The Compounder

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Sat, 05 May 2018 09:00:00 +0000

The University of Colorado* at Boulder recently reported on their study** results about a new, innovative antioxidant. They titled their report, "Novel antioxidant makes old blood vessels seem young again", which certainly grabs the reader's attention. Who wouldn't want to have blood vessels that seem younger?

Their work demonstrates that pharmaceutical-grade nutritional supplements (nutraceuticals), could play an important role in (possibly?) preventing heart disease. Passive language is all the range in medical literature and one must presume that it's based on a fear of actually making claims that may not be true. The report and the study both look more like a trial balloon than documenting a scientific breakthrough in health. If the stories generate interest, the authors will want to continue their work - taking it to a final marketable product. The published reports substantiate claims about who is first to discover the new approach.

That's enough back story. The more important part of this whole story is a few lines that appear toward the end of the report from CU Boulder;
“Exercise and eating a healthy diet are the most well-established approaches for maintaining cardiovascular health,” said Seals, a professor of integrative physiology. “But the reality is, at the public health level, not enough people are willing to do that. We’re looking for complementary, evidence-based options to prevent the age-related changes that drive disease. These supplements may be among them.”

One must wonder if the authors meant that their findings are great news for everyone who wants "younger" blood vessels - or ones that “seem” younger. Furthermore, there’s a powerful indictment in that short quote. The fact remains that a healthy diet is the best approach to good heart health. Sadly, few people "...are willing to do that." Therefore, according to these reporters and many others, we need research to discover extracts and laboratory chemicals that will make us seem healthy regardless of how poorly we eat.

It is important to note another veiled proclamation, that they are promoting a "pharmaceutical grade" substance, which means it is likely to be patented and sold as a drug - most certainly called a nutraceutical to further mask the fact that it is made in a chemistry laboratory in some country outside the United States. Image is vital and using “neutra…” presents a healthier image than “drug” or “chemical”. It “seems” natural.

So, is there something inherently wrong with medical patents? Of course not, particularly when the patent is the legitimate method for protecting the interests of the inventor. While is isn't possible to patent a natural substance (no patented dried foods or vitamins), big drug companies (and their cohorts in the education world) are skilled at devising unique ways to extract or manipulate natural substances into products they can patent. That means they will control manufacturing, distribution, and prices for the life of their patent protection (in the neighborhood of 20 years).

Too few people will eat well - according to this study and report - and we've all witnessed the same thing, and are probably just as guilty as the next person, meaning that huge numbers of us will likely buy the next prescribed innovation because it’s easier to pop a pill than to buy and prepare good food. In addition, somebody else, the government or the insurance company, will usually help pay for prescription drug (nutraceuticals). What many people refuse to acknowledge is that nothing is free and that insurance (private or government) doesn’t pay for anything. Instead, the citizens and/or subscribers put in their money that the third party system uses to pay for their prescriptions. It's the system. It's popular. It’s unlikely to go away anytime soon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/04/19/novel-antioxidant-makes-old-blood-vessels-seem-young-again

The study itself was published in the American Heart Association journal, Hypertension.
**http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/early/2018/04/13/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10787

The Medical Marijuana Oxymoron

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:47:00 +0000

The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took effect January 17, 1920 and was repealed by the Twenty-Third Amendment on December 5, 1933. During those 5,071 days of Prohibition, citizens found innumerable ways to obtain the adult beverages they fancied.

The more infamous efforts were criminal, usually resulting in mayhem. Yet there is one aspect of the alcohol ban that gets scant attention today because it wasn’t as exciting as the raids and police chases.

“Medicinal Alcohol” became a fashionable remedy, prescribed by doctors and dispensed by local pharmacies. Our twenty-first century version is “Medical Marijuana” – different substance, same conversation.

For most of the 1920s, a person could easily obtain a prescription for one pint of liquor every 10 days. All it took was cash — about $3, the equivalent of about $40 today — placed in the hand of an agreeable doctor. It cost another $3 to $4 to have it filled at the pharmacy.

Initially, the American Medical Association (AMA) rejected the use of alcohol for any health purpose. Practitioners involved in the prescribing and selling of “medicinal alcohol” experienced more vibrant practices while those who resisted found themselves less successful.

The December 3, 1921 issue of the AMA journal (JAMA) notified members that they would be receiving a survey on the use of alcohol. Half of the members, around 20,000, were polled. The JAMA article stated, “It is the duty of every physician who receives this questionnaire to express his opinion.”

By survey, not scientific testing, the AMA discovered no less than 27 conditions that benefited from alcohol use including diabetes, cancer, asthma, snake bite, lactations and “old age”. This speedy discovery prompted the AMA to issue their 1922 "Referendum on the Use of Alcohol in the Medical Profession", asserting their 1917 resolution against alcohol no longer had scientific value - so much for evidence-based medical practice.

“Medicinal" booze was perfectly legal – and supported by the powerful AMA. To some, though, it also made a mockery of the law, debased the dignity of the medical profession and encouraged rampant criminality, as mobsters eventually and inevitably took over much of the medicinal market.

What finally straightened out the liquor business was the legalization that came with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933, accompanied by a coherent and effective set of enforcement laws, a healthy boost in tax revenues and an honest recognition that, all too often, "medicinal" had been a cynical euphemism for "available."

In the first year after the repeal the federal government coffers were enriched by over $300 million (over $4 Billion today).

That brings us to modern legalized “medical marijuana”, a clear source of concern among politicians and the public in general. Focusing on the medical aspects of “the weed” and creating layers of

legislation to control it is a sham, as the honest objective should be legalization. Yes, legalizing marijuana will pose problems, but none more onerous than those presented by alcohol use. No, marijuana isn’t the gateway to harder drugs.

Rather than playing word games, shouldn’t we respond as thinking adults and advance means to control marijuana use – and “enrich the coffers” as an added gain?

We succeeded with alcohol almost a century ago. Writer Malcolm Gladwell defines tipping point as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, and the boiling point”. That point is here and there seems no better time to act. We can remove the issue from our collective plate and address more pressing issues.

Cold Hands and Feet?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:00:00 +0000

Following a (trap shooting) match on a chilly October afternoon,

Jim and Jimmy shook hands. Jimmy commented that Jim’s hand was warm – despite the fact he didn't wear gloves. Jim replied that he takes cayenne pepper (active hot ingredient is capsaicin) once or twice daily.

I recalled that Cayenne pepper has a long history as a supplement support for cardiovascular and digestive health. For those who’d like more details about the reported benefits of cayenne (capsaicin) see Webmd.com for an extensive list of possible uses.

There’s a powerful sinus relief nasal spray (Sinus Buster) that is also known to quickly relieve headaches, even migraines. I've used it often and can attest to its effectiveness. There’s a sharp initial burn that quickly subsides. The innovator of the product was a self-defense teacher who accidentally got a blast from a pepper spray during a demonstration. He reports that his migraine disappeared almost immediately after inhaling the pepper. That experience led him to develop and market the Sinus Buster product. The Compounder has stocked it for many years.

These pieces of data led to a simple experiment with someone who seems to always have cold hands. Ingesting cayenne pepper with meals is easy and it seems to be effective at raising the temperature of her hands. While I wouldn't claim that using cayenne would work for everyone, it certainly seems like a reasonable idea. Cayenne has a long history of safe use. The main warnings are about getting it in the eyes (people who use cayenne pepper in a topical cream should be particularly careful).

The Compounder stocks capsule form of Cayenne Pepper, 500 mg capsules.

It isn't expensive and it might work.
An alternative is to eat more hot peppers.
Would you opt for the capsules or a few plates of heat daily?

Is Vitamin D a Fad?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:30:00 +0000

I receive numerous health articles every week. As expected, the topics vary widely from acne

medicines to zinc deficiency. In the past few weeks, though I've noticed a steady stream of articles that declare the benefits of vitamin D and point out the many problems that can occur when our vitamin D levels are too low.

