Envita’s Natural Issues Blog

On July 16, 2009, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill that protects physicians who treat chronic Lyme Disease.  The bill passed unanimously through both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly.  The new law is a victory for patients and physicians alike.  Chronic Lyme patients have found that doctors are extremely hesitant to treat them for the disease as the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) does not recognize chronic Lyme Disease, and their guidelines state that patients should receive no more than four weeks of antibiotic treatment.  Treatment of chronic Lyme Disease, however, often requires long-term antibiotics, a practice for which physicians are being reprimanded by both medical boards and insurance companies who cite the IDSA guidelines.  Some physicians have even lost their licenses for extended antibiotic treatment.  The end result is a “chill effect” whereby patients have to travel in search of doctors who will treat them for chronic Lyme Disease.

But under Connecticut’s new law, physicians cannot be subject to disciplinary action for treating a patient with long-term antibiotics, so long as the Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment is documented in the patient’s record by the physician.  The new law undoubtedly protects physicians’ rights to treat their patients the way they see fit.

In a July 16, 2009 press release issued by the Governor’s Office, Governor Rell stated that “We do understand.  We understand that this disease can shatter lives.  We understand it can rob someone of their livelihood.  We understand it can alter someone’s future forever.”  She noted that “It is a very complex disease that can affect people differently.  We recognize that Lyme disease patients must have the freedom to choose which treatment best meets their needs.”

In passing this new law, Connecticut joins Rhode Island and California in explicitly protecting physicians’ treatment of chronic Lyme Disease.  Lyme disease was first discovered in Lyme, Connecticut in 1975.  Given that Connecticut is viewed as the epicenter of the disease, it is hoped that Connecticut’s passage of this law will encourage other states to do the same.

The bill, however, endured its fair share of controversy.  Several opponents testified and wrote letters stating that chronic Lyme disease is not supported by any published scientific data, and instead, is promoted by a small group of physicians.  But the voices of these opponents were completely drowned out by the number of patients, doctors, and advocates who supported the bill.

The controversy ultimately stems from the 14-member panel of the IDSA that wrote the 2006 Lyme disease treatment guidelines, which deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease.  The IDSA is a national medical group whose purpose, according to its website, is to improve healthcare in areas related to infectious diseases.  But these guidelines have been widely criticized as inadequate and disastrous for those infected with the disease.  According to a recent John-Hopkins study, the IDSA-endorsed two-tiered testing procedure misses 75% of positive Lyme cases. (1)  The guidelines also recommend only two to four weeks of antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, yet research has shown that antibiotic treatment for 14 to 21 days results in a 26-50% failure rate, as the stubborn disease-causing bacteria persists much longer in the body.  (2), (3)  In dismissing the existence of chronic Lyme disease, one panel member instead characterized it as “more related to the aches and pains of daily living rather than to either Lyme disease or a tick-borne co-infection.”  Out of the 400 scientific articles cited by the panel as support for their guidelines, about half were written by the panel members themselves.  Meanwhile, a large body of contradictory scientific literature was ignored.  The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, even conducted an anti-trust investigation of the IDSA, suspecting that the guidelines process was tainted by the panel members’ conflicts of interest.  Out of the 14 member panel, 6 of the panelists or their universities hold patents associated with Lyme disease or its co-infections; 4 received funding from test kit manufacturers for Lyme disease or its co-infections; 4 were paid by the insurance companies to write Lyme policy guidelines or serve as consultants in legal cases; and 9 members or their universities received money from Lyme disease vaccine manufacturers.  Allowing diagnostic and treatment guidelines to be written by panel members who are tied to manufacturers that have a stake in the outcome raises serious and obvious concerns.  Attorney General Blumenthal charged that the panel’s guidelines were preventing many seriously ill patients from receiving the care they needed.  The investigation ended in 2008 with a settlement whereby the IDSA promised to create a new panel to reevaluate its treatment guidelines in 2009. 

On July 30, 2009, landmark hearings were held in Washington D.C. to review these guidelines.  Dr. Daniel Cameron, President of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) was one of the presenters at the hearing.  ILADS has consistently advocated for Lyme disease patients and has put forth their own Lyme treatment guidelines, which they argue should be the standard of care.  In contrast to the IDSA guidelines, the ILADS guidelines recommend long-term treatment with antibiotics for chronic Lyme sufferers.  In a press release, Dr. Cameron stated that as a result of the hearings at the nation’s capitol, “[t]he medical establishment will be forced to consider the strong scientific evidence that Lyme Disease can become a persistent, long-term infection that may require more aggressive treatment than what is allowed under the current treatment guidelines.” 

Laws such as that recently passed by Connecticut have placed even more pressure on the IDSA to take another look at their guidelines, as such laws go directly against their prescriptions.  If the IDSA revamps its guidelines and recognizes chronic Lyme disease and attendant treatment with long-term antibiotics, it will have far reaching consequences for patients.  Not only will patients’ lives be saved by proper diagnostic criteria and treatment guidelines, but patients will also be one step closer to gaining insurance coverage for such treatment.  Currently, insurance companies routinely deny coverage to patients treated with long-term antibiotics, citing the IDSA guidelines.  Furthermore, if the IDSA revamps its guidelines, it will hopefully make legislative efforts such as that recently undertaken in Connecticut unnecessary.  Doctors across the country would be free to practice medicine and adequately treat their patients without fear of losing their medical licenses.

The panel states that it will hopefully issue a final report regarding the guidelines by the end of the year.  Until then, Lyme patients will have to wait and hope that the medical establishment will finally make some much needed changes.

Resource Links:

Full Text of the Connecticut Law: An Act Concerning the Use of Long-Term Antibiotics for the Treatment of Lyme Disease

Envita’s Lyme Disease Educational Section

Envita’s Whiteboard (contains Lyme Disease Videos and Animation)

References:

(1)    Coulter, P, et al.  Two-Year Evaluation of Borrelia burgdoferi Culture and Supplemental Test for Definitive Diagnosis of Lyme Disease.  Clin. J. Clin. Microbiol.  2005; 41: 5080-5084.

(2)    Wahlberg, P, Granlund, H, Nyman, D, Panelius, J, and Seppala, I.  Treatment of late Lyme borreliosis.  J. Infect.  1994; 29(3): 255-61.

(3)    Oksi, J, Marjamaki, M, Nikoskelainen, J, and Viljanen, M.  Borrelia burgdorferi detected by culture and PCR in clinical relapse of disseminated Lyme borreliosis.  Ann. Med.  1999; 31(3): 225-32.

August 4th, 2009 | Tags: Connecticut chronic lyme disease law, IDSA guidelines | Category: Lyme Disease | Comments (3)

Last year, we reported on how Envita had submitted an application to conduct research on natural killer cell therapy after we received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Although we regarded our treatment as the practice of medicine and not within FDA’s jurisdiction, we felt that the possibilities presented by the natural killer cell therapy were promising.  We complied with the FDA, submitted our request, and awaited approval to begin our study.

Well, we are excited to report that the FDA gave us its stamp of approval, and we can now begin our Phase I clinical biological trial, which involves exploring the use of the body’s own immune system to fight cancer.  While gaining FDA approval for clinical trials is “business as usual” and a routine accomplishment for most hospitals, pharmaceutical corporations, governmental bodies such as the NIH, and other organizations, we would like to explain what this study means for a natural medical clinic and the field as a whole.  To truly understand the significance of Envita’s clinical trial, we have to take a look at the backdrop of the current political and legal landscape.

As reported by Cancer Monthly, in March of last year, the number of clinical trials involving natural or alternative therapies was slim to none.  (1)  Last year at this time, there were 7,080 active clinical trials for cancer, and only 123 of them, or 1.7% were focused on naturally occurring agents.  (1)  Over half were focused on chemotherapy.  As pointed out by Cancer Monthly, an even smaller percent was focused on whether these natural approaches alone improved survivability from cancer.  Cancer Monthly commented that “alternative therapies…have been co-opted into the conventional paradigm.  They are no longer seen as potentially powerful treatments in their own right, but rather ‘add-ons’ to ameliorate the side effects or improve the quality of life for patients who receive the toxic conventional treatments.”  (1)  A search on clinicaltrials.gov reveals that nothing much has changed.  On March 3, 2009, clinicaltrials.gov showed 5,306 open cancer studies in the United States.  Out of these, 11 were listed as complementary or alternative therapies.  However, most of these complementary/alternative trials were extremely “soft” – involving such things as exercise. 

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  Yet, when you add up all the research dollars and treatment dollars that have been poured into chemotherapy, it stretches into the trillions.  Meanwhile, cancer is still claiming a life every 50 seconds.  And survival times have not changed drastically.  In a highly controversial article published in 2004, three oncologists assessed the impact of cancer drugs on survival rates in Australia and the United States.  (2)  The authors analyzed the results of all randomized, controlled clinical trials performed in Australia and the U.S. that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult cancers.  Data from 1990-2004 were examined.  The authors found that the overall contribution of chemotherapy to the five-year survival rate in adults was about 2%.  In other words, as stated by one of the authors, Graeme Morgan, during a radio interview, “if there was no chemotherapy…the survival rate of all patients with cancer would drop from 62% to 60%.”  As summarized by the authors, “despite the early claims of chemotherapy as the panacea for curing all cancers, the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy is limited to small subgroups of patients and mostly occurs in the less common malignancies.”  (2)  Those unimpressive statistics makes the need for innovative treatments even more apparent.  The madness of continuously pouring oodles of money into drugs that have not lived up to their reputation must stop.

