That a pharmaceutical company would produce and patent a fish oil product does not surprise me in the least as the global market for omega-3 fatty acid products reached $4.1 billion in 2019 and is expected to double by 2025.

In his article the Cardiologist touts Vescepa as being clinically proven to be superior to fish oils based upon the REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes study. What he doesn’t mention is that Vescepa was used mostly in individuals that were already on statin medications and that they only produced a 4.3% to 5.2% improvement over the placebo group for ischemia. The study did show however, that a larger percentage of patients in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for atrial fibrillation or flutter and that serious bleeding events occurred in 2.7% of the patients in the icosapent ethyl group and in 2.1% in the placebo group. The authors of the study that was funded by Amarin, concluded that Vescepa proved superior for treatment of ischemia but no mention was made of its inability to stop the development of atrial fibrillation, flutter and bleeding episodes.

He also cites several studies (Strength, Vital Rhythm and OMENI trials) that show fish oils can lead to the development of atrial fibrillation. However, with regard to these studies, JAMA’s Editor writes: “Considered together, the data from the 4 trials suggest, but do not prove, that there may be a dose-related risk of AF with omega-3 fatty acid intake. At a dose of 4.0 g/d, there was a highly statistically significant increase in risk (nearly a doubling). With an intermediate dose of 1.8 g/d, the increase in risk (hazard ratio, 1.84) did not achieve statistical significance, and with a standard daily dose of 840 mg/d, there was no apparent increase in risk (although the data were consistent with as much as a 24% increase in risk). Patients who choose to take omega-3 fatty acids, especially in high doses, should be informed of the risk of AF and followed up for the possible development of this common and potentially hazardous arrhythmia.”

Additionally, when you read the package insert for Vescepa some interesting things show up, one of the most striking is its propensity to cause atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, but as well musculoskeletal pain, peripheral edema, constipation and gout. The potential for hypersensitivity reactions to those allergic to fish or are on blood thinners or bleed easily are also cautioned against. It also warns that the product may cause pancreatitis in susceptible individuals. The package insert also mentions several animal studies which suggest that use of Vescepa in higher doses would lead to “Non-dose-related imbalances in findings of absent optic nerves and unilateral testes atrophy at human exposures based on the maximum dose of 4 g/day and on body surface area comparisons.” “Additional variations consisting of early incisor eruption and increased percent cervical ribs were observed at the same exposures. Pups from high dose treated dams exhibited decreased copulation rates, delayed estrus, decreased implantations and decreased surviving fetuses (F2) suggesting potential multigenerational effects of icosapent ethyl at 7 times human systemic exposure following 4 g/day dose based on body surface area comparisons across species.”

The package insert goes on to say “Risk Summary
Published studies have detected omega-3 fatty acids, including EPA, in human milk. Lactating women receiving oral omega-3 fatty acids for supplementation have resulted in higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in human milk. There are no data on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid ethyl esters on the breastfed infant or on milk production. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for VASCEPA and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from VASCEPA or from the underlying maternal condition.” Considering the animal studies, shouldn’t there be some concern about their use in pregnant women and their effect upon the fetus?

For me there are several takeaways here. First is that this is a synthetic product that can be patented because of the ester bond and marketed at a higher price (ranges from $81.40 at CVS to $165.09 at Rite Aid for 120 capsules or a 1-month supply). Fish oils do not contain ester bonds and therefore are less likely to have the additional side effects that show up with Vescepa. Secondly, as pointed out in the JAMA editorial comments, the “data suggests but does not yet prove” that fish oils are the cause of atrial fibrillation. A number of other things can contribute such as the use of NSAID’s which many people use on a regular basis and were not considered in the clinical trials that looked at atrial fibrillation and fish oil use. Additionally, similar to the subsidizing of physician’s income for ordering statins, there are probably incentives as well for prescribing a pharmaceutical agent as opposed to a less expensive neutraceutical. And lastly, anything in excess such as taking to many prescription drugs, drinking too much alcohol, overeating or taking a lot of neutraceuticals or whatever, can be bad for us. Moderation and the judicious use of all of these things, especially in consultation with your physician is certainly in order.

