Monday, May 07, 2012|Bloggies
I'm writing this post in response to an article I was sent from my son, who was sent the article to see what I had to say about it. You can read it here. OR just read my post below.
I am wondering how Michael Byrne distinguishes between good and bad science - because that seems to be at the crux of his rant against supplements. The assumption seems to be that any research done that supports the use of supplements is bad and anything that supports mainstream medicine is good.
If that's true, how do we end up with drugs on the market that kill and have to be removed by the authorities?
Those drugs were approved based on the results of good science and foisted onto the public. It was there, after years of use (read: misuse) it was discovered that the good science actually missed some vital pieces, and the drug was actually bad instead of good. I presume those who suffered heart attacks as the result of their arthritis drugs are less upset because the drug was on the market based on good science.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011|Bloggies
|Email subscribers, click title to access full article
Bill W. is the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and he was a proponent for using relatively large amounts of niacin (vitamin B3). He found that taking three grams each day lifted the fatigue and depression that had plagued him for years. He offered the vitamin to about 30 of his friends and within 6 months he was fully convinced that niacin would be helpful for alcoholics.
Sadly, the medical folks at AA felt that Bill W had no business meddling with treatments using vitamins. After all, Bill W. wasn't a doctor and the real doctors knew better.
Vitamin B-3 exists in nature. It was known as a chemical for about 100 years before it was recognized to be vitamin B-3. It is made from nicotine, a poison produced in the tobacco plant to protect itself against its predators, but in the wonderful economy of nature which does not waste any structures, it becomes the immensely valuable vitamin B-3. We also make niacin in our bodies from the amino acid, tryptophan.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011|Bloggies
|Email subscribers, click title to access full article
Which would you take?
Last Sunday, Pat and I visited our favorite club for a round of sporting clays. The weather was beyond beautiful. We met our shooting friends George, Paul, and John in the parking lot. As we were unloading our gear, George pulled a small box from the cab of his truck and handed it to Paul, who is a "medical doctor". George said that his girlfriend’s father used the product to relieve nausea, but he wanted to know if it was safe. It seemed to be only a sugar pill. Paul took a look at the ingredients and shrugged. Yes, it contained sucrose and sodium citrate, neither of which were drugs he recognized as being useful for nausea.
I took a look and reported that both sucrose and sodium citrate have long been used for nausea and that we have actually made anti-nausea lozenges with just those ingredients in our pharmacy lab. They work and there are no side effects - mainly because the user is replenishing both sugar and electrolytes that are out of balance for one reason or another. I likened the pills to a solid form of Gatorade. It was not just a simple sugar pill.
Replenishing an imbalanced nutrient is far different from using a drug to override or dampen a common physiologic response. It is the same difference that’s in place when a person uses supplements to treat illness instead of drugs. Restoring the body to a healthy balance is superior to other methods, but is often ignored in favor of the favored three; drugs, surgery and radiation.
We are what we eat, yet we generally aren’t afraid to put potent drugs and chemicals into our bodies. Why would a person chose fluoxetine (Prozac) instead of vitamin B3 (an important, natural B vitamin)? Why would someone else agree to receiving doses of poisons to treat cancer instead of intravenous vitamin C (an essential vitamin that has chemotherapeutic action in its own right)? Because most of us are under the influence of a health system that remains ignorant of the real facts about health, a system that only profits when there is illness.
Drugs, surgery, and radiation are actually the alternatives to health. We should all go back to our roots and eat better, avoid toxins, drink clean water, and do a modest amount of exercise each week. That is true traditional health care - bring vigilant and careful about what we put into our bodies.
Paul, by the way, said that he prefers ondansetron (Zofran) after surgery. I'm not surprised, though. Paul's a doctor. He was trained to use drugs.
Friday, October 15, 2010|Bloggies
Of all the things that can make you "sick to your stomach", morning sickness
is probably one of the saddest.
Here you are, expecting a wonderful gift and you feel like throwing up every day. It seems ironinc and cruel. However, it is not unusual. Your body is adjusting to major changes - more nutritional needs, added weight, worries about tommorrow, and all those additional hormones. It all adds up to a stress-filled time.
While it is indeed common to look to a drug for relief, now is not the time to start introduicing another chemical into your body - or your baby's.
What if you could use a simple, natural product to calm down the queasy feelings? What if it was safe for you and your baby? Would you want to try it? Of course.
I've reported on such a product. However, I must include the standard warning for anything used by a pregnant person. Be sure your doctor approves of the product before using it. Yes, these are safe products. Regardless, your doctor knows you and your situation better than I do and the responsibility for a healthy baby rests with you and your doctor, not me.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010|Ask Larry
Question: How will recent FDA regulations affect the availability of pyridoxal-5-phosphate? Will it be available by Rx? Or not at all? Will it be removed from B vitamins?
Larry's Response: This is another attempt by drug makers to wrestle safe supplements from the non-Rx arena. The action against P5P was initiated by a drug company that wants to market a version that they will sell by prescription - for an enormous price (I would not be surprised to see the Rx version costing one hundred times more that what is available now). I understand that they have already sought approval.