Interest in Vitamin might be a coincidence or a reflection of writing that gravitates toward a popular topic - a fad. It is also possible that research and study is pointing to a valuable lesson, that vitamin D (actually a seco-steroid, not a true vitamin) is one of the most important substances in our body.

We make vitamin D ourselves - and we can adsorb it in foods and supplements (the D3 form). In addition to recognizing how valuable it is, we must investigate why so many of us are sufferiong from the effects of a deficiency.

The basic issue seems to rest with two health theories that scare us into action.

One, cholesterol is bad for us.
Two, sunshine can cause cancer.

The fact remains that we make vitamin D in our skin through the interaction of cholesterol with sunlight. Making every effort to lower our cholesterol levels and avoid the sun might be exerting negative influence on our vitamin D production. Ya think? Therefore, blindly following modern medical wisdom is probably making us ill.

Think about it.

The Compounder offers several quality Vitamin D products.

Here's a list of recent articles I've received.

What Might be CAUSING Low-T?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:30:00 +0000

Chances are good that chemicals in the environment are responsible for the increasing numbers of men reporting symptoms of Low T.

According to the study published on August 14, 2014 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism there is “… evidence of reduced levels of circulating testosterone were associated with increased phthalate exposure…" study author John Meeker, of the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, said in a journal news release.

The findings "may have important public health implications, since low testosterone levels in young boys can negatively impact reproductive development, and in middle age can impair sexual function, libido, energy, cognitive function and bone health in men and women,".

Phthalates are used in many products, from enteric coatings of pharmaceutical pills and nutritional supplements to viscosity control agents, gelling agents, film formers, stabilizers, dispersants, lubricants, binders, emulsifying agents, and suspending agents.
Products include adhesives and glues, agricultural adjuvants, building materials, personal-care products, medical devices, detergents and surfactants, packaging, children's toys, modelling clay, waxes, paints, printing inks and coatings, pharmaceuticals, food products, and textiles.
Phthalates are also frequently used in soft plastic fishing lures, caulk, paint pigments, and sex toys made of so-called "jelly rubber".
Phthalates are used in a variety of household applications such as shower curtains, vinyl upholstery, adhesives, floor tiles, food containers and wrappers, and cleaning materials.
Personal-care items containing phthalates include perfume, eye shadow, moisturizer, nail polish, liquid soap, and hair spray. They are also found in modern electronics and medical applications such as catheters and blood transfusion devices.
The most widely used phthalates are DEHP, DIDP, and DINP. DEHP is the dominant plasticizer used in PVC. Phthalates are used as solvents in perfumes and pesticides.

Approximately six million tons of plasticizers are consumed globally every year, most of which is in the United States. Assume this is true – and the evidence seems clear that it is – what can we do about it? The sad truth is practically nothing. We can’t avoid all of the sources and it is unlikely that all the makers and users phthalates will change their ways just because the chemicals are destroying our health. Why, then, is it important to bring this to our attention?

This discovery supports many other studies that repeat the same warnings over and over again – the environment is degrading at an ever-escalating rate.

While it is wise to be concerned about GMOs, it is unwise to ignore all of the other toxic substances that are everywhere.

Merely adding testosterone supplements or applying creams/gels is not the answer to declining levels./ However, that seems to be the current trend, especially if you are inclined to trust all the advertising for prescription replacements. Advertising is designed to sell something, not necessarily solve a health problem.
Buck the trend.

Eat better - steer clear of GMO, products packed in plastic, hot beverages in plastic/foam cups, organic.
Exercise - three to four days of moderate exercise (brisk walk) per week.
Drink clean water us use a reverse osmosis filter to remove as many toxins as possible.
Don't take drugs.
Avoid phthalates in its many sources.

Every little change can add up to improved health.

Nothing is insignificant.

Potent Drug Recommended to Stop Child's Vomiting

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:29:00 +0000

A young mother called to tell me her 5 year old son was vomiting, and asked what she could do. I suggested the standard of rest, sips of Pedialyte or Gatorade , and time.

Later that day when the vomiting hadn't stopped, the mother called her pediatrician and was told to take the child to Urgent Care for some Zofran – a drug used to stop nausea and vomiting.

The nurse and the doctor stated that Zofran is safe and there are no side effects. That advice is contradicted by the drug maker’s own list of possible side effects. Note that current literature about Zofran states, "Zofran is not for preventing nausea or vomiting that is caused by factors other than cancer treatment or surgery." Ironically, “nausea or vomiting that is new or worse” is on the list. That means using Zofran* to stop vomiting could actually make it worse – but not to worry because the doctor says its safe.

At that time the child had been ill for about 5 hours. A simple stomach “bug” or food poisoning commonly resolves in 24 to 48 hours – not five. I can fully understand how we expect instant satisfaction – and a quick resolution to an uncomfortable sickness. Realistically, it just doesn't work that way. That’s why they offer a drug to block the symptoms – not cure anything.

Vomiting is what a body often does to rid itself of a noxious substance (i.e., food poisoning and flu bugs). It has always been a bad idea to block a natural body action. It reminds me our collective mania to block a fever – another reaction that demonstrates how our body is working to build its defense system. Symptoms inform us that something is happening and don’t always mean we should do something to stop them – especially with drugs that pose health risks themselves*.

I didn't openly refute the advice from the doctor’s office, but I informed mom to relax and be prepared to wait out the problem – and offer sips of Pedialyte. However, if temperature rises – especially in the presence of dry skin – get to the Urgent Care center.

I understand all symptoms had resolved by supper time that evening.

There is a place for drugs like Zofran, especially in people who are nauseous from something they can’t get rid of; cancer treatment and other serious illnesses. Without something additional in the situation, it seems highly unlikely that a child who vomits for 5 hours needs a toxic drug to stop.

As predicted, time, rest, and electrolytes were all that was needed. The little guy was ready to roll the
next day.

*Here’s a brief list of the possible side effects from taking Zofran;

Check with your doctor if any of these most COMMON side effects persist or become bothersome: constipation; drowsiness; headache; irritation, redness, pain, or burning at the site of injection; tiredness.
Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur: severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, throat, or tongue; wheezing; unusual hoarseness); abnormal thinking; agitation; chest pain; coma; confusion; diarrhea; dizziness or light-headedness; fainting; fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat; fever; hallucinations; nausea or vomiting that is new or worse; seizures; skin tingling or numbness; stiff muscles; stomach pain; sweating; tremor; trouble urinating; uncontrollable or involuntary muscle movements; vision changes (including sudden temporary blindness).

Could We Actually Have TOO MUCH Health Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:47:00 +0000

I recently read an article that claimed, “…the major problem associated with American healthcare has been a lack of access to it.” That’s clearly the basis from which our government has seen fit to approve and promote the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare). Because we are consuming ever increasing amounts of health related service our health care invoices continue to climb at an alarming rate. The ACA is a reasonable approach if increased health services are necessary and American citizens do not have equal access to it. Be clear that the ACA is about how we as a country will pay for the escalating costs of providing health services that are grounded in a belief that growing numbers of us are sick and in need of medical care.

Not too many years ago we went to see a doctor if we had a problem with our health. Today, healthy people visit the doctor on a regular basis and discover that they really aren’t as healthy as they had thought. This number is creeping up or that blood value is slightly abnormal. Forget the fact that blood levels and numbers vary throughout the day, the discoveries need treatment, starting immediately and probably continuing for the rest of our life. The prescribed treatments often cause symptoms we don’t like - side effects. For them, there are other treatments; often, more drugs.

We believe that every symptom or situation can be relieved by a drug or medical procedure. Modern medicine seems to be always on the lookout for the magic bullets – the ones that will eliminate our problems. While there is certainly “poison in every potion”, it is highly unlikely that there is a “pill for every ill”. Except

for anti-infectives, there is not a single drug that cures anything. At best, our drug cabinets only manage illness. Still, the search goes on and most of us believe that the next big breakthrough is just around the corner. And, we (individually or through the government) contribute to this program or that group to support their efforts in finding the cures we want.

