Sinister Things Afoot in US Medicine
This Week In HealthBeat
Sinister Things Afoot in US Medicine (Dr. Dana Myatt)
- Poor, Poor Pitiful Me! (Why Some People
Will Never Get Well) (Mark Ziemann, R.N.)
- Stevia: A Safe Sweetening Alternative? (Dr.
- Vitamin D Dramatically Lowers Risk
of Breast and Colon Cancer
- Laughter is Good Medicine: Facts to
Sinister Things Afoot in US Medicine
by Dr. Dana Myatt
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the
time will come
when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict
the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to
others: The Constitution of this Republic should make a special
privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
-- Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of the Declaration of Independence
There are sinister things
going on in US medicine, even more ominous than most people know, and the pace
of such skullduggery is accelerating. I'll report more in-depth on these issues
in future editions of HealthBeat News, but let me give you a brief overview of
some of the most damning observations I have made of late.
1.) Medical journal articles that present findings
contradictory to conventional medical views are simply "disappearing" from
public record. At first I though I was imagining things. References in
conventional medical journals, which I and many doctors access on PubMed (a
service of the US government in conjunction with the National Institutes of
Health which serves as a repository for all articles published in peer-reviewed
medical journals around the world), were simply disappearing. That's right---
and article would be there one week and gone the next. Historically, PubMed
lists all medical journal articles published in the last 4 decades. Suddenly, I
am seeing certain of these articles simply "gone." Could I be imagining things?
At a medical conference I attended several weeks ago,
one of the speakers, a world-renowned M.D. researcher in the field of
gynecology, noted from the podium that certain articles previous found on PubMed
were no longer anywhere to be found. Poof --- gone without a trace. In further
conversation with other doctors at the conference, many had noted the same
thing. And the articles "gone missing"? The ones that show medical and research
findings contrary to conventional medical opinion. Keep in mind that in order to
be published in a medical journal the first place, these articles were all "peer
reviewed," meaning that a panel of doctors had examined the research and
conclusions and decided that the article was factually researched and accurately
presented. And now some these articles are being "pulled."
As further proof that there aren't simply a group of
physicians who are paranoid (including yours truly), consider this recent
medical journal "event."
Selectively Presenting Medical Evidence
There is substantial controversy about the safety and
effectiveness of mammograms. The questions raised by a number of medical studies
1) Does mammography really reduce the risk of breast cancer
2) Are mammograms safe?
One mammogram-questioning physician, Peter Gotzsche,
M.D., a researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark, recently presented
a study that found fault with a breast cancer trial which reported a 31 percent
decrease in breast cancer mortality due to mammogram screening. Dr. Gotzsche and
his research team found that a large number of breast cancer deaths in the
original data had mysteriously been left out of the final report. How could this
be? Credible medical researchers never fudge statistics, do they? (Said with
tongue in cheek). Here's where things start to get interesting.
The European Journal of Cancer (EJC), a respected
medical journal, published The Gotzsche study last spring in their online
edition. Three weeks later, the study was gone. Without notice or explanation,
this "previously deemed scientifically worthy" study had simply vanished from
the EJC web site. Dr. Gotzsche wrote an article which appeared in The Lancet
(another prestigious British medical journal), claiming that EJC editors had
removed the study, even though it had been peer reviewed, because of complaints
they received from pro-mammogram doctors. And there is sufficient evidence to
suggest that Dr. Gotzsche was right.
Peter Dean, M.D., who happens to be a professor of
diagnostic radiology at Finland's University of Turku (Think: "professional
mammographer," which is a big part of what a radiologist does), has long been
critical of Gotzsche. Dean has claimed that Gotzche is waging a "nonscientific
personal campaign to discredit breast cancer screening." A magazine called The
Scientist published an article claiming that several strongly worded letters
from Dr. Dean to the EJC were sufficient to get Gotzsche's study removed. Dr.
Gotzsche's comment? "It's terrible to suppress scientific findings."
Who wouldn't agree? Suppression of medical findings from
doctors and patients will keep medicine in the dark ages. I guess it's the price
we pay to keep Big Pharma and Big Medicine in Big Business.