Thomas A. Kruzel, N. D.

Currently the various vaccines being used were produced under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) act which are classified as experimental under U. S law and subject to the Nuremberg Code as well as federal regulations that state that no one can force a human being to participate in an experiment without full disclosure and their agreement to participate. EUA approved vaccines carry with them a liability shield authorized under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act which holds vaccine manufacturers immune from liability. The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensing of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine removes any protection from the 2005 act and makes them liable should anyone be harmed from taking the vaccine. While employers, state and government agencies can now require vaccination to keep your job because of the FDA’s licensing of this particular vaccine, it also puts Pfizer at increased risk should someone be harmed. Undoubtedly Pfizer will lobby congress heavily to not be held liable. That all being said, apparently there is not enough of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine available to vaccinate everyone, so you may be offered the current vaccine authorized under EUA. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have as of yet not been licensed. If you are asked to get vaccinated it is recommended that you ask to see the vial to see if it is the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine. If it isn’t you have the right to refuse and your employer may not use this as grounds to discriminate against you as it is against U. S law and the Nuremburg Code. If it is, and you choose to get the vaccination, remember that Pfizer can be held liable similar to what Monsanto is now experiencing for their Round Up disaster. You can obtain more information at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f34e5fbf-195c-4ff7-b4db-8f5b98964da7

The Coronavirus is a highly pleomorphic virus responsible for development of the common cold in humans, particularly during the winter months. The Coronavirus is an RNA virus that like all viruses must have a host in order to reproduce, as it is unable to do so on its own. Because of the viruses need to utilize host DNA and RNA, variations occur due to changes or a mutation in the viruses RNA as it goes through its reproduction cycle. Mutations generally occur slowly over time but some viruses can mutate faster than others. This is the reason that during the cold and flu season, clinical presentations that are seen on the East coast are different than those seen in the Midwest or West coast due to Geographic separation which influences viral development. During the current pandemic different variants have emerged in England, Brazil, South Africa and other areas as well.  The pattern of viral mutation has been around as long as there have been viruses. This changed in 1918 during the pandemic and again in 2002 with the emersion of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) due to a mutation that resulted in a more severe illness in the infected host. Some researchers speculate that the 1918 virus never totally went away but became less infective as it made its way through the population and peoples’ immune systems adapted. Historically a flare-up of viral infections such as the SARS occurs about every 10 to 15 years.

Mutations in viruses, especially the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus are to be expected and currently we are seeing variants during the COVID-19 pandemic that are neither new nor unexpected. As long as the coronavirus spreads through the population, mutations will continue to happen. The beta variant gave rise to the delta variant, and this family has continued to evolve giving rise to the current variation, omicron.

Studies of natural infection in volunteers show that reinfection with coronavirus is common which shows that infection does not necessarily produce stable immunity which is one of the big reasons it has been so difficult to make a vaccine.  This is the reason that the vaccine industry has decided to develop an experimental mRNA vaccine that as we have documented, was fast tracked with very little if any testing.

So the question becomes should we be concerned about all of the current and eventual mutations? The answer is really no, there is no reason to be worried or overly concerned as this is a normal process that has been occurring for thousands of years and will continue to do so. What is of concern is the gain of function testing that has been promoted by Anthony Fauci and others that has the potential to develop more virulent viruses similar to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. By doing so we alter normal viral evolution and make it more likely that we will produce a more virulent strain.

As the current pandemic winds down, the newer variations seem to be less and less virulent as the population is exposed and develops natural immunity. The pandemic that is being run by the press, politician and the pharmaceutical companies will continue to use  Covid “variants” to create fear in order to press their agenda forward despite evidence that they are becoming less virulent. Remember that it is not the organism but the soil that allows for infection. If you are not healthy, you are at greater risk for having the virus set up housekeeping in your body and making you sick. Prevention is the best medicine.

