|
|
Majid Ali, M.D. |
|
WBAI-FM
New York
Dr. Ali's
Science, Health and
Healing
Radio Shows Online |
Editor,
The Journal of Integrative Medicine
Formerly, Associate Professor of Pathology (adj.), College
of Physicians
and Surgeons of Columbia University, NY
Formerly, President of Staff and Chief Pathologist,
Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, NJ
Fellow, Royal
College of Surgeons of England -
Diplomate,
American Board of Anatomic and Clinical Pathology
Diplomate, American Boards of Environmental Medicine
Past President Capital University of Integrative
Medicine |
|
Order Dr. Ali's Books at
Amazon.com |
ETHICS AND DENIAL IN MEDICINE
A search of The New England Journal of Medicine's shows it has never published a
report of chelation therapy for multiple toxic metals to discover how many
patterns of ill-health can be reversed with removal of toxic metals. Does it
mean the patients of doctors who read the journal never suffer from toxicity of
mercury, lead, cadmium, or other toxic metals? An internet search of the Journal
of the American Medical Association's website reveals it has never published a
report of the benefits of liver detoxification therapies. May one reasonably
surmise that the patients of doctors who read the journal never suffer from
liver toxicity that responds well to topical castor-oil liver packs and other
non-drug measures?
The readers of Gastroenterology do not think mycotoxins sicken any of their
patients. If they did, why wouldn't they test their patients for mycotoxins and
treat them with antifungal therapies? The readers of Chest maintain their
asthmatic patients never suffer from mold allergy. If they did, why wouldn't
they test and treat mold and pollen allergy with desensitization protocols?
Rheumatologists never test patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other
collagen disorders for food allergy and adverse food reactions because the
Archives of Rheumatology has never published papers demonstrating that some
foods, under certain conditions, provoke chronic inflammatory response—by immune
complex, IgE-mediated, mast cell degranulation, and other mechanisms—and cause
autoimmune disease. If they knew that, why wouldn't they address those crucial
dietary issues?
One may conclude from the above that those who control The New England Journal
of Medicine (NEJM) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)—and
enormously enrich themselves in the process—have convinced doctors that
Americans are completely immune to toxic metals, industrial toxicants,
pesticides, mycotoxins (mold toxins), and mold allergy. Similarly, one may
deduce those who publish and profit from Gastroenterology, Chest, and the
Archives of Rheumatology preach that Americans are completely immune to health
consequences of toxic environment, toxic foods, and toxic thoughts.
Diagnosis Versus Detection
Pathological diagnosis continues to be the gold standard in medicine.
Pathologists make diagnoses with their microscopes after the tissue damage
occurs. So, they always observe the aftermath of the disease process—the tail
end events, so to speak—caused by whatever agents(s) initiated the process.
Biochemical diagnoses of autoimmune and degenerative diseases by measuring
markers—rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis and anti-DNA antibodies for
lupus, for example—are commonly made. However, such markers never reveal what
elements of toxic environment, toxic foods, and toxic thoughts induced the
generation of those markers of disease. The story of genetic diagnosis is always
incomplete. Gene-disease associations used for diagnosis cannot rule the
coexistence of other implicated, but as yet unrecognized, genes. This is
abundantly evident to those who have closely followed the history of genomic
diagnosis during the last three decades.
The histopathologic diagnosis of malignant disorders is crucially important for
optimal management; however, such diagnoses never completely delineate the
involved carcinogenic factors—the asbestos-mesothelioma theories of "meso-lawyers"
notwithstanding. How, for instance, may anyone exclude the cancer-causing
effects of tobacco smoking, environmental carcinogens, and persistent
inflammatory triggers in the genesis of any mesothelioma? How can anyone, other
than meso-lawyers, assert that asbestos is the only carcinogen that causes
mesothelioma in their clients? The essential point is: How much an individual
suffers from any disease is determined by the total body burden of all relevant
factors that impede cellular energetic and detox mechanisms in his body.
In 1954, I learned that tuberculosis is caused by Mycobacterium species and
influenza pneumonia by the flu virus. I recognized this information was
incomplete. My mother had open tuberculosis, and she coughed out thick phlegm
month after month, year after year, not infrequently one foot or so from my
face. I have six siblings. Eventually, most of us responded positively to a
tuberculin test, indicating a subclinical tubercular infection. However, none of
us contracted a clinical disease requiring treatment.
