumers paid

something like a 30 percent markup for sales promotion. " Drug

companies'

research and development expenses, the most common industry excuse for

high

prices, are " dwarfed by their vast expenditures for marketing, " which

amounts to at least $19 billion annually.

A chapter with the somewhat less than subtle title of " The Hard Sell:

Lures, Bribes and Kickbacks " describes a pharmaceutical industry that

deploys an army of 88,000 energetic sales representatives such that

some

physicians " may be visited by a dozen in one day. " Dr. Angell says that

sales reps " often announce their arrival by distributing goodies to

everyone. . . as well as the inevitable sack of free samples. Gifts to

doctors are often lavish, " and she provides plenty of embarrassing

examples.

Drug companies see physicians as prescription delivery devices, and

they

are monitored accordingly. " Prescription-tracking companies buy

information

from big pharmacy chains about doctors' prescribing habits and sell it

to

drug companies. " Drug reps " know exactly what a doctor prescribes

before

each visit " and " they can tell whether the visit paid off by seeing

what the

doctor does afterward. "

The pharmaceutical presence is everywhere you find a white coat and a

beeper. " Drug reps are allowed to attend medical conferences, may be

invited

into operating and procedure rooms, and sometimes are even present when

physicians examine patients in clinics or at the bedside. Patients are

often

allowed to assume the reps are doctors. . . Drug companies pay doctors

several hundred dollars a day to allow sales reps to shadow them as

they see

patients. " It's a way to " build business. "

And what a business it is. The entire pharmaceutical industry, says

Dr.

Angell, is " primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious

benefit. "

Big pharma, she says, is " taking us for a ride. " And it is no mere

jaunt

around the park. Drug industry worldwide sales are approaching $500

billion

per year, half of which are in North America. Profit margins are

typically

20 per cent, so high that " the combined profits for the ten drug

companies

in the Fortune 500 were more than the profits for all the other 490

businesses put together. "

One way the companies try to justify their enormous profits, Dr.

Angell

says, is that they use " a kind of blackmail: if you want drug companies

to

keep turning out life-saving drugs, you will gratefully pay whatever

they

charge. " And they charge plenty. " When it came on the market, Taxol

sold for

$10,000 to $20,000 for a year's treatment. . . Novartis priced Gleevec

at

about $27,000 for a year's supply. . .Genzyme charges patients on the

order

of $200,000 to $300,000 for a year's supply " of Cerezyme, for which

" research and early development was done entirely by NIH-funded

scientists. "

Taxol, as well as Epogen, Procrit, and Neupogen " were developed largely

with

public funding. "

The author devotes considerable attention to, and succeeds in

clarifying

what is, at best, a complex topic: taxpayer-funded scientific research

does

not belong to the taxpayers. The results can be, and are, snatched up

and

patented by pharmaceutical corporations. And since the 1980's, it's not

only

legal, it's positively encouraged.

You will rarely hear academia complain. Why? Because they are aboard

the

gravy train. Dr. Angell writes: " Columbia University , which patented

the

technology used in the manufacture of Epogen and Cerezyme, collected

nearly

$300 million in royalties " in 17 years. " The patent was based on

NIH-funded

research. " Harvard is in just as deep. In its own Faustian dealings

with the

drug companies, " a Harvard hospital has a deal that gives Novartis

rights to

discoveries that lead to new cancer drugs. . . Merck is building a

twelve-story research facility next door to Harvard Medical School . .

.. In

Harvard Medical School 's Dean's Report for 2003-4, the list of

benefactors

included about a dozen of the largest drug companies. "

The result? " Bias is now rampant in drug trials. . . (Pharmaceutical)

industry-sponsored research was nearly four times as likely to be

favorable

to the company's product as NIH-sponsored research. " " NIH-sponsored "

means

taxpayer funded. And then, when they need to use a drug, those same

taxpayers pay again, and way too much, for the drug they already paid

out

grant money to develop. What a sweet system for the pharmaceutical

cartel.

