Add as bookmark

Letters to the Editor Issue 105

by Letters(more info)

listed in letters to the editor, originally published in issue 105 - November 2004

Hazel Scade Breast Cancer Update

(Hazel Scade's Case Study was published in Positive Health Issue 100 – June 2004.)

I feel so elated just thought I would like to share it with all of you.

Having reached the good old age of 50 I was routinely called for a mammogram. As you know, following my research that is definitely a NO NO!

Following further research, I went for a thermoscan yesterday. This was a lot less-invasive, painless and no radiation. Anyway, what has made me so elated is that it gave both breasts the 'all-clear'!!!! How about that? Four and a half years down the line and no surgery. (Do you remember that the medical profession said I needed a total mastectomy plus lymph glands removed from both armpits and another private Consultant stated that because the cancer was an invasive sort it would probably go to the other breast anyway, so perhaps I should consider bilateral?!)

There was still a small red mark on my spinal area, yet two years down the line, nothing further has developed and there is no need for concern.

The consultant said that my treatment path obviously seems right for me and he is not going to interfere, just have a repeat thermoscan in another 6-9 months.

So, 'hope you understand my feelings of elation and can share it with me – thanks to everybody who gave me the support when it was most needed.

If you know anybody else that would rather follow this route instead of a mammogram, just ask them to send a s.a.e. to me at P O Box 7025, Braintree, Essex CM7 9RZ and I'll send them details of breast thermography.
Hugs to you all


Codex Update

Carolyn Dean MD ND

After I wrote Death by Medicine I became very active in the politico/legal aspects of supplement and health care regulation. I began to work with Friends of Freedom, a health activist group in Canada. On June 22, 2004, we launched a legal challenge against Health Canada for their unconstitutional designation of several supplements as drugs.

After seven years of meetings with Health Canada and reassurances that supplements would be in the designated Food category, the Canadian government did the opposite and began to designate supplements as drugs. This policy is in line with the Codex Alimentarius proceedings in the European Union.

My work with Friends of Freedom resulted in an invitation to fill a chair at the next Codex meeting in Bonn, Germany. It is almost impossible for new delegates to be allowed at these proceedings, so I am very grateful for the opportunity to be involved.

Codex, you may or may not know about, but being in the health care industry, Codex could dramatically impact your life.

I'll quote from a forty-page document commissioned, in part, by Friends of Freedom, written by an American associate, Diane M Miller JD, Legal and Public Policy Director, National Health Freedom Coalition, and National Health Freedom Action.

CODEX is a group of 170 country member nations that have got together to set up international safety standards for the rules around the trading of food products (which they have decided includes food supplements like Vitamins and Minerals). CODEX has become a charged word in the food industry because of the differences of opinion about what type of standards should be applied to all member nations when trading food. Key players include:

1. Government officials: These are generally government employees from various agencies like the FDA and the DOA representing the American people at the international Rounds on trade. These officials are certain that they are doing the right thing delivering the position statements of their governmental agencies. The question to ask in this situation is whether an 'agency's position' is really always reflective of 'the people's position';

2. International corporations: These corporations finance professional staff from their for-profit corporations to travel and track the negotiations and write position papers and work to influence international governmental positions. The question here is whether the relationships between government employees and corporate employees are sufficiently independent and without conflict of interests with respect to each other's agendas;

3. International non-profit corporations: These groups, (non governmental organizations NGOs) are nonprofit corporations taking a stand one way or the other on global issues in order to impact international policy and laws. They can be special interest corporations that have an invested interest in a product area such as the International Dairy Association, or they can be consumer-based groups such as Consumers International. Although consumer based NGOs and other corporate NGOs are very different in focus and nature, they are all considered NGOs. NGOs have to raise donations from, often times, corporate sources. The questions here are whether the NGO is representing their members properly and whether they have been influenced by their funding sources or markets that they have an interest in. For consumers, it is especially important to ask whether a consumer-based NGO is reflecting consumer wishes;

4. Local and national activist groups: Local groups in each country generally do not have an international membership so they communicate with the international groups to glean information to tell the local people. Most of their staff are volunteers. The question here is whether they are getting accurate and
unbiased information;

5. Trusting Americans and Canadians: Trusting Americans and Canadians often are comfortable in their job, home, and priorities, and busy with their lives, and have no intention of learning or acting on global issues because of their complexity. Therefore they trust their elected officials and the people who really care about specific issues to do the right thing. The question here is whether the American people can trust the global process like they trust their own local processes;

6. And finally, vigilant Americans and Canadians: Vigilant Americans and Canadians are interested in being enlightened citizens on many issues and would do the right thing if they just knew what to do. The question for them is also one of trust. It is 'who to believe'?

