Shorts

briefed by Jule Klotter

AIDS Cure

For years, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has been viewed as an incurable chronic infection caused by a retrovirus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Drug treatment has focused on killing HIV in the belief that eradicating it will cure the disease. Unfortunately, when treatment stops, the virus reappears. No drugs cure AIDS, according to drug manufacturer literature. Over the past decade, mainstream research has been slowly moving its attention away from killing the virus, looking instead for ways to improve the immune system. Researchers had viewed the possibility of an actual cure as unlikely – until the “Berlin patient.”

Timothy Brown, an American living in Germany, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in 1995. Following medical advice, he took low-dose AZT for a year and then protease inhibitors or “a combination of different treatments” for 11 years thereafter, he said during an interview on Democracy Now. In 2006, Brown was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. After receiving a couple of chemotherapy treatments, he underwent a bone marrow transplant. His doctor, Gero Hütter, had found a donor with a rare genetic mutation that prevents HIV from entering cells: CCR5-delta32. About 1.5% of Caucasians in America have this mutation. Brown discontinued HIV therapy when he had the transplant in 2007. Three months later, no HIV was detected in his blood or in organ biopsies.

Dr. Jeffrey Laurence, a professor at Weill Cornell Medical College (New York City) and a senior scientific consultant at the nonprofit Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), learned of the case at an AIDS meeting, held in Boston in February 2008. Later that year, he invited Hütter to present the case to a group of 12 government, academic, and industry researchers. After viewing the evidence, all 12 agreed that patient Brown had “at least a functional cure.” HIV may be “hiding” in cells somewhere, but the virus was not visible even though antiviral drugs had been discontinued. For Laurence, Brown was proof that AIDS could be cured.

Hütter and colleagues sent a case report to New England Journal of Medicine, which editors rejected because of their belief that curing AIDS was not possible. After stories about the Berlin patient’s cure appeared in Wall Street Journal and New York Times, NEJM agreed to publish the study, “along with an editorial, a very skeptical editorial, saying that basically until every single part of this person’s body has been investigated we basically aren’t certain we believe it,” Laurence told Amy Goodman at Democracy Now.

Since then, other patients with HIV and cancer have responded to bone marrow transplants. Laurence refers to a patient in Utrecht, Holland, who received cord blood stem cells from a baby with the genetic mutation. In addition, two patients in Boston received bone marrow transplants from donors without the mutation, according to a July 2012 NPR report. All of these patients have remained on anti-HIV drug therapy so “functional cure” has been difficult to confirm – at least so far.

Bone marrow transplants are not viewed as a practical treatment for AIDS; they are too expensive and too dangerous. “The risk of dying from such a bone marrow transplant or stem cell transplant is about 20 percent in the first hundred days after the transplant, and it’s very expensive,” Laurence told Democracy Now. He said that amfAR is funding research that is investigating the possibility of genetically modifying a patient’s own stem cells to contain the HIV-resistant mutation, which would avoid transplant rejection and the need for chemotherapy.

Stem cell and bone marrow transplants are not the only possibilities. Professor Marco Ruggiero, Institute of Experimental Pathology and Oncology of the University of Florence, mentioned other less expensive and less dangerous experimental immune therapy treatments in his July 2012 Townsend Letter interview (available online), including Gc macrophage activating factor (GcMAF) and a probiotic yogurt. Ruggiero says, “If you have a good immune system, you get rid of the virus. It’s a different therapeutic approach to AIDS.”

Fernández de Santos J. Interview of Professor Marco Ruggiero on the

controversy of HIV causation of AIDS. Townsend Lett. July 2012;348:75–88.

Knox R. Two more nearing AIDS “Cure” after bone marrow transplants, doctors say [blog entry]. NPR. July 26, 2012. www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/07/26/157444649. Accessed April 18, 2013.

McKay B, Winslow R. AIDS cure is back on agenda. Wall Street Journal. July 19, 2012; A2.