In 1958, while some students in my class became ill during flu season, more did
not. The professors in my medical school told me the state of immunity
determines who gets sick and who does not. That raised the obvious question:
what determines the state of an individual's immunity? The professors gave glib
answers about the risk factors of poor immunity, but never a definitive answer
concerning the cause of poor immunity of a given individual. There was seldom,
if ever, any reference to toxic environments, toxic foods, and toxic thoughts.
In the early 1960s, I was much impressed by my professor of neurology. He made
brilliant diagnoses by deductive reasoning. I thought he was an astute
detective. That was then. Now, neurologists cannot help me with my patients with
neurological problems. They only know as much as the MRI and CAT scan reports
tell them. I can read those reports just as well. I do not know neurologists who
diligently engage in detective work to discover all relevant toxic factors that
cause neural injury—mycotoxins (mold toxins), toxic metals, industrial
toxicants, pesticides, stress molecules, and allergic triggers—that impede or
block hepatic detox pathways and impede mitochondrial functions. I do not know
any neurologists who vigorously address all those issues. I can only conclude
that contemporary neurologists have little, if any, interest in conducting any
real detective work.
The Krebs Cycle Biochemistry
In 1958, I was taught the biochemistry of the Krebs cycle. It amazes me as I
look back at the following thirty years. I attended over 5,000 lectures during
those years. Not a single professor at Columbia University, New York, national
medical conferences, or speakers at our hospital told me how he investigated
Krebs cycle biochemistry and glycolytic pathways, and clinically applied that
information for superior clinical results. For me, the Krebs cycle appeared on
the scene in 1958 and then disappeared until 1990s.
In the 1970s, I became preoccupied with a simple question: What is the boundary
between the state of health and a state of absence of health. In 1980s, I wrote
about spontaneity of oxidation in nature and the oxygen model of aging.1-5 By
1990s, my attention was sharply focused on dysoxygenosis 6-13—my term for oxygen
dyshomeostasis characterized by mitochondrial failure, cell membrane
dysfunction, and matrix dysregulation—and efforts to detect and address as many
environmental, food-related, and stress elements as I could in the integrative
management of my patients.
Specifically, I saw objective and unequivocal evidence of mitochondrial
dysfunction in all chronically ill individuals.14-22 I also observed good to
excellent results with robust efforts to detect and address all agents(s)—bowel-derived
mycotoxins, altered gut microbiota, toxic metals, pollutants, autonomic
blockers, adrenergic overdrive, and allergies—that disrupted oxygen homeostasis
and oxygen signaling in a given individual. It was expedient for me to order a
urinary organic acids profile in all chronically ill patients. This made it
possible for me to objectify and quantify metabolic and detoxification pathways
by the direct measurements of: (1) metabolites of Krebs cycle and glycolytic
pathways; (2) products of lipid and protein breakdown; (3) catecholamines; (4)
metabolites of vitamins; and (5) disruptors of mitochondrial electron transport
chain. It was possible to focus my detective work on real agents of molecular
injury.
Ethics in Medicine
Ethics, simply stated, is the study of the consequences of one's actions on
others. For a people, ethics is the study of the consequences of its actions on
other peoples of the world. For a profession, ethics is the study of the
consequences of the actions of its members on the public it serves. There,
however, is another crucial aspect of ethics: the consequences of one's failure
to take the needed action on others. For example, a pilot not completing his
checklist before flight may be jeopardizing the lives of his passengers, and so
is being unethical. It would be considered clearly unethical for a nurse not to
give a patient the prescribed.
The relevance and significance of no action when action is clearly needed by a
doctor should be self-evident as well. It should also be clearly unethical when
a doctor fails to do the necessary detective work to uncover the substances
and/or elements that cause, or contribute to, the illness of a patient. In this
light, how ethical is the prevailing drug medicine? Is it ethical for doctors to
use drugs to suppress symptoms caused by heavy metals toxicity? Is it ethical
for pulmonologists to ignore mold allergy and prescribe steroid—and
chemotherapy, when steroids cease to work—to treat asthma? Is it ethical for
internists to never address issues of industrial toxicity among their patients?