The ACA is in the news and it calls our attention to the fact that we’re spending ourselves to death and a lot of it is being funneled to a dysfunctional system of health delivery. It is a mess from top to bottom and as a country we seem incapable of solving the problems. WE try, but every attempt seems to only add more costs while it further degrades our overall health. Look at any list conditions and you can see that the United States is rarely at the top when it comes to treatment, prevention, or safety. For all we spend, failures are common.

We find ourselves in this kind of a mess because we have learned to look outside ourselves for advice. We turn to doctors, hospitals, and even the government to take charge of our lives and keep us going. We take their prescriptions and submit to the surgeries with little reflection. We believe deeply that our lives are best handled by other people. We trust them over ourselves.

This is the season for making resolutions. Some of us decide to go to the gym, to stop smoking, to do any number of things that seem appropriate for the New Year. Yet, how many of us look deep into our lives and decide that our health depends only on us, that the doctors, insurance companies, laboratories, and drug makers are only out there to meet our specific needs? While there is nothing wrong with profit, there is something dramatically wrong when the desire for it trumps our need to have a healthy body that wards off disease, heals itself, and allows us to be happy.

The details about health are many and often confusing. At the root, however, is one basic decision; whether we want to live a healthy lifestyle or plod along doing what we’re told by people and companies who have ulterior motives for recommending their products and services.

Those who decide that their health is a right - and they are personally responsible - will face 2014 and beyond with the personal power to be healthy – and happy. I pray that masses of Americans will wake up to the problems and understand that the solutions are in their personal grasp, once that first decision to be healthy is made. The current system demands we have access to the health system. A superior alternative is for each of us to come to that place where we don’t need all the available services.

Antibiotic vs. Honey? Like Apples and Oranges

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:23:00 +0000

We have long known about the healing and protective properties of honey. Doctors in our area make certain we set honey from our hives aside for them to purchase. The effects on allergies are profound.

We all bemoan the fact that a lot of commercial honey these days contains high fructose corn syrup and flavoring – and some products only appear to be honey as they contain no real honey at all.

Stories abound about how Asian honey is processed and sterilized of all traces of pollen. It may be sweet, but it lacks any therapeutic value.

I recall working in hospitals decades ago and we often used honey for treating wounds, especially bedsores and burns. Of course this stopped when the hospital was able to buy sterile, manufactured antibiotic creams.

Today I read about a study that compared honey and standard antibiotics as an antibacterial agent in peritoneal dialysis. The conclusion reported is that “Honey Shows No Advantages Compared to Standard Antibiotics in Trial on Patients with Kidney Failure”.

I conclude that the study itself may be flawed because the comparison was between an antibiotic and “…medical grade honey – produced by comprehensively sterilizing standard honey”.

What does STERILE mean?

Of course hospitals would insist on a sterile product, one that’s been processed and stripped of all its natural bacteria fighting elements.

Who in their right mind would agree to allow doctors to use real, pure, unaltered honey to be applied in a sterile hospital setting (tongue in cheek – hospitals are in fact the least sterile environments)?

A superior treatment for infected wounds involves maggots. While at that same inner city hospital mentioned above, I personally witnessed the impressive cleaning that maggots perform on a poorly managed open wound. The maggots arrived on the wound by accident and were never used intentionally. Sad, because the emergency doctors were regularly singing the praises of maggot wound care.

Honey – real, unaltered honey – has many uses and probably works famously to treat the very problems the dialysis study seemed to want researched.

In the modern world, though, if honey is superior to a drug, or even equal to a drug, it would wreak havoc. The official stance is that only drugs can do those things. If honey also worked it would need to be thought of as a drug – and thereby regulated more tightly by the FDA.

Honey ought to be given a fair examination. However, as long as our system focuses on disease instead of health, it won’t.

Here is the article about the study: Honey shows no advantages compared to standard antibiotics in trial on patients with kidney failure.
Here is a link to the study findings: Antibacterial honey for the prevention of peritoneal-dialysis-related infections (HONEYPOT): a randomized trial.

Treating a cholesterol level of 283?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:33:00 +0000

QUESTION: I am trying to lower my cholesterol - I think there are a few factors as to why it is too high - Wellbutrin - which I used to quit smoking and my thyroid. At 283 my doctor gave me the long face and said I ABSOLUTELY have to be on them. I tried them once before and the leg cramps were unbelievable. So I made a deal with him to check back in 3 months. (I also have a thyroid issue) So diet change, exercise and off the Wellbutrin..Is there anything else I can do?

RESPONSE: Without getting too detailed, I need you to understand that I completely disagree with the IDEA that we all need to lower our cholesterol levels (283 is not TOO HIGH in my book). In fact, low cholesterol is by far more dangerous than higher levels. EVERY hormone in the body begins life as cholesterol. Using any method to reduce cholesterol - especially drugs - depletes the raw ingredient that is used to make all of the other hormones. Thyroid problems are to be expected when the cholesterol is removed - as are a host of other diseases, including cancer.

Wellbutrin might have been helpful, but you should have stopped using it by now. If not, please ask your doctor to help you quit using it.

The primary diet changes are simple but not easy. Disease is often grounded in internal inflammation. There are many inflammatory substances, but two you can do something about are sugars and wheat. Simple, huh? Yes, but it is difficult to remove those drugs from your diet. Yes, they're natural - or at least USED to be natural. There have been so many changes over the years that they are more toxic today than ever before.

When I say eliminate sugars I also mean all artificial sweeteners. Honey, however, is nutritious - but not if you devour it at the rate most of us consume sugar (over 70 pounds per year on the low side).

Drink plenty of water (especially before going to bed) - not bottled. City water is okay if its filtered (reverse osmosis to remove fluoride).

You understand that exercise is important. It strengthens muscles and reduces inflammation. 30 to 40 minutes three days a week. BRISK walking is very good, as is light weights.

I have written extensively on these issues on our website (http://www.thecompounder.com/) so I haven't gone into details about WHY in this email. Just the basic conclusions. Doctors disagree with this approach and honestly BELIEVE cholesterol is dangerous. It isn't, but efforts to lower levels with drugs are very dangerous.

Vitamins for Cows?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:44:00 +0000

When our kids were young we visited a dairy farm as part of a farm bureau day. As we watched, the farmer shoveled piles of grain (probably all corn) in front of cows whose heads poked through a kind of fence. Then he piled some white powder on top of the grain. Joel asked about the powder and the farmer explained that it was a mixture of 43 vitamins and minerals that the cows needed in order to produce milk. Seemed reasonable until someone asked why they needed more vitamins and minerals. The “official” answer was a short, mumbled response. Then, we moved on to the next display or demonstration. Here’s a link to a more detailed story about this incident. http://www.thecompounder.com/your-health/detox

Sidebar: Grains (corn in particular) are not the normal diet for cows. They eat grass and the shift to cheaper grain is also part of the reason they need to add vitamins and minerals.

Over the years I've often contemplated that exchange and I came to a simple conclusion. The grain did not provide all of the nutrients the cows needed to make milk. It had been removed from the land over the years, probably by inappropriate planting and fertilization. This was in a time when it had become rare for farms to actually rotate crops, which helped return nutrients that had been depleted by previous crops. But, what about the fertilizers the farmers applied? They are basically combinations of nitrogen and phosphate and zinc. Those additions made the corn grow but do nothing to make it as nutritious as possible - no magnesium, manganese, selenium, copper, iron, and so on. Minerals normally found in soil, once lost, were not replaced. The grain from those fields was deficient and not enough to allow the cows to make milk. That’s why the farmers had to shovel on a pile of white powder.

Do the dairy products you use come from cows who are fed corn and other grains? Ask if you don't know.

A Nurse in Constant Pain.