This argument, of course, is not to say that chemotherapy drugs should no longer be studied or utilized when appropriate.  Indeed, at Envita, we treat certain patients with chemotherapy (alongside our natural treatments), as it still has a place in helping with particular malignancies.  But the limitations and harsh side effects of these drugs must be recognized- and given the number of lives that are still being claimed each minute, these drugs should not be heralded as the answer to cancer.  The end goal of conducting clinical trials is supposed to be to find better and more effective ways of fighting disease.  To do that, there needs to be a change in the type of interventions that are being studied. 

So why haven’t we seen more rigorous natural or alternative studies being conducted to-date?  Well, a lot of barriers stand in the way of getting natural and alternative studies approved.  For one thing, most natural or alternative practitioners do not have the resources, motivation, or capabilities to design, sponsor, or conduct such a study.  Many natural medical clinics and practitioners are also afraid of regulation or regulatory bodies.  And there is a lot of stigma attached to this field, which makes approval even less of a certainty.  Additional barriers are presented by the fact that the clinical trial process is a long and complicated one, involving numerous legal and regulatory hurdles.  Getting a study approved can take up to five years.  We are thrilled because we managed to get our study written and approved in less than three.  

Case in point- a search of clinicaltrials.gov on March 3 showed that out of the 5,306 open cancer studies, 48 studies were listed as “natural.”  Of those, none was sponsored by a natural medical clinic.  Out of the 1065 trials involving biological products, the Burzynski Research Institute is the only sponsoring organization to appear on the list that has ties to the alternative medicine world (Burzynski’s company’s focus is on “biopharmaceuticals,” as described on its website).  Indeed, Envita is one of the first natural medical clinics to be approved for a clinical trial, especially one of this type. 

In addition, the field of alternative and advanced natural medicine has taken a hit since the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) entered the scene.  As stated on its website, NCCAM is a branch of the NIH, and its main function is supposed to be exploring complementary and alternative medicine “through rigorous scientific research.”  On clinicaltrials.gov, NCCAM is shown as currently sponsoring 10 clinical trials for cancer.  Yet none of those studies explores truly promising or significant therapies, and none is of the type that would advance the field or garner it some credibility.  The studies NCCAM is sponsoring involve such things as yoga, tai chi, massage, “energy healing,” almonds, fish oil, and walnuts.  While these complementary therapies may be of help to some cancer patients, they cannot be considered viable, standalone treatments for cancer.  Instead of “soft” studies on massage and walnuts, why isn’t NCCAM getting involved in more rigorous research such as the high-dose intravenous vitamin C studies currently being conducted by Mark Levine over at the main branch of the NIH and at other organizations?  That’s the type of work NCCAM should be doing.  Many in the alternative medical world have criticized NCCAM as not really having the field’s interests at heart.  Indeed, it seems that NCCAM’s name is on some of the most negative reports of natural or alternative therapies. 

And the situation is not being helped by the people being chosen to lead the NCCAM division.  Josephine Briggs, M.D. is the current director.  Her curriculum vitae is posted on NCCAM’s website.  While her credentials are certainly impressive, it is unclear what qualifies her to hold the position that she does, other than the fact that she is interested in “the effects of antioxidants in kidney disease.”  Indeed, many people have an interest in such things, but it doesn’t make them qualified to direct the governmental body that is supposedly “the Federal Government’s lead agency for scientific research on complementary and alternative medicine.” 

In short, the field of advanced natural medicine will not be able to rely on NCCAM to lead it or advance it to new heights.  And it is apparent that NCCAM will not be the trailblazer in finding better and more effective ways of fighting disease.  Instead, the natural medical field will have to go it alone.  It is Envita’s hope that our clinical trial will prove to be a significant and revolutionary step in that direction.

For information on Envita’s clinical trial, click here.

References:

(1)    “Cancer Clinical Trials and Alternative Treatments.”  Cancer Monthly.  March 28, 2008.  Accessible through cancermonthly.com

(2)    Morgan, G., Ward, R., and Barton, M.  The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.  Clin. Oncol. (R Coll Radiol).  2004 Dec; 16(8): 549-60.

(3)    National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine website

(4)  Clinicaltrials.gov

June 3rd, 2009 | Tags: 4NKT | Category: Cancer, FDA | Leave a comment

A judge ruled yesterday that Daniel Hauser, a thirteen-year old boy with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, will have to submit to chemotherapy treatment.  Daniel, along with his parents, had chosen to pursue alternative treatments in accordance with their religious beliefs, but the judge stepped in and said that Daniel must take the conventional form of treatment.  Daniel is not the first to be at the center of this controversy.

The law on the matter is generally this: Children can use alternative therapies as long as they don’t have a life-threatening disease for which there is a proven conventional treatment.  If they do, then the State can step in and hold the parents guilty of child neglect for not providing necessary medical care.

In an interview yesterday morning, the attorney for the Hauser family argued that contrary to the evidence presented at court, Daniel’s chances of survival with chemo were actually 40%, not 90%.  Hauser’s attorney argued that the discrepancy in statistics arose from the fact that the prosecutors in the case were arguing relative instead of absolute statistics, which is an issue we have discussed previously on this blog in one of our articles on efficacy data and insurance coverage.  (This game of relative versus absolute statistics is thought to be the reason most cancer patients undergo conventional treatments in the first place- relative statistics make the intervention look more beneficial than it truly is.)  But the statistical war aside, the issue of kids and alternative cancer care is a highly controversial one.  MSNBC.com is taking a poll on the issue, and after about 3,500 votes, 35% voted that “Families should be allowed to make their own decisions in every aspect of medical care,” and 65% voted that “Refusing medical care that could save the child’s life is a form of medical neglect…”

On the one side are parents like the Hauser’s who argue that in accordance with the Constitution, they have the right to the care, custody, and upbringing of their children, and the State should not interfere in their ability to decide what the best medical treatment is for their child.  Here, the First Amendment was also implicated, as the Hauser’s argued that they should have the freedom to follow their religious beliefs.  The issue is complicated even further in this case by the fact that Daniel is thirteen and can speak for himself.  He is not an infant who cannot voice an opinion in the matter.  The Hauser’s attorney made this argument on his behalf, stating that Daniel is considered an adult in the eyes of his religion, can participate fully in religious practices, and should be allowed to make decisions in accord with the tenets of his religion.  In a handful of prior cases in other states, this argument has worked.  Judges will sometimes (although rarely) make an exception to the rule based on the child’s age, understanding, and maturity.  For example, in Utah, a judge ruled that a twelve year old could choose not to undergo chemotherapy.

(Interestingly, another argument the Hauser’s attorney made was that the first key to healing is that the patient believes in the treatment he or she is receiving.  Hauser’s attorney argued that Daniel does not believe in chemotherapy, and in fact, is adamantly against it.  The thought being, presumably, that this factor will work against the efficacy of the treatment and Daniel’s response to it.)

On the other side of the issue, the State asserts an interest in the well-being of the child and views alternative treatments as akin to no treatment.  There are those who believe that parents who do not choose the conventional treatments for their children are “ignorant” and “stupid” and should be “locked up” (just peruse the comment section of the MSNBC.com poll if you want to read these, and other, adjectives and expletives for yourself).

But the question remains- was this decision the right one?  There is no easy answer to that question.

While the Hauser’s attorney said they are considering an appeal, it may be that Daniel will have to undergo chemotherapy and then pursue alternative treatments after he is done with the chemo (as most children and their families who desire to use alternative therapies end up having to do).  But the question will be- what will be left after Daniel is done with chemo?  Alternative medicine can do a lot of good when it comes to immunotherapy and boosting the body’s ability to fight.  But it doesn’t always work like an emergency resuscitation system.  Here at Envita, we have treated kids with difficult cancers in the past.  They always come to us after they have gone through the conventional treatment at other hospitals or facilities where those treatments have failed.  Many have been sent home to die.  They come to us with little to no immune system, little to no zest for life left, having given up on their dreams, and completely racked by the conventional therapies.  Some children have done amazingly well in response to our treatments, and are here today cancer free, attending school like any other normal kid, while others didn’t make it.  For those little ones who didn’t make it, the most we could do was improve their quality of life and extend their time on earth as much as we could.  To their families, every extra second they got to spend with their children was precious.

But you have to wonder- how could these children have been helped if they were able to receive alternative treatments sooner, or at least in combination with, the conventional treatments?  Treatments like chemo can absolutely destroy the immune system, deplete these kids’ white blood cell counts, and have other debilitating side effects on children. 

