As a Naturopathic Doctor I often have people come in with their partner, children or parents. This brings up the question of how should someone support a loved one who is sick?
Certainly it's not good to just sit by while practitioners have their way. Perhaps the practitioner is wrong, or wants to do something dangerous. There may be a time to speak up and intervene. But also, if you do not know as much as the practitioner, how are you going to be sure?
Of course, from a practitioner point of view it's best for the patient and everyone in his/her life to be totally supportive of the work you're doing.
I don't think there are absolute answers, but here are some thoughts.
1) It's not about you, it's about them.
I've seen instances where a spouse come in with their own ideas of how their partner should be treated. Either they go online and come up with a plan, or just think they know what's best.
It's great to do your own research, be informed and ask questions.
However, from the perspective a Naturopathic doctor, if you're going to do that and self treat (or then treat someone else), then just do that. Don't come in to see me and argue that you have a better plan, or that the kinesiology I do in office doesn't work, or homeopathic doesn't work, or the "functional lab tests," which you ordered yourself has to have the answers.
These are all scenarios which I have gone through. Ironically in these situations the interfering partner has previously sat by and did nothing (or encouraged) the use of psychiatric medications, abuse of antibiotics, and steroid medications with no objections.
Yet this same person now objects when treatments which are far safer by any measure are suggested.
If you're objection is against natural health, then maybe it's best to not come in with your loved one as they see a Naturopathic doctor.
The worst part of this, is at times supposed partners seem more interested in pursing their own agenda (that they know it all and have the answers) then getting help for someone they love.
Also, if you're married to an adult - they should be able to make their own choices. If you're there dictating to them, then maybe there is something else wrong.
2) Parents with children who have "Psychiatric" problems.
I have seen instances of parents doing everything they can do to railroad their adult children into psychiatric treatment. And I don't means taking 1 psych drug and seeing a psychiatrist. I mean into a state of permanent psychiatric diagnosis, treatment and disability.
In these instance I personally blame the parents for their mistakes in fucking up their children. For abusing them as children. For bullying them into taking psychiatric drugs. For not admitting their mistakes.
No, not everyone with so called "mental illness." This isn't everyone. Just the people I've seen with parents obsessed with seeing their child as immersed in psychiatry as possible.
Unfortunately what happens is psychiatric drugs being what they are (powerful nervous system toxins) can have serous effects.
When an adult is not able to work due to illness and has a psychiatric label, they may be stuck at home with parents who have a psychiatric agenda. In such situations the patient may simply not have the financial, or emotional means to pursue health.
Someone who may take a psychiatric drug for depression or anxiety and have a bad reaction can wind up essentially being psychiatrically disabled. What this person needs is unconditional love and support from loved ones, and help to get needed help. Unfortunately parents may be either blind believers in psychiatry, or have a strong personal motive to believe their child has a "mental illness" and this means leveraging financial support towards only psychiatry (or just emotionally abusing someone towards it).
3) If a practitioner is doing something dangerous, say something. If a practitioner is doing something you don't understand but your loved one believes in it - support them. Giving your loved one the support they need as they seek out proper care is your job.
4) If you love someone - make their health a priority.
This could be your money, your time, or your attention. Give it to them.
An example of this. One of the sickest people I've ever seen, do to her problem I couldn't do kinesiology testing on her for more than 5 minutes due to excruciating pain. When I told her to come back a specific day so that I can see her with a surrogate muscle testing, her husband objected that they had a wedding to go to. So someone's wife is is extreme pain every day for over 1 years (plus more problems then I care to list) and you don't object to my plan, but prioritize a wedding?
Often the best cases of recovery from illness are in people who have some sort of support system. In these cases the work I have done would have been impossible without them.
But then I have had cases where the supposed support system works to sabotage the health of spouse or children.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Monday, April 13, 2015
What they do not teach in Naturopathic School
Today's natural health care practitioner (most likely ND, DC, Lac or nutritionist) is likely being blind-sided by the modern patient.
Who is the modern patient?
Someone who is chronically ill, and dose not respond to typical treatment.
What is typical treatment?
Something like an allergy elimination diet, with basic supplements (probiotics, fish oil, vitamin D, glutamine, etc...).
Simply cleaning up someone's diet and basic supplements is not enough.
The modern chronically ill patient is not only deeply toxic, but often will suffer from what I simply call "immune system confusion." The bombardment of vaccinations, toxic chemicals, EMF, poor gut health and emotional stress have caused an epidemic of autoimmune disease, hypersensitivities and other illnesses caused by a deregulated immune system.
To put it simply, the immune system can no longer recognize self from non-self, or properly identify how to detoxify substances even if recognized as non-self. We did not evolve to recognize and detoxify BPA - but we are stuck with it and thousands of other chemicals in our bodies nonetheless.
What they do not teach in Naturoapthic school (at least when I attended University of Bridgeport 2005-09) is that this problem is going on, but less how to address it.
For the most part I think the field prefers to just talk about the good it can do, and ignore what is not well understood. But I'll be honest, there are untold numbers of these chronically sick modern patients gong not from MD to MD, but from ND to ND looking for answers. They know the MD's have no answers, and keep on chasing simple solutions offered in the world of natural health. Often they become natural health experts themselves - but can not put the pieces together because they have no formal training in natural health philosophy (so can not escape reductionism and understand self as holistic unit - even if they think they are). Therefore they will chase one supposed miracle cure - with all the science to back it up - one after another.
Ways the modern patient is being treated:
1) Don't treat the problem, just act like you do
If you go to a ND for hypothyroidism and are in a state where ND's have prescriptive rights you may be given Armour or other natural desiccated thyroid hormone. This may be better than synthroid. It is however, doing virtually NOTHING to treat the cause of autoimmune hypothyroidism.
2) Don't eat anything
Gluten free diet, FOMAPS diet, salicylates diet, Candida diet - fuck it - just tell people to eat nothing. Since people are supposed "allergic" or "sensitive" everything - just tell them to starve.
I'm not against these diets - and many people are simply forced onto them - but why can't people just eat a whole food diet? Why do people develop celiac disease.
Most of the people who come into see me are already on terribly restrictive diet. I do encourage sugar free, dairy free, gluten free, GMO free, only real foods - but they really are already doing that.
If eating an apple sets off your Candida symptoms, chances are you need to do more than eliminating apples.
3) Functional tests
I AM NOT AGAINST FUNCTIONAL LAB TESTS
I am against people being promised the final answer by some next functional lab tests. I am against people spending not just hundreds, but literally thousands out of pocket on functional lab tests that detail the effects of their chronic illness, but not their cause. I am against practitioners who blindly have patients pay all sorts of money on the newest / greatest test but have no skills whatsoever in diagnosis without a lab test.
I am against supposed "expert" telling a roomful of natural health practitioners that he would never treat Candida if not on a lab test.
It's bad enough MD's are now deskilled b/c well - just order MRI.
Do we need to be deskilled as well.
The more we depend on functional lab tests then not only the less people can afford us (not that practitioners make money off of this - profit goes all to the lab) but also the less skills we develop using other assessment.
I run functional lab tests sparingly.
I hate it when people come in with their big stack of labs and just refuse to hear that
1) the answer is not in the labs
2) the answer is not in the new lab test they want
I hate the 20 minute discussions where I have to gradually lead someone to the conclusion that their functional labs fucking suck (maybe I should just come out and say that?)
Every now and then someone walks in who I simply can not work with b/c they are obsessed with functional lab tests. Despite going through thousands on lab tests and "functional medicine doctors" they need more. They argue with any assessment given if not on lab tests. They have fantasies about some new lab measure being "the answer." They complain about having no money - but always have a few hundred for the next functional lab test.
4) Blame the patient
When everything you do doesn't work - it's just a bad patient - call then non compliant - call them "crazy" - just call them something to hide from your ignorance
5) Allergy elimination techniques
There are things like NAET - just work on desensitization
I'll say this about various "desensitization" - are you being treated or is the practitioner simply shutting down your body's attempts at detoxification.
From what I've been told by a handful of people in my field I truly respect - it is not the former but the later.
6) Work on palliating symptoms
Just keep on doing the same old - but never truly break the case
Instead of simply attacking conventional medicine (we all know that sucks) the natural health field needs to look at itself and realize the same old rules do not apply! We have to many fake "experts" in natural health who should just shut the fuck up. Not the Dr. Weil types, I mean the types who get paid to lecture other practitioners - seriously - I can't imagine any other field that has so many ignorant "experts." I don't know where the fuck these people come from.
The typical natural health care practitioner is a kind hearted, well meaning and I think humble person. We deserve more than fake experts and their promises of some secret knowledge.
There is no "expert" in my field who I have found to be fully honest. NONE. Even the ones I respect, the ones who really taught me what I need to know. I have found all to be to some degree dishonest, manipulative, not aware of own short-comings, or at least to over-hype certain therapies.
(edit: the one truly honest - say it as it is lecturer I've seen is Dr. Sesenig - who taught naturopathic philosophy at my school - I loved listening to him. The only person I've seen who wasn't afraid to say it as it is.)
Virtually all practitioner education in the natural health field is promoted by supplement or lab companies. Any such training is to a degree - misleading and fraudulent. This doesn't make the training wrong or not valuable (it may be quite the opposite) but the education is compromised.
Just as it's compromised when a pharmaceutical company teaches the doctors, it's compromised when a supplement company does the same.
The field needs to get rid of dogma.
I have found homeopathy to be invaluable to treating the modern patient.
I prescribe homeopathics based off of kinesiology muscle tests - not accordingly to classical homeopathic dogma. I also use nosodes also quite a lot.
The homeopathic field - stuck in it's own 19th century dogma is an example of what the natural health field needs to avoid.
You're not going to learn how to treat the new modern patient by holding onto old dogma.
Yet part of the answer is the old. I have found more validity in the philosophies and techniques handed down by generations of practitioners who came before me, than the latest health fad or "expert."
The tried and true works, but the homeopaths, eclectics, NDs of 100 years ago did not face the same sort of patients as today.
I do not believe it is valid to transpose the exact same sort of treatment from one time/place to another, yet the old truths must be held onto as a foundation.
Within the Naturopathic field there is a rift between those who want a more traditional practice (what did ND's do decades ago), and those who wish to be more "scientific." The longer I'm in this - the more I move towards the more traditional side, but in a way where the tried and true is build on and using newer systems such as kinesiology or biotherapeautic drainage, to adapt to the sort of people who come into my office.
Who is the modern patient?
Someone who is chronically ill, and dose not respond to typical treatment.