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:27:00 +0000

QUESTION: I am in constant pain that I cannot function. I am a nurse and am on my feet for 9 hours straight with this pain. If I sit down to rest its worse because getting up is even more painful. Please help me feel better. I asked my doctor for a small amount of pain med thinking it would break the pain cycle but it did not.

LARRY’S REPLY: It seems you may be in the throes of a systemic inflammatory situation - sometimes referred to as RSD or fibromyalgia. To reduce inflammation takes an effort but the results are worth it.

First, eliminate all wheat - other grains too if possible. In itself, going wheat-free can help a lot.
Next, ask your doctor about prescribing low dose naltrexone - 3mg, for example. Taken at bedtime, many people who suffer chronic conditions find relief that lasts all day. We sell it to people who are suffering symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, psoriasis, arthritis, and practically any condition associated with the immune system and inflammation.

Nobody is certain of how LDN works; just that it seems very effective for a large percentage of people with chronic conditions. Dr. Bernard Bhari observed the effectiveness of this drug – referred to as LDN – many years ago and once told me that he can't think of any reason to not prescribe a trial of it to anyone suffering from chronic health situations. The dose is low and there are very few side effects or interactions – the most prominent interaction is with opioids (narcotics).

Of course, there are other things to consider, but these two can likely give you some of the relief you're seeking.

My Top Three Worst Drugs!

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:12:00 +0000

There are many (legal) drugs - too many - and they all pose a threat to health, even when used according to the approved instructions.

Before I share the top three worst, I want to reiterate my basic concern about excess drug use. Of course, the people taking the drugs are at risk for harmful side effects. But, probably more importantly, those of us who don't take drugs directly can also suffer side effects from the tons of drugs routinely dumped into our drinking water supply.

As much as we'd prefer it, drugs do not get "used up" or inactivated in the body of the person who used it on purpose. Metabolized drugs can even have more toxicity than the original. Regardless of the precise mechanisms, our water supply is becoming increasingly contaminated with excreted drugs.

The drugs and chemicals in our water remain in the water because our water treatment systems are incapable of removing them. Why doesn't the government report on the levels of drugs in the water? They'd probably have to if they actually tested for them. Rather than alarm us with facts, they merely decide to not do the test. That means there are many chemicals getting into our bodies that we don't know about - and that nobody wants to tell us about. This will only be reversed when we all stop taking so many drugs - or stop urinating and defecating. Any volunteers?

Back to the main topic, the top three worst drugs.

First on my list are the statin drugs. These chemicals are offered to practically everyone. It seems that the accepted cholesterol levels fall a little every year - meaning that more and more of us are prescribed drugs to meet those lower levels. Cholesterol has not been shown to cause any illness, yet we all seem fixated on our blood levels and how to push them lower and lower. Statin use is unnecessarily high and it's hurting all of us.

The FDA recently announced that the highest dose statin pills should only be used with extreme caution. There is a high risk of myopathy (muscle weakness), liver damage, and joint pain that is particularly associated with the highest dose pill, the one that's 80mg. The serious side effects are not just associated with that one strength pill. They are also found in people taking lower doses, especially if they have been using them for extended periods of time. That's practically everyone who takes statins - and then a bunch of us who are getting our doses from the water supply.

Second in line are the PPI drugs (Proton Pump Inhibitors). These are the drugs used to reduce the levels of acid in our stomach. Somehow we've gotten the idea (false, by the way) that our heartburn and GERD are CAUSED by too much acid. That's why the drug makers have been selling us toxic chemicals (PPIs)

designed to block the formation and release of acid.

Truth be told, acid reflux happens when the digestive systems pushes and squeezes our stomach contents - probably in response to insufficient acid and digestive juice - and some of the acidic material gets up into our esophagus. The actual treatment and prevention of gastric reflux is to INCREASE acid, the use of digestive enzymes, and consuming plenty of clean water - not coffee, tea, soda pop, fruit juice, or milk. Just water - perhaps with a tablespoon of lemon juice. Using PPIs hampers our ability to digest food and extract nutrients. In addition, they can become a habit. But, it seems far easier to swallow a PPI than to eat correctly.

Third are the hormone drugs - especially the estrogens (menopause hormones and birth control pills) and environmental substances that mimic estrogen activity in our body (soy, plasticizers, pesticides, to name just a few). There are numerous articles that explain the potential risks associated with consumption of synthetic hormone replacement drugs. Even cancer has been directly associated with estrogen and estrogen activity.

While bio-identical hormones have become "all the rage", there is evidence that they are generally no safer than the commercial versions. In the case of cancer, for example, it is likely that estrogen can stimulate the growth of cancer cells - in the people who take it intentionally and those of us who get it second hand (unknowingly). Estrogen makes cells grow - it can make us fat. It can cause anxiety and many of the symptoms associated with menopause. It is associated with anxiety and depression. It can counteract the effect of testosterone and be responsible for the feminizing of men - low sperm counts are probably associated with estrogen activity.

There you have it. The top three worst drugs. I avoid them and my fervent hope is that more and more people will do likewise.

Are Doctors stupid or afraid?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:07:00 +0000

It's common to hear that "doctors aren't taught about nutrition in medical school". Does that mean that everything a doctor knows was learned at medical school? Did the professors teach how to fish, repair cars, write novels, play a guitar? Of course not.

The idea that a doctor is somehow deficient because he/she didn't learn about nutrition in medical school is just an excuse. Essentially, "The poor dolt wasn't taught about nutrition, exercise, clean water or even probiotics, so we can't expect her to know anything - or do anything - other than what they were taught in medical school."

At times I've been guilty of this myself, but I want to stop using that kind of statement to either justify ignorance or explain why this or that doctor always falls back on what they were taught - how to read lab tests and prescribe drugs, surgery, or radiation treatments.

Starting from the premise that doctors are intelligent, I must accept that they are capable of rational thought and using reason to arrive at answers - ones that agree with their medical school professors, and ones that don't.

A mature rational person reacts in certain ways when confronted with information that conflicts with their education and experiences. They can ignore the new information. They can use their reasoning skills to refute it. They can even evaluate the new material and begin a process for changing their old belief based on the new findings and rationale.

In all three of those possibilities, the intelligent person can still decide not to change their actions. In the case of a doctor, she can decide to not move away from what she's been doing, regardless of the contrary evidence. Why would she do that?

One reason might be comfort. She could say, "I've been doing it that old way for decades and I don't see any reason to change my practice." That's the response we would expect from a lazy person. Some people are lazy. Doctors are people. Therefore...

I suggest that a more powerful reason for not changing is fear. We can all be driven by fear. Doctors are fearful of being sued, of losing their well-paying job, of being disrespected by their peers, of being branded a rebel and not fit for promotion, of not being able to purchase liability insurance. There are probably other fears, but it seems reasonable that fear is a very powerful motivating force. Still, fear is not an appropriate motivator for a rational person who claims to be a professional and who holds the safety of another human in their hands.

People who impact doctors (administrators, lawyers, insurance salespeople, drug representatives, etc.) know that they can use fear to their advantage. An insurance salesman can tell the doctor that their company won't cover him in the event there's a problem related to something outside usual and customary. Someone could explain that the "way we are doing medicine" is considered by professionals - and the law - to be the golden

standard of practice. To do anything other than this standard of practice is to technically and legally engage in MALPRACTICE - and we all know what happens to doctors in a malpractice suit. They "will probably lose everything they've worked for".

A SHORT STORY: A famous doctor - the head of a department at a large teaching hospital, was lecturing at a multiple sclerosis conference. Almost one thousand people were in attendance, including me. During the QA part of the presentation a woman asked about a treatment that was becoming popular. The famous doctor put on a politely quizzical face and claimed that he hadn't heard of it but that he would check into it. The person who had invited me to the meeting had to physically restrain me from jumping up and screaming. You see, that very doctor was ordering the treatment in question - from me. I had even talked to him several times about it and how so many people were pleased. He lied in front of crowd of people because he was cowardly and fearful. Most of all, he was completely unprofessional. I see this kind of thing often and it makes me sad and angry.

