​The photograph above is a wild ginger plant in the genus Asarum. I photographed it last week in the woods near my father's house. Don't eat it. We know this. Some plants are poison. Naturopaths know about aristolochic acid because it is part of our training in botanical medicine.

Medicine in the US today is as polarized as our politics, and just as full of talking points and bald faced lies. I find it infuriating and frustrating. Today I read a hit piece attacking naturopathic doctors. It claimed that we push herbs that contain aristolochic acid (AA). AA is a known carcinogen in the bladder and kidneys, and a new study suggests that it's causing a lot of liver cancer too. It really ticks me off when headlines say we push people to take poison. Not so. We are here to guard against such mistakes.

Chinese herbal products have often been found to contain toxins, and to be mis-labeled or not labeled at all. Herbs containing AA can be found in Chinese weight loss formulas, among other places Here in the good old US we may complain about the shady politics in the FDA, but at some level they really are trying to protect us. They're doing better than the Chinese authorities, far as I can tell.

There's been an incredible increase in the wealth of the Chinese middle class in the last 25 years. Suddenly people have jobs, cars, and disposable income. They are eating more sugar than they ever have before, and they are getting fat, even getting diabetes. The Chinese are looking more and more like US.

Combine their new obesity, disposable income, and good supply of poorly regulated herbal products, and you can understand why the Chinese are getting cancer from AA. Lots of other people in Asia, like the Taiwanese, are having the same problem.

We've known about AA for a long time. The FDA issued a warning about it in 2001 which is when it came onto a lot of people's radar.

If you would like to know if an herbal formula or a supplement is safe to take, there is no one better to consult than a naturopath. We study on which herbs are useful and which are dangerous.

It is true that the vast majority of herbal products are not very well tested. You have to do the research to find out which ones are good, or ask a naturopath. Some companies have excellent quality assurance standards, and some do not. If you are going to take a product, you want to know if it contains what it says on the label. You also want to know that it does not contain anything toxic. Third party testing of products is expensive and most companies don't do it. If you buy the cheapest herbs you can get, you are probably choosing the ones that haven't been checked. Just so you know.

The people who are dedicated to the project of smearing alternative medicine don't know much about it, but that doesn't slow them down. It has become disgustingly normal, especially online, to just say whatever you want as if it were true, and keep saying it until the dimwitted come to believe you.

Don't let them brainwash you. Keep your wits sharp. Gather information and challenge your own assumptions. There is disinformation on all sides, and medicine is as rich a medium for BS as politics.

Just because something is natural does not make it safe.  Just because something is herbal does not make it dangerous. If you're going to experiment with herbs, do your research--or get some help from someone who has. And don't buy imported herbs online. Please.

Many people have this idea that naturopathic medicine is off in lala land somewhere, and that nothing about it is based on reality.  While this could be true for some practitioners, MY practice is based on what we can deduce from what we know and what we are learning.  I base my decisions on scientific findings, and not just one study, but composites of information that add to the big picture.  I advise against using unsubstantiated treatments, and against using any new pharmaceutical drug until it has been on the market at least 10 years.

Ironically, the treatments given by many conventional doctors are not based in science or even in common sense.  Sometimes a treatment idea gets broadly adopted before it has been really studied.  Once everyone thinks that is what works, they just keep doing it.  Patients demand treatments that have no evidence behind them at all.  It takes a lot of information to turn around public opinion after the people have been brainwashed by doctors.

Take chemotherapy for example.  Chemo is poison intended to kill the cancer.  In many cases chemo causes the death of a cancer-ridden patient.  Sure, there are specific cancers which respond very well to chemo, but there are many more that do not.  Doctors will sometimes give in to a patient's desire to "do anything possible" to help, even when they know that it will not help.  It is in fact easier to give people the poison they demand, than to explain to them why they won't benefit from it.

For another example, take a look at the ACIP schedule for vaccinating babies.  While I agree that vaccination is effective for preventing epidemics, there is little evidence behind the schedule.  Vaccinating a newborn for Hepatitis C is destructive, not helpful.  The schedule for vaccination is based on convenience.  Doctors stick the babies with multiple vaccines at every wellchild visit, and don't worry about possible negative effects (and lack of benefit) from that practice.  The vaccination schedule bears some research to make sure that we are building appropriate herd immunity while also not hurting anyone's baby.

