Newsletter v4n18

"A patient cured is a customer lost." (Author unknown, and absolutely correct.)

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 4, No. 18, for August 20, 2004) "Free of charge, free of advertising, and free of the A.M.A."

Written and copyright 2004 by Andrew W. Saul of http://www.doctoryourself.com , which welcomes 1.5 million visitors annually. Commercial use of the website or the contents of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited.

THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION

It was an era of thalidomide and plutonium; school segregation and human experimentation; 24-hour SAC bomber patrols and classroom "duck and cover" drills; atmospheric H-bomb testing and DDT. The Red Scare dominated the news and physicians endorsed their favorite cigarette on TV. The "Atomic Genie" was out of the bottle and radium treatment was in vogue. And, of course, there was the latest of modern wonders, water fluoridation. Scientists of post WW II America promised us the world. And, as with 3-D movies and the Edsel, the promise was far beyond what would be delivered.

Fluoridated water was idealized as the ultimate form of 1950's failsafe social engineering. What could be more appealing than to be able to have your children virtually drink away dental decay? Yet like vaccination, municipal water fluoridation has never been satisfactorily tested with double-blind, placebo controls. But it hardly mattered to those in power. Like the lure of a quick war, with the troops all to be home by Christmas, dental publicists promised 75% or even 90% reductions in dental caries. Today, most of the strongest fluoridation proponents rarely offer expected benefits of over 35%. The real numbers are almost certainly far lower. There is little or no difference in decay rates between sister cities' caries incidence regardless whether they are fluoridated or not. And this, says Christopher Bryson, author of The Fluoride Deception, has been the case from the start.

When Newburgh, NY's water was fluoridated nearly 60 years ago, it was more a test to see if fluorine would hurt people than to see if it would stop cavities. Mr. Bryson traces the whole scandal, using recently declassified US Army and other genuinely embarrassing government documents. Fluoride pollution, much of it a byproduct of WW II nuclear weapons manufacturing, had opened industry and government to lawsuits. Fluoridated water was engineered to be an antidote to liability as much as to dental decay.

Fluoridation rode a wave of politicized science, the dark side of which was the nuclear arms race. According to Bryson's publisher, "Documents discovered in the files of the Manhattan Project connect the atomic bomb program with the 1945 public experiment that compared the teeth and health of the children of Newburgh with that of fluoride-free neighboring Kingston. It was the most significant of the early water fluoridation trials, purporting to demonstrate fluoride's safety in low doses. The top scientist who oversaw the Newburgh experiment, and the leading voice promoting water fluoridation, issuing reassurances of fluoride's safety in low doses, was Dr. Harold Hodge. Hodge is regarded as the dean of the science of toxicology in the United States. While selling fluoride to children, he was simultaneously head of the Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology for the Manhattan Project, charged with protecting the government from worker and community lawsuits for fluoride damage. Showing that fluoride was safe in low doses reduced the risk of lawsuits against the bomb program."

Blanket and blatant reassurances about safety is nothing new to the military. If you have ever viewed the documentary movie entitled The Atomic CafÈ, you have seen actual U.S. Army film footage showing soldiers, shielded only by their cotton uniforms and a G.I. helmet, walking straight towards a still- rising mushroom cloud from an atomic detonation just a few miles away. It hardly ended there; from 1942 until the 1980's, uranium was added to the materials in dentures. No doubt this was to help Grandpa see them in the dark when he craved a midnight snack. Sounds pretty odd, doesn't it. Uranium in dentures. How very silly, we now say. Yet to this day, the American Dental Association, the FDA, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all maintain that mercury, a toxic heavy metal, is perfectly safe to have drilled into your living teeth. (1, 2, 3)

Not surprisingly, they also all support fluoridation of water.

History is stranger than fiction, and just as subject to revision. For decades, fluoridationists declared that teeth were strengthened from within by fluoride; it was supposedly a systemic, nutritional benefit. It is not. Fluoride weakens bone, increases incidence of bone cancer, and increases fracture rates. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/osteoporosis.html) Today the "authorities" have quietly flip-flopped, and now claim that dilute fluoride has a topical, perhaps bactericidal effect. Think about that for a moment. If fluoride has that kind of killing power at just a few parts per million, what are doctors doing wasting their time writing antibiotic prescriptions? Why not just tell patients to drink more tap water? If fluoride is that powerful, imagine the effect on the rest of the body. Indeed, fluoride is the most chemically reactive of all naturally-occurring elements. When Linus Pauling originated the four-point electronegative scale, fluorine was and remains the one and only top scorer with a perfect 4. All other elements are weaker. And this is the element you drink, without prescription, in doses that vary with how thirsty you may be on a given day.

