Monday, July 20, 2009

Our healthcare system

Voices are saying that health care is going to be socialized medicine if President Obama gets his way. If we are in such good shape that we don't need a socialized health care system, why is it that it took doctors 10 years to diagnose my son Erik's stage 5 kidney failure. This is what our reality in this country looks like, even with Medicare and Medicaid. Erik had to sit through years of futile doctors' appointments. Not once during that time did a doctor look at Erik's whole body, took his blood pressure, checked his stacks of records even though Erik had numerous broken bones. The kidney failure could have been diagnosed 10 years ago. The 20 something doctors that pretended to have seen Erik did not see it necessary to take a closer look at him. Instead they repeated a false label of "cerebral palsy" that a doctor attached to his name to cover up his mistake. All those doctors were paid with tax payer dollars while Erik's condition worsened. At one point Erik's leg was supposed to be amputated. It didn't happen because I prevented it.

Is treatment like that really better than socialized medicine? Given what I experienced with Erik I take it gladly. In the countries where it is practiced, you may need to wait a few more weeks. But after those extra weeks, you get a valid diagnosis and and you get treated with compassion, and the doctor actually looks at you. Erik wound up in a wheelchair even though his mother was his mouthpiece. She told the doctors what to look for.

I find this system barbaric, a crying shame and more. The reason why Erik did not get help is not because we have a system that failed him. I would rather say that this country has lost its social conscience. Is it really cheaper to remain mired in merciless technology and doctors that act like robots or should we not instead stop quibbling about words and get with it and do the right thing even though it might look a bit like socialized medicine?

Granted there were doctors, few and far between, who eventually helped him. But it certainly was not because we have a superior system.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Get it right

Mercury does have a place among toxins. It's so strange to see the scientific world be in denial. Mercury is a toxin. Why is that so hard to understand?

Just a week ago I finished a translation of a paper written in 1966 Theoretical Contemplations about the Etiology of Sclerosis Multiplex -- Multiple Sclerosis a Mercury Allergy, by Dr. Ernst Baasch. The paper asks the question whether dental amalgam is connected to Multiple Sclerosis (MS). He makes a pretty good case connecting the two, i.e. MS and dental amalgam. He points out that MS is a geographic illness that affects people who have spent time in Northern or Southern latitudes over 40 degrees from the equator. This fact is a given. From there he explains why dental amalgam is the triggering factor.

So far, all that makes good sense. What is not explained is the question why people are afflicted with MS in those latitudes.

I think I have an explanation for that. Mercury is the reason for that -- be it from dental amalgam or from any other source.

First it has to be explained that the kidney makes a hormone called 1,25(OH)2D3 (Calcitriol). This hormone is derived from Vitamin D that is obtained when the sun's UVB rays shine on a person's skin. Passing through the liver it becomes 25(OH)D3 which in turn reaches the kidney where it becomes Calcitriol. Calcitriol is made at the proximal tubule of the Kidney. Calcitriol is the active form of Vitamin D. This has been known since 1970.

Now, mercury is known to cause kidney damage. Mercury damages the proximal tubule of the kidney's filtering system, i.e. it damages the area where Calcitriol is made. That means mercury poisoning causes Calcitriol deficiency meaning Vitamin D deficiency.

What does that have to do with MS? I mentioned earlier that MS is a geographic illness that happens in latitudes over 40 degrees from the equator. It is virtually unknown in latitudes near the equator. Why would that be? It is because the UVB of the sun's rays is abundant in those areas and not in the higher latitudes.

There are confounding factors to this theory. MS is not common in Norway and Alaska. So why would those countries have less MS? The answer lies in a diet high in Vitamin D containing foods eaten in those areas.

So why would Vitamin D deficiency matter when it comes to MS? It is postulated that mercury is the toxin that causes MS. Mercury is the agent that damages the human body's system. Vitamin D happens to help fix it in all areas (Vitamin D intervenes at the DNA level inside the cells) not just the bones. Vitamin D helps make glutathione, a major detoxing agent. That means when Vitamin D is missing, mercury can do more damage everywhere.