ALTERNATIVE TO ANTIBIOTICS?
WHY SHOULD THERE BE ONE?
Four freshmen students come down with
the flu at their college dorm. One of them is sick with a sore throat for a few days but
doesn't miss any classes.
The second student also suffers from a sore throat, runs a fever for
some days, stays in the dorm and misses some classes. The third student develops fever,
rash and enlarged lymph glands in his neck. He is very fatigued and consults his
physician. The tests for "mono" - infectious mononucleosis, the kissing
disease - come back positive. He is given a steroid shot and advised to go home and
rest for a few weeks. At home, he feels unduly tired as weeks pass by. He returns to
school, still tired. He gradually regains his usual level of energy over the course of
The fourth student also tests positive for mono and is given a steroid
injection. He becomes progressively tired, loses several pounds, develops a hacking cough
and runs a low-grade fever. His family physician prescribes more broad-spectrum
Weeks go by, but the fourth student doesn't recover. His
low-grade fever doesn't let up, and his cough persists.
He consults his physician again and is
prescribed a course of broad spectrum antibiotics. His fatigue persists, and he suffers
from malaise, headache and muscle aches. His parents are worried now and take him to a
rheumatologist. He orders many tests and prescribes yet more antibiotics and some
non-steroidal antiinflammatory agents.
The cough persists and he develops wheezing. His physician orders some
more tests and prescribes steroid therapy. He begins to suffer from mood and memory
difficulties and becomes depressed.
More Nystatin prescriptions are followed by more antidepressant
A return visit to his physician earns him a prescription for Elavil.
He continues to lose weight and develops joint pain.
His parents become very worried
and take him to another rheumatologist who orders yet more tests and then prescribes a
non-steroidal antiinflammatory pain killer. The drug adds stomach discomfort to the long
list of his symptoms.
The young man's condition continues to deteriorate. His parents panic
and take him to a famous chronic fatigue expert, one who authoritatively orders four
thousand dollars worth of immunologic tests and states that the young man suffers from
chronic fatigue syndrome. The young man and his parents have their worst fears confirmed.
The fatigue expert then writes out a prescription for Acyclovir
(an antiviral drug) and changes the antidepressant medication to Prozac.
The fourth student loses more weight, develops "new" allergies,
becomes sensitive to perfumes and formaldehyde, and suffers from unrelenting abdominal
bloating and digestive problems. He becomes anxious, confused and frightened.
A friend gives him a copy of The Yeast Connection. The young man
begins to read the book and suddenly it dawns on him that the yeast syndrome described in
the book fully describes his condition. He is both elated and relieved. At long last, the
young man knows the cause of his suffering.
He now sees a naturopathic yeast specialist who gives him a load of
vitamins and prescribes high colonics.
The therapies really work and his energy level improves for the first time
since he fell ill. His mental functions improve significantly.
Weeks go by and his fatigue returns - and with it his worst fears. Deeply
disappointed that the relief was just temporary, he now consults another yeast specialist
who undertakes another work-up and prescribes Nystatin.
Once again, his initial response is very positive. Within a week, there is a
recurrence of fatigue and related symptoms. More Nystatin prescriptions are
followed by more antidepressant prescriptions.
The energy roller coasters persist, each low becoming deeper than the
preceding. The young man continues to waste away.
Deeply anguished and frightened, the parents take the frail body of what was
once a healthy human being to another fatigue center - one out of state.
This time, a comprehensive workup includes a muscle biopsy that shows
injured and split muscle fibers, overgrowth of mitochondria and some dead muscle fibers.
A SPECT scan (single Photon Emission Computed Tomography) shows
diminished blood supply to the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, and a PET scan
(Positron Emission Tomography) reveals evidence for impaired glucose metabolism. Cortical
evoked potential studies show abnormalities of P3 waveform and reduced amplitudes of some
Many other tests for biologic immune response modifiers show evidence
of damage to several different components of the immune system.
Six months later, the young man is convinced that this "think"
is for life. The parents sadly begin to wonder if this is the end of the dreams they
cherished for their son.
An unusual case history? A sensationalistic attempt at melodrama? Not for
those who have suffered the unremitting agony of such devastating journeys. Not for those
who will surely see part of their own heart rending stories in it.
All of us who care for sufferers of chronic fatigue have thick clinical
charts in our offices that tell and retell such sad and unnecessary stories.
