MD Archives - Dr. Leonard : Dr. Leonard

RSSAll Entries Tagged With: "MD"

Gut Feeling: The Microbiome and Mental Health

gutThe Secret Life of Your Microbiome (New Society Publishers, 2017), by Susan L. Prescott, MD, PhD and by Alan C. Logan, ND presents the scientific connection between our bodies and the microbial world and suggests that the health industry not neglect the symbiosis of microbial and human life. The book includes recipes for a healthy microbiome from “The Gut Girl”, Marlies Venier, a skilled fermenter, blogger, and certified health coach. The following excerpt discusses the link between the gut, disease, and mental health from the theory of dysbiosphere, first described by John Arthur Thomson (1861-1933) as “the way life (Greek: bios) that surrounds us like a living globe (Latin: sphaera),” or “life in distress” (The Secret Life of Your Microbiome).

Shifting Psyche in the Dysbiosphere

At all hours of the day and night, just as surely as birds migrate and the Earth rotates on its axis, massive juggernauts traverse national highways and city streets. These semi-trailer trucks — 40-ton transport vessels unimaginable just a century ago — are filled to the brim with cargo that is driving dysbiosis — life in distress. Flinging open the back doors for forensic examination, we soon see the stash that is eroding life and health. Sugar-rich foods and beverages, cigarettes, ultra-processed foods, high-calorie/low-nutrient foods far removed from nature, energy drinks, and the raw material for fast food that gets assembled by workers who don’t receive a living wage are making their way to a city near you. These are all markers of a system of personal, public, and planetary health run amok. Yet, all the while, they are also our desperate attempts for a healing balm for all that ails us, along with literally truckloads of antidepressants. Distress in life serves only to increase the bloated haul.

Close to 30 million tons of sugar are hauled around the United States annually. The markers of our sedentary life — 37 million new televisions, 160 million new smartphones — scurry over interstate highways. Many more are destined for households in westernized and developing nations alike.

Psychotropic medications are increasingly prescribed to children, teens, and adults. Although prescription drugs don’t weigh much, they represent one of the most valuable commodities transported on US highways and rail routes — $914 billion per year. Despite having a per-pill weight which is next to nothing, the haul still amounts to over 200 tons of antidepressants, anti-anxiety, attention deficit, and sleep-enhancing medications. We also turn to dietary supplements to soothe us and help fill in nutritional voids — $30 billion worth of approximately 30,000 different dietary supplements in North America alone. Just one small segment of this industry — omega-3 and other fatty acids — tells a story of the sheer volume of our desire to be fixed: 120 million tons of fatty acid supplements are moved around our global transportation systems.

Then we have energy drinks. Juggernauts deliver $43 billion worth of so-called energy drinks to keep up with global demand. Experts in business marketing describe it as an unquenchable thirst for more energy; they foresee a 40 percent growth in sales and profits galore by 2020. We, on the other hand, foresee an increasingly fatigued global population trying to prop themselves up and survive the demands of modernity via the contents of little plastic bottles or large tins of packaged stimulants. Each can and bottle is interconnected to so many other issues of our time. For example, Dr. Subin Park and colleagues have found that energy drink use is linked to sleep problems, depression, suicidal ideation, and stress. They found that consuming junk food magnifies these energy drink-neuro-behavioral-emotional links.

Visualize all that global locomotion for just a moment. The colossal movement of products, the energy it takes, the planetary fatigue it induces, the pressure it places on the biodiversity we are increasingly detached from. A core theme of Secret Life is the interconnectedness of life in promoting health, which therefore cannot be removed from the interconnected forces that threaten that vital force. One by one the semi-trailers pull up to the urban loading dock, which is essentially our own gullet. Heavily supported by prodigious promissory notes written by marketers who pledge us a better life, each load brings us further away from our ancestral past.

No Health Without Mental Health

In order to make our argument that all aspects of life — both seen and unseen — are connected to your health and vitality, and, by extension, the health of those around you, we first need to take a step back and take stock of where we are at, mentally, in westernized societies or so-called developed nations. We apologize up front if this might seem, for lack of a better word, depressing. However, as the messages of positivity break through, they will do so from the oft-overlooked vantage of mental health. This is an essential prism so that we can later crush the superficial dismissal of nature by many political leaders, institutions, and those in positions of power and authority. In many of these halls, nature, if on the radar at all, is viewed merely as a low-ranking variable in modern health. To illuminate our argument, we must first shine the optimistic, variegated light of our vis medicatrix naturae dialogue on the unsettling crises in our midst.

Although we will focus on health from the mental and emotional perspective, we do so with the understanding that emotional health is deeply connected to the epidemic of chronic, non-communicable diseases in our midst. Allergy, asthma, and autoimmunity are the barometers of change. These diseases are happening at increasing rates, especially early in life. Consider that pediatric inflammatory bowel disease has tripled in some countries over the last half-century. But careful study shows that rapid increases have occurred mostly over the last decade. Based on twin studies, genetics are not the issue, accounting for only about 20-30 percent of the causation. Also, although it’s tempting to dismiss this as simply increased awareness by doctors, the increases in pediatric type one diabetes are increasing along similar lines. Increases in type one diabetes aren’t a matter of physician awareness. It is fairly obvious, life-threatening disease and has been since doctors rode in a horse and buggy. The only rational conclusion is that something, or some things, have changed in our environment, lifestyle, or both.

Onwards then, to the current psyche in developed nations. As defined, the term “developed” might infer that nations like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States are all grown up and fully mature. When it comes to dealing with infectious disease, early-life mortality, and the delivery of advanced healthcare, these and other G12 countries are certainly wise beyond their years. But not so much when looking at them through the filter of what actually defines health.

Health, as Thomson made clear and as the World Health Organization (WHO) has now formally defined, is not the absence of disease but rather a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. WHO has more specifically defined mental health as the ability to reach one’s potential while coping with the normal stresses of life. Of course, defining what, exactly, are the “normal” stressors of life in our increasingly complex, urbanized, technological, nature-detached world, is a bit of a challenge. However, we can all understand that, just because someone doesn’t meet the checklist criteria for a mental disorder, doesn’t mean they are thriving. Nor does it mean they are healthy.

Beyond the Borders of Disorders

The international statistics on mental health in developed nations are troubling to say the least. In the United States 25 percent of the adult population reports having a mental illness in a given year, and 50 percent of adults over the course of a lifetime. Those are actual disorders. Primary interventions — pharmaceutical drugs and cognitive- behavioral therapy — can be powerfully effective. They just aren’t effective enough for everyone. Plus, they are often used after months or even years of suffering. Prevention of mental disorders desperately needs to be prioritized.

Since our focus is on mental health, we won’t enter the debate about whether or not there is a more recent epidemic of defined mental disorders. Although some studies have shown major increases in diagnoses of depression and anxiety in recent years, others have not. Whatever the accurate percentage of westerners that currently meet various criteria for depression and anxiety disorders may be, we can all agree that it is unacceptably high.

There are untold numbers of people who sit just below the threshold of diagnostic criteria for depression and anxiety disorders. In medical jargon the individuals who look good from afar, but are far from good, are labeled as having subsyndromal, subthreshold, or subclinical conditions. Psychological distress, fatigue, sleep difficulties, and other symptoms associated with subclinical mental health disorders are commonly reported in primary care settings. Only eight percent of people show up to their doctor to discuss mental health issues like depression, anxiety, alcohol problems; they are much more willing to talk about physical ailments. But when prodded just a bit, it turns out one in three are actually experiencing emotional symptoms that they were reluctant to discuss.

Only in recent years, have researchers started to get a handle on the true suffering, unrealized quality of life, and difficulty performing daily activities, experienced by those who sit just below diagnostic cutoffs. Historically, scientists and clinicians have been hyperfocused on individuals that meet highly-debated criteria for various mental disorders; the consequences of this are now clear — many suffering individuals have been overlooked. We think it is an important part of the discussion because living on the borderland around “nearly” having major depression and/or anxiety disorder(s) sets one on the path to a higher risk of other chronic diseases, and, most certainly, impaired quality of life. The physiological and metabolic changes — oxidative stress and inflammation — that lead to damage to cells are there on either side of the line.

In fact, scientists discovered recently that individuals with sub-threshold depression experience loss of grey matter and increased mortality. That’s code for the reality that the mind-body interface really isn’t interested in diagnostic manuals: moving along the mental state continuum in the direction away from vitality damages cells and can shrink your brain and shorten your lifespan. We describe in Secret Life how recognition of the interconnectedness of life and lifestyle can provide an antidote to the erosion of health. Provide a sea wall to protect your grey matter.

The Resonance of Stress

Shifting mental health can also be gleaned from perceptions of stress. The vast majority of international academic studies and surveys conducted by various mental health organizations show significantly higher reporting of psychological distress within the last few decades. In fact, never mind decades, they show significantly more distress in the last few years. If youth and adults of all ages are reporting higher levels of perceived stress — and perception is reality when it comes to thoughts and feelings — then we have a clear roadblock to the realization of mental health.

Very telling are the increases in cases involving symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress fielded by the employee assistance departments of major global companies. For example, one survey involving 100,000 employees located in Europe, Asia, and the Americas reported a 27.4 percent increase in such cases from 2012 to 2014. Similar findings from an Australian employee assistance firm covering 600,000 employees has shown a 15 percent uptick in stress-related sickness and cases of flat-out AWOL from work due to stress in re- cent years. There are many legitimate reasons why this might be the case, often pinned on horrible bosses, modern workplace culture, and excessive demands. However, our children, teens, and university students are also experiencing the same trends.

New research from Dr. Jean Twene shows that compared to their peers from 1980, North American teens are much more likely to report symptoms of distress such as trouble sleeping, shortness of breath, diminished cognitive focus, and memory recall. Also in the last few decades, young adults in the university are more likely to report feeling overwhelmed. Recently, Canadian scientists from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health found that the number of teens reporting moderate to serious psychological distress has increased since 2013. Meanwhile, rates of disability due to mental or neurodevelopmental conditions has increased by 21 percent over the last decade. It’s an upward creep of stress, especially among our youth.

