Showing posts with label Dr.Dorodny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr.Dorodny. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

The War Against Doctors


Imagine completing college, then 4 years of graduate school and finally working as a trainee for three to ten years while earning 3-4 times the Federal Poverty level. Then you are permitted to work on your own and go into business, but are unable to set the rates that you will charge your customers.

You are required by the federal and state government to pay for the privilege of working, and have to comply with intrusive regulations making it more costly to conduct business with no ability to pass these costs along to your customers.

You have almost a 100% chance of being sued during your career and in many cases cannot get insurance to protect you. Your job requires 60-80 hours per week and weekends and nights no longer belong to you.

Your business is being threatened by individuals who have not gone down your path and want to get into your business “through the back door”, because they believe that they can do an equivalent job without all of the sacrifice that you have made. And they are getting this opportunity.

This is the reality for US physicians.
SD is a plastic surgeon who needed to leave her state and move across the country because it became impossible to meet overhead and to earn a salary. MB is a urologist in the southeast who could not afford her overhead because insurance companies slashed her reimbursements, so she had to move into an 1100 square foot office. RA is a surgeon in the north who faces the possibility of losing his entire referral base which the local hospital now controls, unless he cooperates with them. JS, an ophthalmologist and her husband, a surgeon, could not make ends meet in California because insurance reimbursement is so low and had to leave to provide for their family of 4.

At a time when it is trendy to invoke the term “war” against various groups, such as the contrived, GOP “war against women” or “war against seniors”, it may appear trite to say that there is a war against doctors; but there is.

This has been going on for decades and cannot be blamed on President Obama or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but sadly, both have facilitated an escalation of this war.

One might ask- is there a war against doctors? The simple answer is yes and it is all about money and control. There is no healthcare without doctors, who happen to be at the center of the myriad of healthcare events under their daily control. Healthcare is a $2.3 Trillion annual economy accounting for approximately 16% of our gross domestic product. There is tremendous incentive to control doctors and hence, the flow of huge dollars. Entities have unsuccessfully tried to do so in the past. Insurance companies in the 1980s tried doing so using capitated HMOs. Publicly traded Wall St. firms in the 1990s made a futile attempt to buy medical practices to squeeze out profits by controlling physician behavior.

The lessons of the past were not lost on the architects of the ACA, but it required a group assault on physicians, coming at them from different directions. The cabal of the hospital and the insurance industries, along with the federal government posed an almost insurmountable challenge. In exchange for the support of the American Hospital Association, the federal government gave hospitals a tremendous advantage, by outlawing physicians from opening their own hospitals, which would naturally compete against existing hospitals. Furthermore, the ACA promotes Accountable Care Organizations as a preferred reimbursement model for healthcare. This arrangement is like capitated HMOs, but on steroids. The third party payer issues a single payment for a hospitalization and leaves it to the ACO to divide the payment fairly (not likely).

In anticipation of this change in reimbursement, hospitals are purchasing physician practices in an attempt to control healthcare market share. The likely outcome will be fewer doctors who are self-employed, as reported in the Wall St. Journal, and ultimately, the demise of the private practice of medicine.

The war against physicians is being waged on many fronts. Trial attorneys are fighting to preserve the status quo of the medical malpractice system, where they are the primary beneficiaries. It is coming from non-physician healthcare providers such as nurse practitioners or optometrists. They hire aggressive political lobbyists and spread around hundreds of millions of dollars to influence politicians who then create laws that confer physician status upon these allied healthcare professionals.

Public awareness of this war on their doctors is essential in order to understand the antipathy of doctors for Obamacare, and the concern that they have regarding the future of medicine in the US. It warrants a strong public outcry because when the doctors no longer work for their patients, but instead for some other entity, then heaven help our patients.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Моя краткая авто-биография

Aкадемик Дородный, Виктор СеменовичАкадемик В.С. Дородный, ректор и основатель "Naturopathic Evidence-based Wellness Institute"(Институт Доказательной Интегрированной Медицины), Малибу, Калифорния с 2003 г. до настоящего времени.

Служил Вице-президентом "Ай Си Эн Фармасьютикал" (ICN, Inc.) по корпоративному развитию в Восточной Европе, и одновременно служил Иностранным Советником Фонда Развития Экономических Наук России; Иностранным Советником Министра Здравоохранения Российской Федерации; Президентом Северного Американского Отделения РусскогоНационального Фонда " ЗДОРОВЬЕ".