More Ominous Questions
I'll explore my other concerns in future editions of
HealthBeat, but in a nutshell, here is why I fear for the health of America:
2.) Health Freedom: why shouldn't free American
adults be allowed to choose therapies that are non-FDA approved if they are
clear that such treatments haven't gone through the usual FDA drug testing
procedures? (and greased palms, undeclared financial interests, manipulated
statistics and "overlooked" dangers)?
2.) Why will America spend 2.1 trillion dollars this
year on "disease care," yet we rank 24th in the world for lifespan and 87th
in the world for healthspan? (Someone is lying to us about having the best
medical system in the world)
3.) Why are potentially dangerous vaccinations being
mandated by the government on behalf of drug companies, when these vaccines
do NOT protect against infectious diseases? I'm thinking of the travesty of
mandatory vaccination of teenage girls for HPV. So... they're possibly protected
from HPV virus, but unprotected sex still puts them at risk for HIV virus, a
much more dangerous problem. How DARE the government mandate a vaccination for a
problem that is only mildly contagious and dangerous, and is not a disease that
effects the population at large? And will mislead teens into thinking that
unprotected sex is now "safe" because of the vaccination?
5.) Why are lethal drugs "FDA approved" while
non-toxic treatments are being outlawed?
6.) How come Americans don't have access to honest
information and statistics about treatments, only the FDA approved "spin"
pushed by Big Pharma?
7.) Why is the US aligning itself with the rest of
the world in the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS instead of remaining at the forefront of
freedom, health and otherwise? (The Bible talks about a "One World Government"
as being the "Mark of the Beast" and the downfall of the free world. It's in our
back yards, folks, whether you subscribe to Biblical prophesy or not.
Nostradamus and others have predicted it it, too).
Concerned for America's Health,
Dr. Dana Myatt
Poor, Poor Pitiful Me! (Why Some People Will Never Get
by Mark Ziemann, R.N.
[Dr. Myatt's Note: The following commentary is NOT for the feint of heart! We
received a self-serving, over-the-top email last week during a time when we were
busting our buttons researching four cases for patients with life-threatening
illnesses. The audacity, pathos and arrogance of this letter pushed my otherwise
mild-mannered Nurse to the brink of frustration. Here's why...]
We get a lot of emails here at The Wellness Club asking for information about
medical conditions, nutritional supplements, or herbs. Many of these emails
describe the writer's personal symptoms and ask for suggestions, which we are
always glad to provide when we can. Other letters describe an entire litany of
the writer's symptoms, along with extensive medical history, and a plea for
help. We take every one of those letters very seriously and do our best to
answer each one as fully as we can, though as you might imagine this can
sometimes be very time consuming because there is often a lot of research that
must go into a reply. After all, we are discussing health issues here, not
gardening or baking tips, and if we get something wrong in our advice it could
be a very serious matter - a little more serious than just not getting that cake
to rise in the oven...
The requests for generalized information about conditions or vitamins or herbs
are the easiest - most of the answers to these questions can already be found on
our website, and we will refer folks to the appropriate web pages, often with a
comment or two about how the information on these pages applies to their
question. These are happy, satisfying questions to answer.
The second sort, requesting advice for personal and very complex symptoms, is
more work. This is where we must be very careful, for there is no room for
mistakes when dealing with someone's health. We make the best generalized
suggestions that we can based upon what the writer has described to us, with the
warning that these are generalized suggestions only - not personalized medical
advice. As I said, this is much more work as there is much more research
required for these answers. We know that with human nature as it is, despite our
warning that these are generalized suggestions only, the person receiving our
suggestions will undoubtedly consider this to be personal medical advice
straight from the doctor to them. These are the ones that leave us laying awake
at night, thinking over and over about our answers, hoping we didn't miss
The third kind of letter, the one that goes into great detail about the writer's
history and symptoms and illnesses and suffering, is the most difficult. It is
also the most heart-wrenching for us here because we know only too well the
suffering that is going on in people who are under the "care" of conventional
medicine, which often manages many of these conditions very poorly indeed. To
these poor souls we can only answer in the most general of terms and suggest
that their situation really is too complicated for us to "shoot from the hip"
with specific recommendations. These people need a consultation as a patient so
that we can have full access to all their medical records, history, summaries,
labs, x rays - the works.
