Fwd: DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 3, No 21) September 20, 2003

[Guest guest]

" Andrew W. Saul "

 

DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (Vol. 3, No 21) September 20, 2003

Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:40:02 -0400

 

To for free: news- )

 

" You can't have everything. Where would you put it? " (Steven Wright)

 

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 3, No 21) September 20, 2003

" Free of charge, free of advertising, and free of the A.M.A. "

 

Written and copyright 2003 by Andrew Saul, PhD, of

http://www.doctoryourself.com , a free online library of over 350 natural

healing articles with nearly 4,000 scientific references.

 

PHARMOPHILIA: Why Do Doctors Love Drugs So Much?

" Modern medicine " may well be defined as " the experimental study of what

happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies. "

Politically powerful medical quackery is nothing new. Drug-and-cut doctors

have been ignoring nature's laws for a long time, with disastrous results.

 

" General Washington was taken in the night (in December, 1799) with a sore

throat. The 'bleeder' being sent for, he took from him 14 ounces of blood.

The following morning, the family physician arrived, and proceeded to bleed

him copiously, twice within a few hours, and again the same evening, giving

him thereafter a dose of calomel (mercury). Next morning he was given

another dose. The next day another physician was called in consultation, and

the result was that they took an additional 32 ounces of blood from General

Washington. There was no alleviation of the disease. Ten grains more of

calomel were given, followed by a tartar emetic in large doses. To his

extremities blisters were applied, and to his throat poultices. "

 

" General Washington died. "

 

(from the Pittsburgh Health Club Newsletter, July 31, 1931)

 

Former First President George Washington, the father of our country, died

from a sore throat? No sir: he died from the treatment. Washington had the

best scientific medical attention of his day. And? They bled him no fewer

than five times in three days. Let's do the grisly arithmetic. The first

bleeding removed 14 ounces; there were then three bleedings of unspecified

quantity, collectively described as " copious " ; and then a final full quart

was removed. Assuming that the three " copious " bleedings were also 14 ounces

each, that is another 42 ounces lost. Adding up, we have:

 

14

14 x 3 = 42

32

88

 

Some 88 ounces of blood was taken from George Washington. The human body

contains about 10 units, that is to say 10 pints (5 quarts) of blood. 88

ounces is pretty close to 3 quarts, or nearly 6 units; that's well over half

the blood in a person. Some estimates place Washington's total bleeding

closer to 8 units.

 

It doesn't take a conspiracy, nor does it require an assassin, to kill a

great man. Stupidity will do it just as well.

 

" The Dark Ages of Medicine are long over, " you say? If only that were true.

Let's take a short hop over to Britain for some very unsettling news that

may well bring avoidable sickness and unnecessary death to millions.

 

MOST VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS TO BE BANNED THROUGHOUT EUROPE:

THE EU FOOD SUPPLEMENTS DIRECTIVE

 

by P.M. Goodwin, United Kingdom

Email: pm.goodwin

 

The European Union Food Supplements Directive was passed by the EU

Parliament on 13 March 2002, and became law in the 15 EU member states on 1

August 2003.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en0051005

7.pdf

 

This legislation, if unchallenged, will have the effect of banning over 300

vitamin and mineral forms and 5000 products from the European market, by 1st

August 2005.

 

By 2007, if not earlier, the Food Supplements Directive will also be applied

to other nutrient groups such as fatty acids and amino acids, with similarly

devastating results. Other EU legislation currently in the pipeline, such as

the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the Pharmaceuticals

Directive (which proposes to amend the definition of a medicine) threatens

to remove still further categories of natural health products from the

European market.

 

Readers of this newsletter who live outside of the EU and who think that

this legislation bears no relevance to them should think again however. The

Food Supplements Directive bears a strong resemblance to legislation now

under discussion at a global level by the Codex Alimentarius committee (a

little known commission of the United Nations World Trade Organization).

Indeed, many of the architects of the Directive are also members of the

Codex committee. If the Food Supplements Directive is not stopped it will

strongly influence the deliberations of the Codex committee, who advocate

similar tight restrictions on the sale of supplements. The USA would then

come under strong international pressure to implement the Codex

recommendations because of its' having signed up to the NAFTA and GATT

international trade agreements. All decisions emanating from the Codex

Alimentarius Commission are directly incorporated by the World Trade

Organization (WTO) and will ultimately overrule all current national laws.

