Nutrition and DO's

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The problem with gluten/dairy/omega-3s/vaccinations/mercury/etc with Autism is that it's not applicable across an autistic population.

While there are general diagnostic criteria for autism, how people respond to treatment is extremely individualistic in autism. No one treatment will necessarily work for the next person.

As a speech therapist, I've had some children on my caseload who responded better after having dietary restrictions, but they still have characteristic autistic qualities that persist. It's given me the opinion that, until further research proves otherwise, these children would have these allergies (i.e. gluten) anyway and cause troubles with learning if they didn't have autism too. I see children who have allergies to all sorts of things that have the "mind-fog" yet they don't have autism.

I understand the need to want to investigate it, but I don't think it's the cure to autism either.

But all of this is for a different thread topic.

The bottom line is that people are responding to posts by PianoRocks11 that really are not well-informed.

Members don't see this ad.
 
One more thing, it may be the Christmas season, but that doesn't mean stupidity takes a break. As such, the voice of reason shouldn't be silenced either.

I see a lot of people who posted here who didn't call names and are just trying to figure out why, specifically, pianorocks11 posted the way they did.
 
There are some studies out about omega-3 supplements & autism. Have you talked to your physician about trying them?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16920077

I'm not trying to instigate here, but just posing an honest question for reasonable discussion. Since there was, by your own admission, much work done w/ your son along with the nutritional changes, how can you be so certain it was the dietary changes and not the therapies that caused the improvements?

I've read that when a new treatment starts, many parents will subconsciously watch their child more closely or spend more time working with him/her, and the improvements may possibly be either a placebo effect or attributable to the increased attention. I'm not implying you did this, but if I were a parent, I could see myself subconsciously doing this so I thought it was pertinent to the discussion & could be mentioned.

The truth is I have honestly no idea what made my son get better. For all I know, he would have turned out the same one way or another. I can say that being with him every day rather than looking at clinical data or statistics or some biased study that already knew what results was desired before it was started, that the diet seemed to take away some of the fogginess as Meg called it. After that kind of dissappeared, it was easier to get through to him and to work with him. I worked with him a lot and I had him with a speech therapist before his 2nd b-day. I think that all helped too. A lot of parents seem to wait a lot longer than I would to get help. He obviously did have allergies bc he had a lot of diarrhea as an infant, developed a rash at about 15 months all over his body, and then a dermatologist diagnosed him with exzema. The exzema was up and down his back which is a very weird place to have exzema so we got rid of any allergens we could possibly think of at that time. The body rashed coincided with his speech regression and the appearance of many autistic like symptoms.

The bottom line is I don't know what helped him. It could have been the dietary changes, not getting any more immunizations, getting speech therapy, being put in a special ed daycare at 3, all the work I did with him using a myriad of techniques that I researched to try to get him to come out of his zone, time, absolutely nothing at all. I don't know. But I would have absolutely been kicking myself if I didn't try everything I could think of or research about and he hadn't gotten better. I would have never forgiven myself and I guess I think that's the point I will carry with myself and into medical school and in dealings with my future patients. Laugh at me if you will but I know myself well enough to know that I will give them the benefit of the doubt, until proven that I should not, that they truly need help and I will do what is in my power to help them. If they don't take that help or guidance, that's on them, not me but I will know at the end of the day that I did my best.

Oh, and sorry my posts are so long. It drives me crazy but they just end up long and I never ment for them to but I did want to make a quick aside about Omega-3 fatty acids. I am kind of terrified of fish bc of all the toxins that are built up in their fat which then gets deposited in human's fat when they eat them. The population of the world that has the highest concentration of toxins built up in their fat is an artic eskimo population that uses very little of our modern technology but eats a lot of fish and other animals from the sea. If you would like a source on this, read "Our Stolen Future" by Theo Colburn a professor from the University of Florida, I believe. It is excellent. I went to a conference for work over the summer and she was there and is so amazing. Last week, I was at a Christmas party with a bunch of my friends from high school and one of my freinds now raises buffalo at their ranch. Supposedly they are just as high in Omaga-3 fatty acids as fish but they don't use any hormones or antibiotics on their ranch. I'm so excited about this and plan on buying a bunch of buffalo to get my Omaga-3 fatty acids that I miss by not having much fish.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
...Maybe you should be looking at Naturopathy instead of Osteopathy?

...medicine may not be for you.

...Being a physician may not be the best way to meet your professional goals.

You may want to look into becoming a dietician/personal trainer, or a naturopathic physician. These vocations will allow you much more time with patients, allow you to really maximize your passion for teaching good nutritional habits, and possibly even change the bad eating habits of a larger group of people than you could as a physician.

PR11, this is in no way a slight on you. I truly wish you the best and hope that you can find the right role in health care for yourself and your patients. I cited the above because I think they are good things to look into, to consider. Why fight it? Why make things more difficult for yourself? Medicine may not be the best choice for you. I think it is best to pick the role that allows you to do what you most want, with the least amount of resistance; you have to be able to wake up in the morning and love what you do. This is one of the recipes for happiness, IMHO. There's nothing wrong with being a naturopathic physician, or choosing a similar profession to that, which facilitates and accentuates what matters most to you. Look for the best fit. Good luck! :luck:
 
PR11, this is in no way a slight on you. I truly wish you the best and hope that you can find the right role in health care for yourself and your patients. I cited the above because I think they are good things to look into, to consider. Why fight it? Why make things more difficult for yourself? Medicine may not be the best choice for you. I think it is best to pick the role that allows you to do what you most want, with the least amount of resistance; you have to be able to wake up in the morning and love what you do. This is one of the recipes for happiness, IMHO. There's nothing wrong with being a naturopathic physician, or choosing a similar profession to that, which facilitates and accentuates what matters most to you. Look for the best fit. Good luck! :luck:

Agree. Especially because that "nutrition first" and "nutrition as the sole method of treatment" will get you sued pretty damn fast...at least if you present yourself as a primary care physician.

There is a reason there is such a thing as Standard Of Care.

If you deviate from that, be prepared to defend yourself.

Treating a patient with CAD and dyslipidemia s/p MI with nutrition is great, but if you dont have a damn good reason for omitting the Lipitor your are screwed.
 
I recently joined SDN and was browsing through the Pre-DO Forums when I came across this thread about increased awareness of nutrition. After reading through all the messages, I feel EXACTLY the same way as you do. I believe that preventative medicine through nutrition and supplementation should be the primary way to treat a patient, and using medication and pharmaceutical drugs as a last resort. I'm familiar with the backlash that you've gotten from that way of thinking, but I still truly believe it is the proper way. I like your dreams and visions, as I have countlessly thought in my head about how can I go about doing this.

I'm currently an undergrad 4th year student at UC San Diego, and have yet to apply, but definitely looking into it. I mainly got my mentality through while working as a Director for a health science company that manufactures high-quality nutritional supplements, and realized that it really comes down to the nutrition of the cell. He has seen amazing results in his patients with turning chronic problems into proper results just with the use of our supplements alone.

There is a doctor who practices with that philosophy in Colorado by the name of Ray Strand, MD. If you haven't heard of him, try and do a search to learn some interesting ways of treating patients through a nutritional approach. I have a CD that he created where he expands on this philosophy as well, and can let you know where you can obtain it

While I read the comments that you had made, I also read through everyone else's comments, and will have to agree with them. We live in a reactionary society today, unfortunately. People will not take care of a problem until it becomes a problem. When applying this idea to health, it by then has already caused drastic effects. I think of nutritional supplements and a healthy lifestyle as insurance for your body. Its interesting how ppl will get insurance for their car and their home, but will not make proper lifestyle changes to get insurance on their health. Of course there is health insurance, but that is more of a literal idea...which in itself has problems that you may be aware of in this country.

This idea is more of a political and corporate problem. We also live in a society where money rules control of decisions, even in terms of health and health care. Medical school is designed to teach people how to diagnose and treat disease as opposed to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. While it is clearly more beneficial to focus on prevention, the mentality is that there is a pill for every problem. At the same time, pharmaceutical companies look to profit on the sales of their drugs. In our current health care system, there will always be a clash between health and profit.

There is countless scientific data that shows proper nutrition (by using supplementation) can be just as effective (if not more) in treating some of the underlying causes to chronic degenerative diseases. My concern with current pharmaceutical drugs is that it treats only the symptom of the disease as well as the effect of a disease rather than the underlying cause. (EX 1: lowering cholesterol by use of statins to prevent myocardial infarctions when inflammation is actually cause and cholesterol is the effect)
(EX 2: lowering blood pressure via proper blood pressure medication instead of focusing on a diet of low glycemic index foods and exercise, reversing insulin resistance (underlying cause of type II diabetes) and even curing it)

I do though realize patients will want a quick fix. They believe a pill would be able to cure it; however, I believe there is too much focus on diagnosing and not enough on preventing. The mentality of our society is shaped that way. Unfortunately, a long term problem cannot be fixed by a short term solution. The US spends 98% on cure, and 2% on prevention. The US has the highest cost of health care per person by far out of any country, yet has the 37th life expectancy out of any country. For things to change, our philosophy has to change.
 