Twin chapters ( " Marketing Masquerading as Education " and " Marketing

Masquerading as Research " ) reveal that drug companies pay nearly

two-thirds

of the costs of continuing medical education. This, and other even more

dubious practices, makes doctors into " company shills, " says the

author. " By

calling it education. . . but not marketing, companies needn't worry

about

anti-kickback laws. " While the pharmaceutical industry's reach into

education is bad enough, its grip on research is scandalous. For

example:

Drug company " publications strategies " have them " sponsor minimal

research,

prepare journal articles based on it, and pay academic researchers to

put

their names on those articles. " So bad is it that Dr. Angell wrote an

editorial in NEJM (1) entitled " Is Academic Medicine for Sale? " A

reader

wryly responded, " No. The current owner is very happy with it. "

Overall, this is one grim subject. Fortunately, there is ample charm

in

Dr. Angell's writing style. Though she will bludgeon you with buckets

of

incriminating information, you will enjoy the process. Clearly, Dr.

Angell

was well-placed as Editor-In-Chief of NEJM. Her writing is crisp and

clear,

efficiently organized, tightly referenced, and still a surprisingly

good

read for the layman. Her discussion of the marketing of erectile

dysfunction

drugs constitutes an engaging example:

" Here the expectation is that you will ask your doctor to prescribe

the

drugs for you. For instance, GlaxoSmithKline and its co-marketer Bayer'

signed a deal with the National Football League to promote their me-too

drug

Levitra to compete with Viagra for the huge " erectile dysfunction "

market.

Reportedly the deal cost the companies $20 million. In addition to

exclusive

league sponsorship, they made individual deals with some of the teams.

The

agreement with the New England Patriots, for instance, called for

Levitra's

burning flame logo to appear on signs ringing Gillette Stadium. Mike

Ditka,

former coach of the Chicago Bears, would make a thirty-second pitch on

a

large screen. In fact, to watch the 2004 Super Bowl was to wonder

whether

football causes erectile dysfunction. " (p 116)

In the " Get Our Money's Worth " chapter, Dr. Angell presents her

prescription for the government to fix what presently amounts to a

pharmaceutical financial free-for-all. And until that very cold day in

Hades

may arrive, her closing presentation is doubly important. In the

Afterword,

Dr. Angell provides a list of cautionary, highly specific questions

that all

patients should ask their doctors whenever they are issued a

prescription.

These will likely be the most photocopied pages of a totally remarkable

book.

It is especially satisfying to find a distinguished physician-author

letting loose well-deserved, point-blank salvoes straight into the

bulwarks

of the pharmaceutical industry. Reading The Truth About the Drug

Companies

will leave some readers with the realization that the truth is just as

bad

as they feared. It will leave the rest of us with the realization that

it is

far, far worse.

1. Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med. 2000 May

18;342(20):1516-8.

 

VITAMIN E MEDIA SCARE

 

A typical reader's letter says:

" All the recent news reports seem to be saying that vitamin E is

harmful.

My elderly father, who took vitamin E for years with great success, has

now

stopped taking it. I'm worried. "

So many questions have come in on this that I thought you'd like to

read

this:

Vitamin E Takes Another Hit. So What's the Real Story?

by Jack Challem

(Excerpted and reprinted with permission from The Nutrition Reporter,

April 2005 http://www.nutritionreporter.com )

Vitamin E has taken another media " hit, " this time in a study showing

an

increase in the risk of heart failure. Not surprisingly, most newspaper

and

television reports failed to note that the same study found a slight

reduction in the risk of cancer - or the inherent problems of the study

itself.

What's going on here?

Medical journals often publish studies of such poor quality that I'm

left

wondering why editors and publishers waste perfectly good trees. I

think

this is true of the recent negative vitamin E studies, as well as of

thousands of studies on other subjects that do not offer any new

insights.

In this particular case, Lancet rejected the vitamin E article a year

ago.