Originally posted:

Author:  Susan L. Prescott, MD, PhD and by Alan C. Logan, ND

It’s The Brain-Altering Drugs Stupid: Addictive Opioids, SSRIs, Anti-Psychotics, Benzodiazepines And Suicidality

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been fooled.” — Carl Sagan, “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection” (February 1, 1987)

Drug Czar Jim McClelland launching the RxADI Indiana initiative in Indianapolis – July 2018

This morning, just as I was about to start writing my weekly Duty to Warn column, I glanced through my local paper, the Duluth News-Tribune, and was confronted by a full-page ad on page A3, essentially identical to the one pictured above, except that the News-Tribuneversion didn’t have any Indiana groups on the poster.

Opioids, SSRIs, Anti-Psychotics, Benzodiazepines

The ad was titled “Rallying to Address Opioid Addiction”. The ad likely cost well over a thousand dollars and was paid for by an entity that I had never heard of before called “Rx ALI Minnesota”. Rx ALI is the abbreviation for Rx [i.e., prescription drug] Abuse Leadership Initiative). The group is apparently a fresh new “alliance” of “concerned” corporate entities that were suddenly interested in the opioid crisis that has been affecting all portions of America for decades.

Or maybe the interest of some of this now-seemingly ubiquitous major alliance that is sponsoring the ad all over America has some ulterior motives, such as trying to obscure the guilt that those behind the initiative should be acknowledging. Perhaps there are hidden entities that have been guilty of actually causing the addiction and suicidality crises in the first place are now trying to unjustly be a part of the many altruistic efforts that are going on already.

Pretending to be a part of the solution is easier than admitting that they were a major cause for the crisis in the first place. Big Businesses are notorious for trying to finagle their way into positions of “leadership” when decisions might be made that could affect their share price, shareholder confidence, prestige or corporate survival.

Five days before the full-page RxADI ad appeared in the News-Tribune, there was an opinion piece published that was written by the CEO of CADCA (Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America), one of the ad sponsors seen at the top of the photo image above. The editorial was about dealing with the national opioid crisis. CADCA’s HQ is located in the Washington, DC area, so it was fair to ask what motivated the CEO to specifically write an opinion piece for Duluth readers? In that piece, which was supposedly written specifically for the News-TribuneCADCA’s CEO named many of the co-sponsors of the ad that was published 5 days later. I knew right away that the proximity of the two items was no coincidence.

So I had to dig further.

Among the 16 named corporate entities that were listed in the ad (only 13 appeared in the Indianapolis poster, I was first noticed the symbol for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) which had been placed in the lower left corner of both the Indiana poster and the Duluth ad. PhRMA is the notorious billion-dollar trade association that represents hundreds of excessively wealthy, politically powerful – and therefore also sociopathic – corporations that are known to have enriched themselves by manufacturing and marketing opioid drugs and a variety of addictive products, in particular, psychiatric drugs.

There is no question that the Big Pharma corporations represented by PhRMA have been, over the past century, major causes of prescription drug addictions, prescription drug over-doses (accidental, intentional, lethal and non-lethal), prescription drug-induced mental ill health, prescription drug-induced physical and mental disabilities, prescription drug-induced shortened lifespans, prescription drug-induced dementia, prescription drug-induced poverty/homelessness (because of prescription drug unaffordability) and prescription drug-induced suicidality. These entities are guilty, guilty, guilty of the many crises that are plaguing the world.

And now they want a seat at the preventive, therapeutic table. Anybody smell a rat?

Immediately below is a partial list of some of the entities that were pictured on the News-Tribune ad that have serious conflicts of interest. They are all hoping that nobody will find out about the existence of the deep-pocketed pharmaceutical corporations that are trying to finagle their way into the efforts of well-meaning groups that are seriously – without any ulterior motives – trying to address the crisis – beyond simply providing plastic bags designed to make easily disposable the unused prescription drugs easier, which is about all that some of these entities are proposing, while patting themselves on the back.

1 – PhARMA, which represents American pharmaceutical manufacturing corporations, is also in partnership with a number of the other groups in both the RxADI Minnesota ad and the RxADI Indiana Everybody with a modicum of bamboozle-resistance should naturally be suspicious of the motives behind every corporation’s (not just Big Pharma’s) marketing schemes. This story should reinforce those suspicions. Every “good deed” that comes from a Big Business corporation needs to be regarded with skepticism.

I checked the websites of the seven most influential groups of the 16 on the Duluth ad for details on their hidden corporate sponsors, the corporate boards of directors, the CEOs and the staffs, and I discovered many conflicts of interest that were listed in the websites, but only after considerable digging.

Following is a partial list of the six groups that had the most to hide. I leave it up to the reader to figure out what is going on, and then warn the altruistic groups to beware of these groups; when they come offering their “help”.

2 – The Addiction Policy Forum (APF, with a $17,000,000 annual budget) takes money from the Dublin-based Alkermes Pharmaceutical corporation which manufactures opioid drugs, opioid antagonists and brain-damaging anti-psychotic drugs, including the notoriously neurotoxic, so-called anti-psychotic drug respiridoneAPF also takes money from a British drug company called Indivior, which makes a new type of long-lasting antipsychotic drug (actually respiridone) that only requires monthly injections. The CEO of Indivior is on one of the APF’s

3 – CADCA (the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America) also takes money from AlkermesPurdue Pharma (the notorious marketer of OxyContin!); Johnson & Johnson(which, among hundreds of other medicinal products, used to aggressively market the highly addictive, so-called childhood “ADHD” drug Concerta (identical to Ritalin), the anti-psychotic drugs Risperdal and Invega and is now marketing the monoclonal antibody drugRemicade, which costs upward of $19,000 a month (which equates to $228,000 per year).

CADCA also takes money from Mallinckrodt PLC which markets the highly addictive opioid drugs HydrocodoneOxycodoneMethylphenidate (generic Ritalin) and Dextroamphetamine sulfate. Other drug companies that subsidize CADCA include ENDO, Verde Technologies and Ortho-McNeil (the latter of which markets tramadol, a synthetic opioid).

4 – JUSTUS Health takes money from Janssen, which markets Fentanyl (!), Percodan [an older synthetic opioid] and two anti-psychotics, Haldol and Justus takes money fromJohnson & Johnson (see above) as well as Pfizer, which is the biggest pharmaceutical company in America, and which markets the addictive SSRI so-called antidepressant Zoloft, the dependency-inducing and brain-damaging antipsychotic Geodon and the highly addictive benzodiazepine/tranquilizer Xanax.

5 – The MRHA (Minnesota Rural Health Association) has as its current president, Sue Abderholden, who is Minnesota’s long-term director of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) the notorious national organization that is heavily funded by PhRMA and every Big Pharma corporation in America that makes and markets psychiatric drugs, many of which are highly addictive and brain-altering. NAMI’s Big Pharma corporate sponsors over the years have included Alkermes, TEVA, AstraZeneca ($300,000.00 in 2009 alone) Schering Plough, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth, Lundbeck Inc, Otsuka America, Pfizer, Forest Laboratories, Eli Lilly. FOX Broadcasting, Magellan Health Services, Ortho-McNeil Janssen Pharma. and Sanofi-Aventis.

6 – NCL (National Consumers League) which recently promoted a pharmacy organization’s campaign called “Remember to Take Your Medication Month”.

7 – Lakeville Public Safety Foundation (which innocently accepted a $10,000 grant from PhARMA and the Addiction Policy Forum (to promote safe used-prescription drug disposal in the Lakeville, MN area)

I didn’t take the time to check for any conflicts of interest in the smallest sponsoring organizations that were listed in the ad. I believe that veteran’s groups, sheriff’s departments, realtors and the Grange have no ulterior motives like the others and are just altruistically interested in being part of the solution of a largely Big Pharma-induced prescription drug crisis.

It needs to be noted that the current chairman of the PhRMA board of directors is the CEO of Biogen. The chairman-elect is the CEO of Johnson & Johnson and the board treasurer is the CEO of Novartis (marketers of Ritalin, Clozaril and the Ritalin-me-too drug, Focalin (dexmethylphenidate).

The following information about Big Pharma was mostly obtained from the internet, including Wikipedia:

“Antipsychotic drugs are the top-selling class of pharmaceuticals in America, generating annual revenue of about $14.6 billion. Every major company selling the drugs – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson – has either settled recent government case (under the False Claims Act) for hundreds of millions of dollars (or is currently under investigation for possible health care fraud). Following charges of illegal marketing, two of the settlements set records for the largest criminal fines ever imposed on corporations. One involved Eli Lilly’s antipsychotic Zyprexa and the other involved Pfizer’s Bextra (a Cox-2 inhibitor whose mechanism of action is similar to Merck’s notorious anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx and Pfizer’s Celebrex). In the Bextra case, the government also charged Pfizer with illegally marketing its antipsychotic, GeodonPfizersettled that part of the claim for $301 million, without admitting any wrongdoing.

“On 2 July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company. The settlement is related to the company’s illegal promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report safety data, bribing doctors, and promoting medicines for uses for which they were not licensed. The drugs involved were Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses. Those and the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, and Valtrex were involved in kickback schemes.”

To conclude this week’s column, I attach one of my old Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletters (which I published before my retirement and mainly emailed to my patients). PPEN # 18 concerned prescription drug-induced suicidality.

The article was written by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare and the original research which she writes about was done by Dr Ari Khan and colleagues. The original papers were first published in 2001, but the important data was ignored by the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, the NIMH, the AMA, the APA, the AAFP, every busy psychiatrist and physician and every Big Pharma corporation that should have been paying attention (if the well-being of patients was really important, that is).