A few heartbreaking stories bring home the point.  Richard A. Jaffe is an attorney who has been defending “medical mavericks,” as he describes them, for most of his career.  He has written a fascinating book entitled Galileo’s Lawyer, which is an in-depth look into some of the cases he has worked on.  (1)  One of those cases involved a four-year-old boy and a medical maverick by the name of Stanislaw Burzynski. 

The four-year-old boy, Thomas, had been diagnosed with a deadly form of brain cancer- medulablastoma.  Jaffe describes how Thomas initially had surgery to remove the tumor, and suffered some visual and motor defects as a result.  The standard postoperative treatment was chemo and radiation.  The side effects were horrendous.  Thomas’ family did some research and found that only about half of the kids survived the treatment, and out of those who did, many suffered severe and permanent mental retardation.  Thomas’ family wanted to enter him into Burzynski’s clinical trials with an experimental alternative treatment, but the FDA did not allow it.  Thomas’ family fought and fought and tried everything from media pressure to political pressure to legal pressure (all the while going “underground” to avoid Child Protective Services).  Finally a deal was worked out by which Thomas was to receive three rounds of the chemotherapy.  If it didn’t work, Thomas would be allowed to enter Burzynski’s trial.

After the second round of chemo, Thomas’ white blood count was so low it was at a fatal level, and the doctors told his parents he might not make it.  In addition, the tumors were actually increasing in size.  That was the last straw for Thomas’ parents.  They went back to the FDA, and Thomas’ last round of chemo was waived and he was allowed to enter Burzynski’s trial.  At this point, Thomas was so immunocompromised because of the chemotherapy that he was in and out of the hospital with pneumonia and infections.  But despite that, his scans were showing that after only a short time on Burzynski’s treatments, his tumors were shrinking dramatically and the others had stopped growing. 

But as Jaffe writes, “I have seen this many times with Burzynski’s patients, kids and adults alike.  Their tumors start to shrink, but because of a severely impaired immune system resulting from prior chemo and radiation, their general condition deteriorates, slowly at first, but then more quickly.  Thomas was starting to win his cancer battle, but his body was losing the war.  Each time he would get an infection or pneumonia, he would become progressively weaker.  This took an emotional toll on him and the rest of his family.”  (1)

Eventually, after his fourth trip to the emergency room at the hospital for pneumonia, Thomas was “just tired.”  Up until then, he was determined to fight the cancer and the infections and the pneumonia caused by his weakened immune system.  But as Jaffe recounts, this last time, his parents asked Thomas whether he still wanted to fight, and Thomas said, “‘No, Mommy, I’ve had enough.  I want it to end.  I just want to sleep.’  Thomas died shortly thereafter.”  (1)

Jaffe goes on to ask the ultimate question- “Could Burzynski have saved Thomas if he had treated him before his immune system had been ravaged?  Obviously there is no way to know.  But given the fact that the standard treatments for this kind of disease are so risky and that the known side effects for kids are so horrendous, it is worth asking whether the FDA really should be in the business of stopping families from seeking a milder form of treatment.”  (1)

One of the most outspoken couples who have dealt with this issue is Michael and Raphaele Horwin.  There son also died of brain cancer after receiving intensive chemotherapy following surgery.  In a 2008 interview with journalist Peter Barry Chowka, the Horwin’s gave an emotional and insightful interview.  (2)  Even before their son, Alexander, died, the Horwin’s were beginning to question whether the treatments were actually shortening his life.  They began researching chemotherapy protocols for children with brain cancer, and what they found changed their lives.  Nine years after Alexander’s death, Michael went to law school and became a lawyer.  He wrote an award-winning law review article on the subject, entitled “War on Cancer: Why Does the FDA Deny Access to Alternative Cancer Treatments?”  His wife, Raphele, became a forensic scientist so that she could better evaluate the medical literature on the issue of cancer survival statistics.  The Horwin’s have even testified before the House Committee on Government Reform on this issue.

In their interview with Mr. Chowka, the Horwin’s describe how “We watched what chemotherapy did to our son- we watched it destroy him and rob him of any chance he had to fight and overcome his disease.  When the cancer came back and killed him while he was on chemotherapy, the physicians called it ‘leptomeningeal progression.’  As soon as we returned home after the funeral, we began doing research on leptomeningeal progression…Incredibly, we found articles in the medical literature that discussed how the chemotherapy drugs that Alexander had been given resulted in leptomeningeal progression and death in scores of other children going back years!”  (2)  In response to the question, “What are the greatest myths in our society about cancer and its treatment?”, the Horwin’s responded: “That chemotherapy and radiation represent a ‘cure,’ and the only cure for brain cancer.  This is nonsense…oncologists have been giving various chemotherapy protocols to children with pediatric brain tumors for almost 25 years and nobody speaks out about the devastating side effects and death that almost always follow.”  (2)

The Horwins went on to say that:

Every year more than $3.5 billion is spent on cancer research in this country…Isn’t it interesting that after 50 years of chemotherapy and 100 years of radiation, cancer is still almost always a death sentence?  When you think about this fact and look at all the truly effective cancer therapies proposed and utilized by innovative scientists and physicians that have been quietly destroyed, you realize that money rules the day…the medical monopoly continues to use its tremendous political influence to make sure that all effective competition is crushed.  That means that thousands of children will die needlessly, not to mention hundreds of thousands of adults.  The problem isn’t that we need to spend more money.  We’ve spent billions already!  There are better answers out there.  The problem is no freedom…We were told that our son Alexander would be receiving ‘state-of-the-art’ chemotherapy which had saved or extended the lives of many many other children.  But the truth is that the oncologists had admitted in their medical journals that the chemotherapy given to Alexander was the same chemo that had been used alone or in combination for over twenty years and it was ineffective and toxic.  (2)

The Horwin’s also gave advice to families of children with cancer.  They stated that:

If you are parents of a child who has cancer and who is under the age of eighteen, make sure that you get a good lawyer who is familiar with family law.  Tell your oncologist that you want to speak to parents whose children received the same chemotherapy treatment and/or radiation that he is prescribing for your child, and who are still alive after five years or ten years after.  That will probably tick off the oncologists because they usually can’t come up with anyone’s name.  When you have a meeting with the oncologists, ask if you can tape the conversation openly because your wife or husband could not make it.  When they know they are being taped they will usually give you something closer to the truth about your child’s prognosis.  Do your research on all of the chemotherapy drugs the oncologists want to give your child.  Make sure you know how long these drugs have been used in conventional medicine.  Get copies of your child’s medical chart- you will be able to see what doctors write about you and about the prognosis and to each other.  Whatever your particular cancer, please do your research.  Use Medline or spend some time in a university medical library and read what oncologists write for and to each other in their prestigious medical magazines.  Ask to talk to patients who have gone through exactly the same chemotherapy protocol and radiation treatment, and make sure that these former patients have been out of trouble for five years or more.  Read books on alternative treatment, as many as you can.  Pay close attention to the therapies that have been shut down or restricted by the government.  As unusual as this might sound, suppression of an alternative therapy often is a reliable indication that the therapy has value.  (2)

The Horwins also made clear that the alternative medical industry also has its shortcomings and not everyone who claims to offer alternatives can be trusted.  The Horwins warn about those who prey on cancer victims and the charlatanry that exists in the field.

Which brings us back to Daniel Hauser.  If Daniel is eventually allowed to use alternative therapies, a lot will depend on what kind of therapies he’s using and where he’s getting them.  At the moment, it is unclear what alternative therapies Daniel wants to use.  Unfortunately, it sounds as though he will not be receiving alternative therapies necessarily under the care of a doctor or at a facility, but will be undertaking them on his own.  If so, the outcome looks a little bleak.  It may be that the therapies he wants to use are not advanced alternative therapies backed by medical literature, but instead could be very minor and “soft” therapies.  Of course, if this is the case and Daniel’s self-help remedies don’t work, it will be thought to be yet another feather in the cap of those who claim alternative treatments “don’t work.”  If the chemotherapy doesn’t work, on the other hand, the outcome will not be blamed on the failure of the therapy but on the disease itself.  (And even further, if Daniel does find a credible doctor who can offer advanced alternative therapies after he is done with chemotherapy, and his disease goes away, the success will be attributed to a latent effect of the chemotherapy or a “spontaneous remission,” not the alternative treatment.)

Either way, the issue continues to be a controversial one with no easy answers for the parents of children who suffer with this disease.  But there are those who can offer help and support.

The Fullness of Life Foundation is a non-profit organization that helps kids with cancer gain access to integrative medical treatments.  Fullness funds the cost of the children’s treatments, as well as their travel and housing costs while they are receiving treatments.  Fullness also provides children and their families the opportunity to attend sporting events, go to the theater, and have access to other enriching activities to make sure these kids can still be kids and live their lives to the fullest.

For more information about Fullness, please visit their website – www.fullnessfoundation.org .