What is typical treatment?
Something like an allergy elimination diet, with basic supplements (probiotics, fish oil, vitamin D, glutamine, etc...).
Simply cleaning up someone's diet and basic supplements is not enough.
The modern chronically ill patient is not only deeply toxic, but often will suffer from what I simply call "immune system confusion." The bombardment of vaccinations, toxic chemicals, EMF, poor gut health and emotional stress have caused an epidemic of autoimmune disease, hypersensitivities and other illnesses caused by a deregulated immune system.
To put it simply, the immune system can no longer recognize self from non-self, or properly identify how to detoxify substances even if recognized as non-self. We did not evolve to recognize and detoxify BPA - but we are stuck with it and thousands of other chemicals in our bodies nonetheless.
What they do not teach in Naturoapthic school (at least when I attended University of Bridgeport 2005-09) is that this problem is going on, but less how to address it.
For the most part I think the field prefers to just talk about the good it can do, and ignore what is not well understood. But I'll be honest, there are untold numbers of these chronically sick modern patients gong not from MD to MD, but from ND to ND looking for answers. They know the MD's have no answers, and keep on chasing simple solutions offered in the world of natural health. Often they become natural health experts themselves - but can not put the pieces together because they have no formal training in natural health philosophy (so can not escape reductionism and understand self as holistic unit - even if they think they are). Therefore they will chase one supposed miracle cure - with all the science to back it up - one after another.
Ways the modern patient is being treated:
1) Don't treat the problem, just act like you do
If you go to a ND for hypothyroidism and are in a state where ND's have prescriptive rights you may be given Armour or other natural desiccated thyroid hormone. This may be better than synthroid. It is however, doing virtually NOTHING to treat the cause of autoimmune hypothyroidism.
2) Don't eat anything
Gluten free diet, FOMAPS diet, salicylates diet, Candida diet - fuck it - just tell people to eat nothing. Since people are supposed "allergic" or "sensitive" everything - just tell them to starve.
I'm not against these diets - and many people are simply forced onto them - but why can't people just eat a whole food diet? Why do people develop celiac disease.
Most of the people who come into see me are already on terribly restrictive diet. I do encourage sugar free, dairy free, gluten free, GMO free, only real foods - but they really are already doing that.
If eating an apple sets off your Candida symptoms, chances are you need to do more than eliminating apples.
3) Functional tests
I AM NOT AGAINST FUNCTIONAL LAB TESTS
I am against people being promised the final answer by some next functional lab tests. I am against people spending not just hundreds, but literally thousands out of pocket on functional lab tests that detail the effects of their chronic illness, but not their cause. I am against practitioners who blindly have patients pay all sorts of money on the newest / greatest test but have no skills whatsoever in diagnosis without a lab test.
I am against supposed "expert" telling a roomful of natural health practitioners that he would never treat Candida if not on a lab test.
It's bad enough MD's are now deskilled b/c well - just order MRI.
Do we need to be deskilled as well.
The more we depend on functional lab tests then not only the less people can afford us (not that practitioners make money off of this - profit goes all to the lab) but also the less skills we develop using other assessment.
I run functional lab tests sparingly.
I hate it when people come in with their big stack of labs and just refuse to hear that
1) the answer is not in the labs
2) the answer is not in the new lab test they want
I hate the 20 minute discussions where I have to gradually lead someone to the conclusion that their functional labs fucking suck (maybe I should just come out and say that?)
Every now and then someone walks in who I simply can not work with b/c they are obsessed with functional lab tests. Despite going through thousands on lab tests and "functional medicine doctors" they need more. They argue with any assessment given if not on lab tests. They have fantasies about some new lab measure being "the answer." They complain about having no money - but always have a few hundred for the next functional lab test.
4) Blame the patient
When everything you do doesn't work - it's just a bad patient - call then non compliant - call them "crazy" - just call them something to hide from your ignorance
5) Allergy elimination techniques
There are things like NAET - just work on desensitization
I'll say this about various "desensitization" - are you being treated or is the practitioner simply shutting down your body's attempts at detoxification.
From what I've been told by a handful of people in my field I truly respect - it is not the former but the later.
6) Work on palliating symptoms
Just keep on doing the same old - but never truly break the case
Instead of simply attacking conventional medicine (we all know that sucks) the natural health field needs to look at itself and realize the same old rules do not apply! We have to many fake "experts" in natural health who should just shut the fuck up. Not the Dr. Weil types, I mean the types who get paid to lecture other practitioners - seriously - I can't imagine any other field that has so many ignorant "experts." I don't know where the fuck these people come from.
The typical natural health care practitioner is a kind hearted, well meaning and I think humble person. We deserve more than fake experts and their promises of some secret knowledge.
There is no "expert" in my field who I have found to be fully honest. NONE. Even the ones I respect, the ones who really taught me what I need to know. I have found all to be to some degree dishonest, manipulative, not aware of own short-comings, or at least to over-hype certain therapies.
(edit: the one truly honest - say it as it is lecturer I've seen is Dr. Sesenig - who taught naturopathic philosophy at my school - I loved listening to him. The only person I've seen who wasn't afraid to say it as it is.)
Virtually all practitioner education in the natural health field is promoted by supplement or lab companies. Any such training is to a degree - misleading and fraudulent. This doesn't make the training wrong or not valuable (it may be quite the opposite) but the education is compromised.
Just as it's compromised when a pharmaceutical company teaches the doctors, it's compromised when a supplement company does the same.
The field needs to get rid of dogma.
I have found homeopathy to be invaluable to treating the modern patient.
I prescribe homeopathics based off of kinesiology muscle tests - not accordingly to classical homeopathic dogma. I also use nosodes also quite a lot.
The homeopathic field - stuck in it's own 19th century dogma is an example of what the natural health field needs to avoid.
You're not going to learn how to treat the new modern patient by holding onto old dogma.
Yet part of the answer is the old. I have found more validity in the philosophies and techniques handed down by generations of practitioners who came before me, than the latest health fad or "expert."
The tried and true works, but the homeopaths, eclectics, NDs of 100 years ago did not face the same sort of patients as today.
I do not believe it is valid to transpose the exact same sort of treatment from one time/place to another, yet the old truths must be held onto as a foundation.
Within the Naturopathic field there is a rift between those who want a more traditional practice (what did ND's do decades ago), and those who wish to be more "scientific." The longer I'm in this - the more I move towards the more traditional side, but in a way where the tried and true is build on and using newer systems such as kinesiology or biotherapeautic drainage, to adapt to the sort of people who come into my office.
What does it mean when you do not show up for your appointment
Recently I had someone leave frantic calls on voice mail. This is not a client of mine. A prospective client.
I called her back - I'm ok talking to prospective clients. This one used up over an hour of my time talking about mostly irrelevant things. I tried to be nice - she has many health problems, isn't doing well, etc...
Immediately after getting off the phone, she calls back and leaves another voice mail - she just needs 2 more minutes with me.
I call her back 2 days later on Monday (previous conversation was late Saturday), spend more than 30 minutes on phone with her again.
During all this she does set up an appointment.
3 days before her appointment I call her to confirm. This is not normal procedure I hate such phone calls. I consider them harassment. If someone is serous about their health and working with me, they don't need that phone call.
But with her, I did it, because someone else wanted an apt. her time.
And she tells me she doesn't intend to come in.
So, this is what she does...
Leaves multiple voice mails - demanding my immediate attention.
Harasses me repeatedly to treat her over the phone - and I tried to gently explain to her - I can not treat someone for medical emergency over phone - it is outside my scope as ND in NYS and besides I never even saw her!
Then after over 90 minutes of phone time, her intention is to simply no show for her appointment.
This is what happens when you no show:
1) I can not see someone who wanted to come in that same time
2) At times - that other person has a busy schedule and now their health is compromised because or your missed apt
3) I loose money - because instead of doing something productive I had to blank out that time for you.
Things do happen in life. At times it happens to all of us, but I can't count the number of times someone schedule an initial and then doesn't show up.
This is not someone not wanting to return and see me again. This is someone calling up to make an appointment and then just never appears.
A few times people have scheduled initial visits for the next day and didn't show!
Sometimes people call up and say something like "I want to schedule and appointment for Tuesday, but I will call Monday to tell you if I can make it." What is that - do you want to come in or not. What if someone else wants that time. It's been a process to learn how to not play games with such people. They are never good clients to work with, if they even ever show up to begin with.
I called her back - I'm ok talking to prospective clients. This one used up over an hour of my time talking about mostly irrelevant things. I tried to be nice - she has many health problems, isn't doing well, etc...
Immediately after getting off the phone, she calls back and leaves another voice mail - she just needs 2 more minutes with me.
I call her back 2 days later on Monday (previous conversation was late Saturday), spend more than 30 minutes on phone with her again.
During all this she does set up an appointment.
3 days before her appointment I call her to confirm. This is not normal procedure I hate such phone calls. I consider them harassment. If someone is serous about their health and working with me, they don't need that phone call.
But with her, I did it, because someone else wanted an apt. her time.
And she tells me she doesn't intend to come in.
So, this is what she does...
Leaves multiple voice mails - demanding my immediate attention.
Harasses me repeatedly to treat her over the phone - and I tried to gently explain to her - I can not treat someone for medical emergency over phone - it is outside my scope as ND in NYS and besides I never even saw her!
Then after over 90 minutes of phone time, her intention is to simply no show for her appointment.
This is what happens when you no show:
1) I can not see someone who wanted to come in that same time
2) At times - that other person has a busy schedule and now their health is compromised because or your missed apt
3) I loose money - because instead of doing something productive I had to blank out that time for you.
Things do happen in life. At times it happens to all of us, but I can't count the number of times someone schedule an initial and then doesn't show up.
This is not someone not wanting to return and see me again. This is someone calling up to make an appointment and then just never appears.
A few times people have scheduled initial visits for the next day and didn't show!
Sometimes people call up and say something like "I want to schedule and appointment for Tuesday, but I will call Monday to tell you if I can make it." What is that - do you want to come in or not. What if someone else wants that time. It's been a process to learn how to not play games with such people. They are never good clients to work with, if they even ever show up to begin with.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Problems with the natural health industry...
The biggest problem with the natural health industry is that it is an industry.
It's all about selling some product.
Today in one of my email lists, was a post about getting people help to write their book. Why should be write a book? Because they have something unique to say? Because they have valuable information?
Hell no - they should write a book in order to promote them-self as an "expert."
That's the other problem in Natural Health - everyone is a fucking expert. Coming up with their own fucking brand.