Most of the United States is now fluoridated. Most of Europe is not. (http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm) Blinders on, everyone: surely America's scientists are smarter than Europe's. Scientific dogma lives in the sacred cow of fluoridation, and dissent over doctrine is enough to wreck a Yankee scientist's career in a hurry, even though fluoridation remains far more a matter of faith than of fact. "The addition of fluoride to water supplies violates modern pharmacological principles," writes Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize for Medicine laureate. "It is my sincere hope that Christopher Bryson's apparently thorough and comprehensive perusal of the scientific literature on the biological actions of fluoride and the ensuing debates through the years will receive the attention it deserves and that its implications will be seriously considered." Dr. Carlsson, by the way, is the scientist "who helped lead the successful campaign to stop water fluoridation in Sweden (and) argued that public water supplies were not an appropriate vehicle with which to deliver 'pharmacologically active' drugs to the entire population. According to Carlsson: 'I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history. . . The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. Not only in that the dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements: it is, in addition, based on a completely irrelevant factor, namely consumption of drinking water, which varies greatly between individuals and is, moreover, very poorly surveyed.'" (http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm)

Since the 1950's, we have learned a few things. Everyone now knows that nuclear radiation is dangerous; most know that heavy metals are poisonous. Although dentists still implant mercury into teeth, at least lead is no longer added to gasoline. You'll like this one: in his book, Bryson shows that "the man who reassured the nation as to the safety of lead in gasoline, Robert Kehoe, Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, simultaneously reassured us of the safety of water fluoridation. . . . He testified in a federal court there had been no cases of fluoride disability in US industry. His own laboratory, however, had confidentially reported numerous cases."

What a story, and it's just one of many more to be found in The Fluoride Deception. Christopher Bryson's narrative has captured the feel of the progress-patriotism-and-profit postwar years with his comprehensive, interview-based history of fluoridation. The Fluoride Deception is genuinely interesting, impeccably referenced, and scary. For those who still believe that fluoridation is the public's passive panacea for tooth decay, here's the book that may finally set them straight.

The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson NY: Seven Stories Press, 2004. (ISBN: 1-58-322526-9)

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER Interviews Christopher Bryson, author of The Fluoride Deception

DY News: So, Mr. Bryson: How do you get along with your dentist?

Christopher Bryson: Very well. He has no idea I am the author of The Fluoride Deception. I cannot abide those one sided so-called "conversations" in the chair, talking with a mouthful of metal.

DY News: Questioning fluoridation is the kiss of death for many a scientist. Almost all of the over 5,000 fluoride-related scientific papers indexed on Medline are openly in favor of the practice. A search for "fluoride dangers" brings up only two papers; "fluoride toxicity" gets you a handful more. Where has there ever been any fair and reasonable discussion of fluoridation, pro and con?

Bryson: Perhaps the most balanced review I came across was a long article in Chemical and Engineering News, from August 1, 1988, by Bette Hileman. (Vol. 66, p 26-42.)

DY News: Agreed. That article that showed that fluoridated water reduces dental caries by about 1/2 filling per person per lifetime (http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoridation.html). It is not indexed on Medline. There has also been what I consider to be a very good article on the cancer risk of fluoridated water published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, also posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoride_cancer.html . That is not on Medline, either.

Now for a standard question: how did you come to write this book?

Bryson: I was a BBC radio reporter in New York in 1993 and was asked by a London producer to find an American "angle" on water fluoridation. I interviewed two dissident government scientists, Robert Carton and Bill Hirzy, with the US Army and the EPA respectively. They explained that the science underpinning the US government fluoride safety standards for drinking water was fraudulent. At the same time I read an extraordinary piece of journalism, "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy," from the fall 1992 issue of Covert Action Information Bulletin, by the medical writer Joel Griffiths. (The full text is posted at http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-industry.htm) He explained how industry had long manipulated health information about fluoride to launder fluoride's public image, with the secret agenda of defending itself from lawsuits being launched by workers and farmers alleging fluoride pollution.

DY News: You researched and developed this into a major portion of your book. To shift gears: Is your community's water fluoridated?