It is time to stop giving doctors a pass for being cowardly and/or fearful. They should live by higher standards of conduct than the average "Joe". They have a professional ethic to uphold and any suggestion that "lack of training in medical school" lifts their responsibility to do their best for their patient is nothing more than a lame excuse. They are obligated to live and learn. Even their associations insist on continuing education, ostensibly because the doctor must be up to date with current ideas. Sadly, they often continue their education at the feet of the very people who use fear tactics to keep doctors in line with "the way things are done around here."

We are many parts

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:23:00 +0000

We are many parts, but all one body (from the 1986 song by Marty Haugen).

The focus of that song is on how all of us, though seeming to be distinct individuals, are actually all part of a single body. In those few words is housed a deep metaphor for the truths that support our very being. It is also a true metaphor for our individual bodies. Over the centuries we have poked and prodded, cut and changed what we came to believe were individual "parts" of the body. The liver is over there and the thyroid is a "butterfly shaped mass" right there in the neck. That just isn't true.

ALL TOGETHER NOW. As we are individually part of the whole body of humankind, our body "parts" are interconnected in such deep ways as to be inseparable. Every time we lose one of our parts, the whole body is changed. Removing a breast to mastectomy isn't always a guaranteed form of curing breast cancer, but the whole is altered by the removal of what seems to be a part. Tumors can be excised but the circumstances that caused them aren't changed. The invaders return and we slice and dice some more.

Modern medicine has evolved on many fronts and is generally capable of some near miraculous acts. Yet, cures themselves continue to evade our science. When they occur, they are often accompanied by amazement, not because we DID something but because we DIDN'T - and it happened all the same.

We need to return our attention to the basic fact that all of our parts are interconnected and we need to treat ourselves as a whole and complete being who is part of a greater form of life, the metaphorical body of humanity.

Damaging even a single member of the human race is harmful to all of us. In an identical way, damage to our individual parts is damaging to our whole body that, when considered globally, is also damaging to the whole of humanity.

I recently read an article in a sports magazine about an experiment involving flashes of light and how sound or touch will alter how we perceive the flash. The study demonstrated that a single flash is detected as two flashes if we hear two rapid tones while the light is flashed. The same thing happens if we're touched on our skin twice during a single flash - we "see" two.

Our senses are connected and interdependent. Smell and taste are other examples of a similar connection. Other connections are certainly more subtle, but important nonetheless.

Why am I rambling on about this? Because I want to make the point that our current medical approaches are wrong and causing harm and death. We need to change our paradigm. It is impossible to consume a drug and expect it to work on just the specific thing we intend.

A pain pill taken for a headache also effects all other parts of the body. It doesn't just fix the head pain - it may cause constipation or drowsiness.

Antidepressants are potent drugs that cause changes throughout our entire body, yet the belief is that they somehow help us by doing something to levels of serotonin.

I mentioned mastectomy above. It isn't JUST the breast, but the entire body that is changed.Consider the emotional upheaval. Then, there are the hysterectomies. I've heard women say their doctor recommended one because they were having menopausal symptoms. Basically, get rid of the thing that causes the problems, neglecting the massive hormone shifts that take place when the hormone "factories" are removed or damaged.

No, not this kind of Magic Bullet.

I don't always oppose surgery, drugs, or radiation - when they are absolutely necessary, when there are few to no other options. I had cataracts when I was younger. Without surgery I'd surely have become sightless. With it, there was a tiny risk that I'd lose my sight, but there was a very great chance I'd be seeing well for many more years if I had the cloudy lens removed. I've worn hard contacts for over three decades, but the results are excellent - with vision better than 20/20. The main inconveniences are inserting lenses every day and the need for reading spectacles. Inconvenient but worth it.

All of our body parts work together and interact for the good of the whole. Any and all interference with even the smallest part can do harm. Ponder this and think hard before accepting the next recommendation from a medical provider. Drugs, surgery, and radiation are massively popular - and potent - but they aren't always the best answer.

SEARCHING FOR THE MAGIC BULLET? There really isn't a "pill for every ill", regardless of how much we want there to be one. We all need to follow the old saying, "Say No To Drugs" - and to surgery and radiation as well.

No Surprises Here

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:11:00 +0000

Cholesterol Drugs Linked to Muscle, Joint Problems.

MONDAY, June 3, 2013 (HealthDay News) — People taking statin drugs to lower their cholesterol may slightly increase their risk for muscle and joint diseases as well as strains and sprains, a new study suggests.

No surprises there.

We have KNOWN about the negative effects of statins for a decade or more. An eerie aspect is that the statin itself might not be the direct culprit. Low cholesterol itself is actually harmful. Cholesterol is THE substance we use to make hormones and other vital chemicals. The miracle of living is that we can absorb carbohydrates and turn the pieces into cholesterol, which then can be used to generate the material we need, when we need it UNLESS something blocks the process. Statins block the process. Soreness is probably a result of low cholesterol levels.

Not only have I known these details - and have worked my butt off telling everyone I can - but the drug makers themselves know about the damage their drugs cause - and chose to keep them on the market because they make tons of money from them.

Statins also deplete CoQ10* - a substance that maintains our heart health. All people on statins should be using CoQ10 every day. Few do. Sadly, at least one maker of statin drugs has also known about this and once thought about making a combination drug that could help relieve the heart problems associated with their statin drug. There is hard evidence (reports, memos, emails, etc.) that shows that the company decided to ignore their own evidence, keep selling their statins, and not even tell doctors about the CoQ10 issue. The revenue stream is more important to drug makers than anything.

Nobody NEEDS a statin drug, yet almost everyone takes one. In addition to muscles, joints, and the heart, low cholesterol is directly linked to mental confusion and dementia.

I know the answer to better health - and so do you - and it does NOT require drugs.

* similar to a vitamin found in every cell of the body. Your body makes CoQ10, and your cells use it to produce energy you need for cell growth and maintenance. It also functions as an antioxidant, which protects the body from damage caused by harmful molecules.

We have Sickness Care, NOT Health Care.

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:58:00 +0000

Caroline is 67 years old. She’s had a few health issues over the years, including a bout with cancer that she overcame. A couple of months ago she noticed she was short of breath when she brought a basket of clothes up from the basement. It passed quickly and she didn’t give it a thought. It happened a few more times and she began to notice discomfort in her chest. It wasn’t pain, but it felt “funny”. Then, her teeth hurt, the back ones on her right side. It lasted a little while then passed. Caroline did a number of searches online and determined she was probably having some mild angina discomfort.

Regardless of her search results, Caroline told her doctor, three of them in fact – a rheumatologist, a neurologist, and another “ologist.” None of them suggested she do anything about the mild symptoms. Then came a visit to the general practitioner who arranged for Caroline to visit a cardiologist. He performed some tests and sent her directly to the hospital, where she underwent open heart surgery three days later. Caroline had several blockages and came through the long surgery very well. Three days after the open heart work, Caroline is in a chair, eating regular food, attending to her own personal needs, and planning to go home a mere four days after surgery.

The surgery and recovery are remarkable – and Caroline tells us she feels great (except for the “discomfort” from the incisions and the few remaining tubes). That’s wonderful news and demonstrates clearly how effective our health system is at solving real physical problems.

But, what about all those specialists who failed to detect a problem – even when their patient complained of shortness of breath, discomfort in her arm that radiated downward, and sore teeth?

Any one of those discomforts are clear symptoms of coronary disease. They should be taken seriously, but they weren’t. The good news is that one doctor finally thought enough to call in a heart specialist to at least rule out anything serious. The findings were serious. The patient needed immediate surgery. The outcome so far is good and so is the prognosis.

Is there anything that could have helped diagnose and handle Caroline’s problem before she was faced with a life-or-death decision about emergency surgery? Would the first doctor have done a better job if he had been paid less or worked more hours? Would the second doctor been more aware of a potential disaster if she had more education (she is already an “ologist”, a specialist with additional training)? How about the third doctor? Would he have been the one to step in to help if he had more testing equipment in his office? Together, would any of the first three done a better job if there was a single, national health system?