I've been a practicing naturopathic doctor for 4 years now. Plus 4 years in ND school and the previous 3 years doing a ton of self leaning about natural health (along with going to Institute for Integrative Nutrition). And how much of this field is nothing but "experts" with their "brands." Thyroid experts, testosterone experts and on and on and on.
And then all the sales pitches for some special supplement.
For instance, recently I was reading about how acute colds was never the traditional use for Echinacea. Additionally Echinacea is not effective for such head colds as it's marketed. It's marketed well, selling over $100,000,000 worth of product a year for something it's doesn't treat.
What's the rational for this. Well some "scientists" theorized that boosts immune system function. Then comes all the hype and sales.
Ironically, it is a very effective and important herb, but not for the use its' marketed for. Of course, educating people on traditional and holistic use of herbal medicine is not profitable. What is, is hyping up just a few and selling them as miracle elixirs.
But getting back to to Echinacea - while the traditional use is ignored, some bogus use is supposedly supported by "science."
In the world of health (both Natural and Conventional) all it takes to make something "scientific" is to tell someone a biochemical theory. "Echinacea boosts WBC production" "Goldenseal is a 'natural antibiotic'," Red Clover for menopause b/c its has phytoestrogens, or SSRI's block reuptake of serotonin into nerons.
The amount of supplements and drugs sold based upon untrue or partially true theory must be mind blowing, if only we could know. To at least set the record straight:
The other overused word is "holistic."
All this bad science (in Conventional and Natural health) creates a lot of confusion and noise. People can't find the right information b/c they go online and read nothing by hype.
The greater problem is really the social structure this happens in. A world were everyone (in ALL FIELDS) is running around trying to sell stuff to each other.
Maybe I should write a series on Structural Violence and health. If our social structures create disease how are we to enjoy wellness?
It's all about selling some product.
Today in one of my email lists, was a post about getting people help to write their book. Why should be write a book? Because they have something unique to say? Because they have valuable information?
Hell no - they should write a book in order to promote them-self as an "expert."
That's the other problem in Natural Health - everyone is a fucking expert. Coming up with their own fucking brand.
I've been a practicing naturopathic doctor for 4 years now. Plus 4 years in ND school and the previous 3 years doing a ton of self leaning about natural health (along with going to Institute for Integrative Nutrition). And how much of this field is nothing but "experts" with their "brands." Thyroid experts, testosterone experts and on and on and on.
And then all the sales pitches for some special supplement.
For instance, recently I was reading about how acute colds was never the traditional use for Echinacea. Additionally Echinacea is not effective for such head colds as it's marketed. It's marketed well, selling over $100,000,000 worth of product a year for something it's doesn't treat.
What's the rational for this. Well some "scientists" theorized that boosts immune system function. Then comes all the hype and sales.
Ironically, it is a very effective and important herb, but not for the use its' marketed for. Of course, educating people on traditional and holistic use of herbal medicine is not profitable. What is, is hyping up just a few and selling them as miracle elixirs.
But getting back to to Echinacea - while the traditional use is ignored, some bogus use is supposedly supported by "science."
In the world of health (both Natural and Conventional) all it takes to make something "scientific" is to tell someone a biochemical theory. "Echinacea boosts WBC production" "Goldenseal is a 'natural antibiotic'," Red Clover for menopause b/c its has phytoestrogens, or SSRI's block reuptake of serotonin into nerons.
The amount of supplements and drugs sold based upon untrue or partially true theory must be mind blowing, if only we could know. To at least set the record straight:
- They do not know how SSRIs "work." The Serotonin reuptake thing is unproven. Additionally the idea the the feeling depression is mechanistically caused by an inherit serotonin brain defenct is beyond stupid and unproven - well I have a long page on my website about psychiatry.
- While Goldenseal does have antibiotic properties, traditionally it is used in low doses to stimulate digestion and other self regulatory systems of the body. That is it's traditional and holistic use. While one could use megadoses as an antibiotic, that's more of a modern use created by people who feel natural health must chase after and be like conventional medicine.
- Echinacea (like all herbs) doesn't have 1 active ingredient, but has many which work synergistically together. When we follow the traditional use of herbs, we follow the wisdom of people who observed the use and results of the herbs on real people. When we follow unproven biochemical theory, we are following an abstraction - not real world observation.
- Red Clover has history been used as an alternative and has a strong effect on the lymphatic system. It seems to me that this traditional model is a much better way to understand it's actions, then biochemical theory. You can not reduce Red Clover down to some phytoestrogens.
- I can write a similiar critique for numerous supplements and medications.
The other overused word is "holistic."
All this bad science (in Conventional and Natural health) creates a lot of confusion and noise. People can't find the right information b/c they go online and read nothing by hype.
The greater problem is really the social structure this happens in. A world were everyone (in ALL FIELDS) is running around trying to sell stuff to each other.
Maybe I should write a series on Structural Violence and health. If our social structures create disease how are we to enjoy wellness?
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Too much nonsense in the world of natural health
This post is something of a rant - grammar may not be perfect.
There is too much nonsense going on in the world of natural health. There is said it. You go online and in countless website and chat rooms people are talking about natural treatments for anything and everything. Some of this information is good. Some of it is not. Mostly it is a total mess.
Lets go over some problems
1 - Everyone is an expert. All it takes is a website for someone to become an expert. I've gotten such feedback myself, some person thousands of miles away sees my website and decides that I am somehow the expert on a given topic. Why? Because they like my website.
While I am a naturopathic doctor, and hope I have some degree of competency in what I do, I still acknowledge the fact that having a nice webpage on something doesn't make anyone "the expert."
I'm a naturopathic doctor, with additional training in areas such as homotoxicology, some applied kineseology, neuro-emotional technique. I hate sales games and sales tactics. So I try to make my website more about giving information rather than using psychological games to bring people in.
There is nothing on my website that is original and comes from me. I learned it all in naturopathic school, from colleagues, from seminars, from books. From actually being in the field as a student and practitioner for 9 years now.
So I hope I have some expertise and it means a lot to me when that allows me to help people. But I'm not "THE EXPERT."
But all over the Internet or self proclaimed "experts" with some special knowledge.
To be honest, many people in my field find "experts" such as Dr. Weil, or Dr. Oz annoying. While we certainly do recognize that they do help the field of natural health by bringing people into it, they also present a lot of very simple, watered down information. People in natural health can be saying something for decades, if not centuries, but suddenly it becomes valid because Dr. Oz says so.
One problem with such experts for the masses is, they dumb things down so far health philosophy gets thrown out the window. The art of treating the patient is replaced by some cure for a condition. There are too many supplements sold as amazing cure all products. I think this undermines what can truly be done in holistic medicine by throwing out the art and philosophy and replacing it with fad products.
Or we'll see something like GAPS - Gut and Psychology Syndrome. Someone discovered that there is relationship between digestive system health and mental symptoms, gave it a brand and is now an expert. I have nothing against this if it helps people, except for one problem - something was just branded as if it was a personal discovery, when it's been known in various healing traditions for thousands of years.
But this is just one example of the branding of redundant information in order to create an expert.
Fake experts don't just sell to the lay public. As a naturopathic doctor all the time I get sent invitations to seminars, webinars, personal training, to learn form some "expert." Some of whom truly have special information to share, and many don't. Generally speaking, I think the most expert practitioners are the ones working with patients, who learn how to observe, and employ gentle therapies at the individual.
In this field there are many "experts" who try to sell systems to practitioners. Instead of the natural health care practitioners being an experts into patient observation and targeted treatment, the practitioners is now an expert in Standard Process supplements, nor Metagenics supplements, or Designs for Health supplements, or [... fill in blank ... ] some other companies supplements. It's not that these are bad companies or have bad products (myself, I've used a lot of Designs for Health), but it's the whole model of selling a system to some practitioners so they can jump right in and treat people as the nutrition expert.
In conventional medicine pharmaceutical companies don't just sell to doctors, they have corrupted the philosophy of how practitioners think. I suspect the same is true in natural health. There is an art to selecting the correct treatment for the person, instead of selling them the kitchen-sink digestive system product.
2 - Cure all products
From 9 years experience in natural health, as far as I can tell, miracle cure all products do not exist. Everyone is different.
There is no miracle supplement that will make everyone who uses it loose weight, of be happy, or not be anxious, or given them energy (do I need to get started or miracle cure adrenal products).
3 - Allopathy
Allopathy is the idea that instead of treating the person, you fling all manner of agents at the symptoms in order to suppress them. It is the philosophy of conventional medicine, but also of our culture. All over the world of natural health you'll see people selling the "holistic" product for various diseases.
To use one simple example, if someone has a "holistic" treatment for Candida, it's not holistic. It's may be good general health advice (no sugar, no industrial waste garbage that is sold as "milk, etc...), or it may be a even a good supplement, but the moment you treat the disease instead of the person, it's not holistic.
Yes, good information is put out there, but I want attention to be on the individual, not the disease. Many treatments for Candida only go so far, then you either look deeper and work on the real problems, but that is just one example.
I could go on, but I think this rant should be enough for now
There is too much nonsense going on in the world of natural health. There is said it. You go online and in countless website and chat rooms people are talking about natural treatments for anything and everything. Some of this information is good. Some of it is not. Mostly it is a total mess.
Lets go over some problems
1 - Everyone is an expert. All it takes is a website for someone to become an expert. I've gotten such feedback myself, some person thousands of miles away sees my website and decides that I am somehow the expert on a given topic. Why? Because they like my website.
While I am a naturopathic doctor, and hope I have some degree of competency in what I do, I still acknowledge the fact that having a nice webpage on something doesn't make anyone "the expert."
I'm a naturopathic doctor, with additional training in areas such as homotoxicology, some applied kineseology, neuro-emotional technique. I hate sales games and sales tactics. So I try to make my website more about giving information rather than using psychological games to bring people in.
There is nothing on my website that is original and comes from me. I learned it all in naturopathic school, from colleagues, from seminars, from books. From actually being in the field as a student and practitioner for 9 years now.
So I hope I have some expertise and it means a lot to me when that allows me to help people. But I'm not "THE EXPERT."
But all over the Internet or self proclaimed "experts" with some special knowledge.
To be honest, many people in my field find "experts" such as Dr. Weil, or Dr. Oz annoying. While we certainly do recognize that they do help the field of natural health by bringing people into it, they also present a lot of very simple, watered down information. People in natural health can be saying something for decades, if not centuries, but suddenly it becomes valid because Dr. Oz says so.