I believe that preventative medicine through nutrition and supplementation should be the primary way to treat a patient, and using medication and pharmaceutical drugs as a last resort.
It is, patients just don't listen to the advice of their doctors/nutritionists. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread.

Its interesting how ppl will get insurance for their car and their home, but will not make proper lifestyle changes to get insurance on their health.
Get used to it. People will also pay 10K+ for breast implants or nose job they can live without, but a surgeon only gets $400 for removing a ruptured appendix and saving their life.

This idea is more of a political and corporate problem.
No, it's an individual problem. Individuals don't take responsibility for how they take care of themselves. If you think the government or corporations will ever effectively take care of public health, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Medical school is designed to teach people how to diagnose and treat disease as opposed to prevent it from ever happening in the first place.
Really? What medical school did you go to?

At the same time, pharmaceutical companies look to profit on the sales of their drugs.
And they should. They invest millions to create drugs that help others. If there is no reward, the companies won't push to create new drugs/delivery systems, and scientific progress will slow/stop.

In our current health care system, there will always be a clash between health and profit.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

There is countless scientific data that shows proper nutrition (by using supplementation) can be just as effective (if not more) in treating some of the underlying causes to chronic degenerative diseases.
Dietary changes are used whenever possible, especially by Osteopathic physicians. The patients just don't follow their doctors recommendations. discussed ad nauseum on this thread-let it go.

My concern with current pharmaceutical drugs is that it treats only the symptom of the disease as well as the effect of a disease rather than the underlying cause.
Well genius, then invent a pill that prevents people from stuffing twinkies into their face or causes them to exercise like forest gump and the problem will be solved & you'll be a millionaire.

I believe there is too much focus on diagnosing and not enough on preventing.
You and Pianorocker need to become either naturopathic physicians, dieticians, or personal trainers. You can then make a career out of your infatuation with begging people not to eat a tray of pizza for dinner.

The US spends 98% on cure, and 2% on prevention.
Prevention by taking personal responsibility is free.

The US has the highest cost of health care per person by far out of any country, yet has the 37th life expectancy out of any country. For things to change, our philosophy has to change.
There are 2 million socialized medicine threads on SDN which are better for you to express this common argument. Those threads also consider different reasons why our per capita is higher than other countries, so I suggest you read them, consider all of the viewpoints, & then post there.
 
I recently joined SDN and was browsing through the Pre-DO Forums when I came across this thread about increased awareness of nutrition. After reading through all the messages, I feel EXACTLY the same way as you do. I believe that preventative medicine through nutrition and supplementation should be the primary way to treat a patient, and using medication and pharmaceutical drugs as a last resort. I'm familiar with the backlash that you've gotten from that way of thinking, but I still truly believe it is the proper way. I like your dreams and visions, as I have countlessly thought in my head about how can I go about doing this.

I'm currently an undergrad 4th year student at UC San Diego, and have yet to apply, but definitely looking into it. I mainly got my mentality through while working as a Director for a health science company that manufactures high-quality nutritional supplements, and realized that it really comes down to the nutrition of the cell. He has seen amazing results in his patients with turning chronic problems into proper results just with the use of our supplements alone.

There is a doctor who practices with that philosophy in Colorado by the name of Ray Strand, MD. If you haven't heard of him, try and do a search to learn some interesting ways of treating patients through a nutritional approach. I have a CD that he created where he expands on this philosophy as well, and can let you know where you can obtain it

While I read the comments that you had made, I also read through everyone else's comments, and will have to agree with them. We live in a reactionary society today, unfortunately. People will not take care of a problem until it becomes a problem. When applying this idea to health, it by then has already caused drastic effects. I think of nutritional supplements and a healthy lifestyle as insurance for your body. Its interesting how ppl will get insurance for their car and their home, but will not make proper lifestyle changes to get insurance on their health. Of course there is health insurance, but that is more of a literal idea...which in itself has problems that you may be aware of in this country.

This idea is more of a political and corporate problem. We also live in a society where money rules control of decisions, even in terms of health and health care. Medical school is designed to teach people how to diagnose and treat disease as opposed to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. While it is clearly more beneficial to focus on prevention, the mentality is that there is a pill for every problem. At the same time, pharmaceutical companies look to profit on the sales of their drugs. In our current health care system, there will always be a clash between health and profit.

There is countless scientific data that shows proper nutrition (by using supplementation) can be just as effective (if not more) in treating some of the underlying causes to chronic degenerative diseases. My concern with current pharmaceutical drugs is that it treats only the symptom of the disease as well as the effect of a disease rather than the underlying cause. (EX 1: lowering cholesterol by use of statins to prevent myocardial infarctions when inflammation is actually cause and cholesterol is the effect)
(EX 2: lowering blood pressure via proper blood pressure medication instead of focusing on a diet of low glycemic index foods and exercise, reversing insulin resistance (underlying cause of type II diabetes) and even curing it)

I do though realize patients will want a quick fix. They believe a pill would be able to cure it; however, I believe there is too much focus on diagnosing and not enough on preventing. The mentality of our society is shaped that way. Unfortunately, a long term problem cannot be fixed by a short term solution. The US spends 98% on cure, and 2% on prevention. The US has the highest cost of health care per person by far out of any country, yet has the 37th life expectancy out of any country. For things to change, our philosophy has to change.

Oh no! I know I said I was going to stay out of this thread, but I just can't hold back on this one! You've swung far too left, friend. Obviously, as a nutrition "expert" myself, I believe in the benefits nutrition can deliver. HOWEVER: supplementation is by no means the best solution (it's a distant option, at most). These countless studies you refer to are often misleading, misinterpreted, and sometimes downright fraudulent (if I have any area of specialty right now, it's nutrition research). Listen, I would love to have faith in the supplement industry as a way to help promote health and prevent disease. The problem is this industry is not regulated well (if at all). It's a horrendously corrupt business that is in desperate need of regulation (and this is coming from a Republican! :eek:). I'm not going to rehash everything that's been said on this thread, but nutrition can and should play a role in health and disease treatment/prevention. It's up to each physician to determine, using their professional judgment, how much of this discipline to use in their practice. My main concern with all of this is the accuracy of the recommendations used. I think if you jump to supplements too readily in your care of patients, this is much more likely to constitute irresponsibility, depending on the specific case, of course. I do admire your appreciation of the value of nutrition, but let's not get hasty with using it in place of potentially more effective/established modalities of care (e.g., pharmaceuticals, procedures, etc.) - at least not until we have enough reliable data to suggest doing so.
Alright, carry on... ;)
 
Oops! Double post...
 
This thread is a joke.

I want to see this question posed in the FP forum, the Gastro forum, and maybe even the intern year forum and see what they say.

And then post it in the clinician area and see what nurses, nutritionists, and other allied health have to say.

I'm just LMFAO at the pre-meds who have it all figured out and seem to think that, despite not having spent one second in medical school yet, having a relative in medicine and reading a book or two on nutrition makes them a complete expert. Just LMFAO.
 
excuse me. Just to be clear, I am NOT talking about JWE27. Someone's feelings are apparently hurt.

Edit: apparently I needed to be more clear in that I was addressing piano and kaizen.

Some people need to get a life. And that is a blanket statement.
 
excuse me. Just to be clear, I am NOT talking about JWE27. Someone's feelings are apparently hurt.

I'll live...somehow...day by day...I'll get by...:rolleyes:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
...but I still truly believe it is the proper way. I like your dreams and visions, as I have countlessly thought in my head about how can I go about doing this.

You and some others might be interested in these kinds of opportunitites after a Family Medicine residency:

http://www.aafp.org/fellowships/10326.html

(Ahh...the idealism of pre-med. If only I could get a fraction of that...I've lost about 99% of it)
 
This thread is a joke.

I want to see this question posed in the FP forum, the Gastro forum, and maybe even the intern year forum and see what they say.

And then post it in the clinician area and see what nurses, nutritionists, and other allied health have to say.

I'm just LMFAO at the pre-meds who have it all figured out and seem to think that, despite not having spent one second in medical school yet, having a relative in medicine and reading a book or two on nutrition makes them a complete expert. Just LMFAO.


You know as well as I do that premeds are the smartest people in the world.

:rolleyes:

Its ok. They will find out soon enough. Wait until 3rd year when some overworked intern or resident reams them out for saying/doing something stupid.

Ive done it more than once in just the last month.

They learn quick.
 
You know as well as I do that premeds are the smartest people in the world.

:rolleyes:

Its ok. They will find out soon enough. Wait until 3rd year when some overworked intern or resident reams them out for saying/doing something stupid.

Ive done it more than once in just the last month.

They learn quick.

I am so glad you're back.
 
This thread is a joke.

I want to see this question posed in the FP forum, the Gastro forum, and maybe even the intern year forum and see what they say.

And then post it in the clinician area and see what nurses, nutritionists, and other allied health have to say.

