The Human Diet

     As a doctor who specializes in wellness, I frequently have patients asking me what “diet” they should go on or follow in order to lose weight, be healthy, and move toward wellness. So, this is my answer to the recurring question I’m asked in my practice, and one that I’m sure you have wondered yourself at some point.

    There are more than 500 different “diets” that attempt to answer all of the questions about nutrition. There are diets for just about every condition known to man - everything from cancer to toenail fungus. One diet I came across was called the “lazy zone diet” which is a “perfect diet for lazy people.” Are you kidding me? 

    The purpose of eating is to convert food into healthy functioning cells, tissues, and organs. The food you consume determines the quality of your cells, tissues, and organs. Your genetics are either deficient in a nutrient, sufficient in a nutrient, or toxic in a nutrient. An astonishing 99% of diseases the human body can exhibit are the result of cells failing to adapt due to a toxicity or deficiency. Our genetic code was programmed to express health; proof of this can be found by looking at individual cells under a microscope. Cells always seek healthy, nutrient rich environments, rather than toxic, nutrient deficient ones. This is why you CANNOT move toward health and wellness with drugs and surgery. If you were to place a human cell into a nutrient deficient, chemically toxic petri dish, over a period of time it would begin to express sickness. Now, do you think that adding some drugs or performing surgery on that cell would increase the health of the cell? Absolutely not. That would only injure the cell further, because you have either added a toxic chemical or cut away an important anatomical structure. The reason why we can apply the same principles of the effects on a single cell to the organismal level (human being) is because humans are made up of 75 trillion cells working together trying to express health. Every single human cell requires the same things in order to express health, because we are all within the same species.

    To put this very simply, every single member of the same species requires the same exact nutrients in order to express health and wellness. The quantity of the nutrients needed differs from person to person depending on things like size, shape, physical activity etc., but the actual nutrients required do not change. For example, if you were to travel to Africa and observe giraffes for a few days, you would quickly realize that every single giraffe eats exactly the same things; you wouldn’t see some giraffes eating lion meat and others eating something completely different. This is because the giraffe’s genetic code requires them to eat a certain way, and therefore they all have the same exact diet that feeds and meets their genetic requirements. Giraffes eat the giraffe diet. Nutritional genetic requirements change from one species to another, but NEVER change within the same species. This is why my dietary recommendations are virtually the same for every single person I talk to – because they are all members of the human species.

     For whatever reason, most people don't think of humans as a species of animal, but we most certainly are. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are when it comes to who or what made humans; we are still an animal species. Since all people belong to the same species, we all require the same nutrients in order to express health. This means there is only one way to eat to feed our genes. There should only be one “diet” and that is the HUMAN DIET. Forget about all the different “fad diets” and forget about trying to eat a certain way in order to get a certain symptom to go away. This type of thinking will never move your body toward expressing health, because it focuses on treating the symptom rather than the cause.  It does not matter whether you have cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, lupus, acid reflux, diabetes, MS, Parkinson’s, etc. Your genetic requirements DO NOT CHANGE. I can’t stress the importance of this enough. Our earliest ancestors ate the way the human species was intended to eat, and were among the healthiest people to ever roam the earth, which is the foundation for the Paleo lifestyle. Remember, whether you believe in intelligent design or macroevolution, this fact does not change. For argument's sake, we could even look at modern day hunter-gatherers who are still an example of the healthiest humans. These populations of people have virtually no cancer, diabetes, hypertension, ADHD, cardiovascular disease, depression, etc.   

  “Paleo” eating consists of consuming mainly fish, grass-fed pasture-raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes consuming grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils. Most people think that grains are good for you, and are a great way to get the nutrients you need as long as they are whole grains. This popular misconception contributes to pathological physiology and causes the cells of your body to adapt faster and more frequently in order to cope with the inflammatory nature of grains. Grains were ok in moderation a couple hundred years ago, but the grains made today are toxic. Anything that causes adaptive physiology (higher than normal cell division) is a stressor to your body, therefore moving you toward sickness and disease. Please don’t mistake this recommendation as suggesting that you cut out all carbohydrates – your body requires carbs in order to express health, but the source of your carbohydrates should be fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds, rather than grains.

   The current recommendation (according to the CDC) for the daily number of servings of fruits and vegetables people need are around 2-3 cups of each, per day. This recommendation doesn’t even come close to what your genome actually requires in order to express health.  Your intake of fruits and vegetables should be at least 4 times that amount (8-12 servings). Since we don’t have time to sit around and eat fruits and vegetables all day long, I highly recommend investing in a Vitamix or a Ninja blender. These blenders are amazing for pulverizing just about any fruit or vegetable, and retain the fiber that juicing takes out, which decreases sugar spikes.

   The only way to eliminate disease or to make sick people well is to restore health by restoring proper cell function. The only way to restore cell function and health is to create sufficiency in place of deficiency, and to create purity in place of toxicity, along with optimizing nervous system function.