Many of these people have been given up on by the "Big Boys" of conventional
medicine: Mayo, Johns Hopkins, Cleveland Clinic, who all had access to their
records and failed to find a solution. We will certainly not be able to do our
best "medical detective work" with less information! We dare not make
recommendations in these complicated situations without being in possession of
as much information as possible, and without doing hours (often days!) of
research. These cases can be as intertwined and complicated as a Gordian Knot -
and we rarely have the luxury of Alexander's solution: we can't simply cut
through the problems in one swift stroke of some holistic medical sword!
This kind of letter, with our reply that it is imprudent, improper, and even
dangerous for us to try to diagnose and treat such complicated problems without
benefit of full medical information and talking directly to the patient,
sometimes returns an upsetting if not downright hurtful answer. It was one such
letter this week that really put a bee in my bonnet.
This person had a huge list of complaints (none were life-threatening). She
claims to have been seen by over 30 doctors and has had a lot of medical testing
performed. Out of a long list of problems --- fibromyalgia, arthritis,
osteoporosis, TMJ, gallstones, scoliosis, herniated disks and more --- she wanted
an emailed recommendation. Hello? There's no "take this herb and this vitamin"
answer we can give for such a list of complaints, and I recommended that Dr. Myatt and her medical team could certainly help her but that a consultation was
"I could never afford Dr. Myatt's fees! I am poor - I've been out of work
because of my condition - I struggle to make ends meet as it is!" and on and on
it goes. This one ended with, "NO doctor really gives a hoot for helping anyone
as desperate such as me, they care much more for their money instead.
Thanks.........I guess that is life....Fortune, Fame and no compassion for those
who truly need real help!"
We are not immune to such damning accusations of greed and selfishness on our
part, especially after all the time and energy we spend giving as much free
advice as we possibly can. But let's think about this for a moment: we are being
asked to take up a case that has baffled scores of other doctors, that the "Big
Boys" of conventional medicine have failed to solve, that is devilishly
complicated. We are to spend hours, probably even days in case study and
research, and then provide detailed recommendations and prescriptions, all
without benefit of full medical records, patient history, medical history and
talking to the patient, and all for no pay? Folks, here is a little secret I'll
let you in on: if we were truly greedy, selfish, and interested only in money we
would be working in conventional medicine, not as holistic, naturopathic medics!
What's more, our trips to the grocery store or gas station are no less expensive
for us than for anyone else.
There is an even more important reason that this kind of a reply, chastising us
for suggesting that they should spend the money for a consultation, is so
upsetting for us. It is the knowledge that even a fee of $29.95,
double-your-money-back-guaranteed and a free airplane ticket for a trip to
Arizona to see The Doctor in person would still be "too expensive." You see,
we've done it before - we've taken on complicated cases 'pro bono' (for free)
and we've seen the value that is attached to something that is "free" - it is
not a happy thing! Not only that, but if someone can't afford a consultation
fee, how will they afford the things that Dr. Myatt might recommend to them?
Again, we've heard this before - "...those vitamins are so expensive - isn't
there something cheaper? I can't possibly afford all those expensive
supplements... you know I'm on a limited income (pension, disability, support,
These are the people who are just never going to get well: they have a sense of
"entitlement," a belief that somehow, someone else should be taking
responsibility for the effort and expense of making them healthy. Their
condition has impoverished them you see, and so someone else should shoulder the
cost of their medical visits and subsequent treatments. We also find that these
are usually the people who complain most bitterly about having to "...take so
many of these big pills - and so often!" when we give them their recommendations
for supplements. "...Ooh, I have to take six (or eight, or a dozen) capsules
with every meal, and three more in-between meals... it's so many, and it's hard
to remember to..." These are the people who put up the biggest fight over the
diet changes we recommend: "...oh, but I've always eaten bread (or potatoes, or
rice, or grits, or margarine or what-have-you) with every meal - how could I
possibly get by without it, what will I fill up on?" And these are the people
who fuss about having to make follow-up appointments, and tell us how difficult
it is for them to find the time to go to their local health food store to find
some less-effective bargain brand of the recommended supplements, or that it is
so much trouble to try the healthy new diet we recommend because "...my family
won't possibly eat that way anyway..."