I'm just LMFAO at the pre-meds who have it all figured out and seem to think that, despite not having spent one second in medical school yet, having a relative in medicine and reading a book or two on nutrition makes them a complete expert. Just LMFAO.

Despite what you, Megan, think about this thread, it's not a joke. A lot of useful information has been said on here. There have been viewpoints of pre-meds like myself (and like YOU, by the way) regarding how they hope to practice medicine. Every now any then, it's good to get a view of medicine from a different perspective. Nothing is going to change as a result of this thread. But as a whole, sometimes it's good to look at things from a different angle. I know that posting on this thread and reading some of the responses have been good for ME specifically. It has done one of two things: made me want to branch out even MORE from the standard path through medical school and beyond or it has made me more willing to accept the fact that nutrition just can't be used as much as I want it to. I haven't decided in which way this joke-of-a-thread has affected me. But just the fact that it has gotten me thinking proves that it has some use.

To be perfectly honest with you, I've seen your posts in other threads (like the CCOM one) and after this whole nutrition discussion, I've lost a lot of respect for anything you say. I love healthy discussions. I love arguments where both sides have legitimate points to talk about. A lot of times, that's what this thread has been. What I can't handle is people writing on forums who do nothing but egg on other members or fuel arguments by saying things like "LMFAO at pre-meds who think they're complete experts" or "I'm glad you're back" so you have the usual people "on your side." That contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion about nutrition, it contributes nothing to the discussion about medical school curricula, and it contributes nothing to the amount of information that is available on this website.

I realize I made my first post attacking Dr JPH by saying I hope he's never my doctor. It was a stupid thing to do, and since then, I have done nothing but apologize to these clearly-successful doctors and clarify my viewpoint amidst a shower of attacks from people WITH experience (like JPH and others) and people WITHOUT experience (like yourself). I feel that this thread has moved on from the hatred and the yelling and the name calling and has reached a stage where the only thing people are saying is NEW, USEFUL information. Somebody new reads the thread, posts a long explanation for why he feels the way he does, and all you can do is say "LMFAO at pianorock and kaizen." Great. Excellent. Thank you for your input.

I never said I was an expert. If you scroll up to my last post, when I apologized to ALL who were offended, I specifically said I realize that I know next to nothing compared to the doctors and med students who are replying, and I appreciate their insight. I thought that was going to end your incessant attempts to provoke more and more people to essentially gang up on me and others who brought up this nutrition idea. Here's a list of your posts about me since I made amends and said I was done with the thread:

--LMFAO at a study by BC/BS.

--The bottom line is that people are responding to posts by PianoRocks11 that really are not well-informed.

--One more thing, it may be the Christmas season, but that doesn't mean stupidity takes a break. As such, the voice of reason shouldn't be silenced either.

--I see a lot of people who posted here who didn't call names and are just trying to figure out why, specifically, pianorocks11 posted the way they did.

--I'm just LMFAO at the pre-meds who have it all figured out and seem to think that, despite not having spent one second in medical school yet, having a relative in medicine and reading a book or two on nutrition makes them a complete expert. Just LMFAO.

--apparently I needed to be more clear in that I was addressing piano and kaizen.

--Complete with know-it-all pre-meds, snarky threads, and threads that go off topic in about 3.567 seconds.


I think I've done a damn good job explaining why I feel the way I do, giving examples, citing a study that yielded results suggesting a possible overuse of pharmaceuticals, and trying to keep things calm by apologizing in my last 2 or 3 posts amidst other pre-meds telling me I'm "just a pre-med."

Drop it already, Megan. Recognize that some people out there are going to TRY to use nutritional modifications in their practice, just as I've recognized that there will be people who feel that doing so is not possible or not feasible, even if some of these people (Megan) have the same amount of medical school "experience" that I do.

So to the girl who posted over 10,500 times on SDN and tells everybody to get a life, I'm going to go watch the end of these college football games tonight and then go out with my friends. Enjoy your night.
 
Despite what you, Megan, think about this thread, it's not a joke. A lot of useful information has been said on here. There have been viewpoints of pre-meds like myself (and like YOU, by the way) regarding how they hope to practice medicine. Every now any then, it's good to get a view of medicine from a different perspective. Nothing is going to change as a result of this thread. But as a whole, sometimes it's good to look at things from a different angle. I know that posting on this thread and reading some of the responses have been good for ME specifically. It has done one of two things: made me want to branch out even MORE from the standard path through medical school and beyond or it has made me more willing to accept the fact that nutrition just can't be used as much as I want it to. I haven't decided in which way this joke-of-a-thread has affected me. But just the fact that it has gotten me thinking proves that it has some use.

To be perfectly honest with you, I've seen your posts in other threads (like the CCOM one) and after this whole nutrition discussion, I've lost a lot of respect for anything you say. I love healthy discussions. I love arguments where both sides have legitimate points to talk about. A lot of times, that's what this thread has been. What I can't handle is people writing on forums who do nothing but egg on other members or fuel arguments by saying things like "LMFAO at pre-meds who think they're complete experts" or "I'm glad you're back" so you have the usual people "on your side." That contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion about nutrition, it contributes nothing to the discussion about medical school curricula, and it contributes nothing to the amount of information that is available on this website.

I realize I made my first post attacking Dr JPH by saying I hope he's never my doctor. It was a stupid thing to do, and since then, I have done nothing but apologize to these clearly-successful doctors and clarify my viewpoint amidst a shower of attacks from people WITH experience (like JPH and others) and people WITHOUT experience (like yourself). I feel that this thread has moved on from the hatred and the yelling and the name calling and has reached a stage where the only thing people are saying is NEW, USEFUL information. Somebody new reads the thread, posts a long explanation for why he feels the way he does, and all you can do is say "LMFAO at pianorock and kaizen." Great. Excellent. Thank you for your input.

I never said I was an expert. If you scroll up to my last post, when I apologized to ALL who were offended, I specifically said I realize that I know next to nothing compared to the doctors and med students who are replying, and I appreciate their insight. I thought that was going to end your incessant attempts to provoke more and more people to essentially gang up on me and others who brought up this nutrition idea. Here's a list of your posts about me since I made amends and said I was done with the thread:

--LMFAO at a study by BC/BS.

--The bottom line is that people are responding to posts by PianoRocks11 that really are not well-informed.

--One more thing, it may be the Christmas season, but that doesn't mean stupidity takes a break. As such, the voice of reason shouldn't be silenced either.

--I see a lot of people who posted here who didn't call names and are just trying to figure out why, specifically, pianorocks11 posted the way they did.

--I'm just LMFAO at the pre-meds who have it all figured out and seem to think that, despite not having spent one second in medical school yet, having a relative in medicine and reading a book or two on nutrition makes them a complete expert. Just LMFAO.

--apparently I needed to be more clear in that I was addressing piano and kaizen.

--Complete with know-it-all pre-meds, snarky threads, and threads that go off topic in about 3.567 seconds.


I think I've done a damn good job explaining why I feel the way I do, giving examples, citing a study that yielded results suggesting a possible overuse of pharmaceuticals, and trying to keep things calm by apologizing in my last 2 or 3 posts amidst other pre-meds telling me I'm "just a pre-med."

Drop it already, Megan. Recognize that some people out there are going to TRY to use nutritional modifications in their practice, just as I've recognized that there will be people who feel that doing so is not possible or not feasible, even if some of these people (Megan) have the same amount of medical school "experience" that I do.

So to the girl who posted over 10,500 times on SDN and tells everybody to get a life, I'm going to go watch the end of these college football games tonight and then go out with my friends. Enjoy your night.

You certainly like to say my name a lot. Yes, I may be a pre-med, but I'm also a practicing professional in an allied health field (and own my own practice BTW) who has a lot of experience under my belt regarding diagnostic and treatment procedures. Oh, and dealing with patients/clients who don't follow through on recommendations, no matter how much you push your ideals.

While you try to make yourself look better by quoting me, you only solidify the fact that you are posting from emotions rather than research. You claim you want people to understand you for what you bring to the table, but then turn around and continue to perpetuate something you know nothing about. No sorry, something you know from what your dad told you. That's like me telling someone I know all about pap smears because my mom does them in her office. :rolleyes:

Go ahead, continue to cry about this. I'm going back to the SIU v. Butler game with my husband. I spent all day organizing my office and tooling around on the computer while finishing my insurance billing and making meals for a family potluck tomorrow. And I posted on SDN. OMG! I'm a multitasker! How can I get MORE of a life? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Guys, let's stop fighting, calling each other names, and making ad hominem attacks. We are going to be future colleagues, let's start acting professional. This is becoming stupid. If we can't open our minds and work together, then our profession can't grow past where it's at. We become our own worst enemy. :rolleyes:

I'm part of the crowd that has repeatedly told premeds that I thought that they are a bit too idealistic and inexperienced. I also said that they had a point: nutrition is important and some additional emphasis might be good. I think we all know that preventive care is the wave of the future. However, that said, it isn't as easy as you might think it is and there are challenges that you perhaps have never imagined. You are speaking idealistically (and sometimes clearly talking from inexperience), but the world doesn't always work the way you think it ought to work in your imagination. I encourage you to get some real experience under your belt, observe the very real issues that face clinicians and their patients, listen carefully and learn all the fundamentals, then put it all together in a way that makes sense. See the very real challenges and frustrations that clinicians face in the realm of preventive care and in their everyday dealings with their patients.

