"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reasons but because they are not already common." (John Locke, English philosopher, 1632-1704).
The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 4, No. 19, September 5, 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.
NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS SLOW AIDS RIGHT DOWN: 11 YEARS TOO LATE FOR SOME
What's the difference between a decade of AIDS drug research and a truckload of Pentagon five-hundred-dollars-apiece hammers?
Answer: The public has received more honest value from the hammers.
It's been known since 1993 that nutrition stops AIDS better than any pharmaceutical drug. Yes, fully eleven years ago, a Johns Hopkins study (1) demonstrated that supplements slow AIDS, and even help halt it. The seven year long study of 281 HIV positive men showed that those taking vitamins had only about ONE HALF as many new AIDS outbreaks as those not taking supplements.
Imagine: a 50 percent reduction in AIDS cases just from vitamins!
The real wonder is that the dosages used were so small: only 715 milligrams of vitamin C a day, and about 5 times the US RDA of the B- vitamins and beta carotene. Larger, orthomolecular amounts would almost certainly save still more lives. Even so, Tang et al (1993) concluded that "The highest levels of total intake (from food and supplements) of vitamins C and B1 and niacin were associated with a significantly decreased progression rate to AIDS (as were) vitamin A, niacin, and zinc."
Today, right now, 40 million of the world's people have AIDS. How many deaths have resulted from eleven years of nutritional inaction?
On July 1, 2004, reported from Harvard as if it were original news, a new study by Fawzi et al (2) now ALSO finds that vitamins cut AIDS deaths by 27% and slow the progression to AIDS by 50%. "Multivitamins also resulted in significantly higher CD4+ and CD8+ cell counts and significantly lower viral loads. . . Multivitamin supplements delay the progression of HIV disease."
Okay! We've got it! Nutrition supplement therapy for HIV-AIDS patients is well worth doing.
AND STILL WE WAIT Pharmaceutical-fuelled research conferences open and close with still no AIDS drug cure in sight. In July, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS estimated the amount of money needed to treat the world's poorest AIDS patients will top $12 billion. Implicit in this prediction are two silent assumptions: 1) that the spread of AIDS will continue virtually unabated, and 2) that treatment efforts will be continue to be pharmaceutically-based. Yet drug treatment has been spectacularly ineffective in lowering either the spread or the mortality rate of AIDS. Any limited approach diminishes the humanity of AIDS sufferers to that of already-doomed pharmaceutical customers.
On the other hand, there is the ever-growing promise of nutrition, medicine's poorest cousin. Or is it? Since not everyone that is HIV positive ends up with full-blown AIDS, we need to ask why. If it is because some people have stronger immune systems, it is logical to go out of our way to nutritionally build up the immune system of any AIDS patient. The body's natural defense system, which is so weakened by the AIDS virus, is highly dependent on that individual's diet. Just how much research has been funded to see how well simple nutrients fight AIDS? Very little. And yet, any grade-school child can grasp that a weak immune system is much more likely to be due to a nutritional deficiency than to a drug deficit.
Now, in 2004, we have Harvard research confirming what the 1993 Johns Hopkins study showed more than a decade ago: even very modest doses of nutritional supplements slow, or even help stop, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
To the tune of 50%.
If there were a drug that did that, it would be trumpeted from every media rooftop.
WHAT, PUBLICIZE VITAMINS? The last thing the medical profession needs is to prove Voltaire correct when he bitterly commented that "Doctors give drugs of which they know little, into bodies of which they know less, for diseases of which they know nothing." Nutrition poses a tremendous threat to medicine and pharmacology. If large doses of vitamins can do a better job than drugs, then it is an embarrassment to health professionals who have maintained "you don't need vitamin pills; just eat a balanced diet."
It goes beyond this, though. When vitamins outperform drugs, then big money is at risk. Vitamin C powder costs less than $20 a pound. (You can find it at many health food stores or with a Google search.) Multiple vitamin pills cost just pennies each. Carrots grow in your garden. All are nonprescription. If these common nutrients work, they certainly cannot be patented by a drug company. No potential for profit? Then no interest or funding for research.
