Click here to translate this page. translate gadget at page bottom
Newsletter v4n17

Newsletter v4n17
Back Issues
Home

"When arbitrary rulers are put over them, when government is secret, the people become alarmed." (Samuel Adams, American patriot)

The DOCTOR YOURSELF NEWSLETTER (Vol. 4, No. 17, for August 5, 2004) "Free of charge, free of advertising, and free of the A.M.A."

Written and copyright 2004 by Andrew W. Saul of http://www.doctoryourself.com , which welcomes 1.5 million visitors annually. Commercial use of the website or the contents of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited.

MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY

IT WAS MID-SUMMER and Rhonda had gloves on. "I have to wear gloves whenever I read," she explained. "The problem is, I'm a librarian."

A librarian with multiple chemical sensitivity; talk about a handicap.

"Newsprint is especially bad. The ink on the paper gives me rashes. Even the smell of an open book sets me off gasping, in hives, with a sore throat. And I can't wear gloves for the odors," she added. "And then there's the air conditioning; the smell of the carpet and cleaners; the water from the water fountain that I can't drink; foods in the cafeteria that I can't eat; the unending weakness and fatigue; the depression about it all. What can I do? Aside from live in a bubble, I mean."

Rhonda, a prematurely gray woman in her forties, had been unhappily coping for years. She did indeed wear gloves at work. She'd probably have worn a respirator if they'd let her. She was a mess and, of the very few doctors willing to consider her plight, none had helped her.

Multiple chemical sensitivity probably affects millions of Americans, but the medical profession is not doing any counting. MCS has been pretty much rejected as a legitimate illness. That's because "It may be the only ailment in existence in which the patient defines both the cause and the manifestations of his own condition." (Gots RE. Multiple chemical sensitivities: public policy [Editorial]. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1995; 33:111- 3.)

Orthodox medicine generally regards people with MCS as sensitive, all right: sensitive in their heads. The stress, anxiety and depression that doctors equate with MCS may all be results of MCS. Certainly Rhonda fit the description.

But this was not all in her head. It was in her whole body. You had only to look at her, or listen, to appreciate her misery. She was able to function, but only with the greatest of daily efforts.

It shouldn't have to be that hard. And, I do not think it has to be. But then, I am not a physician.

So let's ask some.

At their website, the American Academy of Family Physicians offers polite, lukewarm compassion, but essentially regards MCS as a non-entity. (Multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Magill MK and Suruda A. American Family Physician, Sept 1, 1998 http://www.aafp.org/afp/980901ap/magill.html)

As evidence, the AAFP refers to statements such this one by the American Medical Association in 1992:

"No evidence based on well-controlled clinical trials is available that supports a cause-and-effect relationship between exposure to very low levels of substances and the myriad symptoms reported by clinical ecologists to result from such exposure."

The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology made a similar statement in 1986, and the American College of Physicians likewise in 1989.

But the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's 1993 statement must really irk MCS suffers: "The science is indeterminate about MCS as a specific entity and the cause and effect relationships have not been clearly established."

So, as you might expect, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded, in 1996, that "There is at present no medical consensus concerning the definition or nature of this disorder."

Interestingly enough, according to a 1995 statement by Sheila Bastien, Ph.D., a neuropsychologist who has served on the environmental illness advisory panels for the State of California and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR):

"In 1988 workers of the EPA headquarters became ill when new carpets were installed and other remodeling took place. Some of the employees developed MCS. Some of these employees are still working at home, and many of them still have MCS or continuing illness. Some have not been able to go back to work." (http://www.california.com/~hawk/MCS- Ammunition.htm)

You have to love the irony there, don't you?

Actually, the American Academy of Family Physicians' website is probably the most supportive "official" medical website an MCS sufferer will come across. For instance, it lists some 30 common chemical exposures from air fresheners and asphalt to tile cleaners and varnish, all of which may "precipitate" MCS symptoms. But then, AAFP goes so far as to advise alleged MCS sufferers to avoid "unproven therapies" including "rotating diets" and "extreme avoidance of chemicals." In my opinion, behind this one may sense unwritten industry-friendly assumptions that chemicals are our friends, whether in your food or in your environment.

Does AAFP share mottoes with Alfred E. Newman? Chemicals? What, we worry? "Don't worry; be happy" was a hit popular song. Adorable. But "Strength through joy" was the motto of the Nazis, the least environmentally conscious administration imaginable.

I do not think anxiety or depression causes MCS; MCS may certainly cause anxiety or depression. Either way, I am quite certain that "putting on a happy face" is not the cure.

Instead, I suggest that you look at ducks.