PROMOTING POOR PROTOPLASM
A senior surgeon colleague recently told me that he thought
the number of children he saw with poor protoplasm had increased markedly during the brief
period of his own surgical career.
Protoplasm is the soup of life that makes up each living
being. I was introduced to the term "poor protoplasm" in my first year in
medical school. This term was used by our teachers for people who were always getting sick
- and, in doing so, frustrating their treating physicians. The idea behind this term, of
course was simple: Such individuals were constitutionally weak - genetically destined to
be sickly. I didn't see it then, but this model of poor protoplasm comes in handy to s
physicians in more than one way. It absolves us of any wrongdoing.
Our drugs do what they were designed to do. Now if someone
still chooses to be sick, it's really his problem isn't it?
Our medical science is sound. We do our part right. Our
drugs do what they were designed to do. Now if someone still chooses to be sick, it's
really his problem, isn't it?
We medical students learned his lesson well. Unlearning is
much harder than learning, and nowhere - it seems to me - is it more so than in medicine.
Unlearning is not written into the scripts we physicians follow when we leave medical
schools for the "trenches" of clinical medicine. A surgeon friend has been out
of medical school for over 30 years. Still, he cherishes the concept of poor protoplasm.
I asked the surgeon why he thought children have poor
protoplasm now more than in the past. He shrugged his shoulders.
"Who knows? Maybe you do. I mean you're the one who
writes about oxidized fats and denatured proteins and pollutants and increased oxidizing
capacity of the planet Earth and the oxidant stress molecules." He chuckled.
My surgeon colleague left out something important in his
brief list of things: the part we physicians play in promoting poor protoplasm.
ANTIBIOTICS CREATING CHRONIC FATIGUE
The prevailing mode of drug medicine creates fatigue in two
at the slightest prompting, it feeds little
babies broad-spectrum antibiotics (translation: designer killer molecules that have broad
powers to kill everything in sight and ruin the delicate
bowel ecosystems) and older folks
receive multiple drugs that slowly but most assuredly impair their life span enzymes.
Second, it actively withholds from the
sick effective, non-drug nutritional and environmental therapies. Chronic fatigue is
created by chronic neglect of essential health issues and by shortsighted drug therapies
for health problems that can be effectively managed without drugs.
It is not only environmental pollutants, poor nutrition and
stress that are turning many people into canaries. The tools of drug medicine are
contributing their fair share. This sad story does not end here.
The champions of drug medicine ferociously harass a handful
of holistic physicians who seek to promote health with natural therapies. It may seem a
harsh criticism of my profession. But it is well deserved.
A CLICHE TELLS THE STORY
"If you treat a cold, it takes three weeks, if you
don't it takes 21 days."
Recently, a visiting professor at a hospital conference
spoke the above words and grinned broadly to communicate to us how good he felt about his
His comments turned my thoughts to how rapidly human
biology is undergoing profound changes as we relentlessly prescribe drugs in pursuit of
the glorious dreams of Star Wars medicine.
Of course, we all remember the old cliche: If you treat
a cold it takes a week, if you don't it takes seven days. Why did the cliche change from
seven days to 21?
Those of us who seek to care for our patients with non-drug
therapies know things have changed. Common colds that leave in their wake malaise, muscle
aches and a hacking cough for weeks are not uncommon. Such colds not uncommonly turn into
Often I see another facet of this problem of prolonged
recovery from common colds:
Many chronic fatigue sufferers make painstakingly slow
progress with non-drug nutritional, environmental and self-regulatory approach therapies.
And then they come down with a cold that is treated with
long courses of antibiotics. They nose dive and months of restorative work go down the
A MOMENTOUS DISCOVERY
Recently, someone made an astounding discovery. He realized
people could be safer a home than in a hospital. Fascinating stuff? We understood this as
medical students in Pakistan in the early 1960s
"The result is a war in which humans using
refrigerators, sanitation, boiled water, and antibiotics try to kill, starve, and subdue
microbes. The microbes fight back by developing new pathways, new proteins, and new
strategies for survival that are as ingenious as those devised by humans out to destroy
them. It is a war involving millions of lives, causing pain and tragedy. One doctor,
interviewed by this editor said, "When these new drug-resistant strains become
endemic in hospitals, you will be safer staying home than going to a hospital, unless you
have a truly dread disease."
Science 257:1021; 1992
Safer at home than in hospitals! Such comments amuse me.