До 1999 г. служил Медицинским директором "Superior Consultant Company, Inc.", Детройт, Мичиган, США - единственной в мире полностью интегрированной компании по медицине, организации и управлению здравоохранением, информационным и компьютерным системам.

Сферы компетенции Академика В.С.Дородного как врача-руководителя, консультанта и успешного международного бизнесмена включают корпоративное развитие, системный анализ организации и управления компаний, инвестиции, слияние и приобретение компаний, оптимизацию активов, коммерческую разведку.

Международный эксперт по военной медицине и медицине катастроф, Командор ВМФ США в отставке, Кувейт-Ирак (1991-1992), Командующий Медицинской Службы Береговой Охраны Южной Калифорнии (2003-2005), реактивирован в 2005 для борьбы с последствиями стихийных бедствий в США.

Также служил Техническим Консультантом Всероссийского Центра Медицины Катастроф "ЗАЩИТА", Москва, Россия (1999-2003гг.), Академик В.С.Дородный удостоен грамот и наград Генштаба России за восстановление Медицинской службы Чечни (2000-2002).

Практикующий врач, ученый и практический технолог Академик В.С. Дородный является признанным международным экспертом по фармацевтической промышленности, фармацевтической экономике, по организации и управлению медициной и здравоохранением на основе систем информации и связи, системам по предоплатной медицине, по телемедицине, а также многим другим.

Академик В.С.Дородный, являясь Учредителем и Президентом компании "Неаlth PRO Worldwide,Inc." ("Интер ПРО Здоровье", Пасадена, Калифорния, США), служил с 1993 года: Консультантом по Здравоохранению Президента США; Консультантом Организации Объединённых Наций по Экономике и Социальному Развитию; Техническим Консультантом Государственного Департамента Юстиции США и Федерального Бюро Расследований; Вице-президентом Американской Национальной Организации Врачей-Организаторов Здравоохранения; Членом Комиссии Губернатора и Сената Штата Калифорния по Перестройке Здравоохранения.

В настоящее время академик В.С.Дородный является Членом Совета Директоров Американской Ассоциации Врачей-Технологов, Американской Ассоциации Крупных Врачебных Организаций; Членом Научно-Консультативной Службы Конгресса Калифорнии, Членом Совета Директоров Американского Национального Конгресса Врачей-Организаторов Здравоохранения; Почетным Членом Международного Общества по оценке применения и внедрения технологии в Медицине и Здравоохранении; Советником Национального Института Альтернативного Будущего США, Советником Американской Государственной Администрации по качеству и безопасности пищевых продуктов и лекарств (US FDA).

Доктор Медицины, окончил Медицинский Институт имени Н.И. Пирогова, Одесса, Украина; Действительный Член Международной Академии Информатизации, Женева, Швейцария; Магистр Здравоохранения; интернатура, Медицинский Факультет Университета Альберта Энштейна, Бронкс, Нью-Йорк.

Академик В.С.Дородный окончил резидентуру по Анестезиологии и Реаниматологии, Медицинский Центр Университета Южной Калифорнии,Лос Анжелес, Калифорния, является дипломантом Американской Медицинской Академии по Обезболиванию и выпускником Института Организаторов Здравоохранения, Университет Южной Калифорнии в Лос Анжелесе; Дипломант Американской Коллегии Врачей-Юристов.

Автор многочисленных статей и книг, Член Редакционного Правления многочисленных международных медицинских журналов, единственный в США врач-член Редакционного Правления крупнейших международных журналов "Information Security-Безопасность и Охрана Информации" и "US Pharmacist Американский Врач-Провизор".

Частый спикер штатных, национальных и международных конференций по Медицине и Здравоохранению. Медицинский Корреспондент Лос Анжелевского еженедельника "Herald Tribune" и комментатор Американского Радио и Телевидения.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Silent Inflammation--a not so silent Killer!

Every wellness-conscious person should be aware of the silent killer responsible for many multi system deadly and disabling disorders. My friend and a colleague Dr. Bary Sears is clear and concise--please read, it might improve and/or save your life!

Be aware, talk to your doctor, get tested and get treated, if needed!
Be Well and remember that it's not the effort that counts, but its effectiveness!
Dr.D.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Back by popular demand!

