It’s Official: NIH Says Chelation Reduces Heart Disease

The National Institutes of Health 7 year study of IV Chelation is now completed. The NIH named their study the Trial to Assess Chelation Study [TACT]. This double blind study of 1708 patients with active heart disease revealed a reduction of “serious cardiac events’ in the group who received the IV Chelation protocol vs. those who received only a placebo.

Tact Results on Effectiveness

  1. Overall reduction of risk 18%
  2. Reductions in patients with greatest risk:
    a. Diabetes 39%
    b. History of Anterior Heart Attack [most dangerous type] 37%

In other words the greater the heart disease risk the participant had, the greater the reduction of heart disease from the IV Chelation Protocol.

Tact Results on Safety

NIH researchers noted that:
Both groups of patients, that is those receiving chelation and those receiving only the placebo, were found to be free of significant side effects.

Comment on Safety:

This very positive result on safety brings up an interesting point: the Chelation IV Protocol now needs be compared on basis of safety alone with the procedures it could possibly be used in place of, not only a placebo.

After all, in ‘real life’ patients are often choosing between chelation and bypass or angioplasty, not between chelation and a placebo. The lowest current rates of risk of mortality and morbidity from bypass surgery reported in California are as follows (for full results, click here):

  • Mortality      2.2%
  • Morbidity     3.6%
  • Non fatal [strokes, clots, etc.]

In other words, a program using the IV Chelation Protocol in lieu of bypass statistically could result in the saving of 22 deaths and 36 strokes for every 1000 bypass surgeries not done. That is simply the difference in the risks between the two procedures themselves.

Commentary On Results

Directly comparing the level of benefits between bypass and IV Chelation remains to be done. Until that study is done, the study below deserves our attention in making decisions:

The VA did do an interesting direct comparison between; 1. Medical therapy alone & 2. Medical therapy plus bypass surgery. Any benefit from the 2 treatment protocols was measured by comparing the length of life of participants after beginning each of the 2 protocols. The study was left open for data collection for 18 years! It is a very rare study, which is independent and funded enough to stay open that long.

Results? A small benefit in longer life in those who had the medications plus the surgery initially was found. However, it peaked at 5 years, then diminished to zero over the next 6 years. The improvement was confined to those participants who had a ‘poor natural history”. Researchers were taken aback when, after 11 years, those treated with medication alone began to show a small increase in life span over the group given both surgery and medication. This small benefit of longer life span in those not getting surgery persisted and did not diminish through the end of the study after 18 years.

These results obviously raise real questions about the continued use of bypass surgery as the established protocol of therapy for stable angina and clogged arteries.
Read more here.

Remember that the NIH TACT study was in effect a comparison between 1, Medication alone & 2, Medication plus IV Chelation for patients with stable angina and clogged arteries. In other words, the placebo group and IV Chelating groups both continued to take their medications.

What was the main result of the publishing of the VA study? It was not to reduce the overall activity in surgical units. Surprised? Here is how it worked out:
Bypass surgeries were reduced.  But the balloon angioplasty industry blossomed, so to speak. Since the angioplasty/stented arties clogged up so often and needed to be redone, the total number of surgical interventions actually increased. The advocates of ballooning and stenting pointed out that their survival rates were as good as with bypass surgery. That seemed to be statistically true. But as the VA study pointed out, the bypass rate of benefit is itself of very questionable value over medication alone.
Did any study evaluate angioplasty/stenting directly against medical therapy alone? At least one did. A study named COURAGE found no difference in benefit when angioplasty/ stenting was added to medical therapy in patients with stable angina and clogged arteries. Read more about the COURAGE study here.

Simply stated, it appears the protocols for angioplasty/ stenting and bypass currently in use are yet to be proven statistically better than medication alone.

Tact Trial: Rated as a Research Study

The TACT TRIAL, by the way, was a well structured, designed, and conducted study. It also was a type of study now rarely done in that it was:

  1. Funded and conducted totally within the NIH.
  2. No one with a professional or financial interest had any access [influence] to the data gathering or reporting.

Clearly this is the best type, most objective, rigorous type of double blind study, No serious researcher would argue that point. But, if that is so, why is this type of study so rarely done?

Wouldn’t this most exacting type of study for instance, measure statins before being so widely prescribed? One would think that would be the case. However, in real life, the interested party, usually a large Pharmaceutical company, no longer wants to give up control when their products are being tested. Since ‘our’ FDA does not require it, the companies are pleased. In fact the pharmaceutical companies have been encouraged by the FDA in the last 20 years to maintain full funding and control of testing of their products and compile the data themselves. They then report their findings to the FDA for review and approval only. To reduce FDA costs, “our” FDA initiated this change.

