BPA: Biting the hand that feeds you

Bisphenol A. Not a word that rolls off the tongue at parties. Bisphenol A, also know as "BPA" is a plasticizer that was discovered in 1895. As early as 1936 studies showed that it is an endocrine disruptor and xenoestrogen. In other words, it acts like estrogen and alters sex hormone balance in the body. Since the first study in 1936, there have been thousands of animal studies and over 100 clinical studies demonstrating the harmful effects of BPA. (I touched on BPA in this blog)

BPA makes plastics hard but shatter proof, is used in tin can liners, hard water bottled (like Nalgene), compact disks, glasses, sealants and the vast majority of bottle bottles. It's everywhere, in everything and it leaches into whatever food or liquid is inside it.

A number of studies have shown that it increases the risk of abnormal development of genitalia is children because of the estrogen like effects. It has also been linked to cancer for the same reason and infertility problems in men.

Estrogen imbalances, either too high or low, can be linked to many functional disorders--imbalances where lab tests are normal, but a person is not completely well. For example, excess estrogen plays a role in emotional swings, in autimmune disorders like lupus, multiple sclerosis and even psoriasis, and ear, nose and throat complaints (especially tonsillitis and strep throat).

Estrogen levels that are suppressed (xenoestrogens, like birth control pills can end up reducing our body's ability to make natural estrogen) can lead to delayed brain development in children, low thyroid activity and memory and learning problems, including Alzheimer's disorder.

In my practice I pay close attention to estrogen imbalances and address them through an environmental analysis and medicinal plants which can be very helpful for the hormonal imbalances, as well as gentle detoxification.

Activists have been trying to get it banned for years, but the FDA said that they did not have enough evidence to ban it. They based this, according to a recent Washington Post article, on 2 articles funded by the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying group while ignoring the 100 clinical articles demonstrating BPA's dangers. Regarding the BPA ruling by the FDA in 2008, an FDA internal investigation criticized the FDA's own ruling. Read here and here.

The FDA has been influenced by industry groups and political money for far too long. For example, a medical device approved by the FDA in which all 4 congressmen from the device maker's state had received campaign contributions within 4 months before the device was approved.

I applaud the new vigor that the Oboma administration has given to the FDA and especially applaud its deputy commission, Dr. Sharfstein, a fellow pediatrician and the person behind the move to remove cough and cold medicines from the shelf for children under 2 years of age.

However the bottom line is that the watchdogs for our safety are so heavily influenced by the hand that feeds them, and so constrained by archane regulatory loop holes and bureaucratic red tape that it is up to use, as informed physicians and patients, to monitor our own environment and health.
 

Don't panic. There's been a small mistake in your life

Biomedical medicine, often referred to as "allopathic" or "conventional" medicine, is based on the concept that as long as there is not organ damage or noticeable loss of function, you are not sick. So, you basically wait until someone is sick, then you treat them.

This is a passive form of medicine and part of the answer to this approach was to develop screening tests. This is a great idea. It's what we do in endobiogenic medicine all the time with the biology of functions lab tests. But, the way this has been done is to take one single factor that is considered to be "the" cause or "the" indicator of some disease--like a cancer--and measure that in everyone, or those determined to be at risk.

Unfortunately, by trying to be progressive, by trying to be preventative, this approach has suffered from the same reductionist tendencies that were problematic in the first place. For example, the idea that a microbe alone is the cause of an illness rather than the result of an imbalanced internal terrain.

In terms of prostate cancer, for example, Prostate specific antigen (PSA) was determined to be the cause that was specific and sensitive for prostate cancer. What my mentor and co-developer of the endobiogenic system, Dr. Jean Claude Lapraz has said for over 10 years is that PSA is not enough to be an indicator of prostate cancer, especially when it is only mildly or moderately elevated. It is only an indicator of prostate congestion and a disturbance in factors related to prostate growth. Now, why that prostate is enlarged is a different matter all together.

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the The American Cancer Society, had the bravery to admit, 

 “We don’t want people to panic,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the cancer society. “But I’m admitting that American medicine has over-promised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”

The article in the New York Times in which he is quoted goes on to say that screening for prostate and breast cancer has not prevented the more severe types of cancer which cause death, but has only increased diagnosed mild, local cancers, some of which are benign and will go away on their own. Unfortunately, with increased diagnosis of possibly benign cancers has come an increase in not so benign medical interventions, such as CT scan (read radiation exposure) biopsies.