The Berlin patient: Timothy Ray brown speaks out on being first man

“cured” of HIV [online video]. Democracy Now. July 27, 2012. www.democracynow.org/2012/7/27/the_berlin_patient_timothy_ray_brown. Accessed April 18, 2013.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis Treatment

The incidence of eosinophilic esophagitis and other severe food allergies among children is increasing. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder in which eosinophils (a type of white blood cell) attack the esophagus. Symptoms are similar to those of GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) but do not respond to acid suppression. The most effective way to bring about remission is to avoid the offending foods. For some, this means relying on a crystalline amino acid-based formula for nutrition. The formula, in the words of a 14-year-old South Carolina girl, tastes worse than dirt: “‘You can at least swallow dirt.’” Consequently, she and many other children with severe food allergies use a nasal feeding tube or a surgically implanted gastric tube to consume it. After symptoms and inflammation subsides, foods are gradually reintroduced to identify the food proteins that cause symptoms. In some cases, only a few foods are safe, making it impossible for a child to obtain sufficient nutrition without the formula.

Although the amino acid-based elemental diet (ELED) is the most effective treatment for severe food allergies such as eosinophilic esophagitis, the diet has several negatives. “The exclusion of all solid foods coupled with the monotonous same liquid nutrient can lead to frustration and dietary cheating,” state Amir F. Kagalwalla and colleagues from Northwestern University (Chicago) in a 2006 article. “The child’s participation in many social activities can be curtailed because most activities revolve around food.” Feeding tubes attract unwanted attention and even bullying, as two South Carolina girls discovered. Moreover, the placement and maintenance of feeding tubes and the formula itself are costly. Kagalwalla and colleagues say the formula “can cost between $900 and $1500 per month to provide adequate calories for growth in a 20-kg child.” Because of these factors, the Illinois researchers investigated the effectiveness of a food exclusion diet to bring about remission.

Kagalwalla and colleagues treated 35 children with eosinophilic esophagitis with a standard six-food elimination diet (SFED) for 6 weeks between October 2003 and June 2005, and compared the results to a cohort of 25 who had been treated with a crystalline ELED formula between January 2001 and September 2003. The elimination diet excluded the six proteins most commonly associated with allergies and with esophageal mucosal injury in children: milk, soy, egg, wheat, peanut/tree nuts, and seafood. The researchers did not use radioimmunosorbent testing or skin prick tests to identify allergen foods because “ … previous studies have shown that eliminating foods based on the results of [these tests] is not effective in resolving symptoms and esophagitis.”

The results indicate that a six-food elimination diet can reduce inflammation in a majority of children with EE: “Twenty-six of 35 (74%) in the SFED group and 22 of 25 (88%) in the ELED group achieved significant improvement of esophageal inflammation (≤10 eosinophils/high-power field).” An additional child in the SFED group showed significant improvement after processed foods contaminated with milk protein were removed from the child’s diet. Three in the SFED group showed partial improvement (11–20 eosinophils/hpf). The remaining five, who had esophageal eosinophil counts >20 eosinophils/hpf, were treated with ELED, and four of them improved, “thus showing that food proteins other than the 6 excluded ones were involved in causing the esophageal inflammation in the nonresponders.” The child who failed to respond to either the SFED or ELED diet also showed no response to steroid treatment, “indicating a nonallergic cause.” Although SFED did not have as great a response rate as ELED, the elimination diet had the advantage of being “better accepted” by child, less costly than the formula, and “less frustrating and disruptive to family life.”

Two recent studies have shown that elimination diets improve symptoms and histology in adults with EE as well. A June 2012 study, led by Nirmala Gonsalves, reported that 32 of 50 adults (64%) with EE showed peak counts ≤5 eosinophils/hpf after six weeks on the elimination diet. “Symptom scores decreased in 94% (P<.0001).” Systematic food reintroduction and histologic measures identified which food(s) caused eosinophil activation in each individual. Histopathic and clinical improvement is sustainable for at least three years when adults avoid “offending foods,” according to a 2013 study, led by Alfredo J. Lucendo.

Gonsalves N, Guang-Yu Yang, Doerfler B, Ritz S, Ditto AM, Hirano I. Elimination diet effectively treats eosinophilic esophagitis in adults; food reintroduction identified causative factors [abstract]. Gastroenterology. June 2012;142(7):1451–1459. Available at www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(12)00309-5/abstract. Accessed April 23, 2013.