For more detail on how the double blind study system has changed, click here for a detailed article on SFPMG’s website.

Sadly, it seems many double blind studies are being morphed into being infomercial-like. Thus, when we watch the TV commercials trumpeting the latest statins test results, be mindful of this whole picture. Those studies have been funded and conducted under the total control of the same company that is now attempting to sell us their product [by having us ask the doctor for it]. Pattern seem familiar? It is. Note how a statin to treat life endangering heart disease is now able to be marketed on TV in the same manner as Proctor and Gamble markets soap powder. They create a product, fully control the ‘research’, and report the results of that research to the consumer in a controlled message prepared by an advertising company who have been professionally trained to sell a product. Statins are not required to pass the vigorous type of double blind study as the IV Chelation protocol has done in the NIH TACT study.

What Happens Next

What happens post TACT trial?  Will insurance coverage for chelation now begin?

We have a doctors meeting of Chelation Diplomats in Washington, D.C. in mid-March to discuss that very question, among others. Included is a schedule of visits with legislators to remind them, among other things, of the following:

The main treatment protocols now covered by insurance for stable angina and clogged arteries are bypass, angioplasty, and statins.

As noted, none of the 3 approved methods mentioned above have been studied and found successful through a rigorous definitive study comparable to the TACT trial. The TACT study result seems to have raised the bar for acceptable levels of research required for cardiovascular therapy approval. It would be rational to

  1. Extend Medicare coverage immediately to IV Chelation
  2. Require the NIH itself to do a study similar to the TACT trial on statins, and
  3. Give the NIH funding and total control to conduct studies of direct comparisons of benefits between IV Chelation protocols and the currently approved methods of stable angina and clogged arteries.

Appears to be reasonable and rational next steps, but…we will see.

Wishing you all the best in Health and Healing,

Paul Lynn M. D.
The San Francisco Preventive Medical Group

Posted in All Articles & Listings, Paul Lynn, MD | Comments Off on It’s Official: NIH Says Chelation Reduces Heart Disease

What Dr. Lynn Has to Say – a Bibliography of Healthful Information

The topics listed below are of special interest to me as they all have a controversy and different opinions behind them. The links open web pages that present information that I believe to be relevant, factual and without hype. -Dr. Paul Lynn

Statin Info Not Generated by Marketing

University of CA, San Diego – Statin Effects Study

Posted in All Articles & Listings, Latest Health News, Paul Lynn, MD | Comments Off on What Dr. Lynn Has to Say – a Bibliography of Healthful Information

Legacy of Health, Wellness & Education Special Event June 8

Peninsula Special Interest Lions Club and Lions Club International
Saturday, June 8, 2013 from 8:15 AM to 3:45 PM (PDT)
Redwood City, CA

Our keynote speaker is Dr. Mehmet Oz who is vice-chair and professor of surgery at Columbia University, directing the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

Other esteemed speakers include holistic health guru, Deepak Chopra. And: Dr. Paul Lynn, Dr. Eleanor Britter, Naomi Tickle & Tom Sullivan.

Symposium Program

  • 7:00am – 8:15am: Registration & Breakfast
  • 8:15am – Noon: Speakers & Exhibit Hall
  • Noon – 1:15pm: Lunch & Exhibit Hall, VIP Lunch with Dr. Oz
  • 1:15pm – 3:45pm: Dr. Oz Keynote Presentation
  • 4:15pm – 4:45pm: Dr. Oz Photo Op with Sponsors
  • 4:30pm – 6:30pm: VIP Gala Reception with Speakers
  • Click below for information:

  • Event Flyer PDF
  • Event Registration
  • Event Website
  • Who Should Attend:
    Parents, PTAs, Foster Parents, Educators, School Boards, Social Workers, Youth Service Workers/Advocates, Government Officials, Commissions for Parents & Children, Physicians & Health Care Providers, Healthy Food Advocates, Wellness Advocates

    See you there!

    Posted in All Articles & Listings | Leave a comment

    If Growth Factors Really Have More Effect than Bioidentical Hormones, Why Have I Not Heard of Them?

    Dr. Paul Lynn

    Paul Lynn, MD

    Growth Factors are more important than hormones. They are. Here are the reasons:

    1. Separate from the aging process when we place our body  under mental or emotional stress, growth factors, [such as BDNF], appear to be reduced perhaps to a greater percentage from the norm than bio-identical hormones.

    2.As we age growth factor production also seems to become reduced at a sharper rate than our hormones.  If we are creating stress while in advancing  age, be careful.