Obviously the corporate elites that decide what research gets proper attention had no interest in the truths mentioned below. The share prices of the manufacturers and marketers of the brain-altering prescription drugs investigated would have been badly impacted if Khan’s research had been given proper publicity. These guilty corporate elites are perpetually trying to escape the punishment that they so richly deserve for their part in America’s addiction and suicide epidemics. Tragically, they have had – and still have – the propaganda power to bamboozle anybody and everybody, especially the mainstream media, major party politicians, the media-addicted public and even physicians and nurses.

Read the following important information strongly linking Big Pharma’s psych drugs to suicide from back in 2002 and weep. Opioids were not examined back then because there was no Fentanyl, oo OsyContin and no Purdue Pharma.

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 18

Astonishing 6,500+% Increase in Rates of Completed Suicides from BOTH SSRIs and Atypical Antipsychotics!!

By Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness – 9-8-2002

First we had the thalidomide tragedy, then the fen-phen fiasco, then LSD and PCP as prescription drugs, yet none of them begins to compare with the scandal below. Never in the history of the FDA do I recall something as tragic or terrible or as shocking or as criminal as is the following revelation! “Mass murder by prescription” is the only expression that fits.  

Blockbuster Study – 68 Times Greater Suicide Risk with Serotonergic Meds!

New research presented at a recent NIH  (National Institute of Health) sponsored meeting demonstrates a 68 times greater risk of suicide with the new serotonergic antidepressants (SSRIs) and (the so-called “atypical”) antipsychotics than if a patient never took anything.

These shocking figures of increased suicide risk show that a patient’s chances of suicide jump from 11 out of 100,000 to as much as 718 out of 100,000 if one is taking one of these new SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa) – medications touted to alleviate depressive symptoms and rid one of suicidal tendencies. And the risk is even higher for the new antipsychotics (Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel) – 752 out of 100,000!

Our gratitude for alerting us to this new research goes to Vera Hassner Sharav with the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP). (

Dr. Arif Khan presented his research at a recent meeting sponsored by the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health). This was a meeting of the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit. The essence of the research was an analysis of the data on the suicide rates for patients who participated in the clinical trials for these new drugs – over 71,604 people were involved. These were the clinical trials where the drugs were tested on the public to see if they were “safe and effective.” This clinical data is then presented to the FDA for approval for marketing of the new compounds.

In his presentation Dr. Khan made note of what we learned long ago when this information was revealed through court documents in SSRI wrongful death cases – that is, that “actively suicidal” patients are excluded from the clinical trials on the SSRI antidepressants. What he found shocking about this is that despite the fact that actively suicidal patients were excluded from these clinical trials, the suicide rate among those taking these medications ABSOLUTELY SKYROCKETED from 11 out of 100,000 to 718 out of 100,000!! (718/11 = 6500% increase in relative risk.)

What is really frightening at this point is the realization that millions of patients are going into withdrawal from these drugs. The rapid or abrupt withdrawal from these antidepressants can produce suicide, mania, seizures, psychotic breaks, etc. at an even greater rate than while on the drugs. Extreme caution MUST be taken.

Here are the suicide rates (for the 5 classes of prescription psychiatric drugs that were analyzed by Khan). Keep in mind as you read through these that the rate of 11 out of 100,000 persons per year is the suicide rate for the population at large.

1) 752 suicides per 100,000 for those treated with atypical antipsychotics–risperidone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), and quetiapine (Seroquel); (752/11 = 6800% relative risk increase).

2) 718 per 100, 000 for those treated with the SSRIs – Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa); (718/11 = 6500% relative risk increase) (See the American Journal of Psychiatry article for the analysis of suicidality and antidepressant drugs at: Khan A, Khan S, Kolts R, Brown WA. “Suicide rates in clinical trials of SSRIs, other antidepressants, and placebo: analysis of FDA reports,” Am J Psychiatry 2003;160: 790-2.)

3) 425 per 100,000 for those treated for “social anxiety disorder” with nefazodone (Serzone), mirtazapine (Remeron), and bupropion (Wellbutrin/Zyban); (425/11 = 3800% relative risk increase).

4) 136 per 100,000 for those treated for panic disorder–with benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax); (136/11 = 1200% relative risk increase).

5) 105 per 100, 000 persons for those treated for obsessive-compulsive disorder with anticonvulsant valproate (Depakote). (105/11 = 950% relative risk increase).

These figures clearly speak for themselves. A massive number of wrongful death suits will obviously follow, but at least loved ones will know why they have lost those who meant so much to them via such tragic circumstances.

Keep in mind as you read through this data that the new “atypical” anti-psychotics listed here are basically a combination of the older anti-psychotics and the SSRIs. They too have a strong effect upon serotonin levels, (actually blocking serotonin receptor sites as well as dopamine receptor sites – Ed note).

Also the most likely reason researchers saw an even higher rate of suicide in placebo cases with the anti-psychotics is that these patients were likely being abruptly discontinued from their older anti-psychotics for the clinical trials. This abrupt withdrawal can cause suicidal depression.

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director, International Coalition for Drug Awareness and author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare (800-280-0730)

No Credible Evidence for Anti-Suicidal Effect from Psychotropic Drugs

Carl Sherman, Contributing Writer to Clinical Psychiatry News Online

BOCA RATON, FLA. – Psychotropic therapy did not appear to have a marked impact on suicide risk, examination of a large database indicated-in fact, no class of medication had much more or less effect than placebo, Dr. Arif Khan said at a meeting of the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health.

Overall, attempted and completed suicides among patients with diverse psychiatric conditions are substantially more frequent than had been expected, the analysis suggested.

“Given that suicide is such a complex behavior … we have to ask if medication is the only way to [approach] it,” said Dr. Khan of Northwest Clinical Research Center, Bellevue, Wash.

The conventional response to suicidality in psychiatry is pharmacotherapy. The assumption that this will be beneficial “is never challenged much,” Dr. Khan said, and raises ethical questions about clinical trials, such as whether patients assigned to placebo may be exposed to increased mortality risk. Some observers, on the other hand, have suggested that psychotropics may themselves increase the risk of suicide.

In fact, the only biologic treatments for which there are many data on this score are ECT and lithium, which have been shown to reduce suicidality. More limited data support a similar effect for clozapine.

Dr. Khan reported an analysis of clinical trial data for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1985 and 2000. This included suicide and attempted suicide rates for more than 71,604 patients treated with the atypical antipsychotics risperidone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), and quetiapine (Seroquel); all the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa; nefazodone (Serzone), mirtazapine (Remeron), and bupropion (Wellbutrin/Zyban); the benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax; and the anticonvulsant valproate (Depakote).

One striking finding was the elevated rate of completed suicides for patients during these trials. Compared with the rate of 11/100,000 persons per year for the population at large, the rates of completed suicide were 752/100,000 persons per year for those in anti-psychotic trials; 718 in antidepressant trials; 425 in trials of medication for social anxiety disorder; 136 for panic disorder; and 105 for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

This was particularly surprising in light of the attempt, in most clinical trials, to exclude patients who are actively suicidal, Dr. Khan said.

Figures on attempted suicide found similarly increased risk. The figures implied that 5% of patients who enroll in anti-psychotic trials will attempt suicide in the following year; 3.7% of those in antidepressant trials will make an attempt; and 1.2% of those in trials of medication for anxiety disorders will attempt suicide.

Suicide rates were higher, in the trials taken as a whole, for patients who were assigned to placebo than to the investigational drug (1,750/100,000 persons per year vs. 710/100,000 persons per year). But because participants were exposed to placebo for far less time than to the drugs (a mean of 33 days vs. 148 days), this could not be assumed to indicate an anti-suicidal effect of medication, he said. (The most likely reason researchers saw an even higher rate of suicide in placebo with the anti-psychotics is that these patients were likely being abruptly discontinued from their older anti-psychotics for the clinical trials. This abrupt withdrawal can cause suicidal depression. – Ann Blake Tracy)

In the case of trials for depression and anxiety disorders, suicide rates were in fact higher among those who received the investigational drug than placebo, Dr. Khan said.

The high rates of suicide among patients studied might suggest an “iceberg effect” in the general population. The numbers that come to light under the close scrutiny of the clinical trial situation indicate the extent to which attempted and completed suicides are concealed or mislabeled in the community, Dr. Khan speculated.

Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired family physician from Duluth, MN, USA. Since his retirement from his holistic mental health practice he has been writing his weekly Duty to Warn column for the Duluth Reader, northeast Minnesota’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns, which are re-published around the world, deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s over-drugging and Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas, as well as other movements that threaten human health, the environment, democracy, civility and the sustainability of all life on earth.  Many of his columns have been archived at a number of websites, including;; and

Originally posted at:

Author: Gary G. Kohls, MD

What Your MD Doesn’t Tell You Can Harm You

medical doctorBy Catherine J. Frompovich

The opioid problems notwithstanding, has it ever occurred to healthcare consumers and allopathic medicine’s patients as to why you aren’t told the warnings, contraindications or adverse effects regarding the Rx-prescription MDs give you, often as many as 3 “scripts” at a time, when no studies have been done to determine if there are adverse reactions or contraindications from taking various chemical pharmaceuticals and legal drugs simultaneously?

Doctors are swift to advise patients about not taking vitamins, supplements, herbal and natural remedies—that’s a known given. However, are they as quick to tell patients about the chemicals they are prescribing, often willy-nilly-like and as guesstimates? Furthermore, how many times are there prescription adverse reactions, especially with the elderly, probably resulting due to what Big Pharma’s sales reps pitch to physicians about mainstreaming new drugs or the kick-backs docs will receive for prescribing them?

By the way, the FDA maintains a reporting system called FAERS—FDA Adverse Event Reporting System—whereby medication error reports and product quality complaints resulting in adverse events that were submitted to FDA.” However, FAERS seems to be a ‘clandestine’ and well-guarded database since one must file a FOIA report to look at the data. Hmmm! What does that tell you?