Yes, there is righteous need for urgency. For those that have already died from AIDS, it is too late for us to apply yesterday's research. For those dying from AIDS right now, tomorrow's research is too late.
Only one thing matters, and that is living results. Even the small amount of nutritional research done has shown more promise than heavily funded medical research. The public has been told to line up, wait for, and try out new high-risk, high-cost drugs as they come along. Up until now, that same public has been told to NOT try those "dangerous" vitamins. There is a bolt loose here somewhere. For the HIV positive individual, and certainly for the AIDS patient, it must be "any port in a storm."
ANOTHER PROMISING NUTRITIONAL AIDS THERAPY It would seem to me that it is high time for a major clinical trial of Professor Harold Foster's nutritional AIDS prevention protocol (3) of selenium, cysteine, glutamine and tryptophan. (The Foster treatment, which has been field tested in Africa, was discussed in the May 20 DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWS http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n12.txt.) With every delay, AIDS patients suffer and die, and so many unnecessarily. It is time for a full-blown nutritional study for such a reasonable approach that has already shown promise in preventing full-blown AIDS.
I therefore ask my readers to please send a brief email to the Editor of the
Medical Post newspaper
1. Fawzi WW, Msamanga GI, Spiegelman D, Wei R, Kapiga S, Villamor E, Mwakagile D, Mugusi F, Hertzmark E, Essex M, Hunter DJ. A randomized trial of multivitamin supplements and HIV disease progression and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1):23-32.
2. Tang AM, Graham NM, Kirby AJ, McCall LD, Willett WC, Saah AJ. Dietary micronutrient intake and risk of progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected homosexual men. Am J Epidemiol. 1993 Dec 1;138(11):937-51.
3. Foster, H.D. What Really Causes AIDS. Victoria: Trafford Publishing, 2002. Also posted at www.hdfoster.com and freely available for downloading.
BOOK REVIEW: Self-Care for Health: Andrew Saul's Doctor Yourself: Natural Healing that Works Review by Irene Alleger, The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients
Our healthcare system in the US has become untenable. High-priced drugs and surgery are inappropriate and ineffective treatments for the prevalent diseases, most of which we bring on ourselves by our modern lifestyles, e.g. processed food, no exercise, stress, etc. If most of our modern illnesses are caused by our food choices and lack of balance in our lives, then it stands to reason that drugs are not the answer. The answer, in fact, is in our hands: we only need to understand that there is a better way to take care of ourselves, but it does mean that we take responsibility. Instead of "going" to the doctor, we can become the doctor.
I can think of no one better suited to educate especially the baby boomers (who have become the target of Big Pharma and their endless ads for questionable treatments) than Andrew Saul, PhD, a biologist and consulting specialist in natural healing. His previous book Paperback Clinic (reviewed in the Townsend Letter Aug/Sept 1999) has been used as both a college textbook and reference work for health practitioners. In Doctor Yourself, he provides an enormous amount of information on the use of nutrition - orthomolecular medicine - in treating almost all disease. "Orthomolecular" means using a therapeutic substance that is natural to the body, such as a vitamin or mineral. The research has validated this treatment for several decades. The reason most people are not aware of this is because the drug companies have convinced the public (and the government) that drugs are the only scientific medicine. The end result is that millions of older Americans now spend more on drugs than on food . Surely there is something very wrong with this scenario.
Abram Hoffer MD, in his Foreword, says Doctor Yourself represents a new type of comprehensive medical reference book. In my opinion, it is one of the best I've seen.
The book is not about vitamins, says Saul, it is about diseases treatable with vitamins. And don't worry about what your doctor says about vitamins. Most allopathic doctors in the US know nothing about nutrition; it isn't taught in medical school, therefore it doesn't exist. But there is more than sufficient published research accessible to anyone interested enough to look it up. Saul coats his medical advice with wit and humor too - important information that is also fun to read about.
The author also doesn't mince words. He comes right out in the beginning with Fire Your Doctor! and Your Money or Your Health? Provocative? Yes, but bolstered by copious research, biological truths, and crucial life and death issues. Read on!