Everyone recognizes the chemical risks we all face. And yet when fatigue experts of drug
medicine lecture on how to treat chronic fatiguers, all they talk about is drugs. They
never talk about environmental sensitivities or adverse food responses or allergies.
I never hear one word about
coasters or about nutrition. Not one word about meditation. Not one word about slow,
sustained exercise. Not one word about some spiritual dimensions. All these fatigue
experts love to talk about is the Epstein-Barr virus and then they move on to extolling
the virtues of their favored antidepressants.
This is the central issue facing those who suffer from
chronic fatigue and their caretakers. The battle lines are clearly drawn. On one side are
physicians like me who are convinced that the true answer to this problem is in restoring
normal energy enzyme pathways with non-drug therapies.
On the opposite side are champions of drug medicine who are
equally convinced it is simply a matter of time before some drug will arrive at the scene
and cure chronic fatigue syndrome once and for all. We have our clinical outcome studies
to buttress our case. The drug medicine folks are pregnant with the glorious promise of
miracle drugs in the wings.
There is an irony in the battle between holistic medicine
and mainstream drug medicine. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, believed in the innate
healing nature of the human body, and taught his pupils to look for answers to the
problems of sickness in that inner healing capacity of injured tissues.
If the injured tissues are allowed to heal, he taught
his students, they will do so. Democratus, a contemporary of Hippocrates about 2,500 years
ago, thought Hippocrates was nuts. The human body, he pronounced, was made up of tiny
particles, which he called atoms. In his theory of atomism, sick organs were incapable of
healing by themselves. He scorned Hippocrates for his theory of vitalism. The battle
between atomism and vitalism has raged on in one form or another ever since.
The gods of American medicine who populate our medical
schools and sit on state medical schools and sit on state medical licensing boards think
that real diseases can be treated only with drugs and surgical scalpels. Hence, their
wrath against those who seek answers to chronic fatigue in Hippocrates' vitalism - in
nutritional medicine, in environmental medicine and in medicine of self-regulation. Their
venom against holistic physicians today isn't any less lethal than that of French doctors
The sad truth is that our American gods of drug medicine
know little, if any, about issues of functional nutritional deficiencies, adverse bowel
responses to foods, battered bowel eco-systems, chemical sensitivities, delayed
consequences of toxic metal overload, and the "Fourth of July" chemistry under
the skin of chronic fatigues. Those are the real issues in restoring normal energy
pathways in chronic fatigues.
None of those issues are of any concern to the
practitioners of drug medicine because none of them can be truly addressed with the
of our synthetic chemistry.
Many champions of drug medicine will snicker at my notions
of holistic molecular relatedness in human biology. They would want me to compartmentalize
my fatigue patients in some cage, so that I could follow their prescriptions of
double-blinded, crossed-over research models.
They would want me to feed one group of my patients some
kind of drug and the other
sugar pills. They would insist on that kind of proof.
They do not understand that such a frivolous notion of
proof is utterly irrelevant to holistic methods of caring, where the only thing that
really matters is whether or not chronically tired people regain their normal energy
patterns. From extensive clinical experience I know they do. And I know that from the
experience of my colleagues in environmental and nutritional medicine.
Pasteur concentrated on one factor - the Anthrax bacillus -
because his sheep were made sick by just that one single agent. I have to think
differently for my patients because my patients are not made sick by just one thing. They
are vulnerable in many ways. They are different from Pasteur's sheep. This the champions
of N2D2 medicine do not comprehend.
I AM OPTIMISTIC
This is my chance to answer my colleagues who do not
understand how anyone in holistic medicine can be optimistic today.
"Something wonderful happened...and a quiet
grass-roots revolution in health care was officially recognized...last week on the
sixth floor of government Building C in Bethesda..
The something wonderful was the atmosphere of respect and
affection accorded to about 90 spokesmen for "unconventional therapies" invited
to present their treatments to an unusually eclectic ad hoc panel convened by the National
Institutes of Health... There is a generosity of spirit manifested here... In the midst of
the optimism and good will, however, was an undercurrent of anger and distrust. There were
frequent mentions of unnamed individuals practicing controversial and allegedly successful
therapies who didn't dare appear for fear of losing their licenses.