These are the people who are unlikely to ever get well - and who really are much
better served by conventional medicine. They can have their 10 minute visit with
a conventional doctor, who will tell them to make some simple (probably futile
or even incorrect) dietary changes (that they can ignore, because "it's too much
trouble"), and who will hand them a prescription for the latest Big Drug Company
offering to be filled at their local WalMart - all covered, at least in part, by
some form of insurance. These folks may never get well, and in fact will
probably continue to get worse - but they will do so satisfied that first, they
are "doing everything they can" and second, that "the greedy doctors are keeping
the real cure from me because I'm poor!" We see and hear these stories often,
and it saddens us.
We are not the first "medics" to confront this problem, and we'll not be the
last. Here is the link to an interesting story and piece of advice given to Dr.
Myatt many years ago by an Indian "medicine man" about this very problem:
Lesson of Worth.
Other letters also berate us for our "expensive" fees - but that's a topic for
Frustrated but Still Kickin,'
Stevia: A Safe Sweetening Alternative?
by Dr. Doug Nichols
Refined sugar in excess causes diabetes. Even
"whole cane juice" is sugar with modest amounts of trace minerals, and like
refined sugar, is harmful in excess. Same for honey. In fact, anyone concerned
about their weight or blood sugar levels should largely avoid all forms of
sugar. That leaves artificial sweeteners, whose safety is unclear [Dr. Myatt's
note: we are working on a review of sweeteners--- from sugar to saccharine to
stevia--- in an upcoming edition of HealthBeat News. Stay tuned]. If you are
avoiding "real" (glucose-containing) sugars and artificial sweeteners, is there
anything left that's both safe and sweet? A humble herb called stevia may just
fit the bill.
Stevia is a small green plant, belonging to the Sunflower family, native to
Paraguay and Brazil, where it has been utilized for hundreds of years as a
sweetening agent. It is available in a number of forms, including a green powder
(30x sweeter than sugar by weight), a brownish liquid extract, or a fine white
processed powder (300x sweeter than sugar by
weight). Roughly ½ tsp. of the processed white powder is equivalent to the
sweetening power of 1 cup of sugar.
Stevia gets its intense sweetness from naturally occurring molecules known as
specifically Steviosides, Rebaudiosides, and Dulcosides. Amazingly enough,
Stevia is not only
natural, but has no calories, is heat stable, non-fermentable, and has
Extensive usage and research, have shown the consumption of stevia to be safe,
unlike other sweeteners that tout the same sweetening power. Stevia has even
been shown in studies to possibly aid the pancreas in secreting insulin and in
lowering blood pressure. You can see how those undergoing a low carb diet, low
calorie diet, diabetics, people with yeast and candida issues and those who are
concerned about dental cavities could benefit from
using this this safe sweetener. The only drawback voiced by some is the slight
like/bitter taste that is tasted when stevia is consumed in higher amounts,
especially in the crude forms.
With so many wonderful properties, you might wonder why Stevia is not utilized
more in the food industry, or why its household use is not more common. After
all, it has been utilized by manufacturers and millions of people in Japan for
over 25 years. In fact, as of the year 2000, Japan consumed 90% of the world’s
supply of stevia leaves. Stevia is also used and approved in Brazil and ten
other countries as a sweetener.
In the United States, where safe and effective non-patented substances pose a
certain industries, stevia has been under almost constant regulatory assault
from the FDA since 1987. Until 1995, there was an “import alert” that basically
acted as a blockade to all stevia entering the country. Today, stevia is only
allowed to be marketed and utilized as a dietary supplement; not a sweetening
agent. It is not considered generally safe for consumption. It is claimed that
there has not been sufficient research to prove that stevia is completely
non-toxic when consumed and metabolized in the human body. The FDA frequently
cites an almost 40 year-old study about stevia having an affect on fertility.
Closer examination of the study raises doubts though about the methods that were
used in this study, and how they apply to the typical way in which stevia is
Many animal studies since have demonstrated that stevia in high quantities does
fertility, nor does it appear to be toxic in any way, although it has been shown
that metabolites of stevia may affect kidney drug clearance. (Note: many foods,
such as grapefruit, and many drugs, also effect the clearance of other drugs
from the body).