Sources:

(1)            Jaffe, Richard A.  Galileo’s Lawyer: Courtroom Battles in Alternative Health, Complementary Medicine and Experimental Treatments.  Thumbs Up Press, Texas 2008.

(2)            Chowka, Peter Barry.  “April Fools Joke Not: The Study of Alternative Cancer Therapies is Almost Extinct.”  April 1, 2008.    

May 16th, 2009 | Tags: Daniel Hauser and alternative cancer treatment, kids and alternative cancer treatment | Category: Childhood Cancer | Leave a comment

Dino Prato, owner, founder, CEO, and administrator of Envita Medical Centers, and Dr. David Korn, D.D.S., D.O., M.D.(H), Chief Medical Officer of Envita, traveled to Kansas City, Missouri last week for a medical conference.  The title of the conference was “Lyme & Chronic Illness: New Tools to Promote Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment.”  The conference boasted a diverse faculty of practitioners, researchers, university professors, and diagnostic specialists, including: Carol Ann Ryser, M.D., Joseph Brewer, M.D., Stephen Fry, M.D., Reginald Dusing, M.D., and David Berg, M.S. Clinical Pathology. 

As we have discussed previously on this blog and on the Envita website, accurate testing for and diagnosis of Lyme disease continues to elude the majority of practitioners and researchers.  Inaccuracy plagues the standard tests utilized by most doctors.  Both the ELISA test and the Western Blot yield high false negatives.  Both tests are so sensitive that even if the patient is on Advil or Motrin, the tests can show false negatives.  In addition, these tests only test for a few strains of the Lyme bacteria; they do not include all significant antigens; and they utilize narrow criteria put forth by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that were meant to track epidemiological changes, and were never meant to constitute diagnostic criteria.  These standard tests focus on only a few “bands” identified by the CDC for purposes of surveillance, not diagnosis.  In fact, the ELISA test has been shown to miss as much as 35% of culture-proven Lyme.  As far as the Western Blot goes, several markers are eliminated from testing that are highly indicative of exposure to the Lyme bacteria.  As a result, Lyme-literate physicians have had to turn to more specialized testing and laboratories to obtain accurate Lyme diagnoses.  They have also had to rely on the clinical diagnosis, and the tell-tale signs, symptoms, history, exposure risk, and course of illness.  As knowledge of the disease progresses, so have evidence-based guidelines used to diagnose it, such as that put forth by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS).

Lyme disease is a multi-system disturbance that often carries many co-infections that can interfere with its diagnosis.  The disease can also influence and exacerbate other chronic medical conditions.  The conference was held in an effort to help practitioners and researchers alike gain a better understanding of the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease in conjunction with chronic illnesses as a whole.

The diversity of the panel’s expertise was confirmation of a growing recognition in the Lyme community that we are dealing with a total body disease, affecting everything from the thyroid gland, to the adrenal glands, to hormones, to glucose levels.  As many as 20% of Lyme patients develop acute neurological disease, and 5-10% develop cardiovascular problems.  The panelists also confirmed that often times, when patients present with symptoms of chronic illness such as M.S., Lupus, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and many others, practitioners should be looking deeper, as such symptoms may actually be the manifestation of Lyme disease and its co-infections.  As discussed previously on this blog and on the Envita website, conditions such as Fibromyalgia, arthritis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s, as well as some 350 different diseases, have symptoms similar to Lyme disease.  Known as “the great imitator,” the total number of symptoms associated with Lyme disease can total around 100.  Lyme disease was first identified in 1975 as the cause of an epidemic of arthritis occurring near Old Lyme, Connecticut.  Lyme disease is now known to be a complex multi-system disease that results from the immunologic response to infection with the tick-borne spirochete bacteria called Borrelia burgdorfei.

The links between Lyme disease and resulting chronic illness were discussed by the panel.  An emphasis was placed on the range of co-infections that are attendant to the disease.  These co-infections can range from bacterial, to viral, to protozoan.  Testing for and treatment of these co-infections must necessarily be as specialized and aggressive as that of the Borrelia bacteria itself.  Lyme and its various co-infections can result in widespread chronic inflammation, causing a recipe for breakdown in the body.  Also discussed was the role that fibrin can play in the progression of the disease.  The infections associated with Lyme disease can actually cause damage to blood vessel walls, leading to deposits of fibrin anywhere there is injury.  Deposits of fibrin can lead to a decrease in blood flow, resulting in less oxygen and fewer nutrients being circulated through the body.  This, in turn, can lead to the development of chronic degenerative disease.

The role of immunological markers was also explored.  Chronic Lyme infections are known to suppress the immune system, and the Lyme bacteria can affect all major cell types of the immune system, but it especially affects a subset of immune cells called CD-57.  The ability to measure counts of CD-57 cells is a relatively new breakthrough in Lyme treatment and is gaining popularity among Lyme-literate physicians.  Cell counts can be used to determine how active the infection is, how well the treatment is working, and even whether a relapse is likely to occur after treatment has ended.  CD-57 counts are even being used to validate that Chronic Lyme Disease is an active infection, contrary to what some in the medical community (and insurance companies) have argued.

Other cutting-edge discoveries were discussed, including the role of biofilm in the progression and resistance of Lyme Disease.  One of the panelists included Dr. Stephen E. Fry, M.D., a Lyme researcher for over 14 years and a leading pioneer in the area of biofilm.  Biofilm is best described as a “slime matrix” (think Ghost Busters) that coats the Lyme bacteria and its coinfections, making these pathogens very resistant to treatment, including antibiotics.  This sticky slime is made up of diverse single-celled microbes that adhere to one another and form complex community structures.  Once these pathogens colonize, the biofilm grows by cell division and recruitment.  The biofilm’s sticky protective coating weakens the patient’s immune system while shielding the Lyme pathogens, and can even facilitate communication among these micro-organisms through biochemical signals.  Biofilms even have the capability of developing “water channels” that distribute nutrients among the pathogens in the biofilm.  Latest treatment techniques are centered around finding ways to “strip” this biofilm so that antibiotics and other treatments can reach and destroy the pathogens. 

Dr. Korn also had an opportunity at the conference to share the success Envita has been having using a unique, integrative Lyme disease protocol and innovative biofilm-stripping techniques.

The fact remains that the medical community’s understanding of Lyme disease is still progressing.  As we are learning more and more about the disease and the manifold ways it can affect the body, its complexity is becoming even more apparent.  But the good news is that many in the medical community are starting to realize that their patients’ ability to return to health depends upon practitioners’ willingness to learn as much as possible and look beyond a collection of symptoms to the imitator hiding beneath.  This realization is no small matter considering that it is estimated that anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000 Americans contract the disease yearly.  This number is greater than the number of cases of AIDS, West Nile Virus, and the Avian Flu combined.  Lyme disease is the most common insect-borne disease in America and is one of the fastest growing infectious diseases in the country.       

April 3rd, 2009 | Tags: biofilm, lyme disease and chronic illness, lyme disease conference | Category: Lyme Disease | Comments (6)

Last month, over 600 health professionals convened in Washington, D.C. for 3 days for the “Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public.”  Never before has there been a gathering of this sort.  It was called a “watershed meeting” and a “historic” moment.  The purpose of the Summit was to “advance the science, understanding and progress of integrative medicine.”  The Summit brought together researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and leaders from both the traditional and non-traditional medical fields.

Discussions at the Summit centered around many issues and themes previously discussed on this blog, including: the need to first develop an agreed upon model for integration; limitations of scientific methodologies in measuring “effectiveness” when it comes to certain non-traditional treatment modalities; the need for agreement on what robust evidence is in the world of integrative medicine; reimbursement considerations; the need for more patient-centered care; the value of the principles of naturopathic medicine, which include treating the whole person and addressing the root causes of illness.

The limitations of the current healthcare system were discussed, as well as solutions for improving it.  Almost every speaker, whether from the traditional or alternative medical field, spoke about how the current system is focused solely on “disease care,” instead of on health care.  Traditional doctors spoke about how they are facing epidemic proportions of individuals suffering from chronic diseases, such as heart disease, but that their tool kits seem inadequate to address the problem.  They talked about how their training is limited to offering a set of drugs or surgeries, which can help with some acute problems, but they do not solve them.  One speaker described the traditional reactive treatment approach as continuously mopping up the floor instead of just turning off the sink.  Many speakers addressed the need for a more preventative and individualized approach to care and the need to empower patients to take a more active role in their health.  Several medical practitioners and researchers highlighted the proven effectiveness of various alternative medical approaches to the treatment of chronic diseases, and how these approaches could benefit patients.

Other speakers addressed the practical issues regarding how to integrate medical professionals and the need for multi-disciplinary/inter-professional education.  One of the more challenging aspects of integrating healthcare will be getting practitioners to talk to one another and collaborate with one another.  Many in the medical profession have not embraced the idea of integrative medicine.  It is still seen by many to be negative instead of additive.  Reaching out and educating these individuals on the benefits of integration will likely be met with much resistance.  For those doctors who are interested in collaborating and integrating with practitioners from other fields, a model will have to be developed for ensuring that doctors in both the traditional and non-traditional fields are competent, conversant, and educated in integrative medicine, including when to refer and who to refer to.