 

Although many US supplement companies have been led to believe that US laws

cannot be downgraded ( " harmonized " ) to WTO/Codex, close examination of WTO

rules appear to make this almost inevitable; especially so considering the

weak statutory wording of the 1997 FDA Modernization Act, which purports to

protect American health freedoms from harmonization to restrictive rules

elsewhere.

 

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) http://www.alliance-natural-health.org

is an international organization of scientists, practitioners, lawyers,

public relations and media experts working specifically to amend European

legislation in order to maintain the availability of innovative, safe and

effective food supplements. While progress has been made in proposing

amendments to the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the

Pharmaceuticals Directive, the time for lobbying in respect of The Food

Supplements Directive is over. The only option remaining now to eliminate

the devastating effects of this Directive is a lawsuit. This is a costly

process, and funds are very urgently needed. Please consider making a

donation to the ANH legal campaign-fund at

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org .

 

Legal papers to challenge the directive have to be filed in London by the

end of October, at the very latest or our window of opportunity will close.

The future rights of all people on this planet to buy safe and effective

dietary supplements are now at stake, and a choice regarding whether or not

we are prepared to defend these rights must now be made by each and every

one of us.

 

HEALTH CLAIMS FOR FOODS TO BE PROHIBITED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

by Paul Anthony Taylor, UK Health Freedom Advocate.

Email: paulandpolly

 

Not content with issuing the Food Supplements Directive, which intends to

ban almost 300 nutrients and thousands of food supplement products from the

EU market by 1st August 2005, the European Union recently adopted a draft

regulation on nutrition and health claims made for food. The press-release

accompanying the draft regulations was issued on 16th July, and makes for

some very interesting reading. See

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/newsletter/200307/1.htm

 

Claiming that the regulations would " meet consumers' need for reliable

information " and " give greater legal security to the food industry " , the

press release also states that " European consumers have become more and more

interested in what they are eating and on how this may have an impact on

their health. " Note the careful use of the word " may " . The EU are clearly

not about to give any outright acknowledgement that poor food choices most

certainly do damage the health of its citizens, as this might upset the

large and powerful companies who manufacture junk-food and processed food.

 

Pointing out that the 15 countries that make up the EU all have different

laws governing health and nutrition claims, the press release goes on to say

that the European Commission has proposed to " harmonize " the rules governing

the use of these claims in relation to foods.

 

For anyone unfamiliar with the workings of the EU, I should explain here

that " harmonization " is one of the EU's favourite concepts. Indeed,

harmonization is central to everything that the huge monolithic structure of

the European Union is all about. Individuality? Freedom of choice?

Democracy? Forget it. In the EU, standards are always harmonized downwards

to the lowest common denominator. A classic example of this occurred in

April 2002, when the EU's Scientific Committee on Food, in its infinite

wisdom, decided to set the " tolerable upper level " for niacin at a mere 10

milligrams. How can that be, when the EU RDA for vitamin B3 is 18 mg? See

for yourself at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out80j_en.pdf

 

According to the press release, the proposed regulations will give consumers

a high level of protection by " prohibiting certain claims and establishing a

system for scientific evaluation of claims " . While stating that no food

products will be prohibited as a consequence of the regulations (cue large

round of applause from the junk-food lobby) the press release adds that

claims made about foods will have to be " meaningful " and " substantiated by

scientific evidence " . The same sort scientific evidence, presumably, that

advocates a tolerable upper level for niacin of 10 mg.

 

The press release then makes the truly astonishing claim that " the basic

principle in nutrition is that there are no good foods and bad foods but

rather good diets and bad diets. " Amazing. It also asserts that " in a

long-term varied diet, all foods can be included " , and goes on to state that

because " foods bearing a claim will automatically be perceived as good

foods. . . claims about the benefit of consuming a certain product may lead

consumers to eat too much of something that should only make up a small part

of a good diet. " And here comes the clincher: " It is therefore necessary " ,

they say, " to restrict the use of claims on some foods based on their

nutritional profile " . Clearly then, this legislation could be used to

prevent, rather than allow, some nutrition and health claims being made for

foods, even when there is strong scientific evidence to support the use of

such claims.