Dear Patients, Friends & Patrons,

After focusing most recently on academic and pharmaceutical/nutraceutical research projects, and in response to numerous patient requests, I am returning to part-time clinical practice, where my cross-disciplinary expertise is best put into practice treating patients' bodies and souls in their perpetual quest for betterment!
I am pleased to announce my association with a preeminent medical weight management practice with five locations across Los Angeles County, including Encino and West Los Angeles.

This new association allows me to provide overweight and obese patients with innovative, up-to-date, individualized and comprehensive weight-control treatments.

Since 2003 I have been working to integrate established general medical principles with newer holistic and functional approaches.

The result is the Therapeutic Lifestyle Management (TLM©) program triMDream™ (aka sliMDream™) ,
a multi-component lifestyle intervention that provides doctor-supervised and nurse-controlled safe and effective weight loss, followed by long-term weight maintenance at uncommonly affordable rates.

Please call (424) 204-5004 to be directed to the clinic closest to you, or contact me directly @: Dorodny@medscape.com

Be Well!


Friday, October 10, 2008

Should you give (or take) a hoot?

Originally published on August 5, 2006

There has always been a demand for “quick-fix”, “no-pain” weight loss pills.After the ban on the herb ephedra, the market was particularly ripe for the next new "weight loss solution", preferably one that didn't have the same stimulating side effects as ephedra.

Hoodia gordonii is also called hoodia, xhooba, khoba, Ghaap, hoodia cactus, and South African desert cactus hoodia is a cactus-like plant that's causing a stir for its ability to suppress appetite and promote weight loss.


Hoodia is commercially available in capsule, liquid extract, spray, patch or tea form in health food stores and on the Internet.

Hoodia gordonii can be found in the semi-deserts of South Africa. It grows in clumps of green upright stems and is actually a succulent, not a cactus. It takes about 5 years before hoodia's pale purple flowers appear and the cactus can be harvested.

Although there are 20 types of hoodia, only the hoodia gordonii variety is believed to contain the natural appetite suppressant.Although hoodia was "discovered" relatively recently (2005 by CBS 60 minutes), the San Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert have been eating it for a very long time.

The Bushmen, who live off the land, would cut off part of the hoodia stem and eat it to ward off hunger and thirst during nomadic hunting trips. They’ve, reportedly, also used hoodia for severe abdominal cramps, hemorrhoids, tuberculosis, indigestion, hypertension and diabetes.

In a 2004 study (Brain Res. 2004; 1020(1-2):1-11 (ISSN: 0006-8993) conducted at the Brown Medical School, Providence, RI a steroidal glycoside with anorectic activity in animals, termed P57AS3 (P57), was isolated from Hoodia gordonii and found to have homologies to the steroidal core of cardiac glycosides.

Intracerebroventricular, (seriously!) (i.c.v.) injections of the purified P57AS3 demonstrated that the compound has a likely central (CNS) mechanism of action.The studies demonstrated that the compound increases the content of ATP by 50-150% in hypothalamic neurons.

In addition, third ventricle (i.c.v.) administration of P57, which reduces subsequent 24-h food intake by 40-60%, also increases ATP content in hypothalamus.

With growing evidence of metabolic or nutrient-sensing by the hypothalamus, ATP may be a common currency of energy sensing, which in turn may trigger the appropriate neural, endocrine and appetitive responses as similar to other fundamental hypothalamic homeostatic centers for temperature and osmolarity.

In layman terms, the chemical constituents in hoodia might work within the satiety center by releasing a chemical compound similar to glucose, but are up to 100,000 times more powerful.

However, it is just a theory, for now.The hypothalamus receives this signal as an indication that enough food has been consumed and this in turn stunts the appetite.

This pure organic hoodia gordinii contains a molecule that, possibly, effects, fools the brain into believing you are full, and can even stop the brain from thinking about food-got to love this proposition!(?)

However, there is no clear and/or convincing evidence of any medicinal effects of hoodia.

Scientists at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa’s national laboratory, began studying hoodia and the initial results were promising -- lab animals lost weight after taking hoodia.

Later, the South African scientists, working in conjunction with a British company named Phytopharm, isolated the active ingredient in hoodia, a steroidal glycoside, which they named p57.Phytopharm has spent more than $20 million on hoodia research.