Of course, those are facetious comments. Basically, no system will ever insure that any one doctor – or any three in this case – will listen to their patient, do the right thing, and help maintain health. Instead, what we have is a compilation of laws and programs that complicate instead of improve our health.

From Caroline’s perspective, the first three doctors ought to be hauled before a professional review board, sanctioned, and probably have their licenses lifted. They all failed to do the right thing and Caroline could have died. In the end, however, hours of surgery, a gaggle of staff, and huge daily fees in a hospital resulted.

This is the mess we have now and I suspect it will get far worse – and I don’t expect we will ever see a shift towards better health, particularly from the systems, programs, drugs, and laws presently in charge.

That means each individual must stand up, understand their health, do their best to maintain it, and stop depending on anyone else to care enough to do anything for them.

Caroline’s tale proves this point. Three doctors, specialists, failed because they just didn’t care enough to listen and help.

No, these are probably NOT the three
doctors who ignored Caroline's problem,
but they ARE part of our current
BROKEN HEALTH SYSTEM.

STOP USING GMO "FOODS". NOW!

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:27:00 +0000

They are NOT real food.

*!*!*

I’m adding a special recommendation to my list for healthy living.

I've long told anyone who would listen that they can maintain – even regain – health by following some basic rules:

Eat good food; eliminate processed carbohydrates and all sugars. Avoid all dairy that is from cows treated with growth hormone.
Drink clean water – filtered to remove toxins, especially fluoride.
Avoid drugs, legal or otherwise, especially statins, PPIs, and synthetic hormones.
Take a daily probiotic.
Moderate exercise, 45 minutes three to four days a week.

The addition is ... AVOID ALL PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN GMOs.

GMOs (genetically Modified Organisms) may well be the one thing that initiates and promotes bad health IN ALL LIVING BEINGS. It damages us, our children, farm animals, and our pets.

Educate yourself by becoming familiar with the Non-GMO Project. Read their website. Download and use the apps they recommend. Eliminate all GMOs from your diet – and your pets’ – and tell the grocery stores you want to purchase non-GMO food for your family.

Yes, this JUNK is approved by our FDA, but that doesn't make it safe. It also casts serious shadows on exactly who our FDA is protecting. It certainly doesn't seem to be us.

We recently watched the movie, “Genetic Roulette”. It is disturbing, but so enlightening.

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:37:00 +0000

Alpha Base Without Iron

The Alpha Base Difference: • Excellent mineral sources, and a 2:1 Magnesium to Calcium ratio. • USP/NF ingredients wherever available. • Fully reacted minerals have a higher assimilation rate than others. • High levels of antioxidants, reducing free radical damage. • Formulated as the base regimen for all other Ortho Molecular products, ensuring that when taken properly, patients will be assured of non-conflicting dosages.
Alpha Base is the multivitamin/mineral formula I use and recommend. It is of the highest quality and it certainly meets the all of the requirements for a basic supplement. Contrary to popular belief, most people do not need extra iron. Therefore we do not recommend anyone take additional iron without specific orders from their doctor. Larry Frieders, The Compounder
Click Here for more information

Nicotine Lollipops and THE Regulators

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:44:00 +0000

We received a call from THE regulatory agency last week. I was being "invited" to a conference call scheduled for this morning at 11:00 am eastern time. I was out of town and missed the first call. Being the persistent bureaucrats, they called again yesterday and spoke to my wife. She asked what the topic was and but didn't receive a clear answer - something about the compounded nicotine lollipops we have sold.

I received another call this morning about 10:00 central time asking if I was going to call in to participate in the conference call. The caller sounded like she was in a steel drum. Actually, it was a speaker phone. It was clear to me that she wasn't alone. This was an interesting scenario playing out: numerous official-regulator-people against me.

The combined salaries of THE calling regulators was probably greater than my gross sales for a year. Regardless, they were interested in talking to me. I inquired about the topic and about how many people were on their end of the call. It seems there were "4 or 5" listening in. I voiced my concerns and THE regulators agreed to call back with more details about the topic of the conference call. Yes. They did what they said.

Again, the speaker phone was in play, so I turned mine on as well.

Four of THE agents introduced themselves. There may have been dozens more in the room, but I believed them when they said there were only four. Why would I doubt THE regulators?

After citing numerous documents from THE official regulations, I was informed that I could continue to make and sell lollipops if I complied with yadda, yadda, yadda. I said, "that isn't going to happen, so we'll just stop making the lollipops". However, I asked to receive an official letter from THE regulators.

I figure I'd like to have something solid, in hand, to prove that I have accurately understood what THE regulators want me to do. Of course, I'll comply. After all, THE regulators were concerned about a whopping 285 lollipops I've sold over the past two years - some of which were purchased by and analyzed by THE regulators themselves.

In the end, it seems THE regulators have saved the day by getting me to stop the sale of nicotine lollipops without a direct prescription from a doctor.

I think nicotine supplements are a decent way to gradually cut back on cigarette smoking. The lollipop has advantages over the other products on the market. Some of the addiction associated with smoking is the involvement of the hands - putting the cigarette to the mouth, puffing, then moving the cigarette away. Sucking on a lollipop keeps the person's hands busy while they get the dose of nicotine.

From my perspective, it's far superior to slapping on a patch, chewing gum, or sucking on a lozenge. Where's the hand involvement in those activities? From that perspective alone, I suggest that an excellent way to offset the nicotine from a cigarette is to use one of our lollipops. Ask your doctor to prescribe them and you can get started today.

Doctors can also prescribe one of the potent antidepressants, which have been claimed to help people quit smoking. The side effects of the drug might kill the user (or someone in their immediate vicinity), but that would be fine because it is approved by THE regulators and made by a drug company.

Still, to me, the lollipop seems the best and safest method.

Appreciate that grain of salt

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:23:00 +0000

We live in a world where it seems things happen for a reason. If THIS, then THAT. Certain things probably CAUSE other things to happen.

It would be great if this were true. The fact is we don't know what causes anything. We perceive that two things are associated and sometimes the association is so strong that we connect the things in a cause-effect relationship.

For every such relationship there is always an exception;

pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire,
the match doesn't light the first time it's struck,
the plastic baby bottle shatters when it falls three feet,
people with a terminal disease get better and live a long life,
not everyone who gets shot in the head dies,
the treatment is often worse than the disease
dead people are reported to have come back to life...

For every such relationship there is always an exception;

This means that nothing is 100% certain. However, we can't even be 100% certain about that comment because it might be possible that there are some things about which we can be perfectly certain. I can't come up with any right now, but it is still possible.

What am I driving at? Most of us want to believe that there are certainties and that there are real, certain things that cause other things. We want to believe that eating this thing or drinking that juice will cure our ills. We cite evidence and insist that our belief is certain. The problem is that, while some things are part of the cause, there are probably other things, many of them. We don't know all of the factors and I suggest we can't begin to know all of them. This is important, especially when it comes to health and well-being.

Health is commonly acknowledged to be one of the sciences.

Science is revered because it is through science that we have so many things. Just look around and pick something that isn't associated with a scientific discovery. In a practical sense, we can believe in the almost limitless power of science. After all, science got us to the stars and it helps us make amazing weapons. Entertainment wouldn't be near as dynamic without science. Despite all of the wonders of the process, science still fails us when it comes to health.

All of the "failure" we can think of might actually be the result of not having all the facts, or having facts and using them in a wrong way - but not knowing it. Here's an inane example that might make my point;

If we look at a graph of sneakers sold per year from 1970 to today, it would similar to a graph of obesity rates. A person could make a logical connection between sales of certain athletic shoes to obesity, going so far as to identify a positive correlation. That means that as sneaker sales climb, obesity rates also climb. This is inane because it is clear that there is something missing and we don't have to know the details of the missing parts to understand that the observed correlation between sneakers and obesity is not accurate.