How ethical is a doctor who never tests for mycotoxins and never treats patients
suffering from mold toxicity? How ethical is a doctor who never tests for
overload of pesticides and environmental pollutants on the liver and never
prescribes liver detox therapies for patients with chronic fatigue, myalgia,
brain fog, and eczema? How ethical is a pulmonologist who never tests for mold
allergy, never does mold desensitization, and prescribes steroids for his
patients with asthma?
Denial in Medicine
If Americans are not completely immune to toxic foods, toxic environments, and
toxic thoughts, how do their doctors manage to thrive in denial of those facts?
Psychologists have much to say about denial. However, my mind is uninitiated in
psychological theories. So, I do not know if what I say here about the nature of
denial among doctors is consistent with the prevailing psychological theories.
What is the nature of denial among doctors? Is it benign neglect? Simple
inattention? Brain fog? Paralysis of intellect? Planned blindness? Willful
subversion? Or, is it intellectual laziness?
Doctors deny the reality for various reasons. The primary and saddest reason is
plain intellectual laziness. They consider The New England Journal of Medicine a
safe harbor. The Journal material is easy to grasp (names of drugs), convenient
to live with (writing drug prescriptions), and, of course, very enriching
(prescription-writing reimburses well). Going against the Journal—struggling
with issues of toxic foods, toxic environment, and toxic thoughts—is cumbersome,
time-consuming, and fraught with the risk of alienation from drug doctors.
Denials in medicine have others structures as well. From 1968 to 1978, I
attended weekly departmental and medical staff meetings at College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, and Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck,
New Jersey. Drugs promoted by The New England Journal of Medicine were discussed
or mentioned in nearly all meetings. In those days, I—like my peers in pathology
and clinical medicine—had no interest in the issues of toxic foods, toxic
environment, and toxic thoughts. There were seldom, if ever, any discussions of
those issues. The furthest thing on my mind then—as was the case with my
peers—was any ethical issue.
Drilling deep into the policies of American politicians and mega-biz of
disease-maintenance system is unsettling. Drilling deeper into the mindset of
doctors who limit their work to drugs and surgical scalpels is profoundly
disturbing.
In the modern vernacular, to say someone is “in denial” is to deliver a savage
combination punch: one shot to the belly for the cheating or drinking or bad
behavior, and another slap to the head for the cowardly self-deception of
pretending it’s not a problem.
The New York Times November 20, 2007
Oops! That hurts, doesn't it? However, is Times off the mark here? I do not
think so. Consider just three aspects of the sordid story of statins drugs used
to lower blood cholesterol levels: (1) suppression of information concerning
cancer-causing effects of statins; (2) the practice of drug companies buying
editorials to push drugs; and (3) fear-mongering to promote drug abuse.
The Sordid Cholesterol Story
Cholesterol has been demonized by merchants of medicine. It is a precious
commodity. The body spends 36 molecules of its primary energy currency (ATP), 16
units of secondary currency (aceytl-CoA), and 18 molecules of tertiary currency
(NADPH) to make one molecule of cholesterol. Why would Nature allocate so much
energy to its synthesis if cholesterol were really a molecular villain?
Cholesterol is the queen-mother of all steroid hormones and other essential
substances, such as vitamin D, and bile acids. Beyond that are the crucial
regulatory roles of structural and functional integrity of biomembranes.
Specifically, cholesterol participates in the formation of ordered lipid domains
called lipid rafts, which are composed of lipids in the liquid-ordered phase
surrounded by the liquid-disordered phase.
The Statin-Cancer Connection
The statin drugs used to lower blood cholesterol levels have well established
cancer-causing effects in experimental animals and human is well established.
Statin TV commercials include a quick sentence about liver toxicity, fatigue,
and potentially fatal rhabdomyocytolysis. However, I have never seen a statin
commercial mention the cancer-causing effects of statin drugs. Statins earn over
$30 billion for the drug makers, who can well afford to spend enough ad dollars
to keep carcinogenicity of their drugs from the public eyes. It is a sad comment
that doctors seldom, if ever, mention to their patients the carcinogenic effects
of statin drugs when they dole out prescriptions. The following two quotes, the
first from JAMA and the second from the Journal of the American College of
Cardiology (JACC), speak for themselves:
All members of the two most popular classes of lipid-lowering drugs (the
fibrates and the statins) cause cancer in rodents....In the meantime, the
results of experiments in animals and humans suggest that lipid-lowering drug
treatment, especially with fibrates and statins, should be avoided except in
patients at high short-term risk of coronary heart disease.23
Some readers may be surprised to discover that the above quote is taken from a
1996 issue of JAMA. Eleven years later, the Journal of the American College of
Cardiology fully supported the JAMA position with the following words:
However, the risk of cancer is significantly associated with lower achieved LDL-C
levels. These findings suggest that drug- and dose-specific effects are more
important determinants of liver and muscle toxicity than magnitude of LDL-C
lowering. Furthermore, the cardiovascular benefits of low achieved levels of LDL-C
may in part be offset by an increased risk of cancer.24
How did the above paper escape the eagle eyes of the marketers of statin drugs?