Let me reiterate again the importance of having an integrative understanding of the myriad factors that can influence the development of a cancer. When a patient has a "fascinoma"--a fascinating finding to a physician with questionable clinical significance--from an imaging study, an executive health check up, body scan, etc.--it induces fear in them, but it does not clarify what it is, where it came from, why it is there and whether or not it is benign, potentially harmful or currently harmful.

The amazing thing about the biology of functions, the biological testing service of the endobiogenic method, is that it can answer all these questions in most cases of cancer. By evaluating all the factors that can cause a cancer to develop, and by taking a careful history and physical to understand the intervening factors, we can develop a very sophisticated understanding of how to understand an elevated PSA level, a suspicious lump in the breast, or a person's risk of cancer developing again.

A man I knew came to me because his doctors at the VA hospital found a fascinoma--a suspicious lump on a lung and his adrenal glands on a CT scan, quite by accident. They were very concerned that it may be a cancer given his long history of smoking. He categorically refused a biopsy. He came to me and we performed a biology of functions, which showed that it was not cancerous, but simply an overgrowth of a certain type of tissue due to a different non-cancerous pathology, which we treated with medical plants.

A woman was living with breast cancer for 14 years which she only treated with a lumpectomy and localized radiation one time, but never chemotherapy. She came to me in this state and we performed a biology of functions, which showed the cancer, but also indicated that it was like a crouching tiger ready to spring into a state of metastasis and spread beyond the local area that somehow her body had contained it in for all those years. We started a medical plan treatment plan which unfortunately she did not continue and she was diagnosed 3 months later with metastasis to the local lymph nodes and lungs.

In both cases, the biology of functions was clear and accurate to the cause and direction of a concerning situation. In the first case, we were able to avoid unnecessary intervention. In the second case, it has a grave result due to a lack of concerted action.

I am not saying that people should not receive blood screening for cancer. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that screening needs to be based on understanding the factors (plural) that are involved in the risk for cancer in general, as well as particular cancers. 

The biology of functions gives you a full cancer evaluation panel routinely, and for people who are cancer survivors, who have a strong family history of cancer, or who are generally very concerned about cancer, we measure important cancer antigens such as PSA, CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125 which can tell us about early disturbances in certain orgain systems, such as the prostate, ovaries, breasts, etc. but in general which hormonal system is playing the biggest role in general internal imbalance and where to put the emphasis of our treatment and preventative care.

Cancer: Silver Bullets and Silver Linings

My cancer patients often send me links to cures they've found online, or articles they have read on pubmed, the free database of scientific publications. "Do you think this is good for me?" they ask. The answer is easy. It's always the same: "It all depends."

In some patients, a lack of oxidation and free radicals contributes to their cancer, in others, just the opposite. In some patients, a very active thyroid axis--drives the metabolic rate of a cancer. In others, hypothyroidism, signaled by a high TSH level, occurs a few weeks to a few months right before the diagnosis of cancer and plays a role, instead. It's important to understand the various factors that participate in the growth of a cancer.

There are three main factors. First and foremost is genetics. Some people have particular genetic coding that suppress natural anti-cancer activity in the body such as programmed cell death (apoptosis), or over-expresses pro-growth factors such as certain cytokines, or hormones such as estrogen or growth hormone. But every gene is expressed in a certain environment, internal or external, which influences if it is expressed and to what degree it is expressed. So, even when we speak of genetics, we must remmber that there are environmental influences that play a role.

As far as the internal environment, even if a person is not born with genetic factors that are "pro-cancerous" there are certain factors that influence the growth of cells. Broadly speaking we can talk about hormonal (endocrine), nervous system and immune-mediated factors.

Among the hormonal factors, perhaps estrogen plays the most important role because estrogen makes everything grow, not just cancer cells, and not just in women. Some women who use birth control pills, or bio-identical hormones later in life will put themselves at risk for uterine, cervical and breast cancers, especially if progesterone is not used to balance out the estrogen activity. If you like Russian roulette, then this is the way to go for you.

If you don't like the idea of being a statistic, then you should look for natural alternatives to balancing hormones or meeting lifestyle issues regarding birth control. The endobiogenic system I use in my clinic if very well suited to managing hormonal imbalances in women using medicinal plants rather than hormones.

Women who never give birth or breast feed are also at higher risk. Some women chose for religious or personal reasons not to, or cannot for biological reasons give birth or nurse. If you are in this group, consider being evaluated more closely using the endobiogenic approach as well.