I ran across this post about statins today.  Many people take statins. Statins are drugs that stop your body from making its own cholesterol.  There is no evidence to support the use of statins for preventing heart attacks, and they may actually increase the risk of heart attacks in women.  They're also linked to the formation of cataracts, crippling muscle pain, dementia, fatigue, diabetes and erectile dysfunction.  Doctors give statins when they want to lower someone's cholesterol and don't think they can get that person to change their diet and lifestyle.  The evidence says that diet and lifestyle are FAR more effective for adjusting blood lipids than statins are.

Oh and last but not least in my list of conventional medical madness is the idea that eating cholesterol makes the body's cholesterol go up.  For 20+ years the medical establishment has been teaching that if you eat too much eggs and bacon, you will have high cholesterol.  The truth is that your body MAKES cholesterol from pasta and bread.  Your body makes cholesterol because it NEEDS cholesterol.  Cholesterol is not evil.  If your cholesterol is too low, you are sick.  People get high cholesterol from being sedentary and eating too many carbs, not from having an egg breakfast and a full and active day.

Just because something is widely accepted as the state of medicine does not mean that it is the best we can do.  We can do better.  The status quo is for dead people.  Living people have the capacity to keep learning and trying new things.  I urge you to question everything that you think you know about healthcare and health. Many things that have been accepted for a long time are about to be turned on their heads.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) releases a list of best products each year, and it has come out.  Look here before you buy another bottle!

The Key Points about Sunscreen:

1)    SEEK sunscreen that contains zinc oxide or avobenzone to protect against UVA.

2)    SEEK sunscreen with an SPF between 15 and 50.

3)    REAPPLY your sunscreen often, no matter the SPF.

4)    AVOID any type of application other than rubbing cream onto your skin.  No powders, sprays or towelettes.

5)    AVOID Super high SPF (over 50).  SPF only refers to protection against UVB (the burning rays); they may not protect against UVA which can accelerate aging and cause cancer.

6)    AVOID:
           a. Oxybenzone.  It’s estrogenic and linked to endometriosis.
           b. Retinyl Palmitate in sunscreen.  It might make lesions grow faster.
           c. Bug Repellant in your sunscreen.

SOURCE
http://www.ewg.org/2013sunscreen/what-not-to-bring-on-vacation/

My patients often ask if I think medical marijuana might be helpful.  We’ve had some widely ranging conversations about the risks and benefits of this drug.  As a naturopathic physician I may not prescribe cannabis even though it is legal for medical use here in Oregon; it is not in the ND formulary.  The fact that I cannot prescribe it does not prevent me from discussing it.  The issue will not go away, regardless of the laws and the war on drugs.  Cannabis is ubiquitous, even though it is federally illegal with varying levels of state permissiveness.

Just last month Colorado and Washington were the first states in America to approve the legalization of marijuana for recreational use.  Those who fear it as a gateway drug, and those who advocate its medical use or broader legalization, are all making noise about it.  The politics often plays more loudly than the facts.  Marijuana is the #1 drug brought our way by Mexican drug cartels, and Mexican weed is likely to contain pesticides and other toxins.  Synthetic cannabinoids are being imported from Asia labelled as bath soaps and sold in convenience stores.  The war on drugs highlights our incarceration problem and the ugly politics of race.  Reasonable medical questions remain unanswered.

Our own government propagated a lot of disinformation back in the 1930’s when the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was created and cannabis was classified as a narcotic (against the advice of the American Medical Association).  The original Greek meaning of “narcotic” was any psychoactive substance that induces sleep, but in more recent times it has come to mean opiates and any drug derived from them.  Opiates are addictive and are carefully regulated by the DEA.  Cannabis is pharmacologically a world apart from opiates, and is no longer thought of as a narcotic, but it is still plagued by the negative reputation engendered by federal prohibition and propaganda, and the War on Drugs.  Cannabis was federally prohibited in 1933, the same year that the prohibition on alcohol was rescinded.