Washington Post, June 26, 1992
I am a realist as well as a dreamer. Within months of this
conference, the office of one well-known nutritionist was raided by authorities with drawn
guns. They confiscated his supply of vitamins. Some months later, the license of another
colleague was summarily suspended because one of his very sick patients developed a
complication following an intravenous treatment.
How many surgeons do I know whose licenses were suspended
because one of their patients developed complications after surgery and died? Indeed, how
many surgeons would have still retained their licenses if their licenses were revoked
every time a surgical complication developed? Not one! I am sure of that.
How many oncologists do I know whose licenses were revoked
because the patient died as a result of their
chemotherapy and not of his disease? It is
not at all uncommon for patients to die of sepsis after their immune defenses have been
totally destroyed with chemotherapy.
How many internists would still have their licenses if
their licenses were to be rescinded every time there was a complication caused by a drug
prescribed by one of them?
Then there are times when practitioners of drug medicine
turn on holistic doctors, and report them to state licensing boards. I know of physicians
whose licenses were revoked because they treated their patients with nondrug therapies.
The area's practitioners of drug medicine banded together to put them out of business -
and did exactly that.
Many medical boards take the position that all nondrug
nonsurgical methods of treatment are unconventional, and hence punishable. The holistic
physicians who use nondrug therapies have no defense against such tyranny.
Such are the burdens we holistic physicians carry! Such are
the risks we take! If you think this is cheap melodrama please go and listen to the wives
of physicians who lost their licenses simply because they tried to care for their patients
with nondrug therapies. I know, because I have listened to them. I know many families of
holistic physicians that were destroyed by maestros of N2D2 medicine.
I am not optimistic because I have not witnessed the
tyranny of drug medicine or the venom of its high priests. Or because I do not know their
capacity for inflicting hurt upon those who choose to think differently. Or because I am
not aware of how fiercely the state licensing boards protect the interests of N2D2
medicine. Or because I do not see the unfaltering devotion of the editorial boards of our
medical journals to the double-blind, cross-over. Or because I have not experienced the
disdain of disease doctors for those who do preventive medicine.
I am optimistic for different reasons.
"We are incarcerated in the double-blind,
cross-over model," said Majid Ali, a New Jersey pathologist whose clinical practice
stresses nutrition, fitness and environmental therapy. "It is not appropriate for
holistic therapy, in which there are many variables and neither the practitioner nor the
patient can be blinded to treatment."
Washington Post, June 23, 1992
I am an optimist because once we know something, we cannot
unknow it. I am optimistic because the truth cannot be suppressed forever. And the truth
is that the gods of the double-blind, cross-over medicine are false gods. And their
disciples who sit on the editorial boards of medical journals and consider all nondrug and
nonsurgical therapies quackery are misguided. Their double-blind, cross-over research
model is totally and utterly irrelevant to our work with chronic fatiguers.
No matter how dictatorial and ruthless the state
licensing boards become, holistic physicians are not going to abandon safe and effective
nondrug therapies. And the truth is that chronic fatiguers are beginning to see it.
They are beginning to see through the folly of hiding
behind frivolous diagnostic labels. They are beginning to see through the yarn that
practitioners of drug medicine weave for their benefit. They are beginning to see through
the false promise of wonderful drugs that are touted to cure chronic fatigue - and only
leave them sicker.
The truth is that chronic fatiguers are beginning to stay
away from drug trials. They are shunning antiviral therapies that make them more toxic.
They are rejecting those megabuck work-ups that only lead to prescriptions for
The truth is that an ever-growing number of chronic
fatiguers are not waiting for Godot. By and large, they are looking for answers in their
nutrition, environment, self-regulation and in some spiritual dimensions. And by and
large, they are succeeding.
These are the reasons I am optimistic. There are yet
Extrapolation to the U.S. population suggests that in 1990
Americans made an estimated 425 million visits to providers of unconventional therapy.
This number exceeds the number of visits to all U.S.
primary care physicians (388 million). Expenditures associated with the use of
unconventional therapy in 1990 amounted to approximately $13.7 billion, three quarters of
which ($10.3 billion) was paid out of pocket.
New England Journal of Medicine, 328:246, 1993
This is an eye-opening conclusion from a very large study.
It should remove any doubts in anybodies mind as to the preference of American people in
health care. Indeed, they preferred nondrug therapies to drugs even when they had to pay
for it twice, once as a premium for health insurance and the second time as a fee for
The United States is a democratic society. In such a
society, the majority opinion determines what the standards are - and what they should be.