Part 1 consists of Natural Healing Protocols: from Acid Reflux to Vaccinations, the medical advice is safe, effective, and affordable. Most of all, readers want to know, does it work? Unequivocally, YES! Andrew Saul's approach to Allergies:
"Most allergies are a lot of bunk. . . They usually disappear while you wait, if you use the safest, cheapest, and most effective antihistamine in existence: Vitamin C."
"Allergy, like most disease names, tells you little about cause and nothing about cure. . . Take enough C to be symptom free, whatever the amount might be...but stay a few thousand milligrams under the amount that causes diarrhea. That's about your only concern, because the safety of vitamin C therapy is unassailable."
"What really rankles me is that allergists have made a subculture out of avoiding various molds, pollens, hairs, foods - all substances to which we have had millions of years of evolutionary exposure."
"LAW: The quantity of a nutritional supplement that cures an illness indicates that patient's degree of deficiency. It is therefore not a megadose of the vitamin, but rather the megadeficiency of the nutrient, that we are dealing with."
Part 2: Natural Healing Tools and Techniques, includes Saul's Super Remedy for "when you don't feel well."
1. Get to niacin saturation, which is indicated by a mild, warm pink "flush." If you are feeling stressed, anxious, depressed, worried...continue to take enough niacin throughout the day so that each dose makes you feel just a tad warm.
2. Get to vitamin C saturation, which is indicated by bowel tolerance. Vitamin C in quantity is the best broad-spectrum antitoxin, antibiotic, and antiviral there is.
3. Get to carotene (and water) saturation. This can be simultaneously achieved by twice daily juicing with green or orange vegetables such as carrots.
4. Stop eating meat, sugar and chemical food additives. Be a vegetarian for a couple weeks, or come as close as you can. Just eat the other good natural foods, like salad, nuts, your favorite vegetables, brown rice and other whole grains, fruits, and beans. Buy fresh or read every label. No chemicals, no sugars. Just do it!
Andrew Saul says, "When I work with very sick people, the first "homework" I give them is to go flush, reach bowel tolerance, hydrate, turn orange, and save a cow." With humor and intellect, Saul lets people know that staying healthy is not at all complicated. It's only been in the past 50 or 60 years that we have come to depend on pharmacy, and between the "high calorie malnutrition" from processed foods, and the pharmaceutical drugs, are we healthier or sicker?
As more people become aware of books like Doctor Yourself, the medical paradigm will change, but not fast enough for most of us. If every American had a copy of this book, it could change the world as we know it. We could again be the healthy, happy people we were meant to be.
(Reprinted with permission from the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 911 Tyler Street, Pt. Townsend, WA 98368; Tel. 360-385-6021; http://www.townsendletter.com, No. 250, May 2004, p 128.)
TO ORDER an autographed copy of DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing that Works, please go to http://www.doctoryourself.com/order.html Sales of my book enable the entire 1.5 million word http://www.doctoryourself.com website, and the DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER, to made available without charge to you and to the world.
VITAMIN C RDA: Far Too Low by Hilary Roberts, PhD
When the US and other governments decided on the recommended daily intake (RDA) for vitamin C, they used the best evidence available at the time. The question "How much vitamin C does a healthy person need?" sounds relatively straightforward. In reality, the science behind this question is sophisticated and the evidence supporting the RDA has now been shown to be wrong. Consequently, the recommended intake of vitamin C could be less than a tenth of what we need. If people conform to the current recommendations, they may suffer long-term disease. Furthermore, there is no clear mechanism for the RDA to be modified when new scientific evidence emerges. Until revising the RDA is seen as more than an administrative inconvenience, people are likely to continue developing deficiency-based illnesses.