However, there is one caution MDs are fairly astute at telling patients which relates to taking grapefruit juice with certain prescription drugs. Grapefruit has the ability to decrease a pharmaceutical drug’s breakdown for elimination due to furanocoumarins, which block the CYP3A4 enzymes. This website provides a list of common drug-grapefruit interactions that, if you are taking prescriptions, you may want to print and keep.

Rx’s ability to impact driving a vehicle

Nevertheless, there is other information which MDs and pharmacists should be warning patients about and that is prescription drugs ability to impair one’s driving a motor vehicle and driving-related risk perceptions!

An October 31, 2017 study report titled “Receipt of Warnings Regarding Potentially Impairing Prescription Medications and Associated Risk Perceptions in a National Sample of U.S. Drivers” published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs described findings which ought to revolutionize the protocols for which pharmaceuticals are prescribed and dispensed by MDs and pharmacists alike.

The study Results found

Receipt of warnings varied by sex, race/ethnicity, income, geographic region, and time of day. For a majority of drug categories, drivers who reported receiving warnings had significantly higher odds of perceived risk of impaired driving/crash and criminal justice involvement.

It’s in the study’s Conclusions that we find one of the problems, plus pitfalls, with MDs having to push patients through their treatment rooms every twenty minutes or less:

Most users of prescription medications reported that the drug was prescribed for their use, but not all reported receiving warnings about driving impairment. Our study provides evidence of missed opportunities for information provision on impaired driving, identifies subgroups that may warrant enhanced interventions, and provides preliminary evidence that receipt of impairment warnings is associated with increased perceptions of driving-related risk.

[CJF emphasis]

MDs should be mandated by law and the AMA to give patients comprehensive warnings

But patient warnings regarding prescription medications associated with risk perceptions – for how serious that omission is for Rx-prescribed pharmaceuticals –actually pales compared with the oversight, neglect and downright deliberate refusal to instruct parents, guardians and intended vaccinees about the adverse reactions, contraindications, precautions and warnings printed in all vaccine package inserts.

How come that recent study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs neglected to include vaccines?
Aren’t vaccines pharmaceuticals made by Big Pharma? Why are vaccines always EXEMPT from disclosure and patient discussions by MDs, nurses or those who administer vaccines from telling the scientific facts about adverse reactions, contraindications, precautions and warnings printed in vaccine package inserts?

The medical profession’s standard vaccine information mantra is “they are safe and effective.” Nothing is further from the facts as reported by the CDC/FDA VAERS(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and the HHS HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) Data and Statistics, which documents over $3.3+ BILLION paid out in claims (pg. 9) for vaccine injuries and/or deaths.

Medicare over-prescription and ‘abuse’

Here’s an example of Medicare patients prescription drug use:

The average Medicare Part D patient filled 49 standardized 30-day prescriptions in 2010. At the high end, patients in Miami, filled an average of 63 prescriptions, compared to patients in Grand Junction, Colo., who filled 39 prescriptions per year. [1]

According to the CDC website Therapeutic Drug Use, it seems we have a serious legal drug problem in the USA, which needs to be placed at the feet of the medical profession, especially MDs who get kick-backs and financial rewards for prescribing Rxs and the pharmaceutical industries incessant media advertising for Rx drugs.

Percent of persons using at least one prescription drug in the past 30 days: 48.9% (2011-2014)

Percent of persons using three or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days: 23.1% (2011-2014)

Percent of persons using five or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days: 11.9% (2011-2014)

Five or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days! Is there any wonder most senior citizens, especially those in nursing homes or other personal-care-type facilities, are drugged up like zombies?

If allopathic medicine and its acolytes are into science-based medicine, then where are the studies documenting no biochemical and/or physiological interactions when taking five or more chemical drugs simultaneously? Is that why the FAERS data is secretive?

Children’s Rx prescriptions and vaccines

Let’s not forget the kiddies! How many are taking prescription drugs and are they really necessary?

According to the CDC’s website

Seven and one-half [7.5] percent of children aged 6–17 yearsused prescribed medication during the past 6 months for emotional or behavioral difficulties. [CJF emphasis]

Something definitely is ethically and physiologically wrong to produce the above stats, in my opinion.

If children literally weren’t being poisoned with neurotoxic chemicals in vaccines at 2, 4 and 6 months of age and thereafter, plus not given chemical-laced water [2] and GMO ‘phood’, but taught to eat a nutritiously balanced diet not dependent on junk and sugar edibles or fried fast food restaurant offerings, most of those meds undoubtedly would not be necessary!

You can’t poison a body into wellness. But then that would not be profitable for Big Pharma and the MDs who prescribe them. Would it?




“Follow The Money”: Big Pharma Swindles Insurance, Medicare and Consumers

Congress Is To Blame For The Opioid Epidemic Plus All Vaccine Tragedies; Investigate Both Now

Will Opioid Lawsuits By County Officials Against Big Pharma Set Legal Precedent To Sue Vaccine Makers?

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

 Originally posted:

The Biggest Lie of All about Psychiatric Drugs

In January 1999, a young woman was pushed off a subway platform in New York City and killed.  The perpetrator was identified in the press as a mental patient who had stopped taking his drugs.  The Pharmaceutical Empire and organized psychiatry manipulated this horrendous event to stir up public fear of psychiatric patients who stop taking their drugs.  The result in New York State making it easier to involuntarily treat patients who refuse to take their medication.

When “mental patients” become violent, the media reaction is almost automatic—they must have stopped taking their “meds.”  This myth of the violent patient controlled by psychiatric drugs is a myth.  There are no scientific studies to confirm it.  Indeed, the FDA has not approved any drugs as effective for controlling violence.   The Pharmaceutical Empire relentlessly perpetuates the big lie because it serves a trillion dollar purpose.  It keeps the public believing that psychiatric drugs are society’s last line of defense against violent individuals.  It also lends all psychiatric drugs an aura of magical effectiveness that none of them possess.

The Myth of “Off His Meds”

Although the myth of “off his meds” lacks any scientific basis, there is a mountain of evidence that many psychiatric drugs themselves can cause violence, including the antidepressants.   Many studies are readily available on my, Section 5, “Antidepressant Violence, Aggression, Hostility, Irritability and Antisocial Behavior.”   In addition, the Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide, and Crime, summarizes the evidence and presents many true stories about drug-induced violence from my clinical and forensic experience as a psychiatrist.

The media and its consultants from the Pharmaceutical Empire continue to argue that psychiatric drugs do not cause violence.  On the 10th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, USA Today caught the nation upon the “truth” about the motives of the perpetrators Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.  , “Contrary to early reports, Harris and Klebold weren’t on antidepressant medication.”

Columbine School Shooters and Antidepressants

Actually, USA Today was not telling the truth.  The fact is that Harris was taking the antidepressant Luvox (fluvoxamine) right up until the shooting.  Luvox is very similar to Prozac, Paxil, Celexa and others called serotonin specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

As a medical expert in cases related to Eric Harris, I had access to his medical records.  that his doctor prescribed him progressively larger doses of Luvox for one year prior to the day he committed mass murderer.  During that year on Luvox, he developed his first known violent and psychotic feelings.  Furthermore, the toxicology report based on blood samples from his autopsy showed that he had a “therapeutic” level of the drug in his blood.  This demonstrated that he had taken the psychiatric drug shortly before his death and had an active amount in his system at the time of the shootings.

I wrote to USA Today to correct the facts, and cited the toxicology report and a drug company report to the FDA confirming it. The newspaper never answered me or printed a retraction.

Psychiatric Drugs and Withdrawal Reactions

When patients do become much more overtly disturbed when stopping their drugs, it is typically the result of a withdrawal reaction.  One of my most successful malpractice suits in which resulted in an $11.9 million verdict for the family of the deceased.

The case was based upon the death of a prisoner whose antidepressant Paxil (paroxetine) had been stopped on admission to jail, resulting in a withdrawal reaction over several days that made him too disturbed to communicate.  The jail doctor, without asking how long the inmate had been off his Paxil, restarted him on 30 mg.

The patient had been taking that dose for several years, but his body was no longer accustomed to it.  If the doctor wished his patient to resume Paxil, he should have gradually raised his dose to re-accustom his body and brain to it.

After the first dose, the patient killed himself, probably from a combination of withdrawal and acute toxicity.  His method of suicide was extremely painful and violent toward himself, which (see my Antidepressant Resource Center Section 2C for research papers).

How to Reduce Violence

If we want to reduce violence the answer is not more psychiatric drugging, but less. Forcing patients to take drugs results in their stopping them secretly without proper clinical supervision and the support of a social network.

Imagine running an industry where you can force people to use your products—even if the products are poisonous neurotoxins.  Imagine convincing people that they are indispensable to a smooth-running society.  Imagining getting the government to enforce your profit-making goals of turning people into consumers whether they want your products or not?

Well, all that has now happened.  It is time to stop it. A population with far fewer drugged citizens will be a far safer and healthier society.

Originally Posted:

Author: Peter R. Breggin, MD

Lithium in Your Drinking Water? A New Delivery System for Psychiatric Drugs?

lithium“Lithium: The Gift That Keeps Giving in Psychiatry” is the headline for a panel at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).  The psychiatrists tout the value of this prescription neurotoxin—including as a natural cure found in drinking water. This drug is FDA-approved to suppress manic episodes and it is also prescribed without FDA approval to level depression and to prevent suicide, all of which lacks a sound scientific basis.

What makes lithium such a gift for psychiatry? It is the most poisonous and specifically neurotoxic drug in psychiatry. The most brain-damaging treatments are always among the most lauded as cures in psychiatry, hence the popularity of antipsychotic drugs and electroshock. They most obviously and dramatically suppress the individual’s feelings, thoughts and activities. The final common effect of all psychiatric interventions from Ritalin and Prozac to Risperdal and other psychiatric drugs is suppression of the person’s feelings.

In 1983, I first began ridiculing the promotion of lithium in our drinking water. I  never dreamed the idea would be as alive as ever in 2017.