Ducks don't get wet. They don't, you know, even though they wade and swim and dive in water. Sure, the duck's feathers will feel wet to the touch. But that's not the real ducky part. The duck's skin and body stays nice and dry. When they preen themselves, ducks keep their feathers oiled, and the oily feathers trap a layer of insulating air between them and the duck's skin. This also serves to keep the duck warm, even during their extended swims in Titanic-temperature freezing waters that would kill humans from hypothermia in a matter of minutes. Winter after winter, I've watched pairs of Mallards happily paddling around in the not-quite-completely-frozen waters of the Erie canal that flows near my home in upstate New York.

The duck can't change its environment, so it fortifies itself against it. Whether it is fur on a polar bear or blubber on a walrus, animals are remarkably tolerant of their surroundings. I mean, what choice have they?

In my opinion, people with multiple chemical sensitivity have no practical choice, either. Certainly, reducing environmental pollution and ones exposure to known irritants has my complete support. But we live in a strikingly imperfect world, not in a bubble, and that is the way it is likely to stay until we make our governments change it. We, like ducks, do well when we strengthen our personal defenses against a hostile environment.

I am no friend of the toxic chemical industry, as those who have been following my involvement with the battle against the Diaz Chemical Corporation will instantly bear witness to. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/diaz.html; scroll down the page for the background information on this issue. Incidentally, I was sued for libel by the chemical company; they dropped the case as soon as it got to a judge. Now the U.S. Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, is after them.)

But I digress.

My take on multiple chemical sensitivity is, in essence, not of chemical isolation but of nutritional insulation. Until we have cleaned up the world, you had better toughen up your body. Here's a fast-working approach that is worth a fair therapeutic trial: saturation of vitamin C.

At least that's what Rhonda did. She was in a real hurry to feel better, and got to bowel-tolerance saturation in a day. In fact, in a single morning. After taking nearly 50,000 mg of vitamin C in the hours before noon, she left the library and went out for a lunchtime walk. Saturation hit at that very moment. Into a nearby rest room . . .

Look, my job is to tell you what works. Why does mega-C dosing work? Several reasons come to mind.

One: Vitamin C is an antitoxin. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/levy.html and http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerpaper.html)

Two: Vitamin C is an antihistamine. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/allergies.html and http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html)

Three: Vitamin C is an antidepressant. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/nerves.html)

After this episode, Rhonda was a new woman.

"The very moment I reached bowel tolerance of vitamin C," Rhonda told me afterwards, "I had a rush of energy and a huge upswing in my mood. It was as if I'd turned on a light in a dark room. It was amazing, truly like night and day."

You should have heard her "new Rhonda" voice. It was light and bubbly and filled with vitality. The woman was a changed person. She had drive. She had confidence. Most of all, she had bare hands.

"Nuts to the gloves," Rhonda said. "From now on, I'm taking my C, and plenty of it."

A NEW "GRASS" ROOTS CONSENSUS Medical use of marijuana is now officially supported by the United Methodist Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the United Church of Christ. According to the Washington Post (for the Fourth of July, no less), these diverse religious groups agree on a singularly non-theological matter: they all support marijuana prescriptions to "ease the pain and other debilitating effects of such diseases such as cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma." (Broadway B. Blessing marijuana for the sick. The Washington Post, July 4, 2004.)

Among the reasons the churches cite for advocating prescription marijuana include use by patients "trying to increase their appetites."

Appetites for what, exactly?

For years, I taught college-level courses on the subject of drug use and abuse. Marijuana is considerably more dangerous to the lungs than cigarettes, and we all know that cigarettes are not exactly good medicine.

Can you imagine your family doctor prescribing tobacco? Yet, back in the times of Sir Walter Raleigh, tobacco was indeed considered medicinal. We have since learned the truth about tobacco's undeniable dangers. All of us. Even Philip Morris, the world's number one tobacco company, now says cigarettes are unsafe. (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/pages/eng/smoking/S_and_H.as p)

I submit that we should ask all religious denominations to support the public's unhampered non-prescription access to megavitamin therapy. Vitamin therapy is safer, and treats causes, not symptoms. Suffering patients do not need palliative pot if they are no longer suffering. Or, for that matter, if they are no longer a powerless "patient."

I've been saying, "Vitamins, not drugs" for three decades now. It's time to say it again, with a new spin on the word "drug."

SOME WEED-FREE ALTERNATIVES for those very same illnesses:

GLAUCOMA There have been quite a few papers published on reducing intraocular pressure with high oral doses of vitamin C. By golly, quite a few are indexed on Medline. Most are from German and Italian medical journals and were published twenty to forty years ago (!). Usually Medline states that there is "no abstract available." An abstract is an article summary. I wonder why the really hot articles are so often unsummarized by Medline, even if they are indexed.