I have the opportunity to be part of an NGO, which is Friends of Freedom, whose purpose is very simple. The medico/legal work I do for health freedom and much of my work for health care reform is essentially pro bono. Unfortunately, the people we are lobbying against have very deep pockets. This trip to Bonn will have a high price tag.

You can submit your donation by joining Friends of Freedom-International: And let me know so I can send you Diane Miller's paper.

I am well aware that everybody is asking for money these days but I also know that if we don't fight Codex now, none of us will have either personal access to supplements or professional access to supplements.

I am asking for a $250-$1,000 contribution. If you wish to share your report with other organizations and individuals please donate the larger amount and ask your friends to share your cost.

Sincerely and Thankfully
Carolyn Dean MD ND

Further Information
Source: Chris Gupta

The French Prohibition on Words Related to Healing

by Emma Holister

Where will the EU directive banning natural remedies and supplements lead us next? Look just across the border to France to get an idea…

On reading the book Healing, an Illegal Practice by Sylvie Simon we not only discover the truth about the brutal repression of alternative medicine in France but that the very title of her book itself is causing a scandal. Those in Alternative Medicine in France are faced with the confusing task of having to dance around in a baffling battle of semantics in order to be able to use most natural, traditional, effective remedies. Simon's title is aptly chosen.

In France, merely using certain words pertaining to health matters is against the law. Any therapist claiming the 'therapeutic' or 'medicinal' properties of a natural treatment risks being denounced and dragged before the law courts for 'Illegal Practice of Medicine'. Worse still, they risk being denounced as gurus of dangerous sects. The repression is often both medical and religious in nature.

Practitioners of alternative medicine as well as patients and parents choosing alternative means to treat their children, are pursued, harassed, criminalized and even imprisoned at the whim of the pharmaceutically dominated medical authorities. There have been cases of parents losing custody over their children for child neglect for not complying with the laws on compulsory vaccination of children against diphtheria, tetanus, polio and tuberculosis. A school has the right to refuse access to a child who has not been injected with these dubious and frequently toxic chemicals, products that research is currently revealing to be harmful to the child's health and immune system.

The 'Inquisitors', as Simon calls them, do their utmost to stamp out the population's desire for alternative medicine. The general practitioners who prescribe pharmaceutical products daily may occasionally flaunt an acupuncture needle around as a token gesture to the French medical practice having 'successfully integrated' alternative medicine into its program. However, do not be fooled. By law, no one other than a doctor from the mainstream pharmaceutically oriented schools of medicine is allowed to prescribe, diagnose symptoms, or claim medicinal, therapeutic or healing benefits, for anything other than what is officially permitted by the medical authorities and therefore the pharmaceutical industry.

It is against the law for anyone other than a mainstream doctor to practise acupuncture and homeopathy. A contradiction? The truth of the matter is that the only way to officially see an alternative medicine practitioner is to go to your mainstream doctor, who naturally, more often than not, will prescribe you more antibiotics, synthetic hormones, anti-depressants, whilst claiming that acupuncture and homeopathy are 'very good' but are 'slower and less effective' than allopathic drugs. It is difficult to get through several years of medical school without having been won over by these views. Alternative medicine in France has been hijacked.

What is the result of this on the French language? Some therapists in alternative 'medicine' (don't say that word) have accepted the bitter pill of censorship and optimistically claim to have no problem with this legal obstacle. They argue that it is simply a question of abandoning all vocabulary pertaining to health in order to practise natural 'therapies' (be careful with that word) 'freely' (and that one).

What is more worrying is that the general feeling of aversion towards doctors that is now occurring in this over-prescribed country has lead to a predictable prejudice against sensitive words such as 'doctor', 'medical', 'cure'. Sylvie Simon has even been criticised for having used the words 'Healing' and 'Illegal' in her book, pointing out that alternative 'medicine' (don't say that word), does not 'cure' because the patient 'cures' himself, that alternative 'medicine' (or alternative whatsit) is not illegal as long as we don't use the vocabulary of doctors, because natural therapies have nothing to do with 'medicine', 'doctors' and 'cures', these now being dirty words that the pharmaceutical industry are welcome to keep, we don't want them anyway.