Ultimately, the success or failure of the integration of medicine will depend upon the type of healthcare reform that happens.  Some speakers at the conference saw the answer in the universal healthcare model, which is a model that we have advocated against on this blog for various reasons.  Giving the government more centralized control over the medical model and the practice of medicine is not the way to go about integrating healthcare, and it will do more harm than good when it comes to the quality of care afforded to patients, as well as alternative medicine’s ability to grow and thrive.      

But while not every suggestion was a good one or a viable one, the value was not so much in what was said, but in the fact that the Summit happened in the first place.  The value and significance of the Summit lie in the fact that the medical community is responding to and listening to its patients.  More and more patients are going outside of traditional medicine for their healthcare.  They are seeking the less-invasive, more proactive, individualized, patient-centered approach to care, which is the hallmark of alternative medicine.  Patients have taken it upon themselves to integrate their own medical care, and now the caregivers are finally listening and attempting to work with one another. 

It is uncertain what will happen from here.  There is a long way to go before non-traditional medicine is recognized and accepted as valuable in its own right, before its benefits are fully understood and utilized by traditional medical professionals, before patient care is better coordinated among health professionals, before there is a paradigm shift in our approach to healthcare and the way we treat the human person, and before a coherent, feasible, and well-designed integrative model is established.  But at least the conversation is beginning to happen.

If you are interested in watching the web cast of the event, you can access it through the Institute of Medicine’s website.

March 20th, 2009 | Category: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In our last blog entry, we began discussion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that President Obama recently signed, and the impact it could have on healthcare freedom of choice.  This week, we continue analysis of the stimulus package as it specifically relates to alternative medicine.

The Future of Alternative Medicine

Assuming we are moving towards government-controlled healthcare and the NHS/NICE model, as we discussed in our last blog entry, what will the future look like for alternative medicine? 

First, we have to be realistic as to what treatments will be assessed and approved by the government as part of the comparative effectiveness research conducted by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (“the Council”).  Will natural and alternative therapies even be included for testing in the Council’s scheme?  Or will only “accepted” conventional therapies be tested?  If natural and alternative therapies are tested, how will they be tested?  Don’t forget that in addition to “appropriateness,” the Council will also be examining “clinical outcomes” and “effectiveness” of treatments.  In our series on insurance coverage of natural medicine posted on this blog, we have already discussed the issue of effectiveness research of natural and alternative therapies.  In that series, we pointed out how the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy (WHCCAMP) has identified several issues preventing insurance coverage of alternative therapies, including the fact that there is a lack of evidence supporting their “medical effectiveness.” 

But as we pointed out in our insurance segment, to say that more research is needed on the effectiveness of alternative therapies is an over-simplification of the issue and does not even begin to address the underlying practical and theoretical problems involved.  Aside from the economic barrier that currently prevents widespread research on the effectiveness of alternative medicine, there is also the problem that no universal theoretical model exists as to how to integrate alternative therapies with conventional ones.  Before the research process could even begin, practitioners and Council researchers would have to sit down and reach a consensus on which therapies should even be included as the subject of research for treatment of a particular condition, and how such therapies would be integrated with conventional treatments for that particular condition, which would be no easy task. 

That leads us to the next logical question regarding effectiveness research of natural and alternative medicine- who will design the studies?  And importantly, how will effectiveness be measured?  Which research methodologies will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative treatments?  While the classic evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment focuses on “response,” or alterations in physical condition, this marker can ignore the serious impairment that such treatments can have on patients’ quality of life or even length of life, such as with cancer treatment, for example.  In contrast, alternative medicine often places equal emphasis on the total effect that treatments have on patients, including patient comfort, functionality, energy, sleep quality, pain, and mood.  Would the criteria used to assess the effectiveness of conventional medicine be expanded to include alternative medicine’s criteria regarding quality and length of life?  Or would alternative treatments, which often operate from a different clinical paradigm, be squeezed into a conventional model in determining which treatments are “effective”?  And then, of course, there are the political considerations of whether alternative therapies are “appropriate” methods of treating various conditions. 

If natural or alternative treatments are not included in effectiveness research, or if they fail the comparative effectiveness research standards that the Council will set, what will happen to the availability of natural medicine?  Will a doctor no longer be able to prescribe a chiropractic adjustment instead of the approved and “effective” pharmaceutical drug or surgical intervention?  What will that mean when it comes to malpractice determinations?  A centralized healthcare decision-making body that determines the type and availability of care for diseases will mean that the government is inevitably determining the minimum standards of care.  If a naturopath is hauled before his medical board, will he be outside the standard of care for not prescribing what the government has decided is appropriate treatment for various conditions?  What about clinics that work in an integrated setting and utilize both traditional and natural treatments?  They straddle the standard of care in two or more industry settings.  If they are held to the standards issued by the Council, it could be the end of integrated practice settings. 

Lack of freedom of choice in healthcare is bad for patients, and it’s bad for natural and alternative medicine.  As Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former advisor to the National Institute of Health, asks, under a universal healthcare system, “What kind of healthcare will we be getting?  More pharmaceutical drugs pushed on the public.  More conventional medicine.  More conventional cancer treatments that kill more people than they cure?  Is that the kind of medical system you want?… Because that’s exactly what you are going to get.”  (2)  Natural medicine will be out in the cold.  And if healthcare is determined and controlled by a government that will mandate conventional medicine, there is even more of dividing line between the clearly dominant insider and the rapidly diminishing outsider.  Natural medicine will be the latter.

As Mr. Chowka writes, “All of these changes will no longer allow for the relative clinical freedom and autonomy that have been the hallmarks of alternative medicine since its inception decades ago.  Uncountable numbers of innovative clinical practices will be shrouded in fear and paranoia because what the providers are doing clinically might lack official ‘evidence’ or ‘approval’- and the providers will know this and most of them will act accordingly.”  (2)  For those who want to employ alternative methods, “their hands will be tied and their clinical options severely limited…As an all-powerful, centralized payment and regulatory system kicks in, with its electronic medical records that will monitor every interaction with a patient, and its provisos that will not cover or will outlaw treatments and therapies not coded and approved by government…” alternative practitioners could become an endangered species.  (2)

Even the alternative looks bleak.  And perhaps even more so.  Consider what will happen if alternative medicine is included in the approved treatment list.  According to Mr. Chowka, that could be even worse.  Ever since the government entered the alternative medicine setting in 1991 with the Office of Alternative Medicine and in 1998 with the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the field has taken a hit.  These governmental bodies have “stifled creativity,” “channeled alt med’s thriving progress into bureaucratic quagmires, and ultimately made primary alternative therapies go out of fashion and become much less available.”  (3)  And that was before the government took over all of medicine.

But the world of alternative medicine has largely been on the wrong side of the debate when it comes to government-controlled healthcare.  In part, this support on behalf of the alternative medical community for a move towards universal healthcare seems to stem from naivety and an assumption that alternative medicine will have a seat at the table.

The Board of Directors of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians wrote a long article endorsing President Obama that appeared in the Naturopaths for Obama membership blog area on the Obama-Biden website.  The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine similarly just published an editorial by Daniel Redwood endorsing President Obama and universal healthcare. (4)  Mr. Redwood is operating under a grave misconception, as he recommends that in this nationalized system, “practitioners of all types must become conversant with the full range of health care approaches (both conventional and CAM) available in the US healthcare system.”  (4)  He says that referrals should be made by conventional doctors to CAM practitioners, and vice versa.  (4)  And “[w]ide-ranging knowledge and mutual respect must be our watchwords.” (4) He also is hopeful that under the Obama administration, chiropractors will enjoy full inclusion into the medical system.  (4)  What Mr. Redwood doesn’t realize is that if the Council’s comparative effectiveness research moves towards Daschle’s vision and the model described by the House of Representatives in their discussion draft, there will only be referrals being made to alternative practitioners to the extent their treatments pass the “appropriateness” and “clinical effectiveness” criteria.  That could end up being none at all.

To see a glimpse of the future of alternative medicine under a state-run health care system, we have only to look to Massachusetts.  In 2007, Massachusetts initiated mandating conventional healthcare insurance.  Not surprisingly, alternative medicine has been given little attention in this scheme. (5)  Alternative medicine now exists in Massachusetts in a very watered-down condition.  And as Mr. Chowka points out, even if it was incorporated into mandated healthcare, natural medicine as a true alternative to conventional medicine would no longer exist. (5)  It would play a very minor and complementary role.  The progression of the field will stop.  Natural medicine as a viable and thriving alternative would cease to exist.

That is indeed change to fear.

So what can you do to protect your healthcare choices?  We will be exploring that issue in future blog entries.

References:

(1)  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009

(2)  Chowka, Peter Barry.  “Out of the Fog: Health Care ‘Reform’ 2009 Becoming Clearer.”  December 1, 2008.  Available through naturalhealthline.com.