Whoa! Here's one that must have slipped in under the radar:

"Vitamin C in high doses has been found to lower IOP (intraocular pressure) via its osmotic effect." (Head KA. Natural therapies for ocular disorders, part two: cataracts and glaucoma. Altern Med Rev. 2001 Apr;6(2):141-66.)

About 15 megavitamin C and glaucoma papers are discussed in a wonderful book with the blah title of The Healing Factor, written by Irwin Stone. Chapters 1-4 of Stone's book are posted at http://www.vitamincfoundation.org The chapter you want is chapter 20, part of which deals with glaucoma. The Healing Factor is out of print but available on the online used book market. How you can read it without buying the book: http://www.doctoryourself.com/libraryloan.html.

I would also recommend a look at the vitamin C links at the LINKS page at http://www.doctoryourself.com.

CANCER I've posted so many articles on this topic that I ask you to do a search for "cancer" from the top of the http://www.doctoryourself.com main page. You'll have plenty to read.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS http://www.doctoryourself.com/calcdef.html http://www.doctoryourself.com/ms_2.html http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v2n13.txt

AIDS http://www.doctoryourself.com/aids_cathcart.html http://www.doctoryourself.com/aids.html http://www.doctoryourself.com/vitamins_aids.html

MANY READERS, after reading these articles, have written to ask me, "Is there some kind of bias at work? Why the evident reluctance, even open opposition, to nutritional therapy?"

Opposition? What opposition?

Oh, yes. There's this:

THE WAR AGAINST SUPPLEMENTS CONTINUES The United Nations/World Health Organization has now officially "sounded the alarm about the unregulated and often unsafe use of alternative medicines ranging from acupuncture to herbal medicines and food supplements." (WHO warns about alternative medicines: Unregulated herbal pills, supplements are often unsafe. Reuters, June 23, 2004.)

The Reuters article admitted that "the WHO, which had no global statistics," nevertheless went right ahead and "issued new guidelines aimed at helping national health authorities develop reliable information for consumers, who often purchase such treatments over-the-counter and fail to inform their physicians."

The UN/WHO "assistant director-general for health technologies and pharmaceuticals," one Vladimir Lephakin, said at a press conference that "There is a need for strengthening control of food supplements in all countries."

Ladies and gentlemen, if this doesn't indicate the strength of the war against vitamins, nothing does. Now prescribed pot is OK, but over-the- counter supplements aren't?

That doesn't even pass the straight-faced test.

MEDLINE'S INDEX AND "THE" INDEX The Roman Catholic Church of centuries past was soundly criticized for creating an Index of books that good people should not be reading. That archaic and highly questionable tradition unfortunately lives on even today, but in secular form. Now there is an official "Index" of permitted scientific publications. It is the world's largest, with tens of millions of individual listings. And this Index is not located anywhere near the Vatican, but rather in Washington, D.C.

Let's be fair: the Church has freely admitted it was wrong to restrict scientists such as Galileo. On the other hand, to this day, an unelected committee at the U.S. National Library of Medicine still decides for you what you may and may not have access to. This, at the world's largest medical library, smack in the heart of in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

And the process is all done in secret. You are not allowed to communicate with the committee members who decide in your place what you want to be able to access, worldwide, on the electronic index called Medline.

THE CLOISTERED COMMITTEE Many Newsletter readers report receiving a form letter from Medline that said, in part, that

"If the (journal review) meeting were open to the public, word could circulate about a committee recommendation before a final determination was made by the Director, NLM. Public knowledge about a journal reviewed and not recommended could caste unfair doubt on the quality of the journal. . . While names of review committee members are public information (Editor's note: And we have them, further below), NLM never discloses names of primary and secondary reviewers for specific journals. Observers could obtain that information and it could affect the openness of discussion and might result in contact with specific reviewers after the meeting. It is NLM's policy to prevent unnecessary contact with specific reviewers."

There it is: no one is supposed to communicate with review committee members, because of the looming specter of the exercise of unfair influence. Remember, now, everybody: unfair influence is OK for drug companies, who bankroll studies printed by medical journals. And yes, those are indexed on Medline. But don't YOU try to get your two cents in. Lobbying is for those with millions.

But we have more votes than they do.

I really do think we have to make this whole matter public. Some readers are already writing emails to their Congressperson and Senators, as suggested in my last Newsletter. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n16.txt) I am looking forward to seeing the replies.