The Harvard doctors reviewed the admittedly contradictory and speculative evidence concerning whether or not communities with higher natural levels of lithium have improved mental health. The concept is ridiculous, of course. Never mind flawed studies of drinking water.  Diehard advocates cannot even produce scientific studies demonstrating any long-term benefit for any human problem, while it is relatively easy to show long-term harm to brain function and cognition, as well as withdrawal mania from the neurotoxin.

Long-term lithium psychiatric drug treatment causes a syndrome called SILENT: Syndrome of Irreversible Lithium-Effectuated Neurotoxicity. SILENT includes permanent impairments of walking, speaking, and higher mental functions.

Lithium treatment causes indifference, social withdrawal and cognitive dysfunction in normal volunteers. Routine treatment can damage the kidneys, thyroid and other organs.

How neurotoxic is lithium? 

This substance is so neurotoxic that patients must have blood drawn periodically to test the concentration of the neurotoxin in the blood. Slight variations in it’s blood concentration can become so neurotoxic that patients can sicken and die without realizing what is happening. It is so neurotoxic that it causes lethargy, fatigue, flaccidity and other neurological abnormalities in newborns and nursing infants of mothers prescribed lithium.

Lithium levels in the water are relatively minuscule compared to the sometimes deadly and always destructive levels brought about in the human blood stream by prescription. These small exposures in drinking water have no known effect on human beings.

So why bring up such a boneheaded idea as lithium in the drinking water? Because it may influence equally boneheaded psychiatrists to ignore the extreme dangers of the drug in order to give more of it to adolescents as the APA panel also advocates.

Nothing misleads well-meaning parents more than a brief reference by their trusted child psychiatrist to lithium being “a natural substance” already found in drinking water and thought to be helpful. The doctors will not remind these parents that some of the most poisonous minerals and elements are “natural,” that is, are found in nature. “Natural” poisons include mercury, lead, asbestos, arsenic, and ionizing radiation.

Freedom requires a drug-free mind

Psychiatry—always looking for answers in all the wrong places.  But maybe these drug advocates know what they are doing. One of the most obvious effects of lithium on people and animals is the overall suppression of voluntary activity or willpower. All creative and spontaneous behavior is reduced. Do you want to remain a free and independent person? Then stay alert for plans to put lithium in your drinking water. Meanwhile, avoid the use of lithium as a psychiatric drug for you and your family members.

As I describe in Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, if you are already taking lithium, then consider obtaining experienced professional help in withdrawing from the drug, while exercising caution because lithium withdrawal can cause mania.

 Originally Posted:
Author: Peter R. Breggin, MD

USDA Waging War on Good Protein?

Powders-Protein-650XThey’re at it again.

The USDA issued new 2016 dietary guidelines for Americans.

And get this…

They tell teenage boys and men to cut back on protein foods, like meat, poultry and eggs.

That’s dangerous advice that messes with nature.

You see, the first humans were meat-eaters.1 Our primal ancestors adapted to thrive on meat as a healthy source of protein and fat. And early humans never suffered from diabetes, heart disease or obesity.

You need good protein in your diet to help your body repair and make new cells.

Without protein, the human race would not have survived into the 21st century. It gives you 20 amino acids, eight of which you can’t make. You have to get them from food every day.

And protein is an important component of every cell in your body. You use protein to build and repair tissues. And it’s an important building block of bones, muscles, cartilage, skin, hair, nails, and blood. You also use protein to make enzymes, hormones and other body chemicals.

A primal diet with lots of protein gives you:

  • Potency and sex drive;
  • Strong muscles;
  • More power and ambition;
  • High energy and stamina;
  • Mental focus, clarity and a sharp memory;
  • A lean body.

So warning people to cut back on protein is extremely reckless and misguided advice.

Protein is also your best weapon against body fat. A steady supply of protein actually programs your body to melt fat. It’s a survival mechanism.

Let me explain…

Under normal circumstances, your body keeps fat on reserve for one reason: to prevent starvation. But when your body has more protein than it needs, there is no threat to survival. It feels “safe” enough to let go of fat stores.

Unlike fat and carbohydrates, your body does not store protein. You have to eat it every day.

I give my patients this easy rule-of-thumb to follow daily:

Eat one gram of protein for every pound of lean body mass.

In other words, if you weigh 200 pounds and have 20% body fat, you’re carrying 40 pounds of fat, with 160 pounds of lean body mass. In this example, you would eat 160 grams of protein each day.

Your doctor or local health club can measure your lean body mass. You can also buy a scale that calculates your body fat for you. Or there are reliable hand-held devices available on the Internet.

For men, the average lean body mass is between 15-17%. For women, the average is between 18-22%. Obviously, the heavier you are, the higher the percentage.

I recommend making quality animal protein the focal point of every meal. And then add two protein snacks a day. Good snack choices are a couple of handfuls of nuts or seeds, a hard-boiled egg, or some cottage cheese.

Here’s how much protein you’ll get in a serving of some common foods:2

Food Serving Size Protein Grams
Beef steak, lean 6 oz. 52
Ground beef, lean 6 oz. 48
Poultry 6 oz. 42
Fish (salmon, trout, etc.) 6 oz. 42
Pork chop, lean 6 oz. 40
Cottage cheese 1 cup 28
Whey protein powder 30 grams 20
Yogurt 1 cup 12
Nuts (cashews) ½ cup 11
Milk 1 cup 9
Hard cheeses (cheddar, etc.) 1 oz. 7
Egg 1 large 7
Peanut butter 1 tablespoon 4
Seeds (pumpkin) 2 tablespoons 3

But be sure your protein choices are high quality. That’s something the government ignores in its guidelines and it’s a huge mistake.

Most of the meat and dairy in your supermarket comes from diseased animals. Factory farms feed animals grain instead of allowing them to graze on open pastures. Their food is also full of pesticides, cement dust, candy, animal manure, cardboard, nut shells, feathers and meat scraps3.

Factory farming creates sick, diseased animals. And then they’re given massive doses of antibiotics to keep them alive in these deplorable living conditions.

Every time you eat meat or dairy from these animals you’re getting their hormones, deadly bacteria, antibiotics and diseases.

The government guidelines would make sense if they warned people of this kind of poisoned animal protein — but they make no distinction between good and bad protein.

I recommend eating only grass-fed beef and dairy products.

To Your Good Health,
Al Sears, MD, CNS

1Palmer, J. Tool-making and meat-eating began 3.5 million years ago. BBC News. Science & Environment. August 11, 2010.
2Personal Nutrition, 4th Ed, Wadsworth, 2001.
3Robinson, J., Why Grassfed is Best, Vashon Island Press, WA, 2000, pg. 10

Originally Published:
Author:Al Sears, MD

Learn the metabolism secret and keep the weight off automatically

Blurred-Weight-Scale (1)Your metabolism is vitally important to your health in a myriad of ways. Metabolism – that is, the sum of chemical reactions involved in maintaining the living state of all of your body’s cells – is a big deal to humans, because it is literally our body’s powerhouse; without it, we would die.

That said, some people have genetic conditions that cause problems with their metabolism. This can include lacking enzymes which are necessary to break down the food we eat, and at times this requires medical intervention in order to correct the problem.

Metabolic problems can also be acquired, however, such as when someone develops diabetes, or in the case of someone who develops an eating disorder that can cause permanent damage to the metabolism through constant starvation.

Someone who knows and understands metabolism and the various disorders that can disrupt it is Dr. Jade Teta, MD, a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine who is one of dozens of natural and homeopathic health and nutrition experts invited to speak at the Natural Medicine Summit to be held March 14-22, a free online symposium aimed at presenting information that will make you feel younger, reverse the disease process and live better – now, not later.

His presentation, “The Metabolism Secret,” aims to connect the dots between mind, body and fitness, and how all mesh to create optimal health. He will discuss:

— The dirty little secret in the health and fitness world.

— Why diets, detoxes and one-size-fits-all weight loss solutions don’t work and never have [and never will].

— Why two-thirds of dieters will gain their weight back and many of them end up fatter.

— How the metabolism really works and how to work with rather than against your natural physiology.

“When most people think of the metabolism they think it works like this: Eat less – Lose weight – Have a balanced, healthy metabolism,” he writes on his website.

“That is completely wrong and backwards. It actually works like this: Balance the metabolism – Automatically eat less – Lose weight and get healthy.”

Dr. Jade further notes that there is no generic, buy-it-off-the-shelf health or diet regimen that leads automatically to weight loss and health. As he has said, there is an ordered system to the process.

“You don’t find a diet or program to follow, you build a lifestyle from a deep understanding of your unique metabolism, psychology and personal preferences,” Dr. Jade says.

In addition to mentoring clients and patients about their metabolic processes, Dr. Jade also focuses on building a healthy mind and body, two key elements he says are necessary for optimal health.

“Life happens to us, but more importantly we happen to life. These things are not found. They cannot be given. There is no way to buy them. Most importantly, there is no secret law of positive affirmations that will make them magically appear,” he says.

In addition to Dr. Jade’s presentation, other health experts will present information about how you can customize your diet for your personal biochemistry so you can lose weight and keep it off for life; how to integrate graceful aging strategies into your daily schedule; secrets to brain health, and how your changing brain can also change your life; and much more.

To enroll for free in the Natural Medicine Summit, click here.

Prominent Doctor Advises Against Forced Vaccinations

prominent-doctor-against-forced-vaccinationAccording to the National Vaccine Information Center, more than 1.2 million people in the United States are infected with HIV. However, these children and adults are not banned from attending school, receiving medical care, being employed, or otherwise participating fully in society. What’s more, the civil rights of Americans infected with HIV and AIDS are protected by anti-discrimination laws that guarantee and protect their civil rights.

Yet, after a small measles outbreak occurs at Disneyland, termed “deadly” by major media outlets but which has killed no one, suddenly America is at war with itself.  Citizens are being pressured to abandon the civil right, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, to make informed, voluntary medical decisions about their own bodies and further, to discriminate against and condone extreme social measures against those who choose to remain unvaccinated.