    3. Growth Factors are “architects” our body system to  to  build new  healthy tissue. The hormones, vitamin D, and exercise are absolutely necessary, but they are only  the ‘construction crew’. Emerging Medical Research has shown that the Growth Factors  are actually what is  in charge. They are tiny clumps of amino acids called peptides. It turns out that the repair and replacement of  a cell  is under the direction of these peptides, not the hormones. Thus growth factors, like BDNF, are the actual ‘architects’.

    Answer to Second Part of Question: Why we have not heard very much  about  growth factors?

    1.The manufactured version of these peptides are not stable  enough thus far to be massed produced and sold like bio identical   hormones or vitamins. This will probably change. There is so much money potential.  It was the same issue for the vitamins and hormones initially, and that was overcome.

    2. Stable, Non Bio-identical versions have  been produced, but not for general use. Thankfully since the Bioidentical Hormone acceptance was clouded by the dangerous side effects resulting from use of Non Bioidentical Hormones!

    Since I find myself explaining Growth Factors a lot these days in patient conferences, want to get some of those discussions in a form to share with everyone using our site.

    All the best in health and healing,

    Paul Lynn MD

    Posted in All Articles & Listings, Latest Health News, Paul Lynn, MD | Leave a comment

    Mehmet Oz MD & Paul Lynn MD Lions Club Charity Event

    Come dance with the stars from Dancing with the Stars, listen to symphonic music by the SF Symphony Quintet, see a mini ballet and dance until midnight…

    SFPMG’s Dr. Paul Lynn and Dr. Mehmet Oz invite you to help those in our community who need medical assistance. Many have suffered during this downturn – they have lost their jobs, their insurance, their homes and they find themselves on the street with their families. We can hep. Join us in fun and dance – it will be a feel good night as we raise funds to help those in need.

    Your business can also sponsor this event and we will advertise your support for one year. Levels of support: Bronze $100; Silver $150: Gold $200.

    Peninsula Special Interest Lions Club is a tax deductible organization.


    Dances with the Stars” hosted by the Peninsula Special Interest Lions Club
    To Meet the Medical & Educational Needs of the Community

    Lions Club

    SATURDAY June 23, 2012
    Boogie Woogie Ballroom
    551 Foster City Boulevard, Suite G
    Foster City, CA 94404


    Doors Open 6:15
    Show: 7 PM-10:30 PM
    Open Dancing: 10:30 PM-Midnight

    $80 includes Wine & Dessert // Food Available for Purchase

    An Amazing Evening of Dance!
    East Coast Swing Dance Lesson
    The Stars Will Dance For YOU!
    YOU Dance With The Stars!

    A Suprise Guest of Honor
    Complimentary Opera Cake
    10:30-Midnight: Dance Party!


    or CALL 650-855-4667 / 415-378-6789 / 650-349-3382 

    Click here for the full flyer


    Posted in All Articles & Listings, SFPMG Events | Leave a comment

    Spring 2012 Symposium with Dr Oz, Dr Lynn, Dan Dunphy PA-C

    PRESS RELEASE- FOSTER CITY, CA 2/21/2012 PRNewswire – Dr. Mehmet Oz, the renowned cardiothoracic surgeon, author, and TV host will headline “Body, Mind and Spirit,” the Lions Club of District 4-C4’s first-ever women’s symposium, Saturday, March 10 at Oracle Auditorium in Redwood City. The conference is being … Continue reading

    More Galleries |

    Natural Anti-aging Medicine at SFPMG

    The approach to anti-aging medicine I have developed at SFPMG is with the understanding that our body  has its own anti-aging program in place.  How the body’s amazing system works serves us as a model and guide.  The two basic systems the body uses to renew itself are the anabolic and catabolic systems. Anabolic can be called the building activity, catabolic can be called the breaking down/elimination activity.

    People with whom I work with often hear me referring to parts of the anti-aging program in these terms.  This article is to add to our common understanding of how and why we best work with our body by following these principals in practice.  As we observe and study how these systems are doing their jobs the more we are left in awe with the intelligence and quantity of building and cleansing that is already happening. We also come to see that these two parts of the system of anti-aging, anabolic and catabolic, are not opposites as they may at first seem.  They complement and enhance the activity of one another instead of being opposites.

    An impressive measurable result of this activity is regardless of our biological age, every cell in our body is regrown every 7 years.  Since science has put the conservative estimate of cells in our body at 50 trillion that means our bodies produces 19.6 billion new cells each day.  Now that is some kind of rejuvenation program!  Every human being is given this system as their birthright.  What a system to be able to study.

    As we approach anti-aging medicine through a gradual understanding of our body’s rejuvenation system we can better utilize the great advances developing in science with this body centered balanced disciplined approach. Doctors and patients alike are then far less likely to stray into mistakes.

