Third-World Medicine? I have always found it amusing (sometimes angering) that in this
country, doctors are so quick to poo-pooh any and all herbal treatments. Doctors in Europe
prescribe herbal medicines when the patient’s conditions suggest that herbals are an
appropriate treatment. But, of course, American research scientists look down their noses
at anything NIH (Not Invented Here), so Europeans often are looked at as “lacking.”
A good example of this is that the “cure” for cancer was discovered in Bulgaria
in 1956, but American doctors refuse to even acknowledge the clinical trials as having any
validity, especially because the cure doesn’t involve high-priced drugs. What about Third World doctors? From what I have read, their primary
medicines are herbal and always have been. Jungles simply do not have hospitals and
pharmacies at every turn of the river. They don’t have magnetic resonance imaging
machines, they don’t have computed tomography, they don’t have scanning electron
microscopes, etc., etc. What they do have is plenty of Nature. In this area of the planet,
I can only rely on what I hear or read because I have not been there personally, but I do
know several people who have. One of them is a very dear friend who worked for some time
in Costa Rica, then returned to Oregon. She has this to say:
“When I went back to Costa Rica for a vacation, I brought with me a fever of about 104 °F and a bad cough. My “Mom” (a good friend that looked after her before) went out and took some leaves off a bush, boiled them into a tea, and made me drink it. (Oh man, was it nasty!) I don’t remember that it necessarily helped my fever, although I did improve. But the point is that people who have never had “modern” medicine available to them still rely on good old Mother Nature. That’s why I really get miffed when someone tries to say a 5,000-year-old Chinese remedy is quackery!” So do I, dear. I often appear to be skeptical in that area, but it is
not the 5,000-year-old remedy I am being skeptical about so much as who is trying to sell
that cure in this country today. There are way too many profiteers who play on people’s
fears and hopes and the Internet is currently overrun by them (so be cautious that you’re
buying the “real” thing). Anyway, if you remember my short history of medicine article,
obviously modern medicine hasn’t been around for the entire history of humans. Yet
somehow we managed to live through millions of years without pharmaceutical
corporations or doctor’s prescription pads. So why are the AMA, FDA, CDC, FTC, etc.,
so darn sure that only a chemical
concoction in the shape of a pill is the answer to our physical ailments? I have to giggle
over the billions and billions of dollars spent on scientific research to find the cure
for X and yet there is not even one pill or injection provided by Big Pharma that
will “cure” anything. Reader Q&A Q: A couple of newsletters back, under some supplements that Le Anne suggested taking, one of them was Chaparral. I meant to say something then, and got sidetracked, but was reminded upon running across an article in Consumer Reports. Chaparral is listed in the very likely hazardous section with the dangers of abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible, and some deaths reported. (And I think a liver cleanse is one of the things it is used for) I know you will say that is according to the FDA, but I have seen that before somewhere, and even though I am a great believer of herbs for many things, there are some that many cautions should be taken. A: I recall reading that too. Upon investigation, Three people
who were taking chaparral died of liver failure. They all had extreme liver damage
before they started taking it, but the doctors neglected to tell us that part. Everything, if taken to its extremes, has the possibility of killing
you. It takes only one teaspoon of water in your lungs to kill you by drowning
(even though some people survive having their lungs completely filled with water). Chaparral is perfectly safe when used in moderation and all
the reports of liver damage are because the doctors don’t understand what they are
seeing, simply because they steadfastly refuse to believe in fungi as a physiological
threat. Because any antifungal, when taken in large doses, causes
a massive die-off of fungi, the filter organs (liver and kidneys) will get filled with
toxins created by the dying fungi, which are attempting to kill whatever it is that is
attacking them. The liver and kidneys are flushing that crap out of your body, but
the doctors do a blood test for liver-specific enzymes and what they see is the level of
toxins, so they blame the chaparral or olive leaf or Diflucan or whatever you are taking and claim
that it is what caused the toxins. It is not the cause, but
the fungi being killed by it are the cause. The doctors simply cannot see that
(refuse to see that), so they put out this warning to everyone that chaparral is
dangerous. If there is one plant on this planet that has a high likelihood of conquering
cancer, it is chaparral. Now chemotherapy - there is a true poison and a known
cause of more cancer (as is radiation treatment – strange how what they use to
eliminate cancer actually causes more cancer). Q: Or at least mention in the newsletter that even if you think it is good, there is controversy to that, and people should make their own judgments as to whether they want to try it.