 

Europe may not perhaps be the best place to live in future if you want to

remain healthy. But before any North American readers start to think that

they are safe from this sort of nonsense, consider this:

 

On 10th July, only six days before the EU press release was unveiled, the

FDA's Task Force on Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition

announced " a new process to provide more science-based, FDA-regulated

information on product labels about the health consequences of foods and

dietary supplements " claiming that " this process will improve information on

dietary health benefits for consumers and will encourage product

manufacturers to compete based on scientifically demonstrated health

benefits of their products. " See the press release at

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00923.html

 

Co-incidence, or collusion?

 

(Editor's note: We must not let the people of Great Britain and Europe get

hung out to dry by the pharmaphilic (drug-loving) politicians. It is time to

step up to the plate and take a swing. Evidently, one D-Day was not enough

to insure a free Europe. One of Winston Churchill's favorite quotations was,

" The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. " It is still true.

 

For more information:

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news & ID=17

http://www.iahf.com/europe/20030718a.html )

 

SIGN THE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-FLUORIDE PETITION

by Paul Connett, PhD

Email: pconnett

 

" For many months a team of scientists, who met at the International Society

for Fluoride Society's conference in New Zealand in January, have been

circulating among their colleagues an appeal and petition which is calling

upon those governments which fluoridate their water to bring some integrity

into their promotion of the practice.

 

" This petition has already gathered hundreds of signatures from 38

countries. Those signing include Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in

Medicine in 2000, from Sweden; Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, former

President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research; Professor Samuel

S. Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer; and Ted Schettler, MD, MPH,

Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network, USA. The

petition and list of signers can be viewed online at:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm

 

" Those wishing to add their names should send an email to

info and put the words " Integrity Petition " as their

subject line.

 

1) Please give your name (and your highest degree, if relevant);

2) Your affiliation for identification purposes;

3) Your town, state, and nation.

 

" Also, to underscore why we are calling for integrity in the fluoridation

debate, we have compiled articles documenting some of the more blatant cases

of scientific fraud and suppression in the promotion of fluoridation (e.g.

the firing of Dr. William Marcus from the EPA, the firing of Dr. Phyllis

Mullenix from the Forsythe Dental Institute, the altering of recommendations

from the Surgeon General's 1983 panel, etc). See compilation at:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/suppression.htm .

 

" When you read first the petition you might be disappointed that it is not

stronger. It does not ask for an immediate halt to water fluoridation.

However, if you read the six demands in the petition, I think you will agree

that if a government was to go along with any one of them it would

completely undermine water fluoridation.

 

1) If any government were to truly examine the literature objectively and

comprehensively, and applied standard toxicological procedures to their

regulatory decision, it would have to reject fluoridation, just as it has

been rejected by most industrialized countries.

 

2) If they collected the levels of fluoride in our bones it would be

abundantly clear that a lifetime's (or even half a lifetime's) accumulation

of fluoride will lead to fluoride levels in many people likely to cause

arthritic symptoms and an increased risk of hip and other fractures.

 

3) If they stopped using industrial grade (and toxicologically untested)

hexafluorosilicic acid, they would find the use of pharmaceutical sodium

fluoride cost prohibitive.

 

4) If they lifted the overhanging fear of reprisals from the average

dentist, research scientist and government official, many more would reject

this archaic form of mass medication.

 

5) If they were honest about the miniscule (if any) benefits of

fluoridation, and stopped their exaggerations, no official in his or her

right mind would gamble with such a complex variety of health risks.

 

6) If the promoters were ever to come on to a public platform and defend

this practice in an open public debate, it would be clear to all that they

have no defense for a practice which defies common sense, medical ethics and

standard toxicological and regulatory procedures.

 

In short, the promoters cannot retain both fluoridation and their integrity.

If we can get the academic, scientific, professional and all those who work

actively to protect human health to insist on integrity, fluoridation is

doomed.

 

(For more information, email Dr. Connett at pconnett or

ggvideo )

 

SCIENTISTS: INTEGRITY NEEDED ON FLUORIDE'S HEALTH RISKS

(Media release from Fluoride Action Network, September 2, 2003)

 

Hundreds of leading scientists and public health activists from across the

globe issued a joint statement today, urging governments promoting

fluoridation to " bring some integrity into the debate " and stop what those

who organized the petition call a cover-up of the public health risks posed

by decades of adding fluoride to drinking water. The petition and list of

signers is available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm . It will

be published in the October issue of The Ecologist.

 

Water fluoridation was introduced in the 1950s in an attempt to reduce

dental cavities. However, many studies now point to long-term health

worries, including arthritis, hip fracture and accumulation in the pineal

gland.