RECOMMENDED DIETARY ALLOWANCE (RDA) The US Food and Nutrition Board have prepared daily recommended nutrient allowances since 1941. Initially, they were based on the amount needed to prevent people getting scurvy, which can easily be measured in short-term studies. The dose required to prevent acute scurvy was established many years ago, as a few milligrams per day. However, the possibility remains that such low levels of vitamin C will not be enough to avoid longer-term deficiency diseases. This hypothesis is very difficult to test and has tended to be overlooked. Ignoring long-term effects is easy for the administrators: they simply claim that there is no scientific proof that such disease will result from their recommendations. However, since science is based on refutation rather than proof, such a statement can always be made, no matter how strong the evidence. Just as an accused person is "innocent until proven guilty", a scientific idea remains plausible until it has been shown to be wrong. Real scientists understand that "no scientific proof" is a fancy way of saying "we don't like this idea".
In the United States, the RDA is defined as "the level of intake of essential nutrients that, on the basis of scientific knowledge, are judged by the Food and Nutrition Board to be adequate to meet the known nutrient needs of practically all healthy persons". The RDA is said to be the amount of vitamin that provides the least risk of inadequacy and the least risk of toxicity. Unfortunately, this definition is too vague to have any scientific meaning. RDA values are not scientific, but persist because they provide a simple intake level that generally prevents acute deficiency.
Two important points are worth noting. Firstly, most RDA standards are based on extrapolated data, which means they were not measured in actual experiments on real people. Secondly, even the experimental data from the 19--30 year old subjects, who were measured, is based on neutrophils, a white blood cell type that is known to have unusual vitamin C biochemistry, along with an exceptional ability to pump the vitamin into the cell body. This cell type is not a reliable model for the whole body.
WHY THE RDA SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED The number of subjects used in the experiments on which the vitamin C recommendations are based was too small (15 males and 7 females) to allow an estimate of the biochemical variability in requirements.
The underlying research is based on young, healthy subjects. Older, less healthy people might need more -- how much more is unknown.
The underlying research design was biased and flawed in several ways. Repeated requests to the US National Institutes of Health to explain these errors have failed to elicit a satisfactory response; their evidence can therefore now be discounted.
Stressed and even mildly ill people can tolerate 1000 times more vitamin C, implying a change in biochemistry that was ignored in creating the RDA.
The RDA concept does not differentiate between short and long-term effects of deprivation. The possibility that sub-clinical scurvy causes chronic disease has enormous implications for health. In setting the RDA, unsubstantiated risks of taking too much vitamin C have been accorded great importance, whereas the risks of not taking enough have been ignored.
SO HOW MUCH DO I NEED? Despite all the hype, no one knows how much an individual human being requires for good health. Many have opinions and suggest that they have the answer, but the question remains open.
A new scientific theory, called the dynamic flow model, explains all the observed responses to vitamin C in the literature. According to this model, people should ideally be in a state of dynamic flow, which means they ingest more vitamin C than they need and the extra flows through the body and is excreted in the urine. The excess acts as a reservoir when extra vitamin C is required. For example, after a bee sting or at the start of a cold, more is available to be absorbed from the gut. Dynamic flow is the closest we humans can get to restoring our physiology to how it was before we lost the ability to make vitamin C in our bodies, as most other animals still do. We know for sure that people need a few milligrams each day to avoid scurvy. The idea that more is needed for good health is increasingly accepted. The actual minimum daily requirement for good health could vary over the range of, say, 100 mg to over 20 grams (20,000 mg), depending on the individual. An individual can find their vitamin C burn- rate using Dr Cathcart's bowel tolerance measure. To be in dynamic flow, one would need doses totaling half or more of the person's normal bowel tolerance level. These should be divided into four or more daily doses, since vitamin C is excreted quickly. It is important to remember that the bowel tolerance level is variable and would change quickly if the person contracted an illness. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html)
We know of no simple experiment or practical study that could rigorously provide an answer to the question of how much vitamin C is needed. For any given person, the amount is a result of a cost-benefit analysis. There appears to be little toxicity from high doses, which offer the promise of extended health and resistance to many chronic diseases. The costs of vitamin C supplementation are low and the potential benefits are high. By contrast, the health costs of sticking to the low RDA could be enormous and the benefits are minimal. It is hard to understand why government authorities would take such risks with the health of their population. The RDA values were based on unscientific assumptions by establishment nutritionists. The values are not justifiable in terms of biology, statistics or basic science. It is simply not sensible to recommend a single value for a varied population. Scientifically, the arguments for the recommended daily allowance are barely justifiable as tentative suggestions, but they are presented as having the authority of scientific laws.
