Coast to Coast and Around the World

Through our Internet Service Center we are able to serve customers no matter where they live. Visit our Internet Service Center or call us at 239.591.4565 or email us

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Medical Doctor joins Best Self USA as nutrition specialist

Medical Doctor joins Best Self USA
 as nutrition specialist

First Nationwide Counseling Clinic
 Available in the Privacy of Your Own Home

Best Self USA is a full spectrum counseling and life skills training facility offering NATIONWIDE distance counseling services in the privacy of your own home by use of voice, video, online and other media.


Media Interview: 1-800-850-1987

(Naples, FL) Best Self USA is an innovative Counseling and Life Skills Clinic.  They have been helping people for more than 40 years, and are applying the latest research and technology.

Best Self USA is very pleased to welcome Uma Dunn, MD to our staff.  Dr. Uma Dunn was raised in the United States by Indian parents. Her father was a doctor for the Veterans administration.

When it came time for her to follow in her father’s footsteps, she returned to her native India and received her medical training at the Faculty of Medicine at Nagarjuna University, graduating in 1989. Her medical education in India has been evaluated by Josef Silny and Associates, International Education Consultants and Foreign Credential Evaluation and Verification, who certified Dr. Dunn’s education in India as the equivalent of a “U.S. degree of Doctor of Medicine at a regionally accredited institution of higher education in the United States.”

Soon after graduating from medical school Dr. Dunn decided that she wanted to be a different kind of healer. She extensively researched using natural molecules to create wellness, rather than using drugs or surgery to treat disease. This significant paradigm shift in medicine is attracting increasingly more medical doctors and is known as “Orthomolecular Medicine” or “Functional Medicine.”  For information on orthomolecular solutions to mental health problems see:

Dr. Dunn serves Best Self USA as our resource person for orthomolecular psychopharmacology, (using nutrition to create healthy cognition, moods, and behavior). She contributes to Best Self USA, living up to its goal of “Finding nutritional solutions for emotional problems

She is also our primary consultant for nutritional guidance in creating general wellness of our bodies and minds.

Dr. Dunn resides in Naples, FL with her husband and daughter.

Recently Best Self USA has launched a new web site, added new staff members, and expanded their services to include full spectrum counseling and life skills training to a nationwide clientele. They are now serving clients across the country.

Other groundbreaking services provided by Best Self USA include:

·         Marriage and Family Counseling services, delivered by a husband/wife therapy team.
·         A MENSA Gifted Child Coordinator on staff for children and teens
·         Cognitive/Behavioral techniques. Short term, solution focused therapy.
·         Secure and confidential services for clergy and lay leaders
·         Excellent results using drug-free nutritional solutions for treating emotional problems
·         On staff medical doctor for nutritional consultation.
·         Coaching for successful business executives and those who want to become successful
·         State of the art Diagnostic tools to pin-point problem areas and strengths
·         Training materials provided to supplement counseling sessions, increasing efficiency and reducing costs.
·         The staff at Best Self USA can help you to become the best you can be!

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Should I Worry about Taking Supplements?

Should I Worry about Taking Supplements?