   

   So, where does chiropractic come in to play? Chiropractors are wellness physicians who correct vertebral subluxations (joints in the spine that are not moving properly) that are causing neurological interference. Subluxations cause adaptive physiology just like nutritional deficiencies and toxicities do. They also interfere with the brain’s ability to communicate with the cells of your body, which can have devastating effects on your health without showing signs or symptoms. Along with adjusting the spine and extremities, Chiropractors also adjust the diet, exercise, and lifestyles of their patients in order to help move them toward the wellness paradigm. Chiropractors DO NOT TREAT SYMPTOMS; we look for and correct the causes of cellular dysfunction and adaptive physiology. Symptoms are just the body’s way of telling you something is wrong. Getting a symptom to go away is like taking the batteries out of a smoke detector - it would only be a matter of time before the house burns down.  This quote sums up our philosophy perfectly:

  “Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voices of nature’s protest and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of transgression. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with later on even though it palliates present symptoms. Symptoms may disappear, but the patient is left in a worse condition, though unconscious of it at the time.”

                                                                                           Daniel Kress M.D

   If you want to learn more about paleo, www.ThePaleoDiet.com is a great place to start. This site has tons of great information regarding the paleo lifestyle and way of eating. If you're interested in a little bit heavier reading, I have referenced some peer-reviewed literature below.

  We have to stop treating symptoms with drugs, surgery, lotions, potions, supplements, herbs, and diets. This model is failing us, and does not make anyone healthier - because cellular dysfunction is not caused by a lack of drugs or surgery, so adding these things, scientifically speaking, is invalid. There is a reason why America is the most medicated nation in the world (we consume 70-80% of the world's pharmaceutical supply), and yet we are still the sickest. It's time that we start being proactive about our health.

References

1. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, O’Keefe JH, Brand-Miller J. Origins and evolution of the western diet: Health implications for the 21st century. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:341-54

2. Cordain L, Brand Miller J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD. Plant to animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000, 71:682-92.

3. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Brand Miller J, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: Meat based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56 (suppl 1):S42-S52.

4.  Cordain L, (1999). Cereal grains: humanity’s double edged sword. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 84: 19-73.

5. Cordain L, Toohey L, Smith MJ, Hickey MS. Modulation of immune function by dietary lectins in rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Nutrition, 2000, 83:207-217.

6. Cordain L, Watkins BA, Mann NJ. Fatty acid composition and energy density of foods available to African hominids: evolutionary implications for human brain development. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2001, 90:144-161.

7. Cordain L, Watkins BA, Florant GL, Kehler M, Rogers L, Li Y. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2002;56:181-191.

8. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Brand Miller J, Lindeberg S, Jensen C. An evolutionary analysis of the etiology and pathogenesis of juvenile-onset myopia. Acta Opthalmolgica, 2002,80:125-135.

9. Cordain L, Lindeberg S, Hurtado M, Hill K, Eaton SB, Brand-Miller J. Acne vulgaris: a disease of Western civilization. Arch Dermatol. 2002 Dec;138(12):1584-90.

10. Cordain L, Eades MR, Eades MD. (2003). Hyperinsulinemic diseases of civilization: more than just syndrome X. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A:136:95-112.

11. Chesnut, J MPH, DC. The Innate Diet & Natural Hygeine.

Email response to the article "What's with Rich People Hating Vaccines"

Alex,

I recently read your article "What's With Rich People Hating Vaccines" and was taken back. I have spent countless hours researching vaccine effectiveness in order to give the best information to the public so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families. There are numerous articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed bio-medical literature that question the effectiveness of many of the politically enforced vaccinations, yet you failed to mention any of them. You essentially faulted the parents who took the time to research vaccines, and decided that the minute risk of their children contracting the diseases medical doctors tell us to inoculate against, did not actually outweigh the risk of injecting their children with the toxins and chemicals contained in the vaccines. Instead of writing a well-referenced, scientific article on the pros and cons of vaccination, you chose to write an opinionated article based upon pseudo-scientific misinformation. 

The flu vaccine, for instance, is reported to reduce your risk of getting the flu by 60%, according to the literature the CDC uses for public policy. If you actually read the literature, the authors used relative risk assessment instead of absolute risk assessment, which increased the values astronomically. After a thorough review of the peer-reviewed literature, and compiling the data using absolute risk assessment (which applies to the general population), the flu vaccine only reduces your risk of getting the flu by 2%. Vitamin D has been proven to reduce your risk of getting the flu by 18%, which is not perfect but its much more effective. And far less dangerous. This is just one example of how vaccine effectiveness has been blown way out of proportion. If you look at the data, and peer-reviewed literature, the fact that many of the diseases we are told to vaccinate for in order to prevent were actually on the decline long before the vaccines were ever introduced is undisputed. Rich people don't "hate" vaccines, as you say in your article. Perhaps the population in these affluent communities are "rich" because they are more intelligent and highly educated. And perhaps the more educated people are, the greater their tendency may be to read and research and make informed decisions for themselves and their families rather than following every instruction given to them by their medical doctors like robots. Just a thought, since you are speculating about so much already, it can't hurt to suggest another possibility - one that might actually be supported by census data and other demographic information.