That question takes us to a yet higher level of deception. The above article was
accompanied by an editorial which trashed the original report with the following
words:
In truth, currently available data cannot provide a definitive answer to this
question. In the data that contributed to their analysis there is no single form
of cancer that predominates, so that the effect low achieved LDL would have to
have been one that stimulated neoplasia in a variety of tissues. Although not
impossible, such a universal trigger mechanism would have to involve some change
in cell biology or immunity not yet described or related to cholesterol
metabolism.25
In truth, currently available data cannot provide a definitive answer! I read
the above passage, then re-read it with astonishment. How much might the writer
of this editorial know about cancer biology?, I wondered. Readers with some
knowledge of cancer literature will recognize that this was one of the main
arguments made by pseudoscientists of tobacco industry who denounced the
tobacco-cancer link in the 1950s. And then in 2007, this editorialist expects to
get away with this silly argument. I read along and found the following
statement as a footnote: "Dr. LaRosa receives occasional honoraria for speaking
or consulting from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers-Squib, and Merck. Such is the power of
editorialists! Or, is it a tribute to the cunning of statin-makers?
No Evidence That the Cholesterol Drug Reduces Heart Attacks and Strokes
On December 21, 2007, The New York Times ran a story entitled "Data About Zetia
Risks Was not Fully Revealed." The drug maker claims that Zetia, a
cholesterol-lowering drug, protects its users from heart attacks and strokes.
Below, I include the complete sentence from the Times article:
But in the case of Zetia, despite its widespread use, there is no evidence to
show that the cholesterol drug can reduce heart attacks and strokes.
The Times reported that before the drug was approved in 2002, one F.D.A.
reviewer advised against clearing Zetia for use with statins because the
combination had caused liver damage in animals. The warning was ignored. Since
then, there have been several reports of severe liver damage in patients taking
Zetia in combination with statins.
Selective Amnesia
The December 21 Times article also reported that in the safety findings of the
Trial P2173C of Zetia with Zocor, a statin drug, showed a "19 percent of
patients suffered problems from taking the drugs. Below, I include some other
sobering quotes from the Times report:
When there have been adverse effects, when the benefits don’t look impressive,
those are the trials that historically don’t make it to press.
A Schering executive, when asked by a reporter about the unpublished studies,
confirmed their existence. But the executive, Dr. Robert J. Spiegel, said the
companies had not considered the studies scientifically important enough to
publish their findings. Some may eventually be published, he said.
“We keep telling people we want to practice evidence-based medicine, and what we
keep finding out is that much of the evidence is obscured,” said Dr. Harlan
Krumholz, a cardiologist at Yale, when told about the previously undisclosed
studies. “There is important evidence, but it’s not in public view. It’s hidden
from investigators.”
The pseudoscience of drug medicine profits much from selective amnesia. That is
understandable. What is not easy to understand is selective amnesia among
doctors. Most doctors do read articles like the one quoted above. While they
talk about an evidence-based practice of medicine, they full well know that the
clinical trials, upon which they base their drug therapies, are perverted. As
the Yale cardiologist recognizes in the above quote, the drug companies
regularly hide data about drug toxicities and exaggerate their benefits.
Complicity In Silence: Two Nobel Laureates Participate In Pill Pushing
If you were the CEO of Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor, how much would you pay to
get two Nobel laureates to declare on national public television (PBS)TV that
most people should take one of your drugs, considering the viewers of such
television run into millions and millions of people. Five million dollars? Ten
million? Twenty million? What would you pay to get two Nobel laureates and one
of the most well respected hosts of PBS to tell viewers that everyone should
take your drug? Would you pay $40 million? $50 million? Or, $60 million?