Worry?—no. Supplements have a remarkable record of safety. Give it careful thought—yes. Here are some things to consider.
When planning a supplement regimen, you should seek good professional advice. If you don’t already have a good professional advisor, a place to start would be physicians belonging to one of the organizations listed below. They generally use and are expert about supplements and integrative medicine in general:
In addition, there are some basic questions that you should ask yourself:
  • Is this the right form of the supplement?
  • Is it natural or synthetic?
  • Are there co-factors that must be taken with it?
  • Do I trust the company selling it?
  • Am I taking the right amount?
Let’s take each of these in turn.
1. Is this the right form of the supplement, and is it natural or synthetic?
The sister publication of the Archives of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, just released a study suggesting that vitamin E supplements increase prostate cancer risk for men. The results of the study are puzzling. Taking 400 IU of vitamin E seemed to increase risk; so did taking 200 mcg of selenium. But when men received both the vitamin E and the selenium together, the risk was about the same as taking nothing at all.
The real problem here, however, is the form of the vitamin, which was synthetic alpha-tocopherol. In our article last February, Jonathan Wright, MD, explained that nature does not give us isolated alpha-tocopherol. It gives us a mix of alpha-, beta-,delta-, and gamma tocopherols, and that too much alpha interferes with what seems to be the more important gamma form of the vitamin. In another article, our scientific director Rob Verkerk further explained that synthetic alpha-tocopherol is not a good substitute for the natural form, and that tocopherols in nature are always accompanied by the tocotrienols.
What is true for tocopherols is true for other vitamins. If we take extra beta-carotene, we should take other carotenes to balance it. If we take more of a B vitamin, we will probably need more of other B vitamins to balance it. This is one of the problems with trying to apply drug trial methods to supplements. It isn’t one supplement that helps or hurts us. It is achieving the right balance through food, supplements, and exercise.
The Archives of the Internal Medicine study covered elsewhere in this newsletter claimed that supplementing with copper might be particularly risky. This is probably correct, since copper acts as a pro-oxidant and too much of the metals can overwhelm our body’s natural ability to remove them. That said, there are times when a balanced approach means we need to take a copper supplement. For example, if we take a higher than normal dose of zinc at the onset of a viral infection, it may have to be balanced with copper.
The Archives of Internal Medicine article also argued that folic acid use might shorten life. Nothing can be concluded from this source because the study is such a flagrant example of junk science. But the question about folic acid safety is a real one, and also an urgent one since federal law requires folic acid fortification of some foods such as bread.
Fortunately there is good medical research on the subject, albeit still inconclusive. A study published in February is very suggestive that only folic acid, and not natural folates, may be a risk for cancer. Natural folates, even at high levels, help to prevent cancers. This echoes two studies in 2009, reported upon by our ANH-Europe colleagues, which suggest that high doses of synthetic folic acid may produce an unexpected rise in some cancers, while natural folates are best for lowering the risk of colorectal cancer.
The main point to be gleaned from the research is that there is a potentially important difference between the synthetic folic acid and the natural folate. While awaiting more evidence, a rational response might be to use folate rather than folic acid.
It is not quite that simple, however. Merck has a patent on one of the natural forms of folate, which drives up the price. How, you might ask, can a drug company patent a natural vitamin? Welcome to the wacky world of government regulation.
2. Are there co-factors which must be taken with your supplement?
The Archives of Internal Medicine study mentioned above concluded that calcium was the one supplement that might lengthen life. This does not agree with better research. A large problem is that calcium needs to be taken with co-factors, especially vitamins D3 and K2. If these co-factors are not present, the calcium may migrate to the heart or circulatory system rather than to the bones where it is needed. If calcium is taken without supplemental magnesium, there may be other problems. That is why in an article last year, we criticized the World Health Organization for proposing that isolated calcium be put into the water supply. To do so would be more junk science—and could potentially harm a lot of people.
3. Do I trust the company selling it and am I taking the right amount?
These are interrelated questions since the company will advise you on the amount to take. Once again, in addition to seeking professional advice, you should do some research on your own. Start with the supplement company’s website. Contact the company. Ask whether the material is natural or synthetic, where it gets its raw materials, and what sort of testing regime it has. Some supplement companies test everything very carefully. Some don’t. Insist on getting answers about this. Good companies will be proud of their testing and will want to tell you about it.

*  Look for clinical studies on the ingredients or products.
*  Look for natural ingredients on the label. Avoid artificial sweeteners, flavors, and preservatives.
*  Look for a company that focuses on safety and quality
*  Looking for an unconditional money back guarantee.

We want to tell you about Shaklee:
Products in harmony with nature!  Sam and  Bunny Sewell

Friday, October 14, 2011

Science is always better than propaganda!

Science is always better than propaganda!

The recent AIM study was widely reported on TV, the Internet, magazines and newspapers.  It is nearly impossible to get that extensive coverage without using a Public Relations firm to write press releases and send them out to hundreds of media outlets.  It is obvious to me from reading the various articles that a press release was used as the foundation for the text of the articles rather than a journalist actually reading the AIM study.  I’ll bet you can guess who would be willing to hire a public relations firm to attack the supplement industry.

In short, this AMI study is less than useless: it is dangerous, because it is being used by the media and the mainstream medical establishment to blacken the eye of nutritional supplements using poor data, bad analysis, and specious conclusions—otherwise known as junk science.