Bryson: Yes, New York City's water has been fluoridated since the mid 1960's, when the father of public relations Edward L. Bernays secretly worked the New York's Public Health Commissioner Dr. Leona Baumgartner, to "engineer consent" as he put it, for water fluoridation.

DY News: What steps have you taken, personally, to limit fluoride intake for your family?

Bryson: I do not use fluoridated toothpaste, and have a fluoride filter for drinking water.

DY News: In your book, one cannot help but notice how many personal interviews you conducted with your sources. What can you tell me about interviewees who did not wish to go on the record?

Bryson: Most everyone went on the record. Some of them, I'm sure, had no idea that my book would be as critical of fluoridation. Director Jack Hein of the Forsyth Dental Center was reluctant to a formal interview, but was drawn out in a telephone conversation, and ended up telling me a great deal. Attorney Pete Johnson who represented the Reynolds Metals Company in the 2000 Hurricane Creek lawsuit did not return my phone call. Arnold Kramish of the Manhattan Project also declined a request for an interview.

DY News: Your book, with its very commendable 110 pages of notes, might be well described as sort of a "Fahrenheit FL." What facts, what parts of your book are your critics specifically attacking you over?

Bryson: I don't know that I have any critics. If they exist, they have been profoundly silent, well aware that any attack would be good publicity for the book.

DY News: I think your book is so tightly documented that they haven't a leg to stand on if they try. I noticed that there was an advertisement for your book in the NY Times, but am unaware that the Times ever reviewed it. Where may we find and read major media reviews of The Fluoride Deception?

Bryson: Thus far, there has not been a single mention of the book in the US media, with the exception of Publisher's Weekly. I'm certain industry would love to keep it thus.

DY News: The Publisher's Weekly notice (May 2004) was favorable, saying in part: "Investigative reporter Bryson revisits the decades-long controversy, drawing on mountains of scientific studies, some unearthed from secret archives of government and corporate laboratories, to question the effects of fluoride and the motives of its leading advocates. . . Fluoride in its many forms may be one of the most toxic of industrial pollutants, and Bryson cites scientific analyses linking fluoridated drinking water to bone deformities, hyperactivity and a host of other complaints." Thank you for getting the word out.

Bryson: Thanks for your interest in the book.

MERCURY AMALGAM Quotes and Notes, referred to in the above review:

1. "Dental amalgam (silver filling) is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. . .The ADA's Council on Scientific Affairs' 1998 report (J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 Apr;129(4):494-503.) on its review of the recent scientific literature on amalgam states: 'The Council concludes that, based on available scientific information, amalgam continues to be a safe and effective restorative material.' The Council's report also states, 'There currently appears to be no justification for discontinuing the use of dental amalgam.' . . . (T)he ADA continues to believe that amalgam is a valuable, viable and safe choice for dental patients and concurs with the findings of the U.S. Public Health Service that amalgam has 'continuing value in maintaining oral health.'" (American Dental Association http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/amalgam.asp, revised January 8, 2003, accessed July 31, 2004)

2. "No valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy." U.S. Food and Drug Administration (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html, accessed July 31, 2004)

3. "The U.S. Public Health Service believes it is inappropriate at this time to recommend any restrictions on the use of dental amalgam . . . (C)urrent scientific evidence does not show that exposure to mercury from amalgam restorations poses a serious health risk in humans." (CDC/National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Oral Health Resources. http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/amalgam.htm, accessed July 31, 2004)

VITAMIN DEPENDENCY (Andrew Saul's editorial as published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2004. Vol. 19 No. 2, p. 67-70. Reprinted with permission.)

"Man is a food-dependent creature. If you don't feed him, he will die. If you feed him improperly, part of him will die." (Emanuel Cheraskin, MD, DMD)

Dependency is a fact of life. The human body is dependent on food, water, sleep, and oxygen. Additionally, its internal chemistry is absolutely dependent on vitamins. Without adequate vitamin intake, the body will sicken; virtually any prolonged vitamin deficiency is fatal. Surely this constitutes a dependency in the generally accepted sense of the word.