Kagalwalla AF, Sentongo TA, Ritz S, et al. Effect of six-food elimination diet on clinical and histologic outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1097–1102. Available at http://fooodintolerances.com/pdf/eosinophilic-oesophagitis-6-food-elim-gastro-2007.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2013.

Lucendo AJ, Arias A, González-Cervera J, et al. Empiric 6-food elimination diet induced and maintained prolonged remission in patients with adult eosinophilic esophagitis: A prospective study on the food cause of the disease [abstract]. J Allergy Clin Immunol. March 2013;131(3):797–804. Available at www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(12)02644-9/abstract. Accessed April 23, 2013.

Wyatt D. Formula for success. Spartanburg Herald Journal. February 12, 2013; A1, A5.

Climate Engineering

Some scientists and politicians are promoting climate engineering, a.k.a. geoengineering, as a means of reducing global warming. The very existence of “global warming” has been the subject of debate for years. What is not debatable is the release of methane (CH4), stored in Arctic permafrost, at rates much faster than predicted. Methane has more than 30 times the power of carbon dioxide to warm the earth’s atmosphere, according to the National Science Foundation. The warmer it gets, the more Arctic permafrost melts, the more methane is released, the warmer it gets. As a result, weather patterns change, affecting crop production, disease vectors, and survival for the earth’s plants, animals, and humans. “That nations are talking seriously about climate engineering is a sign of just how sick the planet has become,” wrote David G. Victor and academic colleagues in March 2013.

In an effort to cool the planet, scientists have proposed several ideas for removing carbon dioxide from the air. Some, such as requiring coal-burning plants to capture carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, have lacked industrial and political backing. Others, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron dust to produce algal blooms that uptake carbon dioxide, are likely to harm the already-stressed ocean environment.

Instead of removing carbon dioxide, some scientists are advocating solar radiation management (SRM). SRM techniques include injecting aerosols (fine particles) into the stratosphere in order to reflect sunlight back into space and the placement of mirrors or shades into orbit (a far more expensive option). Sulfate aerosols enter the stratosphere naturally during volcanic eruption. The 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines shot 20 megatons of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere. The resulting sulfate aerosol clouds were credited with global cooling for a couple of years, according to Alan Robock, PhD. Robock is director of the meteorology undergraduate program and associated director of the Center for Environmental Prediction in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University. Similarly, carbon aerosols from industrial pollution is believed to have prevented warming in China and India, according to a 2002 study led by Surabi Menon. Atmospheric aerosols, whether from pollution or geoengineering, may cool the earth, but aerosols also have unwanted weather effects. Robock says that the Pinatubo eruption produced droughts. Likewise, the carbon aerosols that have kept temperatures from rising in China and India have contributed to “increased summer floods in south China and drought in north China.”

The quick-fix of using aerosols to reflect sunlight away from the earth has other consequences, according to Robock. Less warming sunlight also means less sunlight for photosynthesis, vitamin D production, and solar power. In addition, aerosol particles in the stratosphere facilitate destruction of the ozone layer, permitting more harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth’s surface. Moreover, the fine particles in aerosols – like any air pollution – are likely to produce acid rains, harming trees, polluting water, and increasing ocean acidity. “[A]bout half of all excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is removed by ocean uptake. The ocean is already 30 percent more acidic than it was before the Industrial Revolution,” says Robock,” and continued acidification threatens the entire oceanic biological chain, from coral reefs right up to humans.” When scientists propose ways to decrease the sun’s warm rays from reaching the earth’s surface, they rarely consider the effects on plants and animals.

I recently watched an online presentation by Rosalind Peterson and Allan Buckman. Peterson worked for US Department of Agriculture, in Mendocino County, California, as an investigator; her job was to determine the reasons behind crop losses. In 2002, her attention turned to the persistent contrails that form crosses and grids in the sky. Buckman is a biologist who worked for the Department of Fish and Game for 38 years. Before that, he was a meteorologist in the US Air Force. Both Peterson and Buckman claim that the US military has been releasing aerosols in the stratosphere for decades and that these aerosols are having a devastating effect on the environment. Buckman used AgI (silver iodide) in 1964 as part of a weather modification program. (The US and the Soviet Union began researching weather control for military purposes during the Cold War, according to Robock.) Buckman says that the US is now using nanosized aluminum-coated fiberglass (CHAFF) to create persistent contrails that form a haze and cirrus cloud cover. Both Buckman and Peterson have observed a decline in the health of plant life, including trees (nature’s carbon dioxide consumers), on the West Coast where persistent contrails are common. The presentation, along with supporting documents are on Peterson’s website: www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org.