Don't eschew experience; these folks have been down the road you are about to walk, or at least are a bit ahead of you. Learn from them. Let them help you build a solid foundation from which you can improvise. At the very least, don't turn them away; the best kind of change happens in a friendly way, where something new and better wins over the way it has always been done. You will have a hard time doing that if you push your colleagues away. Your idealism about nutrition isn't new, but maybe after learning how to navigate the system, you'll help continue the push for greater emphasis on preventive care, perhaps even in novel ways.

Nevertheless, make no mistake, you must learn to treat not only future issues through preventive management, but you must also address the emergent ones that are right in front of you. Don't toss away medicines that work just because you are trying to prove a point. Your responsibility is to be your patient's advocate. Don't ever forget that.

Good luck in your journey. Learn from everyone around you. Don't turn deaf to knowledge and experience.
 
Guys, let's stop fighting, calling each other names, and making ad hominem attacks. We are going to be future colleagues, let's start acting professional. This is becoming stupid. If we can't open our minds and work together, then our profession can't grow past where it's at. We become our own worst enemy. :rolleyes:

I'm part of the crowd that has repeatedly told premeds that I thought that they are a bit too idealistic and inexperienced. I also said that they had a point: nutrition is important and some additional emphasis might be good. I think we all know that preventive care is the wave of the future. However, that said, it isn't as easy as you might think it is and there are challenges that you perhaps have never imagined. You are speaking idealistically (and sometimes clearly talking from inexperience), but the world doesn't always work the way you think it ought to work in your imagination. I encourage you to get some real experience under your belt, observe the very real issues that face clinicians and their patients, listen carefully and learn all the fundamentals, then put it all together in a way that makes sense. See the very real challenges and frustrations that clinicians face in the realm of preventive care and in their everyday dealings with their patients.

Don't eschew experience; these folks have been down the road you are about to walk, or at least are a bit ahead of you. Learn from them. Let them help you build a solid foundation from which you can improvise. At the very least, don't turn them away; the best kind of change happens in a friendly way, where something new and better wins over the way it has always been done. You will have a hard time doing that if you push your colleagues away. Your idealism about nutrition isn't new, but maybe after learning how to navigate the system, you'll help continue the push for greater emphasis on preventive care, perhaps even in novel ways.

Nevertheless, make no mistake, you must learn to treat not only future issues through preventive management, but you must also address the emergent ones that are right in front of you. Don't toss away medicines that work just because you are trying to prove a point. Your responsibility is to be your patient's advocate. Don't ever forget that.

Good luck in your journey. Learn from everyone around you. Don't turn deaf to knowledge and experience.


huh? :smuggrin:
 
Well, even though some people think this thread is a joke and should have never been made, I have learned a lot from it. Dragonwell has shown me that there may be a faction of medicine that may be more oriented towards the type of medicine I find myself leaning toward. I'm not for sure what specialty I want to do but I think I will definitely do a clinical rotation with a functional medicine practitioner if possible. It's also nice to know that there are others out there who try to think outside the box like I feel I tend to. Maybe I don't agree with them completely with regard to every facet but that's definitely not necessary for progress to be made. I think, overall, most aspiring physicians really do want to make a change in the lives of their patients. The unrealistic and naive parts of their aspirations will be cleansed during med school and there is absolutely no reason to attack someone for having high hopes and wanting to make positive influences in people's lives knowing full well that they will learn during med school what is realistic and what is not. (Without any help from SDN members.) That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

So, thank you Dragonwell for informing me about functional medicine. I really appreciate it. I'm sorry that a lot of people had to get bagged on during this thread but I did want to add that at least I got a few useful things out of it and I really appreciate it.

http://www.functionalmedicine.org/
 
I'm currently an undergrad 4th year student at UC San Diego, and have yet to apply,

Medical school is designed to teach people how to diagnose and treat disease as opposed to prevent it from ever happening in the first place.

So let me get this straight, you are yet to apply to medical school, yet you are telling medical students and residents what medical school teaches. :laugh:

And then you and the other pre-meds wonder why people with experience aren't taking you seriously.

My concern with current pharmaceutical drugs is that it treats only the symptom of the disease as well as the effect of a disease rather than the underlying cause.

Maybe you're talking about Tylenol Flu or something. How exactly is a patient with primary dyslipidema only having their symptoms treated by taking statins? What else should they do? When you find a drug that magically alters their genetics so they start producting functioning hepatic LDL receptors, please let me know.

(EX 1: lowering cholesterol by use of statins to prevent myocardial infarctions when inflammation is actually cause and cholesterol is the effect)

:rolleyes: Inflammation does not cause MI. It is one of many steps in atherogenesis. According to Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th edition, page 522, the first step (before this "inflammation" you so proudly speak of) is endothelial injury, caused by:

hypertension
smoking
free radicals
toxins
immune reactions
and yes, you guessed it...HYPERLIPIDEMIA.

The damage caused by these factors initiate inflammation, which starts the cascade of atherosclerotic plaque formation. I'm not going to read the rest to you, feel free to read it yourself.

So yes, lowering hypertension (via diet/beta-blockers/diuretics) is very important. Lowering LDLs (via diet or statins) is very important. As much as you think you know more than Robbins and Cotran, unfortunately you don't.
 
It's also nice to know that there are others out there who try to think outside the box like I feel I tend to. Maybe I don't agree with them completely with regard to every facet but that's definitely not necessary for progress to be made. I think, overall, most aspiring physicians really do want to make a change in the lives of their patients.

Yes, very true. On the other hand, and this is not necessarily directed at you, perhaps it would be beneficial to know all about the metaphorical box, to really understand it, if you are going to try to think outside of it. I like to locate first and get a little familiar with my surroundings before getting all critical, but maybe that's just me.

The unrealistic and naive parts of their aspirations will be cleansed during med school and there is absolutely no reason to attack someone for having high hopes and wanting to make positive influences in people's lives knowing full well that they will learn during med school what is realistic and what is not. (Without any help from SDN members.) That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Also true. I hope I haven't dashed anyone's hopes and dreams. That was not my purpose. I haven't really had any issue with your posts, actually. If I had one point to make it would be that I think, with change, we should start with ourselves and let it ripple from there on out.
 
Despite what you, Megan, think about this thread, it's not a joke.....I've lost a lot of respect for anything you say.
He's not mad at you, Megan, he's just..................disappointed. Now go to your room, Megan, and don't come out until you realize that hypertension should only be treated with brussel sprouts.
 
Well, even though some people think this thread is a joke and should have never been made, I have learned a lot from it. Dragonwell has shown me that there may be a faction of medicine that may be more oriented towards the type of medicine I find myself leaning toward. I'm not for sure what specialty I want to do but I think I will definitely do a clinical rotation with a functional medicine practitioner if possible. It's also nice to know that there are others out there who try to think outside the box like I feel I tend to. Maybe I don't agree with them completely with regard to every facet but that's definitely not necessary for progress to be made. I think, overall, most aspiring physicians really do want to make a change in the lives of their patients. The unrealistic and naive parts of their aspirations will be cleansed during med school and there is absolutely no reason to attack someone for having high hopes and wanting to make positive influences in people's lives knowing full well that they will learn during med school what is realistic and what is not. (Without any help from SDN members.) That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

So, thank you Dragonwell for informing me about functional medicine. I really appreciate it. I'm sorry that a lot of people had to get bagged on during this thread but I did want to add that at least I got a few useful things out of it and I really appreciate it.

http://www.functionalmedicine.org/

I never said it shouldn't have been made, but that it was a joke at the point in time I wrote my post. If I thought it was a joke sooner I would have said so. Or should I have said circus? Would that have been a little less harsh?

There is not one single poster here that discredits the benefit of good diet and exercise. The problem that I have, as do many others, is the idea that the best and only way to treat health disorders such as DM and so on is diet modification.

I'm not going the the ad hominem attack route, at this point I'm just stating my opinion. It is, after all an opinion board. You can either look away or put your (collective "your" to all participating, not necessarily to t-funk) share in. If you choose to put your share in, be prepared for opposing viewpoints. And be prepared for your own viewpoint to not be shared by the general consensus of medical practice. I've had my lunch handed to me several times in other forums and I just go on. I may retort about what someone says, as the posts are open for discussion, but I'm not out there saying a few people here are going to be bad doctors because they disagree with me. I'm not even calling for them to become naturopaths. Nor am I telling people how much respect I've lost.

Yes, you (the collective "you") are entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else. And so far no one's broken any TOS violation (at least not yet) so if you (collective) want your opinion, let others have theirs too, even if you don't like it.