The company completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study in overweight, but otherwise healthy volunteers using the P57 extract from hoodia gordonii.The participants were split into two groups, one received the P57 and the other received a placebo. Each group was told to continue their normal diet and exercise.

The results of the study were as follows: When comparing the hoodia group to the Placebo group, the hoodia group had a statistically significant reduction in caloric intake, had a statistically significant reduction in body fat and had no adverse side effects--if it sounds to good to be true, it probably isn't!

The South African government has strictly regulated the exportation of hoodia to the rest of the world. A Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (C.I.T.I.E.S.) certificate is required to legally export hoodia gordonii from South Africa.

C.I.T.I.E.S. is an international agreement between countries design to protect and regulate international trade of wild animals and plants. Hoodia gordonii is one of those plants protected by C.I.T.I.E.S.The demand for real hoodia is great, but the supply isn't.

Until very recently, hoodia gordonii was only found in the wild in South Africa. Hoodia is difficult to grow.It requires 4-5 years to mature and temperatures in the range of 122F. The supply is scarce, which keeps costs high. (in the range of $115-160 per lb for the un-concentrated raw material).

Due to the high demand and relatively short supply, about 60% of so-called hoodia products on the market are in fact counterfeit.Reputable manufacturers make their authentication documents available for consumer inspection on-line.

There are three different ways of processing hoodia. Knowing these different ways of making hoodia products is very important: Most of the hoodia capsule products are made from powder out of hoodia plants.The whole hoodia plant is ground into a powder. Products using this method claim that since Bushmen, alegedly, ate the whole hoodia plant, it's therefore the most effective way.

However, the Bushmen actually(?) peeled away the hoodia skin and discarded it; they didn't actually eat the entire hoodia plant. This is the cheapest type of hoodia to manufacture, and most likely, the least effective.

Hoodia extract products discard the fiber and skin, that just takes up room and provides little to no positive effect. This processing method extracts and concentrates the active ingredients.

These products usually come in 20:1 or 10:1 potency levels. 20:1 means that 1 g of this extract was made by using 20 g of the whole plant and 10:1 means that 10 g of the whole plant were used to make 1 g of their extract.

The NEW Institute has conducted an "anecdotal" clinical" study with a number of informed willing patients and myself.

The bottom line: unless you are a South African lab animal or Bushmen, stick to moderation, healthy diet and exercise.

Be well!

***This article is to be used for education and general discussion purposes only. It does not constitute medical opinion and should not be used for or relied upon as medical advice. Publication of this newsletter does not create physician-patient relationship between the reader and the author. The article does not contain comprehensive description of the subject issues discussed. It is based on present medical knowledge which is subject to change and is unclear in numerous respects. Statements regarding the bio-efficacy of the nutritional supplements have not been evaluated by the FDA. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The issues discussed can not be resolved without specific analysis of the specific circumstances of each person. The readers should consult with their individual health care/wellness professional to resolve their individual situation. Regrettably, the author of this article will be unable to respond to individual questions, but will address issues of interest to the majority of our membership and the general public.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Fish Oil v Fish

From www.AskDrD.com, posted May 9, 2006


"A new tuna warning for pregnant women” article in the Health section of the June 12, 2006 issue of the Los Angeles Times stirred quite a controversy in the health and wellness community.

As a result, the NEW™ Institute in Malibu, California has received a number of inquiries. The original article (May 9, 2006) was published in response to legitimate concerns of the general public caused by mass media desire to cause a sensation, rather than provide useful information.

Fish oil supplementation has waxed and waned in popularity over the past decade.In the late 1990s when large clinical trials such as the GISSI study were published supporting the cardiovascular benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil became one of the most sought after supplements.

Hence, most health and wellness experts recommend consumption of fish and shellfish to meet some of the human bodies’ requirement for fish oil.However, due to fish oil's less than desirable taste characteristics, it was not well tolerated by even its most ardent supporters.

Improved molecular distillation processing has helped to enhance fish oil's purity and flavor and there are now even more studies to support the benefits of fish oil supplementation that reach beyond heart health.Some of the these studies were presented at the Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Recommendations for Therapeutics and Prevention Symposium, Institute of Human Nutrition, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York in October of 2005.

Recent studies by Craig L Jensen, M.D. (that included outcome measurements of gestational length and birth weight, preeclampsia, recurrent miscarriages, and maternal depression) have found positive associations between fish intake and gestational length and birth weight.