At least one study questions the use of human-made clouds to cool the planet. In “How Aircraft Contrails Form Clouds,” Dr. Jim Haywood and colleagues report that cirrus clouds, produced by aircraft contrails, reflect sunlight back to space, leading to a cooling effect. The clouds, however, also prevent heat from leaving the earth: “ … contrail-induced clouds may have a net warming effect on the planet.” The report, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (January 8, 2010), and pictures are available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8309629.stm.

When the media start spreading stories about the benefits of geoengineering, know that there are environmental uncertainties and health consequences not being examined by the experimenters.

Menon S, Hansen J, Nazarenko L, Yunfeng Luo. Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science. September 27, 2002;297:2250–2253. Available from www.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/menon-et-al-2002.pdf.

Accessed May 4, 2013.

National Science Foundation. Methane releases from Arctic shelf may be much larger and faster than anticipated [online press release)]. March 4, 2010. www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532. Accessed May 4, 2013.

Peterson R, Buckman A. Geoengineering: destroying the atmosphere [taped seminar]. October 23, 2011. Available at www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/geoengineering-current-actions. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Robock A. 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci. May/June 2008;64(2):14–18. Available at www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2012QI/111/20REasons.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2013.

Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, Steinbruner J, Ricke K. The truth about geoengineering. Foreign Affairs. March 27, 2013. Available at www.foreignaffairs.com/136284. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Glyphosate and Bacteria

Widespread use of the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) is jeopardizing vital beneficial bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract, according to Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. Glyphosate, like other organophosphates, disrupts the shikimate pathway, which governs the synthesis of phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. Both genetically modified crops and non-GMO plants absorb glyphosate, but Roundup Ready crops have alternate enzyme pathways that allow them to withstand the herbicide. The shikimate pathway is found in plants, algae, fungi, bacteria, and other microorganisms but not in mammals. Consequently, glyphosate is considered “minimally toxic to humans.”

In a 2013 literature review for Entropy, Samsel and Seneff argue that glyphosate contributes to dysbiosis in the gastrointestinal tract, suppresses cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes involved in detoxification, and impairs sulfate transport. These disruptions have been connected to several health problems in recent years, including digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases, and cancer. “An insidious issue with glyphosate is that its toxic effects on mammals take considerable time to be overtly manifested,” say Samsel and Seneff. Animal toxicity trials are usually short term, lasting only three months or less.

When people or animals eat Roundup Ready GM soy, alfalfa, or corn, they are also eating the glyphosate sprayed on the crops; and glyphosate will affect the microorganisms in their GI tract. As Samsel and Seneff point out, “In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and [participate] in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability.” Although no one has tracked glyphosate’s effect on humans, scientists have looked at its effect on farm animals fed GM crops. A 2013 German study, led by M. Krüger, found that glyphosate is toxic to Enterococcus spp., the lactic acid-producing GI bacteria (the good bacteria) that keep Clostridum botulinum from proliferating. Clostridium botulinum-associated illness in Germany’s cattle has increased over the past 10 to 15 years. Glyphosate also kills off beneficial bacteria in poultry, according to a 2013 study led by A.A. Shehata. “Highly pathogenic strains of Salmonella and Clostridium [in the poultry] were found to be highly resistant to glyphosate, whereas beneficial bacteria such as Enterococcus, Bacillus and Lactobacillus were found to be especially susceptible,” write Samsel and Seneff.

Glyphosate residue levels in foods are rising as more and more glyphosate is used on farmland. “Cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens and even farm-raised fish and shrimp are fed a diet primarily of genetically engineered grains and forage materials laced with herbicide,” say Samsel and Seneff. “As a consequence, animal products like, eggs, butter, cheese and milk are also contaminated with these residues.”

