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:
  • 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.
 


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.  

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."
In truth cortisol is the body's stress hormone. If this true then stress itself doesn't affect health. At this point, the fact that stress greatly impacts health is accepted by everyone in health and proven over and over in countless research studies.

  • "Timing of testing cortisol doesn't matter"
In truth cortisol is closely linked to our circadian rhythm. In a healthy person it will be about 10 times higher upon waking then at night. Cortisol may even be normal one time of the day, but wildly out of reference range another time. Cortisol must be tested multiple times during the day, and at the correct time. (the above article citing use of saliva cortisol to test for Cushing's disease, is very clear to tests it late at night, not morning or afternoon, as people have blood cortisol tested then.)

  • "There is no science behind this"
There is overwhelming scientific support for saliva cortisol testing (and other saliva tests as well). A cursory glance at clinical studies will show that. I have linked to two studies in this blog article, but it would not be difficult to link to dozens. 


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.