One problem with such experts for the masses is, they dumb things down so far health philosophy gets thrown out the window. The art of treating the patient is replaced by some cure for a condition. There are too many supplements sold as amazing cure all products. I think this undermines what can truly be done in holistic medicine by throwing out the art and philosophy and replacing it with fad products.
Or we'll see something like GAPS - Gut and Psychology Syndrome. Someone discovered that there is relationship between digestive system health and mental symptoms, gave it a brand and is now an expert. I have nothing against this if it helps people, except for one problem - something was just branded as if it was a personal discovery, when it's been known in various healing traditions for thousands of years.
But this is just one example of the branding of redundant information in order to create an expert.
Fake experts don't just sell to the lay public. As a naturopathic doctor all the time I get sent invitations to seminars, webinars, personal training, to learn form some "expert." Some of whom truly have special information to share, and many don't. Generally speaking, I think the most expert practitioners are the ones working with patients, who learn how to observe, and employ gentle therapies at the individual.
In this field there are many "experts" who try to sell systems to practitioners. Instead of the natural health care practitioners being an experts into patient observation and targeted treatment, the practitioners is now an expert in Standard Process supplements, nor Metagenics supplements, or Designs for Health supplements, or [... fill in blank ... ] some other companies supplements. It's not that these are bad companies or have bad products (myself, I've used a lot of Designs for Health), but it's the whole model of selling a system to some practitioners so they can jump right in and treat people as the nutrition expert.
In conventional medicine pharmaceutical companies don't just sell to doctors, they have corrupted the philosophy of how practitioners think. I suspect the same is true in natural health. There is an art to selecting the correct treatment for the person, instead of selling them the kitchen-sink digestive system product.
2 - Cure all products
From 9 years experience in natural health, as far as I can tell, miracle cure all products do not exist. Everyone is different.
There is no miracle supplement that will make everyone who uses it loose weight, of be happy, or not be anxious, or given them energy (do I need to get started or miracle cure adrenal products).
3 - Allopathy
Allopathy is the idea that instead of treating the person, you fling all manner of agents at the symptoms in order to suppress them. It is the philosophy of conventional medicine, but also of our culture. All over the world of natural health you'll see people selling the "holistic" product for various diseases.
To use one simple example, if someone has a "holistic" treatment for Candida, it's not holistic. It's may be good general health advice (no sugar, no industrial waste garbage that is sold as "milk, etc...), or it may be a even a good supplement, but the moment you treat the disease instead of the person, it's not holistic.
Yes, good information is put out there, but I want attention to be on the individual, not the disease. Many treatments for Candida only go so far, then you either look deeper and work on the real problems, but that is just one example.
I could go on, but I think this rant should be enough for now
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Testing for serotonin receptor activity
"the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) which has variants that have been shown to influence the clinical response of patients of European ancestry when they are treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Genotyping of some of the serotonin receptor genes is also available to guide clinical practice [ ... ] Given the increasingly clear cost-effectiveness of genotyping, it has recently been predicted that pharmacogenomic testing will routinely be ordered to guide the selection and dosing of psychotropic medications.
As I'm working to revise most of my web site's material on mental illness, one of my colleague's calls me up to tell me about serotonin testing. Apparently there are tests coming to test sensitivity of serotonin receptor sensitivity.
Doing some quick research, seems people want to run genetic tests to predict how well patients will response to psychiatric drugs. Well, if this helps to prevent some of the worse reactions to psych drugs it's not all bad, HOWEVER...
This has little to do with what "depression" and "mental illness" is. It is also guiding people in a direction that is leading them further away from the real problems.
Depression is not a disease. It is a feeling. Feelings are not pathologies. Feelings are not supposed to be treated. The whole train of thought makes no sense.
Feeling depressed all the time is a problem. Feeling suicidal is a problem. But the thing to treat is the patient, not the feeling itself.
What can cause depression? Well, what causes disease in general?
Do people have genetically faulty serotonin receptors?
Perhaps there are some people who do. There are some uncommon genetic diseases. However, most illnesses with a genetic component will only be expressed in the right environment. So the real question is not if people have faulty serotonin receptors. It's better to ask if some people are more genetically predisposed to feeling depressed, given a set of environmental stresses.
That may be so. But I wouldn't call that having a defective brain that needs to be treated with psych drugs. We all have genetic predispositions. Also, often these supposed weak genes that make us susceptible to certain disease serve important other functions as well (the most well known examples is perhaps sickle cell anemia as protection against malaria).
What should be treated is the cause of illness. Nutrition, toxicity, emotional trauma and physical structure. I doubt that many people would feel depressed if those needs could be taken care of. Personally, I wish as a ND I could do more, I can work with nutrition, detoxification and help the body deal with emotional stress, but I can not remove my clients from bad jobs, bad relationships, bad parents, etc... I wish I could, as sometimes it's clear that is most what they need, not some supplement or drug.
We are not born with defective brains, defective genes, or defective serotonin receptors. If we simply give our body's what they need, we will feel fine. Depression is the body's feedback mechanism that something is wrong.
The above article I link to mentions "serotonin receptor genes." They can give a gene whatever arbitrary name or label they wish. However the very idea that there is a point to point relationship between genes and one specific function has been dis-proven. Since researchers know the body is far more complex, I wish they would use language that better reflected the way they body worked, instead of deceptive names.
As I'm working to revise most of my web site's material on mental illness, one of my colleague's calls me up to tell me about serotonin testing. Apparently there are tests coming to test sensitivity of serotonin receptor sensitivity.
Doing some quick research, seems people want to run genetic tests to predict how well patients will response to psychiatric drugs. Well, if this helps to prevent some of the worse reactions to psych drugs it's not all bad, HOWEVER...
This has little to do with what "depression" and "mental illness" is. It is also guiding people in a direction that is leading them further away from the real problems.
Depression is not a disease. It is a feeling. Feelings are not pathologies. Feelings are not supposed to be treated. The whole train of thought makes no sense.
Feeling depressed all the time is a problem. Feeling suicidal is a problem. But the thing to treat is the patient, not the feeling itself.
What can cause depression? Well, what causes disease in general?
- Nutritional deficiency
- Toxicity
- Structural issues (ie. car accident, joint sublexation, etc...)
- Emotional trauma/stress
Do people have genetically faulty serotonin receptors?
Perhaps there are some people who do. There are some uncommon genetic diseases. However, most illnesses with a genetic component will only be expressed in the right environment. So the real question is not if people have faulty serotonin receptors. It's better to ask if some people are more genetically predisposed to feeling depressed, given a set of environmental stresses.
That may be so. But I wouldn't call that having a defective brain that needs to be treated with psych drugs. We all have genetic predispositions. Also, often these supposed weak genes that make us susceptible to certain disease serve important other functions as well (the most well known examples is perhaps sickle cell anemia as protection against malaria).
What should be treated is the cause of illness. Nutrition, toxicity, emotional trauma and physical structure. I doubt that many people would feel depressed if those needs could be taken care of. Personally, I wish as a ND I could do more, I can work with nutrition, detoxification and help the body deal with emotional stress, but I can not remove my clients from bad jobs, bad relationships, bad parents, etc... I wish I could, as sometimes it's clear that is most what they need, not some supplement or drug.
We are not born with defective brains, defective genes, or defective serotonin receptors. If we simply give our body's what they need, we will feel fine. Depression is the body's feedback mechanism that something is wrong.
The above article I link to mentions "serotonin receptor genes." They can give a gene whatever arbitrary name or label they wish. However the very idea that there is a point to point relationship between genes and one specific function has been dis-proven. Since researchers know the body is far more complex, I wish they would use language that better reflected the way they body worked, instead of deceptive names.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
linoleic acid and psychiatric medications
Was doing some research after noticing someone having a very remarkable reaction to conjugated linoleic acid (which is often used as a weight loss supplement).
In terms of people on psychiatric medications, this study says:
"Regarding LA levels, antipsychotic-treated patients showed significantly reduced levels compared with controls, whereas antipsychotic-naïve patients showed no such reductions"
While the role of fish oil and particularly DHA is often cited for "mental illness" perhaps this is indicated CLA should be a consideration for those on anti-psychotic medication?
Of course everyone is different, and one must treat the person, and not the disease, but looks like CLA may be a consideration when working with people who are coming in on anti-psychotic medication.
In terms of people on psychiatric medications, this study says:
"Regarding LA levels, antipsychotic-treated patients showed significantly reduced levels compared with controls, whereas antipsychotic-naïve patients showed no such reductions"
While the role of fish oil and particularly DHA is often cited for "mental illness" perhaps this is indicated CLA should be a consideration for those on anti-psychotic medication?
Of course everyone is different, and one must treat the person, and not the disease, but looks like CLA may be a consideration when working with people who are coming in on anti-psychotic medication.
Is nutritional lithium safe?
This from Nutrition Journal
"Prescription lithium is in the form of lithium carbonate, and doses can be as high as 180 mg. It is these high doses that are responsible for most of lithium's adverse side effects. Some of the more common side effects include a dulled personality, reduced emotions, memory loss, tremors, or weight gain [5,6]. Another form of lithium called lithium orotate, is preferred because the orotate ion crosses the blood-brain barrier more easily than the carbonate ion of lithium carbonate. Therefore, lithium orotate can be used in much lower doses (e.g. 5 mg) with remarkable results and no side effects [49,50]. Clinical trials involving 150 mg daily doses of lithium orotate administered 4 to 5 times a week, showed a reduction of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar patients [50]. In addition, lithium orotate is available without a prescription, unlike lithium carbonate, which is considered a prescription drug by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Studies have also shown that the amino acid-derivative, taurine, as an alternative to lithium, blocks the effects of excess acetylcholine that contributes to bipolar disorder [51]"
While most information on nutritional lithium is for it's use in helping people with mental symptoms (and many practitioners in natural health will use lithium for that), I have primarily seen it help people with Grave's disease. While herbals for Graves disease (ie. bugle-weed, lemon balm, mother wort) help the cardiovascular symptoms lithium is my starting point for a supplement that will help with other symptoms.
Unfortunately many people are afraid of taking lithium because they have heard it is dangerous. Lithium is a trace mineral, our bodies need it. It is not dangerous in low dose. Any mineral, vitamin or substance (including air and water) is dangerous in too high a dose. That's what happens with prescription lithium carbonate. The dose is too high and creates toxic side effects.
However, this should not scare people away from using low dose nutritional lithium, which is available as a non-prescription supplement.