Thomas A. Kruzel, N D

Comment: As you may or may not be aware, the number of deaths in 2021 were up 3.42 million verses 3.39 million in 2020 from all causes according to the CDC. This is up from the 2.85 million deaths in 2019 prior to COVID-19 while life expectancy lowered 1.8 years during this period. As we have observed, excess mortality not only rose during the COVID-19 pandemic but rose 40% in the 18-64 age group beginning in 2021 and continuing through the rest of the year according to OneAmerica insurance underwriters. According to the Society of Actuaries, the over all age-adjusted mortality rate for all causes was 16.8%. This is greater than the 11.7% during the 1918 Spanish influenza, a pandemic that was responsible for the deaths of over 25 million people worldwide. According to Scott Davison the CEO of OneAmerica “We’re seeing right now the highest death rates we’ve ever seen in the history of this business.” Additionally, he says that the death rates among working age people, those 18 to 64-years-old, are up 40 percent in the third and fourth quarter of 2021 over pre-pandemic levels.

Some authors blame the increase in excess mortality on the effects of the lockdown where many individuals were unable to obtain needed medical care for their chronic diseases and healthy people were exposed to those who were affected with COVID-19. But others point to the increase in deaths that occurred after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 with the number further increasing in 2022. Life insurance companies made a large number of death benefit payouts over the past year but also saw a jump in other death claims as well. They also noted an increase in claims for the 18 to 64 age group during this period. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, some insurers noted that 2/3rds of the excessive deaths are related to COVID-19 and expect that this trend will continue as complications from the infection and vaccine is expected to remain for some time.

The Ethical Skeptic writes that the noticeable explosion of non-COVID-19 deaths didn’t occur until Week 14, 2021, and “by the end of 2021 it had become abundantly clear that U.S. citizens were not just dying of COVID-19 to the excess, they were also now dying of something else, and at a rate which eventually became higher than that of COVID itself.” They also note that non-COVID-19 mortality saw a mild uptick in October 2020, an effect they attribute to “the systemic damage which the SARS-CoV-2 infection and virus spike protein can produce in the human body. An erstwhile COVID delayed death if you will.”

Kenji Yamamoto a professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the Okamura Memorial Hospital in Japan has expressed concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to impair immune function. This sets up a potential problem for those who become ill later in life when immune function begins to wane. Additionally, The Lancet published a study showing that the COVID-19 vaccines loose their effectiveness after about 8 months and that their effectiveness was lower overall than that found in unvaccinated individuals.

So, what is the answer to this question? Certainly, there is no question that the past 2 years have seen an increase in mortality. But the question remains are they due to the lockdown, the presence of preexisting medical conditions or the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine itself. Additionally, we need to ask the question, what effect will the COVID-19 vaccine have in the long run on the overall health of the population. Depending upon the source there seems to arguments to support all of the above.

Thomas A. Kruzel, N D

Answer: Cell cultured meat is made from genetically engineered yeast that make a specific soy protein and a substance called soy leghemoglobin. Soy leghemoglobin which stands for legume hemoglobin, is the substance that gives the red color to the lab grown “meat” similar to what is found with real meat and helps to impart a “meaty” flavor. The soy leghemoglobin is then added to the burgers during the fermentation process. Apparently, a piece of fresh biopsied animal tissue is added to induce cells to differentiate into muscle for meat. The process occurs in vats similar to those used to make beer. According to the food manufacturers, the benefits include greater sources of protein for an increasing world population; addresses world hunger sustainably; reduces greenhouse gases; ends cruel & unhygienic industrial animal farming and addresses antibiotic resistance.