A: I can put in a note like that (and have), but I cannot say an herb
is dangerous when I don’t believe it is, simply because someone with the letters MD
behind his name hasn’t bothered to do his homework. There is
a point that needs to be made about our writings in this newsletter and everyone’s
use of our suggestions. Maybe that point should be used as a disclaimer on the front of
every issue, but we assume that you folks reading this have a brain and will check things
out before you use them. We are not doctors, neither MD nor ND. We test things on
ourselves and/or pass along information that others have tested after researching their
results. That does not mean that you will have the exact same results. Nor does it mean
“if some’s good, more’s better, and too much is just right.” We also
cannot claim that anything “cures” a disease. It seems that the FDA got a law
passed that if we make that claim and we are not a drug manufacturer who has paid them a
quarter of a million dollars to get on their list, then such a claim will land us in jail.
I also hope that each reader understands that we are not doing this to sell anything to
anyone; the whole purpose of this newsletter is to get people to open their eyes, minds,
and start taking responsibility for their own lives. We can inform and educate, but I will
never make any attempt to force (and forever after enforce) a way of life on anyone. Q: Another listed in that area is of course the comfrey. (Seems I remember you guys using that in tea)
A: We use it in a lot of things and we are getting better, not
sicker. Does that tell you anything? The scandal over comfrey is that back in the 1970s,
because comfrey has such a high protein content, Vegans were eating the fresh young
leaves by the pound. The young leaves contain some toxic alkaloids. When
those people got ill, scientists tested fresh comfrey on lab rats
by injecting the pure alkaloids directly into them (which would be equal to a hundred
pounds a day for a person). When they developed liver tumors, the warning went out that all
comfrey is a killer. The safest way to take comfrey is to use the mature leaves, which have zero
alkaloids in them. The root, even of a mature plant, still contains some alkaloids,
but if used only when needed, this is not a problem. The root should not be used
every day, just like you should not use anything else to excess.
Q: Also says the same thing regarding the liver. And every book I have says not to use it internally.
A: That’s because the books you read picked up on the scare
tactics and not the reality. I talk about doctors (MD-type doctors) as not knowing the
whole story, but the homeopaths and the naturopaths also do not know the whole
story (esp. re: fungi). (Note: With regards to “dangerous” herbs, health
food stores also have to repeat the FDA party-line or risk arrest and seizure of
all their products, which also gives the illusion that they know less than they really do
about the properties of herbs. It’s not that they don’t know, they’re just
not allowed to state the facts.) All the world’s propaganda, designed to get you
to buy their product instead of someone else’s, can say whatever they want based on
their desire to scare you into not doing something that is not profitable for them.
As an example: Your pocket change will kill you! Seriously... if you
stick a dime up a mouse’s butt, he will get cancer, so pocket change is dangerous.
All these people steadfastly refuse to put their test in the proper context. You
would never stick your pocket change up your butt, so why do they tell us that it is
dangerous? It’s like someone claiming that you get the same beneficial bacteria in
plain yogurt as you do in probiotics, and they are right, but what
they don’t tell you is that you’d have to eat 60 gallons per day to
equal one Natren capsule (other brands have different quantities). All those claims are
taken so far out of context and normal usage, that they are ridiculous. You must use your
own brain to read between the lines. If you go see the HerbNet site I put in one of the past
newsletters (www.herbnet.com), you’ll find that
chaparral is actually listed as a cancer fighter, not a cancer causer. Comfrey is used to
heal all kinds of wounds and bleeding, internally and externally. In one of Lannie’s
herbal books, comfrey is listed as having effectively eliminated lung cancer in several
patients who had been sent home to die after all “conventional therapy” had
failed. And, when used properly, neither is even a tiny bit dangerous. The bottom line is,
you have to gather as much information as you can on a given subject (or herb), then use your
own judgment and intuition to decide what’s best for you. Dietary Supplements For
Osteoarthritis by Richard Glickman-Simon, MD Le Anne already wrote a good article about arthritis a few issues
back, but here is a doctor’s view that isn’t 100% “traditional.” I, as
usual, have several comments to throw in. Osteoarthritis (OA) is by far the most common form of arthritis. So common, in fact, that if you are over 40, there is a 90% chance you already show signs, though you probably don’t know it. It’s not until later in life that OA becomes one of the leading causes of chronic pain and disability. Geriatric physicians say it is the most common diagnosis they make.
(Folks, as I said before, your body is
capable of living hundreds of years, if properly cared for. So, why doesn’t it
occur to supposedly intelligent people [doctors] that aging is not the cause of
ailments such as arthritis? Why assume then, that older people will automatically
have it? Because the statistics say we do. Wouldn’t that, then, cause
the high-IQ individual to question what it is that we have been doing to our bodies that
makes this “disease” show up in most people when we reach a certain age? Because
doctors also claim that the “cause of Arthritis is unknown,” why can they not
accept the idea that it might be something cumulative that we have been ingesting
all our lives, which takes about 40 years to manifest?) Joint Wear and Tear Although the term osteoarthritis technically means “inflammation of bones in a joint,” OA is associated with minimal inflammation compared with rheumatoid arthritis. Degenerative joint disease, another term for OA (this is probably what the good doctor in Omaha really meant to say), is a better description of the process of wear and tear that gradually softens and breaks down the joint cartilage that normally prevents bones from rubbing together. X-rays of osteoarthritic joints often show narrowing of the joint space and destructive changes in the adjacent bone.