In a randomized multi-center trial, supplementation of 2.7g EPA and DHA from 20 weeks gestation or 6.1 g EPA and DHA from 33 weeks gestation reduced risk of preterm delivery.Preeclampsia is a common problem during pregnancy, especially as maternal age increases.

Observational data of potential effects of n-3 fatty acids on preeclampsia and related conditions show benefit.Additionally, the potential effects of n-3 fatty acids and recurrent miscarriages are promising.

Pilot study supplemented fish oil in patients with persistent anti-phospholipid syndrome associated recurrent miscarriages and found over a 3-year period, 86% of the patients had well babies.

Clinical depression has been associated with low levels of n-3 fatty acids, particularly DHA. A large, multi-country observational study of postpartum depression found a negative correlation between seafood consumption and/or breast milk DHA concentrations and postpartum depression.

Maternal DHA levels decline during pregnancy (as well as postpartum) as DHA is transferred to the fetus or newborn to aid in neural development.

Studies by Susan E. Carlson, M.D. clearly demonstrated that there is definitive evidence that DHA is essential in cognitive and visual development of a fetus/child because DHA is concentrated in the brain and retina.

Dr. Carlson discussed the positive long-term effects of early DHA supplementation related to higher Bayley Psychomotor Developmental Index (PDI) (gold standard for neurological development, measures body control, coordination and fine motor skills) in scores at 30 months, higher IQ at 4 years, higher MFFT (Matching Familiar Figures Test) score and speed at 6 years, and lower diastolic and mean blood pressure at 6 years of age.

However, the specific benefits of adequate DHA intake during periods of rapid brain development may not be measurable until older ages. Infant development studies often compare formula to human milk.

Human milk levels vary and the United States is considered an "at risk population" for low DHA levels, because US women consume lower levels of DHA compared to intake in other countries.
Human milk DHA content varies primarily as a result of mother's dietary intake differences.

The highest levels of DHA in human milk are found in the Japanese and marine China female populations.The United States has some of the lowest levels of DHA in human milk. In the United States, DHA was added to infant formula in 2002.

To reach worldwide median human milk DHA consumption levels, formula should contain 0.3% to 0.4 % DHA and women who are considering getting pregnant, who are pregnant and are breastfeeding should consider supplementation -- current recommendations are 300 mg/day.

Epidemiologic studies in the United States report 500 mg/day of n-3 fatty acids can decrease CHD (coronary heart disease) risk and mitigate many risks of pregnancy as well as to contribute to the fetal and neonatal cognitive development.The average American diet only provides 100 mg EPA and DHA per day.

This is 5 times less than the amount observed for cardiovascular benefit and also 5 times less than the WHO's current dietary recommendation for EPA and DHA. Not only are consistent recommendations needed, strategies to increase intakes are also necessary.
Some recommendations are to increase fish intake, while others recommend specific amounts of EPA and DHA either as supplemental or marine sources.

Since March 2004, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have recommended women who are pregnant, nursing or planning to become pregnant should eat no more than 6 ounces of albacore tune a week; and recommends up to 12 ounces (the amount of fish in two meals) per week of fish and shellfish low in mercury, such as shrimp, salmon, light tuna and catfish for general population.

Current prudent recommendations for consumption of fish (other than tuna) high in n-3 fatty acid contents are anchovies, mackerel, salmon, sardines, sea bass, swordfish, and trout.Some of these fish also need to be consumed in limited amounts because of mercury and other toxins. Swordfish, king mackerel, shark, and tilefish should be limited to 7 oz/week; red snapper should be limited to 14 oz/week; while salmon, catfish, and mahi-mahi have no restrictions.

Water sources have differing toxic levels of mercury, PCBs, digoxins, and others that may alter these general suggestions.However, Consumer Reports magazine published by Consumers Union recently said that 6% of canned tuna tested by the FDA “contained at least as much of the metal—in some cases more than twice as much—as the average albacore”.

It further recommends that women who are pregnant, nursing or planning to become pregnant eat neither “fresh”, nor canned tuna.

Again, this a “knee-jerk” overreacting by an ill qualified layman organization that creates panic, without informing the general population of the fact, that nutritional benefits of fish oil in seafood (especially in general population) easily outweigh the risk of trace amounts of contaminants.