High androgens, growth hormone, insulin, Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) play important roles, but so does insufficient TSH. Many of these hormones can be stimulated by various nervous system, emotional and immune factors too. They are all inter-related, which is why you can have perfectly balanced estrogen activity and still be at risk for cancer. Slight imbalances in many hormones also put you at risk for cancerous cell growth.

Nervous system activity can get roled up with emotions. Emotions--expressed or suppressed--play a role in cancer too, although I am not saying that sad people or angry people or ungrateful people get cancer and that it's their fault. Plenty of nice people get cancer and plenty of mean people do not. Emotions cause a cascade of hormonal, nervous and immunological reactions in the body which in the right person can support unfettered growth of cells which can eventually become a cancer. It's just physiology, it's not a moral judgment.

Immune imbalances refer to cytokines and other mediators of inflammation, cell growth and blood vessel proliferation. Chronic infections with viruses and fungi are implicated here, but diet plays a role as does insulin and the thyroid system.

Congested or over-worked organs, such as the pancreas, liver, lymphatics, etc. can also play a role in cancer development or spread. So, regular drainage and detoxification of organs with fasts, diets, medicinal plants, homeopathic agents, aromatherapy, etc. are recommended.

The external environment also plays a role--probably and larger and larger role due to the growing toxin burden--in cancer development. Xenoestrogen from plastics and poultry raised on soy, radiation, heavy metals and other factors play a role. We should include chronic low grade infections here, too, like Epstein Bar Virus and Fungus.

Diet, of course can play a role too by influencing all of the above. Our food sources are filled with xenoestrogens, steroids, pesticides and antibiotics. We eat too many pro-inflammatory foods depleted of nutrients, low in omega-3's, stimulating high insulin responses which in turn stimulates more inflammation...

As you can see, there are many factors that can play a role in cancer risk. Some play a smaller role, some larger, but when added up, many small imbalances can create an environment that allows our cells to grow unfettered, which is what cancer is...which is why when my patients ask my about how to prevent cancer. They say, should I become a vegetarian? Participate in triathalons? Meditate? Do yoga? Avoid dairy? Stop hormone therapy...I say, "It depends."

In my practice I have taken care of vegetarians who should should be sainted for their benevolence but they get cancer, and I have grumpy alcoholics who don't get cancer. I have people who do yoga every day with high pre-cancerous activity and lazy slobs who don't have that risk.

There is no single prevention or cure for cancer, no silver bullet. The silver lining, though, is that by getting an individualized evaluation you can focus on what will help you reduce your risk of cancer. One person, one cancer treatment plan.

War on Cancer? Give peace a chance

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon declared a war on cancer, and thus started the great money sink of cancer research, so says a recent New York Times article. The article lists all sorts of reasons--the doctors who stand to lose money from good cancer research, government bumbling, corporate collusion--the stuff I usually mention. But that's not really what my concern is here. Six paragraphs from the end of the article, the author says

In most studies researchers have not accounted for genetic differences in tumors.

Therein, as Hamlet said, lies the rub. [the full soliloquy is at the end of this post] Ironically, Hamlet was fretting about the misery of long life, not a shortened life expectancy from cancer or other ailments.

Cancer research has yielded a lot of interesting results, such as elucidating the mechanisms of cancer growth, activity, metabolism, etc. Cancer research, and the organization of cancer trial working groups--particularly in pediatric oncology has led to impressive reduction of mortality of certain pediatric cancers. For example, ALL (Acute lymphocytic leukemia) used to have a 90% mortality and now it is down to 10% except in certain high risk groups. Sadly, though, there has been no overall reduction in cancer death in the US. In fact, even as the death from certain cancers have been reduced, other cancers, once rare, have become quite common.

Where cancer research has been lacking, and I say this with all due humility about very, very smart and dedicated researchers, has been in creating a global, dynamic and integrated understanding of cancer vis-a-vis the entire physiology and psychology of the individual. I am not referring to looking "estrogen" receptors or genetic markers. These are trees in the forest but not the forest itself. Genes need to act in a certain environment and having a gene in no way dooms you to have cancer. Conversely, not having the gene does not get you off the hook. I have a patient who has had recurrent breast cancer. She had a genetic survey done which said she had a lower than average risk of ever getting breast cancer.

I would add that there are two related errors that most cancer research has suffered from. First, it has become so reductionist, so mired in the fine details of mechanism, of the "how", that it cannot ask "why did this cancer come about?" And by "why?" I mean both physiologically, emotionally and spiritually.