Careful scientific research published in peer reviewed professional journals demonstrates this compelling reason for drug companies to discourage the use of high quality nutritional supplementation.  Proper supplementation actually reduces the use of drugs.

Here is data from a peer reviewed landmark study done by University of Berkeley, first of its kind, published in a scientific journal, comparing people who had actually taken natural food supplements, chemical vitamins, or nothing at all for 20 years. See the abstract at:   

The average person over age 65 has taken 19.1 prescriptions.

The average person 50 to 65 has taken 7.6 prescriptions.

The Shaklee user for 20+ years has taken 0.6 prescriptions. (avg. age 62)

Also see: Big pharma profits down - time to attack vitamins!

AND: Here We Go Again! – The factual, scientific, and intellectual flaws in vitamin studies published by the media.

Below is a letter from a friend of ours who is a Board certified clinical nutritionist
Below her letter is a rebuttal against the AIM study by Shaklee Science.

Dear Shaklee Members,

Once again the popular press has chosen to review a clinical study and interpret it in a manner that is not consistent with the study’s findings.  This time the reports stated that elderly women were not advised to take supplements as they could lead to earlier death. We find this inaccurate and misleading.  In our Shaklee population who take quality nutritional supplements and choose a good diet while maintaining a moderate healthy lifestyle, we find that not only is life extended but quality of life is far superior to the general public. 

You have been faithful to supplementation in general and Shaklee in particular.  We are certain that you have noticed improved health.  We report this study to reassure you and any “doubting Thomas’s” in your circle of family and friends that you are making the right choice.  As for me, a board certified licensed nutritionist, I just wish the press would report the good news that hundreds of nutritional studies show every year.  In particular, the Shaklee Landmark study showed superior health benefits in those who took Shaklee vs. those who took Brand X supplements or no supplements.

Please take a look at the attachment for further explanation and do give me a call or send an email if you’d like to dialog a bit further.

Best wishes for a healthy future,
Nedra Sahr, M.S., C.N.S.
Board certified clinical nutritionist

Call: (239) 591-4565           Live Longer, Feel Better:

Shaklee, Products in Harmony with Nature!

Please contact us for free nutritional counseling
and browse our Shaklee website at:

And this from Shaklee Corporation:

Dear Shaklee Consumer:

You may have heard about a study, Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women, published in the October 10 issue of the journal, Archives of Internal Medicine.

We believe the study results and conclusions are presented in a biased and unduly negative manner, when in fact, the results are inconclusive at best. It’s also very clear that this study should not be used to draw conclusions regarding the effects of supplementation on human health.

Some possible limitations of the study include:
1. The study is an observational study that only describes associations and does not prove cause and effect. It should be considered with all the research on dietary supplementation, including the Shaklee Landmark Study which showed that long-term Shaklee supplement users had markedly better health than both single supplement users and nonusers.

2. The study results actually show that calcium supplementation reduces risk for total mortality, but this positive finding is buried among the negative headlines. This seems indicative of the bias present in reporting the study results.

3. In the original study analysis, users of B vitamins, vitamins C, D, E, and calcium had significantly lower risk of total mortality compared to nonusers. Only after adjustment of the data were some of these nutrients associated with a very slight increased risk for total mortality.

4. Supplemental iron is identified as increasing the risk of total mortality in this elderly female population. Shaklee recognizes that supplemental iron is not required by seniors without specific iron needs, and this is precisely the reason our Vitalizer Gold product for adults age 50+ has never contained iron.

5. Supplemental copper was linked to a slightly increased risk of total mortality. Shaklee recognizes that copper intakes are generally adequate and this is reflected in the reduced levels of copper found in our 4 new Vitalizer formulas.

6. The dietary supplement collection tools were not validated for this population and the investigators presented no data to support their conclusions regarding dosage levels. We find it difficult to make conclusions regarding the effects of supplementation when intake levels are not reported.

7. There are no explanations or reasons given for supplement usage, nor was there any screening for individuals at higher risk of disease. In many cases we see increasing use of supplements for therapeutic reasons, especially with increasing age.