    I have seen mistakes such as excessive hormones (anabolic) or overly restrictive dieting, fasting and other cleansing programs as purifications.  Patients are now even taking large dosages of drugs to attack questionable pathogen problems (cleansing) as part of a suggested anti-aging program.  Once we see the two systems as separate and work too strongly with either one, problems usually arise.

    It seems our “job” so to speak as doctors and patients of anti-aging medicine is to be mindful of the above as best we can while proceeding in anti-aging programs.  This is how more can be accomplished with less.  The present powerful harmony of anabolic and catabolic activity is then able to support our efforts.  The treatment of osteoporosis is a practical example of the contrasts between adhering to the anabolic/catabolic system in one instance and not in the other.  Building new bone is of course  anabolic.  But  we must allow the old bone cells to be eliminated.  This is the corresponding catabolic activity.  However, as proof of frequent loss of the perception how these systems are actually one, patients who have bones which are thinning are usually prescribed medications blocking the catabolic breakdown of older bone cells which have become brittle.  The anabolic phase is not addressed by the medication.  In fact, the build up of bone is decreased even further by the medication. The bone density test results do improve.  Thus the medication gets FDA approval.  The problem is that the improvement to bone density only comes from the retention of older, brittle bone cells.  Not surprisingly, there is no good evidence in any study that these very costly medications alone have reduced the incidence of fractures or need for joint replacements.

    The result is that  we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on drugs which improve bone density testing but are unsuccessful at reversing the actual aging of bones.  In fact the bone tissue with these medications will become older, not younger.  There are also excellent studies indicating the serious side effects such as GI bleeding from these medications.

    Thus  more of the elderly are being confined to wheelchairs with non-healing fractures, not less, since we have spent the cumulated billions of dollars (and counting) on these medications.  As we understand the deep harmony of the anabolic/catabolic anti-aging system, it seems credible to say that attempts to do anti-aging by working against the system will inevitably create new problems.

    One can easily paint the pharmaceutical industry as a villain, but this is not really the case.  Since the 1950’s the pharmaceutical companies has accounted for countless positive advances.  For example, there are no TB sanitariums or iron lung wards in hospitals.  We are thankful for this change.  The problem is applying their method of invasive action outside of acute emergencies and severe infections into areas such as healthy aging just does not work.

    Doctors and patients  who study natural medical advances know of several bio-identical substances which have excellent research to demonstrate that anabolic bone building can be enhanced without harm to the catabolic system.  Vit. D3 is an example of such a compound.  Vit D3 does not need the expensive medications to show a reduction in bone fractures.  It is very inexpensive, so inexpensive in fact that little marketing can be done to doctors and patients.  What this compound does is create new, healthy bone which is not brittle or weak.  Anti-aging physicians such as myself understand how this can be done safely and effectively.

    This is only one area in anti-aging medicine where we can do much better as a society if we enhance our study of how we perceive what the body wants and does things and then continue to develop programs of enhancement instead of interference.  The anabolic and catabolic systems are how our body has been effectively renewing itself for countless millennia.  We are thankful for the guidance.

    Wishing you all the best in health and life.

    Paul Lynn, M.D.

    Posted in All Articles & Listings, Paul Lynn, MD | Leave a comment

    How Dr Lynn Went From Way Over There to Here: One Doctor’s Journey Through Medicine

    Dr. Paul Lynn

    Paul Lynn, MD

    Often people first who first meet me ask how I went from being a Louisiana medical school graduate and Marine Combat Battalion Surgeon to becoming a Natural Anti-Aging Doctor.

    Here is the story. At age 28, I found myself living in Paris studying French. By then, I had completed an accelerated undergraduate Bachelor of Science program, medical school, a medical internship, one year in Vietnam with the Marines assigned as Chief Medical Officer to a Combat Battalion, and one year in San Diego at the Balboa Naval Hospital. I had zero interest in studying Natural Medicine, having only heard of it as some sort of a vague, even weird, unscientific system.

    Before beginning a prestigious residency program at Tulane University under Dr. Robert Heath, I decided to spend a year in Europe in a self-directed study of French and European History. As I was about to settle into my carefully planned year abroad, my reality quickly and totally unexpectedly was turned into a painful, struggling existence as my health began to deteriorate. For the first time, I began to experience physical pain for which I had no easy answers.

    Shortly before leaving for Europe, while skiing in Lake Tahoe, I reinjured an old football injury in my knee. For the past ten years, I had been completely without symptoms. But because of the persistent swelling and pain after the ski trip, I sought out the advice of the most prominent orthopedic specialist in San Diego. His opinion, that degenerative arthritis had set in and the knee would eventually have to be replaced, came as quite a shock. In the meantime, the orthopedist also advised I would have to take medications to control the pain and swelling.