Furthermore, if vaccination is so effective, then what are all of these parents and children who choose to receive vaccinations so worried about? Only the kids who are not vaccinated should be getting the diseases, right? When there is a small outbreak of any disease, the CDC fails to report the number of children who got the disease that received the vaccine, they always talk about the unvaccinated one - which again, is misinformation. 

I strongly encourage you to look into this further and educate yourself on topics that you choose to write about. I urge you to focus your energy on writing an informative article rather than an opinionated one. Something else to think about is that only 15% of medical interventions (drugs and surgery) are considered to be based on scientific evidence from the bio-medical journals. Policy will always trump scientific evidence when it comes to healthcare, and that is because of one thing: money. 

Thanks,

Dr. Andrew Brady    

In Response to the Recent “Pro-Vaccine” Articles

In recent weeks I have seen a lot of pro-vaccine articles emphasizing the importance of getting your children and yourself vaccinated for the prevention of disease. I think its important that I take some time to go over the actual peer-reviewed literature regarding vaccination, and hope you will look at the actual facts instead of reading ignorant pseudoscience posted by the mainstream media – and largely re-posted by people who have never even read a single peer-reviewed article in the biomedical journals regarding vaccination. The biggest mistake you can make when it comes to making informed health decisions is to take a doctor’s advice without researching the benefit-to-risk ratio associated with those decisions.

There are many diseases we are told to vaccinate against, but one that has gotten a lot of hype lately in the U.S. is Bordetella Pertussis (whooping cough). This is a highly contagious bacteria that affected nearly 27,500 Americans in 2010, resulting in 27 reported deaths, according to the CDC. This particular bacteria must be confirmed by a specific lab test that is rarely ordered, because physicians rely on a list of symptoms to diagnosis this condition. Therefore, misdiagnosis is a common problem when it comes to these values, but for argument’s sake let’s assume that the reported value is correct. There are approximately 308 million people in the United States. In one year, 27,500 were diagnosed with whooping cough. Of those 27,500 diagnosed cases, 27 people ending up dying from complications related to B. Pertussis. To place these values into a risk assessment, the chance of contracting whooping cough and then developing a fatal complication is estimated at 1 in 11,400,000. To put this number into perspective, a child’s chance of dying in a car accident is 1 in 23,000; mathematically speaking, your child is 496 times more likely to die on the way to get the vaccine than to die from the bacteria itself.

That’s the risk argument, but there is also the effectiveness argument. As demonstrated by the table below, around 1918 the death rate for pertussis was about 17 per 100,000, or 0.017%. By the time the pertussis vaccine was widely used, the rate of death had already declined to about 0.002%. Whooping cough was on the decline, and in fact almost totally wiped out, by the time the vaccine was introduced for widespread use. Improved sanitation and hygiene, not a vaccine, are largely responsible for the reduction in the number of pertussis cases.

Risk and effectiveness aside, there is still the issue – and it’s a huge one – of side effects. Depending upon the vaccine manufacturer, the pertussis vaccine may contain varying amounts of inactivated pertussis toxin, filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), pertactin, fimbriae, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), gluteraldehyde, 2-phenoxoyethanol, aluminum and thimerosal (mercury), among other things. Now, most vaccine advocates will say “yes the vaccine contains all those adjuvants but, only in trace amounts so it’s not harmful to your body.” This argument is among the most ignorant I have ever heard. If I were to take all the preservatives in the vaccines that are recommended for our children and inject them into an apple, and then asked you to eat it, I can guarantee that you wouldn’t do it! If I dumped those same adjuvants into a lake, I’d be arrested for contamination. So why is it ok to inject those things directly into our bloodstream, and then say it doesn’t “harm the body?” And for what - to help “prevent” 27 deaths? The irony is that many people who choose to vaccinate also choose to buy organic foods because they don’t want their kids to consume trace amount of insecticides and pesticides, yet they run to their family doctor for vaccinations that contain known carcinogens to help “prevent” sickness.

Every 4-5 years there is always going to be a spike in pertussis outbreaks, no matter what country you look at or what the vaccination rate is. The massive decline in the prevalence of pertussis in the mid-1900’s was due to advances in sanitation and cleanliness, not because of vaccination. I would encourage everyone reading this post to read the article “Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak” published in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Disease. All the references cited in this article are from the peer-reviewed biomedical journals.

It is so frustrating to hear other healthcare professionals proudly state that vaccines are safe and effective “according to the research.” When asked “what research?” They will respond in 1 of 2 ways: Either they are completely surprised because no one has ever asked that question, or they will point to literature that has been published regarding scientific studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies selling the vaccine. Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT’s) are the gold standard for conducting scientific studies. Did you know that there are absolutely no double blinded RCT’s to date that test the safety and effectiveness of ANY vaccines? Yet I hear all too often that “the research” shows how effective these vaccines are. Very interesting. There has also never been any research conducted on how these vaccines might affect our genetic code. On all packaged vaccine inserts, it is clearly stated that these vaccines have not been tested for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, or impairment of fertility. Below is a picture of an insert for the vaccine Daptacel, which is a DTap (diptheria + tetanus + pertussis) vaccination, so you can see for yourself.   