Patients with OA generally complain of joint pain and stiffness, particularly after physical activity. The hips, knees, and spine are most susceptible to OA, since they absorb the brunt of gravitational forces. The distal interphalangeal joints (second knuckles) and cervical spine (neck bones) are also commonly affected.
Cartilage Health Joint cartilage is made up of cells, called chondrocytes, embedded in a substance called the extracellular matrix. One of the primary components of this matrix is a material called proteoglycan. This material helps cartilage absorb the forces of friction.
With normal aging, the proteoglycan content of the matrix decreases. (Isn’t that merely an empirical assumption? Why has no one asked the actual cause of this decrease? “Aging” is not a viable cause. It has to be something else.) This decrease can be accelerated by injury, excessive mechanical force, or joint deformity. This explains why certain occupations, like dockworkers and professional football players, become disabled from OA sooner than the rest of us. It also explains why obesity, which adds considerable stress to joints of the lower extremities, greatly increases the risk of OA, particularly of the knees.
Even after OA begins to set in, there is evidence that regular exercise can delay or prevent the onset of pain and disability. Aerobic activity protects against obesity, while weight training enhances the strength and flexibility of the muscles, tendons, and ligaments around the joints, which improves joint stability and resilience. Keep in mind that acute injuries and repetitive strain increase the risk of OA. Therefore, exercise is only beneficial to joint health if it is done gradually (baby steps – my style exactly), and with proper preparation (stretching) and equipment (quality footwear). Treating Osteoarthritis Standard treatments for symptomatic OA include:
Although often effective at relieving pain, these interventions do nothing to slow or reverse the deterioration of cartilage. (1) Therefore, researchers have recently turned their attention to two natural constituents of human cartilage that may preserve, or even enhance, cartilage integrity — glucosamine and chondroitin.
Note 1: While talking to the neurosurgeon in Omaha, he suggested
NSAIDs for inflammation and I countered with the negative side effects as a reason why I
no longer take those. He made a firm statement that NSAIDs are
indicated
only for short-term temporary use. To which I had to
ask, “Then why have I had a running prescription of two 500mg tablets of Naproxen
Sodium per day for the last 10 years?” He shrugged and grimaced, as if he wanted to
say, “Because your previous doctor was stupid,” but he kept his professional
demeanor and shook his head and went on to another subject. Glucosamine and Chondroitin
Glucosamine and chondroitin are thought(2) to stimulate the production of proteoglycan and inhibit its breakdown. The forms used in dietary supplements to treat OA are extracted from cow cartilage. Numerous clinical studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these supplements in treating OA of the knee and hip. These studies show glucosamine and/or chondroitin to be moderately more effective than a placebo, with no significant side effects. In a recent long-term investigation, for example, researchers gave glucosamine or a placebo to 212 subjects with knee OA for three years. Subjects taking glucosamine showed the following promising results:
How Much to Take
A safe and effective dose of glucosamine appears to be 1500 mg per day, taken in three doses of 500 mg. It is available as:
Chondroitin is available as a sulfate. The daily dose believed to be safe is 1200 mg, taken in three, 400 mg doses.
Until it becomes clear if the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin is superior to either supplement alone, it is reasonable to take the two together as a single product. Some of these products contain other ingredients, such as the mineral manganese. Manganese is believed (2) to play a role in proteoglycan metabolism. However, it has not been established if this mineral or any other ingredients provide additional benefit. (At least this guy appears to be honest about it.) Note 2: “Thought”
to stimulate? “Believed” to play a role? Excuse me, doc, but you don’t know
whether or not they do this? And if you don’t know, why are you suggesting its use?
Where is the lab data? Oh, I forgot… this is an OTC (over the counter) drug and no
one is willing to pay big bucks to do studies on something where they can’t get a
huge ROI (return on investment). Sigh… at least they claim there were some clinical
studies… Buyer Beware Because there is little government regulation of dietary supplements, the products you buy over-the-counter may not contain exactly what the label indicates. You may need to do a little homework to find out about the dose and purity of the supplement you plan to buy. A good place to start is http://www.consumerlab.com/, an online service that conducts independent tests on a variety of products, including glucosamine and chondroitin. Other Supplements for OA
Many other dietary supplements are purported to benefit OA patients. While most appear to be safe, and some may be quite effective, there is not enough evidence to recommend them over glucosamine or chondroitin. These supplements include:
(I wouldn’t touch a soy product with
a 10-foot pole – too much chance of estrogen hormones and mycotoxins) New First Line Treatment?