    While understanding these options from a medical perspective, I was still taken back by the seeming inevitability of it all. In retrospect, the orthopedist’s suggestion for the eventual knee replacement was actually an attempt to give comfort to a distraught young man who kept saying to him, “How can this be? There has to be some sort of definitive treatment to fix this problem.” After all, my knee had been perfectly fine without symptoms for ten years before the recent skiing trip! Now I was being told it would never be the same again!

    Nevertheless, I took the medications, tried to put aside my concerns and prepared for what I had hoped would be a fun, restful year abroad after my discharge from the Navy. But shortly after arriving in Europe, even though the knee pain and swelling did improve, I started to have painful attacks of gout. It was at this point that I arrived in Paris to begin my French study course at a language school. Since I knew through my study of history that gout had afflicted many of the French philosophers and nobility during the Age of Enlightenment, I tried to put a positive spin on my circumstance while gulping down pain relievers.

    A fellow student at the language school noticed I was limping and wincing while I was moving around. She suggested some basic dietary changes, including that I try eating yogurt. It turned out she was a licensed dietician from Montreal. I tried not to show the distain in which I viewed such natural recommendations of treatment, mainly because I was single and the dietician was quite attractive! Instead, I simply asked, “Why in the world would I do that?” Quite honestly, I did not know yogurt as anything more than a sweet dessert which I found to have no flavor unless you put a whole lot of sugar in it. The dietician’s suggestion seemed like just another type of ridiculous, unscientific treatment which would offer me no pain relief. And this typified what I thought of Natural Medicine at that time.

    But as the days went on, I was still in pain and not getting better from my pain medications. The dietician tried again to explain that even though yogurt was not a pain reliever, eating it could help me indirectly, from the “inside out” as she put it. Clearly the dietitian was intelligent, and of course still attractive. So, for all of the reasons above, I started to ask a few questions.

    Remember, this was 1971, not 2001. It was actually illegal to practice Chiropractic or Naturopathic Medicine in many states in the United States. There were articles periodically published describing the arrests of Naturopathic Physicians who attempted to practice outside of the very few states that provided for a Licensure. Many Osteopathic Medical Boards had largely sold out or cleverly adjusted to survive, depending on one’s point of view. The Osteopathic Boards had directed their members and schools to become indistinguishable from mainstream medicine, other than offering traditional courses in spinal adjustments. Other natural care courses were eliminated. The younger osteopaths quickly dropped adjustments of the spine and went into orthopedics and general surgery. Under a climate of learning medicine from professors who shared the common beliefs of physicians at that time, I had fully accepted this proscribed view, without any real investigation on my part. That view held that the whole arena of Natural medicine was based on “poor science” and populated by people who were not able to get into proper medical schools. The practitioners were seen at best, as well meaning deluded people and at worst, only slightly better than charlatans preying on the false hopes of people.

    Dianne, the Canadian dietician who eventually became a dear friend, picked up on my resistive and closed frame of mind. She suggested we visit a Parisian Medical Doctor who practiced Natural Medicine to get his options and opinions. During the visit, it was clear Dianne suggested the meeting so I could hear what I should do from a “MD,” to allow the information block I had about natural care to be bypassed. Her strategy largely worked. The meeting with the Parisian MD was an eye opener. I was amazed at the quiet confidence both the MD and Dianne showed at the possibility of actually getting better. Perhaps my continued gout and knee deterioration were not inevitable after all! I recall the MD pulling out a few articles on nutrition from American Medical Schools when I told him there was no research on nutrition going on in America! The Parisian MD’s calmly pulling out a research article or two made such an important impression on me at that time that, to this day, I do the a lot of the same thing in my work with people. As those of you who have worked with me know, when someone comments that they or their previous physician did not know of any research in the area of Natural Medicine we are discussing, I usually offer a few articles to indicate where the research has been done.

    The MD and Dianne smiled knowingly and kindly, but said, “What did you expect to happen to you?” when they reviewed my stressful lifestyle and adherence to a diet which was almost 100% acidic. All of that in a person with arthritis as a genetic family trait.

    With this new information now being taken seriously, I became a vegetarian for many years and adapted to an alkaline ash diet program that I continue to follow today. My knee pain, deterioration and gouty arthritis are long gone. Sometimes people comment that I seem to have the good fortune to physically look a few years younger than my actual age and ask for my “secret.” Population groups which follow an alkaline diet as a cultural norm over a lifetime seem to have the same extra youthful appearance.

    After the visit with the MD in France, I also began to do research of my own. I was fascinated to discover how much research material there was from the US and around the world. The data and results from such research into Natural Methods of Treatment of Disease were so compelling that they easily became my focus of medical study at that time, and remain to be my focus to this day.