Questions being asked of your elected officials include,

* Why the secrecy? Why is an unelected "advisory" committee making decisions, in private, about what the public has access to on the National Library of Medicine's tax-funded Medline service?

* How objective, or biased, are NLM advisory review committee members whose credentials and training are primary medical?

* How many experienced orthomolecular (nutritional-therapy) scientists are on the NLM advisory review journal committee? Is there even one? If not, why not?

I think the whole idea of a select small group, an elite, an oligarchy, running a public library service, needs to be seriously and repeatedly questioned.

IS THE NLM's COMMITTEE "STACKED" AGAINST A MEGAVITAMIN JOURNAL? Thanks to interested readers, we now have the names of the members of the NLM review/advisory committee. It would not be appropriate for any of us to "lobby" individual members, though, so I ask you to refrain from doing so.

Nevertheless, I think few, if any, of the committee members appear to be especially favorably oriented towards vitamin therapy. This is the Journal's problem: a stacked deck. But this is also everyone's problem: these appointed experts are deciding what the public may and may not see on Medline.

All advisory/review committee members are appointed by the director of the National Institutes of Health. I have no doubt as to either their intelligence or their dedication. I do question their individual and collective qualifications to review and judge objectively on a Journal that specializes in high-dose nutrition therapy. Think about it: Would you have a committee of very well educated, hard working music and art professors decide if JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine were worthy of inclusion in Medline?

Therefore, let us take a look at the reviewers' professional qualifications and affiliations, to try to ascertain which of them have orthomolecular (megavitamin) experience or have published any orthomolecular papers. Do you think I am harping excessively on this? Well, keep in mind that these persons, listed below, are to review and either pass or reject an orthomolecular nutrition journal, which their committee has already, and repeatedly, rejected from the Medline index. Is there any reason to think any of the reviewers may be biased?

Let's see.

WE REVIEW THE REVIEWERS (whose names are all publicly posted at http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/members.asp?cid=100753&Title=Liter ature+Selection+Technical+Review+Committee&ABBR=LSTR)

CHAIRPERSON: SHEPRO, DAVID, PHD PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENTS OF BIOLOGY & SURGERY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, MICROVASCULAR RESEARCH BOSTON UNIVERSITY (The committee chair has authored 213 papers which are listed by Medline. None appear to be on orthomolecular subjects.)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: BRANDT, CYNTHIA A , MD ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, CENTER FOR MEDICAL INFORMATICS YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (Dr. Brandt's work is listed in Medline 46 times. I found no orthomolecular papers.)

CHEN, JINKUN, DDS, PHD PROFESSOR OF GENERAL DENTISTRY DIVISION OF ORAL BIOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL DENTISTRY SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE, TUFTS UNIVERSITY (Because Chen is a common name, Medline has a large number (literally thousands) of returns for a "Chen J" search. None that I saw were orthomolecular.)

DELCLOS, GEORGE L., MD DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER (25 Medline listings; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

DOUGLAS, JANICE G., MD PROFESSOR MEDICINE, PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOPHYSICS, PHARMACOLOGY CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (227 Medline listings since 1968. None appear to be orthomolecular.)

FREY, JOHN J., MD PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON (51 Medline listings since 1973. None appear to be orthomolecular.)

KAPLAN, JERRY, PHD PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE ("Kaplan J" is a common name; I saw no orthomolecular papers.)

MANNING, PHIL R., MD PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE EMERITUS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (Close to 50 papers; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

MCCLURE, LUCRETIA W. SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR COUNTWAY LIBRARY OF MEDICINE HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL (23 papers on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

SHARPS, PHYLLIS W, PHD ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR; DIRECTOR, MASTER'S PROGRAM SCHOOL OF NURSING JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY (8 papers listed on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)

SIEGEL, VIVIAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE SAN FRANCISCO, CA (19 papers listed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

SOEHNER, CATHERINE B. HEAD, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ (One listing on Medline, which does not appear to be orthomolecular.)

STERNBERG, ESTHER M., MD (6/30/2007) DIRECTOR, INTEGRATIVE NEURAL IMMUNE PROGRAM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (93 papers indexed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

TOM-ORME, LILLIAN, PHD (6/30/2006) RESEARCH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER DEPT. OF FAMILY & PREVENTIVE MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH (3 papers listed on Medline; none appear to be orthomolecular.)

WEISSMAN, NORMAN, PHD PROFESSOR, HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM (At least 20 papers listed on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)

SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ADMINISTRATOR: KOTZIN, SHELDON BIBLIOGRAPHIC SERVICES DIVISION NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE BETHESDA, MD 20894 (Medline's editor has 15 papers of his own on Medline; none seem to be orthomolecular.)