On December 20, the guests of Charlie Rose on PBS included two Nobel Laureates,
Paul Nurse and Eric Kendell, and three professors of medicine, one from The
Johns Hopkins University. The program was sponsored by Pfizer, the company that
rakes in more than 15 billion dollars from the sales of Lipitor, a drug
prescribed to lower blood cholesterol levels. At one point, Mr. Rose asked, "Why
don't we all go out and get Lipitor?" A burst of laughter was followed by a
quick rejoinder, "We do." What a commercial for Lipitor! What a coup for Pfizer!
The bully pulpit doesn't get any better. How many viewers would recognized that
those two Nobel laureates did not win the Nobel Prize for work in cholesterol
metabolism, I wondered. Did the Nobel laureates know the program was sponsored
by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor? How could they not know it? It was announced.
Charlie Rose hardly qualifies as a medical expert. Did he know the program was
sponsored by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor? How could he not know it? He made the
announcement. How many viewers would recognize this act of shameful pill pushing
at PBS?
Holy Grail Discovered With Spectacular Results
Lowering blood levels of LDL cholesterol and raising those of HDL has been the
Holy Grail of drug doctors. On November 22, 2007, The New England Journal of
Medicine reported that the Holy Grail had been discovered with stunning result.
Below, I include two quotes from that report:
At 12 months in patients who received torcetrapib, there was an increase of
72.1% in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and a decrease of 24.9% in
low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as compared with baseline (P<0.001 for both
comparisons). The trial was terminated prematurely because of an increased risk
of death and cardiac events in patients receiving torcetrapib.26
Many people were killed when the blood levels of LDL cholesterol were lowered
and HDL raised. The doctor-scientists kept by the drug company moved on to new
areas of drug research.
Fear Mongering
American doctors are indoctrinated in fear-mongering. I illustrate this
phenomenon with the following case study. On December 18, 2007, I saw a
69-year-old yoga and nutrition teacher. She was extremely distraught and eager
to show me the results of her blood test.
"I'm very upset," she spoke as she handed me her laboratory reports with
trembling hands.
"Let me see what the reports say," I said softly and looked at the report.
"You know me, I do not tolerate drugs well. My cardiologist looked at my lab
reports and prescribed Lipitor. Statins make me very tired. I told him that,"
she pressed before I read the reports.
"Well,..."
"He's a very nice man." she interrupted me. "He said if you don't take Lipitor,
you might have a stroke. He scared me so."
"Let's do it slowly and calmly."
I looked at her laboratory report and saw the following values: total
cholesterol, 255 mg/dL; HDL cholesterol, 80 mg/dL; triglycerides, 267 mg/dL; and
a C-reactive protein, 13.1 mg/L.
"I don't see anything here that should trouble us," I spoke reassuringly.
"The cardiologist was insistent. He said if I don't lower the cholesterol level
with Lipitor I might have a stroke. I'm so frightened." She stood up, shaking.
"I don't agree with your cardiologist. The stress which his advice has created
for you is much more likely to get you into trouble than the cholesterol
levels."
"Can you lower it with natural therapies?" she asked anxiously.
"The remedy you really need is a bit of truth-telling and understanding," I
tried to humor her. "Please sit down. Let me first review your previous lipid
values."
She sat down fitfully. I looked at the Lab Result Sheet in her clinical chart.
The total cholesterol values from 2002 to 2004 ranged between 188 and 224, with
excellent HDL cholesterol values of 71 to 95. Clearly, her lipid profiles have
been good (Table 1). The November values (the source of distress) showed an
elevation of 31 points. I asked her questions to discover a source of
inflammation that might have raised her cholesterol levels. She was too anxious
and obsessed with her cholesterol numbers to calmly answer my questions.
"Jane (not her real name), I have known you for several years. I have reviewed
your past cholesterol numbers. I strongly suspect the 31-point rise in the
cholesterol value is caused by some unusual source of severe stress. The high
number of CRP indicates an inflammatory response triggered by that stress. Maybe
we will pin it down, maybe not. In either case, I really don't see any real
reason for us to worry so much. There are many natural things we can do. How is
your sleep?"
"Okay," she nearly snapped.
"Is there something else you are not telling me?" I asked, leaning forward in my
chair.