Another article from 1986
"Prescription lithium is in the form of lithium carbonate, and doses can be as high as 180 mg. It is these high doses that are responsible for most of lithium's adverse side effects. Some of the more common side effects include a dulled personality, reduced emotions, memory loss, tremors, or weight gain [5,6]. Another form of lithium called lithium orotate, is preferred because the orotate ion crosses the blood-brain barrier more easily than the carbonate ion of lithium carbonate. Therefore, lithium orotate can be used in much lower doses (e.g. 5 mg) with remarkable results and no side effects [49,50]. Clinical trials involving 150 mg daily doses of lithium orotate administered 4 to 5 times a week, showed a reduction of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar patients [50]. In addition, lithium orotate is available without a prescription, unlike lithium carbonate, which is considered a prescription drug by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Studies have also shown that the amino acid-derivative, taurine, as an alternative to lithium, blocks the effects of excess acetylcholine that contributes to bipolar disorder [51]"
While most information on nutritional lithium is for it's use in helping people with mental symptoms (and many practitioners in natural health will use lithium for that), I have primarily seen it help people with Grave's disease. While herbals for Graves disease (ie. bugle-weed, lemon balm, mother wort) help the cardiovascular symptoms lithium is my starting point for a supplement that will help with other symptoms.
Unfortunately many people are afraid of taking lithium because they have heard it is dangerous. Lithium is a trace mineral, our bodies need it. It is not dangerous in low dose. Any mineral, vitamin or substance (including air and water) is dangerous in too high a dose. That's what happens with prescription lithium carbonate. The dose is too high and creates toxic side effects.
However, this should not scare people away from using low dose nutritional lithium, which is available as a non-prescription supplement.
Another article from 1986
Lithium orotate in the treatment of alcoholism and related conditions
In this there was some minimal side effects, although they gave a much higher does than lithium oratate is usually given in (they used 150 mg per day - instead of 5 to 20 as in most supplements).
Study noted many benefits from lithium - including helping some with hyperthyroidism
"Further advantages for this lithium therapy were noted, i.e., improved
liver and cardiovascular functions, reduction (and in some cases
abolishment) of migraine headaches, alleviation of the Meniere's
symptoms, and amelioration of seizures. There were increases in the
white blood cell counts in the patient with chemotherapy-induced
leukopenia and reduction of edema and ascites in patients with liver
cirrhosis, as well as the pleural effusions and lymph node swelling in
the patient with lung cancer. No manic episodes occurred during lithium
orotate treatment in three patients with this affective disorder. The
hyperthyroid condition was also improved in four patients"
What Happens When You Are Diagnosed With Hyperthyroidism
Most people diagnosed with hyperthyroidism and Graves Disease tell very similar stories.
Symptoms seem to come on very suddenly, racing heartbeat, sweating, anxiety or panic attacks, weight loss, digestive symptoms, swelling on neck. Not everyone has all those symptoms, but most have some of them.Usually a medical doctor will run a lab for TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone), and find it quickly. Sometimes this lab is run as part of an emergency room visit. Sometimes it take some time to get the diagnosis and the patient may have been treated for a wrong diagnosis.
Diagnostic measures for hyperthyroidism
Typical labs ordered to confirm a diagnosis include:- TSH, T3 and T4
- Radio-active uptake scan test (to differentiate graves disease from other causes of hyperthyroidism, such as a thyroid hormone secreting nodule)
- Anti-bodies. These include thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (also called TSH receptor antibody)
Anti-body tests may be run. Sometimes medical doctors want to run an uptake scan. Other times people are given a Graves disease diagnosis without it.
Where almost everyone with Grave's disease ends up
Eventually patients are given these options:- Have the thyroid gland destroyed with radio-active iodine, or removed surgery
- Treat with drugs which are toxic to the body - although typically the medical doctors will push patients to have the thyroid gland destroyed.
Common reactions to medical advice
- Fearful. The medical treatments are not benign. Patients worry about how their body would function without a thyroid. Also they are concerned about side effects from medications or radiation therapy. It seems that whichever direction they go has the potential for side effects.
- Hopeless - in the conventional medical world there are no other options, which may make people feel they have no power to take control over their own health.
- Being unsure of what to do.
Is there an alternative option?
Many times there is. Conventional medicine lumps all people with Graves disease together, and offers them all the most radical treatment. Graves disease is a dangerous illness, which must be taken seriously. In some cases the conventional route has merit.However, many cases are not so severe to warrant immediate destruction of the thyroid gland. What can be done through natural health?
- First, going over labs in detail. Many people with hyperthyroidism never get a full set of labs needed to assess their situation. This includes full thyroid pane (TSH, T3, T4 and antibodies to Grave's and Hashimoto's - as often both are elevated - this is TSI, TPO and anti-thyroglobulin antibodies). Additionally other labs such as CBC , WBC, and vitamin D are important.
- Supplements to help control symptoms. There are many supplements that can be used to control symptoms.
- Deeper work for the underlining cause of hyperthyroidism. This is beyond the scope of this article. For more information on this go to my video on Graves disease
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]
Commentary
The above video is an in depth look at what went wrong wtih dietary recommendations with regards to low fat diets. It dismisses popular misconceptions about sugar, fructose, fat, and especially what causes obesity.The following is a brief summary I wrote while watching this. However, this only highlights some major points. the whole video is full of important information, and needs to be watched to appreciate it.
Obesity is not as simple as calories in versus calories burned. The standard model says if you eat it, you better burn it, or you gain weight. This is a mistake. Obesity is not a simple matter of too many calories, and not burning enough off.
Historical trends in fructose consumption:
Before food processing, fructose consumption would be about 15 grams per day.Prior to WWII 16 – 24 g/day.
1977 – 78: 37 g/day
1994 – 54.7 g/day
Adolescents today: 72.8 g/day – 25% consume at least 15% of calories from fructose alone.
It's not just that calories are going up, but fructose is going up.
Why did this happen? Fructose is so cheap, plus something had to be added into the diet to make up for the low fat diets which started in the 1980s. However, a review of the basic science and studies that led to low fat diet, show that theory is wrong. High fat diets do not lead to cardiovascular disease.
These change have led to an adulteration of the food supply through:
- Addition of fructose
- Removal of fiber
- substitution of trans-fats
- Fructose forms Advanced Glycation End-Products (AGE's)
- Fructose does not supress ghrelin (satiation hormone) so people eat more
- Acute fructose does not stimulate insulin. If insulin doens't go up, leptin doesn't go up, so brain doesn't see you ate.
- Liver metabolism of fructose is completely different than that of sugar.
- Chronic fructose expose alone leads to Metabolic Syndrome.
He discusses the relationship between fructose, creation of uric acid, gout and hypertension. As sweetened sugared beverages goes up, so does uric acid, gout and hypertension. Studies have shown that reducing uric acid, will lower high blood pressure. Basically, the fructose (not table sugar) is cause hypertension. Fructose will also stimulate creation of fat “High fructose diet is a high fat diet.”
Fructose consumption leads to: hypertension, myocardial infarction, dyslipidemia, pancreatitis, obesity, hepatic dysfunction, fetal insulin resistance and habituation if not addiction.
His interventions:
- Get rid of all sugared liquids, only water and milk.
- Eat carbohydrate with fiber.
- Wait 20 minutes for second portions.
- Buy your screen time minute for minute with physical activity.
Why is exercise important? Not because it burns calories!
- Makes skeletal muscle more sensitive to insulin.
- Endogenous stress reducer, and if stress reduce, then appetite goes down.
- It makes TCA cycle run faster (raises metabolism).
In nature fructose always comes with fiber. That's why fruit is ok. Fiber limits amount of carbohydrate absorbtion. Increases speed of transit of intestinal content to ileum. Inhibits absorption of some free fatty acids to the colon, which are metabolized by colonic bacteria to short chain fatty acids, which suppress insulin.
He compares fructose to alcohol and called fructose, " ethanol without the buzz.” Makes the point that biochemically, they are basically the same thing in terms of A low fat diet is not really a low fat diet, because the fructose doubles as fat. So its a high fat diet. In addition, fructose is also a toxin.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Cutting and Self-Harm - A Naturopathic Perspective
The purpose of this article is not to write a comprehensive review of causes and all treatments for cutting and self-harm. Rather this is simply insights from my perspective as a Naturopathic doctor.
Cuting and self-harm is a coping mechanism for mental symptoms such as depression. Depersonalization can be described as feeling disconnected from one's physicality. This can be related to self-harm as well.
There are some basics aspects of self-harm which I'll review first:
Often depressed people feel nothing, or numb. The physical pain at times may feel better, than feeling nothing at all.
Regardless of the cause, it should be obvious that “self-harm” is not a “disease” or “mental illness” in and of itself. What should be treated are the causes of emotional distress which lead to self-harm.
Self harm is not an enjoyable act. Generally people do not enjoying sticking themselves with sharp objects or other forms of self injury. When the mental symptoms are relieved, then the self-harm will stop.
Nonetheless, patients are still told that psychiatric “diagnosis” represent biological diseases and which are treated with psychiatric drugs.
Our society tends to fight against problems, rather than holistically appraising (and addressing) the cause.
It is certainly much more profitable to create billion dollar industries to fight a problem, rather than fixing the causing. But also, when we “fight” a problem, we take away the need to reflect on the cause.
So, following this tendency, psychiatrists prescribe drugs for “chemical imbalances” that have never been proven.
So what does this say about taking a psychiatric medication for self-harm?
1) In no way do psychiatric drugs address the causes of self harm.
2) Psychiatric drugs are in themselves a form of self harm! We need to ask, what does it say about a society that so willing give ourselves (and children) neurological toxins that do harm the body, just in a way that is not visible to the eye.
Self-harm causes physical damage to the body (typically skin) in order to help cope with emotional distress. Psychiatric drugs cause physical harm to the brain and nervous system (and other system) in order to help cope with emotional distress.
What is the difference?
Perhaps with self-harm is is clear that the emotional distress is still there and scars may be discomforting. With psychiatric drugs, we can pretend things are better because they appear to be.
Are there cases of self-harm that are so severe psychiatric drugs are warranted? This is a subjective question, and I think best answered by the patients themselves, based upon their individual situations. If someone finds a psychiatric drug helpful, who has any right to tell them otherwise. However, the truth doesn't change – these are basically poisonous substances that are not fixing the the real problem.
When we tell someone they have an inherent, biological condition brain disorder, that in effect dis-empowers them. How is it helpful to say, based on zero objective evidence whatsoever, that someone has an inherent brain disorder?
For from taking away the stigmatizations of metal illness, this reinforces it! It is telling people they are inherently defective!