Nutrient deficiency of long standing may create an exaggerated need for the missing nutrient, a need not met by dietary intakes or even by low-dose supplementation. Recently (1), Robert P. Heaney, M.D., used the term "long latency deficiency diseases" to describe illnesses that fit this description. He writes:

"(I)nadequate intakes of many nutrients are now recognized as contributing to several of the major chronic diseases that affect the populations of the industrialized nations. Often taking many years to manifest themselves, these disease outcomes should be thought of as long-latency deficiency diseases. . . (I)nadequate intakes of specific nutrients may produce more than one disease, may produce diseases by more than one mechanism, and may require several years for the consequent morbidity to be sufficiently evident to be clinically recognizable as "disease." Because the intakes required to prevent many of the long-latency disorders are higher than those required to prevent the respective index diseases, recommendations based solely on preventing the index diseases are no longer biologically defensible."

There are at least two key concepts presented here:

The first is, "Inadequate intakes of specific nutrients may produce more than one disease." This exactly supports Dr. William Kaufman's statements to this effect 55 years ago, when he wrote that, in considering "different clinical entities one cannot exclude the possibility that they may be caused by the same etiologic agent, acting in different ways. For example, in experimental animals, it has been shown that the lack of a single essential nutrient can produce a variety of dissimilar clinical disorders in different individuals of the same species. . . (O)ne might not suspect that the same etiologic factor, lack of a specific essential nutrient, was responsible for each of the various clinical syndromes of the same tissue deficiency disease which is permitted to develop at different rates in different individuals of the same species." (2)

While amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, progressive muscular atrophy, progressive bulbar palsy, and primary lateral sclerosis are not all the same illness, they and the other neuromuscular diseases may have a common basis: unacknowledged, untreated long-term vitamin dependency. Therefore, each may respond to an orthomolecular approach such as that successfully used by Dr. Frederick R. Klenner (3) for multiple sclerosis and myasthenia gravis, half a century ago.

The second key point Dr. Heaney makes is that vitamin "intakes required to prevent many of the long-latency disorders are higher than those required to prevent the respective index diseases." This confirms Dr. Abram Hoffer's observations to this effect some 40 years ago, when he treated prisoners of war presenting severe, protracted nutrient deficiencies.

Dr. Hoffer wrote (4) that when released, after as much as 44 months of captivity, "only 75 percent had survived. They had lost about one-third of their body weight. In camp they suffered from classical scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, many infections, and from protein and calorie deficiency. They were rehabilitated in hospitals and were given doses of vitamins that were then considered high. Since then these Hong Kong veterans have suffered from a variety of physical and psychiatric conditions." However, "the history of a small sample, about 12, is much different, for they have been taking nicotinic acid (niacin) 3 grams per day. These 12 have recovered and remain well as long as they take this quantity of vitamin regularly.

"About 35 years ago (in the 1930s and 1940s) it was reported that some chronic pellagrins required at least 600 milligrams per day of vitamin B3 to prevent the return of pellagra symptoms. This was astonishing then and unexplainable since pellagra as a nicotinic acid deficiency disease should have yielded to vitamin (small) doses. Today the concept of vitamin- dependency disease has developed. It is based upon the realization that there is a much wider range of need for nutrients than was believed to be true then.

"A person is said to be vitamin dependent if his requirements for that vitamin are much greater (perhaps 100-fold greater or more) than is the average need for any population. The optimum need is that quantity which maintains the subject in good health, not that quantity which barely keeps him free of pellagra. From this point of view the Hong Kong veterans have become vitamin B-3 dependent as a result of severe and prolonged malnutrition. It is likely that any population similarly deprived of essential nutrients for a long period of time will develop one or more dependency conditions."

Thirty years ago, in another paper (5), Dr. Hoffer made this statement:

"The newer concept of vitamin-dependent disease changes the emphasis from simply dietary manipulation to consideration of the endogenous needs of the organism. It comes within the field of orthomolecular disease. . . The borderline between vitamin deficiency and vitamin-dependency conditions is merely a quantitative one when one considers prevention and cure." (p. 251)

The differentiation between deficiency and dependency is dose. Every patient that was ever helped by high-dose nutrient therapy lends support to the concept of vitamin dependency. By the same token, symptoms resulting from inappropriate and abrupt termination of large doses of nutrients provide equally good evidence for vitamin dependency. While deprivation of low doses of vitamin C causes scurvy, abrupt termination of high maintenance doses may cause its own set of problems. Called "rebound scurvy," this includes classical scorbutic symptoms, as well as a predictable relapse of illness that had already responded to high-dose therapy.