The same kinds of missing elements are possible in all correlations and cause-effect situations. Think of the admonition to "take it with a grain of salt." This is more than just a saying. It holds a truth that tells us how to process and accept information we want to convert into a fact. While it might be a very good analysis, adding just one grain of salt (another detail, regardless of how small), can have devastating implications.

We have long held that there are differences between people. When I was in school we referred to this as "20% biological variability". The number might actually be 15%, 50%, or maybe even 100%, but the idea we were espousing is that what works for some people might not work for others. What is safe in clinical trials might prove deadly when used in larger populations.

This is important when the doctor tells us that we need a certain operation, or a drug. It is true when certain foods are said to be healthy - or even harmful. It is so often true that I suggest we elevate that single grain of salt to a new position of importance. It signifies all of the pieces of the cause-effect puzzle regardless of how many, how small, or how large. There is always something that can interfere with how we believe something will work.

The only reliable source of information about yourself is yourself.

Does this mean we can't trust anyone or anything? Of course not. It means we must be cautious, first listening to our own bodies, then evaluating how other information impacts us. Beliefs are important. We would not survive without them. Question beliefs - all of them. accept the ones that fit you and use them. Question them again and again as more information enters your world. Each data bit is another grain of salt that just might make things better, or at least make more sense.

Carbohydrate Detox - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:03:00 +0000

I was asked to evaluate a 21 day detoxification program. Here's the basic premise;

"Removing sugar from your diet is the fastest way to lose fat and increase your energy. When your blood sugar is out of balance it causes depression, causes you to store sugar as fat instead of using it for energy, causing you to have highs and lows in your energy, and leading to diabetes."

I applaud every effort to cut back on simple carbohydrates - basically any carbohydrate that's white. These substances are a common part of every meal and snack in the Standard American Diet (properly referred to as SAD). The literature for this detox plan provides a list of over 40 sugars/carbs that must be eliminated from the diet for twenty-one straight days. If a person slips up once, they go back to day one and start over.

NO CARBS FOR 21 STRAIGHT DAYS.

While the goal is laudable, the process to achieve it is laughable - and for all practical reasons, IMPOSSIBLE. I can't come up with a single legitimate reason why anyone would publish such a program - unless the goal was to assure failure and then steer the person into a different form of treatment or therapy. That would be despicable, but I can't rule it out.

Let's start with the idea that processed carbs aren't good for us and couple that with the fact that they're everywhere we turn. The goal should be to eliminate them, but it can't be achieved. Now what?

Let's be real and make a conscious effort to avoid those kinds of things as much as possible. Perhaps we can consume fewer of them, less often, and in smaller amounts.

Instead of eating empty carbs every meal of every day (21 per week), do you think you could eat them only 10 meals a week (50% of the time), or even 4 meals per week (under 20%)? The key to my suggestion is that we should be consciously aware of foods that can be harmful and choosing to NOT eat them just because they're on the plate in front of us.

Instead of large orders of fries, eat part of a small order. There's no sin in leaving some mashed potatoes on your plate - regardless of how many starving people in the world would love to have them. Eat some plain yogurt instead of the packaged ones with fruit and sugar (a lot of sugar). No, don't switch from sodas to diet sodas - skip the soda altogether and have a glass of water or iced tea without adding sugar.

The most important pieces to this health puzzle are KNOWING the dangers, UNDERSTANDING that they are to be avoided, and then CHOOSING to cut back.

I use an 80/20 rule. As much as I would like to be perfectly healthy and always eat what's best for me, I have decided that if I'm good at least 80% of the time, I'm doing well. I think everyone can use this 80/20 approach to live a long, disease-free life.

What do you think?

Health or Health Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:31:00 +0000

After reading this article at Mercola.com, I've come to a conclusion:

The whole damn system is screwed up.

People are being harmed and some of them even die, and one is too many. Drug makers know what they're doing and they should be held responsible for the damage they do in spite of knowing better.

I'm talking about personal responsibility not those silly financial "punishments" dished out every so often, such as the fines mentioned in the above article. GlaxoSmithKline is paying out $3 billion in fines - $1 billion to settle criminal charges, and $2 billion to cover civil liabilities. In 2009 Pfizer was similarly fined $2.3 billion to settle similar charges.

Who the heck actually pays those fines? The customers. You and Me. The "company" and it's officers don't pay a nickel and they take no personal responsibility and nobody goes to jail for any nefarious thing they do. Instead of punishing people who knowingly sell toxic drugs to unsuspecting patients, we throw kids in jail for smoking weed. The shareholders allow the criminals to stay in their jobs because the company's stock values remain high. In fact, the same people who mislead and distort the truth about their products receive beautiful bonus checks on a regular basis. If, by some remote chance, they run afoul of the stockholders of one drug company, they lay low for a short time and reappear at the head of just another drug company. They all seem to be in it together and there is no shame and certainly no effort to change the way they do their business. Yes, the pun is intended.

Let's keep in mind that the problems I'm focusing on are not unique to the drug industry. There has been almost a universal change in attitude, mostly in the "west", the industrialized countries - usually lead by the United States.

Nobody is responsible for anything anymore.

A teacher once punched me in the mouth for being a "wiseass". I surely had it coming. I called my dad to pick me up and take me to the orthodontist because my braces were screwed up. What did dad do when I got in the car? I got a quick backhand and a verbal dressing down. I was solely responsible for getting bonked and he had to pay for it - just because I was his kid. There wasn't a single mention about how that teacher had overstepped his bounds. Today, a dirty "look" from a teacher seems sufficient grounds for a complaint to the school... "Nobody looks a MY KID that way and gets away with it!" The blame is ALWAYS focused on someone else.

Fixing it all is fairly straight forward. Sadly, nobody seems to WANT to fix it. It would mean that we'd all have to pull up our big girl panties and understand that when we point a finger of blame at anyone, we are pointing three at ourself.

The blame game is ongoing: The current president blames the last president. The Democratic party blames the Republican party. The movie stars blame their current temporary companion. The states blame the Federal government. The wage earners blame those who get government benefits. People blame their genetics and believe that there are things that MAKE THEM sick - and that it is someone's fault.

There is a constant din about "health care', yet there is nary a word spoken about real health. Instead, all the whining is about the cost and who is going to pay for it. Health care costs would drop in a heartbeat if people stayed healthy instead of running to a doctor for every sniffle. And, this mania about annual doctor visits add huge amounts of cost - often based on treatments for diseases that don't even exist, such as "pre hypertension" and "pre cancer".

Today I heard an ad on the radio warning us to get our vasucular systems checked and get treatment if we have a possibility of an aneurysm. I'm confident you've heard you ought to have your uric acid levels checked - even when you don't have any symptoms of gout. Your levels could be rising and might cause a problem. Of course there's a drug treatment for that. More drugs and treatments for diseases that don't exist and probably never will. All adding to the overall COST of health care. We aren't healthier by any means, yet the costs keep going up.

Cancer has long been a "problem" and it will remain so for a long time - or at least until the money runs out. Wear your pink ribbons. Walk here. Run there. Give, give, give. All that effort. All those dollars. Do you know that the options for treating breast cancer are barely different than they were forty years ago? However, in that time, there are significantly more breast cancers diagnosed. Throwing money at it doesn't seem to help, yet we will throw more money at it.

The issue is money, not health. It is always about money.

Some researchers are finally acknowledging that PSA tests for prostate cancer are inaccurate and misleading. While the government is now suggesting that they NOT be done, numerous urologists are arguing that men still need the tests. They don't work. They are expensive. They cause unnecessary surgery, drug use, and radiation therapy. They are an abomination, yet the medical specialists are insisting we still have the test performed.

Doctors pour statin drugs down our throats and we pay for them - and suffer the debilitating side effects - even though there is no evidence that cholesterol does any harm. Want some obvious evidence? You've heard that you probably need vitamin D supplements. Why? Vitamin D is made in our bodies by the combination of cholesterol and sunlight. Wait. We're taking drugs to lower our cholesterol and we slather on gunk to keep the sun off our skim. No cholesterol plus no sunlight equals low vitamin D.