Just so you know, mutagenesis is something that causes mutations within genes. Carcinogenesis is a something that causes cancers. When it comes to scientific research, it is important to disclose that “only 15% of all medical procedures have been found to be supported by any literature at all and only 1% of that literature has actually been deemed scientifically rigorous” according to an article published in the British Medical Journal, a highly respected peer-reviewed journal (Smith R. Br Med J 1991;303:798-799). So, for those of you who like to preach vaccination and point fingers in an attempt to ostracize the families who choose not to vaccinate, I highly recommend that you read the actual peer-reviewed literature regarding this topic before posting links from your poorly referenced, opinionated blogs, newspapers, and magazines.

This post is not intended to say it is right or wrong to choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate. The point I want to make is that you should not be so quick to judge those who choose not to vaccinate - most of the time those who judge do not have all the facts and have opinions based on misinformation. To the parents who are worried about non-vaccinated kids being in classes with your own - if you are so sure vaccines are effective, then what do you have to worry about? I want to make one thing clear: I am not anti-medicine. Medical doctors are brilliant when it comes to saving lives. I would want a medical doctor by my side if I was in some sort of life-threatening accident. M.D’s save lives every day, they “put out the fire” so you can have a second chance to live when something terrible has happened, but you do not call the same people that put out the fire to come rebuild your house.

The best thing you can do to ensure your family’s health and your own is to make sure you give the body its genetic requirements in order to express health and wellness, so that the immune system can be as strong as possible. For instance, Vitamin D is a genetic requirement and should be supplemented every day for a strong immune system. Probiotics are also a genetic requirement and are imperative for healthy immune system function and gut health – 75% percent of your immune system is located within your GI tract, therefore it is important to supplement.

Whether you choose/chose to vaccinate or not, I hope that after reading this you’ll consider looking into and educating yourselves further in order to make the best healthcare decisions for you and your family. Do not just listen to what your doctor (M.D, D.O, D.C.) tells you to do without looking into the research yourself. If I were to ask you why you chose to vaccinate or chose not to vaccinate, I hope you have a very confident answer based upon actual literature and evidence, not “because my doctor told me to.”

If anyone has any questions whatsoever regarding the information in this post, please contact me and I would love to answer your questions.

Thanks,

Dr. Brady

References:

• Safety & Immunogenicity of Pentavalent (DTaP5-IPV-Hib) Vaccine. Vol 123, No. 1, Jan. 2009, pp 301-312.
• Acute Myocarditis After DPT Vaccination – Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals 2006; 14:e111-e112. An infant develops acute myocarditis after the DPT vaccination, and dies while waiting for a heart transplant
• Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine
• Madge N. Diamond J, Miller D, Ross E, et al. The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study: A 10-Year Follow-Up. A report of the medical, social, behavioral, and educational outcomes after serious, acute neurological illness in early childhood. Dev Med Child Neurol 193;68:35:1-118
• Pediatrics – August 2005 study on effectiveness of DPT vaccine
• Gold, R. Pertussis: The Disease & the Vaccine. Canadian Family Physician. Vol 32, January 1986, pp. 79-83.
• Legido A, Tenembaum SN, Katsetos CD, Menkes JH. Autoimmune & Postinfectious Diseases (Chapter 8). Child Neurology – 7th Edition. Lippencott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. Pages 631-634 (Neurologic Complications of Immunizations).
• Grilc E, Pirnat N. Pertussis outbreak in recently vaccinated children in a kindergarten in Ljubljana during a resurgence in pertussis incidence. Eurosurveillance. Vol. 10, Issue 33. 18 August 2005.
• Sidney M, Furman BL, Wardlaw AC. Effect of hyperreactivity to endotoxin on the toxicity of pertussis vaccine and pertussis toxin in mice.Vaccine. Vol. 7, Issue 3. June 1989. Pages 237-241.
• World Health Organization (WHO). Requirements for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis 7 Combined Vaccines (Revised 1989). Technical Report Series, No) 500. 1990. Steinman L, Weiss A et al. Pertussis toxin is required for pertussis vaccine encephalopathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 1985. December; 82(24) 8733-8736.
• Hofstetter HH, Shive CL, Forsthuber TC. Pertussis Toxin Modulates the Immune Response to Neuroantigens Injected in Incomplete Freund’s Adjuvant: Induction of Th1 Cells and Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis in the Presence of High Frequencies of Th2 Cells. The Journal of Immunology, 2002. 169: 117-125.
• Gupta RK, Relyveid EH. Adverse reactions after injection of adsorbed diptheria – pertussis – tetanus (DPT) vaccine are not due only to pertussis organisms or pertussis components in the vaccine. Vaccine. Vol. 9, Issue 10. October 1991. Pages 699-702.
• Bergfors E, Trollfors B, Inerot A. Unexpectedly high incidence of persistent itching nodules and delayed hypersensitivity to aluminum in children after the use of adsorbed vaccines from a single manufacturer. Vaccine. Vol. 22, Issue 1. December 8, 2003. Pages 64-69.
• Rimaniol AC, Gras G et al. Aluminum hydroxide adjuvant induces macrophage differentiation towards a specialized antigen-presenting cell type. Vaccine. Vol. 22, Issues 23-24. 13 August 2004. Pages 3127-3135.
• Mooi F R, van LooIHM, King A. Adaptation of Bordetella pertussis to Vaccination: A Cause for its Reemergence? Emerging Infectious Diseases. Vol. 7, No. 3 Supplement June 2001.
• Srugo I, Benilevi D et al. Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Vol. 6, No. 5 September-Oct. 2000.
• Brooks DA, Clover R. Pertussis Infection in the United States: Role for Vaccination of Adolescents and Adults. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 19:603-611. 2006.
• Kheief N, Danve B etal. Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis: two immunologically distinct species. Infection & Immunity. 1993 February; 61(2): 486-490.
• He Q, Vijanen MK et al. Whooping Cough Caused by Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis in an Immunized Population. JAMA. 1998; 280: 635-637.
• Liese JG, Renner C. Clinical and epidemiological picture of B pertussis and B parapertussis infections after introduction of acellular pertussis vaccines. Archives of Diseases in Childhood 2003; 88: 684-687.
• Magin K. Low vaccination rates cause worry over whooping cough. The Union (Nevada). June 15, 2010.
• LabCorp. A Technical Review: Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis Detection using Real-time PCR. 2007.
• Preston A. Bordetella pertussis: the intersection of genomics and pathobiology. Canadian Medical Association Journal. July 5, 2005. 173 (1)
• A Simple Chemically Defined Medium for the Production of Phase I Bordetella pertussis; D.W. Stainer and M.J. Scholte; 1971. Describes the Stainer-Scholte growth medium for pertussis; also explains how pertussis vaccine acts as an adjuvant (booster) to diphtheria and tetanus vaccines
• Clinical & Experimental Medicine: The Current Epidemiology of Pertussis in the Developed World; 1988; 13 Suppl: 97-101
• DPT Vaccine and Chronic Nervous Dysfunction: A New Analysis, Institutes of Medicine. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1994
• Baraff, L.J., et al. 1983. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis-vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatric Infectious Disease 2(1):7-11.