In closing, we believe that this study needs to be considered with the totality of the evidence supporting supplementation. The overwhelming body of research on supplementation supports the prudent use of dietary supplements as a part of a healthy lifestyle, to fill nutritional gaps in the diet, to support a high quality of life, and to support a longer, healthier life. At Shaklee, we believe that a preventive approach to health begins much earlier in life than in the 60's and we commit to staying at the leading edge of science and health, and our products and health recommendations will always reflect these principles.

Shaklee Health Sciences

Call: (239) 591-4565           Live Longer, Feel Better:

Shaklee, Products in Harmony with Nature!

Please contact us for free nutritional counseling
and browse our Shaklee website at:

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Big pharma profits down - time to attack vitamins!

Big pharma profits down, no new drugs in the pipeline, running out of people to over medicate, time to attack vitamins! The bottom line. This study is a classic example of scientific reductionism being used to fulfill a particular need. In this case, it’s supplement bashing. Read our rebuttal:

Shame on AMA’s Archives of Internal Medicine

October 11, 2011
Did you hear the breaking news last night—that multivitamins may shorten your life? Here’s how junk science from the AMA set off the media frenzy.

Bloomberg phrased it this way: “Multivitamins and some dietary supplements, used regularly by an estimated 234 million US adults, may do more harm than good, according to a study that tied their use to higher death rates among older women.” The study’s authors outrageously concluded, “We see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.”

The study, published in the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Archives of Internal Medicine, assessed the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in nearly 39,000 women whose average age was 62. The researchers asked the women to fill out three surveys, the first in 1986, the second in 1997, and the last in 2004, reporting what supplements they took and what foods they ate, and answering a few questions about their health.

That’s right, all the data was self-reported by the study subjects only three times over the course of the 19-year-long study. To say the data is “unreliable” would be a generous description. This kind of “data” has no place in a valid scientific study.

Then the researchers looked at how many of the women had died by 2008. They reported that the number of deaths were somewhat higher for women who took copper, a little bit lower for women who took calcium, but about average for most of the women.

In the study, all of the relative risks were so low as to be statistically insignificant, and none was backed up by any medical investigation or biological plausibility study. No analysis was done on what combinations of vitamins and minerals were actually consumed, and no analysis of the cause of death was done beyond grouping for “cancer,” “cardiovascular disease,” or “other”—there was certainly no causative analysis done. The interactions of potential compounding risk factors is always tremendously complex—and was ignored in this so-called study.

“Multivitamin” can mean many different things, and of course changed tremendously over the 19 years during which this “study” was conducted. Were they high quality?  Were the ingredients synthetic or natural?  How much of each nutrient was taken? Were they really taken at all? How good is anyone’s memory in describing what took place over many years? One would assume that that the women’s diets fluctuated greatly over the same period; when self-reporting only three times in 19 years, there is a great deal of information one would naturally leave out even if some of it was accurate. No analysis was done of the effect of supplements on the women’s overall health, nor of their effect on women of other ages.
According to Dr. Robert Verkerk the Executive & Scientific Director of ANH-International;
“This study is a classic example of scientific reductionism being used to fulfill a particular need. In this case, it’s supplement bashing, a well-known preoccupation of Big Pharma — and an approach that appears to be central to the protection of Big Pharma’s profit margins.”

Read Dr. Verkerk’s article critical of the AMA’s goals and scientific methodology here.
In short, this study is less than useless: it is dangerous, because it is being used by the media and the mainstream medical establishment to blacken the eye of nutritional supplements using poor data, bad analysis, and specious conclusions—otherwise known as junk science.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Here We Go Again! – The factual, scientific, and intellectual flaws in vitamin studies published by the media.

Here We Go Again! – The factual, scientific, and intellectual flaws in vitamin studies published by the media.
There has been a controversy swirling around the world about nutritional supplementation for decades. It seems like nearly every week you read stories in the news claiming a particular vitamin demonstrates NO effect on the prevention of a certain disease.
Here are some recent misleading headlines:
Vitamin D Study in Finland: Implications for the Rest of the World
The Vitamin E-Beta Carotene Cancer Study in <뭜Ŝ>Finland

Study links vitamins to higher death rates in women

There are many motives for deliberately skewing science.

Don’t believe everything you hear!

Remember this study reported in the media?