The Journal of the American Medical Association felt otherwise and

published

the article in its March 16, 2005 , issue. (Lonn E and the HOPE and

HOPE-TOO

Trial Investigators. Effects of long-term vitamin E supplementation on

cardiovascular events and cancer. JAMA, 2005;293:1338-1347.)

A peer review should weed out studies of questionable merit, but it's

obvious that peer reviewers do not always take the time to actually

evaluate

a medical paper before publication. The " real " peer review appears

several

months afterwards in the form of letters to the editor, where readers

question or attack the study.

Although the increased risk of heart failure in the vitamin E group

sounded alarming " statistically, " the raw numbers and percentages

painted a

different picture. Almost the same number of people taking placebos

developed heart failure.

All of the subjects in the JAMA study were seriously ill with either

diabetes or advanced heart disease. Half of the patients had suffered

heart

attacks, and one-fourth had undergone heart surgery. Almost all of the

patients were taking several drugs, and there is clear evidence that

drug

therapy can negate the benefits of vitamin E.

As good as vitamin E is-and the totality of studies justifies its

use-it's

not holy water. No one can reasonably expect any single supplement (or

drug)

to reverse the consequences of years of dietary and lifestyle abuse.

During

the same week, the New England Journal of Medicine published three

studies

confirming that several of the popular Cox-2 inhibitor drugs, including

Celebrex and Vioxx, increased a person's chances of having a heart

attack.

So what's the real message in all this? It's prevention. It is much

more

important to stay well than it is to struggle to reverse serious

diseases

later in life. And we all know the keys to staying well: eating healthy

foods, taking supplements, exercising, and managing stress. We just

have to

make sure we apply what we know every day - before we get seriously

ill.

Remember:

* The HOPE-TOO patients were a very sick group with advanced heart

disease

and diabetes, and most were taking several medications. Other studies

have

shown that medications and vitamin E can negate each other's benefits.

* The patients were treated at 174 clinics in 19 countries,

indicating

large and uncontrolled cultural and dietary variables.

Editor's Note :

My thanks to Jack Challem for his right-on-the-mark article. I'd like

to

add that the widely-publicized HOPE-TOO study used 400 IU of vitamin

E/day

on sick people with an average age over 65. To me, all this study shows

is

that 400 IU is not enough for an infirm elderly person, and we already

knew

that. Drs Wilfrid and Evan Shute (

http://www.doctoryourself.com/estory.htm ) would have used two to eight

times the dosage, and that's why their protocol cures heart disease.

Vitamin

E is not the problem; it is the solution. Look and compare for yourself

at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/shute_protocol.html .

Dr. Abram Hoffer's comments on the Shutes' high-dosage vitamin E

therapy

are posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/hoffer_shute.html

I have more to say on the safety and effectiveness of vitamin E at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/evitamin.htm and at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/safety.html .

How about a third opinion?

At his website http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA352339/ , Andrew Weil,

M.D.

writes, in part:

" I reviewed the study's findings with Jeffrey Blumberg, Director of

the

Antioxidants Research Laboratory at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition

Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. Dr. Blumberg points out

that

when the study showed a striking benefit - a 28 percent reduction in

lung

cancer - the authors applied a stringent statistical test to see if the

finding was real. When subjected to this analysis, the lung cancer

reduction

disappeared. But the same test was not applied when the study showed

that

vitamin E led to a 13 percent increased risk of heart failure. . .

What's

more, Dr. Blumberg notes, 12.1 percent of patients who were taking a

placebo

developed heart failure compared to 13.5 percent of those taking

vitamin E.

The difference - barely more than one percent - is trivial. More

importantly, no heart failure risk has ever been reported in any other

of

the many clinical trials of vitamin E.