Based on what I saw, with Medline's own listings as my source, the National Library of Medicine's Medline journal review Advisory Committee appears to contain **not one single member** with orthomolecular training or experience.

Not one, out of all 15 of them.

Some jury, eh?

If anyone feels I have erred in my conclusions, I invite corrections for, and especially letters from, any member of the committee who feels that they have not been accurately represented above.

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN There was once another "Index" that stood for over four hundred years. It was created and perpetuated specifically to control thoughts, ideas, and reading material. It was part of a clandestine power-process that Medline would do well to avoid emulating in any way, shape or form: The Inquisition.

"The Congregation of the Inquisition was initially charged with drawing up a complete list of forbidden books. This list, the first general one, was published in 1559. . . The last edition of the Index was that of 1948; it was abolished in 1966 . . . During the proceedings against Galileo in 1633, his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World was placed on the Index, where it remained until 1824." (Albert Van Helden. Congregation of the Index; 1995. http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/c_index.html)

From Socrates to Orwell to every home computer user on Earth, free- thinking people everywhere rebel at the very idea of thought control. There is little difference between freedom of speech and freedom of literature. But if people cannot find it, they cannot read it. If they cannot easily find it, they can not easily read it. These days, you don't have to burn literature; just make it hard to access.

Please keep me posted on this issue, and I'll try to do the same for you. The NLM Journal Advisory Committee will be meeting in October.

While you wait, you can read these FREE FULL TEXT JOURNAL of ORTHOMOLECULAR MEDICINE PAPERS and decide for yourself if they are worth indexing by your tax-supported National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE.

Linus Pauling on Mental Illness http://www.orthomed.org/pauling2.htm (and also at http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.com/library/articles/orthotheory.shtml) .

Linus Pauling Defines Orthomolecular Medicine http://www.orthomed.org/pauling.htm

Principles of Orthomolecular Medicine http://www.orthomed.org/kunin.htm

Orthomolecular Case Histories http://www.orthomed.org/wund.htm

Nutritional Influences on Aggressive Behavior http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.com/library/articles/webach.shtml

High Blood Pressure and Chelation http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.com/library/articles/hyper.shtml

Abram Hoffer on the Megavitamin Revolution http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.com/library/articles/hoffer.shtml (and also at http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue7.1/Jom-ed2.htm).

Abram Hoffer on Humphry Osmond http://www.orthomolecularpsychiatry.org/humphry.pdf

Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath on Heart Disease http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue7.1/Jom-lp1.htm

Schizophrenia http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue7.1/Jom-hk1.htm

Lowering Health Costs with Nutrition http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue7.2/Jom-dh1.htm

Abram Hoffer on Vitamin C Deficiency http://www.healthy.net/library/journals/ortho/issue7.3/Jom-ed2.htm

The following Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine papers and reviews are posted at my website:

Why Vitamin C Megadoses http://www.doctoryourself.com/cathcart_thirdface.html

Vitamin C Therapy http://www.doctoryourself.com/mccormick.html and http://www.doctoryourself.com/levy.html

Vitamin E Therapy http://www.doctoryourself.com/evitamin.htm and http://www.doctoryourself.com/estory.htm

Vitamin D http://www.doctoryourself.com/dvitamin.htm

Gerson Therapy http://www.doctoryourself.com/gersonbio.htm

Arthritis http://www.doctoryourself.com/JOM1.html

Vitamins and Children http://www.doctoryourself.com/smith1.html

Why Vitamin Supplements http://www.doctoryourself.com/replace.htm

Fluoridated Water Risks http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoride_cancer.html

Thyroid Problems http://www.doctoryourself.com/thyroid.html

Caffeine Problems http://www.doctoryourself.com/caffeine_allergy.html and http://www.doctoryourself.com/caffeine2.html

Background and history of the Journal http://www.doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html

Privacy Statement: We do not sell, and we do not share, our mailing list or your email address with anyone. We never send out advertisements of any kind. You may notice that there is no advertising at http://doctoryourself.com and no advertising in this newsletter. We have no financial connection with the supplement industry. We do not sell vitamins or other health products, except for Dr. Saul's books, which help fund these free public services.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This newsletter is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision.

"DOCTOR YOURSELF" "DoctorYourself.com" and "Doctor Yourself Newsletter" are service marks of Andrew W. Saul. All rights reserved.

Copyright c 2004 and prior years Andrew W. Saul doctoryourself.com/contact.html . Permission to reproduce single copies of this newsletter FOR NON-COMMERCIAL, PERSONAL USE ONLY is hereby granted providing no alteration of content is made and authorship credit is given.

1

2