Letter from the Publisher

Bringing Our Medical Groups Together

In 1976 while working at a leprosy hospital, I began my explorations of alternative medicine. My wife was in her sixth month of pregnancy, and we were not terribly enamored with a hospital delivery. Our friends in Louisiana were not very knowledgeable about home births, but we decided that this might be a path we would be willing to experience. A dentist in Baton Rouge was a treasure trove of information, and he put us in touch with an old-time GP who was agreeable to doing a home delivery. One of the nurses in the leprosy hospital offered to attend as well. A day or two before Thanksgiving, Deborah’s labor began and we had decided that the best place for the delivery was in the nurse’s home. Dr. Thom met us there at 3 a.m., and the delivery went very well without complications. Of course, with two doctors and a nurse in attendance, that would be reasonable to expect – but it was in the comfort of a home and not the hospital labor room.

Another individual whom the dentist in Baton Rouge put me in touch with was the regional distributor for Standard Process. I was told that I should spend an afternoon with Mark because he not only had an important story to share with me but also was extremely knowledgeable. Deborah and I were thrilled to meet Mark and his wife. Mark’s discussion about the story of Standard Process, its founder Royal Lee, and the philosophy and application of using Standard Process supplements, particularly the glandular supplements, was absolutely eye-opening for me. I could not even begin to imagine that food supplements could be so vital to health and to reversing disease symptomatology. Mark reviewed many of Lee’s concepts, which are the foundation of any healing work: support the basic nutrition, balance the acid/alkaline biochemistry, detoxify chemicals and other biologics harmful to the system, build up the immune system, and cleanse the gastrointestinal tract. I could not understand why medicine would be so uninterested in this form of healing – why did everything need to be a drug agent, a chemical, or a biologic; why couldn’t natural nutrients be used in treatment?

Much of what Mark shared with me has been repeated elsewhere by many other knowledgeable individuals from many companies. Mark did suggest and recommend that I travel to a conference which would review the philosophies and treatment strategies that he introduced me to. There was a meeting in the upcoming spring of 1977 in Dallas, Texas, by three alternative medical groups: the American Medical Preventics Association (AMPS), the International Preventive Medicine Society, and the American Homeopathic Association.

I attended this conference in March 1977. While I was thrilled with what Mark had introduced me to in a few hours, the conference I attended in Dallas was mind-boggling. I recall that Thursday night when the homeopathic lecturers discussed treatment of many medical conditions, cystitis, for example, which did not require the use of an antibiotic nor other prescription medication – just a homeopathic remedy. The preventive medical society presented the first lecture that I had ever heard of dangers involved in vaccination, fluoridation, and mercury amalgams. The AMPS group discussed a novel treatment process – chelation – and how it not only was useful in removing toxic elements but also played a key role in restoring cardiovascular health.

I returned from the lectures that I experienced in Dallas to the leprosy hospital near Baton Rouge excited to implement many of the treatment methods that I had learned about. Unfortunately, my enthusiasm to treat my leprosy patients differently was not shared by my chief physicians and other fellow physicians. Still I was determined to find out if there was any improvement to be made by using homeopathy, IV vitamin therapies, and chelation with my patients. Invariably, the patients loved the new treatments, enjoying nutritional and lifestyle changes, taking supplements and receiving IVs. It was only the hospital doctors who detested these changes.

Eventually I left the leprosy hospital, seeking a private medical setting in the Pacific Northwest to treat patients using nutritional medicine. My impression working with the leprosy patients was that nutritional and alternative medicine would be a suitable tool for all patients. I was thankful for the introduction that I had to this form of medicine by attending the conference in Dallas which had brought together three organizations to jointly lecture.

This April, at the Minneapolis Convention Center, four different medical societies joined to put on the iMosaic conference. The four groups were the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM), the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), and the American Holistic Medical Association (AHMA). This was a first for these groups – previously they had all put on meetings independently. Sharing the meetings meant that attendees from the different groups would be sharing lectures, workshops, exhibitor booths, and meals. The meeting was wonderful, and it was fabulous to see individuals from the different groups dialoguing on the lectures­ and the different treatment approaches. Not only were there many pre-lecture intensive courses, but there were also many lectures at the primary conference and a wide number of workshops each afternoon. iMosaic offered a tremendous opportunity for new medical students and doctors as well as old-timers to learn about natural medicine from many different vantage points. It was a terrific blending of medical societies and attendees. Hopefully, this meeting will take place again in 2012!!

Vitamin D Supplementation Controversy

One of the more satisfying experiences of attending a medical conference is following the reasoning of doctors who hold differing opinions. We enjoyed the debate recently in letters to the editor in the Townsend Letter of doctors who disagreed with Dr. Gaby’s editorial that “iodine is a lot to swallow.” iMosaic did invite Dr. Gaby to lecture, and his talk not only included the controversy of supplementing iodine but also addressed the pros and cons of high-dose vitamin D. Gaby concedes that the research is clear that vitamin D reverses rickets, treats osteomalacia, improves osteoporosis, prevents falls, and improves resistance against infection. However, the research suggests that these ends are frequently achieved with modest supplementation of vitamin D – in the 1200 IU range. Gaby is concerned about doctors’ recommending that patients use more than 2000 IU of vitamin D. He is also concerned that much of the literature supporting treatment using higher doses of vitamin D is small studies with weak evidence. He takes umbrage when researchers claim that vitamin D production by natural sunlight is in the 10,000 IU range or higher. He is also not convinced that 25-OH vitamin D studies are necessarily accurate. There are many interfering enzyme systems that may make a vitamin D level much lower than what it should actually measure. Gaby believes that if one were to aim to achieve optimal vitamin D levels in most individuals who measure low, an inordinate dosage of vitamin D would be required. At such high levels of vitamin D supplementation, it would be expected that adverse effects would occur. The most controversial adverse effect would be the untoward effect of high serum calcium, which is suggested to increase the level of plaque development in atherosclerosis.

Gregory Plotnikoff, MD, an internist and pediatrician who practices in Minneapolis and has received awards for his work in integrative medicine, spoke at the iMosaic meeting about the virtues of vitamin D supplementation. Dr. Plotnikoff disagrees with the 2010 position statement of the Institute of Medicine, which disdainfully claimed that “higher levels of Vitamin D have not been shown to confer greater benefits than (supporting bone health) and have been linked to other health problems, challenging the concept that more is better.” Plotnikoff states that vitamin D is a potent secosteroid hormone with receptors found in every body tissue and a regulator of at least 600 crucial genes. It plays an essential role in operating many key enzyme systems. Medical evidence supports vitamin D’s role in reducing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hyperinsulinemia, and immune dysfunction. It plays an important role in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and recurrence. In animal models, vitamin D retards tumor growth. Studies have demonstrated its anti-inflammatory effects and potentiation of antitumor activities. However, most of these benefits, particularly the antitumor effects, are not achieved with borderline normal vitamin D levels. Vitamin D levels must be “optimal” to achieve these effects. While a lab test result of 30 ng/ml of 25(OH) vitamin D may be normal, an optimal level of at least 36 to 48 ng/ml must be achieved to prevent cancer. (Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008;624:55–71). Plotnikoff would argue that Gaby’s concerns about adverse effects are not justified and that most of the benefits of vitamin D would not be achieved with supplementation of 2000 IU or less.

Jonathan Collin, MD