(3) Chowka, Peter Barry.  “Election 2008 and the Possible End of Alternative Medicine.”  November 1, 2008.  Available through naturalhealthline.com.

(4) Redwood, Daniel.  Editorial: The Health Reform Moment: Peril and Possibility in the Obama Era.  The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2009; 15(1): 1-3.

(5) Chowka, Peter Barry.  Alternative Medicine’s End Times Ahead or The End of the Road for Alternative Medicine?  November 15, 2008.  Available through naturalhealthline.com.

March 2nd, 2009 | Category: Healthcare Reform | Leave a comment

On February 17, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Many are asking whether this is a down payment on universal healthcare.  If so, what is the future of healthcare in America, including that of natural and alternative medicine?

Buried in this legislative monstrosity are two provisions that could have far-reaching consequences on access and availability to natural medicine and other alternative therapies specifically, and on freedom of choice in healthcare generally. 

In this blog entry, we will address freedom of choice in healthcare.  In the next entry, we will address the future of alternative medicine.

Comparative Effectiveness Research and Electronic Health Records

Under the Act, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has now been created.  The Council’s purpose has yet to be meaningfully explained.  The description in the Act only states that the Council shall “foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research” “with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.”  (1)

In a separate portion of the Act, it specifies that $700 million has been allocated for this “comparative effectiveness research” with an additional $400 million made available for such research at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  What is this research for?

According to the Act, such research will be conducted by the government to assess and compare “the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat disease, disorders, and other health conditions…”  In other words, the government now has the authority to make official determinations as to the effectiveness of medical treatments and devices.  This research will also be used to develop “clinical registries” and “clinical data networks.”  It is unclear what these registries and networks will be used for other than housing “outcomes data.”

Also in the Act is a section dealing with the promotion of health information technology.  Under the Act, the National Coordinator of the Office of Health Information and Technology is charged with seeing to it that every person in the United States has an electronic health record by 2014.  These electronic health records would be used for many purposes, including data collection, “biosurveillance,” and to facilitate the “continuity of care.” 

Combining comparative effectiveness research with electronic health records can open up the door to government interference in the doctor-patient relationship, the ability of the government to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians, and less freedom of choice in healthcare decisions for patients.

It is no secret that the Obama administration is pro- centralized healthcare decision-making, and President Obama himself supports a single-payer system.  We only have to look to Tom Daschle, President Obama’s original pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services to see the direction in which we may be headed.  While Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, his concepts echo in the current administration’s moves toward government-controlled healthcare.  In Daschle’s book Critical: What we can do about the health-care crisis, he promotes the formation of a Federal Health Board, which would carryout cost-effectiveness research.  Its recommendations would be mandatory for federal health programs.  While that would initially affect only enrollees in government health programs, Daschle proposes that Congress could link the tax exclusion for health insurance that complies with its recommendations.  In other words, in the private sector, not complying with the Board’s recommendations could lead to severe tax penalties.  In practice, as Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former advisor to the National Institute of Health, points out, this would probably be the end of the independent private-sector healthcare in America, as no health insurance would be sold if it was denied the tax deduction. (2)  As a result, “every policy, every standard decided by this board would be the law of the land for every drug company, every hospital, every doctor, every health insurance company.”  (2) 

In Daschle’s scenario, the Federal Health Board would be akin to the National Health Service (NHS) in England, a group which Daschle applauds. (3)  As is necessary when dealing with nationalized, single payer healthcare systems (which President Obama favors), healthcare must be rationed to citizens based on the budget.  In England, this means that the NHS rations through long waiting lists and omission of treatment.  (3)  First, take it from someone who’s lived there: When it comes to waiting lists, by the time you’re able to see a doctor and receive treatment, in most cases, the illness has either healed on its own, or you’re already dead.  Omission of treatment is another problem.  The NHS is funded by the Department of Health and researches the cost, effectiveness, and impact of health technologies.  The British government has also now set up the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which issues formal guidance on the use of new and existing medicines based on rigid economic and clinical formulas that determine the cost-effectiveness of treatments.  The NHS is bound by the NICE’s pronouncements.  The criteria used by the NICE to make its economic decisions is a secret to the public.  In 2001, the NICE stopped patients suffering from multiple sclerosis from receiving certain treatment that was helping them.  (3)  NICE told those suffering that the cost of the medicine was too high, and it was jeopardizing the efficacy of the system. (3)  In 2006, elderly patients with macular degeneration were told they had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly drug to save the other eye.  (4)  In August of 2008, kidney cancer patients were denied access to treatments that could have prolonged their lives significantly, and patients with rheumatoid arthritis were told they will not have access to a sequential range of medicines if the first one doesn’t work.  (3)  Similar devastating proclamations were made for patients with breast cancer, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s.  (3)  Their medications were just too expensive, and according to the criteria used by the NICE, those medications did not deliver enough bang for the buck. 

As Daschle says in his book, if this model is adopted in the United States, “Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to the alternatives.”  (2)  But too bad for them. 

So where do the health reform provisions buried in this stimulus package fall on the spectrum of the government-controlled healthcare scenario?  Are we headed toward Daschle’s vision and the NHS/NICE?

In the Discussion Draft of the Act, the House of Representatives said that the comparative effectiveness research would be used to eliminate certain procedures and treatments.  In the words of the House report, “those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.” (emphasis added) (5) Such language seems to lay the ground work for a cost-effectiveness system of healthcare rationing.  In the Senate version of the bill, however, mention of cost was removed.  But in the final version that President Obama signed, a different word was added: “appropriateness.”  The Council will be examining the “clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness” of treatments, devices, and procedures that are used to treat various health conditions.  If you ask me, the word “appropriate” is even more dangerous than an analysis of cost.  “Appropriateness” is vague indeed, and it’s the sort of word that provides a blank check for the government, handing it unbridled discretion and the ability to make decisions that are not based on clear, open, or well-delineated guidelines or precepts.   “Appropriate” can mean a whole host of different things, cost-effectiveness being only one of them.  What is appropriate when it comes to healthcare?  And who’s deciding- the 15-member panel made up of senior officers and employees from various branches of government, as the Act specifies?  Shouldn’t the “appropriateness” of any treatment be left up to the individual treating doctor and the patient?

As it turns out, the final version of the Act contains a provision that says the Council’s reports and recommendations “shall not be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.”  But then what will the billion dollars worth of research be used for?  What does “reducing duplicative efforts” and “encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources” mean in practice?  At some point, even those euphemistically-described purposes have to result in some sort of decision-making about the type and availability of care that is offered. 

One has to ask whether this is the Obama administration’s down payment on universal healthcare.  These could be the first steps towards such as system.  It is not clear what the role of the Council will be in the end.  If we are headed towards Daschle’s vision, there is reason to be worried.  What we will end up with is “committee medicine.”  Healthcare will be rationed based on cost-effectiveness (or “appropriateness”) and patients will be told what kind of care they can receive.  Thanks to the electronic health system, the computer will tell the doctors what treatments to prescribe (i.e. those that passed the comparative effectiveness test), and compliance will be tracked through the electronic health records.  It is likely that your doctor could face penalties for going outside of the electronically delivered protocols to use experimental treatments or address an atypical condition.  Personalized medicine will be a thing of the past.  It will be one-size-fits all approach to healthcare with little freedom of choice for doctors and patients alike.  Even such things as immunizations could be monitored and easily enforced.

In our next blog entry, we will be discussing the specific impact that these changes could have on alternative medicine.

References:

(1)  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009

(2)  Chowka, Peter Barry.  “Out of the Fog: Health Care ‘Reform’ 2009 Becoming Clearer.”  December 1, 2008.  Available through naturalhealthline.com.

(3)  Evans, Helen.  Comparative Effectiveness in Health Care Reform: Lessons from Abroad.  Backgrounder.  No. 2239.  February 4, 2009.

(4) McCaughey, Betsy.  “Ruin Your Health with the Obama Stimulus Plan.”  February 9, 2009.  Available through Bloomberg.com.

(5) House Discussion Draft

February 20th, 2009 | Tags: American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 and alte, healthcare freedom of choice, obama and alternative medicine, peter barry chowka, stimulus package and alternative medicine, universal healthcare and alternative medicine | Category: Healthcare Reform | Comments (2)

Jenny McCarthy has authored two phenomenal books about autism.  These books are the perfect complement to Dr. Weissman’s series on vaccinations. 