The only person who can ever heal anyone, is the individual acting in concert with the healing power of nature. The practitioner should be there to act as a guide and assist the body in this process.
But this model, of inherent brain disease this transfers power to heal – away from the patient – and to the practitioner. Thus it serves the psychiatrist and whole mental health field much better than it serves the patient.
But even worse, this is simply not true. Psychiatry has no evidence whatsoever that conditions they claim are biological, and have biological treatments for, are in fact biological.
If they did, they would give patients biological tests. They don't, because they have no tests.
Furthermore, when society as a whole adopts this stance that mental symptoms such as depression and self-harm are in fact biological, it's a way of defending society itself.
No longer are we confronted with questions of how our society produces so many mental disorders. No longer must we ask why so many young people are resorting to self-harm!
At this point I am diverging from my role as Naturopathic Doctor and into social criticism. However, if Naturopathy has taught me anything, is is the interconnectedness of the whole unit. You can not study “mental illness” (or any illness) as somehow separate from the rest of the body. Likewise, we can not fully understand the illnesses of the individual, unless we account for the environment the whole person lives in.
The rise of certain illnesses must be put into context. Just as the epidemics of autism and auto-immune disease reflects problems with the environment, so too do the many young people who are engaging in self-harm.
The larger question is how has society itself failed young people?
But if believe this is all due to inherent biological brain illness, then there is no reason to put the question up to society as a whole.
TREAT THE PERSON AND NOT THE SYMPTOM
Symptoms are the body's best attempt to deal with the totality of current stresses.
There are two things with cause “disease.” It does not matter if symptoms are physical or mental.
Deficiency – or not giving the body what it needs.
Toxicity – or giving the body things it doesn't need.
Psychologically speaking, children can be put into very toxic environment. Abusive parents, or social abuse (bullying) at school are common. However, children may have symptoms not due to abuse, but simply because they were given the emotional support needed. There is a phenomena of “proximal abandonment” where perhaps the parents are physically present, but not emotionally available.
Physical toxicity or deficient may be easier to understand. B12 deficiency can cause depression. Lead toxicity can cause a number of mental symptoms.
for more I suggest this video from psychetruth
Cuting and self-harm is a coping mechanism for mental symptoms such as depression. Depersonalization can be described as feeling disconnected from one's physicality. This can be related to self-harm as well.
There are some basics aspects of self-harm which I'll review first:
-
Self harm is not a suicide attempt, and does not mean someone wishes to die.
-
Self-harm injuries are generally superficial (it's very unlikely that one will accidentally kill themselves).
-
People who self harm are often embarrassed by cuts/scars, try to hide them, and are not seeking attention.
-
Self harm is addictive – it involves release of endorphins, and as someone self harms, over time they will tend to need to do it more often, or more severely in order to get the same release.
-
Stopping self-harm can be a slow process, with occasional relapses just like other addictions.
Self Harm Is A Symptom – Not A Disease, Nor Is It A “Mental Illness”
People who self-harm do so out of inner distress. This may be depression, or even a self-inflicted punishment.Often depressed people feel nothing, or numb. The physical pain at times may feel better, than feeling nothing at all.
Regardless of the cause, it should be obvious that “self-harm” is not a “disease” or “mental illness” in and of itself. What should be treated are the causes of emotional distress which lead to self-harm.
Self harm is not an enjoyable act. Generally people do not enjoying sticking themselves with sharp objects or other forms of self injury. When the mental symptoms are relieved, then the self-harm will stop.
Psychiatric Drugs For Self Harm
The psychiatric bible known a the DSM contains all the psychiatric “diagnoses.” This book explicitly states that “diagnoses” are not medical conditions. A psychiatric label is simply a description of symptoms and behaviors. The DSM does not list objective medical tests for any supposed“chemical imbalance” because such tests do not exist.Nonetheless, patients are still told that psychiatric “diagnosis” represent biological diseases and which are treated with psychiatric drugs.
Our society tends to fight against problems, rather than holistically appraising (and addressing) the cause.
It is certainly much more profitable to create billion dollar industries to fight a problem, rather than fixing the causing. But also, when we “fight” a problem, we take away the need to reflect on the cause.
So, following this tendency, psychiatrists prescribe drugs for “chemical imbalances” that have never been proven.
So what does this say about taking a psychiatric medication for self-harm?
1) In no way do psychiatric drugs address the causes of self harm.
2) Psychiatric drugs are in themselves a form of self harm! We need to ask, what does it say about a society that so willing give ourselves (and children) neurological toxins that do harm the body, just in a way that is not visible to the eye.
Self-harm causes physical damage to the body (typically skin) in order to help cope with emotional distress. Psychiatric drugs cause physical harm to the brain and nervous system (and other system) in order to help cope with emotional distress.
What is the difference?
Perhaps with self-harm is is clear that the emotional distress is still there and scars may be discomforting. With psychiatric drugs, we can pretend things are better because they appear to be.
Are there cases of self-harm that are so severe psychiatric drugs are warranted? This is a subjective question, and I think best answered by the patients themselves, based upon their individual situations. If someone finds a psychiatric drug helpful, who has any right to tell them otherwise. However, the truth doesn't change – these are basically poisonous substances that are not fixing the the real problem.
Psychiatry And Mental Illness Theory – Society Not Looking At Anything But Itself
One of the worst things that can be told to someone who self-harms (or who has another “mental illness”) is that this is a biological disease.When we tell someone they have an inherent, biological condition brain disorder, that in effect dis-empowers them. How is it helpful to say, based on zero objective evidence whatsoever, that someone has an inherent brain disorder?
For from taking away the stigmatizations of metal illness, this reinforces it! It is telling people they are inherently defective!
The only person who can ever heal anyone, is the individual acting in concert with the healing power of nature. The practitioner should be there to act as a guide and assist the body in this process.
But this model, of inherent brain disease this transfers power to heal – away from the patient – and to the practitioner. Thus it serves the psychiatrist and whole mental health field much better than it serves the patient.
But even worse, this is simply not true. Psychiatry has no evidence whatsoever that conditions they claim are biological, and have biological treatments for, are in fact biological.
If they did, they would give patients biological tests. They don't, because they have no tests.
Furthermore, when society as a whole adopts this stance that mental symptoms such as depression and self-harm are in fact biological, it's a way of defending society itself.
No longer are we confronted with questions of how our society produces so many mental disorders. No longer must we ask why so many young people are resorting to self-harm!
At this point I am diverging from my role as Naturopathic Doctor and into social criticism. However, if Naturopathy has taught me anything, is is the interconnectedness of the whole unit. You can not study “mental illness” (or any illness) as somehow separate from the rest of the body. Likewise, we can not fully understand the illnesses of the individual, unless we account for the environment the whole person lives in.
The rise of certain illnesses must be put into context. Just as the epidemics of autism and auto-immune disease reflects problems with the environment, so too do the many young people who are engaging in self-harm.
The larger question is how has society itself failed young people?
But if believe this is all due to inherent biological brain illness, then there is no reason to put the question up to society as a whole.
How Do I, As A Naturopathic Doctor Help Someone Who Self-Harms?
I can not speak for all of Naturopathy. But this is what I do:TREAT THE PERSON AND NOT THE SYMPTOM
Symptoms are the body's best attempt to deal with the totality of current stresses.
There are two things with cause “disease.” It does not matter if symptoms are physical or mental.
Deficiency – or not giving the body what it needs.
Toxicity – or giving the body things it doesn't need.
Psychologically speaking, children can be put into very toxic environment. Abusive parents, or social abuse (bullying) at school are common. However, children may have symptoms not due to abuse, but simply because they were given the emotional support needed. There is a phenomena of “proximal abandonment” where perhaps the parents are physically present, but not emotionally available.
Physical toxicity or deficient may be easier to understand. B12 deficiency can cause depression. Lead toxicity can cause a number of mental symptoms.
for more I suggest this video from psychetruth
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Natural Health And A Culture Of Fear
Magnesium Stearate Is Not Dangerous - Stop The Hype
Earlier this week I received an email from a supplement company whose products I use with clients very often about magnesium stearate.
It was about misinformation being spread online that stearic acid is some sort of poison which damages the digestive system and prevents absorption of nutrients.
The email stated:
It seems that a very small minority of nutritional supplement marketers and manufacturers, including a brand in the professional supplement realm, have decided it is in their best interest to disparage the vast majority of nutritional supplement companies. They are doing so by reporting false claims regarding a formulation ingredient that supplement manufacturers use to assure homogenous, multi-ingredient nutritional supplement blends. Without optimal blending of therapeutic agents one cannot consistently produce products with maximum health benefits, and which meet label claims.
The ingredient in question is stearic acid, also commonly referenced as vegetable stearate and/or magnesium stearate. I fear the net effect of these negative marketing efforts is to scare the general consumer away from the use of any nutritional supplements.
I have three points to make out this.
1) Stearate acid is safe
2) The dangers of using fear to sell product
3) Should I be scarred to say anything about this?
Stearate Acid Is Safe
A Dr. Myatt has posted an extensive and very scholarly video on youtube about this. Click here to watch.If you have any questions on magnesium stearate please watch above video. There is really no need for me to repeat the same information put forth by D. Myatt.
Designs For Health also has a fact sheet available at this link
Not to mention the anecdotal evidence
If magneseum stearate was so dangerous, it would cause illness among all the millions of people consuming supplements with it.Besides, I (and lots of my colleagues) have helped many people who have digestive issues with these supplements. I am repeat lab tests of clients, showing huge changes in secretory IgA and inflammatory markers for GI after taking supplements with magnesium stearate. And I'm just one of thousands of practitioners who sees this.
Using Fear To Sell Product
When people start educating themselves about health, something happens... they learn our world is full of poisons; Flu shots, GMO foods, xeno-biotics in plastic, metals in tap water, amalgam fillings, antibiotics, pesticides, acrlyimides, etc...The fact of the matter is that our species has created a very toxic world, and now we are paying for it with our health.
With that being said, is there really any reason for people to spread fear about things that are safe?
Honestly, it seems that a reflex develops where you just tell someone some sort of chemically sounding name is dangerous and they'll jump on board.
This has been somewhat demonstrated with the hydrogen dioxide petition experiment. This was made more well known when Penn and Teller got people to signs a petition to ban water, by calling it "hydrogen peroxide." In some respect I find this piece to be a propaganda smear against environmentalism, as I think members of any philosophy (environmentalism, a religion, libertarianism, the democrats, the republicans, or any of "ism") will tend to just automatically jump on board with other people claiming to be of the same philosophy.