Writes Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.:

"There is a certain dependency on ascorbic acid that a patient acquires over a long period of time when he takes large maintenance doses. Apparently, certain metabolic reactions are facilitated by large amounts of ascorbate and if the substance is suddenly withdrawn, certain problems result such as a cold, return of allergy, fatigue, etc. Mostly, these problems are a return of problems the patient had before taking the ascorbic acid. Patients have by this time become so adjusted to feeling better that they refuse to go without ascorbic acid. Patients do not seem to acquire this dependency in the short time they take doses to bowel tolerance to treat an acute disease. Maintenance doses of 4 grams per day do not seem to create a noticeable dependency. The majority of patients who take over 10-15 grams of ascorbic acid per day probably have certain metabolic needs for ascorbate which exceed the universal human species need. Patients with chronic allergies often take large maintenance doses.

"The major problem feared by patients benefiting from these large maintenance doses of ascorbic acid is that they may be forced into a position where their body is deprived of ascorbate during a period of great stress such as emergency hospitalization. Physicians should recognize the consequences of suddenly withdrawing ascorbate under these circumstances and be prepared to meet these increased metabolic needs for ascorbate in even an unconscious patient. These consequences of ascorbate depletion which may include shock, heart attack, phlebitis, pneumonia, allergic reactions, increased susceptibility to infection, etc., may be averted only by ascorbate. Patients unable to take large oral doses should be given intravenous ascorbate. All hospitals should have supplies of large amounts of ascorbate for intravenous use to meet this need." (6)

This need is especially serious for the cancer patient, whose exceptionally positive response to mega-ascorbate therapy, and dramatically negative response to ascorbate deprivation, is the very picture of vitamin dependency. Linus Pauling colleague Ewan Cameron, M.D., wrote:

"Ascorbate, however administered, is rapidly excreted in the urine, so that administration should be continuous or at very frequent intervals. Furthermore, exposure to high circulating levels of ascorbate induces over- activity of certain hepatic enzymes concerned with its degradation and metabolism. These enzymes persist for some time after sudden cessation of high intakes, resulting in depletion of circulating levels of ascorbate to well below normal unsupplemented values. This is known as the rebound effect. It causes a sharp decrease in immunocompetence and must be avoided in the cancer patient. Clinical experience has shown that the best responses are observed when vitamin C is administered intravenously, so insuring a high plasma level. However, because long-term continuous intravenous administration is impractical, we recommend an initial intravenous course of ten days duration, followed by continuous maintenance oral regimen." (7)

In short, the body only misses what it needs. That is dependency.

The destructive consequences of alcohol and other negative drug dependencies are taught in elementary schools. At the same time, the consequences of ignoring our positive nutrient dependencies go largely undiscussed even in medical journals. Vitamin dependencies induced by genetics, diet, drugs, or illness are most often regarded as medical curiosities. The Hoffer-Osmond discovery that schizophrenics, forming about one or two percent of the population, are dependent on multi-gram doses of niacin, remains a psychiatric heresy. The Irwin Stone-Linus Pauling idea of population-wide, genetically-based hypoascorbemia has received negative attention, when it has received any attention at all. Yet, writes Dr. Emanuel Cheraskin, "hypovitaminosis C is a very real and common, probably epidemic, problem which clearly has not been properly viewed and surely not adequately reported." (8)

This is not a total surprise. It took decades for medical acknowledgement that biotin and vitamin E are actually essential to health.

Simple cause-and-effect micronutrient deficiency, a doctrine long enamored of by the dietetic profession, is not always sufficient to explain persistent physician reports of megavitamin cures of a number of diseases outside the classically accepted few. Perhaps it is a law of orthomolecular therapy that the reason one nutrient can cure so many different illnesses is because a deficiency of one nutrient can cause many different illnesses.

And if nutrient deficiency is basically about inadequate intake, then dependency is essentially about heightened need. As a dry sponge soaks up more milk, so a sick body generally takes up higher vitamin doses. The quantity of a nutritional supplement that cures an illness indicates the patient's degree of deficiency. It is therefore not a megadose of the vitamin, but rather a megadeficiency of the nutrient that we are dealing with. Orthomolecular practitioners know that with therapeutic nutrition, you don't take the amount that you believe ought to work; rather, you take the amount that gets results. The first rule of building a brick wall is that you have got to have enough bricks. A sick body has exaggeratedly high needs for many vitamins. We can either meet that need, or else suffer unnecessarily.

Until the medical professions fully embrace orthomolecular treatment, "medicine" might well be said to be "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies."

References: 1. Heaney RP: Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003; Nov; 78(5):912-9.