Well, let's see, what does that leave us with in terms of vocabulary?

When the massage therapist Savatofski was pursued by the medical authorities for using the word 'massage' (permission to use this word is only granted to the official 'kinésithérapeutes') the problem was aptly overcome by changing the word 'massage' to 'touching', which so far, is not against the law. So whilst the alternative medicine practitioners jump for joy for having found a way to continue practising their healing art without more ado, the clients may find themselves in the strange position of having to say 'I'm going to get touched' instead of 'I'm going to have a massage'.

What has the good old-fashioned health-promoting massage been reduced to? Getting touched in a non-therapeutic manner? That does indeed sound vaguely illegal. What does a Chinese Doctor become? A Chinese Thingy? What does Oriental Medicine become? Oriental Stuff? What does Oriental Diagnosis become? Oriental What-ja-ma-call-it?

France may be the only country in the world to have an official government committee which studies all the new words occurring in French culture and which determines which of those words will be officially allowed or disallowed. So before anyone could confiscate my old dictionary with its old fashioned terms, I got it out sneakily and discovered that nowhere is it stated that these 'medical' words are the exclusive property of the pharmaceutically oriented modern medical world. In fact, looking at my dictionary of word origins, I discovered that these words all have ancient origins in Greek and Sanskrit that trace the entire history of humanity. So in reality these terms, historically speaking, describe what has now ironically come to be known as 'Alternative Medicine'.

Seeing, as our predecessors in all world cultures have always used these words, having always had the right to diagnose disease and prescribe healing remedies, it is difficult to understand why we must suddenly change and only allow the pharmaceutically oriented doctors to use them. Particularly in view of the fact that modern medicine is the leading cause of death in the world, and that is not even taking into account of the deaths caused by this same industry's commerce in pesticides and chemical warfare.

Source: Emma Holister
Further Information

Patrick Holford Comments on Lancet Antioxidant Cancer Trial

A study, published in the Lancet on 1 October on antioxidants and gastrointestinal cancer1 is being claimed to indicate that antioxidants don't reduce risk, and may even increase cancer risk. However, experts in nutrition and cancer dispute these claims. Patrick Holford, founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition, an independent charitable research centre, says:

"This is one of the most biased and unsubstantiated reports on antioxidants I've ever read. If you look at the actual results of this supposed comprehensive analysis of research you will see that the only really significant finding is a considerable reduction in gastrointestinal cancer risk with selenium supplementation. Overall, it shows that antioxidant supplements reduce the risk of oesophageal cancer, have little effect on pancreatic or oesophageal cancer, and slightly increase the risk of gastric cancer. Overall, the non-significant trend is towards protection, not harm. I believe this is an underestimation of the prevention power of antioxidants because this claimed comprehensive analysis of research excludes some very well designed positive studies, such as a trial of 864 people with a history of colorectal adenomas, by the National Cancer Institute. The participants were given either 25mg of betacarotene and/or both 100mg of vitamin C and 400mg of vitamin E, versus placebo.

"While there was approximately a halving of recurrence of colorectal adenomas in those who took either the betacarotene or vitamin C and E or both, there was a modest increase in cancer recurrence among those who only took betacarotene supplements and both smoked and drank alcohol every day.2 Why was this trial excluded?

"The final graph in the study, which is the only one showing a negative overall effect (the difference between 1 in 14 cancer patients on antioxidants having a recurrence, versus 1 in 15 cancer patients having a recurrence), was arrived at by removing any positive studies on the grounds of 'low methodological quality', and averaging seven other studies. This is a most atrocious piece of biased number crunching and I'm surprised that The Lancet published it. I certainly won't be stopping my daily antioxidant supplement, although I wouldn't advise heavy smokers to supplement beta-carotene on its own."

Patrick Holford, founder of Institute of Optimum Nutrition
Tel: 020 8877 9993

1. Bjelakovic G et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis The Lancet. 364: 1219-28. Oct. 2 2004.
2. Baron J et al. Neoplastic and antineoplastic effects of beta-carotene on colorectal adenoma Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 95 (10): 717-22. 2003.