Nonetheless, the point is that simply telling people who are interested in natural health that some dangerous sounding chemical is dangerous, will get many to believe it, regardless of the actual science.
What I see with the magnesium stearate smear campaign is a few people in the field of natural health, trying to make money, by telling the public that what I, and my colleague recommend to patients is dangerous.
Just about anyone in natural health who uses supplements, is recommending products with magnesium stearate. So while it is not an attack against naturopathy, it is my extension an attack on the supplements recommended and sold by most naturopathic doctors.
Seriously. Most Naturopathic Doctors are good hearted people. Most put themselves tens of thousands into debt, in order to get a degree because they want to help other people. I think it's disgusting to claim that the products they use are dangerous. I don't want people who are taking supplements given by a qualified practitioner to flip out and throw them away because of something they read from Dr. Mercola. I'm sorry, but I think sabotaging patient relationships with their doctors, with false information is dangerous. Dangerous because we are talking about supplements that people need.
Should I be afraid to voice my opinion?
A major person who has pushed the attack on magnesium stearate is Dr. Mercola. My first thought honestly, was that I should say nothing. Because Dr. Mercola is very popular. Maybe someone who is considering making an appointment with me will see I don't agree with Dr. Mercola and then not see me. After all (as stated in above video that I linked to), many people will automatically believe anything Dr. Mercola says, without any fact checking.
Well, this is my opinion of Dr. Mercola:
- 99% of the information he puts out in his newsletter is great. Dr. Mercola is one of the leaders in this country when it comes to spreading information on natural health. Personally, I've read his newsletter for years.
- I also believe that Dr. Mercola is a good person, who is doing his best to help people improve health. Because I have issues with his views on magnesium stearate, that doesn't take away from everything else he has done.
- Dr. Mercola uses fear to sell product. For example, the headline of his latest newsletter was
"The Popular Meat That May Be Too Contaminated to Eat." The newsletter uses fear to pull in the reader. But it's not just this days newsletter. It's virtually every days newsletter. After a while I stopped reading most of his newsletters. Often by the fear mongering headline I can guess what the article is about. I also don't think it's healthy to start each day with fear and negativity. I mean, sure vitamin B12 deficiency is common, but do we really need to read "Warning: Potentially Life Threatening Vitamin Deficiency Affects 25% of Adults."
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Psychiatric Drug Prescritions - Our Culture Needs to Question Itself
Top 25 psychiatric medications
Doctors wrote 47 million prescriptions for Xanax in 2011 . Followed by 37 million for Celexa.
It's amazing how many prescriptions are written for such mind altering substances. In my opinion this is medical insanity. A paradigm that creates such wide spread use of chemicals that are designed to poison the brain is deeply dysfunction.
Additionally, critiques against the widespread use of psychiatric medications is repetitive, but in the face of such medical madness worth repeating.
1) Patients are not warned about "addiction" to the medications, which has been relabeled by the psychiatric industry with names like "continuation syndrome."
What I have learned from my clients is that not only are they not warned about any possible dangers of these medications, they are pressured by doctors into taking them. I have had numerous clients tell me, when they refused psychiatric medications their medical doctors would give them all sorts of reassurances that the drugs will work, and are safe. This is clearly not true to anyone who does a brief search online for dangers of these medications.
To really be honest about this, if a patient is told that a drug such as Celexa is safe and doesn't have withdrawal effects, they are being lied to.
2) The diseases are not real.
OK, anxiety and depression are real. Real feelings. They are not medication diagnoses. People are given medications to fix chemical imbalances that don't exist
3) What does this say about our society as a whole.
We live in a very unhappy culture. All out technology seems to do little make people happy. Why do we need all these drugs? Why are we drugging children?
The real answers to these questions will take us quickly outside of the narrow realm of health and into psychology, sociology and economics.
Years ago PBS aired a Frontline investigation into drugging of children:
This is one of the most disturbing documentaries I've ever seen. In fact, I never watched the whole thing because I could not stomach the insanity and, perhaps I should say evilness of doctors and the system. This is an obvious example of not only the medical establishment turning being a child into a disease, but a failure to undergo any sort of assessment.
Perhaps a reason why psychiatric drugs are liked, is that it lets our culture scapegoat fictional "chemical imbalances" in the brain instead of really looking at what we are doing wrong. Why are we so unhappy? Why are we so anxious? What is causing people in our society to suicide? What do so many young people resort to self harm?
The brain doesn't just become a scapegoat for the clueless psychiatrist. It becomes a scapegoat for dysfunctional families, school, and I would extend the dysfunction to our sociology-economic system in general. In a would of such amazing technology, why are Americans so unhappy and poor while working so much harder then they did 50 years ago. Why can we not use science and technology to created a would that provides for objective human needs? That being physical needs and psychological needs?
As shown in the film Zeitgiest Moving Forward, our society, on a foundational level is not designed to provide for objective human needs.
But no reason to really reexamine our paradigms, if you feel unhappy go and get Celexa.
4) Ignorance of natural health is a driving force behind psychiatric medications.
People will be prescribed psychiatric drugs to mask psychological problems, Candida, hypothyroidism, metal toxicity, protein deficiency and other health problems. This is what I see. Often people will take such drugs for years, only to find out later that what they really have is some other problem.
But other times people end up on a cocktail of various psychiatric drugs for years that they are unable to get off of. They continue to see the prescribing doctors and fiddle around with this drug and that, possibly changing doses, but never really getting healthy.
Of course, every case is different, but from experience many of these people may just have food allergies, Candida, some hormonal issues, need for folate, or something else which it totally treatable with natural medicine.
Doctors wrote 47 million prescriptions for Xanax in 2011 . Followed by 37 million for Celexa.
It's amazing how many prescriptions are written for such mind altering substances. In my opinion this is medical insanity. A paradigm that creates such wide spread use of chemicals that are designed to poison the brain is deeply dysfunction.
Additionally, critiques against the widespread use of psychiatric medications is repetitive, but in the face of such medical madness worth repeating.
1) Patients are not warned about "addiction" to the medications, which has been relabeled by the psychiatric industry with names like "continuation syndrome."
What I have learned from my clients is that not only are they not warned about any possible dangers of these medications, they are pressured by doctors into taking them. I have had numerous clients tell me, when they refused psychiatric medications their medical doctors would give them all sorts of reassurances that the drugs will work, and are safe. This is clearly not true to anyone who does a brief search online for dangers of these medications.
To really be honest about this, if a patient is told that a drug such as Celexa is safe and doesn't have withdrawal effects, they are being lied to.
2) The diseases are not real.
OK, anxiety and depression are real. Real feelings. They are not medication diagnoses. People are given medications to fix chemical imbalances that don't exist
3) What does this say about our society as a whole.
We live in a very unhappy culture. All out technology seems to do little make people happy. Why do we need all these drugs? Why are we drugging children?
The real answers to these questions will take us quickly outside of the narrow realm of health and into psychology, sociology and economics.
Years ago PBS aired a Frontline investigation into drugging of children:
This is one of the most disturbing documentaries I've ever seen. In fact, I never watched the whole thing because I could not stomach the insanity and, perhaps I should say evilness of doctors and the system. This is an obvious example of not only the medical establishment turning being a child into a disease, but a failure to undergo any sort of assessment.
Perhaps a reason why psychiatric drugs are liked, is that it lets our culture scapegoat fictional "chemical imbalances" in the brain instead of really looking at what we are doing wrong. Why are we so unhappy? Why are we so anxious? What is causing people in our society to suicide? What do so many young people resort to self harm?
The brain doesn't just become a scapegoat for the clueless psychiatrist. It becomes a scapegoat for dysfunctional families, school, and I would extend the dysfunction to our sociology-economic system in general. In a would of such amazing technology, why are Americans so unhappy and poor while working so much harder then they did 50 years ago. Why can we not use science and technology to created a would that provides for objective human needs? That being physical needs and psychological needs?
As shown in the film Zeitgiest Moving Forward, our society, on a foundational level is not designed to provide for objective human needs.
But no reason to really reexamine our paradigms, if you feel unhappy go and get Celexa.
4) Ignorance of natural health is a driving force behind psychiatric medications.
People will be prescribed psychiatric drugs to mask psychological problems, Candida, hypothyroidism, metal toxicity, protein deficiency and other health problems. This is what I see. Often people will take such drugs for years, only to find out later that what they really have is some other problem.
But other times people end up on a cocktail of various psychiatric drugs for years that they are unable to get off of. They continue to see the prescribing doctors and fiddle around with this drug and that, possibly changing doses, but never really getting healthy.
Of course, every case is different, but from experience many of these people may just have food allergies, Candida, some hormonal issues, need for folate, or something else which it totally treatable with natural medicine.
Friday, November 23, 2012
The Candida – Psoriasis connection
Psoriasis is not caused by a steroid drug deficiency
Typically conventional
medicine treats psoriasis with steroids. While this may help
symptoms, it is entirely useless in addressing the cause of
psoriasis. In other words, psoriasis is not caused by a deficiency of
topical corticosteroids.
Several times I have seen
psoriasis patients who were actually surprised when I mentioned the
possibility of candida. In actuality the relationship between
psoriasis and chronic candida overgrowth is understood by many in
natural health.
Additionally, there are
research studies backing this up. So there should be nothing
controversial about considering candida in a case of psoriasis.
Studies that show link between Candida and Psoriasis:
Incidence of Candida in psoriasis – a study on the fungal flora of psoriatic patients
This study found candida in 72% of the
psoriatic patients, but in only 46% of the controls. Also, they found
candida in 78% of the saliva samples of the psoriatics but in only
50% of the controls.
A 1994 article “Microorganisms and Psoriasis” reported completely, or almost completely clearing
psoriasis in 50% of 126 patients, using antimicrobial treatment.
Interestingly, this article covers
other organisms that may be factors in psoriasis besides Candida
albicans. These are:
- Malassezia ovalis
- group A beta-hemolytic streptococci
- group B beta-hemolytic streptococci
- Enterococcus faecalis
- Pseudomonas species
- Klebsiella species
- Bacillus cereus
While I don't entirely agree with their method of treatment, and would prefer a more natural route (using herbs instead of drugs, the "Candida diet", liver support, etc...), this is still an excellent article on the microbial triggers of psoriasis and treatment.
What about studies that found no relationship between Candida and Psoriasis?
A study from 2003; Microorganisms
in Intertriginous Psoriasis: No Evidence of Candida culture took culture samples from psoriac patients and found no
evidence of Candida. Therefore, the study recommended that Candida
not be treated with anti-fungal agents, and instead be treated with
topical steroids.