It has also been postulated that steviol (a metabolite of stevioside) may be
activated to a harmful substance by the human liver. A recent study performed on
human subjects discredits this belief. This study used stevioside (250-mg
capsules), given 3x daily for 3 days to 10 healthy subjects. Stevioside and
certain metabolites were analyzed in blood, feces, and urine after 3 days of
stevioside administration. The only major metabolite detected in the urine and
blood was a metabolite that does not appear to pose any toxic threat to the
body. With artificial sweeteners dominating the market, and so many studies
demonstrating the safety of stevia, one wonders what kind of relationship the
FDA may have with Big
Vitamin D Dramatically Lowers Breast
and Colon Cancer Risk
People with higher vitamin D intakes, whether
from sunlight, supplements or diet, decrease risk of breast cancer by 50% and
risk of colon cancer by 50-65% according to recent studies
conducted in both the US and Europe.
People with the lowest blood levels of vitamin
D had the highest rates of breast cancer, and the rates of breast cancer dropped
as vitamin D levels increased. The amount of sunlight needed to achieve
protective levels is 25 minutes per day for dark-skinned people and 10-15
minutes per day for fair skinned individuals.
One study concluded that 1,000 IU of oral vitamin D per day "is associated with
a 50% reduction in colorectal cancer ." The study further noted that "increased
availability of supplements could help increase vitamin D intake and could
augment small increases in production of vitamin D from solar UVB irradiation.
Providing 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day for all adult Americans would cost
about $1 billion; the expected benefits for cancer would be in the range
of $16-25 billion in addition to other health benefits of vitamin D."
If any drug were found to lower colon cancer
risk by 50% and save 16-25 billion dollars per year, believe me it would be on
the front page of every newspaper in the country and they'd be adding it to the
water supply without our consent! But since this is a simple, inexpensive
vitamin supplement that cannot be patented, look for vitamin D to become
FDA-regulated as drug companies scramble to invent "patentable" forms of this
--- Dr. Dana Myatt
Laughter is Good Medicine
FACTS TO PONDER:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is 700,000.
(B) Annual accidental deaths caused by Physicians 300,000 per year.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.42.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.
Now think about this:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
22,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: Not everyone has a gun,
Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
Please alert your friends
to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors
before the carnage gets completely out of hand.
Note: Out of concern for the public at large,
I have withheld the statistics on lawyers
for fear the shock would cause
people to panic and seek medical attention. :-)
Stevia: A Safe Sweetening Alternative?
1.)Srimaroeng C., et al.
“Interactions of stevioside and steviol with renal organic anion transporters in
cells and mouse renal cortical slices”. Pharm Res. 2005 Jun; 22 (6): 858-66.
2.)Jeppesen PB, et al. “Stevioside acts directly on pancreatic beta cells to
secrete insulin: actions independent of cyclic adenosine monophosphate and
adensosine triphosphate-sensitive K+-channel activity”. Metabolism. 2000
3.) Chan P, et al. “The effect of stevioside on blood pressure and plasma
catecholamines in spontaneously
hypertensive rats.” Life Sci. 1998;63(19): 1679-84.
4.) Aritajat S, et al. “Dominant lethal test in rats treated with some plant
extracts.” Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2000;31 Suppl 1:171-3.
5.) Mazzei Planas G, et al. “Contraceptive properties of Stevia rebaudiana.”
Science. 1968 Nov 29; 162(857):1007.
6.) Geuns JM, et al. “Metabolism of stevioside by healthy subjects.” Exp Biol
Med (Maywood). 2007
Vitamin D Dramatically Lowers Risk of Breast and Colon Cancer
7.) Clinical trials using
chemopreventive vitamin d analogs in breast cancer. Cancer J. 2006
8.) Optimal vitamin D status for colorectal cancer prevention a quantitative
meta analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):210-6. Summary: The evidence to
date suggests that daily intake of 1000-2000 IU/day of vitamin D(3) could reduce
the incidence of colorectal with minimal risk.
9.) An estimate of cancer mortality rate reductions in Europe and the US with
1,000 IU of oral vitamin D per day. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2007;174:225-34.
Summary: Vitamin D regulates the phenotype of human breast cancer cells.
Differentiation. 2006 Dec 11.