An objection to the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) approval of genetically engineered foods has been filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) a nonprofit public interest group. They make the case that: “(1) FDA did not require testing of the raw product or the genetically engineered yeast; (2) FDA’s approval will allow GMO ‘heme’ to be used in new cell-based products without additional testing; (3) the product is not properly labeled; and (4) FDA failed to satisfy the “convincing evidence” standard that applies for approval of new color additives,”

Other critics such as Tom Nelter, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Michael Hansen, PhD, senior staff scientist at consumer reports say that while there have been scientific papers written regarding cell-cultured meat, none has actually analyzed the nutritional components of the finished product and further, that academic institutions have not been given samples, so they could do so. According to Michael Hansen: “This implies “problems behind the scenes,” … “I doubt this technology will work.” Both have been critical of the FDA for allowing the food industry to move forward with cultured meat and are concerned that they will allow it to be ushered in under the FDA’s Generally Recognized As Safe program where by the FDA relies solely on the manufacturers own documentation that bypasses the public comment phase. (The Generally Recognized As Safe program was the same one that allowed the COVID vaccine to be fast tracked without proper testing or comment.)

Also, of concern are the possible implications that ingredients in the genetically modified meat products have on the human microbiome. The concern is that the genome and genes themselves can be affected by epigenetic changes without even touching the DNA causing genetic changes with unknown consequences. Epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change ones DNA. However, what can occur is how your body reads a DNA sequence resulting in changes as to how your DNA works.

What I also found somewhat disconcerting in addition to the lack of knowledge as to what if anything else goes into the lab grown meat, is who is promoting its use. Individuals such as Bill Gates, Sir Richard Branson and food companies such as Cargill and Archer-Daniels-Midland are already heavily investing into the technology. Because of the lack of over site by the FDA, and the fact that the FDA is top heavy with industry representation, one should be cautious about consuming laboratory grown meat and other foods that are being developed.

Thomas A. Kruzel, N D

Xylitol is classified as a sugar alcohol, along with mannitol and sorbitol, that have properties of both without the same effects. Made form Birch tree bark, the sweetner was used during WW II because of the lack of sugar being imported. Along with Stevia, that is made from Stevia rebaudiana, a plant that is a member of the Astraceae family (ragweed), Xylitol has been touted a being beneficial in diabetes, to prevent tooth decay and help with weight loss.

Because of its low glycemic index, Xylitol is thought to help in diabetic patients by satisfying their craving for sugar but is not utilized by the body, thus lowering blood glucose levels. The glycemic index is considerably lower than with sugar and high fructose corn syrup, ingredients in most soft drinks that are the cause of obesity, especially in children.

The problem with dogs seems to be that Xylitol lowers their blood glucose levels in excess at times leading to seizures and liver failure. As to its effects on other animals, there is not sufficient data at this time, so we recommend caution.

Because of its benefit for oral health it is found in many dental care products. Xylitol does this by lowering the acidity of the oral cavity, increasing saliva production that has a bactericidal effect, while decreasing the risk of tooth decay.

The down side to Xylitol is that it can trigger gas and bloating, especially in children. This is also a problem with Stevia as well. This can be addressed by adjusting the amount used, starting low and adding more as the persons GI tract adjusts.

Xylitol does not have the bitter, licorice after taste that is often associated with Stevia, but does have a noticeable mouth cooling sensation, sort of like menthol.

Additionally there has been some concern that Stevia may have an effect upon kidney and reproductive function as well as some cardiovascular effects. Research is on going in these areas.

Both Xylitol and Stevia have the potential to lower blood glucose levels too much, especially in type II diabetics. This is because while they do not act like sugar in the body, they mimic it to our brains, setting forth a cascade of hormonal and biochemical responses as if it really was sugar. Therefore, as with any drug, herb or neutraceutical, caution is advised when first utilizing it. We also recommend that you read the label as all commercial products are not equal and have different additives.