However,
upon actually looking at how the study was conducted, the samples for
culture where taken from the actual psoriatic lesions.
From
the perspective of a natural health care practitioner who has
experience with Candida patients, this is not surprising. The link
between Candida and Psoriasis is not so direct. In other words, the
psoriatic lesion is not a candida infection. Rather, this is the
body's response to an internal overgrowth of candida, which is
generally traced back to the digestive tract. It is the candida in
the digestive tract, which releases toxic by-products and triggers
the immune system that causes the body to produce psoriasis lesion as
part of a response. Therefore, cultures for candida should be from
stool, not the skin, and treatment with anti-fungals should be
directed at the digestive tract as well.
Of course, a comprehensive history should be taken as well, and if some thing comes up in history that leads case in a different direction other than Candida or similar microbial overgrowth, then other triggers should be considered as well. Candida is not the THE CAUSE of psoriasis in all people. It is just a likely trigger.
Of course, a comprehensive history should be taken as well, and if some thing comes up in history that leads case in a different direction other than Candida or similar microbial overgrowth, then other triggers should be considered as well. Candida is not the THE CAUSE of psoriasis in all people. It is just a likely trigger.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Validity of Saliva Cortisol Testing
For 30 years saliva has been used as a reliable, cheap and effective way to measure the body's major stress hormone, cortisol.
Although use of saliva cortisol is by no means limited to natural or "functional medicine," that is probably where it has been used the most. Natural health care practitioners will often give patients saliva test kits to measure cortisol and hence their stress response.
Nonetheless, if a patient happens to then go to a medical doctor with the results, they may be told that there is no validity to saliva tests.
I want to make these points very clear:
1) If a medical doctor says there is no validity or reliable way to measure cortisol through saliva that doctor is ignorant.
In such a case what that doctor really should do, is tell their patient that they are not familiar with saliva cortisol testing.2) The debate on saliva cortisol testing has nothing to do with differences between functional medicine/ holistic medicine/ naturopathy / eastern medicine or anything else you'd like to call it and conventional mainstream medicine.
In reality, such lab testing is far within the scope of anything that can be called "western medicine." Not only that, it has been accepted by mainstream western medicine.The use of saliva cortisol testing is actually a guideline in the practice of mainstream endocrinology! See link to Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism abstract
Among the many studies done on saliva cortisol in the last 30 years, this one also stands out as well.
Melatonin and cortisol assessment of circadian shifts in astronauts before flight.
3) Most medical doctors don't understand cortisol, stress and the circadian rhythm
Many times medical doctors tell patients things which are just simply not scientific with regards to such testing. This includes:- "Cortisol doesn't affect your health."
- "Timing of testing cortisol doesn't matter"
- "There is no science behind this"
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Great Video on Causes of Depression
Causes of Depression
Psychetruth on youtube recently posted an excellent video:
What Causes Depression and Suicide? Brain Chemical or Human Needs? Psychology & Self Esteem
Often, one of the most difficult parts of even discussing a problem such as "depression" is how the field of psychiatry has redefined it as some kind of physical illness.
But depression is not a physical illness like cancer or the flu. You can not see it, or touch it. There are no lab tests for it. Depression is a feeling. Depression is also caused by something else. The feeling depression can not be caused by the disease depression. That does not make any sense.
The cause of feeling depressed is either going to be psychological or physiological. Also, we have to keep in mind that we are one unit, the psychological and physiological do affect each other.
This video by Psychetruth does a great job at going over the psychological causes of feeling depressed. The truth is more complicated then simple trains of thought that come from drug companies that one "has depression," or has a "chemical imbalance."
However, once the truth is understood, actions can be taken to help someone who feels depressed.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Statins May Be Linked to Fatigue
A new study shows that cholesterol lowering statin drugs may be linked to fatigue.
As stated in the article:
"People who were taking statin drugs were more likely to experience decreased energy, fatigue upon exertion, or both, when compared with those who were not taking statins. The effects were more pronounced among women.This fatigue during exercise reported in the study is different than a rare and potentially fatal side effect associated with statins. Rhabdomyolysis can cause severe muscle pain, liver damage, kidney failure, and death. "Fatigue is still quite important in and of itself," Golomb says."
Commentary:
This should not be surprising to anyone, as statin drugs inhibit the body's production of Coq10. Coq10 is needed for the mitochondria inside our cells to produce energy. So it makes sense that a drug which lowers Coq10, can lead to fatigue. This very obvious cause of fatigue was not mentioned in the article.In addition, there are very popular drugs and have been used for a long time now. Patients reporting fatigue as a common side effect should be very apparent.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Popcorn packed with anti-oxidants - commentary
A new study has come out that popcorn is full of anti-oxidants!
So what's wrong with this study?
How about the fact that popcorn is a food which just about should NEVER be eaten.
Don't get me wrong, a small amount of organic popcorn is ok, but what goes into most popcorn?
1. Puffed corn. Basically, this is simple carbohydrate.
2. "Butter" and other additives.
3. Genetically modified franken foods. Most corn is genetically modified.
I usually refer people to the Institute for Responsible Technology for information about genetically modified foods.
So popcorn is not healthy, unless it's from organic corn, eaten in moderation, and not full of all sorts of additives. However, a big bag of movie theater popcorn is not healthy.
But this study isn't just about popcorn. It's about how researches can take a complex question (such as if a food healthy) and use reductionist thinking to focus on only one aspect of it, ignore lots of other information, and come to a misleading conclusion.
Although to be honest - it's not even the researcher's fault. I blame WebMD for taking this paper and giving it an intentionally misleading headline. Of course this is a big problem in health today. Both from conventional and natural health. Any little factoid can turn into a misconstrued headline.
What is truly misleading, is many more people with read the headline, than the article. And how many people will read the article and consider the other side of the story?
A few years ago there was a research study that showed GMO corn can lead to organ failure. What if that was given a headline such as "Popcorn causes organ failure and death." Would that be honest.
Often, the truth about nutrition is much more boring than any headlines. Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants. Of all the nutrition books, dietary advice, seminars, lectures, radio shows and everything I've heard about nutrition, 90% of it can be summed up in just that.
So what's wrong with this study?
How about the fact that popcorn is a food which just about should NEVER be eaten.
Don't get me wrong, a small amount of organic popcorn is ok, but what goes into most popcorn?
1. Puffed corn. Basically, this is simple carbohydrate.
2. "Butter" and other additives.
3. Genetically modified franken foods. Most corn is genetically modified.
I usually refer people to the Institute for Responsible Technology for information about genetically modified foods.
So popcorn is not healthy, unless it's from organic corn, eaten in moderation, and not full of all sorts of additives. However, a big bag of movie theater popcorn is not healthy.
But this study isn't just about popcorn. It's about how researches can take a complex question (such as if a food healthy) and use reductionist thinking to focus on only one aspect of it, ignore lots of other information, and come to a misleading conclusion.
Although to be honest - it's not even the researcher's fault. I blame WebMD for taking this paper and giving it an intentionally misleading headline. Of course this is a big problem in health today. Both from conventional and natural health. Any little factoid can turn into a misconstrued headline.
What is truly misleading, is many more people with read the headline, than the article. And how many people will read the article and consider the other side of the story?
A few years ago there was a research study that showed GMO corn can lead to organ failure. What if that was given a headline such as "Popcorn causes organ failure and death." Would that be honest.
Often, the truth about nutrition is much more boring than any headlines. Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants. Of all the nutrition books, dietary advice, seminars, lectures, radio shows and everything I've heard about nutrition, 90% of it can be summed up in just that.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Raw Food Made Easy Book Review
When going through my library for great health books to recommend, Raw Food Made Easy for 1 or 2 people, by Jennifer Cornbleet is on the top of the list.
What makes this a great book?
None. This is a great book to help busy people incorporate more health, raw foods into their diet.
What makes this a great book?
- Not preachy and over the top telling you that you must only eat raw food. Eating raw food is important. Generally, most people need to get more raw food into their diet. However, eating raw food should not be turned into a cult. Unlike some other raw food books, this doesn't do that.
- The recipes are easy to make. Many raw food books have rather time consuming recipes. This book truly is raw food made easy and will not just sit on the bookcase unused, because the recipes are too time consuming.
- Lots of expensive, raw food "cooking" equipment is not needed. A food processor with S blade and blender will be helpful. But you will not find the majority of recipes demanding you first go out and spend hundreds on fancy juicers and dehydrators.
None. This is a great book to help busy people incorporate more health, raw foods into their diet.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Study Finds SSRIs May Cause Babies To Have Smaller Heads
Researchers found an association between SSRIs such as Paxin and Prozac and preterm birth. “We found prenatal exposure to SSRIs was associated with decreed growth of the head, but not decreased growth of the body,” said head researcher Hana El Marroun.
Although this does become more complicated.
They also found that depressed women, who were not taking SSRIs, babies had both smaller heads and smaller bodies.
The researchers also point out that anti-depressants are only one possible treatment, and that psychological treatment could be used instead.
Comments:
No one really knows what SSRIs do, or how they affect the whole body. The idea that SSRIs work by affecting brain serotonin is not just unproven theory. It's a bad theory. Anytime you hear a doctor or medical researcher talk about how SSRI produce certain effects by working on serotonin, they are basically just speculating.
What we do know, is that SSRIs affect the brain, and the rest of the body in numerous ways, creating long lists of “side effects.” Medical doctors and psychiatrists often do not warm patients about these numerous side effects, which include horrible withdrawal symptoms that force patients to remain on these toxic medications.
It would not be easy to calculate the amount of harm done (to mothers and their babies), by giving pregnant women SSIRs, instead of proper health care.
In case of depression, I recommend a full medical history be taken, followed by steps to treat the person. What treatment might be depends upon individual circumstances. There is no cookie cutter protocol in natural health. The following list is some common problems and treatments. This is not a complete comprehensive list.
- Therapy for psychological issues.
- Hormonal imbalance (low/high cortisol, hypothyroidism)
- Poor nutrition, including low protein, amino acid deficiency, low vitamins B6, B12, folate, magnesium or generally poor nutrition
- Inflammation
- Infection
- Toxicity
- Eliminating allergenic foods
- Poor digestive function, including but not limited to poor absorption of nutrients, or candida
SOURCES: Hanan El Marroun, Ph.D., department of child and adolescent psychiatry, Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Michael O’Hara, Ph.D., professor, psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City; March 5, 2012, Archives of General Psychiatry, online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)