• Barkin, R.M., and Pichichero, M.E. 1979. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine: Reactogenicity of commercial products. Pediatrics 63(2):256-60.
• Berg, J.M. 1958. Neurological complications of pertussis immunization. British Medical Journal (July 5), 24,-27.
• Byers, R.K., and Moll, F.C. 1948. Encephalopathies following propylactic pertussis vaccination. Pediatrics 1(4):437-56.
• Cavanaugh, N.P.C., et al. 1981. The possible adjuvant role of bordetella pertussis and pertussis vaccine in causing severe encephalopathic illness: A presentation of three case histories. Neuropediatrics 12 (4):374-81.
• Champsaur, H., et al. 1982. Virologic, immunologic, and genetic factors in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of Pediatrics 100(1):15-20.
• Cockburn, W.C. 1951. Whooping cough immunization. Practitioner 167:232-36.
• Cody, C.L., et al. 1981. Nature and rates of adverse reactions associated with DPT and DT immunizations in infants and children. Pediatrics 68(5):650-60.
• Coulter, H.L., and Fisher, B.L. 1985. DPT: A Shot in the Dark, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Dick, G.W.A. 1967. Reactions to the pertussis component of quadruple and triple vaccines. International Symposium on Combined Vaccines, Masburg. Symposia Series in Immunobiological Standardization 7:21-28.
• Basel and New York Karger.
• Gerathy, K.C. 1984. DPT Immunization and SIDS. Journal of Pediatrics 105:169-170.
• Globus, J.H., and Kohn, J.L. 1949. Encephalopathy following pertussis vaccine prophylaxis. Journal of the American Medical Association 141(8):507-9.
• Halpern, S.R., and Halpern, D. 1955. Reactions from DPT immunization and its relationship to allergic children. Journal of Pediatrics 47:60-67.
• Hanik, C.A. 1969. Major reactions after DPT-polio vaccination in the Netherlands. International Symposium of Pertussis, Bilthoven. Symposium Series on Immunobiological Standardization 13 161-70: Basel, Mughen, New York: Karger.
• Hannik, C.A. and Cohen, H. 1978. Changes in plasma insulin concentration and temperature of infants after pertussis vaccination. International Symposium on Pertussis, 297-99.
• Hennessen, W., and Quast, U. 1979. Adverse reactions after pertussis vaccination. International Symposium on Immunization: Benefits vs. Risk Factors, Brussels. Developments in Biological Standardization 43:95-100.
• Hinman, A.R., and Koplan, J. 1984. Pertussis and pertussis vaccine: Reanalysis of benefits, risks, and costs. Journal of the American Medical Association 251(23):3109-13.
• Koplan, J.P., et al. 1979. Pertussis vaccine –An analysis of benefits, risks, and costs. New England Journal of Medicine 301(17):906-11.
• Kulenkampff, M., et al. 1974. Neurologic complications of pertussis inoculation of pertussis inoculation. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 49 46-49.
• Linthicum, D.S., et al. 1982. Acute experimental autoimmune encephaloyelitis in mice. Cellular Immunology 73:229-310.
• Low, N.L. 1955. Electroencephalographic studies following pertussis immunization. Journal of Pediatrics 47: 35-39.
• Menkes JH, Kinsbourne M. Neuropediatr 1990;21:171-6
• Pollack, T.M., et al. 1984. Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunization. Archives of Disease in Childhood 59:162-165.
• Robinson, D.A., et al. 1981. Whooping Cough – a study of severity in hospital cases. Archives of Disease in Childhood 56:687-91.
• Steinman, L., et al. 1982. Murine model of pertussis vaccine encephalopathy: Linkage to H-2. Nature 299: 738-40.
• Stewart, G.T. 1977. Vaccination against whooping cough: Efficacy vs. risks. Lancet (January 29) 234-37.
• Stewart, G.T., et al. 1981. Pertussis vaccine and acute neurological disease in children. British Medical Journal (June 13), 1968-69.
• Strom, J. 1960. Is universal vaccination against pertussis always justified: British Medical Journal (October 22) 1184-86.
• Strom, J. 1967. Further experience of reactions, especially of a cerebral nature, in conjunction with triple vaccination: study based on vaccinations in Sweden, 1959-1965. British Medical Journal 4:320-23.
• Taranger, J. 1982. Mild clinical course of pertussis in Sweden. Lancet (June 12), 1360.
• Torch, W.C. 1982. Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: A potential cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), American Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, April25-May1. Neurology 32(4):pt. 2.
• Trollfors, B., and Rabo, E. 1981. Whooping cough in adults. British Medical Journal (September 12), 696-97.
• Trollfors, B., et al. 1984. Bordetella Pertussis Whole Cell Vaccines: Efficacy and Toxicity. Acta Pediatrica Scandinavica 73: 917-923.
• Valman, H.B. 1980. Contraindications to immunization. British Medical Journal (May 3), 1138-39.
• Werne, J., and Garrow, I. 1946. Fatal anaphylactic shock occurrence in identical twins following second injection of diptheria toxoid and pertussis antigen. Journal of the American Medical Association 131(9): 730-35.