In 2009 the AMA did a review of the scientific literature on cannabis and found a few legitimate clinical trials with a grand total of less than 300 study participants.  The DEA has refused to grant permission to universities or pharmaceutical companies to research it.   The drug is approved by 18 states for medical use, but we have very little scientific information on which to base clinical applications.  Anecdotal information about the indications of various strains guide the choices of medical users.  The federal ban is still in effect, and current federal enforcement efforts are focused on importers and distributors and not on small scale possession (like they were under Reagan).  Employers are within their legal rights to require drug testing.  Law enforcement budgets rely on asset forfeitures (police can seize any cash or items likely to be related to drug trade without proof of guilt) which is incentive for police forces to continue to pursue small scale dealers.  Medical cannabis programs provide a front for a new domestic black market.  That the issue is contentious is an understatement; it is explosive.  And we still don’t know what it is good for.

A future email newsletter will focus on known and theoretical risks and benefits of cannabis use.  Sign up for the monthly missive here. 

 

This link goes to a Ted Talk by Jon Ronson, journalist from London, speaking about the research he did for a book on psychopathy.  He pegs the relevant issue which is the fact that all of us display some characteristics of various mental disorders, including psychopathy.  All of us, you say?  Yes, all of us.  Madness is inherent in the human condition.  We have the capacity for rationality, but we also all have moments of unconsciousness.  We have moments in which we are not as kind as we could be.  We have moments of every description, but these moments do not condemn us.  We can still be decent people.  

In the Bible, Matthew 7:5 reminds us that we are not perfect.  "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."  Before we accuse anyone else of madness, it is in our best interests to recognize that we are human too, with requisite portions of inexplicable wildness.

Because of the nuclear meltdown threat in Japan, lots of people are talking about taking iodine.  The point is to top off your body's stores of healthy iodine so that if there is any radioactive iodine in the atmosphere, your body doesn't take it up.  But there is risk in taking iodine, and there is a lot of conflicting information out there.  So here's just a tiny primer on what to do--or rather, what NOT to do.

The US RDA for iodine is 250 micrograms per day.  Notice: MICROgrams, not MILLIgrams or mg.  The RDA is based on preventing goiters, not on optimal health, so don't assume (ever) that the RDA is actually how much of anything you want to get.  There's more to it than that.  The Japanese RDA is 800 micrograms.  The actual Japanese daily intake of iodine is more like 25-50 MILLIgrams per day, because they eat so much fish and seaweed.  And the Japanese have lots less cancer than Americans.

It turns out that breast cancer is associated with low iodine levels, especially during a woman's teens and twenties.  This is not about radiation, it's just about not getting enough of a nutrient that the breasts need.  Breast cancer is terribly common.  The thyroid uses the most iodine in the body, and here in the US there is an epidemic of hypothyroidism.  It could be argued that we would be well served by taking in more iodine, like the Japanese do.  And obviously we're not getting enough from our iodized salt.  Some argue that we don't absorb iodine very well when it's mixed with salt.

The CDC and other sources are recommending that people who are exposed to radiation take 150 MILLIgrams of iodine a day.  But 300 milligrams of iodine has the potential to suppress the thyroid gland, to shock it, if you will.  And not all of us are directly exposed to radiation levels that high.  So we probably don't need to take that much.

If you decide to supplement iodine, make sure you look at all your supplements and add up the amounts in each.  There is iodine in my multi, and in my thyroid support supplement.  The cheap and easy way to just get more iodine is the liquids in dropper bottles that you can find at the health food store.   One drop is usually all you need for a day.  You do not want to overdose!!  There could be iodine in lots of supplements, so check!

Personally, I have been taking somewhere close to 1 milligram (mg) of iodine a day, and at that level, I think that my receptors are full of good iodine, and I am at a low risk of uptaking radioactive iodine.  I'm paying attention to all the information that comes my way about it, and I will give you an update if there's anything that convinces me that for my own health, I want to take more or less.