This pressure has translated into a flurry of legislation introduced in recent weeks to eliminate philosophical and religious exemptions in 12 states.

There is good news to report on this unprecedented assault on American civil liberties. The states of Oregon and Washington, which have some of the highest opt-out rates on vaccination in the nation at around 7%, have dropped pursuit of pending legislation that would eliminate nonmedical exemptions for residents (1, 2).

But another huge battle looms.

The Federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has proposed a plan to ensure that all adults are forced to comply with the CDC Recommended Adult Vaccine Schedule.

This plan promotes use of all federally recommended vaccines by all adults; creates incentives for doctors to ensure that adults comply with the federal government vaccine schedule; and partners with employers, community groups, churches and other religious organizations to promote adult vaccination.

The public has until March 23, 2015 to submit comments on the proposed plan.  Click here to view the National Adult Immunization Plan and click here to submit a comment to

It is highly plausible that anyone who has a job would be force vaccinated or risk termination if this plan goes ahead.

It is, quite frankly, surreal to think that here in the United States of America, we are struggling to retain our civil right to refuse forced drugging by our own government.  And, yes, vaccines are drugs in every sense of the word with terrible side effects and risk of death just like any other medication.

Fortunately, we have many heroes on the side of freedom in this battle. One such hero is Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez MD, an Ivy League educated and well respected oncologist practicing in New York City.  He is also the author of What Went Wrong: The Truth Behind the Clinical Trial of the Enzyme Treatment of Cancer.

Dr. Gonzalez has written an eloquent and very compelling letter to Rebecca Fish of the Department of Health and Human Services on why the National Adult Immunization Plan is a very bad idea. Dr. Gonzalez has given me permission to reprint this letter here in full in the hopes that it will inspire and galvanize other people and especially medical professionals to speak out against this plan of forced vaccination of adults with grievous personal and financial consequences for those who refuse to comply.

Letter to DHHS from Nicholas Gonzalez MD

Dear Ms. Fish:

I am a physician practicing in New York, a graduate of Brown, postgrad work at Columbia, medical school at Cornell, fellowship in cancer immunology under Robert A Good, MD, PhD, for years President of Sloan-Kettering and the “Father of Modern Immunology”.

I have reached the age of 67 years old, had only polio and tetanus vaccines as a child.  I follow good nutritional practices, am in superb health with no minor or major diseases past or present and no infections over the past 60 years except a rare cold.

I am very troubled that the DHHS is now trying to implement forced vaccination schedules not only on children, but on adults.  Most of these vaccinations as you must know have not been tested either for safety or efficacy.  The most recent flu vaccine as I have read and believe to be the case was tested for neither safety nor efficacy but got passed through the FDA, perhaps because of drug company lobbying.

I survived the usual childhood illnesses without a problem as did my many friends and schoolmates,and believe firmly as a trained immunologist that these mild infections helped my immune systems mature.  I think this obsession with avoiding the usual childhood illnesses unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive.  Even the dreaded polio, as it turns out through epidemiological investigations, was in most people a mild infection no more serious than a cold.  Studies from the late 1940s showed that in urban areas up to 95% of the populations were positive for polio antibodies, yet with no history of any significant infection and certainly no neurological disability.  Yet it’s estimated that up to 40 million Americans may now be infected with the SV40 cancer virus as a result of contaminated polio vaccines.  Was this risk worth the grand scheme to inoculate everyone for a disease than in most, despite government hysteria, was rarely a serious problem?

For most children as in my case and in the case of all my young friends at the time of my own infection, these childhood illnesses passed with no serious or lasting deficits.  However, the same can no longer be said about vaccinations and the damage they cause.  For example, if vaccinations are so safe, why has the government set up a “Vaccine Court” to pay out damage claims to victims of vaccination related disability, to this date amounting to billions.

There is no question autism rates are skyrocketing.  When I was in medical school in the 1980s it was such a rare condition my professors spent maybe 5 minutes on it, advising us we would most likely never see a case in our professional lifetime.  Now, it’s estimated that perhaps up to 1 in 50 male children may be afflicted.  Something is changing, and if it isn’t the explosion of vaccinations, perhaps you can come up with a better idea.  And this belief the only reason rates are higher is because now we are so smart we diagnose it better to today is nonsense;  autism, with its head banging and obsessive behavior patterns was as easy to diagnose 30 years ago as it is today.

Vaccines still contain aluminum and mercury, both neurotoxins, and no one has yet proven they are safe as adjuvants.  I’ve not found that controlled peer reviewed study.

The recent claims of fraud at the CDC over autism rates linked to vaccinations raise serious questions about the integrity of government scientists promoting vaccinations.

Vaccinations must remain optional, for the safety and health of our children.

Objective scientific studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations, not controlled by the manufacturers must be encouraged.

Wishful thinking on the part of vaccination proponents claiming safety and efficacy often with no data must be reported for what it is, non-science.

Adults and the parents of children must, in this country of all countries where individual liberty is so valued, be allowed to make their own intelligent choices about their bodies, and about vaccinations.

Benjamin Rush, MD, one of the leading Founding Fathers, a great physician in his day, warned that government involvement in health care decisions was a danger, to individual and societal health.  He helped design provisions, like the Fourth Amendment, to protect us from government intrusion in our bodies and our health decisions.  You should take this seriously.

American survived quite well without mandated vaccinations for children and adults, and we will survive better without such mandates.

The government knows these vaccinations carry serious and dangerous risks, or they never would have set up the Vaccine Court.  This isn’t that difficult a concept to understand. And if the government by inference acknowledges this as they do in the Vaccine Court, how can the same government then force us to be vaccinated putting our health and lives and the health and lives of our cherished children in danger?

There are already deaths being reported from Gardisil.  The heavy promotion of this vaccination in children for a problem, cervical cancer, that is relatively minor and easily treated, is unwarranted and may very well open up the door to greater danger than the problem being addressed.

Please stop the drive for mandates.  Though well intentioned such thinking is scientifically misguided, potentially dangerous, and potentially putting the health of millions at risk.  If people want to undertake the risk of vaccinations, the risk of contamination with things such as the SV40 virus, if they’re ok with the the intake of neurotoxic aluminum and mercury, then great, let them be vaccinated.  But please, for those of us like myself, a trained research scientist, who see no need to be “protected” but see reasonable danger in vaccinations, we must be allowed to avoid enforced intrusion into our lives, and our health.

Thank you for your consideration.



Nicholas Gonzalez, MD


The Multiple Sclerosis and Diet Saga

Screen Shot 2015-08-05 at 9.12.44 AMThe End and a New Beginning

People often ask me: Why are you spending $750,000 from the McDougall Research and Education Foundation to study the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with your diet? Why not carry out research on a more common problem, like obesity, heart disease, or diabetes?

Most people can’t even pronounce “multiple sclerosis”—so they just call it MS. It is likely you don’t personally know anyone with this disease; after all, only 350,000 people in the United States and one million worldwide have it. You may have heard of it because a few famous people have made their disease public, like: lead anchor on Fox News Channel Neil Cavuto, former Mouseketeer Annette Funicello, singer Lena Horne, comedian Richard Pryor, and talk show host Montel Williams. Only 10,000 new cases are diagnosed in the United States annually, compared to half a million new major cancers and 1.25 million fresh heart attacks. So why pick MS?

For me, stopping multiple sclerosis with the cost-free, side-effect-free McDougall Diet is equivalent to throwing the biggest rock I can find at the biggest picture window in town. The shatter will be heard around the world. If diet can effectively treat a disease as mysterious and deadly as MS, then diet has to be a medical miracle—and could easily be capable of bringing to an end diseases long accepted as due to diet, like type-2 diabetes, heart disease, and common cancers. A simple cure for MS would startle even the most unconscious medical doctors into awakening. Plus, I owe this study, and much more, to my mentor Roy Swank, MD for his friendship, guidance, and pioneering work.

The first part of the saga of the treatment of MS with a low-fat diet ended less than 2 months ago on November 16, 2008 with the death of Dr. Swank at age 99. The saga begins anew with the approval of “A randomized, controlled study of diet and multiple sclerosis” by the Oregon Health & Science University Research Integrity Office on January 15, 2009. This landmark approval only happened after years of hard work by many of us. You have made important financial contributions to the McDougall Research and Education Foundation (a nonprofit, 501(c) (3) corporation) over the past 5½ years. Raising sufficient funds allowed me to make my first contact with the Neurology Department of the medical school at the University of Oregon on September 15, 2007. After nearly a year and a half of working with a few of the top people at the medical school, especially Vijayshree Yadav, MD, we are ready to begin.

The Disease

MS is an autoimmune disease—one in which the body attacks itself—in this case the immune system attacks the tissues of the brain and spinal cord (more specifically, the myelin sheaths surrounding the nerve fibers). Isolated areas become intensely inflamed with sores. In time, the damaged tissues heal, but often leave thickened, fibrous scars (scleroses), which doctors commonly call “plaques.”

The diagnosis is most often made between the ages of 15 and 50, with women three times more likely than men to develop MS. The initial and subsequent attacks can last one to three months. During an attack the patient experiences visual disturbances, weakness, clumsiness, spasticity, fatigue, numbness, tingling, problems with thinking, slurred speech, pain, depression, difficulty swallowing, bladder and bowel incontinence, and/or sexual difficulties. Rather than on any fancy tests, the diagnosis is based upon a patient’s history and the physician’s examination. Apparently random damage to the nervous system—as if an inexpert marksman shot bullets at the brain and spine—is the hallmark of MS. Sophisticated technologies, like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and associated areas, can help with the diagnosis and show the size and location of active lesions and plaques.