Suggestions for megadose levels are scientifically valid. Linus Pauling's orthomolecular approach proposes that people vary considerably and their required intake of vitamin C changes with their state of health. (http://www.orthomed.org/pauling2.htm and http://www.orthomed.org/pauling.htm) This is more biologically plausible than setting a fixed requirement for the entire population. The evidence suggests that Linus Pauling was correct and that many people need higher doses than those currently recommended.
(Dr. Roberts is co-author [with Dr. Steve Hickey] of Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, 2004, ISBN: 1-4116-0724-4, which is available from www.lulu.com/ascorbate)
THE DOCTOR YOURSELF INTERVIEW WITH CHARLOTTE GERSON, Part 2
(The Gerson nutritional cancer therapy, and Part 1 of this interview, was presented in the DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWS, Vol 4, No 16 (http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n16.txt)
Doctor Yourself News: Ms. Gerson, do you have early memories you'd be willing to share of your helping Dr. Gerson in the clinic?
Charlotte Gerson: That would take us back to about 1949, in his clinic in upstate New York.
DY News: As a New Yorker myself, I am curious to know where Dr. Gerson's clinic was located?
Charlotte Gerson: My father's clinic was located in Nanuet, NY, just inland from Nyack. At the time it was a really small community but it has grown.
DY News: What was your role there?
Charlotte Gerson: I helped mainly by relieving him of having to do the daily liver injections. But it was more a learning experience making rounds with him. I remember a lady who had colon cancer with liver metastases, very ill, pale and bedfast. My father asked her at one point when she had had her last bowel movement. She was silent for a little while, so my father repeated the question. Then she replied, "I heard you doctor, and I am trying to remember. While I was at the hospital, I think my last bowel movement was at least 6 weeks ago!" I'll never forget my father's face on hearing this statement.
DY News: I had a relative who had the same experience at Roswell: They let him go literally weeks without a bowel movement, and that was in 1980, over thirty years later. Could you tell us more of your interacting or attending to Dr. Gerson's patients, and one or two who made a particularly memorable impression on you?
Charlotte Gerson: An interesting experience was that of a lady suffering from breast cancer. She was in an early stage, with 'only' a tumor in her breast, still quite vigorous, eating and sleeping well and free of pain. But she presented a strange problem: she didn't respond to the treatment in any way, no better and no worse. And that was totally extraordinary. Then one day in the dining room, I overheard her talk to her daughter who was coming up to visit her from New York City. She told her daughter not to forget the salt to brush her teeth. That was a shock and I asked her if she brushed her teeth with salt. Yes, her dentist told her to do that. Of course I told her to stop it immediately and also reported this to my father. I explained to her that the mucous membrane in the mouth is highly absorptive and that the salt goes rapidly into the body, encouraging new tumor growth. As soon as she stopped the salt, she had a normal healing reaction and was on her way to recovery.
DY News: What was the first health lecture you ever presented by yourself?
Charlotte Gerson: After my father passed away, there was one overwhelming thought in my mind: I have to continue to publish his book. (A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases, reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/bestbooks.html). I arranged for another printing and then had 3,000 copies on my hands. So, I had to sell them since they were not doing anybody any good stashed away in a warehouse. That is when I started to do health lectures in New York, first at the Foundation for Cancer Treatment (FACT), then for the various chapters of the International Association for Victors and Friends (http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/cancer/139762.html) and at meetings of the National Health Federation's (http://www.thenhf.com) many chapters.
One of my first lectures took place in San Angelo, Texas, during WW II, where my husband was stationed at the airfield. The various men's clubs were always looking for a speaker, and since a member of the armed forces is not permitted to address a meeting, I was invited. I spoke mainly about my father's life and my escape from the Nazis but, of course, couldn't avoid talking about health since it was an important part of my father's and my life. In all, I must have done hundreds of public lectures, also in Canada, Australia, Germany, England, Ireland, Austria, and Italy.