Why Statins are not the Answer

Statins (ie: Lipitor, Mevacor, Zocor, Lescor, Crestor, Advicor, Pravachol) are cholesterol-lowering medications prescribed for more people than any other drug type to aid in reducing the amount of fat in your blood. It is widely accepted that elevated cholesterol levels increase your risk of cardiovascular disease, although this theory is debatable. Prescriptions for these drugs have sky-rocketed over the past 15 years, with a startling 260 million prescriptions dispensed in the U.S. in 2011 alone. According to the CDC, 600,000 people die every year in the United States due to heart disease despite the fact that more people than ever are taking these cholesterol-lowering medications. These people simply did not die because they forgot to take their Lipitor.

Even more shocking, at least half of all heart attacks and strokes occur in people with acceptable cholesterol levels, yet cholesterol levels and LDL (Low Density Lipoprotein) continue to shoulder the blame. If half of the people who suffer stokes and heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels, then what caused their heart attack? The truth is,  cholesterol and low-density lipoproteins are actually a pretty poor indicator for assessing a person’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Virtually all major studies on statins were paid for and/or conducted by the pharmaceutical companies selling the drugs, or by scientists with financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies. The studies that report a 36% reduction in heart attacks for people taking Lipitor are reporting the relative risk rather than the more accurate absolute risk. In a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill, or placebo, had a heart attack, compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor. For every 100 people who took the drug for 3.3 years, 3 people on the placebo suffered heart attacks compared to 2 people actually taking Lipitor. So, 100 people have to take the drug for more than 3 years to prevent 1 heart attack. The other 99 people increase their risk of side effects for essentially nothing. Data from one study showed that 1,000 people would have to be treated with statins for one year to reduce the number of deaths from 9 to 8.

So what is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease?

Homocysteine is an amino acid that derives from demethylation of methionine and causes vascular damage, leading to inflammation within the vessel walls. LDL or cholesterol can’t penetrate the walls of the vessel and become oxidized unless inflammation is present. To make a long story short, folic acid (vitamin B9) reverses homocysteine formation and helps prevent vascular inflammation so that LDL or cholesterol can’t be deposited into the injured vascular wall and become oxidized. Lowering your blood levels of homocysteine greatly reduces your risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

What can you do?

1)    Supplement with a multi-vitamin high in folic acid (B9) for the remethylation of homocysteine.

2)    Consume only grass-fed, certified organic meats.

3)    Supplement with a animal based omega-3 fatty acid with a DHA:EPA ratio of 18:12.

4)    Exercise at least 45 minutes per day making sure your heart rate is at 60-80% of your maximum heart rate.