"No. Yes, no," she stuttered, then suddenly stood up and began pacing in my
office.
I pretended to study her chart as I observed her distress. She paced some more,
then turned to look in my face, her eyes brimming with tears, and spoke,
"I didn't want to tell. George (not her husband's real name) passed on four
months ago. last August. We were married 42 years."
"I'm sorry," I stood up as well.
"I'm not sorry," she spoke, her voice finding strength. "Near the end he
couldn't eat, nor swallow. He loved to eat and drink and smoke. You saw him over
ten years ago. I pleaded with him to come and see you all these years, but he
wouldn't. He was stubborn that way." A faint smile appeared on her face.
She fondly and sadly told me many more things about her husband, a stoic man, as
I remembered him. I was engaged in an inner narration. Why do young women and
men study so hard to become doctors? What is the calling of a physician? How did
we physicians become so numb? So insensitive? So stupid, to be brutally candid?
How do intelligent people lose their senses? How did such fear-mongering become
the common fare of medicine? If authentic understanding liberates, then did
understanding in medicine become so unauthentic? For compassion to be authentic,
it must be universal. What happened to compassion in medicine?
I knew her cardiologist. She was right. He is a nice man. He practices at a
world famous hospital in New York. What could he do except to follow the
standards of cardiology care and prescribe Lipitor for her? He has his to
protect his license, bring food to table for his family, and maintain his
stature among his peers. He has to be a cardiologist who is "up on his
statistics."
I looked up. Her eyes were fixed on me.
"I trust you, Dr. Ali," she began with a smile. "I cannot take Lipitor. And I
don't want to be stupid with myself either. I don't want a stroke. If you tell
me I don't have to take Lipitor, I won't take it. I just need your support."
"You have my support," I smiled back. "But we have some other good stuff for you
as well. Don't worry, your cholesterol values will return to the levels you have
had in past years."
Was I being silly? Full of myself? Unschooled in medical statistics? Ignorant of
the ways of modern cardiology? Putting a frightened woman at risk for a stroke?
Ignoring danger for her out of my ignorance? I answer these questions at length
in Chapter entitled "Why Statins Do Not Work for Women" in Darwin, Oxygen
Homeostasis, and Integrative Protocols, the twelfth volume of The Principles and
Practice of Integrative Medicine. Below, I quote one passage from that chapter
to close this preface:
Why don't statin drugs work for women? In 1997, My colleague Omar Ali and I
addressed this question at length in an article published in The Journal of
Integrative Medicine.1 We marshalled 13 lines of evidence to support our view
that the use of statin drugs is ill-advised for the vast majority of people
taking such drugs. I reproduce text concerning those lines of evidence later in
this chapter. Specifically we asserted that there is no evidence that statin
drugs used for primary prevention confer any survival benefits on women. In
2007, the British journal The Lancet published an article which fully validated
our statement made ten years earlier.2 In this article professors, John Abramson
of Harvard University and James Wright of University of British Columbia,
analyzed published data for over 40,000 women who were given statin drugs for
primary prevention. Consider the opening paragraph of their paper:
The last major revision of the US guidelines, in 2001, increased the number of
Americans for whom statins are recommended from 13 million to 36 million, most
of whom do not yet have but are estimated to be at moderately elevated risk of
developing coronary heart disease. In support of statin therapy for the primary
prevention of this disease in women and people aged over 65 years, the
guidelines cite seven and nine randomized trials, respectively. Yet not one of
the studies provides such evidence.
Yet not one of the studies provides such evidence! This comment should surprise
only those who have never critically examined the data on the subject published
during the last few decades.
Once Healing Arts Were a Calling
Once there was no medicine, only passionate individuals who searches for ways to
ameliorate suffering. The men of the spirits doubled for the men of healing.
Healing arts were a calling. Then these arts morphed into medicine. Then
medicine became a profession. Men of money entered medicine to turn it into an
industry. Now, medicine is in the clutches of eco-monsters, clutches of craven
men with pathologic needs for maniacal control of everything. They can buy all
medical editorialists— indeed, they have for decades. We physicians have but one
weapon: the liberating power of truth. Only if we could muster the courage to
use that weapon!
References
1. Ali M. Spontaneity of Oxidation in Nature and Aging, (monograph). Teaneck,
NJ, 1983.