In her first book, Louder than Words, Jenny chronicles Evan’s (her son) devastating diagnosis and struggle with autism.  Reading her story is literally heartbreaking.  She is just starting out her journey discovering the research relating autism to vaccinations.  And she describes how Evan’s seizures and medical/behavioral problems began shortly after his MMR shot.  But the connection between vaccinations and autism is more of a background discussion in her book.  The book is more about her journey in trying to pull Evan through what she describes as the “window” and get him out of the world of autism.  What’s tough to read is that it is a journey that Jenny really had to walk on her own.  Because most in the medical community are not yet speaking about the possible causes of autism and the natural, effective ways to treat it, parents are basically on their own when it comes to helping their kids.  They are left to research in the “university of Google,” as Jenny calls it, and to talk to other parents.  As a result, Jenny has made sure to fill the book with great information on diet, biomedical therapies, the importance of the immune system, the role of infections, and other knowledge that parents of autistic children should have in their arsenal.  For example, she describes the astounding and radical beneficial effects of putting her son on a gluten-free, casein-free diet.  Jenny also provides some shocking statistics, such as that in the seventies, one in ten thousand children were autistic.  Today, one in a hundred and fifty are autistic. It is the fastest growing developmental disease, with a child being diagnosed every 20 minutes.  She ends the book in her “What to Do Phamphlet” by gently discussing a “possible” link between vaccinations and autism, and suggesting that it is good for parents to be aware of the dialogue on the issue.   

          But by the time she writes Mother Warriors, Jenny is a mother on a serious mission.  She has had some time to process and cope with her son’s autism, and now she is ready to get down to the cause of it and spread the message.  Even the dedication does not dance around her intentions: “Our voices will shake the ground of those who were responsible until all of our children our safe from harm.”  She tackles vaccinations head on. 

The foreword to Mother Warriors is written by Jay N. Gordon, M.D., FAAP, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical Center, Former Senior Fellow in Pediatric Nutrition, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute.  Dr. Gordon’s credentials are not exactly lacking.  And what he has to say is astounding.  For example, Dr. Gordon explains how the acknowledged toxic dose of aluminum for a baby is 20 micrograms, but the amount of aluminum found in the hepatitis B vaccine given on the day of birth is 250 micrograms.  Dr. Gordon describes how, at two months of age, this same infant could receive immunizations containing as much as 1,875 micrograms of aluminum.  (pg. xvi).  And to top it off, Dr. Gordon reminds us that no studies have been done on the ability of infants to rapidly excrete this amount of toxic substance from their bodies.  He concludes that “evidence has existed for years that aluminum in amounts this large is harmful to humans.  We can only guess what harm we might be causing to babies with these huge overdoes of aluminum.”  (pg. xvi).  And aluminum is just one of the toxins in vaccines.

Dr. Gordon states unequivocably, “Vaccines can cause autism” (pg. xiii).  Worse yet, he points out the Amercian Academy of Pediatrics is “far too involved with the pharmaceutical industry to actually do anything but pay lip service to an open discussion [about the connection].  The CDC and AAP are filled with doctors whose research, speaking engagements, and travel are often funded by the manufacturers of vaccines.  Many of these same doctors are paid consultants, and some later go to work full-time for the pharmaceutical industry.”  (pg. xiv).  He also discusses how the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (dubbed the “vaccine court”) is currently considering the claims of nearly 5,000 families whose children developed autism after vaccinations, and the vaccine court is beginning to issue awards to these families. 

Dr. Gordon discusses how concerned he is over the tremendous increase in the rates of autism and related disorders over the past decade.  There are also other factors that could be contributing to the rise in autism statistics (such as undiagnosed infections), but as Dr. Gordon states, “the truth is that we have to look much harder at what happens when we directly and repeatedly inject toxic material into babies, toddlers, and children.  The benefits for most healthy children are easily matched or outweighed by the risks of the immunization schedule used by almost all pediatricians.  Some of our vaccines have outlived their usefulness in the United States and elsewhere, and others need reformulation to make them safer for those families who want their children to receive them.”  (pg. xvii). 

Jenny asks how bad it will have to get before “everyone start[s] listening to what the mothers of children who have autism have been saying for years, which is…We vaccinated our baby and SOMETHING happened.  SOMETHING happened.” (pg. 8).  As Jenny points out, part of the problem is that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) treats vaccines as if they are a “one-size-fits-all” and are administered at the same rate to all children no matter what the state of their immune system or their biological make-up.  A baby with a healthy immune system might be able to process and handle a toxic overload of a particular substance and come through it alright, but another baby who has a pre-existing immune deficiency might not.  No tests are done to protect the latter infant.  They are put on the same vaccination schedule as the healthy infant.  Jenny’s parting words are powerful and profound: “How many times have medications come on the market, deemed safe, and then pulled off the market owing to major side effects?  Are we to believe that ALL thirty-six vaccinations given now are ALL safe with no side effects?  Give me a break.  Are we supposed to buy the fact that these shots are one-size-fits-all?  Or that every child is born with a perfect immune system?  Wake the hell up, America, and think hard about the logic in this.  In the meantime, I hope mothers across America will join me in our fight to change this insane vaccination schedule and demand that they GREEN our vaccines.  Take the crap out!  Enough is enough.”  (pg. 215).

Mother Warriors is made up of the stories of numerous parents whose children developed autism after having received their vaccinations.  Their experiences are devastating but their strength and determination are inspiring.  Especially harrowing is the experience of one mother, who’s four-month old son, Elias, began seizing the night after he was given his vaccination shots.  They took him to the hospital and he was in the ICU for 3 days.  When he was finally discharged, the statements the parents had made to the emergency room staff and the doctors that their son had just had his vaccinations and they thought he was experiencing a reaction to them, never showed up on any paperwork.  Nowhere was it stated that he had a vaccine reaction.  Instead, this mother describes how the doctors did such a good job of convincing her that there was no correlation between the two, that she actually went ahead and vaccinated her son again.  This time, Elias immediately began seizing.  He seized forty-five times thereafter during his first year of life.  He was then diagnosed with autism when he failed to reach his developmental milestones.  Then, Elias woke up one morning with a sore throat and a fever.  He went into such a state of uncontrollable seizes that the doctors could not stabilize him, and he died shortly thereafter.  This is just one parent’s story among many in Jenny’s book. 

But these books are also ultimately stories of hope.  Jenny and the other brave parents have found that it is possible to help kids heal from autism, and they are determined to help other parents do the same.

          These two books are must-reads for parents, especially those who are skeptical about the link between autism and vaccinations.  They also are a must-read for parents of children who already have autism. 

Jenny’s Books:

McCarthy, Jenny.  Louder than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism.  Penguin Books, 2007.

McCarthy, Jenny.  Mother Warriors: A Nation of Parents Healing Autism Against All Odds. Penguin Books, 2008.

January 30th, 2009 | Tags: Jenny McCarthy, louder than words, mother warriors | Category: Book Review, Childhood Vaccinations | Comments (1)

Every so often we like to invite guest authors to contribute articles on certain topics.  We are very pleased to have Marc Weissman, D.C., as our guest author for the next few weeks.  Dr. Weissman will be writing a five-part series on the highly controversial and critically important topic of childhood vaccinations.  Dr. Weissman has been studying this issue for sometime.  He has extensively examined literature on the subject and has presented his work in an educational seminar.  Dr. Weissman was awarded the Doctor of Chiropractic degree, magna cum laude, from Life University in 1998.  He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology and Chemistry from the State University of New York, College at Oneonta.  He is Board Certified to practice Chiropractic as well as physiologic therapeutics.  He is also a certified member of the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association.  Dr. Weissman has attended numerous seminars in the field of chiropractic technique and annually attends post-graduate courses to stay current on the latest diagnostic and treatment procedures. Additionally, he has taught seminars to Chiropractic students preparing for the National Board. His clinical emphasis is on increasing the overall quality of life for adults as well as children through gentle chiropractic adjustments.  Dr. Weissman is the owner and president of Mercado Chiropractic in Scottsdale, Arizona.  The information contained within Dr. Weissman’s blog can be purchased from Koren Publications.  Please visit http://www.korenpublications.com/ for more information. 

At this point in my discussion on vaccines, most people start to realize that they have concerns or reservations about vaccinating their children or themselves. In this last and final section of this five part series on vaccines I would like to answer one of the most common questions that I get from parents.  Most often, parents will ask me “What can I do to make sure my child is protected, without actually vaccinating them?”. I think what people are asking is what they can do to ensure that their bodies or the bodies of their children are working optimally. When a parent asks me a question like this, I know they are now thinking clearly and are ready to hear the information I am about to present to you.

Are there benefits to acute illness?

Do childhood diseases, and acute (sudden) diseases in general, serve a purpose?  The Hygienic (Empirical or Vitalistic) school, which dates back thousands of years, has always looked upon symptoms as the body’s way of detoxifying and cleansing.

Hippocrates, known as “The father of Medicine” said “Diseases are crises of purification, of toxic elimination. Symptoms are the natural defenses of the body. We call them diseases, but in fact they are the cure of diseases.” Hippocrates held the belief that the body must be treated as a whole and not just a series of parts. He accurately described disease symptoms and was the first physician to accurately describe the symptoms of pneumonia, as well as epilepsy in children. He believed in the natural healing process of rest, a good diet, fresh air and cleanliness. He noted that there were individual differences in the severity of disease symptoms and that some individuals were better able to cope with their disease and illness than others. He was also the first physician that held the belief that thoughts ideas, and feelings come from the brain and not the heart as others of his time believed.  He founded a medical school on the island of Cos, Greece and began teaching his ideas. He soon developed an Oath of Medical Ethics for physicians to follow. This Oath is taken by physicians today as they begin their medical practice. He died in 377 BC.