Notice how it begins with:

“According to repeated nationwide surveys,”

Even worse, news stories inundate us with the “dangers” of taking nutritional supplements. Recent headlines scream warnings, like beta-carotene increases risk of lung cancer. One headline tried to link vitamin E to increased deaths in elderly heart patients. Another says that even good old Vitamin A is down right dangerous.
There are various ways scientific researchers commit deliberate scientific “errors” when reporting on these “ineffective” vitamins!

·        Like how they deliberately use vitamin forms known to be inferior in the studies they conduct — cheaply compounded, poorly absorbed, low quality.

·        Like how they knowingly study single vitamins (even when biochemistry has demonstrated the dramatic benefits of certain vitamins working together, in concert)...

·        Or like how they fail to take into account major factors affecting participants, such as their diet, current health status, or exposure to other health risks...

And I’ll bet you can guess the major role pharmaceutical industries play in these vitamin horror stories! So don’t be duped by media and marketing-motivated lies and half-truths!

Why would big drug companies be interested in the outcome of vitamin studies? Well, common sense tells us that there is much more money to be made pushing drugs one must take for a lifetime, than in addressing real health deficiencies. You can't get a patent on one of God's molecules.

Remember Dr. Shaklee’s advice, “Give the body what it needs and it will heal itself.”

Careful scientific research published in peer reviewed professional journals demonstrates this compelling reason for drug companies to discourage the use of high quality nutritional supplementation.  Proper supplementation actually reduces the use of drugs.

The average person over age 65 has taken 19.1 prescriptions.

The average person 50 to 65 has taken 7.6 prescriptions.

The Shaklee user for 20+ years has taken 0.6 prescriptions. (avg. age 62)

Certainly there are enough low quality vitamins advertized and sold through mass marketing to provide drug company sponsored scientists with all the raw materials they need to “prove” that vitamins are ineffective or dangerous.

Now let’s take a look at the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH on the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation!Recently, the University of California at Berkley did a long-term (20 year) study of the effectiveness of supplements.

The scientists who conducted this research are the leaders in their field.

The study was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal: see the abstract at:
Shocking Revelation - Here is a summary chart of the comprehensive Landmark Study done by the University of California at Berkeley with people who had used supplements for more than 20 years.   Note that people who used the one a day type of synthetic vitamin were more at risk for disease than those who did nothing at all!  The category with the lowest risk of disease used organically sourced, cold processed, natural supplements.

How can I find out what is natural, safe, and effective?

What healthy alternatives do you have? Especially when prescription – and even non-prescription – medications carry so much extra baggage in the form of dangerous side effects, not to mention the fact that these drugs don’t really address the cause of the problems, just the symptoms.

BEWARE: Those who take prescription medications need to be aware of the additional risk of drug-induced nutritional deficiencies:  


Feeling Good? Here’s how to stay that way!

Call: (239) 591-4565
Live Longer, Feel Better:

Shaklee, Products in Harmony with Nature!

Please contact us for free nutritional counseling
and browse our Shaklee website at:

Learn why we must supplement to maintain long term health!

Join us on Saturday, Oct 15th 2PM

10202 Vanderbilt Dr
(NE corner at
102nd Ave
Naples, FL 34108   

239/591-4565  RSVP  ~  Bring a friend!

# # # # # # # # # #

Vital Health Research - The Vitamin Paradigm Wars - Don't Believe Everything You hear

The Vitamin Paradigm Wars
Abram Hoffer, M.D, Ph.D.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Are Vaccines Safe? Do they help? Would you rather choose the natural solution to Immune Heath, or do you prefer the government flu shot?

Are Vaccines Safe?  Do they help?  Would you rather choose the natural solution to Immune Heath, or do you prefer the government flu shot?

This article was written by the editor of NaturalNews.  Yes it is a rant.  It also has some validated information and concepts that we need to be adequately  informed

Finland has now openly admitted that the swine flu vaccine "conclusively" causes narcolepsy, a chronic nervous system disorder that makes people uncontrollably fall asleep. The Finnish government, in acknowledging this link, says it will pay for "lifetime medical care" for 79 children who have been irreparably damaged by the swine flu vaccine.