PianoRocks just spent an evening writing a long essay why he/she thinks I'm such a terrible person but you don't see me crying about it. He/she is entitled to their opinion and they didn't violate the TOS, so whatever. I responded and that's that.

So while some people feel like they're being "bagged" on, they also don't realize they're also doing the "bagging".
 
He's not mad at you, Megan, he's just..................disappointed. Now go to your room, Megan, and don't come out until you realize that hypertension should only be treated with brussel sprouts.

Megan Megan Megan.

How can he/she be so sure my name is spelled that way?

And if they come up with a last name, I'm officially going to call them a stalker for life - cause that would be creepy.

Unless I know them and don't know they post here. Then that would be d-baggery.
 
Not listening to others opinion online is probably wise.

Ignoring the experience of others ahead of you is not.

Sometimes the two are not mutually exclusive. When that is the case, follow the latter rather than the former.

:thumbup:
 
I just spent the last hour reading this thread cause it caught my attention and while there has been a lot of valid points raised there has also been a lot to laugh about! I loved the one of the little smiley guy eating popcorn....that just killed me!! That's what I felt like I was doing the whole time.

Idealism, goals and thoughts about how one might like to practice are important qualities to have, however it needs to be spiced with a little bit of realism, respect and acknowledgement towards those that have experience. It is very easy to have a philosphy however, it may be difficult to then be able to follow it through and parlay it into real world experience. I would venture to say that most pre-meds have an idea of how they envision how they would like to practice medicine in the future, and some may even be able to follow through with it. I also venture to say that many of the current MS and residents may have had similar notions at various points along the way. The truth of the matter is, everyone is different, some people will wake up to think they can change the world even if it is only for one patient, while some may find this task akin to beating their head against the wall, if that is enough for the one person it is enough, for many of us a little healthy dose of reality may jade us for a while (particularly when trying to survive internship & residencies and fellowships) but each person is going to find their own groove. As a premed it is very easy to preach idealism but in the end you never know how you will be until you are actually IN the situation. So fellow premeds take a step back before getting completely offended and try to imagine stepping into the shoes of those who have endured what we are about to experience. And to those I respectfully deem more experienced, take a step back from the beating and remember what it was like to be blissfully ignorant!

The practice of medicine these days is highly charged with politics, philosophy, litigation and the like, but most of us enter into this with eyes wide open, some however are still blind to reality. In the end I would think that most of us go into medicine because we feel that we can make a difference, just realize that what may work for one physician may not work for another and what may work for one patient may not work for another, to each his own.

Thank you to the OP who started this wonderful discussion/debate, it sure has been eye opening...thank you to the people who posted with personal experience to remind us that sometimes people get different standards of care from different doctors, this makes us all cognicent of what we should keep in mind as we enter into practice, and thank you to the MS's, Residents, and HealthCare Practicioners that shared their experiences to open our eyes to what we can expect to encounter during the journey.

I think it is safe to say nutrition has a very important place in medical education but the degree to which it is required to be presented is up for debate, with that said, thank god for electives! If it is something you believe in by all means go get it, if you feel like you get enough to be comfortable in providing a standard of care fantastic.

I am of the school of thought that you will get out of your medical education what you put into it and that will parlay into how you practice medicine in the long run ~ there are doctors, adequate doctors, good doctors, the ones you want to be your doctor, and the doctor you will become. It's up to each of us to determine which one we want to be and to do what it takes to get there! As for me, it's taken me a long time to get here and I am up for the challenge! I have an idea about the kind of physician I would like to be because I have been fortunate enough to see some of the best in action and I have also seen some run of the mill. If you have the capacity to take the extra time and energy to obtain every tool you possibly can to treat patients then do the research and make it happen. If you are confident in your own capacity to treat patients with the tools that you are provided and can surround yourself while in practice with the right team of healthcare providers ~ know your limitations, and know when to bring in the specialists! Knowing when to rely on others doesn't make you any less caring as a physician ~ if you know you can't do it, or can't do it better than someone else, do your patients a favor...give them access to the best care possible! And, if you are the **** and you know it, then have no fears and rock on baby!
 
I never said it shouldn't have been made, but that it was a joke at the point in time I wrote my post. If I thought it was a joke sooner I would have said so. Or should I have said circus? Would that have been a little less harsh?

Sorry, I kind of mis-took what you were saying. I have to agree that this thread has been a circus and a joke with regard to people's vehemency when defending their viewpoint. I do feel there has been a lot of attacking, not necessarily from you, and certain groups may have been more offensive in their attacks while other's attacks may have come from defensiveness. Neither is necessarily justified but are very different in motive. I personally did not like being attacked for expressing my opinion, I guess it's going to happen, but that doesn't make it right so I can understand when someone gets a little defensive about it. Overall, I think you always have really good points to make and I appreciate your input.
 
You ALL need to get on over to the Drunken Thread, stat!
 
Sorry, I kind of mis-took what you were saying. I have to agree that this thread has been a circus and a joke with regard to people's vehemency when defending their viewpoint. I do feel there has been a lot of attacking, not necessarily from you, and certain groups may have been more offensive in their attacks while other's attacks may have come from defensiveness. Neither is necessarily justified but are very different in motive. I personally did not like being attacked for expressing my opinion, I guess it's going to happen, but that doesn't make it right so I can understand when someone gets a little defensive about it. Overall, I think you always have really good points to make and appreciate your input.

I am in general a straightforward person. I don't beat around the bush, and can sometimes say something before realizing how another person perceives it. I have been called harsh in my reasoning, but that doesn't mean I don't value other opinions.

Sometimes I get fed up though, and this thread was putting me there today.
 
***Good Natured Reply***


You certainly like to say my name a lot. Yes, I may be a pre-med, but I'm also a practicing professional in an allied health field (and own my own practice BTW) who has a lot of experience under my belt regarding diagnostic and treatment procedures. Oh, and dealing with patients/clients who don't follow through on recommendations, no matter how much you push your ideals.

While you try to make yourself look better by quoting me, you only solidify the fact that you are posting from emotions rather than research. You claim you want people to understand you for what you bring to the table, but then turn around and continue to perpetuate something you know nothing about. No sorry, something you know from what your dad told you. That's like me telling someone I know all about pap smears because my mom does them in her office.

Go ahead, continue to cry about this. I'm going back to the SIU v. Butler game with my husband. I spent all day organizing my office and tooling around on the computer while finishing my insurance billing and making meals for a family potluck tomorrow. And I posted on SDN. OMG! I'm a multitasker! How can I get MORE of a life?

1. Sorry about saying your name a lot, I just didn't want to rile up anybody else on this forum. I don't want the world against me again.

2. I want to clarify this "my dad is a doctor" stuff. For the last time. PLEEEEASE. The only reason I brought that up in the first place is to highlight the fact that I know it's possible to start a practice in which the first method of thinking is "Is this patient doing anything severely wrong in terms of lifestyle/diet/nutrition that they'd be willing to change and that would affect the disease?" If the answer is no, the next thought process is the "standard" pharmaceuticals/surgery thing. A lot of people told me this approach is not possible or falls outside the standard of care. I wanted to disagree simply by saying I am very familiar with a practice that does exactly what I am proposing. :) <--- Smiley, to show you I'm not yelling.

I'll go first.

I'm sorry PianoRocks.

now back to the game!

I'm only apologizing back if you get my name right. PianoRock!! Not Piano ROCKS (although it does).

Okay fine, I'm sorry too. Now where were we?

So let me get this straight, you are yet to apply to medical school, yet you are telling medical students and residents what medical school teaches. :laugh:

And then you and the other pre-meds wonder why people with experience aren't taking you seriously.



Maybe you're talking about Tylenol Flu or something. How exactly is a patient with primary dyslipidema only having their symptoms treated by taking statins? What else should they do? When you find a drug that magically alters their genetics so they start producting functioning hepatic LDL receptors, please let me know.



:rolleyes: Inflammation does not cause MI. It is one of many steps in atherogenesis. According to Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th edition, page 522, the first step (before this "inflammation" you so proudly speak of) is endothelial injury, caused by:

hypertension
smoking
free radicals
toxins
immune reactions
and yes, you guessed it...HYPERLIPIDEMIA.


The damage caused by these factors initiate inflammation, which starts the cascade of atherosclerotic plaque formation. I'm not going to read the rest to you, feel free to read it yourself.

So yes, lowering hypertension (via diet/beta-blockers/diuretics) is very important. Lowering LDLs (via diet or statins) is very important. As much as you think you know more than Robbins and Cotran, unfortunately you don't.

I have a serious question for you. This isn't me arguing or telling you that you are wrong or that I am smarter than the authors or any other crap that I'm going to be accused of doing. I simply want to ask...