    As a general pattern, the scientific research on information in Natural Medicine and even some little know mainstream medicine methods proved that there were, undeniably, as effective ways of treating disease as the surgery and the multiple prescription based techniques I had been trained to use. However, these other natural based methods no longer had the ability to produce the high profit margins necessary to be marketed to doctors competitively with the development of very patentable methods. Usually these “road less traveled” methods I described were less dangerous treatments, more natural, and resulted in deeper cures to the majority of the chronic medical conditions commonly afflicting our world. And yes, I learned that there are several levels of cure for any disease process that can to be addressed in order to avoid the excessive use of pharmaceuticals and surgery.

    What I finally grasped over time was that I was a well trained physician in only one specific type of medical care. That type of care had only recently become established as the pre-eminent method of medical care in advanced societies around the world. The system I had learned in medical school and used to great benefit in my work in rural Guatemala, in emergency rooms in America, and the battlefields of Vietnam could save many lives. It seemingly gave an almost divine like power to prevent death to young doctors, such as myself, with those skills in surgery and antibiotics. Yet something very important seemed to be missing. There was and is an Achilles Heel, if you pardon the medical simile, to this otherwise impressive system. And I had found it personally. My experience with the chronic knee injury early in life taught me firsthand the great limitations of the system of medicine in which I was so well trained. Being humbled is an understatement. I will try to summarize what that Achilles Heel is in the following paragraph.

    It was obvious to me after my experience with my disease condition in Paris that over the previous 30 to 40 years before I entered medical school in 1967, a dramatic transformation in medicine had occurred that was never fully and consciously acknowledged, nor planned. It just happed. The advances in surgery, including anesthesiology and post-operative care, opened many new possibilities in the treatments for injuries, wounds, and congenital cardiac diseases in children. Antibiotics and inoculations cured countless previously fatal conditions. The iron lung wards for polio patients and TB sanatoriums were closed down. Cortisone stopped previous fatal asthma in its tracts, relieved the pains of arthritis and was eventually held out as the promise of cures in those areas.

    The effects of surgery and medications seemed so dramatic that it is understandable what happened next. Schools of medicine became essentially limited training grounds for people to learn to do surgery and use these newer medications. The focus of medical study was quickly narrowed to only these methods. All other methods were deemed unscientific and inferior, and no longer worthy of funded study and research.

    These medical breakthroughs also received great unified public support and admiration. Some of the most popular early TV programs, such as Dr. Kildare, were about doctors and hospitals, and these types of shows continue to be popular to this day. Also of importance was that the effects of using the new medications and surgery generated financial profits never before seen in medicine. The prices for medications and all medical services began to skyrocket in the 1950’s, as the deaths from childhood and adult infections fell. This new system of medicine could be standardized, patented and made into a business. These were new concepts for medicine. These profits help establish pharmaceutical companies and allowed for them to go public and become publicly traded stocks, multiplying their profits. The companies produced more and more medications, surgical devices, etc. Great old institutions that were previously established specifically as Naturopathic Centers for research and therapy, like the Mayo Clinic and Hahnman Homeopathic Medical College in Philadelphia, completely abandoned their roots and became the bastions of solely the surgery and pharmaceuticals they are today. Many other Naturopathic Centers closed for lack of funding when they did not change to the specific practice of medical and surgery based medicine that was demanded by the funding sources of this new era.

    The financial and intellectual takeover of medicine in this country was swift and almost complete by the involvement of well funded surgical and pharmaceutical companies. Insurance companies quickly arose around the same time, ostensibly to give people more access to these new wonder therapies which were quickly becoming expensive. But as patients no longer had to pay directly for their care, it only had the effect of again increasing the cost. The end result by the early 1960’s was that there was a sudden and almost complete elimination of access to the medical research, knowledge and skills needed to maintain health, avoid disease, or slowly bring the body back to health when disease had occurred. In short, if it was not a surgical or patented prescription medication based treatment, it was no longer viewed as any kind of medicine by most of the doctors. Students no longer wanted to attend Naturopathic schools. Thus, the schools which attempted to treat the body as a whole and cure disease by starting within and moving out, ceased to receive funding for further research or teaching. You had a system that produced many doctors like myself who could save lives in emergency rooms, be honored for work in a war in Vietnam, but have no clue what yogurt was actually used for in health, or that acidity causes arthritis and gout.