Narcolepsy isn't the only side effect now admitted to be caused by swine flu vaccines: 76 of the 79 children also suffered hallucinations and "paralyzing physical collapses," say Finnish researchers.

Remarkably, even though the link between swine flu vaccines and permanent neurological damage in children is now openly admitted by the Finnish government, there is absolutely no talk about halting the utterly unscientific ritual of injecting children with flu vaccines in the first place. Not only are flu vaccines harmful to children (as is now admitted), but flu vaccines don't even work! A simple daily dose of vitamin D would do far more to halt influenza than any vaccine. 

Give Your Immune System a Natural Super-Boost - Vitamin D, Colds the Flu and You

Would you rather choose the natural solution to Immune Heath, or do you prefer the government flu shot?

U.S. refuses to admit vaccines harm anyone

The U.S. government, of course, still refuses to admit vaccines cause any harm whatsoever. Both the government and the vaccine industry continue to push the fabricated fairy tale that "vaccines are safe and effective," meaning they harm no one but help everyone. Yet the truth is practically the polar opposite: Vaccines harm countless millions of children each year in ways that are usually never linked to vaccines (mild mental retardation, suppressed immune function, learning disabilities, etc.). At the same time, vaccines are all but worthless at preventing infections. Even the vaccine industry's own research shows that flu shots only work on 1 out of 100 people, meaning they're completely useless for 99 percent of those who take them. CDC admits flu vaccines don't work (which is why you need a new one every year)

Instead of admitting the truth that vaccines cause autism, the U.S. government has conspired with vaccine manufacturers to create a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which essentially pays "hush money" to parents of permanently harmed children to make sure they cannot bring their claims of harm to federal courts.

Even worse, the medical establishment -- which is heavily influenced if not downright dominated by pharmaceutical interests -- absolutely refuses to advocate vitamin D as a flu prevention nutrient. Vitamin D is safe, effective and affordable. It's available without a prescription and could save literally billions of dollars in national health care costs for just pennies per day per person. So why won't the medical establishment promote vitamin D? Precisely because it would cost the industry billions of dollars in lost profits from all the sickness and degenerative disease that is prevented by vitamin D.

Of course vaccines cause autism!

There is absolutely no question in the mind of any reasonably informed person that vaccines cause neurological damage, including (but not limited to) autism. Only the corporate-whore scientists around the world continue their charade that vaccines are not linked to autism; or that vaccines even work in the first place. Most Americans haven't yet heard the secret interview with Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman where he openly admits vaccines carry dozens of strains of cancer-causing "stealth" viruses.

Listen to the interview at:

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

AMA losing members in droves, less than 20 percent of US doctors support its agenda

(NaturalNews) The significance and credibility of the American Medical Association (AMA), an organization that allegedly backs physician interests and the promotion of public health, is quickly deteriorating. It is a fact that a mere 17 percent of US doctors are even members in the group anymore. Droves of current AMA members are now resigning, because of the group's open support for "Obamacare."

According to a recent Forbes report, nearly half of the doctors that have cancelled their AMA memberships in recent days say they did so primarily because of the group's support for the Obama administration's universal health care plan. And 87 percent of the AMA's remaining member physicians say they are against the health care bill as well, according to data gathered by physician recruitment firm Jackson & Coker.

Patients with private health coverage are naturally better for private practices because they allow doctors to provide higher quality and more personal care to patients. Patients with public coverage in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, often end up costing doctors more than the amount they receive back in reimbursements, which is why many are no longer even willing to accept public coverage patients at all.

Statistics indicate that doctors earn an average of $260 per hourly visit with privately-insured patients. On the flip side, patients covered by Medicaid only generate an average of about $20 per hourly visit, which is hardly enough to sustain a viable practice. This is why the addition of millions of new patients on government coverage via Obamacare stands to destroy the private practices of thousands, if not millions, of American doctors.

What this all means for the AMA, of course, is that the organization will continue to plunge into the depths of irrelevance, at least as far as the nation's physicians are concerned. The AMA had been losing members for many years prior to the unveiling of Obamacare -- but since the time that the bill hit the scene and received AMA support, the AMA's membership cancellation rate has only accelerated.

Meanwhile, groups like Docs4PatientCare and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), both of which stand against the government takeover of health care, have seen increases in their membership bases.