If we hold as valid the principle of majority opinion, then it is quite evident from the
above study what the majority of Americans want: nondrug therapies.
Drug therapies must be considered as unconventional - not a
bad idea at all, because there is nothing wrong with using unconventional therapies in
unconventional (acute, life threatening) diseases. The conventional health disorders -
those caused by problems of nutrition, environment, stress and fitness - should be managed
with conventional nondrug therapies.
"Forget health care reform or reinventing government.
The biggest volume of mail being logged in many Congressional offices these days calls on
the lawmakers to block action by the Food and Drug Administration to ban the sale of
vitamins and other dietary supplements. ... The Hatch-Richardson legislation would lower
the new labeling standard to allow health claims for supplements supported only by
unconfirmed preliminary studies not subjected to any meaningful scientific per review ...
The fight, in other words, really isn't about keeping supplements on the shelves. It's
about the right of unscrupulous companies and individuals to maximize profits by making
The New York Times, October 6, 1993
This editorial by the Times
surprises me. The Times
usually speaks for citizen rights. Why does it choose to act differently in the matter
First, it recognizes that Americans are much more
interested in protecting their free access to nutrients than they are in President
Clinton's grandiose plans for revamping the entire health care system - in which he cannot
succeed unless he makes preventive medicine the centerpiece of his strategy.
Next, it moves to defend the regulatory restrictions on
nutrients. The Times' words against free access to nutrients for Americans do not matter
much to me.
What is heartening for me is its recognition that Americans
consider free access to nutrients more important than Clinton's plans. I continue to be
NIH REFERS A PATIENT TO A HOLISTIC DOC!
Blasphemous! Delusive plausibility of an ideologue! Not
Trudy L, a 41-year old teacher, consulted me for a long
list of complaints that included incapacitating chronic fatigue, weight loss, sinusitis,
malaise, low-grade fever, skin rashes, daily headaches, arthralgia (joint pains), myalgia
(muscle pain), neuritis (persistent pins and needles in limbs), "increased
sexuality," mood and memory difficulties and depression.
"I was a teacher, I have a double masters. I had the
energy of a butterfly," she spoke fervently. "That was five years ago when I
went to Central America. I returned with some kind of parasite. I have had 13 workups,
with every blood test you can name, and X-rays including CAT scans, MRI scans.
The MRI scan showed some bright spots in my brains. I went
to Johns Hopkins and Hahnemann. The guy at Hopkins told me it was all depression and gave
me a prescription for an antidepressant. The fellow from Hahnemann was honest. He said he
really didn't know what my problem was."
I listened to the story. Nothing really new there for me. I
thumbed through the heavy chart. In the end, I asked,
"How did you come here?"
"I was referred to you."
"NIH?" The words simply escaped my lips before I
regained my composure.
"Yes! by NIH." She seemed to sense my surprise.
"That's interesting. Did you ever develop fatigue when
you were a teenager?" I tried to change the subject.
"It wasn't easy finding you, Dr. Ali," she
returned to the subject of referral.
"Well! You're here now. Tell me if you suffered
fatigue when you were a teenager."
"I wasn't ready to give up," she was intent on
telling me more about her journey. "After Hopkins and Hahnemann, I was determined to
find someone who could solve this puzzle. I want my life back. so I called NIH, and I
called them and I called them. Finally someone there gave me your number."
When the NIH begins to refer patients to holistic
physicians, there is hope. I am optimistic.
DRUGS ARE POISONS THAT SOMETIMES HELP
A psychiatrist colleague one day limped into my office at
the hospital, leaning on a walking stick. He had lost considerable weight since I had seen
him last and looked exhausted.
"What happened? I asked with concern.
"The virus did it," he forced a smile.
"You have lost some weight, haven't you? I asked
"Yes about 15 pounds."
"And you look tired," I added.
"Tired! You can say that," he strained as he
shifted his weight on the stick. "I was very tired to begin with. They put me on
heavy doses of antidepressants that make fatigue worse."
"Why? I asked, surprised.
"I suppose they thought an antidepressant would help.
Or maybe they thought the whole thing was in my head and I was simply depressed."
"Did antidepressants help?
"You really don't know what these psychiatric drugs
do to you unless you happen to be the patient." The psychiatrist forced another
smile. "The cholinergic side effects were terrible. So I stopped all drugs."