 

Swedish Nobel laureate (Medicine, 2000) Dr. Arvid Carlsson was one of over

300 prominent individuals and organizations from 38 countries who signed the

international petition. " The amount of fluoride in fluoridated tap water,

often used for mixing baby formula, is 100 times higher than the level in

mothers' milk, " said Carlsson. " I am worried what this will do the baby's

developing brain cells. "

 

Harvard trained PhD chemist Albert Burgstahler, editor of the journal

Fluoride, echoed Carlsson's concerns. " The latest work from China, published

earlier this year in Fluoride, indicates a lowering of IQ in children

drinking water at less than twice the recommended fluoride level used in

artificially fluoridated water, " said Burgstahler. " There's practically no

margin of safety here. "

 

In an article in the September 2003 issue of the journal Australasian

Science, Australia's Dr. Mark Diesendorf, former professor of environmental

science, wrote that, " Instead of debating the issue in open scientific

forums, promoters are trying to maintain fluoridation by political power. "

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at the University of

Toronto and former president of the Canadian Association of Dental Research,

stressed that fluoride's effect occurs largely from direct contact with the

tooth's exterior. " The majority of dental researchers now believe there's

little benefit in actually swallowing fluoride, " said Limeback.

 

The petitioning group included Pat Costner, senior scientist for Greenpeace

International; Dr. Lynn Margulis, recipient of the 1999 US National Medal of

Science; the Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia; and the toxics

campaign directors for Greenpeace in Australia, India, Japan, Norway, the

Philippines and Thailand.

 

Dr. Paul Connett, professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New

York, organized the joint communique. " Health authorities in the few

remaining fluoridating countries are hushing up key new studies that show

the serious disruptive effects fluoride has on the body, " said Connett.

" Unless this rift between honest science and public health policy is mended,

it poses a threat not just to those who are forced to drink fluoridated

water, but to every other public health policy that relies on the public's

trust in government. "

 

MORE TELEVISION, FATTER CHILDREN

" A study conducted by doctors at Tufts University Medical School and Harvard

School of Public Health has confirmed the observation that the more

television a child watches, the greater the likelihood that he or she will

develop a serious weight problem. This conclusion was based on evidence from

approximately 7,000 six- to eleven-year-olds and almost as many adolescents.

" They found that for both age groups, but particularly for adolescents,

those who watched the most TV were significantly more obese or " super-obese "

than other children who spent less time watching TV. For every additional

hour adolescents spent watching TV, the number who were obese rose 2

percent.

" Which comes first, obesity or TV-watching? One speculation is that

overweight youth are more likely to become withdrawn and isolated which may

result in decreased physical activity and possibly more TV watching. The

researchers, however, suggest that obesity in the children in this

particular study occurred as a result of TV viewing, because it was

determined that they spent about the same amount of time alone, with

friends, and engaging in other leisure activities as normal-weight

children. "

 

(Tufts University Diet and Nutrition Letter, Vol. 3, No. 5, July 1985.)

 

And in the 18 years since 1985, the number of obese and super-obese children

has greatly increased.

 

So has TV watching. I have in my possession this excerpt from a syndicated

newspaper column:

 

" The average television viewer will watch 25,659 hours of TV " in a ten-year

period. " That is 1,069 days or 2.9 years. "

 

Wow.

 

Hey, Mom, where's the remote?

 

EAR INFECTIONS

This next item was sent to me 20 years ago, and it remains important:

" The New England Journal of Medicine of February 10, 1983 reported the

results of a three-year study of decongestant-anti-histamine combination

drugs which doc-tors use in treating children with serious middle ear

infections. The study showed that these combination drugs were no better

than a placebo (dummy pill) and that they caused unpleasant side effects.

Yet, 91 percent of the more than 1,687 ear specialists questioned believed

these drugs were effective, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence to

support that belief. "

The paper's abstract says:

" In a double-blind, randomized trial of 553 infants and children who had

otitis media with effusion ( " secretory " otitis media), we compared the

efficacy of a four-week course of an oral decongestant-antihistamine

combination (pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, 4 mg per kilogram of body weight

per day, and chlorpheniramine maleate, 0.35 mg per kilogram per day) with

that of placebo. Among patients with initially unilateral disease,

resolution of middle-ear effusion occurred at four weeks in 38 per cent of

those treated with placebo and 34 per cent of those treated with drug (P =

0.74). Among patients with initially bilateral disease the corresponding

proportions were 19 and 21 per cent, respectively (P = 0.67). Side effects

were reported more often among drug-treated than placebo-treated patients.