Sources for this story include:

Monday, October 3, 2011

The Pharmaceutical Industry's Secret

The Pharmaceutical Industry's Secret
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the world's 2nd largest drug manufacturer, said fewer than half of the patients prescribed drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior pharmaceutical executive has gone public.
Dr Roses, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients. Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than 30% of patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in 25% of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about 50% of the patients. Lipitor, the world’s largest selling drug rarely works in women and the elderly, the two groups that are prescribed it the most. "Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine", he said.

"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people."

According to recent surveys, 4 out of 5 Americans – 80% of our population – take at least one medication each week. Men and women age 65 to 75 take an average of 6 medications per week and among those over age 75, the average is 11 medications per week. If you’re helping to look after elderly parents, those numbers probably don’t surprise you.

In general, the use of prescription drugs increases 9-10% a year. That means that within 3 years, the average American will take at least one medication each week.

I don’t believe that any of us is born with a drug deficiency, nor do we acquire one later on in life. We all have an innate Life Force that is capable of doing amazing things when given the right conditions, nutrients, and opportunity to do so. With the right approach, most people can eliminate high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, excess weight, migraines, arthritis, and fatigue, just to name a few.

When you give up personal responsibility for your health, you pay a high price. Don’t worry, Big Pharma will be glad you’re paying it.
# # # # # # #

Prozac vs. Placebos
America’s favorite antidepressants are little better than sugar pills. Have the drugs been overhyped? It’s not that simple

By David Noonan and Geoffrey CowleyNEWSWEEK

Over the past 14 years, millions of Americans have escaped the debilitating and sometimes lethal grip of depression with the help of a handful of popular drugs, including Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil. This new generation of antidepressants, decidedly safer and easier to use than the medications they replaced, offered welcome relief to a wide variety of patients and racked up billions in sales.

AS THE PILLS changed lives and even saved them, they became part of the cultural landscape, inspiring countless articles, books and talk-show segments. Today more than 7 million Americans take these drugs for depression, and the number is still climbing. All of which leaves Irving Kirsch unimpressed. Indeed, according to Kirsch, the author of a forthcoming study of antidepressants titled “The Emperor’s New Drugs,” America’s favorite pills “may have no meaningful pharmacological effect at all.”

Anti-drug zealots have said that for years, but Kirsch is a scientist, and he has data to back his assertion. Prozac and its cousins—the so-called SSRIs—are all thought to work by boosting the effects of the neurotransmitter serotonin (and in some cases norepinephrine). Is it possible that all this chemical manipulation is unnecessary—that people feel better on these drugs simply because they think they will? In hopes of finding out, Kirsch, a psychologist at the University of Connecticut, pooled data from 38 studies on six drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1987 and 1999 (the three above, and Serzone, Celexa and Effexor). The studies were placebo-controlled clinical trials in which some depressed patients were given actual drugs while others got pills with no active ingredients. The studies didn’t show any lack of effect. In fact, the patients improved markedly. The problem is that people who got placebos fared almost as well as those getting real drugs. On average, people on placebos enjoyed an eight-point improvement on the 50-point Hamilton Depression Scale, while those on medication managed a 10-point improvement. It’s no secret that placebos can ease depression in short-term studies, but Kirsch and his colleagues raise an unsettling possibility. In a paper appearing next week in Prevention & Treatment, an online journal published by the American Psychological Association (, they argue that the SSRIs’ active ingredients may account only for the two-point difference between drug and placebo, not the whole 10-point benefit that users enjoy. If so, says Kirsch, the benefits are “clinically negligible.”
       There are a couple of problems, though. First, drug effects and placebo effects may not be “additive.” In other words, even if it’s possible to reproduce 80 percent of a drug’s effect with a placebo, that doesn’t mean the people taking the drug derive 80 percent of their benefit from the placebo response. If people received the drug without their knowledge, would they get only 20 percent of the effect? The question is worth asking, but it’s difficult to answer, because researchers can’t study drugs by slipping them into people’s coffee. Drug trials require informed consent—and once participants know what’s going on in a study, expectations rise. But suppose 80 percent of the antidepressant effect is just placebo. Is there a practical way to tap that benefit in the absence of an actual drug? If clinicians stopped prescribing antidepressants, patients wouldn’t lose only the two-point advantage that treatment offers over placebo, they would lose the whole 10-point improvement. And no one is suggesting that drugmakers start bottling sugar pills.