Scientists have identified glyphosate’s detrimental effects on plants, microorganisms, and even frogs, but they have barely begun to apply that knowledge to mammals. “Given the known toxic effects of glyphosate reviewed here and the plausibility that they are negatively impacting health worldwide, it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate the ideas presented here,” write Samsel and Seneff, “and to take immediate action, if they are verified to drastically curtail the use of glyphosate in agriculture.”

Klotter J. Questions about glyphosate (Roundup). Townsend Lett. December 2011; 341:33–34.

Krüger M, Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Rodloff A. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. On Clostridium botulinum [abstract]. Anaerobe. 2013;20:74–78. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/publmed. Accessed May 2, 2013.

Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate’s suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut microbiome: pathways to modern diseases. Entropy. 2013;15:1416–1463; doi;10.3390/e15041416. Available at www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416. Accessed May 2, 2013.

Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro [abstract]. Curr Microbiol. April 2013; 66(4):350–358. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412. Accessed May 8, 2013.

Oil Pulling

Oil pulling, an Ayurvedic therapy, has a long history as a preventive for tooth decay, bleeding gums, cracked lips, and halitosis. The practice consists of swishing and pulling a tablespoon of oil between the teeth for 10 to 15 minutes in the morning before eating or brushing teeth. The oil, which captures bacteria and toxins in the mouth, is then spit out. Traditionally, sesame oil is used; but sunflower oil, olive oil, and coconut oil can also be used, according to Edward F. Group II, DC, ND. Russian physician F. Karach began promoting oil pulling as a useful adjunctive treatment for numerous systemic illnesses during the 1990s.

Although its effect on systemic disease has not been tested, oil pulling’s effect on oral health has. Randomized, controlled, triple-blind studies in 2008 and 2009, led by Sharath Asokan at the Meenakshi Ammal Dental College (Chennai, India), showed that oil pulling with sesame oil was as effective as chlorhexidine mouthwash in reducing Streptococcus mutans count and plaque-induced gingivitis. A 2011 pilot study, also led by Asokan, compared the use of sesame oil pulling therapy (10–15 min./day) to 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash (1 minute/day) in a 14-day study with 20 adolescents with halitosis. As in the previous studies, both groups showed statistically significant improvement in plaque index and modified gingival index when comparing pre- and posttreatment scores. Both groups also had improved breath odor, as determined by a blinded, calibrated examiner and by self-assessment. The Indian researchers say, “Sesame oil has the following advantages over chlorhexidine; no stain, no lingering after taste, and no allergy. Sesame oil is five to six times cost-effective than chlorhexidine and is readily available in the household.” The sole disadvantage is that oil pulling takes longer than using mouthwash.

In a 2011 in vitro study, Asokan and colleagues write, “The myth that oil-pulling therapy was just a placebo effect has been broken but the mechanism of action remains unclear.” They found no evidence that sesame oil lignans have antibacterial effects. They did, however, find evidence that the agitation that occurs during oil pulling promoted emulsification of the oil globules, forming “a soapy layer.” “The emulsification process could alter the adhesion of the bacteria on the tooth surface, remove the superficial worn-out squamous cells and improve oral hygiene,” say the researchers.

Asokan S, Kumar RS, Emmadi P, Raghuraman R, Sivakumar N. Effect of oil pulling on halitosis and microorganisms causing halitosis: A randomized controlled pilot trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(2):90–94. Available at www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2011/29/2/90/84678. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Asokan S, Rathinasamy TK, Inbamani N, et al. Mechanism of oil-pulling therapy – In vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(1):34–37. Available at www.ijdr.in. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Group EF, III. Oil pulling – the habit that can transform your health [online article]. Food Matters. http://foodmatters.tv.articles-1/oil-pulling-the-habit-that-can-transform-your-health. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Rao TK. History of oil pulling (OP) and its rediscovery [online article]. Oil Pulling. www.oilpulling.org/oil-pulling/how-oil-pulling-started. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Raw Cannabis

Raw cannabis (marijuana), juiced or eaten as uncooked leafy greens, is a true superfood. Heating cannabis – whether by smoking, vaporizing, cooking, or steeping the plant – greatly decreases its therapeutic cannabinoid content and increases THC, the psychoactive molecule. When using the raw plant, nonpsychotropic cannabinoid acids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), reduce inflammation and pain, and protect against oxidative damage. CBD has demonstrated antianxiety, antipsychotic, antiepileptic, antispasmodic, antiemetic, anti-ischemic, antidiabetic, antipsoriatic, antibacterial, and neuroprotective properties, according to a 2009 review by A.A. Izzo et al. CBD also stimulates bone formation and protects against cancer.