Lancet Meta-Analysis On Antioxidants And Cancer – Old News In Tabloid-Style Headlines

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) says The Lancet is sacrificing scientific integrity for publicity.

A meta-analysis on antioxidant supplements and gastrointestinal cancers in the Oct. 2, 2004 issue of The Lancet1 rightly points out the need for more long-term studies in this area, but in an effort to draw headlines, The Lancet takes an incendiary quote from an accompanying commentary out of context and ignores the authors' conclusion that the findings are exploratory and preliminary. "It's not news to say that we don't know for sure what might prevent cancer," says Annette Dickinson, PhD, president for the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN). "At the same time, it's unfortunate that of the fourteen studies reviewed in the meta-analysis, only three focused on healthy people.

While studies can successfully draw upon unhealthy populations to find solutions for healthy populations, antioxidant supplements in and of themselves should not be expected to reverse the negative effects created by a lifetime of smoking or poor dietary habits."

In addition, Dr Dickinson points out that clinical trials in high risk people using a single nutrient do not really test the hypothesis that a diet (including supplements) rich in a variety of antioxidants is protective against a variety of natural insults ranging from cancer to heart disease, cataracts to dementia, and low immune function to bad gums.

According to Dr Dickinson, "Most consumers take antioxidant supplements for the wide range of health benefits they provide. These benefits include protective effects against some cancers but also strengthening disease resistance, preserving eyesight, and maintaining mental function. These benefits and others can be gained through healthy lifestyle choices like regular exercise, proper nutrition and long-term use of some dietary supplements."

CRN's John Hathcock, PhD, Vice President, Scientific and International affairs, stresses the point that the effect of comparing different supplements in the same meta-analysis results in violating a primary rule of meta-analysis – combining only similar studies – and discounts the valuable information one would otherwise learn about the individual supplements. Says Dr Hathcock, "Averaging out the effect of beta-carotene and selenium in the same meta-analysis is like saying if you have a husband who is morbidly fat with a wife who is morbidly thin, you've got a couple with an ideal weight."

But what is most alarming is the publication's tabloid-style use of a misleading, unfounded conclusion gleaned not from the actual study but from the commentary, and designed to generate headlines. Unfortunately for the public health this irresponsible approach could lead to inappropriately discouraging consumers from garnering the wide range of important benefits that antioxidants provide.

By using a single incendiary and scientifically inaccurate quote from the commentary in not only their press release but also as the sole focus of their cover, The Lancet has effectively moved from prestigious scientific journal to tabloid-style journalism in an effort to create visibility for their magazine. Since, as the commentary authors say, "The mortality analysis in Bjelakovic and colleagues' review is work in progress, and does not offer convincing proof of hazard," The Lancet owes the public an apology for its irresponsible attempt to choose to create publicity over practising journalistic integrity. Says Dr Dickinson, "Lancet's handling of this article makes it frighteningly clear that we have moved into an age where getting headlines takes precedence over a scientific journal's responsibility to report without bias."

1. Bjelakovic G et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 364: 1219-28. Oct. 2 2004.
Gretchen Powers, Creative and Technical Director Council for Responsible Nutrition Tel: 001 202-776-7925 Contact: Judy Blatman: Tel: 001 202-204-7962
Source: Elwood

Statins Work Independently of Cholesterol Effect

Now that the results of long term studies of statin use have been published, few would argue the effectiveness of statin drugs in reducing cardiovascular disease risk. To be sure, other substances having nothing or little to do with our alleged nemesis, cholesterol, also have demonstrated considerable benefit in this regard. Such therapies include omega-3, Coenzyme-Q10, vitamins B6, B12 and folic acid, anti-oxidants and even buffered aspirin. But in considering only the statins, study after study has shown the benefit of these agents in reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke, whether used for primary or secondary prevention. However, almost buried in this barrage of positive results is our growing research evidence that this reduction of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality from statin use has occurred independently of cholesterol effect.