There is no cure for osteoarthritis, short of replacing the entire joint. Exercise and weight control may delay its onset and progression. Most patients who develop symptoms usually try NSAIDs first, even though they do nothing to address the underlying problem and can cause serious adverse effects, particularly in the elderly.
Glucosamine and chondroitin, on the other hand, may actually help preserve cartilage integrity as they safely and effectively relieve symptoms — it may be time for a new first line treatment.
Well, I for one do not believe that there is no “cure” for
arthritis, as this doctor claims. But this man also clearly does not know about the fungal
component of joint inflammation and bone deterioration. It’s not his fault he hasn’t
been thoroughly educated. And, as we said before, the required CME (continuing medical
education) units that doctors are required to take are all sponsored by the drug
companies, so he will never learn it there. (The other side of that coin being
that it is his fault he hasn’t sought an ongoing education outside academia or
questioned the etiology of all parts of such “diseases.” Some doctors have
educated themselves, so all should be able to do so, if they so choose.) You see, I used to take these NSAIDs and they did very little to
relieve my pain or my inflammation, but then I was still eating corn chips like crazy and
all the other potentially hazardous grain products. Now I am not, and the swelling is down
considerably and the pain is down a lot too. How can a doctor explain my results
when I am not using his drugs? I do take vitamins C & E and I just resumed
taking Glucosamine with MSM in the hopes to start some rebuilding; we’ll keep you
posted on whether that works. Are We Being
Progressively Conquered? While, on the surface, this might not seem to be a health issue, I
think there is something sinister going on that we should be aware of. You have all heard
of AARP, haven’t you? This is the American Association of Retired Persons, a
group that lobbies for the rights of all of us old farts. They are to retired folks what
the NRA is to the Second Amendment. You don’t have to be a member of either
to receive the results of their labors. For AARP, that includes lobbying congress
critters and jabbing pointy fingers at health plans and doctors and drug companies that
discriminate (sometimes outright screw) those who are least able to afford the outrageous
fees being charged for products and services. Well, there’s a new kid on the block, a group that, on the
surface, merely seems to be competition for a piece of AARP’s pie. The have
named themselves USA Next, (United Seniors of America), a far-right fringe group
with a somewhat checkered history, and they have grabbed headlines for declaring war on AARP,
especially as regards its position on social security. AARP wants the system to
remain status quo, while USA Next believes social security should be broken apart
and each person should be required to invest his money as he or she so chooses. Sounds
good, but (there is always a “but” in things like this)… well, I don’t
really want to debate the merits of social security versus free-investment, other than to
touch on what happens to old folks who do not invest wisely and end up losing their money
– who is going to take care of them then? Like most welfare recipients, of course
they will turn back to Uncle Sam to fix the disaster of their own creation. Still, that is not what really concerns me about the AARP vs. USA
Next war. These people, who claim they are a small ($1.5 million annual budget)
grassroots movement, are being bankrolled by a secret single source ($24.8 million in 2003
alone – I suspect George Soros, who also personally spent that much on John
Kerry’s recent bid) and they are also being given an unrestricted educational grant
by PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers
of America), the drug industry’s trade association. Now why would that
agency want to fund a small group whose stated goal is to help retired people? We already
know what motives Big Pharma has for funding doctors’ education, but why a retired
persons group? And why the push to steamroller AARP? This can’t simply be a
capitalist scheme to become the #1 retired person’s group. It’s way too fishy. What can you think of that is intimately tied into the social
security program that perhaps Big Pharma would like to crush? How about Medicare and
Medicaid? Those are programs that often force drug prices down, at least for limited
income persons who don’t have other forms of insurance. If you can break apart the
entire government retirement scheme, you can also twist things until you get all the
dollars in the pot. I suspect this group is merely a false front for a larger get-rich
scheme. And the ultimate loser won’t be AARP; it will be you. This is
one we should all keep an eye on. And if you want to know more, you’ve all got access
to a search engine (google, msn, yahoo, etc.) or maybe ask AARP what they think
at www.aarp.org. Interesting Quotes Sick building syndrome (SBS) is a situation in which occupants of a building experience health effects that are linked to time spent in a building. The complaints may be localized in a particular room or zone, or may be widespread throughout the building. – National Safety Council Mold and dampness in the family home doubles the risk a child will develop asthma, according to researchers. – Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2005 I find it very interesting that the federal government, in light of
the Katrina flooding damage, is now offering victims of disaster areas “up to $500”
refund on the purchase of home air filtration systems. Doctors are stumbling
hard over this word, but they have finally decided that the Katrina victims are facing a
major health hazard upon returning to their homes… something they call m-m-m-m-Mold! Gee, is that a new threat that no one ever knew about
before? J |