The newest craze is "LOW T", the shocking discovery that men's testosterone levels decline with age. Of course, a few office visits, some lab tests, and some prescriptions will cure the "disease". I could write reams on this scam, yet all the guys I know are queuing up to pay for the visits, tests, and testosterone - even though they don't need it AND it might be harmful.

Seems that nobody cares as long as the money continues to flow.

Mammograms are harmful, yet they are still recommended for practically all women over forty.

More costs.
More limp diagnoses.
More squashed breasts.
More pain.
Less health.

Those in charge have no interest in cures, health, or affordability. It is about power and money - mostly money.

Do I REALLY Agree with Walgreen's?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:31:00 +0000

My daughter Lydia recently attended a concert at Ravinia. The printed program contained an ad from Walgreens that read:

"Sometimes, the best medicine isn't medicine at all. We're about helping people feel better. But we'll be the first to admit that occasionally, the best remedy for body, mind and soul is a blanket under the stars."

Ravinia is an outdoor venue north of Chicago where most of the patrons enjoy concerts from their blankets on the lawn. Some sit and listen and others go way out, bringing wine, glassware, and fine dining utensils - making the evening an event to remember. The reference to the blanket may only be focused on the Ravinia experience, but I want to believe that there is a solid part of Walgreens' philosophy that supports wellness, and feeling better over using more drugs.

Now, I am not suddenly becoming an apologist for "big box" drug stores, but I must applaud this effort. If you agree with me, consider making your feelings known to Walgreens. If you don't leave me a comment.

You can contact Walgreen's and tell them what you think. Use this link; Contact Walgreen's

Cataracts, tachycardia, arrhythmia and caffeine

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:59:00 +0000

I had cataract removal in 1977 and 1979 – at the age of 31 and 33. The doctors were stunned and made a test subject of me in a text book they were preparing. Some years later I developed tachycardia and a variety of arrhythmias. Once, when I had been consuming inordinate amounts of caffeine I ended up in the hospital emergency department because of the rhythm problems. I was monitored for two days (no coffee during that time) and all seemed well – though the electro physiologist INSISTED I have a cardiac ablation. His office staff actually threatened me if I refused the procedure, but that's another story.

I did not have the ablation.

In the meantime I was prescribed atenolol (a beta blocker) to help control the arrhythmias. After improving my diet and eliminating caffeine, the problems diminished dramatically. I stopped the atenolol. The rhythm issues started again a few years later, so I again decreased caffeine and started taking atenolol when needed. That worked a little, but I was still experiencing a few bouts of rapid heart rate a couple of times a week. I wanted to not take drugs, but I sure didn't want electrical ablation of my heart.

During that time I discovered that there is a correlation between nitric oxide levels, heart rate, and humming. No, this is not a joke. Nitric oxide in the blood seems to calm the heart, slowing the rate, and the humming vibrates the nasal passages - the area in the body that can produce more nitric oxide when stimulated. Therefore, I tried humming when my heart rate seemed to be changing. Success. That's a trick anyone can use when confronted with a runaway heart rate. Also, massaging the vagus nerve can slow and calm an arrhythmia. The vagus nerve runs behind the eyes and also up the sides of the neck near the carotid arteries. Gentle massaging of these areas is also known to calm a runaway heartbeat.

Again, the humming and massage fixes were only temporary and I wanted something better.

By chance, six months ago I noticed a report connecting caffeine consumption with reduced levels of taurine and l-carnitine in some people. Also, by chance, I attended a presentation that mentioned the cardiac benefits of taurine and l-carnitine, both ingredients in a natural supplement product, Cardimax. I started taking two of those capsules twice daily and I can report that I am not having bouts of irregular or rapid heartbeats. There are no side effects except better heart rate, some improved memory, and a better ability to focus. I still have a cup or mug of coffee most days, yet my heart keeps a steady rhythm.

Is this a cure? Maybe. I'd prefer to think I have recognized some important things about my physiology and I've found a way to compensate for problems that cause high heart rate for me.

What's in Cardimax?

Hawthorne Extract, long known to be a tonic for the heart.
Taurine and L-Carnitine, both known to balance calcium and potassium, which are vital for heart function. Taurine also reinvigorates natural killer cells of our immune system.
Quercetin, a bioflavonoid with numerous beneficial properties against high blood pressure.

My personal experience can certainly not be interpreted as proof that Cardimax does anything positive. Yet, using this product is the only change I've made recently in my life and my heart rhythm is normal and I don't have "attacks" of arrhythmias. Therefore, I heartily recommend Cardimax to anyone who is concerned about heart health, high blood pressure, and high heart rates.

Relieve Itching with Naltrexone Cream?

noreply@blogger.com (Larry J. Frieders) — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:58:00 +0000

Naltrexone seems to offer numerous health benefits, particularly at low doses. For years, we've been making naltrexone HCl capsules. We can make any strength the doctor orders, but the most common are 3.0mg and 4.5mg. Lower strengths are often ordered so the patient can adjust their dose to find one that's best for them. These oral doses are taken at bedtime and seem to offer great symptom relief for many people with immune disorders (multiple sclerosis, arthritis, psoriasis, irritable bowel disease, Crohn's, and so on). Dr. Bernard Bhari (one of the original prescribers of LDN) once told me that he'd suggest trying LDN for any and all conditions that are associated with the immune system. It is safe and there have been limited reports of side effects - which is to be expected in that the daily doses are in the range of 1% of the standard approved amounts.

In addition, some doctors order transdermal doses (applied to the skin in a base that helps drive the medication into the body). There are many reports about how effective this can be for the treatment of conditions such as ADHD. This is particularly helpful for people who respond well to naltrexone, but who cannot swallow capsules or tablets.

I have recently become aware of studies in Korea where naltrexone is made into a cream and applied to burn patients to relieve itching. The authors report relief in about 40% of the patients and claim that scratching is reduced in 44.5% of the users. This suggests that naltrexone topical cream would also be helpful for relieving itching from any cause - from bug bites, to severe topical rashes, such as eczema.

People who suffer from itches to the point where their scratching can be harmful might want to talk to their doctor and compounding pharmacist about using a naltrexone cream for relief. We've made such a preparation and find that strengths of 0.5% to 1.0% seem to be equally effective against minor itching.

People who find the common anti-itching products ineffective may want to try naltrexone. It isn't available commercially, but your compounding pharmacist can make it for you. Naltrexone is a drug that requires a prescription, but that shouldn't be difficult to obtain. Just ask your doctor to order "Naltrexone 0.5% Topical Cream", specify the amount and allowed refills. The cream is applied 3 to 5 times daily as needed to relieve itching.

J Burn Care Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;30(2):257-60; discussion 261. Efficacy of naltrexone in the treatment of chronic refractory itching in burn patients: preliminary report of an open trial. Authors: Jung SI, Seo CH, Jang K, Ham BJ, Choi IG, Kim JH, Lee BC. Department of Neuropsychiatry, Hallym University Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Pruritus (itching) constitutes a source of severe distress for burn patients. The authors administered naltrexone to burn patients suffering from itching that was refractory to treatment with antihistamine and anticonvulsant medications to examine the efficacy of this medication as a treatment for pruritus in burn patients. Nineteen burn patients admitted to the Hallym Burn Center at Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital in Seoul, Korea, with burns over 40.32% (+/-18.3) of their total body surface were recruited for this study. The mean number of postburn days before naltrexone treatment was 157.3 days (+/-114.7). The authors observed a significant decrease in itching sensations after 2 weeks of treatment with naltrexone (z = -3.32, P = .001). Scratching activity was also decreased in 44.5% (+/-20.5) of subjects. The authors propose that naltrexone constitutes a potential antipruritic medication for burn patients suffering from treatment-refractory itching.