DY News: I understand that all of Dr. Gerson's siblings perished in the Holocaust. How did you and your father spend your free time together?
Charlotte Gerson: When we lived in France and I was only about 13 or 14 years old, we used to take a lot of Sunday walks through the woods from Sevres to Versailles, visiting the castle and famous gardens as well as the Malmaison. Actually, trying to think of my father's free time, he never took any. He almost never went to a movie, had no TV, didn't even go to the opera which he loved. He was always working, reading, studying. I do remember just once when the whole family went to the opera in Paris. By the way, my favorite opera is "Don Carlo." (http://www.metopera.org/synopses/carlo.html)
DY News: No doubt you are well aware of Prince Charles' recent (June 2004) statement supporting the Gerson therapy, and the resulting medical backlash against the Prince. The British press has taken some very rough shots at him (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1248282,00.html) and especially (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1250275,00.html). Would you please comment the intensity of this criticism of the Prince, and His Royal Highness' actual statement:
"I know of one patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been told she was suffering from terminal cancer and would not survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven years later, she is alive and well. So it is vital that, rather than dismissing such experiences, we should further investigate the beneficial nature of these treatments."
Charlotte Gerson: I think that Prince Charles was very courageous to talk about the patient who recovered on the Gerson Therapy. I also think it is horrifying and shocking to note the intensity of the criticisms - actually not criticisms but outright vicious attacks.
DY News: A much more positive UK opinion is to be found at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1115514,00.html .
Charlotte Gerson: Overall, it is amazing that so many of the "learned scientists" of the UK show such lack of respect for their crown prince along with lack of knowledge or interest in true healing. They never comment on the fact that the prince's acquaintance was terminal but recovered! And, that true scientists would jump on such a dramatic recovery and further study a treatment that obtained it! On the Internet, even the title of the report on the article in the "Observer" is nasty: "Now Prince Charles talks about a coffee cure for cancer." As your readers well know, nobody ever claims that coffee is a cure, but the tone of the title implies: See how this crazy character now talks some new nonsense! What foolishness will he commit next?
Then they talk about a "$20,000/year cost for injections on the Gerson Therapy," which is simply not true. But what about the chemotherapy injections and their costs? The recently FDA approved cancer drug, Erbitox, costs $2,400 for the weekly dose, or $125,000 per year; and although it has been shown to shrink tumors, it has not been shown to prolong lives. (As reported by Michael L. Culbert, ScD. in the "Intl. Council for Health Freedom", Volume VIII:2, Fall 2004. http://www.ichf.info/history.php)
DY News: Have you been awarded any honorary degrees as of yet for your own work?
Charlotte Gerson: No.
DY News: On behalf of my readers, I thank you for all you have done to continue to bring your father's important findings to the public.
For more information: My review of the complete how-to-do-it Gerson Therapy book: http://www.doctoryourself.com/gersontherapy.html Dr. Gerson's own words: http://www.doctoryourself.com/gersonspeech.html Review of Dr. Gerson's biography: http://www.doctoryourself.com/gersonbio.htm Review of new DVD about the Gerson Therapy http://www.doctoryourself.com/gersontherapy2.html References and citations http://www.doctoryourself.com/bib_gerson_therapy.html and http://www.doctoryourself.com/bib_gerson.html .
The Gerson Institute, 1572 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 Tel. 619-685-5353. Toll-free: 1-888-4-GERSON The Gerson Institute's Website: http://www.gerson.org
READERS SAY: M. G. writes:
"I enjoyed your healthy, funny article "How I Got into Natural Healing." (http://www.doctoryourself.com/howstart.html) It' s comical, and warm. Did you ever consider a screenplay?"
Not until now. Would you please pitch it to Michael Eisner for me?
If you like Michael: http://psc.disney.go.com/corporate/communications/bios/Eisner.html
If you like Mickey more: http://www.savedisney.com
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.
"DOCTOR YOURSELF" "DoctorYourself.com" and "Doctor Yourself Newsletter" are service marks of Andrew W. Saul. All rights reserved.
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.