Regardless of the cholesterol level of the subject at the start of statin therapy, whether normal or high and regardless of the level of cholesterol reduction, whether great or small or none at all, statins, originally felt to work solely as an inhibitor of cholesterol biosynthesis, appear to work independently of cholesterol. Just what is going on here? Weren't we all taught years ago that only by decreasing serum cholesterol by haranguing our patients these past 35 years as to the merits of a low fat/low cholesterol diet and by writing expensive prescriptions for a long list of increasingly potent cholesterol 'busting' drugs could we expect to reduce cardiovascular disease risk? And now we find statin benefit independently of any cholesterol factor. Isn't cholesterol still 'public health enemy number one'? Can't we still use the 'C' word to frighten small children?

Adding to this evolving puzzle about the cause of cardiovascular disease is the work of Kilmer McCully, who, despite massive obstacles of opposition to any concepts of arteriosclerosis and atherosclerosis contrary to a cholesterol causation, successfully demonstrated to the then reluctant scientific world that homocysteine elevation is a major player in cardiovascular disease, relegating cholesterol's appearance in plaques as that of an 'innocent bystander'. Adding to cholesterol's innocence is its vital role in our body – mediator of synaptic transmissions, precursor of vital hormones and the most abundant biochemical in our brains. Only in its unnatural, oxidized form does cholesterol exhibit toxicity. Sort of ruins your weekly shopping trip through the pastry aisles, doesn't it? Can you find a decent cookie of cake, free of the 'oxy' form of cholesterol.? I doubt it! Does this mean back to fresh eggs and whole milk? Think about it!

Despite this evidence of a new non-cholesterol factor in cardiovascular disease risk, our nutritional and pharmaceutical world remains steadfastly focused on cholesterol, the villain. Most of our primary care physicians today, marching lockstep to drug company guidelines, prescribe whatever dose of powerful statins is required to lower serum cholesterol, even though this same cholesterol is increasingly considered to be irrelevant. Statins work by another mechanism, drug company researchers say. They relieve inflammation in the endothelial lining of blood vessels – this reduces sclerotic change. And recently, the greedy eye of our statin 'monster' (for that is what it has become in terms of economic and social impact) is focusing on extending the use of statins to organ transplant recipients and victims of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. Why, because they work!

To read Shovman's excellent review in Cutting Edge Reports of "The anti-inflammatory and immuno-modulatory properties of statins is like entering the topsy-turvy world of Alice in Wonderland, where the effect of lowering one's immune defenses, which most of us intuitively feel is of doubtful benefit, can be interpreted as good for the organ transplant recipient and autoimmune disease victim but bad for most infectious disease and cancer risk." One must admire this 'positive spin' ability usually seen only in the Washington political arena. The good I see from the large numbers of excellent studies having to do with this new statin role of attenuating our immune system is that the attention of our clinicians is now beginning to be focused on the true cause of arteriosclerosis and atherosclerosis and the realization will soon dawn that cholesterol is conspicuously absent in the 'usual suspects' line-up. When, we might ask, will the doctors who write the prescriptions begin to question the merit of a cholesterol lowering dose of statin drug when cholesterol is not an issue? Although the results of the ongoing low dose statin trials will not be known for several years, we already have some tantalizing clues.

One of the most relevant comes from Japan where Matsuzaki reported the results of a 6-year follow-up of 47,294 Japanese patients treated with low dose Zocor (5-10 mg daily) for their hypercholesterolemia. Most would consider statin doses in this range to be bordering on sub-therapeutic, yet even with this low statin dose, there resulted substantial lowering of cardiovascular disease mortality. I cite this study as one of the very first to examine the effectiveness of low doses of statins on cardiovascular disease risk independent of cholesterol effect.

Since the development of statin drugs, the end-point for judging effectiveness has been the cholesterol response. If cholesterol seemed reluctant to be lowered, a higher dosage of statin was the almost automatic response. Our focus on cholesterol as the culprit has led us to higher and higher statin dosages over the years as target levels for our serum cholesterol have been progressively lowered. Today it is almost standard that the starting dose be at least 20 to 40 mg, of Liptor or Zocor, (or its equivalent in the other statins) and 80mg doses have become increasingly common. All of this is justified to bring down the sometimes stubbornly elevated cholesterol in a current research climate where every day reveals increased irrelevancy of cholesterol.