Answer: There are several different types of saunas that one can experience, the idea with saunas being they provide health benefits such as increasing detoxification increased metabolism, weight loss, increased blood circulation, pain reduction, antiaging, skin rejuvenation, improved cardiovascular function, improved immune function, improved sleep, stress management, and relaxation. Saunas have been around since Roman times and many health spas today have them in various forms. Most often they are a dry or wet/steam sauna that heats the skin and causes one to sweat, the idea being that sweating eliminates toxins and increases circulation. More recently infrared saunas have become popular, there being both far-infrared and near-infrared saunas. The difference lies in the wavelength with the near-infrared having higher energy than the lower energy far-infrared wavelength. In theory far-infrared heats the body similar to other forms of sauna such as dry and steam from outward in, while near-infrared travels deeper into the body and thus causes a greater heating and therapeutic benefit. This benefit is thought to be due to photobiomodulation (PBM) that affects the bodies light receptors termed chromophores. Every biological system in the body contains chromophores, especially the mitochondria which provides cellular energy. The question becomes however, does the near-infrared sauna provide any greater therapeutic benefit than other saunas? As there are few if any studies other than testimonials, the jury is still out for me as to an increase in benefits. But I do encourage you all to consider utilizing saunas as it has been my experience that there is a health benefit experienced by most people, myself included.

Thomas A. Kruzel, N D

It is well known that masks such as surgical, cloth and the N95 mask have little if any effect upon transmission of the COVID-19 or any other virus for that matter as viruses are simply to small to be filtered out. This certainly was not lost on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that came out against wearing masks for the general healthy population but later reversed themselves, something they have done a number of times through out this pandemic. None of the studies conducted on the effectiveness of mask wearing were able to establish a positive relationship between mask and respirator use and the spread and elimination of the COVID or Influenza virus. [1] The only mask that has any effect at all is the N95 and then it only reduces clinical respiratory illness in health‐care workers by about 41% and influenza‐like illness by about 66%. [2] Additionally, Korean researchers found that persons who were infected with COVID-19 could spread the disease through coughing, even though they were wearing masks. [3]

Consider that when one wears a mask several things occur. First of all the virus that has entered through the mask is inhaled and will not be able to fully escape when exhaled. This allows for it to concentrate in the nasal passages and to potentially enter the olfactory nerves and travel to the brain. It is not surprising that COVID-19 has been found in brain tissue because of this close proximity. Rebreathing the virus over and over when the mask is kept on for long periods also allows it to travel into the lungs, an area where it has been found to flourish. [4, 5, 6, 7] Also of note is that rebreathing allows the virus to set up “house keeping” on the mucus membranes of the nose which has led to an increased number of positive tests and are probably the reason that COVID-19 numbers have not gone down but have risen! Consider that many of those with positive tests do not demonstrate symptoms and are asymptomatic carriers and will eventually develop antibodies.

Additional studies have found that medical personnel, as well as patients who wear masks for prolonged periods of time suffer from problems that vary from headaches due to carbon dioxide accumulation, hypoxia or a lack of oxygen delivered to the tissues and increased airway resistance, especially in patients with preexisting respiratory illnesses. In other cases the lack of oxygen can lead to life threatening complications such as arteriosclerosis or cardiac irregularities. [8, 9]

However, one of the most important findings is that a drop in blood oxygen levels leads to an impairment of immune function due to inhibition of CD4+ T-cells needed for immune function that occurs due to higher levels of hypoxia inducible factor – 1 (HIF-1) that induces the action of regulatory T cells, or Tregs, leading to an inhibition of their action against viruses. [10, 11] The take home here is that hypoxia lowers immune function and increases ones risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 or the flu. Lower immune function can be particularly problematic in patients with cancer as it fosters an acidic environment in addition to lowering T and B cell activity.