William Courtney, MD, calls cannabis “a unique functional food” that is particularly valuable for people in their 40s and older. “In the last half of life,” he says, “the inflammatory arm of the immune system takes on characteristics of an autoimmune disorder for which the conditionally essential cannabinoid acids provide unique prophylactic and therapeutic relief.” He bases that statement on research contained in US Patent 6,630,507, which cites 12 other US patents, 10 foreign patents, and 26 articles and publications, and on clinical experience.

Both Courtney and Jake Felice, ND recommend that patients primarily juice fresh leaves, but a few fresh mature flower buds and/or roots can also be included. “The healing benefits of cannabinoid-acids are only present for a short period of time before the chemicals break down, so juicing needs to be done quickly after harvest,” writes Felice. He says that patients can freeze the fresh juice in ice cube trays to save time. Like Courtney, Felice reports that patients have had unexpectedly “fabulous” results when drinking juice from the raw plant. Cannabis can also be applied as a poultice. As a poultice, it relieves pain caused by neuropathy or arthritis.

Several states have approved medical use of cannabis, but the federal government continues to target medical suppliers in these states. Patent 6,630,507, held by the US, attests to the multiple therapeutic benefits of cannabis. It makes no sense that cannabis continues to be classified on Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act. As clinical and laboratory evidence continues to build, the US Drug Enforcement Agency will not be able to sustain the posture that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use.” More information about raw marijuana as a superfood is available at www.cannabisinternational.org.

Courtney W. Cannabis as a unique functional food. Treating Yourself. 2010;24;52–54. Available at www.cannabisinternational.org/info/treatingyourself.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2013.

———. Origins of cannabis international foundation [online article]. Cannabis International. www.cannabisinternational.org/about.php. Accessed April 18, 2013.

Felice J. Raw juiced cannabis provides green healing without smoke or sedation [blog post]. Dr. Jake Felice. October 12, 2012. Available at www.drjakefelice.com. Accessed April 18, 2013.

Izzo AA, Borrelli F, Capasso R, Di Marzo V, Mechoulam R. Pharmacological actions of non-psychotropic cannabinoids. Trends Pharmacol Sci. October 2009; 30(10):515–527. Available at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016561470900128X. Accessed May 10, 2013.

Vick K. Form of medical marijuana won’t get you high, but it’s creating a buzz. Washington Post. June 1, 2010. Available at www.washingtonpost.com. Accessed April 18, 2013.

Science Dogma

and

Paradigms

Many alternative medicine therapies do not make sense to the reductionist, materialist views that underlie science; hence, these therapies are judged as quackery or pseudoscience. But biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s recent experience with a TEDx event indicates that the paradigm is shifting. The TEDxWhitehall organizers invited Sheldrake to speak at a January 2013 event. Its theme was “Challenging Existing Paradigms,” and Sheldrake chose to talk about “The Science Delusion,” the same subject as his latest book (published as Science Set Free in the US). “The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in,” Sheldrake said during his 18-minute talk. “ … there’s a conflict in science as a method of enquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation and science as a belief system or a world view. And unfortunately, the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and restrict the free inquiry which is the very life blood of the scientific endeavor.”

Ironically, Sheldrake’s talk was removed from the TEDx YouTube channel by TED’s anonymous scientific board after a complaint of “pseudoscience.” The Internet response to the removal was so great that TED set up a separate page with a video of Sheldrake’s talk, the reason for its removal, and Sheldrake’s written response (www.blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake).