 

I'm becoming increasingly angry with the media coverage of these and

similar findings. All too often, complicated results of scientific

studies

are boiled down to shock headlines or sound bites, leaving the public

needlessly alarmed. Even more discouraging is the willingness of

prestigious

journals like JAMA to publish editorials that are likely to generate

scare

headlines, especially when a careful reading of a study's fine print

doesn't

support such conclusions. "

NUTRITIONAL MEDICINE TODAY CONFERENCE

DY Comment:

While I do not always agree with Dr. Weil, I most surely do here. In

fact,

at the upcoming Nutritional Medicine Today Conference in Ottawa ,

Canada , I

will be presenting a lecture entitled " Media Lies, Vitamin Truths. " It

will

be Friday night, May 13. I am honored to be the Master of Ceremonies

for the

Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame inductions on Saturday night, May

14.

The complete conference dates are May 12 to May 15. It gets even

better: Dr.

Abram Hoffer will be there in person, providing the keynote lecture on

Sunday. And, along with many presentations by outstanding

orthomolecular

physicians and researchers, we will have some very special attendees

including Charlotte Gerson, daughter of pioneering nutritional cancer

specialist Dr. Max Gerson, and Dr. Gerson's grandson, Howard Strauss.

It is going to be a great conference, and I hope you can join us.

A complete conference schedule is at

http://www.orthomed.org/news/news.htm

You may email scarter for additional information.

 

VITAMIN SAFETY POLL

 

Would you personally like to fight back at anti-vitamin media bias?

We are calling on ALL Doctor Yourself Newsletter readers worldwide to

help

us with our new survey. We are calling it the Doctor Yourself " Gall-Up

Poll, " because we are fed up with the gall of the vitamin-bashing

campaign

constantly being waged in the media.

We would like to ask everyone who is willing to do any or all of the

following:

1) Find actual physicians' statements in books, magazines, or online

that

are IN FAVOR of using vitamins. Please provide both the statement and a

source (title; page and date; web address, etc.)

2) Obtain a quotable statement from their own doctor (or anybody's

doctor)

that is supportive of vitamins, and specifically asserts their benefit

and,

especially, their safety. The statement should be short and personal to

the

doctor's experience.

3) However, if the statements you get are negative, we would also

like you

to send us those.

4) We'd also be interested in how many doctors you contacted that

refused

to make a positive statement about vitamin usage.

We plan to tally up the votes for and against, and publish the

results,

along with some representative quotes in a future Newsletter.

Please Note : It is very important to obtain physician (M.D. and

D.O.)

quotes. Chiropractors and naturopaths are great healers, but they do

not

carry the media clout that MD's do. It is specifically the medical

physicians that we want to survey.

PLEASE SEND YOUR SUBMISSIONS directly to galluppoll with

POLL in

the subject line. (Note that there is no hyphen in that email address.)

And if you REALLY want to strike a blow against vitamin-bashing, here

are

two opportunities for you:

 

HELP WANTED: Three Unusually Dedicated, Volunteer " Health Nuts " to

join

the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (OMNS) Media Team.

 

Team members commit to about six hours a week to news media

presentation

activities, which typically include

 

* suggesting megavitamin vitamin/nutrition therapy topics for news

releases

* conducting independent Internet searches on those topics, and

summarizing the search results

* cooperatively writing news releases that are sent to over 1,000

media

outlets (newspapers, TV and radio stations, magazines)

 

Applicants need good PC skills, ability to work as a team member,

good

knowledge of orthomolecular (nutritional) principles, and good general

knowledge of the content of pages on the Doctor Yourself web site.

Ability

to write clearly and concisely is required. Applicants are asked to

send a

one-page Word document outlining their qualifications and abilities to

rasarver

 

Compensation package: Not one thin dime. This is an all-volunteer

effort.

However, OMNS team members have a unique opportunity to change the

media,

change the world, and help an enormous number of people live healthier,

happier and longer lives.

 

HELP WANTED: Five Especially Dedicated, Volunteer Health Fanatics to

join

the Doctor Yourself Expansion Project team.

 

Team members will commit to about 10 hours of work on website

Expansion

Project activities, which will include:

 

* Searching the Internet for current address of publications

(journals,

magazines, newspapers) that have printed especially helpful

orthomolecular/nutritional articles.