We have written before about whom should and should not be wearing masks and have suggested that medical personnel in high-risk positions at least wear the N95 mask. Certain susceptible patients may also benefit from wearing masks when in close contact with others but remove them when not. Recently several State Governors have lifted mask restrictions, hopefully based upon a review of the scientific literature. Because of the problem associated with mask wearing and the potential to increase susceptibility to infection to the population, [12] mask mandates really need to be reevaluated in light of the scientific evidence and not become a political agenda.

Thomas A. Kruzel, N. D.

References

[1] bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67.

[2] Do facemasks protect against COVID‐19?
David Isaacs,  Philip Britton,  Annaleise Howard‐Jones,  Alison Kesson,  Ameneh Khatami,  Ben Marais, Claire Nayda,  and Alexander Outhred

J Paediatr Child Health. 2020 Jun; 56(6): 976–977. Published online 2020 Jun 16.
doi: 10.1111/jpc.14936

[3] Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients

Seongman Bae, MD, Min-Chul Kim, MD, Ji Yeun Kim, PhD, Hye-Hee Cha, BS, Joon Seo Lim, PhD,

https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim

[4] Special Interview With Dr. Russell Blaylock on Face Masks And COVID-19

https://www.technocracy.news

[5] Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host- virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998.

[6] Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press.

[7] Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.

[8] Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.

[9] Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.

[10] Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia- Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.

[11] Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.

[12] CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks        https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/12/cdc-study-finds-overwhelming-majority-of-people-getting-coronavirus-wore-masks/

Comment: What you are experiencing is in essence a clash of philosophies, those from an allopathic perspective and those from a naturopathic perspective. This debate goes back to the days of Claude Bernard and Antione Bechamp (terrain theory) and Louis Pasteur (germ theory). In essence the germ theory says that germs such as viruses, bacteria, yeast, fungi and mycoplasma are the cause of the disease itself while the terrain theory holds that these organisms are constantly with us and can only set up housekeeping in our bodies if our immune systems are not able to fend them off. Therefore the allopathic approach, that subscribes to the germ theory, is to view the organism as an enemy that must be eradicated as opposed to the naturopathic view (terrain theory) that the bodies’ defense mechanisms are inadequate and need to be enhanced in order to eliminate the organism.

When an infective agent is encountered, the body responds by mounting a fever, increasing white blood cell production and mobilization, and increasing mucus secretions in order to mount its defenses and restore normal homeostasis. Often in the allopathic model, therapies are designed to counter these normal mechanisms in the belief that the drug therapy employed is attacking the organism. Therefore the therapeutic approach is to employ antipyretics such as Tylenol, or Ibuprofen that are given to counter the fever, while antitussives and antihistamines are administered to counter a cough and mucus production. These actions often thwart the bodies’ normal healing mechanisms and lead to a prolongation of the disease and the need for further interventions such as stronger antibiotics or in the case of the Covid-19 virus, respirators to help patients breathe.

A more natural approach would be to support the bodies own healing mechanisms to allow the fever to enhance our own immune function in order to eliminate the infective agent, as well as allowing the mucus secretions to continue to provide protection and eliminate the offending agent. There are a variety of natural therapies that are used to accomplish this.

The most important thing however in dealing with any infectious disease, is prevention. Prevention is needed simply because the current medical system has demonstrated that it is inadequate to handle a pandemic or epidemic. The Corona virus is your common cold and flu virus that runs through its cycle yearly, especially when the weather turns cold. Therefore it will be back again in the fall but not necessarily in its present form. Much was made about the SARS pandemic in 2002-2003 and the H1N1 flu in 2008 in that they would return the next year and be more devastating, but as we know now, they didn’t. Regardless of what form Covid-19 may or may not return in, the key to not becoming infected is to make sure that our immune systems are functioning optimally.

What we know about the Covid-19 virus to date is simply that many people have tested positive for it but are not showing symptoms. This is because their immune systems are keeping it at bay, while others whose immune function is compromised for what ever reasons, become infected. The fact is that we can never fully get away from the many microorganism that inhabit the earth with us, as they are part of our every day environment. What we need to do is to understand why we can become infected and to take measures to maintain optimal health.