    I see no point in trying to look at all of this as a simple picture of impersonal, corporate greed or victimization of the innocent. If someone has taken antibiotics or invested money in the stock market, as we all have, are they not in a small way part of the system, part of this takeover of all of medicine by one better-funded segment? We all have friends who have been helped, or perhaps we have been helped by these advances described above. But unfortunately, as a society, we threw out the “baby with the bath water.” And now, we also all have friends who have been injured, or perhaps we have been injured by the over use of surgery and medications. Until we reintroduce, teach and appreciate the Natural Approach in medical care on completely equal footing, we will continue to see in our society the spread of greater and greater numbers of disabled, chronically unwell people, who use expensive and excessive medications and surgical procedures to survive, but not thrive. We have eliminated TB sanatoriums but have seen the rise of houses of the not well, often called nursing homes or care homes. Each time we use airports, there seems to more and more need for wheelchairs for people who are unable to simply walk to the departure gates, even though many of them have received hundreds of thousands of dollars of cardiac surgery, joint replacements and patented medications.

    As I was told personally in Paris by the physician who understood Natural Medicine, “What do you expect?” We should now say to ourselves, “What can we expect?” When we began to no longer recognize the value of a system of medicine where people and doctors address disease by working together to restore and add vitality to the body, would we not expect to have an increasingly debilitated population, caused by conditions that are simply out of reach of further surgery or even stronger medications?

    Posted in All Articles & Listings, Paul Lynn, MD | Leave a comment

    Yaz, Yasmin FDA Advisors Had Cozy Relationships with Bayer

     When you might ask how can the FDA can leave a proven killer of women such as Provera on the market, here is how the system works… click here, a must read. 

    They have  just allowed another onto the marketplace.  Note the Medical Doctor who critized the drug in public was stripped of his voting rights, while those connected with Big Pharma were allowed to vote. In a sense, it would be unbelievable if it were not true.

    Spread the truth and happiness every way you can.

    With best wishes for your abundance in health,

    Paul Lynn, M.D., San Francisco Preventive Medical Group –

    Posted in All Articles & Listings, Paul Lynn, MD | Leave a comment

    Double Blind Studies: Are They Still Valid Or Corrupted?

    Dr. Paul Lynn

    Paul Lynn, MD

    Double Blind Studies were created to give  our modern medical culture a much needed source of unbiased conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Early on, it provided clarity in areas which needed. it.  Questions common to medicine such as,”  Is this apparent improvement I see in a patient really  to treatment “ABC” or is there another factor I am not aware of  causing the improvement?  What is the  actual odds I can expect the same improvements with drug  ‘ABC” in other patients? In other words the double blind study was originally  designed to uncover the true benefits[ and risks]  of a treatment which is not obviously apparent upon simple observation. Great idea,  worked well at first. What about now?

    Double blind studies are living off their positive impressions when they were conducted in an unbiased, objective way  to get after the truth. Sadly, my conclusion is that  double blind studies are now more likely than not to be well planned marketing devices. Most are now  designed and conducted in a focused  way to create data which will allow the product to pass the FDA, or enhance sales of a product already on the market. The intent is now about as  far from an unbiased search for truth [original intent] as you can get. This change of intent from an  unbiased search for the facts  represents a total corruption of a system which inially offered great service and gained  the respect of doctors and patients alike.

    The purpose of this article is to alert and  remind  doctors and patients  alike to read the fine print carefully. Everyone has to adjust to to this new reality. What is described below is what is taking place now. I have noticed Doctors overall are perhaps slower than informed patients to make this adjustment. Understandably so, since we doctors have memories of  the good information a well done double blind study can offer.

    There are 3 main avenues with which the original intent of the double blind study  has been corrupted  into a simple  search for data to use for selling a product.

    1. First step in the corruption process began when a company that stands to profit from a positive outcome was given total control by the FDA of the studies to evaluate the effect and safety.   In other words,the Big Pharma company which  wants to  sell a new drug now  does  the double blind study and presents it  to  the FDA. Initially, a third party under the control of the FDA would do the studies. The potential for bias  in this change  is obvious.  Double blind studies are expensive to get done. The FDA approval system requires the company to fund their own research  on a new medication and bring it to them. Since the company only  exists as a business for profit making purposes, they must  find the most efficient  way to get the results they need from their expense or they will literally be out of business. Their need to have a bias is understandable and obvious, isn’t it?. Isn’t it unfair of us to ask such  a company to be unbiased when we all know it must be biased, completive to survive against their competitors? The more successful companies can and do find a way to keep up an image of an unbiased study while introducing bias into double blind studies. To corrupt the double blind model, they simply  find researchers in medical schools who need  the research grants provided by the company for this particular drug to support  all of their other  research. The company then has their own employed paid to be biased researchers  stay in  close contact with the ‘independent” medical  researchers hired to do the study. The researchers inside and ouside the companies are collegues after all. Often, the  researchers  working for the company were actually once ‘independent ” medical researchers themselves.  Obviously, those ‘independent ” researchers who most often come up data desired by the drug company are much more likely to receive furture profitable  contracts  for other drugs.