2. Ali M. The agony and death of a cell. In: Syllabus of the Instruction Course
of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Denver, Colorado, 1985.
3. Ali M. Leaky Cell Membrane Disorder (monograph). Teaneck, NJ, 1987.
4. Ali M. Immunology as it applies to clinical ecology. Syllabus. American
Academy of Environmental Medicine. 1988. 13th Instructional Course. Part I.
Denver, Colorado. pp45-50. Clinical Ecology Publications. Denver, Colorado.
5. Ali M. An ecologist's view of the immune system. Syllabus. American Academy
of Environmental Medicine. 1988. 13th Instructional Course. Part II. Cleveland,
Ohio. pp 71-81. Clinical Ecology Publications. Denver, Colorado.
6. Ali M: Oxidative regression to primordial cellular ecology. J Integrative
Medicine 1998; 2:4-55.
7. Ali M: Darwin, fatigue, and fibromyalgia. J Integrative Medicine 1999;3:5-10.
8. Ali M: Darwin, oxidosis, dysoxygenosis, and integration. J Integrative
Medicine 1999;3:11-16.
9. Ali M: Fibromyalgia: an oxidative-dysoxygenative disorder (ODD). J
Integrative Medicine 1999; 3:17- 37.
10. Ali M. Ali A. Oxidative coagulopathy in fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue
syndrome. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:566-7.
11. Ali Recent advances in integrative allergy care. Current Opinion in
Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery 2000;8:260-266.
12. Ali M. Respiratory-to-Fermentative (RTF) Shift in ATP Production in Chronic
Energy Deficit States. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2004.
August/Sept. issue. 64-65.
13. Ali M. Oxidative coagulopathy in environmental illness. Environmental
Management and Health. 2000;11:175- 191.
14. Ali M: ODD trigger points in fibromyalgia: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and
resolution J Integrative Med 1999; 3:38-47.
15. Efficacy of ecologic-integrative management protocols for reversal of
fibromyalgia: an open prospective study of 150 patients. J Integrative Med 1999;
3:48-64.
16. Ali M. Bone homeostasis is but one face of oxygen homeostasis. Townsend
Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2005;261:86-93.
17. Ali M. Juco J, Fayemi, A, et al. The dysox model of asthma and clinical
outcome with integrated management plan. Townsend Letter-The examiner of
Alternative Medicine. 2006;274:58-61. (May 2006)
18. Ali M. Fischer S, Juco J, et al. The dysox model of coronary artery disease.
Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2006;270/71:110-112.
19. Ali M. The Dysox Model of Diabetes and De-Diabetization Potential. Townsend
Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007; 286:137-145.
20. Ali M. Limbic breathing. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative
Medicine. 2007; 288:160-166.
21. Ali M. The unifying dysox model of hormone disorders and receptor
restoration therapy. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007;
291;145-151.
22. Ali M. Oxygen, Inflammation, and Castor-Cise Liver Detox. Hormones. Townsend
Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007 (in press).
23. Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali, AA, Prasad V. Maddukuri PV, Han H, et al. Effect of
the Magnitude of Lipid Lowering on Risk of Elevated Liver Enzymes,
Rhabdomyolysis, and Cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:9-418.
24. LaRosa, J. C. Means and Ends of Statins and Low-Density Lipoprotein
Cholesterol Lowering J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:419-420.25.
25. Newman TB, Hurley SB. Carcinogenicity of Lipid-Lowering Drugs. JAMA.
1996;275:55-60.
26 Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M, et al. Effects of Torcetrapib in Patients
at High Risk for Coronary Events. N Eng J Med. 2007;357:2109-2122. |
|
Appointment
and Patient Information
CONTACT US
Dr. Ali's Books
and DVDs |
This
information is provided only to provide
information, it is never, ever to be used as a
self help guideline. Always consult your own
health care provider for information or
questions on your health!
Throughout this website, statements are made
pertaining to the properties and/or functions of
nutritional supplements.
These statements about
nutritional supplements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration
and are not intended
to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease
Copyrights on this site:
©Majid Ali
©Aging Healthfully, Inc. ©The
Institute of Preventive Medicine
©The Institute of Integrative Medicine ©The
Journal of Integrative Medicine
New
Jersey - 95 East Main Street Denville, NJ 07834 New
York 140 West End Avenue NY, NY 10023
|
|
|