Medicine, as we know it in America, is big business. The allopathic approach to therapy in the long run generates greater revenue than a preventive strategy, which is probably why natural therapies have been largely ignored here in the U.S., but embraced abroad. This is also why there is so much confusion as to how we should approach Covid-19 as no consensus has emerged among the decision makers such as the current administration, CDC and FDA as to what is the best course of action. This is simply because the decision makers all have vested interests in their own special interest groups rather than the interests in the health and well being of the U. S. population. Because of this our advice to our patients is to: remember that the terrain is the most important aspect of immunity against infective agents, that we must maintain its healthy and vitality and to take charge of ones health rather than rely on outside sources to do so.

Thomas A Kruzel, ND

The New York Times article she passed along was titled: Vitamin D, the sunshine supplement, has shadowy money behind it.

Comment: I love articles like this because clearly the New York Times reporters did their homework.  The gist of the article for those who have not read it yet is that America’s fascination and somewhat obsession with Vitamin D supplementation began back in 2010-2011 with publication of an article in the Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism by Dr. Holick that in essence contradicted the National Academy of Medicine’s (NAM) finding that the vast majority of Americans get plenty of Vitamin D naturally through sun exposure. His premise was that Vitamin D deficiency was “very common in all age groups” and advocated Vitamin D testing and supplementation. Shortly afterwards, Quest Laboratories came out with an updated version of a test for Vitamin D that increased the reference range based upon the recommendation of the Endocrine Society, the ones who sponsored the article written by Dr. Holick, above what the NAM recommended. Since then there has been an increase in testing for Vitamin D as well as an upturn in supplement sales as physicians began following the newer “guide lines”.

In medicine this is viewed as all well and good because patients are now being screened and supplemented based upon these new parameters. Problem here is that Dr. Holick has financial ties to both Quest Laboratory, the UV Foundation (proponents of tanning beds) and the pharmaceutical industry that manufactures Vitamin D, thus a conflict of interest that the Times article points out. The article also points out that Quest laboratories increased the price of the test to insurers such as Medicare and others so that the costs run into the millions of dollars per year.

So to answer Christine’s question: my take on this is that back in 2010 & 2011 when Quest laboratories came out with their new test for Vitamin D I was skeptical of the new reference ranges for one because of the way they were derived and questioned whether a blood test for Vitamin D or any other vitamin for that matter was really needed; and what is most important here, accurate. I say this because blood tests themselves have inherent problems in interpretation regardless of what is being tested for and do not fully reflect what is occurring at the cellular level. There are only a very few tests that do so and their cost does not allow them to be run routinely. Because Quest increased the reference range over the NAM’s, more patients fell outside of them necessitating supplementation.

Secondly, the medical industrial system is set up to generate revenue and the type of relationship uncovered by the New York Times article is not new. In fact it is quite pervasive and as we see here is not limited to conventional medicine, conventional medical schools, the FDA, CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. Whether or not all of the additional Vitamin D supplementation has increased patient’s quality of life or not is unknown as there have been no studies to date that I am aware of showing this.

Nutritional medicine and physiology publications all say essentially the same thing, that at least ½ hour per day exposure to sunlight generates enough Vitamin D to cover our daily needs. We can take extra supplementation, which I do, but it may not be necessary.

The issue for me here is that while I do not have a problem with someone making a profit, the level of corruption and collusion in medicine is quite pervasive in order to create a market that is not necessary. This needs to be addressed by medical consumers who vote with their dollars and congress (good luck here). This can only happen when we have a free and unencumbered press and watchdog groups that keep track of these things, as well as full transparency. I hope this has answered your question.

You can submit questions for any of the clinic physicians by sending them to: info@rockwoodnaturalmedicine.com.

Thomas A Kruzel, ND