In the talk, Sheldrake differentiates between science as a method of inquiry and science as a materialistic worldview/belief system. He presents 10 “dogmas” of this world view, beliefs such as “nature is mechanical or machine like” and “memories are stored as material traces in the brain.” The 10th dogma, “mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works,” is the rationale for denigrating and underfunding alternative medicine.

From his talk, it is clear that Sheldrake is interested in the exceptions, the observations and results that seem to contradict widely held beliefs. For example, he talks about the years 1928 to 1945, during which mathematicians around the world calculated the speed of light as being 20 km/sec less than the defined constant. Instead of investigating this startling information, physicists “fixed” the problem by defining light speed as 299,792 km/sec, regardless of observation. Sheldrake insists that investigating these seeming abnormalities could lead to new understandings.

In a February 4, 2013, interview with Alex Tsakiris, Sheldrake commented that he was surprised at the number of people who have wanted to discuss scientific dogma. “This TED debate has actually helped show that the paradigm is shifting,” he says. “There is no longer an automatic agreement by the great majority of people to dogmatic concessions held by materialists.” This TED debate is “a paradigm shift in action.”

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake talks about his banned TED talk on Skeptiko with Alex Tsakiris [online video]. February 4, 2013. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA. Accessed April 23, 2013.

Sheldrake R. The science delusion. TEDxWhitehall [blog post]. TED. January 12, 2013. http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake. Accessed April 23, 2013.

———. Rupert Sheldrake’s response to the TED Scientific Board’s statement [online article]. NewsVoice. March 18, 2013. www.newsvoice.se/2013/03/18/rupert-sheldrakes-response-to-the-ted-scientific-boards-statement. Accessed April 28.

Superbugs

“’We are losing our first-line antimicrobials,’” said Dr. Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization, in a keynote address for a European Union conference (March 14, 2012, in Copenhagen, Denmark). She warns that we are facing a “postantibiotic” era, a time in which common infections can once again kill and common interventions, such as hip replacements, become too dangerous because of the threat of untreatable infection. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have become a worldwide problem that encompasses more than drug-resistant tuberculosis and MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infections in hospitals. Resistant strains of Enterobacteriaceae have developed. Enterobacteriaceae, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species, and Enterobacter species, are a large family of gram-negative bacilli normally found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and other animals that can cause illness.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that strains of Enterobacteriaceae are now resistant to carbapenem antimicrobials (imipenem, meropenem, doripenem, and ertapenem). US doctors turned to these antimicrobials when the Enterobacteriaceae developed resistance to other broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections have a 40% to 50% mortality rate. In 2001, an estimated 1.2% of Enterobacteriaceae infections in patients with central-line-associated bloodstream infections or catheter-associated urinary tract infections were CRE, according to a March 8, 2013, CDC report. By 2011, 4.2% of Enterobacteriaceae infections in patients were CRE. (This report did not consider food poisoning, another source of E. coli infection.) Although a proportion of just 4.2% does not sound impressive, the trend toward resistance is troubling. CDC hopes that health departments and hospitals can slow the spread of CRE with surveillance and prevention efforts similar to those that have helped control MRSA.

In her speech, Chan asked governments to consider providing companies with incentives to develop new antibiotics. “Most [pharmaceutical] companies have given up because the search [for new antibiotics] has become hard and, because resistance always develops, their lifespan is not long, so there is not much profit to be made,” according to the Guardian (UK).

Perhaps, it’s time to look for other solutions. Rife frequencies, anyone?

Boseley S. New wave of “superbugs” poses dire threat, says chief medical officer. Guardian. March 10, 2013. Available at www.guardian.co.uk. Accessed April 15, 2013

Chan M. Antimicrobial resistance in the European Union and the world. Conference: Combating antimicrobial resistance: Time for Action (Copenhagen, Denmark). March 14, 2012. Available at www.who.int/dg/speeches/2012/amr_20120314/en/index.html. Accessed May 11, 2013.

Jacob JT, Klein E, Lynfield R, et al. Vital signs: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. March 8, 2013;62(09):165–170. Available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr. Accessed April 15, 2013.

Moisse K. Antibiotic resistance: the 5 riskiest superbugs. ABC News. March 27, 3012. Available at abcnews.go.com. Accessed April 15, 2013.