Patients are most often classified as having one of two forms of MS: “relapsing-remitting” characterized by intermittent attacks; and “primary-progressive” with a steady, but usually slow, decline. Actually these “doctor-invented” subtypes are just different stages of the same disease. Usually (80% of the time) at the beginning of the disease the attacks seem to come and go, but in time most cases become progressive. Those patients who appear to start with a progressive decline (20%) have simply skipped the more common initial appearance of relapse and remittance.1 These artificial categories can be counterproductive, leading to false reassurance and unwarranted despair, and do not predict the prognosis or improve the chances of an effective treatment for the patient.1,2 Even with the use of the most modern medications, costing $20,000 a year, the future prospect is dismal with half of those people afflicted with MS unable to walk unassisted, bedridden, wheelchair bound, or dead within 10 years of diagnosis.2-6 The absolute advantage for slowing disability with the use of the most popular medications (interferon beta) is clinically small (8%), and the costs and side effects are huge.7,8 The lack of substantial benefits from current drug therapies is one more important reason I picked MS to study.

The Cause

Worldwide, multiple sclerosis is common in Canada, the United States and northern Europe; and rare in Africa, Japan, and other Asian countries. This difference most likely reflects the populations’ different diets (animal vs. starch-based). Scientists have found a very strong positive correlation when consumption of cow’s milk is compared with the incidence of MS worldwide.9,10 One theory proposes that cow’s milk consumed in infancy lays the foundation for injuries to the nervous system that appear later in life.11 Cow’s milk contains one fifth as much of an essential fat, called linoleic acid, as does human mother’s milk. Children raised on a linoleic acid-deficient, high-animal fat diet—as are most kids in our modern affluent society—are quite possibly starting life out with a damaged nervous system, susceptible to insults and injuries in later life. The possible sources of injury that can precipitate the attacks of multiple sclerosis in mid-life are suspected to be viruses, allergic reactions, and/or disturbances of the flow of blood to the brain caused by a high-fat diet.

The most commonly held theory these days proposes an autoimmune basis for this disease. MS has much in common with autoimmune type-1 diabetes mellitus, including nearly-identical ethnic and geographic distribution, and genetic factors.12,13 The damage to the nervous system may occur through a process known as molecular mimicry. In susceptible people, cow’s milk protein may enter the bloodstream from the intestine. The body recognizes this as a foreign protein, like a virus or bacteria, and makes antibodies against it. Unfortunately, these antibodies are not specific only to the cow’s milk protein; they find similar proteins in the nervous system (the myelin). The antibodies attach to these nerve tissues and destroy them. In the case of diabetes, the antibodies looking for cow’s milk protein attack the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

Roy Swank, MD—My Mentor

There are many people whose shoulders I stand on and the founder of the Swank Diet for MS was one of my most important teachers. In 1977, I was on my neurology rotation for my Internal Medicine Residency at the University of Hawaii. I was given an assignment to present a conference to fellow doctors on any subject of my choosing. My trip to the library that afternoon led me to the discovery of Dr. Swank’s work.

Swank devised his low-fat diet and began treating MS patients at Montreal Neurological Institute in 1948. He recommended not more than 40 to 50 grams of total fat (compared to 150 to 175 grams in the American/Canadian diet) and 0 to 15 grams of saturated fat (compared to 140 to 165 grams). There was no limit on the amount of carbohydrate from starches, vegetables, and fruits. Polyunsaturated fats were increased a little (from 15 to 25 to 20 to 35 grams). Dr. Swank believed MS patients were unique in that they had a heightened sensitivity to saturated fats.

His research soon showed that with adherence to the diet relapses decreased by about 70 percent in the first year of treatment (from 1 relapse per year to 0.2 per year). Then after the first year there were continued improvements (about 5% fewer relapses per year for the next 2 years). For the first 16 years of treatment with a low-fat diet the rate of exacerbation (new attacks and/or decline) was decreased by 95%. (Compare this to the dismal results of drug therapy, mentioned above, where half of patients are in serious trouble within 10 years.)

For outstanding results, patients have to follow the Swank Diet strictly because even small amounts of fat make a huge difference. In the study he published in the medical journal, the Lancet, in 1990, Dr. Swank found that a difference of eight grams of saturated fat intake daily resulted in a threefold increased chance of dying from multiple sclerosis.14 (That means daily consumption of as little as one ounce of pork sausage at 10 grams, one medium cooked hamburger at 14 grams, an additional three ounces of porterhouse steak, or two ounces of cheddar cheese at 12 grams, significantly increases the risk of dying.)

Early cases are expected to do especially well on the diet.14-17 As the years with the disease accumulate then the response to diet is expected to be less dramatic, but there are exceptions with some advanced cases responding very well. If a person begins the program with limited disability and follows the Swank Diet carefully he or she has less than a 5% chance of dying from MS over the next 34 years—those who do not follow the diet have an 80% chance of dying.14 If patients go off of the diet for a month or so they will get into trouble. Dr. Swank states, “Our figures show that at least 95% of people with MS that follow a low-fat diet show no progression of disease.” However, with normal aging there is deterioration of the nervous system even when the MS disease is not active.

According to Dr. Swank, about one in 500 people will have a downhill course even when they follow the diet strictly. About 50% of his patients followed the Swank Diet really well, whereas 25% were a little over on fat intake and another 25% were a lot over. Dr. Swank said to me, “I tell people that they have to have persistence and a real desire to get well or be well or there is no point on going on this (the diet). If they are not devoted to taking care of their health then they are going to have trouble; and finally, I tell them to be optimistic, it’s very helpful.”

You can listen to a free podcast of a radio interview I did with Roy Swank in 1995.

The Swank vs. The McDougall Diet

The Swank Diet focuses on drastically reducing saturated fats, which are abundant in red meats and high-fat dairy products. Included in his diet are low-fat dairy foods (skim milk, fat-free cheese, fat-free ice cream, etc.), egg whites, skinned white-meat chicken, white fish and shellfish. Meats with significant amounts of saturated fats are allowed only in very small amounts.

Dr. Swank also included additional vegetable and fish oils in his diet. He explained to me that he did this mostly because he believed that this addition would make the diet easier to follow. He found that when people ate more polyunsaturated oil they then ate less saturated fat. He also felt the patients’ skin was better with a little oil added, and that they felt more energetic. As far as the fundamental course of the disease was concerned, he did not believe adding the vegetable or fish oil made any real difference—as he explains, “It just makes it easier to follow the diet.”

Dr. Swank approved of The McDougall Diet for the treatment of MS, and said so many times. The McDougall diet is very low in saturated fats. As an internist concerned about all aspects of a patient’s health I prescribe a stricter and, I believe, a much more effective (and tastier) diet. Even low-fat dairy and meat products are a health hazard causing infectious diseases, allergic reactions, as well as delivering high loads of animal protein (causing osteoporosis, kidney stones, liver, and kidney damage) and environmental chemicals. These animal foods are completely deficient in dietary fiber and low in carbohydrate. Although lower in fat and cholesterol, low-fat meats and dairy products can still contain substantial amounts of both harmful ingredients.

The dairy proteins are of particular concern to me because they are the leading cause of autoimmune diseases. As I mentioned above, MS is an autoimmune disease and has substantial similarities to another autoimmune disease, type-1 diabetes, which an abundance of scientific research says is caused by dairy protein.18

I do not add “free” vegetable or fish oils because they are, at best, medicines, and at worst, toxins. At the very least they can produce weight gain—“the fat you eat is the fat you wear.” These polyunsaturated oils “thin the blood,” contributing to the risk of bleeding, say, following an auto accident. These fats also suppress our immune system— we need our immune system functioning at full capacity to fight off infections and cancer.19

Why Is Diet-therapy for MS Virtually Unknown?

Dr. Swank told me, “One problem is culture: we are a meat and potatoes society. Most importantly there is an economic problem, there is really not much money in a diet. Nutrition has not been taught in medical school for many years now.”

More than 20 years ago, during one of my many visits with Dr. Swank at his Oregon medical school office, I asked him, “Why is it that when MS patients ask their doctors about changing their diet, they are told this is quackery? And why does the MS Society offer a similar message? You have published in the world’s most respected scientific journals that a simple, cost-free diet can stop this disease. Yet, they summarily dismiss you and your work.”

He leaned back in his chair, took a moment for thought, and then explained, “You know, most people in this country expect to be cured by a pill, and to have a cure that is almost instantaneous. With the low-fat diet, the people actually have to work to get better, and have to cure themselves. And as far as the MS Society is concerned, John, they don’t mention it because they didn’t discover it. It wasn’t their research dollars that found this treatment. So they’re not going to tell anybody. I discovered it in my small office here, in the basement of the University of Oregon Medical School.”

So it is not just money that keeps people from highly effective dietary cures; egos are also involved—the well-known business doctrine, “Not Invented Here,” is working to keep you and your family sick. Self-centered people think, “If I didn’t invent it then there is no real reason for me to promote it, especially when there is no fame or fortune in it for me.”


1 Confavreux C, Vukusic S. Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept. Brain. 2006 Mar;129(Pt 3):606-16.

2 Andersson PB, Waubant E, Gee L, Goodkin DE. Multiple sclerosis that is progressive from the time of onset: clinical characteristics and progression of disability. Arch Neurol. 1999 Sep;56(9):1138-42.

3 Myhr KM, Riise T, Vedeler C, Nortvedt MW, Grønning R, Midgard R, Nyland HI. Disability and prognosis in multiple sclerosis: demographic and clinical variables important for the ability to walk and awarding of disability pension. Mult Scler. 2001 Feb;7(1):59-65.

4 Kremenchutzky M, Cottrell D, Rice G, Hader W, Baskerville J, Koopman W, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 7. Progressive-relapsing and relapsing-progressive multiple sclerosis: a re-evaluation. Brain. 1999 Oct;122 ( Pt 10):1941-50.

5 Bergamaschi R, Montomoli C, Candeloro E, Fratti C, Citterio A, Cosi V. Disability and mortality in a cohort of multiple sclerosis patients: a reappraisal. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25(1):15-8.

6 Cottrell DA, Kremenchutzky M, Rice GP, Koopman WJ, Hader W, Baskerville J, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 5. The clinical features and natural history of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1999 Apr;122 ( Pt 4):625-39.