Since cholesterol response no longer seems to be a valid end-point in determining statin dose, the entire strategy for dosing these drugs must be reviewed, using a marker of inflammation as an end point, not cholesterol. The effectiveness of statins on cardiovascular disease risk at radically lower dosages must be defined. Using Lipitor as an example, the relative benefit on cardiovascular disease of 5 mg and even 2.5 mg should be studied. As Jay Cohen has emphasized in his book, Over Dose, most side effects of the statin drugs would never have occurred if the philosophy, 'start low, go slow' on statin dosing were applied. The obvious problem with this philosophy is the apparent lack of a meaningful end-point that defines anti-inflammatory success. C-reactive protein is an inflammatory marker that has shown considerable usefulness in defining high risk for cardiovascular disease but, unfortunately, it is non-specific. Inflammation anywhere in the body from chronic unsuspected infectious disease such as low-grade prostatitis, urethritis, cholecystis, gingivitis, cervicitis, or diverticulitis or even the onset of the common cold may trigger falsely positive CRP test results, meaningless in terms of underlying arterial inflammation. A far more specific test when available for wide spread use may be the increasingly well-known transcription factor, nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB).

This vital substance appears to be the basis of our entire complex of anti-inflammatory and immuno-modulatory reactions. All statins have been proven to inhibit NF-kB, some far more strongly than others, but a curious observation has been noted, which if validated, will be of considerable importance. This observation is that only small doses of statin drugs are necessary for surprising inhibition of NF-kB, and doubling or tripling this dose results in only modest increases in inhibitory effectiveness. This effect parallels that of aspirin on platelet inhibition. Small doses (81mg) are very adequate for this purpose and tripling or quadrupling aspirin dose serves only to increase side effects with little or no increase in platelet effect. Incidentally, this reaction also is mediated by NF-kB.

Although it is far to early to rejoice, there is compelling reason to believe that statin dosing considered minuscule by today's standards may truly be a 'friend to man' in the future, with near absence of our present scourge of side effects.

Source: Chris Gupta

Banning Vitamins Will Cause All-Out War Between Patients and Doctors

A massive international conspiracy has been hatched by the pharmaceutical multinational companies (MNCs) to stop the manufacture and sale of more and more formulations of vitamins, minerals and other food supplements. Many corrupt politicians have also got involved in this big conspiracy as they get huge bribes regularly. Are these conspirators aware of the frightening consequences that are likely to follow their malevolent designs?

The manufacture and sale of many vitamin, mineral and other food supplements are being deliberately phased out by the pharmaceutical MNCs because they want to concentrate on the sale of patented drugs which bring massive profits to them. These drug manufacturing companies are not interested in the prevention and treatment of various diseases through the prescriptions of vitamin, mineral and other food supplements, as most of these preparations cannot be patented to bring large profits.

Most of the pharmaceutical MNCs are constantly working to get the prescriptions of vitamins and other dietary supplements banned, so that all the diseases would be treated only with the administration of their high-priced patented drugs. Many allopathic doctors, medical shops and hospitals have been openly colluding with the pharmaceutical MNCs in drastically restricting the sales of preparations containing vitamins, minerals and other food supplements. They only want to boost the sales of the costly patented drugs, which bring massive incomes to all of them, even though such drugs are extremely toxic when used regularly.

A ban on vitamin and other food supplements can be strictly enforced only in the developed western countries. But there will soon be a massive revolt especially by the educated and enlightened patients in the West. The underdeveloped countries too can be affected by this war between patients and doctors, but the common people there know how to bypass the ban on the essential medicines and drugs of any type through the means of massive smuggling!

Do the people in western countries know that a number of doctors in India have been attacked and even murdered by the enraged relatives of patients who had died allegedly due to the negligence in treatment by those doctors and due to the use of toxic drugs on patients? One large hospital near Mumbai was completely destroyed by a furious mob soon after the death of a political leader was allegedly caused by the wrong and negligent treatment by the medical staff, who was also severely beaten.

The massive conspiracy of the greedy drug companies and the corrupt politicians to bring a ban on vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements cannot succeed for long. Let the governments of all countries and the WHO be warned about the distinct possibility of an all-out war breaking out between patients and doctors. The ban on vitamins could also lead to the declaration of a total war by the people against those pharmaceutical MNC


Ashok T Jaisinghani, Editor & Publisher Ranked as No. 1 Website in the World by many top search engines in the category of Wonder Cures.
Tel: (009120) 26353308
Source: Chris Gupta


  1. No Article Comments available

Post Your Comments:

About Letters


top of the page