* Using their initiative and good judgment to identify the most

useful

sources.

* Writing and mailing reprint permission request letters.

* Reporting the results obtained from reprint permission letters.

* Reporting and recommending new methods for use on future projects.

 

Applicants need good PC skills and the ability to work as a team

member.

Applicants are asked to send a one-page Word document outlining their

qualifications and ability to satisfy the above needed skills to

rasarver

 

Compensation package: Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. This, too, is

an

all-volunteer effort. In fact, team members will need to donate their

materials and postage to print and mail reprint permission letters.

However,

this is an opportunity to bring more and more valuable nutritional

research

to the attention of website-visiting public, and help educate folks to

help

heal themselves.

SPECIAL THANKS to every one of our growing cadre of Doctor Yourself

volunteers, named and unnamed, this month highlighting Bob Kennedy,

James

Dykes, Evelyn Green, Naomi Mattana, Mary Larsen, Christine Gundersen,

Deb

Harrity, Jeanette Kiddie, Margaret Whittaker, T. P. Suhr, and Robert

McHeffey. More thanks to come in future Newsletters.

 

READERS ASK:

 

Cathy Roberts writes:

" I am confused. Doctor Yourself frequently quotes Linus Pauling,

saying he

recommended large doses of Vitamin C. Yet the Linus Pauling Institute

does

not seem to support your recommendations. In fact, LPI recommends only

400

mg/day. I take 3,000 mg twice a day, and hope that you are more right

than

they are. Why does the Institute not support Pauling's

recommendations? "

Let's ask them. Here is a response from Linus Pauling Institute

administrator Stephen Lawson:

" Linus Pauling was a great theoretician and was especially interested

in

the clinical application of high-dose vitamin C. In contrast, LPI's

recommendation is based on disease prevention and Dr. Mark Levine's

pharmacokinetic studies, which may not be the last word on this

subject.

Technically, LPI's recommendation to get at least 400 mg/day is

compatible

with Dr. Pauling's advice. LPI recognizes the safety of higher intakes

of

vitamin C, so there is no harm and potential benefit in taking more.

However, the scientific evidence does not yet strongly support the

necessity

of an intake of many grams per day for optimal health and disease

prevention, although one of Walter Willett's recent epidemiological

studies

at Harvard found a correlation between an intake greater than 700

mg/day and

protection from heart disease. Dr. Willett noted that this finding is

at

odds with Dr. Levine's pharmacokinetic model. Studies on the

detoxification

of histamine by vitamin C have found that intakes of vitamin C greater

than

those predicted by the accepted pharmacokinetic model are necessary to

significantly detoxify histamine in human blood. Of course, vitamin C

has

manifold biochemical functions in the body, and very few quantitative

studies have attempted to correlate dose or intake with optimal

function.

" I am not concerned about disparities in recommendations for vitamin

C

among the many voices in the field. Because vitamin C is nontoxic,

people

can take whatever they want without waiting for definitive studies or

validation from the experts. It's cheap and safe. Dr. Pauling stressed

the

importance of biochemical individuality in considering optimal vitamin

C

intake. Without reliable and convenient assays to determine the amount

of

vitamin C required to optimize its functions in the body, Dr. Pauling

believed that it is better to take more than what may be needed, as

insurance, so as to avoid a chronic marginal or deficient state.

Essentially, it's a risk/benefit analysis. With vitamin C, the risk is

low

and the benefits are likely to be high. "

The LPI Micronutrient Information Center has a section on Dr. Pauling

and

vitamin C at http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/paulingrec.html .

 

IV VITAMIN C FIGHTS TETANUS

 

Jahan K, Ahmad K, Ali MA. Effect of ascorbic acid in the treatment of

tetanus. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull. 1984 Jun;10(1):24-8.