Decongestant-antihistamine combinations do not appear to be indicated for

the treatment of otitis media with effusion in infants and children. "

(EI Cantekin, EM Mandel, CD Bluestone, HE Rockette, JL Paradise, SE Stool,

TJ Fria, and KD Rogers. Lack of efficacy of a decongestant-antihistamine

combination for otitis media with effusion ( " secretory " otitis media) in

children. Results of a double-blind, randomized trial. New England Journal

of Medicine. Vol. 308:297-301, No. 6, Feb. 10, 1983.)

 

The good news is that ear infections can be effectively treated by

alternative means.

And yes, though my kids rarely got earaches, they did get them. Here is how

we got rid of them: http://www.doctoryourself.com/earache.html

 

THERE'S NO SMOKING IN THEATERS; SO HOW ABOUT NO SMOKING IN MOVIES?

by Stanton Glantz, PhD, Professor of Medicine, UCSF.

 

" The Lancet reported data June 10 indicating that smoking depictions in

Hollywood movies are responsible for recruiting over half of new young

smokers. Applied to the country as a whole, this amounts to 390,000 U.S.

teens annually; thus, on-screen tobacco promotion by major studios could be

responsible for killing 100,000 Americans a year - more than die from

murder, suicide, drunk driving, illegal drugs, and AIDS combined.

 

" Smoking has doubled in Hollywood movies over the past decade and is now at

the highest level since 1950. Tobacco companies claim they stopped paying

for product placement ten years ago, and the 1998 Master Settlement

Agreement between major tobacco firms and state Attorneys General makes

payola a legal breach, yet studios have persisted in displaying identifiable

tobacco brands in the hands of stars. In 2002, the industry released more

kid-rated movies with smoking than R-rated ones. Last year, two out of every

three U.S. live action films kid-rated PG or PG-13 contained smoking or

tobacco imagery.

 

" For authoritative background on Big Tobacco's relationship with Hollywood

and the voluntary safeguards being urged on the movie industry, exhibitors,

and the video aftermarket, visit www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu. "

 

Dalton, M.A., Sargent, J.D., et. al (2003) Effect of viewing smoking in

movies on adolescent smoking initiation: A cohort study. The Lancet

362(9380):281-285.

 

Glantz, S.A. (2003) Smoking in movies: A major problem and a real solution.

The Lancet 362(9380):281-285.

 

Sargent, J.D., Dalton, M.A., et. al (2003) Modifying exposure to smoking

depicted in movies: A novel approach to preventing adolescent smoking. Arch.

Pediatric Adolesc. Med. 157:643-648.

 

THOUGHT FOR A LIFETIME

A 159-year-old man was being interviewed on TV and was asked a predictable

question: " How did you manage to live for so long? "

 

He answered, " I never, ever, argue with anyone. "

 

The interviewer did not believe this, and pressed him about it. " Surely

there was something else that you did: lifestyle, stress reduction, diet, or

exercise! "

 

The old man listened, and then said, " Maybe you're right. "

 

Privacy Statement:

We do not sell, and we do not share, our mailing list or your email address

with anyone. We never send out advertisements of any kind. You may notice

that there is no advertising at http://doctoryourself.com and no

advertising in this newsletter. We have no financial connection with the

supplement industry. We do not sell vitamins or other health products,

except for Dr. Saul's books, which help fund these free public services.

 

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ALL to this newsletter are available with a blank

email to

news-

 

AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This newsletter is not in any way offered as

prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or

physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program

necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one

should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from

a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision.

 

" DOCTOR YOURSELF " " DoctorYourself.com " and " Doctor Yourself Newsletter " are

service marks of Andrew W. Saul. All rights reserved.

 

Copyright c 2003 and prior years Andrew W. Saul drsaul.

Permission to reproduce single copies of this newsletter FOR NON-COMMERCIAL,

PERSONAL USE ONLY is hereby granted providing no alteration of content is

made and authorship credit is given. Additional single copies will be sent

by postal mail to a practitioner or patient, free of charge, upon receipt of

a self addressed envelope with THREE first-class stamps on it (offer good in

the USA only), to Number 8 Van Buren Street, Holley, NY 14470 USA.