5)    Reduce your daily stress levels.

6)    Get your spine checked by a chiropractic physician! Making sure your brain is communicating properly with the rest of your body is imperative to expressing health and wellness.

References:

1)    Antioxidant activity of vitamin B6 delays homocysteine-induced atherosclerosis in rats. British        Journal of Nutrition (2006), 95, 1088–1093

2)    The Cholesterol Conundrum. Nutrition News and Views,17(3) 1-6,  2013.

3)    The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis: a perspective for the 1990s. Nature 362,    801–809.

4)    Ross R (1999) Atherosclerosis - an inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med 340, 115–126.

5)    V Buonacorso, ER Nakandakare, et al, Am J Clin Nutr, Nov 2007, 86(5):1270-7; D Kim, JAMA, 21 Nov 2007, 298(19):2263-4

6)    A Kim, A Chiu, et al, J Am Diet Assoc, Nov 2011, 111(11):1720-9

7)    A Merchant, S Anand, et al, Am J Clin Nutr, Jan 2007, 85(1):225-30

8)    A Singh-Manoux, D Gimeno, et al, Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, Aug 2008, 28(8):1556-62

9)    K Ray, S Seshasai et al, Arch Intern Med, 2010, 170:1024-31

10) M Gillman, S Daniels, B Psatu, et al, JAMA, 18 Jan 2012, 307(3):257-60

11) Robinson K, Mayer EL, Miller DP, et al. (1995) Hyperhomocysteinemia and low pyridoxal phosphate: common and independent reversible risk factors for coronary artery disease. Circulation 92, 2825–2830. Ross R (1993)

Why Your Vitamins Should Be Organic Whole Food Supplements

So many people go to their local grocery store or GNC to buy their vitamins, yet most people have no idea what the source is of those vitamins they are purchasing. In this post, I want to discuss the importance of making sure the vitamins you are buying are from a WHOLE FOOD ORGANIC SOURCE, and preferably USDA certified organic. Its probably safe to estimate that 99.9% of the vitamins on the market are synthetic forms of the vitamin and are chemically created in a pharmaceutical plant. Synthetic vitamins do not contain many of the cofactors and active enzymes that make that vitamin useful in the body. Any vitamin that only requires you to take one pill a day to get all the recommended daily values is simply not genetically compatible with your body and is a waste of money. The body only absorbs a very small percentage of those types of vitamins, which is why many people experience bright yellow urine after taking them.

Synthetic vitamins do a very good job of raising blood levels of that vitamin or mineral, but they do a terrible job of entering the cells of our body where they are utilized in biochemical processes. There are so many research articles out there claiming how well a vitamin is absorbed into the blood stream, but the studies never seem to examine or report how well the cells utilize the vitamin - which is the most important reason for taking vitamins in the first place.

Some people don’t think there is a difference between synthetic and whole food supplements. They’re wrong. That is like saying there is no difference between synthetic beef (made by a human in a test tube) and real beef. I’m pretty sure no one would want to eat synthetic beef, so why should our supplements be any different? The same goes for our food; USDA certified organic is by no means perfect but it is the best source of food that you will get in today’s society.

The research is clear: our body treats synthetic vitamins and minerals as foreign substances and excretes them from the body as waste. Make no mistake, the best supplement is no supplement… eating all the fruits and vegetables your body requires in their whole food form is the best thing you can do. But most people are not able to do this, and that’s where supplementation should come in. Every single person in the human species requires the same vitamins and minerals whether you have Rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes or are seemingly healthy. All of our genes require the same things in order to express health, this is why health care providers who give certain supplements to treat different conditions and try to separate each person with different needs are not helping their patients get any healthier. The expression of health in those genes once provided with the proper raw materials can be different in different people and that is where the term “biochemical individuality” comes into play.

If you’re interested in finding vitamins from organic whole food sources, the website I typically buy my supplements from is Innatechoice.com, which sells supplements for the most common nutritional deficiencies in today’s society. The other website I buy from is Mercola.com, which is also one of the greatest websites I have come across to find information and about true health and wellness. If anyone has any questions about supplements or anything else -- please don’t hesitate to ask.  

Is Chiropractic Safe?

Is chiropractic safe? Absolutely. Many people erroneously fear that chiropractic healthcare is not safe, even though this unfounded fear has been the subject of countless research articles which have never produced a conclusion that chiropractic is an unsafe or dangerous form of healthcare. To put the safety of chiropractic into perspective, I want to compare it to NSAID’s which stands for non-steroidal anti-infalmmatory’s. An example of a NSAID would be any over-the-counter pain reliever such as aspirin, Tylenol, or Ibuprofen. According to the FDA, approximately 10,000 – 20,000 deaths per year and 76,000 hospitalizations per year are caused by use of NSAID’s - yet most of us don’t think twice about popping a couple Advil to treat a headache or fever. The probability of having an adverse reaction to a chiropractic adjustment, according to multiple sources, is 1 out of 749 treatments. Of the adverse reactions that have been reported, most are merely complaints of a temporarily sore neck following neck adjustments.