Second, cancer studies in petri dishes (in vitro) and animals (in vivo) are so contrived and so far removed from the complex, decades-long dysfunction experienced before a cancer comes about that it is difficult to translate this research to an individual person with all the epic events of their life--birth, fear, hope, love, loss, illness, environmental pollution...

Experimental cancer treatments--even those using "natural" treatments use dosing far beyond what could be used in treatment that ceases to be practical. Many of the new treatments being trialed by drug companies hold out the promise of extending life by a few weeks but at huge costs. The article in the Times explores this very thoroughly, so I won't do so here.

If we wish to have a new approach to cancer, we must begin with the most Socratic of exercises: defining terms before any discussion occurs. So, what is cancer? The great killer? The barbarian at the gate? The feared stalker? He who cannot be named? We don't even know how to discuss it. In polite conversation, we lower our voice when we speak about someone who has cancer, then continue at our normal tone. Even in medical circles, we would refer to cancer as "CA" in front of patients or on medical exam forms.

So, what is cancer? Quite simply, cancer is the dysregulated growth of our own cells. That's it. That's fundamentally the struggle of life: regulation, dysregulation, a return to regulation and balance. If we don't go back to balance and regulation, we die.

A tacit assumption of cancer immunology has been that tumors express non-self or "foreign" antigens. The recent identification of a handful of potentially immunogenic cancer antigens shows that they are not truly foreign. Although the boundary between self and non-self is not well-defined, this first look at cancer antigens fits more with a self/altered self paradigm than with the non-self paradigm for antigens recognized in infectious disease

I wish I said that, but it was Dr. Alan Houghton, Chairman of Immunology, Chief of Clinical Immunology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Head of Melanoma Disease Management, Cornell University in a 1994 article.

So, in many ways, we return to the play Hamlet, for cancer is like the character of Hamlet: the perpetual angst of adolescence asking "Who am I?" and unable to give a proper answer.

Cancer is not foreign to us. It is us. It is at some level, a confusion about who we are, why we are and where we are in time and space.

How pointless then, how nihilistic to declare war on ourselves. Isn't that how we got ourselves into this mess? So much hatred, anger, and destruction of our race, our country, our environment and now ourselves? Rather than a war on cancer, how about a space race to the furthest depths of our soul?

Addendum: Hamlet's Soliloquy

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life
--Hamlet, in "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare

Probiotics: A tale of lemings and foxes

Probiotics have been quite the hot topic for a number of years now. For a hundred years, health conscious Americans have been aware of the beneficial effects of friendly bacteria, and for thousands of years, so have most traditional cultures, who have at least one fermented food that is considered to be pluripotent in its health-inducing effects.

Probiotics are healthy microorganisms--mainly bacteria and a few fungi--that live in our bowel. They have many important roles, the most capital of which is establishing a healthy immune system. This is much more far reaching than avoiding a cold now and again. Immune imbalances play a role in many disorders from autism to arthritis, from Crohn's disease to cancer. Probiotics also help digest our food and generate B vitamins. They also help prevent aggressive organisms from invading our gut, or worse, our blood stream.

Sounds like everyone should be taking probiotics, right? Normally, I would tell you to eat fermented foods, like yogurt, kefir and kombucha, which are rich sources of probiotics. And, I am telling you to do that. They are an important way of establishing and maintaining a lifelong healthy ecosystem within the bowel. However, if you have an immune imbalance, it will take more than eating these great foods to reverse the disorder. That is where probiotic supplements come in.

Unfortunately, the multinational food companies have co opted the revolution and corporatized it. I have been told by a reliable source in the industry that what is sold as kefir (Turkicized Arabic for "makes you happy") does not resemble the real McCoy any more than Trix flavored yogurt (I'm not making this up) resembles what Nana made in Crete.

Dannon has patented strains of probiotics and even renamed subspecies to include their company or product name to make you think that they poses some rare and exclusive line of proprietary strains of bacteria. So people rushed like lemmings to consume anything from cookies to chocolate that say "probiotics" on the label (Dannon has been fined $35,000,000 for making unsubstantiated claims on its products). I don't know if anyone has tested this, but knowing what we do about how difficult it is to get probiotics to adhere to the bowel when taken in powdered form, and made the right way, most of the enhanced foods are virtually useless for improving bowel function.