While you were in medical school, did you specifically learn any alternative ways to treating the 6 causes that you listed above? For example, in my opinion, 5 of them can be treated with additions/omissions from the diet.

hypertension - less salt intake. maybe the patient doesn't know that salting EVERYTHING is slowly killing them?

smoking - obvious. i know it's impossible to get people to quit smoking if they really don't want to.

free radicals - taking an anti-oxidant supplement reduces the production of free radicals by the body. also, omitting foods that cause free radicals, such as meat cooked on an open fire, would help. maybe a patient doesn't know about these things?

toxins - a good opportunity to analyze exactly what a patient is doing that may expose him/her to a high level of toxins. are they eating toxins? do they microwave their food in styrofoam or very soft plastic containers?

immune reactions - food allergy tests could show that the person is severely allergic to something like wheat. or dairy. if the person eats a lot of this particular food, the effect can be pretty severe.

I'm not trying to be a doctor here, I'm just throwing out ideas that I have seen implemented in practice and I'm wondering if these are things that you learned in school or not. :hardy: <---- smiley face, let's keep it nice. your posts tend to be a little bit aggressive.


Megan Megan Megan.

How can he/she be so sure my name is spelled that way?

And if they come up with a last name, I'm officially going to call them a stalker for life - cause that would be creepy.

Unless I know them and don't know they post here. Then that would be d-baggery.

I'm a "he." Just so you can call me the appropriate sex from now on ;)

And I'm sure that your name is spelled "Megan" because when I click on your link that says "Press Here" your name is very easy to find in the thousand pages of blogs you have written!! :laugh: You might want to consider either being nicer to people or taking your name out of there!

You ALL need to get on over to the Drunken Thread, stat!

That was awesome.

See, we can have fun on this thread, right? :love: :love:


EDIT: I just wanted to add one more thing. Endocardium - I'm sure everybody on this thread appreciates your replies, including me. You have good things to say and it seems like you're a good person.
 
I figured you got it from my blog. My maiden name is not hard to find for people who want to dig, but my it's not my name anymore.

I take that back. My professional license is under my maiden name. I'm too lazy to change it so I'm going to let it expire and just be Dr. Married Name when I graduate. Someday.
 
I have a serious question for you. This isn't me arguing or telling you that you are wrong or that I am smarter than the authors or any other crap that I'm going to be accused of doing. I simply want to ask...

While you were in medical school, did you specifically learn any alternative ways to treating the 6 causes that you listed above? For example, in my opinion, 5 of them can be treated with additions/omissions from the diet.

hypertension - less salt intake. maybe the patient doesn't know that salting EVERYTHING is slowly killing them?

smoking - obvious. i know it's impossible to get people to quit smoking if they really don't want to.

free radicals - taking an anti-oxidant supplement reduces the production of free radicals by the body. also, omitting foods that cause free radicals, such as meat cooked on an open fire, would help. maybe a patient doesn't know about these things?

toxins - a good opportunity to analyze exactly what a patient is doing that may expose him/her to a high level of toxins. are they eating toxins? do they microwave their food in styrofoam or very soft plastic containers?

immune reactions - food allergy tests could show that the person is severely allergic to something like wheat. or dairy. if the person eats a lot of this particular food, the effect can be pretty severe.

Yes, EVERYTHING you mentioned that has evidence based studies behind it we not only learned during the first 2 years of basic sciences, but is actually the first step taken by physicians as per the AHA. It is standard practice for doctors to recommend a low salt diet to patients with hypertension, a low cholesterol diet for patients with hyperlipidemia. Food allergy tests are done all the time. Many doctors recommend taking a multivitamin which contains vitamin E amongst other antioxidants. These are not ground breaking ideas. I'm not sure if you really believe that you are doing something unique by recommending these things or if you are just that naive that you think patients who are asymptomatic will listen to you while they have ignored other doctors for the past 60 years. As far as your theories for toxins and free radicals, all I'm going to say is if you undercook meat you run the risk of parasitic infections. If you overcook meat over charcoal you run the risk of cancer. Show me studies that show a direct cause and effect between cooking meat on an open fire and cancer. Show me studies that show a direct cause and effect between microwaving foods in plastic and toxins. Show me a direct cause and effect between taking aluminum-containing antacids and aluminum toxicity in humans. Hell, everytime I walk out in the sun my DNA is getting mutated - the world has bigger problems than some arguable theory about what type of container we microwave food in. So we can't eat red meat because there's no safe way to cook it. How about chicken - well I heard that chickens are fed hormones so that's out. How about fish - I heard somewhere they have accumulations of mercury and lipid soluble toxins, so I guess that's out. Fine, I'll just eat vegetables. But wait, they use pesticides on vegetables. Just because you read a theory that in your eyes is believable doesn't make it true and this is what separates physicians from the layperson - you go to medical school to learn evidence based medicine. Hey, I think I read somewhere that vaccines cause autism, right? So I'll just advise my patients not to get vaccinated. Wouldn't it be great if we brought Rubella and Measles back into the population all because people like you buy into these myths without any evidence-based proof showing causitive effects? Everyone has anecdotal evidence of how such and such helped this person or X made this person sick, so let's just extrapolate it to an entire population of people...it must work for all of them too, right? That's not the way science works. If my patient has atherosclerotic lesions on his coronary arteries, you can bet I'm not going to waste his time telling him not to microwave in plastic containers. Furthermore, if a patient's TGs are elevated with a high LDL and low HDL, you can bet that I'm going to be more concerned that he exercises and cuts trans fats from his diet. If there's no improvement, he's going on statins. Lastly, if a patient is perfectly healthy (as I am), I am NOT going to recommend he make changes to his lifestyle without evidence based medicine to back up those recommendations. That is the difference between a physician and a naturopath.
 
Show me studies that show a direct cause and effect between microwaving foods in plastic and toxins.

Now we are treading in my area of research, so thank you very much for bringing this up! Unfortunately I am off of work this week and all of my journals are there and I don't have access to Scifinder unless I am at work but I will do the best that I can from home. There are multitudes of scientific well-done studies by well respected scientists that show that toxins and pthalates (plastics) will leach into whatever is being held by a plastic container. Pthalates have an estrogenic-like effect and have been shown to disrupt the endocrine system of many animals causing males to present as females. The phenomenon of certain species of aquatic animals and even some birds being feminized is well documented in the literature since the 1950s. Finally, in the last few years there is starting to be studies showing the effects in humans. Because they are not as severe, it took a little longer to assess what is going on. I thought this was basically common knowledge and am surprised this is not covered in medical school. So,

Swan SH et al. 2005. Decrease in anogenital distance among male infants with prenatal phthalate exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(8): 1056-1061.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60305-phthalates-could-harm (30/05/2005 - Normal exposure to phthalates, a chemical group used in plastics packaging to make products flexible and pliable, may harm the genital development of unborn baby boys, according to a study by US-based scientists.)

Associated with this phenomenon;

Travison TG, et al. 2007. A population level decline in serum testosterone levels in American men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 92(1): 196-292.

Paulozzi, LJ, et al. 1997. Hypospadias trend in two US surveillance systems. Pediatrics 100(5) 831-834.

*I am sure you are well aware of this, but a hypospadia is when the hole of the penis occurs underneath the penis to varying degrees.

Beland P, et al. 1989. Report of Work Group on Environmental and Wildlife Toxicology. Pl 79-107 In: Report to the Canada/US International Joint Commission Science Advisory Board: Proceedings from a Workshop to Evaluate Risks to Human Health Associated with Exposure to Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Niagara-on-the-lake, Ontario, April 16-18, 1989.


Here's a few scientific journal articles addressing the possibility of ill effects of thimerosal which was put into vaccines up until a few years ago. I'm not saying this caused autism or some of the cases of autism, but a scientific person has to be willing to read the studies before they start nullifying that a connection could exist.

David Baskin, M.D. et al. Thimerosal induces DNA breaks, caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neurons and fibroblasts. Toxicol Sci. 2003 Aug;74(2):361-8. Epub 2003 May 28.

Richard C. Deth, Ph.D. A Link Between Thimerosal and the Brain: Can Vaccines Affect Central Nervous System Function? Molecular Psychiatry 2004, Volume 9.

Geier MR, Geier DA. Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal-containing vaccines: a brief communication. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2003 Jun;228(6):660-4.

Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.

Vojdani A, Pangborn JB et al. Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2003 Sep-Dec;16(3):189-99.

I really want to encourage you to read "Our Stolen Future" by Theo Colburn. It is a very well known and respected book which presents a lot of information about plastics, estrogens, and other contaminants and how they have affected certain species which is highly documented and widely available in the literature. It also goes into the human effects and covers things such as hormones, pesticides, plastics, fish contamination, and other organic chemicals in the water which is being deposited in human's fat all over the world. There is so much well respected information in this book. It is not fringe science whatsoever. This book was written ten years ago and since then, Dr Colburn has started working with researchers looking into autism links and iodine deficiencies. God, I wish I was at work bc I could literally get you hundreds of citations. It is really frustrating me.

Pharmaceuticals have been wonderful for humankind and I don't know where our society would be without them. I worked at a clinical research pharmaceutical company for 3.5 years so drugs paid my bills for many years and I am definitely not knocking them. But they don't work 100% of the time either and getting the best response from your patient is oftentimes trial and error.
 