"Hopefully you'll get over it soon. "I wished him
I'll tell you something for your next book," he
continued. "Drugs are poisons that sometimes help. I don't know who said that, but
whoever it was knew something about drugs," he grinned, shifted on his stick and
He has made the first discovery that drugs do not work for
chronic fatigue, I thought. Hopefully, he will also make the second: that nondrug, natural
therapies do work.
Drug therapies for chronic fatigue are becoming more common
among practitioners of drug medicine.
Drugs, in my judgment, have no valid place in the care of
people suffering from chronic fatigue. Drugs work by blocking, impairing or inactivating
enzymes. Almost all drugs increase oxidant stress on tissues. This is the reason why there
are no drugs in the PDR that do not have any side effects.
The judicious short-term use of drugs, of course, may be
necessary to manage those health problems that are most often associated with chronic
A NEW KIND OF MALAY A NEW KIND OF PHYSICIAN
Chronic fatigue will be the dominant chronic health
disorder of the 21st century. Prophecy is an uncertain business. And perhaps more so in
medicine than in any other field of endeavor. Yet, who among us has the wisdom to resist
it? I am certain that the epidemic of chronic fatigue states that we witness now will
continue to spread among our children, among our adults and among our elderly.
The pandemic of chronic fatigue will also, I am confident
expose he principle weakness of the prevailing mode of drug medicine.
Ill-health caused by problems of nutrition, environment
and stress cannot be managed with miracles of synthetic chemistry. I do not believe this
realization will come from the academia. It will come from the people who suffer from
chronic fatigue and who are drugged for short-term benefits and long-term ill health.
As the pandemic of chronic fatigue continues to claim new
victims in ever-increasing numbers, and as the false promise of drug therapies for fatigue
is widely recognized, chronic fatiguers will learn about the real molecular dynamics of
such energy, both in health and in states of chronic fatigue.
People who suffer unrelenting chronic fatigue quickly
discover that drugs do not work. These people are now forcing their physicians to look
beyond the false promise of drugs for a cure. They are learning - and more and more
chronic fatiguers will as time passes - the true nature of chronic fatigue.
They are looking beyond simplistic notions of Epstein-Barr
infection, Lyme disease, yeast connection, intestinal dysbiosis, immune-depression
syndrome and a host of other diagnostic labels favored by most physicians.
Chronic fatiguers are demanding that their physicians look
for the answer to their problems in their own host defenses - their energetic-molecular
defenses that normally preserve their energy enzyme pathways.
Chronic fatiguers in the future will seek out a
different kind of physician - a new kind of physician who understands human biology and
the impact of environmental agents on man's genetic makeup.
He will be a physician with moral courage to defy the petty
platitudes of drug doctors who sit on the state licensing boards and threaten to revoke
He will be a holistic physician, someone who understands
the metabolism of nutrients, the chemistry of environment, the pathology of immune
disorders, the physiology of exercise and the energy dynamics of self-regulation.
He will be a new physician for new patterns of suffering.
Two things will be important to him: first, the words the patient uses to describe his
suffering; and second, the energetic molecular events that cause that suffering and the
natural means of reversing those events.
He will have no use for the scientific vigor of drug
researchers and their obsession with miracles of synthetic chemistry.
Drugs - as necessary as they may be for symptom-suppression
in acute distress - cannot be considered legitimate therapies to manage chronic fatigue
There is a complete agreement among physicians about the
clinical efficacy of intravenous nutrient protocols. Those who use these protocols are
completely convinced of their enormous clinical value. Those who do not use them are
equally convinced of their futility.
Intravenous Nutrient Protocols allow us to dramatically
reduce the use of antibiotics and other drug therapies. They are extremely effective for
resolving hard to define, but unrelenting clinical symptoms including, fatigue, stress,
panic attacks, palpitations, mood and memory disorders, abdominal bloating, symptoms of
allergy and chemical sensitivity.
Further, these protocols frequently allow us to
successfully manage patients with chronic indolent degenerative and immune disorders who
obtain little long-term clinical relief from the prevailing pharmacologic regimens.
In classical medicine, we follow what I call the dogma of
three D's (one disease, one diagnosis, one drug). This is the legacy of Oslerian
philosophy of using all available clinical data to arrive at the diagnosis of a single
disease to be treated with a single therapeutic.
Drugs, we know, work by inactivating, impairing or
inhibiting one or more molecular pathways. Drugs are designed for this purpose.