There are three reasons by people do not get good results with probiotics. First, they don't use high enough doses. According to the clinical trials, effective doses range in the billions, not millions. Second, they don't use the right strains. Most people don't realize that we have hundreds of different bacteria living in our bowel, and it varies by our age, the seasons, and individual metabolic needs and phases of life, such as pregnancy and menopause. Some of these organisms help us digest carbohydrates, others proteins, others make vitamins or do many of these tasks, so, choosing the right strain depends on understanding where the deficiency lies.

Don't even get me started on the foxes guarding the hen house. The New York Times had an interesting article about probiotics and how many of the experts on the panel had ties to major companies promoting probiotics. I will say though that the author of the article had a good point in that clinical studies to date have tested about 50 different strains of bacteria and fungi and have shown specific strains to be helpful for specific disorders and it may not be correct to generalize these effects to all strains or other disorders not studies. The point is that you can't just take "probiotics" for health any more than you would eat "food" for health. The food you eat depends on the health goals you have in mind.

The third reason people may not get good results with probiotics is that they don't use them long enough, or, don't transition from probiotics to fermented foods as a daily part of their diet once the symptoms have gone away.

In my clinic, using probiotics is part of a larger assessment of the terrain of the digestive system and the health of the other organs that effect or are effected by the bowels, such as the pancreas, the gall bladder, the immune system, etc. There are quick ways to asses dysbiosis--imbalanced microbial ecology in the gut--and specific lab tests, too. We look at the immune system, the endocrine system, inflammation, and many other factors that interplay in a subtle dance between the gut and the rest of the body.

Don't fall pray to foxes promising you a healthy gut with diet-antioxidant-probiotic-decaffeinated-rain forest-chocolate cola. It took time to enter a state of imbalance and good treatments give the body time to return to balance through measured and prudent treatments.

October is cancer prevention month, so for the rest of this month, I'll be blogging about cancer.

Hand washing and white washing

The New York Times reported today on the importance of hand washing to reduce the incidence of the swine flu. The article quoted a number of recent studies demonstrating that from preschool children to college students and washing with soap and water, or alcohol-based sanitizers, can substantially reduce the rate of both swine flu and other types of infectious diseases.

I don't want to underestimate the importance of cleanliness or downgrade the importance of washing one's hands. However this brings up an important bias which persists in the media not to mention in medical school, hospitals, and the entire basis of funding medical studies. That is to say, the systematic whitewashing of the concept of "terrain" when evaluating a person's risk of illness. Below is an excerpt from my new book, Medical Aromatherapy: the Aroma MD method, which teaches healthcare providers how to use essential oils to treat a variety of medical conditions:

Biological terrain is the sum of all the factors that affect the function of the body--the internal milieu. The concept of terrain allows us to evaluate all the factors that make a person, say, at risk of contracting an infection. For example, immunity is much more than infection fighting cells. The nervous system, the endocrine system, genetic factors, commensal organisms ("good bacteria"), and diet, all affect the quality of the immune system and its ability to protect the body from infection in a balanced manner. By addressing these factors, we allow the body to take advantage of its innate healing capacity to the fullest degree possible given its homeostatic state to affect a cure, and not just a treatment.

Biological Terrain is a key concept of health that has been present in Eastern medical systems for millennia. In the West in the late nineteenth century a number of intellectual ideas converged to create a concept of terrain based on a scientific observations and experimentation. Discovery of homeostatic regulatory mechanism such as pH, oxydo-reduction potential (rH), hormones, enzymes and the role of trace minerals created a rich, integrated and inter-related concept of le milieu interieur (internal environment) in which the body functions. At the same time, the effects of complex plant medicines were being described and an appreciation for essential plant oils was burgeoning as methods to treat disorders.

Simultaneous to these developments, reductionist concepts and treatments were being developed as well. These include the germ theory of Pasteur, which holds that microbes are the cause of infectious illness, circumventing the role of the terrain. The growth of the chemical-pharmaceutical industry lead to single-compound “pure” drugs to work on single receptors or single agents such as microbes. Professional medical monopolies and the codification of medical education served to control the propagation of ideas and determine scientific and medical orthodoxy, ultimately driving the concept of terrain and biological complexity out of the realm of scientifically accepted and funded concepts.

Like many other important systems-based concepts and truths based on a holistic understanding of the human body, the very institutions which sought to suppress the concept of terrain are currently the ones promoting the concept of terrain after 120 years. The prestigious Journal of the American medical Association's (JAMA) recently published an editorial speaking about the importance of systems-based medicine as a method to overcome the reductionist tendencies in medical education and health care system. Read this editorial carefully because it sums up the key points of the end of the endobiogenic system developed by Drs.Duraffourd and Lapraz of Paris, France.

