Carbohydrate Detox - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

Big Pharma spends $30 billion a year on marketing

The unholy alliance between Big Pharma and the medical profession

I've been in the "business" since the late 60s and I can attest to the facts presented in this article. Dr. Barbara Roberts is a cardiac specialist, on the payroll of a cardiac clinic in a hospital setting. She's been the recipient of gifts and trips - and numerous stipends for her lectures (as long as they toe the company line of the drug makers who paid her fees).


Dr. Roberts is blowing the whistle here and quotes a premier bioethicist, “When a gift or a gesture of any size is bestowed, it imposes on the recipient a sense of indebtedness. The obligation to directly reciprocate, whether or not the recipient is directly conscious of it, tends to influence behavior.”  (Daniel Katz - a person whose texts I studied in graduate school at Loyola University of Chicago).


She is the author of The Truth About Statins.


The drug makers spend approximately $100 per year on every man, woman, and child in the United States. There is no doubt those costs are handsomely recovered from the sales of drugs, legal ones that we all consume too many of.


When I was in pharmacy school, we were alarmed when we found people taking 3 or more different drugs. Today, the average is about 10 and people over 65 take an average of 15. 

Forget You Have Health Insurance. REALLY.

I recently had lab work done for testosterone because I basically felt all the signs and symptoms of having it be low. The results are as follows; Total testosterone is 103 and Free Testosterone is 18.5. These are extremely low for my age (36). My doctor wants to wait 3 months and do lab work again because levels can fluctuate. He originally told me I was probably just depressed when I wanted the lab work done. I have fired him. I refuse to sit and wait any longer. My body has drifted from healthy and firm to marshmallow status. I have just about any symptom that you can have for low testosterone. I just want to be fixed. It seems that the anti-aging clinics are only about money. They do not take insurance and want me to pay out of pocket to have labs done again through they're contracted lab. The cost just for the labs is $300. I am fully insured and refuse to pay out of pocket for a legitimate medical issue.
 I would like your suggestion on what steps to take and any recommendations on who to talk to. I would also Like a recommendation on a new doctor.

I'll start by saying that I don't have much faith in lab tests, especially blood tests for hormones. They are of little value if you don't start with a baseline value. Basically, what were your values when you felt great, and how do the values today compare with them? The idea that somehow there are actual standard levels for hormones is foolish. Everyone is different and blood values changes dramatically throughout the day - even hour by hour. To make matters even foggier, there are no standard values between laboratories. Yes, they may be similar, but high at one lab might mean normal at another. The only way to even have a chance to make some sense from the numbers you offered would mean I'd need to know the normals and ranges for the lab that did the work.

Symptoms of Low Testosterone are also the symptoms for other imbalances, and lifestyle choices. "Low T" is just getting the press these days - and it isn't accurate or relevent. 

The only rational approach is to step back and make adjustments in lifestyle before downing more pills or slapping on hormone creams - especially for someone as young as 36. Let's consider the following;

1. Everyone is estrogen dominant (from environment and food sources). 
2. unless handled properly, testosterone can become estrogen in the body. 
3. estrogen makes a person jittery, puts on weight - plus a whole host of other problems.

Exactly WHAT to do depends on age, level of activity, diet, complaints, drugs being used, and so on. It is perhaps a better decision to look at the other elements before starting any hormone replacement, especially with testosterone. I understand that the media is aggressively promoting "Low T" as one of the new diagnoses especially for men, but that isn't always the cause. Heck, it is actually rare. It's good advertising and makes big bucks for the drug companies (and the labs who do the tests), but doesn't get to the root of the problems - and often causes more. It is very unlikely that someone age 36 would actually have low testosterone. Your doctors knows this and is probably why the reluctance to do something you think will fix your symptoms. A person should know why testosterone is low before blindly prescribing it - especially for a young man. 

Improved health starts with healthy living. That means a lot of work and attention - two things that most of us avoid. We'd rather take the pill, get the shot, or cut it out than do what we need to do. Everyone wants to be fixed, but few of us are wwilling to do what it takes in the messed up world we have today. Some thing just can't be fixed. Nobody cares about your health the way you do., Nobody. No, the doctor could care less. The doctor is a service provider that has to serve hundred or thousands of people - and it is impossible to actually care for that many. Sure, we'd like to believe our soctor give a hoot, but he/she just can't. It is 100% up to use to do what is necessary for our own health and well being. I wouldn't worry about finding the one doctor who will fix you. Therefore, I find it difficult to recommend anyone. 

I wouldn't demean the anti-aging clinics because they are interested in money. That's what every business wants. The fact that they don't accept insurance suggests that their business decisions are sound and prices are probably more legitimate than places that take insurance. I would prefer to pay cash for health assistance rather than look for benefits from an insurance plan. 

Here's somethng you probably won't like, but health insurance is a huge rip off and depending on it merely makes a person expect someone else to pay the bills. That's counterproductive to good health. We used to take insurance in our pharmacy and it almost put us out of business - twice. We will never accept any form of third party payment (Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance). Never again. I'm offering my ideas at no charge and with no expectations. That's how we operate our business. Doctors and labs - and most pharmacises - have become little more than just another small business - instead of the health professions they once were. The basic difference between a service station and a doctor (or pharmacist or lab owner) is that the service station operator is probably better at running her business - especially if she takes cash for service. What about all the premiums paid to the insurance company? Count them as a down payment for help when you really need coverage - when you're hit by a truck or shot by an arrow. Until then, forget you have health insurance. 