    2. Method of corruption #2: The FDA now accepts the ability of a drug to create a positive change in a test result in a patients as the principal criteria to measure effectiveness instead of  changes in a  patient herself/himself. Certainly it is much cheaper for companies  to provide this kind of research.  But the enormous  greater medical costs and human suffering  from this change in policy  is difficult to grasp at first.  Real negative  side effects [disease produced] experienced by people taking a medication  is balanced against proven improvements in tests, not   real health benefits. This is a bad deal for us as medical consumers.

    For instance, statins alone  in double blinded studies will reduce the LDL cholesterol levels in women. This is a conclusive fact.Thus the drug gets approved. Billions of dollars made selling statins to women. However, taking a more patient centered  approach,  study of research has never conclusively shown taking statins only will reduce  the health risks in women!. This is also a fact. The summary of the findings are that at the doses commonly given to women there” may be ‘a slight improvement  in risk of heart disease. Which of course means  there may not be. But if  you add in the risks of taking statins which are clearly established  facts, taking a statin is a proven  negative health activity for the vast majority of women.In simple terms, statins create   more disease than they prevent in women. Of course, all of these women will show a lower LDL. See the excellent research data analysis and links on the web site  of Beatrice Golomb MD, PhD for more information. She is one of the original developers of the statins and has decades of study of the medications.

    3. The third and final  way the double blind studies have been corrupted is probably the least known but most  pernicious of the three. This is the proverbial ‘last straw” of corruption of what was  a wonderful method of getting at the truth about the  value of a treatment. If  modern physicians or patients do not know the term Contract Research Organization, commonly abbreviated CRO, and how this type of company is   used in a double blind  studies  we are  are ill informed.

    Currently, 30% of  an average double blinded study is outsourced to a CRO. It is predicted that  this percentage will rapidly rise to 80% in 10 years. Shouldn’t doctors and patients know this? We should. Ironically, at the moment, it is mainly  the  patients and doctors who happen also to invest in the stocks of Big Phrma who know about this great  change taking place in medical research. This change is at least as significant or more than the change described in #1 above, the FDA giving the pharmaceutical companies. the right, duty and expense to do unbiased   research. The pharmaceutical companies, after failing to do unbiased research,  are passing this right, duty  and expense another step  further out.

    CRO are companies formed overseas by entrepreneurs to make money by offering to serve to international drug companies.. Note they are not formed to serve patients or the FDA. They offer  Big Pgarma a contract to do all or part of a  double blind study at a far lower  cost than the Pharmaceutical company can do for themselves.The CRO can do the study for usually 10-15% of what it would cost the drug company to do the same work. Any pharmaceutical company  that does not quickly adapt to this method of outsourcing expensive work  will simply not be able to complete with the other companies  that do. If the slow adapting companies  profit margins erode, their stock price drops. Then they go out of business or are bought out by a company that did adapt to this method quicker. Some experts say the 80% quoted above is low. The “percentage” is really ‘all that can possibly be done at this lower cost. will be done as soon as possible”

    The opportunity of  biases results are now greater. Here is how the new research system works:

    Big Parma company, called A, has a new product, a medication called ‘xyz”.  Instead of paying researchers  as described in #1 above, they contact a dozen companies vying for there business .These companies  put in bids to do the work just as we would get several bids to get a remodeling job done. These companies, all in low wage locales, can  do the work for a fraction of what it would cost the drug company. The CRO  with the best reputation wins the contract. The best reputation is defined as 1.Its  ability  to  provide  data whose quality acceptable to the FDA 2.  Among the least costly  of the companies putting in bids 3.Has a good  track  record in the CRO marketplace  of coming in with data which will likely support the interest of the company employing them.

    The conclusion is that the days of assuming double blind studies quoted in the media are not biased are over. A few studies are still being done by the FDA directly. These by far  have the least bias.  Other than these, the  results of double blind studies no longer can be automatically considered superior to patient and doctors doing critical vigorous observations on their own of the results of meds introduced into the marketplace. The results of double blind studies are not discarded at all, but nor are they placed automatically in a” defining the answer position” they once had in decisions on medical treatments.

    Another point is to wait two years before taking any newly introduced medication. Once hundreds of thousands of people are taking a medication, it is hard to hide the side effects as they emerge in new age of  Internet blogs. If a physician suggests you take a newly marketed medication, often free samples are available. Let him or her know in a polite way you would like to review the information on the results posed on line in patient advocacy sites first.

    Finally I will put a more historical perspective on how the concept of double blind studies were  derived in the first place on my clinic website.  With that info in hand, many of us  begin to become our own “unbiased investigators for truth” in medicine.

    Wishing you the best in Life and Health,

    Paul Lynn

    Posted in All Articles & Listings, Paul Lynn, MD | Leave a comment