" The effect of daily intravenous administration of 1000 mg ascorbic

acid

(AA) in tetanus patients aged 1-30 years was studied. In the age group

of

1-12 years, 31 patients were treated with AA as additional to

antitetanus

serum, sedatives and antibiotics. It was found that none of the

patients

died who received AA along with the conventional antitetanus therapy.

On the

other hand, 74.2 per cent of the tetanus patients who received the

conventional antitetanus therapy without AA (control group) were

succumbed

to the infection. . . These results suggest that AA might play an

important

role in reducing the mortality of tetanus. "

Look at that twenty-year old paper again, and wince: Three quarters

of

kids with tetanus DIED when treated with conventional medication. Yet a

mere

1,000 mg/day of injected vitamin C was enough to save ALL of those to

whom

it was given. Frederick R. Klenner, M.D., knew this over 35 years ago:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerpaper.html He successfully treated

a

wide variety of bacterial and viral diseases with vitamin C

http://www.doctoryourself.com/vitaminc.html .

And, he gave vastly more vitamin C than 1,000 mg/day!

http://www.doctoryourself.com/klenner_table.html. For a medical

specialist's

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

 

UPDATE ON UPPER LIMITS

 

Update on Upper Limits

by Bill Sardi

http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp

The FDA has removed a posted letter from their website which had

said:

" In the October 11, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 53078 at 53084), FDA

announced the agency's general policy on the development and use of

standards with respect to international harmonization of regulatory

requirements and guidelines and addressed, in detail, the conditions

under

which FDA plans to participate with standards-setting-bodies outside of

FDA

in the development of standards for products regulated by the agency.

Three

key aspects of this policy that bear directly on the commonly expressed

concerns about the United States' participation in the development and

use

of international standards are that the standards must: (1) ensure

product

safety, (2) be based on sound scientific and technical information, and

(3)

not be in conflict with any statute, regulation, or policy under which

FDA

operates. These policies ensure that the United States position is

consistent with applicable U.S. laws. "

Since there are no written laws against high-dose vitamin C, or

vitamin E,

the CODEX regulations could be automatically adopted by FDA without

hesitation. The " sound science " the FDA and CODEX refer to will likely

resemble the bogus and often outdated upper limits proposed by the

National

Academy of Sciences some time ago. Here are some examples:

Upper Limit For Vitamin C?

The proposed upper limit by the Institute for Medicine for vitamin C

is

2000 milligrams. The primary objection to high-dose vitamin C is

gastric

upset and diarrhea. It is difficult to understand how a self-limiting,

undesirable side effect is classified as an adverse reaction used to

establish an upper limit for an entire planet full of people. The

body's

need for vitamin C depends upon how much biological stress it is

undergoing

(infection, inflammation, radiation exposure, etc.). Robert Cathcart MD

has

clearly described how mega-dose vitamin C can be safely consumed in

certain

disease states, with increasing doses to " bowel tolerance. " [

Australasia

Nurses Journal 9: 9-13, 1980]

See: http://www.orthomed.com/titrate.htm

Self medication with high-dose vitamin C has not produced significant

morbidity or mortality in healthy or ill individuals.

Drs. Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts, graduates of Manchester

University ,

in England , have clearly outlined how consumers can take relatively

high

oral doses of vitamin C at intervals throughout the day to maintain

high

blood levels without diarrhea. [Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C,

2004,

http://www.lulu.com/ascorbate . Reviewed at

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v5n2.txt ]

Carol Johnston, a vitamin C researcher at Arizona State University,

says :

" The available data indicate that very high intakes of vitamin C

(2000-4000

milligrams/day) are well tolerated biologically in healthy mammalian

systems. Currently, strong scientific evidence to define and defend a

UL for

vitamin C is not available. " [Nutrition Reviews 57:71-7, 1999] See:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=10101920

The concern with vitamin C is that CODEX reviewers will establish the

upper limit for supplemental vitamin C at the 200 (not 2,000) milligram

dose, since this is what the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

researchers

mistakenly claim is the point where blood serum concentration becomes

saturated. [ Proceedings National Academy Science 93:3704-9, 1996]

See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=8623000

Also see: http://www.niddk.nih.gov/welcome/releases/4_20_99.htm

Germany has already established a 225 mg upper limit for vitamin C in

vitamin pills.