7 Pittock SJ. Interferon beta in multiple sclerosis: how much BENEFIT? Lancet. 2007 Aug 4;370(9585):363-4.

8 Kappos L, Freedman MS, Polman CH, Edan G, Hartung HP, Miller DH, Montalbán X, Barkhof F, Radü EW, Bauer L, Dahms S, Lanius V, Pohl C, Sandbrink R; BENEFIT Study Group.Effect of early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study. Lancet. 2007 Aug 4;370(9585):389-97.

9 Butcher J. The distribution of multiple sclerosis in relation to the dairy industry and milk consumption. N Z Med J. 1976 Jun 23;83(566):427-30.

10 Malosse D. Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study. Neuroepidemiology. 1992;11(4-6):304-12.

11 Agranoff BW. Diet and the geographical distribution of multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 1974 Nov 2;2(7888):1061-6.

12 Winer S. T cells of multiple sclerosis patients target a common environmental peptide that causes encephalitis in mice. J Immunol. 2001 Apr 1;166(7):4751-6.

13 Lauer K. Diet and multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 1997 Aug;49(2 Suppl 2):S55-61.

14 Swank R. Effect of low saturated fat diet in early and late cases of multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 1990 Jul 7;336(8706):37-9.

15 Swank R. Multiple sclerosis: fat-oil relationship. Nutrition. 1991 Sep-Oct;7(5):368-76.

16 Swank R. Multiple sclerosis: the lipid relationship. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Dec;48(6):1387-93.

17 Swank R. Multiple sclerosis: twenty years on low fat diet. Arch Neurol. 1970, Nov;23(5):460-74.

18 Guggenmos J, Schubart AS, Ogg S, Andersson M, Olsson T, Mather IH, Linington C. Antibody cross-reactivity between myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein and the milk protein butyrophilin in multiple sclerosis. J Immunol. 2004 Jan 1; 172(1): 661-8.

19 The August 2007 McDougall Newsletter article: When Friends Ask: Why Do You Avoid Adding Vegetable Oils?

Author: John McDougall, MD


Suzanne Humphries, MD
July 5, 2010

Mainstream medicine has hit a new low in its war against physicians who have become alternative healers.  The battle has been going on for decades, but lately, in bully-like fashion, pharmas minions are ramping up the vilification. Theyre now discrediting any healing method not based in their version of accepted science – excuse me, I meant their religion of pharmaceutical belief which has been misnamed as science.

They demand explanation and evidence when we reject their drugs, yet they never serve up true evidence or proof that drugs do more good thanharm. They insist with religious fervor that vaccines are safe, effective and keep people healthy.  They preach as gospel that antibiotics are better or safer than homeopathy, herbs, colloidal silver, vitamin D and natural support for non-life threatening infections, despite the fact that antibiotic adverse effects are common and well documented.  Serious effects such as anaphylaxis (inflammatory shock), kidney failure, liver failure, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (a life threatening condition where the epidermis separates from the dermis), Clostridium difficile colitis  (commonly referred to as C-diff), and the creation of drug resistant super-bacteria are but a few examples.   And now, theyve recruited some very bright (but not necessarily wise) minds to attack alternative practitioners.  Their latest weapon is name calling – most notably, labeling them quacks.

Quack, as per the Random House dictionary:

1. A fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill;

2. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.

But from its current usage, Id say theyve added a new definition:

3. A physician or medical healer who does not profit from creating and maintaining disease, but rather respects the natural tendency of the body to heal itself; one who helps the body eliminate whatever toxins are causing illness, be they environmental, emotional or pharmaceutical; one who uses primarily non-toxic, non-surgical means for routine care, and uses pharmaceutical and surgical medicine as a last resort.

Who Gets on the List?

Physicians who see that the popular medical-pharmaceutical construct endangers its recipients with marginally tested drugs of questionable efficacy, but with well documented adverse effects, are labeled as quacks.  A physician who recognizes the significant conflicts of interest, and resultant corruption in the circle of influence that comprises the nations government/ public health officials, lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry, and in many instances his or her own colleagues is considered a quack.

As a matter of fact, it seems a quack is apparently anyone in the healthcare industry who does not believe in and support the unharnessed proliferation of the pharmaceutical industry, with its virtually unlimited profits from its worldwide distribution of toxic medications and vaccines. When a physician has the ethical fortitude to reject these massive operations and label them as destructive, s/he will be considered a quack.  And most definitely, any physician who no longer wishes to be a mercenary for the pharma-backed junta that has taken over medical schools and medical institutions will be tagged quack.

I noticed, when Googling the names of some of our most prominent alternative healers, they all earn the title of quack. This new, disparaging label seems to have appeared at a time when there was a growing tension in the world about the necessity, efficacy and safety of vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs. Most physicians who believe that the current childhood vaccination program is not safe or is unnecessary are automatically thrown onto the list, regardless of their accomplishments, backgrounds, or well-established reputations prior to uttering an opinion that vaccines may be dangerous.

Some of my favorite quacks as defined by #3:

  • Sherri Tenpenny, DO: published author, scholar on a long list of topics, especially the problems caused by vaccines.
  • Russell Blaylock, MD: neurosurgeon and outspoken advocate of health freedom.
  • Andrew Wakefield, MB: published author, formerly respected surgeon until he stepped on the toes of big pharma with a groundbreaking monkey study involving the Hepatitis B vaccine, a study that never got published. That research would have ultimately  exposed the ravages of the entire childhood vaccine program.
  • Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH: published author, attorney, and outspoken natural health advocate, who happens to have more than 20,000 non-autistic, unvaccinated children in his group medical practice.
  • Garry Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H): innovator, heavy metal detoxification expert, and living example of vibrant aging.
  • Joseph Mercola, DO: outspoken natural health advocate who uncovers and exposes corruption and inaccuracies in conventional medicine through his widely viewed website.
  • Lawrence Palevsky, MD, FACP: conventionally trained, board certified pediatrician, who has publicly expressed disagreement with conventional drugs and vaccines and offers a holistic pediatric option.

Why do I support these physicians and why am I qualified to lash out at pharma, “science-based medicine” bloggers, “Quackwatch”? I am a Medical Doctor with a bachelors degree in physics, certifications in Internal Medicine and Nephrology. I have no malpractice suits on my record and I have always been well regarded by my colleagues. However, the respect I have enjoyed for more than 15 years as a physician may well start to crack, as a result of speaking openly about my view on vaccines, which, when administered without fully informed consent, are a violation of patient trust and a threat to their health.

Expanding List of Quacks

The growing crowd of physician-quacks comes armed with determination. Once they realize what vaccines have done and continue to do – to their patients, and that no one involved is accountable or responsible, they are compelled to take a deeper look. However, they are vulnerable to the whims of an industry backed by billions of dollars and supported by a mesmerized, deceived medical culture. Doctors are under the spell of a media that censors the truth and limits access to any information that contradicts the vaccination paradigm.  They take risks when they speak out; they do this to support a trusting, under-informed and vulnerable humanity. Their rewards come in the form of the many thanks from the millions of parents and patients who are grateful that there are physicians who support their personal beliefs and acknowledge their often tragic observations.

The truth is dark and complicated, and not readily visible to the physician who starts to question convention because he can no longer live with the apparent contradictions. If he dares to question the problems of the vaccination program, he must then critically examine the entire system, one that turns a blind eye to the deterioration of health after someone receives a vaccine.  Doctors should be asking questions such as, What are the underlying causes of our national epidemic of chronic illnesses that fill our sick care institutions?  What are the incestuous, revolving-door relationships between government/ public health, pharma and the insurance companies, and why is this problem? Why have so many infants and children developed so many formerly unheard of illnesses in their age group? Why is the link to vaccination uniformly dismissed as non-causal? Sadly enough, few physicians question the current paradigm. Few want to risk being labeled as quacks.  It is much simpler- and safer- to remain comfortably within the status quo, no matter how sordid it has become.

As this avaricious machine tramples on life, there are people being cured of cancer, healed of supposed chronic degenerative diseases, discarding their unnecessary medications and making themselves well by exiting the System that gave them few options and offered little hope. Doctors providing alternative methods of healing are scoffed at, challenged by their state medical boards, belittled by their colleagues. And they are called quacks.

This word quack has been turned into a weapon, unleashed on those who notice the scores of patients spiraling to their death at the hands of FDA-approved, CDC-sanctioned medical interventions of big pharma and their affiliated institutions. The self proclaimed authorities of science-based-medicine, the paid pharma bloggers, “Quack Watchers” and many others  who proselytize the message of drug companies and attempt to discredit the time-tested healing methods used by alternative practitioners, are destined to fail. I take comfort in the fact that the masses are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the results of their conventional medical options. The public trust and confidence in what pharma and conventional medical doctors have to offer is, thankfully, dying.

The day will come when doctors will freely combine their scientific medical education with time-tested alternative treatments to build a new paradigm.  The future of medicine will utilize the healing arts passed down through generations and adopted from other cultures, tools that are nearly defunct from disuse and systematic attack.  Physicians will make a living by maintaining health rather than from treating disease and creating new sickness.  The physicians listed on my personal quack list will be heroes and known for taking huge risks to change the course of healthcare in this country and beyond. These physician quacks already have thousands of patients who can attest to the fact that their doctors unconventional medical innovations, combined with their conventional medical knowledge,  enriched and healed their lives, without prescription drugs and they remained healthy without vaccines.

Those who have attempted to warp our reputations by calling us quacks will not succeed. The primal wisdom of the masses is more powerful than all the propaganda promoted by the misnamed science-based medicine and quack watchers. The pillars that support the sick-care industry are cracking and its architects are getting desperate.  In due time, the Yellow Pages will be abundant in so-called quacks.  Quack watchers really should watch carefully.  The revolution has begun.

International Medical Council on Vaccination

Permission is given to reproduce and distribute.