So, what's wrong with just washing our hands? The problem lies in what is called the "hygiene hypothesis". The hygiene hypothesis is based on a number of observations published in peer-reviewed medical literature. Researchers have noted that the more a society reduces exposure to minor illnesses in childhood, the greater the incidence of autoimmune disorders such as asthma, allergies, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. It turns out that mild infections and exposure to healthy bacteria early in life helps develop, regulate and maintain a healthy immune system, quite the opposite of what we are normally taught and read about the media.

Unfortunately, the overall state of health of the average American is so compromised due to diet, environmental and emotional stress, toxins, and other attacks on the internal terrain, that hand washing is considered the best defense against infections. What I recommend for my patience in my clinic is the use of medical aromatherapy.

Essential oils affect the three key factors which affect the terrain for: they support healthy organ function and detoxification, they stimulate the immune system, and they are directly antimicrobial. When taken internally under medical guidance, used topically to massage or diffused into the air they are quite effective. Of course, a healthy diet based on a person's unique metabolic type, stress reduction, and support of key organs such as the liver, pancreas, adrenal gland and thyroid, or also an important part of my treatment philosophy.

Take a pepcid and sue me in the morning

National Public Radio recently reported an interesting story about how taking heartburn medication can worsen heartburn. More amazingly, they reported on a recent study performed in Copenhagen in which healthy adults who were given heartburn medication for three months actually developed stomach diseases such as reflux and heartburn after stopping the medication. In other words the medication itself causes the disease it is supposed to be treating! Let me explain how this works.

When a receptors in the body is suppred with blocking medications the body reacts by increasing the number of receptors which are causing the "problem" in the first place. At some point in time, there was an increased need for the compound in the body that the receptor corresponds to which is why the number of receptors increased. In time, the need goes away, but the physiology gets "stuck"--and that's when maladptive state occurs. If you block the receptor but not the compound, the body simply makes more receptors because now the body is used to a certain level of function. If you reduce the compound, the body will reduce the number of receptors. It's a matter of simple feedback.

There are no bad receptors or bad hormones or bad physiology in the body. There is only homeostasis, imbalance, and the attempt to return to homeostasis.

When estrogen blocking drugs such as tamoxifen are used to treat estrogen positive cancers, studies show that there is a small but important risk of developing uterine cancer within 10 years of using the tamoxifen.

When a person has high blood pressure and you use a beta blocker to lower the blood pressure, the body actually increases the number of beta receptors. If you suddenly stop a beta blocker drug, you actually worsen the person's blood pressure.

Now to the topic of our blog: when a person has heartburn often times it is because they're making too much stomach acid. They're a number of hormones that are responsible for stimulating stomach acid production, So it's important to figure out are driving the increase in stomach acid, and why those hormones are being stimulated in the first place. Usually there's a good reason for the body reacting the way it does, and we should figure it out rather than outright suppressing it.

Usually stomach acid is increasing its because the body needs more nutrients due to some huge emotional or physical stress that is increasing metabolic activity somewhere else in the body. In this case, the stomach is an "innocent bystander". That is to say, the person is reacting to some type of stress, and he could be losing their job or having cancer, but the stress that they experience leads to all sorts of reactions in the body which require extra nutrients to meet the new metabolic demands from stress.

Stomach acid plays an important role in meeting this demand. For example, stomach acid helps break down food and allows for more efficient digestion in the small intestines. It serves as a defense mechanism against unhealthy bacteria that might try to enter the body through the stomach. For example, a recent study showed that people on acid blockers have an increased risk of pneumonia. Stomach acid improves calcium absorption, which helps with nervous system function and building bones and cell membrane activity. Antacids block calcium absorption long-term and long-term use of acid blockers can increase the risk of osteoporosis.

A holistic approach to medicine, such as the endobiogenic method used in my clinic, suggests that if we understand the whole person, their emotional state the stage of life that they are in, and their hormonal imbalances we can understand the true cause and continuation of illness--and then we'll know how to treat the person, not just the disease. Of course, that it goes without saying that their dietary habit must also be examined very carefully. I can tell you that my rate of using acid blocking medications is 0%.

If you want to correct the problem, look not only at the compound and its receptor the entire terrain or internal milieu of the person. In medicine as in mysticism, the answer lies within.