And yet other National Institutes of Health researchers have recently

published a paper showing oral vitamin C can produce blood serum

concentrations three times greater than previously thought possible.

But

they have failed to issue retractions on their previous flawed

experiments

and this new data may be overlooked by CODEX reviewers. [Annals

Internal

Medicine 2004 140:533-7, 2004]

See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=15068981

Also see: The Ridiculous Daily Allowance, by Hickey and Roberts, at

http://www.lulu.com/ascorbate

Despite this new information, CODEX will likely establish an upper

limit

for vitamin C somewhere between 1000-2000 milligrams, but possibly as

low as

250 mg.

How Will Consumers Respond To Upper Limits?

There is going to be a collective effort to frighten consumers away

from

perfectly safe doses of supplemental nutrients. The news media will

likely

issue a barrage of misinformation about dietary supplements once CODEX

restrictions are finalized. No law need go into effect to scare

consumers

away from perfectly safe doses of vitamins and minerals. All that need

happen is to publicize bogus upper limits. Then, consumers will be

voluntarily tossing their vitamin pills down the toilet!

Consumers are likely going to see the words " upper limit " and back

away

from getting even near to that dose. Already various consumer

organizations

have blindly adopted upper limits as guidelines for public health.

See: http://www.a-guide-for-seniors.com/Pages/Vitamins.html

Eventually, dietary supplement manufacturers may be required to print

the

Safe Upper Limit on their product labels, which will cause consumers to

back

away. To keep customers, dietary supplement companies may water-down

their

products without a fight.

Exactly what is CODEX protecting the public from? The number of

adverse

reports from the use of vitamins is very small and the number of deaths

is

virtually zero. What is the need for such restrictions?

 

FOR THE REAL STORY ABOUT FLUORIDE:

 

There is a new web address for Peter Meiers' excellent critical

history of

fluoridation: http://www.fluoride-history.de

 

UNSTRESS YOUR LIFE

 

Are you ready to chill out and kick back for a while? Good, because

it's

time for our third serialized installment of

Unstress Your Life , by John Mosher, PhD Biology Professor Emeritus,

State

University of New York

Part Three: Feel The Life In Your Own Body

With your eyes closed and breathing at the diaphragm level bring your

attention to your feet and ankles. Notice them give them your

attention! How

do they feel? Just allow your attention to be there. If there is any

sensation, discomfort etc. just allow your attention to be there. When

you

are ready then proceed in the same manner with your mind's eye, your

observer, to survey and feel each part of your body. Starting as

described

with the feet, ankles and move up the legs, hips, lower back abdomen,

chest,

hands, arms, shoulders, neck, jaw, face, and the crown of the head. If

there

is any sensations of whatever nature at any area, allow yourself to

experience it for as long as you wish. Then move on. If you feel

adventurous

(and anatomically savvy), you may extend this survey to your internal

organs

as well, such as the intestines, kidneys, liver, stomach, lungs, heart,

etc.

As you do this just let your attention be with the area you are

surveying a

moment or two or as long as you wish.

If there is discomfort at any area of your body you are surveying

then

allow your attention to remain on that area. You may notice, at first,

that

this discomfort becomes more obvious when you first pay attention to

it;

that is normal. You will notice that after a short period of intense

discomfort that the feeling will seem to disappear. The area under

surveillance will just feel neutral. At this point move on to the next

area.

Moving Your Body

A light exercise program is always helpful to the mind and body. Much

has

been written about the value of massage, stretches, yoga asanas

(positions),

T'ai Chi, and various other light exercises. Traditionally, some sort

of

stretches or postures with a self-massage are suggested before doing a

relaxation or meditative practice.