Chiropractic is extremely safe and cost effective for ANYONE (infant, child, adult, or elderly – with the rare exceptions) who wants to improve their quality of life. There may be people out there who have certain preexisting conditions that would require their chiropractor to change the technique they use in order to ensure that safety is not compromised, but even in those small percentages of cases it is still considered to be very safe when the proper accommodations are made by the doctor. To any skeptics, my advice to you is this: don’t “Google” chiropractic and safety - actually read the peer-reviewed research in reputable journals if you still have doubts.

One thing I especially cannot stand is when someone in the healthcare field tells people that chiropractic is dangerous and that they should not go see a chiropractor. Not only is this statement completely false, but it actually makes the healthcare professional look like an idiot. Common sense should tell you that it is dangerous to purport to know what you don’t know – healthcare professionals may be an expert in their own field, but that does not make them an expert in others. People providing healthcare to people need to recognize what they don’t know and should put their egos aside for the sake of their patients. Only a Doctor of Chiropractic can talk to you about the safety of adjustments.  

I saw a perfect example of some peoples’ ignorance on this subject recently while I was reading a pop culture magazine and saw the question: “Are chiropractic adjustments safe for infants?” The magazine had a chiropractor give one answer, and then had an anesthesiologist give another. The anesthesiologist said something like “this is unnecessary because infants don’t have neck problems.” I think this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard an educated person say. What does an anesthesiologist know about chiropractic? They don’t take one class on chiropractic in all of their years of schooling, so his opinion is invalid - not to mention completely wrong. That would be like someone coming up to me and asking “are root canals a safe procedure for people with a dead tooth?” I would say, “I have no idea” - because I’m not educated in dentistry or oral surgery. Birth trauma can be very hard on an infant’s head, neck, and spine and should definitely be checked by a chiropractor soon after birth. The only exception to this would be if there is a certain congenital malformation or if the baby is premature. Contrary to what the anesthesiologist in this magazine article likely thought, medical professionals would actually bolster their credibility by deferring to the education and expertise of other healthcare providers in instances such as these.

I could go on and on about the safety of chiropractic but I want to keep this short and sweet. According to the national survey conducted by Chiropractic Economics 2011, the mean cost of malpractice insurance for a chiropractor in a solo practice was  $2,210 PER YEAR. This is a mere fraction of what M.D.’s pay. While M.D.’s annual medical malpractice insurance premiums vary by state and by practice area, the national averages span from roughly $20,000/year to over $200,000/year. Clearly, even the insurance companies who are experts at assigning a dollar value to the risk involved with certain medical fields understand the safety of chiropractic care. If you are not persuaded by the peer-reviewed research or experts in the chiropractic field, these medical malpractice costs alone should demonstrate to any skeptic that the safety of chiropractic is paramount to most – if not all – other fields of healthcare. If anyone is still unsure of the safety of chiropractic please feel free to email me with any questions regarding this topic.

References

¹ Maigne R. Orthopedic Medicine: A New Approach to Vertebral Manipulations. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas. 1972; 155, 169.

² Cyriax J. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine. Vol 1. Diagnosis of soft tissue lesions (7th edition). London, Bailliere Tindall. 1978; 165.

³ Hosek RS, Schram SB, Silverman H, Meyers JB. Cervical Manipulation. J Amer Med Assoc. 1981; 245:922.

⁴ Gutmann G. Verletzungen der arteria vertebrailis durch manuelle therapie. Manuelle Medizin 1983; 21:2-14.

⁵ Dvorak J, Orelli F. How dangerous is manipulation of the cervical spine? Manuel Med 1985; 2:1-4.

⁶ Carey PF. A report on the occurrence of cerebrovasular accidents in chiropractic practice. J Canada Chiropractic Association 1993 (June);37 (2): 104-6.

⁷ Dabbs V Lauretti WJ. A risk assessment of cervical manipulation vs NSAIDS for the treatment of neck pain. J Manip Physio Ther 1995 (Oct); 18 (8): 530-6.

⁸ Klougart N, Leboeuf-Yde C, Rasmussen LR. Safety in Chiropractic Practice. J Manip Physiol Ther 1996 (Jul-Aug); 19 (6): 371-7.

⁹ Singh Gurkirpal, MD, "Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy", The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S Wolfe M. MD, Lichtenstein D. MD, and Singh Gurkirpal, MD, "Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs", The New England Journal of Medicine, June 17, 1999, Vol. 340, No. 24, pp. 1888-1889.

Edward J. Frech and Mae F. Go, "Treatment and chemoprevention of NSAID-associated gastrointestinal complications", Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 2009, pp. 65-73

Fries James F., "NSAID Gastropathy: The Second Most Deadly Rheumatic Disease? Epidemiology and Risk Appraisal", Journal of Rheumatology, 1991, (Supplement 28), Vol. 18, pp. 6-10

Bolten W., Lang B., Wagner A., and Krobot K., "Consequences and Costs of NSAID-Induced Gastropathy in Germany", Akt Rheumotol, 1999, Vol. 24, pp. 127-134