Complete with know-it-all pre-meds, snarky threads, and threads that go off topic in about 3.567 seconds.

I've noticed some really relevant posts over in Pre-allo too, which is very weird.

Also the kids in pre-allo are starting to be helpful to each other. I miss the good old days when I could get a kick out of watching pre-meds duke it out. Thank god pre-osteo stepped up to the plate

Recognize that some people out there are going to TRY to use nutritional modifications in their practice, just as I've recognized that there will be people who feel that doing so is not possible or not feasible, even if some of these people (Megan) have the same amount of medical school "experience" that I do.

I dont think anyone was saying that they're not going to use nutritional advice in their practice. Just because a patient isn't going to listen doesn't mean you're not going to tell them. Most smokers wont quit, it doesnt mean a doctor isn't going to tell them smoking is slowly killing them and they need to quit. People are just saying that those bits of advice and the help a physician gives is going to have only a small effect. Furthermore, many/most things cannot be cured by nutrition alone. A 2 layered approach of lifestyle change and pharamcological intervention is usually needed. This is especially important if you are trying to decrease the morbidity of the problem the intervention is trying to fix.

Sure a lifestyle change can drastically improve HTN and hyperlipidemia but not over a quick enough time to decrease the major risks factors those morbidities cause.


*
While you were in medical school, did you specifically learn any alternative ways to treating the 6 causes that you listed above? For example, in my opinion, 5 of them can be treated with additions/omissions from the diet.

hypertension - less salt intake. maybe the patient doesn't know that salting EVERYTHING is slowly killing them?

smoking - obvious. i know it's impossible to get people to quit smoking if they really don't want to.

free radicals - taking an anti-oxidant supplement reduces the production of free radicals by the body. also, omitting foods that cause free radicals, such as meat cooked on an open fire, would help. maybe a patient doesn't know about these things?

immune reactions
- food allergy tests could show that the person is severely allergic to something like wheat. or dairy. if the person eats a lot of this particular food, the effect can be pretty severe.

HTN- most people are not very salt sensitive at least not enough to bring down essential hypertension to safe levels. Thanks to ANP and a functional apical membrane NHE most people w/ HTN aren't dahl rats. So can you improve a person's HTN by limiting salt- sure, but most people don't have salt-sensitive HTN. This means that their HTN will lower but not to the point where you dont need some other major interventions.

Free radicals- first of all anti-oxidants dont reduce the production of free radicals, they neutralize them through various pathways, essentially acting as free radical scavengers. Perhaps nit-picky but it means that the production is still there. What you dont realize is that pretty much everything your body does is going to cause free radicals in some shape or form. Supplements will help, eating better will help, a life-style change will help as will about 1000 other things. Eating charcoal food is not a major cause of free radicals in the body.

Immune reaction- the type of immune reaction you are talking about and the type of immune reaction Robbins is talking about are not the same thing.
 
Mmmmm, I do like me some good grilled meats and BBQ.
 
Here's a few scientific journal articles addressing the possibility of ill effects of thimerosal which was put into vaccines up until a few years ago. I'm not saying this caused autism or some of the cases of autism, but a scientific person has to be willing to read the studies before they start nullifying that a connection could exist.

David Baskin, M.D. et al. Thimerosal induces DNA breaks, caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neurons and fibroblasts. Toxicol Sci. 2003 Aug;74(2):361-8. Epub 2003 May 28.

Richard C. Deth, Ph.D. A Link Between Thimerosal and the Brain: Can Vaccines Affect Central Nervous System Function? Molecular Psychiatry 2004, Volume 9.

Geier MR, Geier DA. Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal-containing vaccines: a brief communication. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2003 Jun;228(6):660-4.

Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.

Vojdani A, Pangborn JB et al. Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2003 Sep-Dec;16(3):189-99.

First off all of these studies above on autism are weak at best: we have prospective cohorts, epidemiological studies, and papers that are not studies at all.

The strongest studies with the most participants and the best methods come from the socialized healthcare systems of Europe. It seems that the one great thing about socialized heathcare is the ability to compile large amts of data for an entire country. Regardless, mutiple studies showed NO increase in incidence of autism after mercury containing vaccines began to be used. I would look these up for you but I lost motivation after sifting through the above studies.
 
Now we are treading in my area of research, so thank you very much for bringing this up! Unfortunately I am off of work this week and all of my journals are there and I don't have access to Scifinder unless I am at work but I will do the best that I can from home. There are multitudes of scientific well-done studies by well respected scientists that show that toxins and pthalates (plastics) will leach into whatever is being held by a plastic container. Pthalates have an estrogenic-like effect and have been shown to disrupt the endocrine system of many animals causing males to present as females. The phenomenon of certain species of aquatic animals and even some birds being feminized is well documented in the literature since the 1950s. Finally, in the last few years there is starting to be studies showing the effects in humans. Because they are not as severe, it took a little longer to assess what is going on. I thought this was basically common knowledge and am surprised this is not covered in medical school.

It looks like instatewaiter beat me to the punch, but just to reiterate what he said:

The reason why this is not taught in medical school is that the amount of toxins and free radicals you guys are referring to from these exogenous sources are minute compared to naturally occuring free radicals and "toxins" in our bodies every second of every day:

1) NO (an endogenous vasodilator released by endothelial cells) can act as a free radical and can be converted by the body to highly reactive molecules

2) Fe, just through the process of normal oxidation/reduction (hemoglobin binding/releasing O2) forms free radicals.

3) During normal oxidative phosphorylation there are small amounts of toxic intermediates formed.

4) Anytime you walk outside, UV light causes free radical formation. Anytime you get an x-ray you get free radical formation.

That is what you are taught in medical school. Our body has defense mechanisms that inactivate reactive species. Glutathione, Vitamins E and A (antioxidants), and a number of "free-radical scavenger" enzymes (catalase, superoxide dismutases, glutathione peroxidase). Of course if you inject an animal subject (bird, mouse) with 10000X the normal exposure of a human you will override the defense mechanisms and see toxic effects. That's common sense, and that's exactly what your quoted studies show. It's similar to giving a subject 1000 grams of soy protein every day for a year, and then making the statement "soy protein causes gynecomastia in male subjects."

If you want to talk about a person who has a deficiency in one of the above defense mechanisms, that's a different story. But I find it amusing that people will latch onto these myths and live by them, and then in the same breath go to the beach for a few hours in the sun or inhale a whiff of second hand smoke.

So if you think someone heating up a meal once a week or even twice a week in the microwave in a plastic container is going to cause pseudohermaphroditism then that's your opinion. But again, with all due respect, you are not looking at the big picture.

Pharmaceuticals have been wonderful for humankind and I don't know where our society would be without them. I worked at a clinical research pharmaceutical company for 3.5 years so drugs paid my bills for many years and I am definitely not knocking them. But they don't work 100% of the time either and getting the best response from your patient is oftentimes trial and error.

Once again, I don't mean to be rude, but if statins alone don't lower your patient's LDL and your next line of treatment is to tell them to stop using plastic in the microwave and stop eating chargrilled hamburgers instead of trying ezetimibe, niacin, or a fibrozil, you are asking for a lawsuit.
 
After spending some time looking and researching some clinical evidence showing benefits of nutritional supplementation. I'd like to make one thing clear that when I talk about using nutritional supplementation, I am talking mainly about prevention as opposed to curing (even though come studies have showed a cure through supplementation alone).

-----------------------------------------------------------
The incidence of type-2 diabetes is lower among women who get adequate calcium and supplement with vitamin D. Researchers used data from the Nurses Health Study, which includes over 83,000 women, to study the relationship of calcium and vitamin D intake to type-2 diabetes.

After 20 years of follow-up, it was concluded that a combined daily intake of over 1,200 mg of calcium and more than 800 IU of vitamin D was associated with a 33 percent lower risk of type-2 diabetes. Interestingly, dietary vitamin D intake did not appear to provide any statistically significant benefit. But the women who supplemented with at least 400 IU of vitamin D had a 13% lower risk of diabetes when compared to those who took less than 100 IU per day. Both dietary and supplemental calcium resulted in decreased risk of type-2 diabetes, and those with overall intakes above 1,200 mg had a 21% lower risk than those who got less than 600 mg per day.

Elevated intakes of calcium and vitamin D, especially from supplements, are significantly associated with lower incidence of type-2 diabetes.

Diabetes Care 29:650-656, 2006


------------------------------------------------------------------

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health, has found that vitamin D deficiency may account for several thousand premature deaths annually.

The researchers reviewed 63 studies on the relationship between vitamin D and certain types of cancer worldwide between 1966 and 2004. The majority of studies found a protective relationship between sufficient vitamin D status and lower risk of cancer, especially in cancers of the colon, breast, prostate and ovary.