“Physical, emotional and intellectual growth spurts are often observed after a child has experienced an acute infectious disease. Dr. Philip Incao expresses this very well in the following:

“One of the best ways to ensure your children’s health is to allow them to get sick. At first hearing, this concept may sound outrageous. Yet childhood illnesses, such as measles, mumps, and even whooping cough, may be of key benefit to a child’s developing immune system and it may be inadvisable to suppress these illnesses with immunizations. Evidence is also accumulating that routine childhood vaccinations may directly contribute to the emergence of chronic problems such as eczema, ear infections, asthma, and bowel inflammations.” Philip Incao, MD.

“Philip Incao, MD writes, lectures and practices anthroposophic medicine.  He is presently located in Boulder, Colorado.  When patients call him and say, “My child has a fever” he says, “wonderful.”  He tells parents to keep the child comfortable and not to give any products with sugar or dairy, and stay away from wheat.  Chiropractors would, of course, add a spinal adjustment so the child is unsubluxated and is therefore better able to fight infections and keep their body healthy.”

“Contracting and overcoming childhood diseases are part of a developmental process that actually helps develop a healthy, robust, adult immune system able to meet the challenges that inevitable encounters with viruses and bacteria will present later on.” Coulter HL. Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain. Washington, DC: Center for Empirical Medicine. 1990.

The messages of these great visionaries and teachers are being revealed today in the medical research.  Did you know that if you allow your child to get sick and heal naturally you are actually lowering their risk for cancer?

“This study investigates the hypothesis that febrile infectious childhood diseases(FICDs) are associated with a lower cancer risk in adulthood…The study consistently revealed a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of FICD.” Albonico HU, Braker HU, Husler J. Febrile infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls. Medical Hypotheses. 1998;51(4):315-320.

The association between…infectious diseases and cancer risk was investigated. [Those with] carcinomas of the stomach, colon, rectum, breast, and ovary…were interviewed. A history of common colds or gastro-enteric influenza prior to the interview was found to be associated with a decreased cancer risk. Abel U, Becker N, Angerer R et al. Common infections in the history of cancer patients and controls. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1991;117(4); 339-44. In this study, it was found that those who had colds and flu had less breast, colon, rectum, stomach and ovarian cancer.  Again, colds and the flu help the body cleanse toxins. Regarding the flu shot, world famous immunogeneticist Hugh Fudenberg, MD says that if you get five consecutive flu shots, your chance of getting Alzheimer’s Disease is ten times higher.” 

Dr. Viera Scheibner has studied over 100,000 pages of scientific papers on vaccination and has concluded that vaccinations are an assault on a child’s immature immune system and should be discontinued.  She writes:

“There is no need to protect children from contracting infectious diseases of childhood. These diseases are there to prime and mature their immune system…chronic ill-health, colds, otitis media, and upper and lower respiratory tract diseases are well-documented in vaccinated children.”

“A well-nourished child will go through rubella, whooping cough, chicken pox and the rest with flying colors.” Scheibner V. Immunization: The Medical Assault on the Immune System. Blackheath, Australia: Author, 1993; xxii.

“[Vaccination] subverts the immune response, the ability to clear that virus. The rash is the body’s eradication of the virus.  If you do not have a typical measles rash you are not invoking an adequate cellular immune response…measles [may] persist in the body…children who do not develop the rash…have an excess risk of delayed mortality.” Andrew Wakefield, MD NVIC Conference, November 7-9 2002, Arlington, VA.

Is the dramatic increase in chronic illness such as allergies, asthma, arthritis, learning disorders, dyslexia, multiple sclerosis, lupus, skin conditions, diabetes, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, autism, rheumatoid arthritis, seizure disorders, Crohn’s and cancer due to vaccination?

For hundreds of years natural healers have warned us that symptoms serves a purpose, to expel toxins, to cleanse the body, to externalize disease.  When we suppress symptoms such as fever, rash, vomiting, diarrhea, aches and pains with drugs and vaccines we are preventing the body from eliminating toxins.  The result appears to be chronic or long-standing disease which we never get rid of – we’re always sick.

Dr. J. Anthony Morris was Chief Control Officer of the FDA. He was fired the day after making this statement:

“There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good.”

His firing served as a warning to others working for the FDA and other government agencies: if they questioned vaccinations they could look for another job.  He fought and get his job back. He later criticized President Ford’s swine flu vaccination program, saying that there was no swine flu coming and the flu vaccine was very dangerous.  He was right on both counts, but lost his job again after saying it.

There are vaccine exemptions in every state. Unfortunately most health department officials, school officials and medical offices don’t know the law and try to intimidate or coerce parents into vaccinating their children.  They almost never discuss adverse reactions, telling the parents that the vaccines are perfectly safe or the only reaction may be a sore arm, slight fever or fussiness. That is untrue, but in their defense, have been taught that vaccines are very safe and reactions are exceeding rare. Also they are usually untrained to recognize vaccine damage and therefore are unable to report it.

The Foundation for Health Choice, www.foundationforhealthchoice.com is currently fighting for healthcare freedom to change laws to permit everyone to have the freedom to “just say no” to all drugs.

Vaccine Liberation organization: http://www.vaclib.org/pdf/exemption.htm

National Vaccine Information Center:

http://www.909shot.com/Issues/state%20exemptions.htm

Foundation For Health Choice www.foundationforhealthchoice.com

So how do we ensure that our children’s bodies are working optimally so that they can sustain an illness and get through it with flying colors?  The following list is pretty self explanatory.  I will take a few moments to explain some in greater detail.

1. Clean Fresh Water
2. Healthy Foods
3. Healthy emotions/stress management
4. Exercise
5. Weather the Storm
6. Breast Feeding
7. Strengthen Central Nervous System = Chiropractic Care

Water- one of the biggest advances in the elimination of disease is the advances in water treatment.  Clean water is vital to health.  In fact, you can trace the elimination of many diseases with the introduction of sewer systems and water treatments.

Healthy foods-  I know this sounds redundant to a lot of people, but I cannot help getting upset when I see children eating poorly.  Look…soft drinks, white sugar, white flour, cows milk and all the processed crap that goes into our kids bodies will cause many problems.  I can’t stand when I am out in public and I see parent giving their kids soft drinks and junk food.  How about and nice clean drink of water and some fresh fruit?  I’m not saying to totally deny your children, but let’s have some moderation.  Most people understand the axiom with computers, “Garbage in = Garbage out”. Lets apply this to our food!

Healthy Emotions/Stress- We know stress is not healthy.   Why not start our youth early on affirmations, positive thinking and stress management techniques. 

Exercise- don’t we as parents have the responsibility to teach our children how to care for themselves? The human body was meant to move.  If you stop using it, it stops working.  Lets set a good example and get outside with them!  Drop the remote control, drop the ps2, and pick up your hiking shoes or gym bag and get moving! 

Weather the Storm- when my children get sick with a runny nose, fever, cough or whatever they get their nervous systems checked, and get lots of rest.  It’s so easy to get a pill from the doctor. I know, as a parent, how it tears me up inside to see them with a cold and all I have to do is give them some cold remedy and their symptoms will go away.  I have to remind myself that their bodies innate intelligence has all the chemicals it needs to fight off infection without help. And I know they will be healthier as a result.

Breast Feeding- Why do we in this country try so hard to get our kids off of natures perfect nutrition?  Other parts of the world go for 2-4 years while in the U.S. if we go for 6 weeks we think we did a lot. Immunity is passed down from the mother this way. It helps to create a bond between mother and child.   Many parents go to formula because it is easier or because of marketing from formula companies. 

Nervous system- As a chiropractor I have to address this point.  Many people do not even think about how the body works. They just take it for granted.  Your brain is the “Master Control System” of the body. If you stop and think you would realize every single thing in your body is controlled and regulated by the nervous system.  If the nervous system is not functioning properly because of spinal misalignments, then the master controller cannot regulate functions effectively.  It is essential that every person be checked for spinal misalignments to ensure optimal health.

Summary:

1. There is no proof vaccinated children are healthier than non-vaccinated children.
2. There is no proof “benefits” outweigh risks.
3. There is no proof vaccinations are effective.
4. Vaccinations cause illness and disease.
5. There are no long-term safety studies.
6. Vaccines cause crib death (SIDS).
7. Deaths from the diseases were mostly gone before vaccines.
8. Vaccines contain toxins and poisons.
9. Childhood diseases strengthen and mature the immune system.
10. Vaccines are linked to cancer, encephalitis, and autism (ASD).
11. You can legally avoid vaccinations

If you have any questions, comments or have any input please feel free to visit my website at www.mercadochiropractic.com and send me an e-mail.

Marc Weissman, D.C.

Mercado Chiropractic

10135 E. Via Linda

Suite 115

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

(480) 661-7000

mercadochiro@qwest.net

January 13th, 2009 | Category: Childhood Vaccinations | Comments (2)