If you really want to be healthy and energetic you have to take responsibility for it yourself. I can't fix any health problems but I will offers suggestions that I know work. Here are some first steps: 

• no soda pop, 
• no sugar, 
• no artificial sweeteners, 
• no fast food,
• no canned food,
• no packaged food,
• no cereal,
• more good fat,
• more salt,
• a lot more water,
• no estrogen-laced milk, 
• no soy products,
• reduced flour (other glutens as well), 
• reduced meat intake, 
• take a daily probiotic,
• eat fermented foods (sauerkraut, Kefir, Kim Che, etc.)
• eat organic, 
• minimize caffeine,
• drink filtered water (remove fluoride),
• remove chlorine from bathing water,
• exercise three days a week, 
• no drugs, 
• minimal alcohol (especially beer and some wines that have estrogen-like action)
• daily meditation

After a few weeks/months, consider adding progesterone supplements in small amounts for men (more for women). Use herbal supplements (prostate specific supplements are excellent), multi-vitamins (especially B vitamins and vitamin D3), minerals.

Yes, this is an outline for a complete lifestyle of healthy living. A lot of us would prefer a magic bullet - a pill - that would take care of our problems and make us trim and fit. That isn't available and I am certain it will never be available. The drug makers continue to search and make promises, but they will always fail. I could write volumes on why it's a lost cause, but it is easier to trust my words than to hope for magic. 

Your Inner "House"

I observe that many modern doctors fit into the Myers-Briggs sensing trait. As the name implies, people with this trait get their information about life from their senses.

They are realistic, down-to-earth people, but they tend to see everything in rather simplistic, concrete, black-or-white terms. They focus on details; see through a microscope, depend on "studies" and statistics thus "standard of care”(everyone else is doing it). They employ very linear ways of getting information and making decisions. It blocks information coming from the unconscious which involves mystery, hunches, and connections. Those who have those intuitive gifts are demeaned, and the information coming from them is considered inferior. What, then, might be attracting sensates to the "doctoring" professions?

I would first think that intuitives (see the big picture, seek truth, question everything, search for reasons and causes) would flock to a profession where their reasoning skills and curiosity would be rewarded. Then, I recall how doctors are TRAINED - like Pavlov's dogs, for the most part. The process of training and indoctrination seems to effectively weed out the intuitives. The book, Forgive and Remember by Charles Bosk, presents a detailed narrative on how doctors are made. Those who question the status quo are eliminated early on.

A friend tells about her doctor who commented on medical school requirements. He said that people in admissions reportedly went back on transcripts as far as high school and every person they accepted had to have earned an A in all science courses. Nobody else need apply.The doctor’s comment was: can you imagine what kind of people we are attracting? And those who get in, who have additional gifts of intuition or feeling, have it pounded or shamed out of them (see Bosk). Curiosity is considered a negative. Compliance is rewarded.

What about doctors like Gregory House, MD, the fictional antihero in the TV series, HOUSE? He doesn’t exist and could never exist in the real medical world. His name "House" is a play on Sherlock "Holmes", the "curious investigator." If he did exist, he surely would not be in a large teaching hospital. He would not be allowed to supervise residents or interns. In the TV series, he's tolerated with exasperation. In the REAL WORLD he would loose is license - and maybe tossed in jail for illegal drug use.

Personally, I'm becoming much more comfortable with my own MBTI category (can you guess what it is?). It is helpful to know that I will almost always be misunderstood - and that it is okay because I'm happy with the truth as I see it, particularly the big picture. I have learned to keep my opinions to myself unless asked directly (except in my book and blogs). I sit back and observe. Ask me, however, and I'll give you everything I have at hand.

A reader asked me today if I had reports or studies about using low doses of naltrexone for psoriasis. I responded that I could do better - I would use what I know about LDN and psoriasis to arrive at a conclusion. I wonder what the reader will think - or if he'll even mention it to his doctor. Sad, there is a method for relieving his suffering, but chances are good that he'll never act on my suggestions. Its his life, after all. I am not in charge.

As a society, we will probably never overcome the Doctor/God thing. The forces that perpetuate it are very great. Individuals, however, will continue to recognize the truth and will join Tribes. (Seth Godin,Tribes) that meet their personal needs and psychological type.

No, I am not so arrogant as to believe that the above is fully accurate. However, my experiences suggest that there is far more than just a kernel of truth in it. Like any system, Myers-Briggs typing is not perfect. Yet it generally does very well in helping people recognize and understand their own traits - and those of the people around them.

Even though Dr. House is fictional, I suggest there is much we can learn from the character - if welook and think. I encourage everyone - especially health practitioners - to locate and cultivate their “Inner House”. 

Too Many Drugs? You Bet!

Americans filled some 60 million RXs for sleeping pills last year, up from 47 million in 06. If there were just 30 in each RX, we gulped down 1.8 BILLION pills. Do you think that's a lot of sleeping pills? 


Let's keep in mind that this data is ONLY about sleeping pills. There are hundreds of other drugs in a myriad of categories.


Drugs are the ONLY legal treatments for disease. That's harebrained, but true. The Diamond nut company recently received a letter from the FDA informing them to stop referring to the health benefits of their walnuts. If walnuts actually did what Diamond wrote, they would have to be considered a drug. Since Diamond has not gone threough the new drug application process and received FDA approval, their new drug (walnuts) cannot be marketed as such. 

 I KID YOU NOT.