Yes, you can give yourself a massage. Start with the head. Massage

your

scalp and then continue to the forehead, the temples, around the eyes,

your

cheeks and jaws. Then massage the back of your neck and continue on to

your

throat. Be very gentle with the throat area. Massage the throat either

side

of the windpipe with the finger tips. Then continue down the neck to

the

shoulders. The hands and wrists are next. Massage the hands like you

were

washing them and proceed to the wrists and on up the arm. After doing

each

arm start at the waist and massage as much of your back as you can.

Upon

completing the back massage the lower abdomen working your way up to

the

chest area. Next start with your feet and work your way up the leg to

the

waist. After completing the self massage start progressively tensing

and

relaxing the muscles of the feet, then the calves, then the thighs,

buttocks, arms shoulders and any other muscles around the waist, back

and

chest area you are able to tense and relax. Move on to the face and

tense

and relax the jaws and other face muscles best you can.

If you wish a more extensive pre-relaxation body movement you might

join a

yoga class, or get a book outlining various movements, yoga postures

and

stretches. It is up to you as to how much you wish to include. If you

have

time and inclination, of course it is beneficial to as much as

possible. But

if your time is limited then at least start with just the self massage.

Light exercise in general is very good to help reduce stress. A walk

in

the fresh air along a beach, a stream, in a park or woods can be very

invigorating and beneficial. If you are not already including a

15-minute or

more walk in your daily life, it is time to do so.

During the day, either at home or at work, take a minute or two just

to

stretch and tense and relax your muscles. Even if you are traveling,

while

you are seated you can tense and relax your muscles.

Being Present

Throughout your normal day, wherever you are, try this: be present,

and be

right where you are right now. Thoughts, especially negative thoughts,

tend

to take you away from the present. They may move you back to the past

where

you may have sadness, regrets or grief. Or, you may have anxious

thoughts of

the future, which of course has not yet happened. But those thoughts

are

about the past or the future not the PRESENT. Just take a moment to

realize

that the past is gone and the future has not happened. You are only

living

right this moment. So to live in the present means to be right here,

right

now. Not in the past nor in the future. This idea is very difficult for

some

to grasp because their mind is always dwelling in the past or flitting

ahead

to the future. So begin by considering that you are right here, right

now

and not in the past nor in the future.

A Technique:

During the day actively seek thoughts. You might start by closing

your

eyes a second or two and ask yourself, " I wonder what my next thought

will

be? " Watch for the thought as you might watch a fox den to see if a fox

will

come out. If a fox, that is, a thought comes out observe it and let it

go.

This shows you that you can observe thoughts and make choices. If

thoughts

try to dominate your awareness remind yourself that YOU are in charge.

As

the observer of thoughts you can say that " the thoughts are obsessing

and I

do not need to pay any attention to them. " When thoughts take over you

lose

consciousness. Every time you realize that you are thinking about the

past

or the future bring your attention back to the observer stage. That is

the

observer watching and making choices. The observer who can choose to be

right here right now. As you practice this technique of observing your

thoughts and letting them pass you will live more in the present. You

will

have more consciousness and be able to make choices rather than

responding

in a reflexive way to thoughts. Remember thoughts are just thoughts and

they

do not have to be acted upon. Thoughts may be observed like watching

fallen

leaves drift by on the surface of a stream. You do not have to do

anything;

just watch them go by. Practice this concept during your day time

activity.

It may be difficult at first. Thoughts will want to take over and

dominate.

It takes time, and practice.

(Counselor and professor of biology John I. Mosher, PhD, is the

author of

several articles at the DoctorYourself.com website, including:

How to Communicate Better:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/mosher_neuro.html

Improve Your Relationships with Others:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/relationship.html

Life's Journey and How to Travel It:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/mosher2.html

Book Review of The Power of Now, by Eckhart Tolle:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/nowpower.html

Your Personal Development:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/mosher3.html

 

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ALL to this newsletter are available with a

blank

email to:

 

news-

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 .

 

 

 

 

 

--