The new study might well prompt some depressed people to skip the drugs altogether. If the benefits are negligible, why endure side effects that can include nausea, nervousness, sweating, tremors and decreased libido? But while Kirsch thinks psychotherapy—the good old talking cure—is an effective alternative, he does not advise anyone to stop using antidepressants. Neither does Dr. Rodrigo Munoz, past president of the American Psychiatric Association. Like many clinicians, he believes the drugs have a much greater effect than Kirsch’s analysis suggests. “Even if 20 percent is the best we have,” he says, “I’ll live with it until we have something better.” Munoz notes that 15 percent of people with depression end up killing themselves. “When I see a patient who is suicidal, I use all the artillery. I am not going to say, ‘Well, 20 percent is not enough for me’.”

A large part of the problem in assessing the effectiveness of the antidepressants is the maddening complexity of depression itself, with its wide range of symptoms and many levels of disability. Dr. Walter Brown of Brown University Medical School says the antidepressants “are probably not as effective as the hype around them would suggest.” But Brown, who wrote a commentary on Kirsch’s study that will also be published in Prevention & Treatment, believes the drugs are more powerful than Kirsch concludes. He says the mild and moderately afflicted patients who typically participate in clinical trials can exaggerate the placebo response. In Brown’s experience, severely depressed patients do not respond nearly as well when treated with placebos. He believes the drugs are more effective in the real world, where they are used to treat a range of sick people over long periods.

Some who question the efficacy of antidepressants say the massive promotional efforts by the drugmakers may actually boost the placebo response. “One day we may look back and marvel at the stroke of marketing genius that led to calling these medications antidepressants in the first place,” says clinical psychologist David Antonuccio of the University of Nevada School of Medicine. But Dr. Michael Miller of Harvard Medical School says that in his clinical experience, the placebo response is limited. Most of his patients enjoy a brief improvement no matter what treatment they receive. Those getting only a placebo response soon return to their misery, he says. But those responding to medication enjoy longer-term benefits.

        Even Kirsch admits that the real problem may be figuring out the best way to measure the power of the drugs. For the millions who owe their peace of mind to the antidepressants they take, the point may be irrelevant. In the end, anything that lightens the days of those who suffer depression is a good thing.
        # # # # # # # #
Best Self USA offers an alternative for the biological solution to mood disorders.  They have a medical doctor on staff and a psychiatrist on adjunt staff when prescription medication is prefered or indicated.  However, Best Self USA  Best Self USA is well known for finding nutritional solutions to emotional problems. They use the highest quality nutrients from the largest natural nutrition company in the world. General nutritional counseling is offered without fees.Neurotransmitters (NTs) are essential chemical messengers that regulate brain, muscle, nerve and organ function. The most common neurotransmitters are serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine. Low levels of these important chemicals are extremely common in the general public, due to innumerable lifestyle, environmental, and dietary factors. This article is intended to help the reader determine whether they may be deficient in neurotransmitters and how evaluation and treatment of this disorder can help.

# # # # # #

Dopamine, Acetylcholine, GABA and Serotonin are probably the most important brain neurotransmitters, with dopamine being the "precursor" for norepinephrine and epinephrine
People with neurotransmitter deficiency disorder can suffer from one or more of the following conditions: obesity, depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, insomnia, attention deficit, learning disorders, panic attacks, migraines, pms, menopausal symptoms, digestive complaints and many more.
Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, etc. are currently some of the most commonly prescribed drugs. They work by artificially increasing the amount of serotonin in the synapse of the nerve which allows a temporary improvement in the chemical messaging system.
The problem with this approach is that these drugs DO NOT increase serotonin levels; in fact they deplete reserves of the NT. This occurs because the SSRI class drugs cause an increase in an enzyme called MAO. It is common for people to experience only temporary improvement due to this effect.
The natural treatment for optimizing the neurotransmitter levels is to provide the basic amino acid precursors, or building blocks, so the body can replenish the inadequate neurotransmitter levels.