2. Kaufman W: The common form of joint dysfunction: Its incidence and treatment. Brattleboro, VT: E. L. Hildreth and Co. 1949; Chapter 5. http://www.doctoryourself.com/kaufman10.html .

3. Smith L: Vitamin C as a Fundamental Medicine: Abstracts of Dr. Frederick R. Klenner, M.D.'s Published and Unpublished Work. Tacoma, WA: Life Sciences Press. 1988. Renamed in 1991: Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C: The Clinical Experiences of Frederick R. Klenner, M.D.

4. Hoffer A: Editorial. J. Orthomolecular Psychiatry. 1974; Vol 3, No 1, p. 34- 36.

5. Hoffer A: Mechanism of Action of Nicotinic Acid and Nicotinamide in the Treatment of Schizophrenia. In: Hawkins D and Pauling L: Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1973; p. 202-262.

6. Cathcart RF: Vitamin C, titration to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy." Medical Hypothesis. 1981; 7:1359-1376.

7. Cameron E: Protocol for the use of vitamin C in the treatment of cancer. Medical Hypotheses. 1991; 36:190-194.

8. Cheraskin E: Vitamin C and fatigue. J. Orthomolecular Medicine, 9:1, p 39-45, First Quarter, 1994.

READERS SAY:

INSPIRED BY THE "CARROT CAT"

F. S. writes: "I love your carrot cat pictures (http://www.doctoryourself.com/cat1.html), and I love everything about your writings and your site! I sent a link to your site just now to my Kancer Klub (as only I call it), a support group for all kinds of cancers. I am doing so well with my non-Hodgkin's, that they are finally beginning to wonder what I take."

Good for you! That really is our cat, named Dolly, and she is indeed eating undoctored carrot pulp just as it came from the juicer. I have never met a happier kitty.

CABBAGE CURE

R. B. writes: "I am 25 years old, I have an ulcer, and I've been taking medication after medication. They never make it go away; the acid is usually just reduced to a tolerable level. I had given up going to the gym and other physical activity because of always being sick. I went on vacation recently and couldn't enjoy it because of all the acid and heartburn, even on the meds. I finally broke down and got a juicer, since I didn't spend all of my vacation money, on account that I couldn't eat very much anyway. So, I started drinking cabbage juice and in just 2 days I felt a difference! I only drank 2 glasses a day. I'm now off of the meds and I am going to start going back to the gym. Thanks!"

It is a pleasure to learn of your success. Thank you for writing.

More information about juicing, with lots of practical hints, will be found at http://www.doctoryourself.com/juicing_2.html and http://www.doctoryourself.com/juicefast.html . Why Cabbage Juice? http://www.doctoryourself.com/colitis.html

GERSON CANCER THERAPY DESERVES A FAIR SHAKE

"Orthomolecular approaches for the treatment of cancer have more evidence to support their validity from case and clinical studies than any credible evidence against them. Presently, no proper study has been commissioned to disprove or refute the validity of the Gerson approach - only much verbal rubbishing from the media. Rather than have the press dismiss approaches that may offer some hope to people in great need of hope, perhaps greater weight should be placed on getting the authorities to commission proper clinical studies to evaluate the benefit, or not, of that approach.

"Many cancers are believed to originate from a poor or imbalanced diet. Therefore, it stands to reason that a nutritional approach to treatment as offered by Gerson may well have remedial benefits in at least an equivalent number of cases. At the very least, a combination of traditional and nutritional approaches are known to produce positive results in many cases, my eldest sister being a prime example. If you were to find yourself in such a position as to be receiving treatment for cancer, would you not want to try everything possible to help you make a full recovery? If told that conventional therapy had come to its close, would you not want someone to be able to offer an additional or alternative approach in the hope that it might work? Better still, would you not want these approaches to have been properly evaluated by the expert community so that if a nutritional approach could help you, you could commence it earlier in your treatment programme and increase your survival chances?"

Julia Pendower United Kingdom

Right on! Glad to hear from you.

HUMOR, SORT OF A hippie walked into a health food store one day, stark naked except for one old, ratty sneaker on his left foot. The proprietor, who understood that these young people could be a bit odd, searched his mind for something polite to say.

"I see you lost a sneaker," the proprietor said.

The hippie stared back at him, wide-eyed, and answered slowly:

"No, man, I found one."

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.

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.

Copyright c 2004 and prior years Andrew W. Saul doctoryourself.com/contact.html . 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.