Vitamin D is acquired either through the diet or through exposure to sunlight. Food sources include milk, yogurt, cheese, and fortified orange juice. A typical serving provides approximately 100 international units (IU). Researchers suggested that people might want to consider a vitamin supplement to raise their overall intake to 1,000 IU's per day. Supplementing with additional vitamin D could be especially important for people living in northern areas, which receive less vitamin D from sunlight.

The evidence suggests that improving vitamin D status through diet and supplements could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects.

American Journal of Public Health February 2006, Vol 96, No. 2:252-261.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although diets high in fat have been associated with an increase in cancer risk, a recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology concluded that a greater intake of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may be protective against colorectal cancer.


Researchers paired 1,455 men and women diagnosed with colorectal cancer with an equal number of healthy control subjects matched for age, gender and region of residence. Total fatty acid, as well as saturated fatty acid, monounsaturated fatty acid, omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, trans-fatty acid, and trans-monounsaturated fatty acid intake were determined. Intake levels of individual fatty acids, such as eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA), were also calculated.

Greater intake of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA, and DHA were dose-dependently associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk. Compared to those with the lowest intake, participants whose omega-3 intake was in the highest group experienced a 37 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer. Subjects with intakes of EPA and DHA in the top fourth had a reduced risk of 41 and 37 percent, respectively.

The authors concluded that the observed effects of different types of fatty acids illustrates the importance of the type of fat in the origins and prevention of colorectal cancer.

American Journal of Epidemiology 2007 166(2):181-195

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<img alt="" border="0" height="1" width="1">
Calcium, Vitamin D and Cancer Risk
A new study published in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has shown a reduction in cancer rates among postmenopausal women taking vitamin D combined with calcium.

This four-year, double blind, randomized placebo-controlled study involved over 1,100 postmenopausal women who were divided into three treatment groups. The first group received a supplement containing calcium and vitamin D, the second group received just calcium, and the third group received a placebo. The researchers found that the women taking the calcium and vitamin D supplement had a 60 percent lower incidence of all cancers than women not taking the supplement.

This new study takes an important step in extending several decades of research involving the role of vitamin D in health and disease. The results further strengthen the case made by many specialists that vitamin D may be a powerful cancer preventive and that it is commonly found lacking in the general population, particularly the elderly.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2007 June;85(6):1586-91

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quercetin, an antioxidant found many foods including onions, berries and apples, is associated with a reduced risk of heart disease and stroke. Supplementation with quercetin has been shown to reduce hypertension in animal models, but until now has never been tested in hypertensive humans.

Researchers at the University of Utah, in collaboration with USANA Health Sciences, conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to test the effectiveness of quercetin supplementation in lowering unhealthy blood pressure levels. The subjects were divided into two groups: prehypertensives (120-139 mm Hg systolic/80-89 mm Hg diastolic) or stage 1 hypertensives (140-159 mm Hg systolic/90-99 mm Hg diastolic). The participants were given either 730 mg quercetin/day or placebo for 28 days.

Blood pressure remained unchanged in prehypertensives after supplementation with quercetin. In contrast, stage 1 hypertensive subjects showed significant reductions in both systolic (-7 mm Hg) and diastolic (-2 mm Hg) blood pressure after quercetin supplementation. This is the first published study to show that quercetin supplementation can reduce blood pressure in hypertensive adult humans. Additionally, it is important to note that quercetin supplementation did not influence the blood pressure of non-hypertensive individuals.

J. Nutr. 137:2405-2411, November 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Macular Degeneration risk is reduced in adults with high intakes of lutein and zeaxanthin

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is a degenerative eye disease that causes damage to the macula (central retina) of the eye, impairing central vision. In a recent large study, participants with the highest intakes of the carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin had significantly lower risk of AMD compared to those with low intakes.

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is a degenerative eye disease that causes damage to the macula (central retina) of the eye, impairing central vision. People affected by Age-Related Macular Degeneration have difficulty reading, driving and performing activities that require clear central vision. AMD is the most common cause of vision loss in developed countries.

A recent report published in the September, 2007 issue of the journal Archives of Ophthalmology added more evidence to support previous research showing that carotenoids zeaxanthin and lutein are protective against AMD. Dark green leafy vegetables are the primary dietary sources of lutein and zeaxanthin, but they are also found in some other colorful fruits and vegetables. Average dietary intake in the U.S. is only 2 mg/day, far below the 6 mg/day level most studies indicate as a minimum needed to reduce the risk of AMD.

In the current report, members of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Research Group evaluated the diets of 4,519 AREDS participants aged 60 to 80 years. Retinal photographs were used to divide the subjects into five categories of macular disease severity, from individuals with little or no evidence of macular degeneration (the control group) to severe, neovascular disease. Dietary questionnaires were analyzed for lutein, zeaxanthin, beta- carotene, lycopene, and other nutrient levels.

Participants whose intake of lutein and zeaxanthin were greatest had a significantly lower risk of AMD than those whose intake was least, and were less likely to have large or extensive intermediate drusen, the deposits on the retina or optic nerve that characterize the disease. No risk reductions were associated with the other nutrients examined in this study.

The Relationship of Dietary Carotenoid and Vitamin A, E, and C Intake With Age-Related Macular Degeneration in a Case-Control Study: AREDS Report No. 22. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:1225-1232.

----------------------------------------------------------------

These are just a few of many that I came across form several well respected medical publications. Again, the one's I decided to list are more based on prevention than curing; however, the fact that it cannot cure cannot be ruled out for sure either. Legally,(by the FDA) a natural product cannot be claimed as a cure. J1515, you are completely correct in your detailed info about free radicals and anti-oxidants. My point is that the current lifestyle, diet, and habits for the average American does not have enough nutrient and antioxidant intake to protect their body from free radicals obtained not only from the daily processes by the human body, but also from increased environmental toxicities that occur today. Evidence clearly shows benefits with supplementation. I do appreciate your realistic point of view J1515, it allows me to have more of an understanding of how actual patient care is like. Having the patient understand these benefits themselves is another task of course, which from your previous posts seem like it can be quite difficult. If there was a shift in mentality into opening up our minds to consider these options and make it more aware to both the doctor and a patient, then why not try an alternative option?

I know that this is a long post, but I would also like to mention one more thing to everyone. I hope we can please keep this disussion purely on the subject at hand and not cause any personal attacks and fallicies, as this does not help the discussion, but only takes away from it. Thank you. :)
 
I think there are 3-4 premeds here who can probably skip medical school altogether. They have it all figured out already!

Couple that with "daddy the doctor" and they are on their way to a successful practice. :thumbup:
 
If you want to talk about a person who has a deficiency in one of the above defense mechanisms, that's a different story. But I find it amusing that people will latch onto these myths and live by them, and then in the same breath go to the beach for a few hours in the sun or inhale a whiff of second hand smoke.

So if you think someone heating up a meal once a week or even twice a week in the microwave in a plastic container is going to cause pseudohermaphroditism then that's your opinion. But again, with all due respect, you are not looking at the big picture.

Once again, I don't mean to be rude, but if statins alone don't lower your patient's LDL and your next line of treatment is to tell them to stop using plastic in the microwave and stop eating chargrilled hamburgers instead of trying ezetimibe, niacin, or a fibrozil, you are asking for a lawsuit.

First of all, I never brought up free radicals. You are putting words in my mouth. What I am talking about is completely different and really can't be lumped into the same category. I am once again going to suggest that you actually read the information that I have presented to you before you start judging it and give the book a try. I never said that microwaving in a plastic container is going to necessarily cause genital malformations. You are, once again, putting words in my mouth. However, we are exposed to so many plastics and plasticizers, that they can be found in most people's fat, pee, and breast milk. This could be of concern if the plastics do in fact affect the endocrine system and they have found that changes can occur in a person with differences in as little as a few tens of ppbs. I also never said that I know anything about recommending drugs to people whatsoever so I definitely didn't say that I would recommend to stop microwaving. You are, for the third time in one post, putting words in my mouth. This is what I am talking about when I talk about propagandizing (my own term) an argument.

At least Instatewaiter kept things to the point. He didn't really present anything to backup what he was saying. There is plenty out there so I know that he can get it but there is always two sides to a story. My son's symptoms started the week after his 15 mo vaccinations. I'm sorry that I just can't ignore that that may have 'possibly', not necessarily, had something to do with it. Instatewaiter politely read what I presented, did you?

I have to say that I went through your post history and about 90% of your posts is making fun of other people or backing up JPH. I'm actually intruiged that you have seemed to take an interest in this argument especially since in one of your posts you seemed to indicate that you hate research. So what I'm asking you to do is actually read and do some research on the topic of what I have presented and you have decided to try to negate about environmental toxins looking at both sides of the story and I will be ecstatc to discuss it with you. Thank you very much for your interest in this topic. It is quite important to me.
 
I never said that microwaving in a plastic container is going to necessarily cause genital malformations.

Quote of the year. :thumbup:



BTW, the score is now

PreMeds: 0
Others: 7
 
Quote of the year. :thumbup:

I can't believe it but you actually made me giggle. That is a first. You can mark up the others score one more.
 
Top