Clearly, the general public often receives conflicting, and frequently contradicting, recommendations from mass media, Governmental and private sources--not only are consistent recommendations needed (please see above), but strategies to increase intakes are also necessary.

An effort by Kris-Etherton to substitute fish oil with walnut, flaxseed, soybean, and canola oil can contribute to meet LNA (pre-cursor of EPA and DHA) failed, despite the results from the landmark Lyon Diet Heart Study.

A Mediterranean style diet could provide approximately 0.6% to 1% energy or 2 g LNA, no more than 7 g per day LA, be rich in oleic acid, poor in saturated fat, and low in n-6 fatty acid sources.

The American diet, unfortunately, does not mimic these fatty acid intakes and is very high in n-6 fatty acid intake, which hinders the ability for LNA to be converted to EPA and DHA.

Having understood the critical importance of EPA and DHA for healthy childbearing and proper cognitive development of fetuses, infants, children and adults, and following the recent recommendation of the Consumer Reports, where should a pregnant and/or breastfeeding women to turn to?

Nutritional supplements of the health food grade fish oil, even in rather lower doses recommended by most of the over-the-counter manufacturers (700-1500 mg/day) generally provide a proper level of protection for pregnancy and child development.

Levels of in-organic (Dioxins, Mercury, etc), as well as microbial contamination of those supplements could be as high as in the fish it’s made from. However, in the recommended doses the possible side effects of contaminants are, probably, negligible.

The commercial grade fish oil is affordable and easily available.


Pharmaceutical grade (PG) oil is produced through 8-stage purification process followed by concentration with resulting no trans fats, and higher levels of EPA and DHA and low contaminants levels.

Some PG fish oil products contains 100 times less PCB's than health food grade fish oil, has twice the EPA and DHA as found in health-food grade fish oil.

Further, most people will not experience mild gastric problems often found with high doses of health-food grade fish oil.

The supply of this type of pharmaceutical grade fish oil is very limited since it takes 100 kg. of health-food grade fish oil to make just 1 kg. of pharmaceutical grade fish oil!

One teaspoon of the liquid OmegaRxTM contains 1.8 grams of EPA and 0.9 grams of DHA.

Such quality of fish oil is usually not available in health food stores because the supply of this type of pharmaceutical grade fish oil is very limited since it takes 100 kg. of health-food grade fish oil to make just 1 kg. of pharmaceutical grade fish oil!

And that is why one teaspoon of the liquid OmegaRxTM may contain 1.8 grams of EPA and 0.9 grams of DHA.

Although pharmaceutical-grade fish oil costs 10-20 times more than health-food grade, responsible manufacturers keep their price per gram of EPA and DHA as low as possible as shown below:


Product Grade: Price PerGram ofEPA & DHA


Lowest grade health food grade $0.30
Molecular distilled health food grade $0.54
OmegaRxTM Pharmaceutical grade capsules $0.56
OmegaRxTM Pharmaceutical grade liquid oil $0.49

All & all, pharmaceutical grade fish oil offers significant advantages and wellness benefits than the health food grade one, a
nd, yes, higher concentration requires a lesser number of capsules to swallow!

Happy fishing and/or fish oiling.

Be Well!

***This article is to be used for education and general discussion purposes only. It does not constitute medical opinion and should not be used for or relied upon as medical advice. Publication of this newsletter does not create physician-patient relationship between the reader and the author. The article does not contain comprehensive description of the subject issues discussed. It is based on present medical knowledge which is subject to change and is unclear in numerous respects. Statements regarding the bio-efficacy of the nutritional supplements have not been evaluated by the FDA. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The issues discussed can not be resolved without specific analysis of the specific circumstances of each person. The readers should consult with their individual health care/wellness professional to resolve their individual situation.


Saturday, March 29, 2008

Sen. Obama supports Eugenics

On 3/23/2007 Sen. Barack Obama without much fanfare introduced Senate bill S.976 with a stated purpose “to secure the promise of personalized medicine for all Americans by expanding and accelerating genomics research and initiatives to improve the accuracy of disease diagnosis, increase the safety of drugs, and identify novel treatments”.

“Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007” among its key provisions will:

·
establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group (IWG) to facilitate collaboration, coordination, and integration of activities among federal agencies relating to genomic research and initiatives;

· establish a national biobanking distributed database for the collection and integration of genomic data and associated environmental and clinical health information;

· establish a grant program for academic medical centers and other entities to develop or expand biobanking initiatives;

· improve genetics and genomics training for diagnosis, treatment, and counseling of adults and children for both rare and common disorders;

Eugenics is a social
philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social ­responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and to lessen human suffering.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on
selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.

Enter “humanitarian eugenics” that strives ""
to leave a genuine legacy of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence, and noble character. It advocates measures to improve the innate quality of humankind which are entirely voluntary".

Opponents argue that eugenics is
immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as justification for state-sponsored discrimination; forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust.

Sen. Obama’s introduction of the Bill, coupled with availability of over the counter genetic testing in fact, advocates and promotes eugenics by creating a national genetic bank leading to definitive identification of “less-than-perfect” (LTP) Americans possibly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since there are no clear laws or guidelines as to the ownership, storage, analysis, release, exchange and application of such information, Sen. Obama’s Bill simply invites abuses by individuals, companies and the State.

Outfits such as Future Generation and Eugenics Watch claim that :“Selection must not be left to chance for chance is cruel, capricious and, all too often, expensive but must instead be led by the kindly elite - Harvard professors, British aristocrats, Serbian psychiatrists, Aryans and so on. But death control, which has been the main method used by natural selection or chance, for termination of useless populations, must be replaced by birth control which is cheaper, and, as Charles Darwin pointed out in The Descent of Man, more effective”.

Sen. Obama obviously agrees, but prefers new massive Government bureaucracies described in his eugenics-enabling Bill to control the “selection” process and to legitimize "humane"or “positive” Governmental discrimination and eugenics.


We are making a difference (MAD), you decide!

Dr.D.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Call to Action to all Candidates for Malibu City Council

March 3, 2008

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

This letter is in response to “Sheriff Baca Slams Idea of SMC Campus in Malibu Civic Center” by Hans Luetz, Malibu Surfside News, 2/28/08

My first encounter with the City of Malibu was in my former capacity as Director, Public Affairs and Government Relations for the Malibu Medical Reserve Corps (MMRC). The reception MMRC, Dr. Dorodny and I personally received from then city leaders and city staff was hostile despite an enthusiastic response from local press including your fine publication.

The Malibu MRC was established by Dr. Victor Dorodny and was the only privately established unit in California operating under the authority of the California Governor through the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) and under the direction of the U.S. Surgeon General.

By working together with area healthcare professionals, mass media, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (LASD), Los Angeles County Fire Department, and MMRC sought to provide an efficient way for medical, public health, and citizen volunteers to offer their skills and expertise during local crises and throughout the year.

Since May, 2004 with the support and recognition by the U.S. Surgeon General, MMRC attempted to cooperate with the City of Malibu to integrate MMRCs programs and services into the fragmented and insufficient emergency capabilities in Malibu.

Unfortunately, for the residents of Malibu, hundreds of thousands of visitors and students at Pepperdine University, former City Manager Katie Lichtig under the direction of then Mayor Sharon Barovsky, Realtor Stern and the City Attorney single handedly undermined discussions between the MMRC and the City of Malibu and caused MMRC to lose its State and Federal funding.

Lack of involvement by State Senator Sheila Kuehl, former Assemblymember Fran Pavley, Ms. Carol Meyer, former Director, Los Angeles County EMS Agency, Los Angeles County Fire Department leadership further contributed to the demise of MMRC resulting in its decertification in April, 2005.

Public safety and health services policy matters raised by Sheriff Baca and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky have not been properly addressed or vetted.

In the past, Captain Thomas G. Martin from the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, Lost Hills Station, despite being approached by MMRC leadership concerning Malibu’s emergency preparedness and response capabilities, and specifically in regard to possible conversion of the abandoned Sheriff station into a regional training/operational emergency response hub did not respond to MMRCs numerous requests for support and cooperation.

Given the lack of adequate health and emergency services in Malibu leading to constant violations of the “golden hour” standard of care:
I ask and urge all incoming members of the City Council to work with Sheriff Baca, the County of LA to reestablish both the Sheriff station and an emergency clinic/response center on the current site. Dr. Victor Dorodny remains ready, able, and willing to offer his expertise free of charge on a public safety/ health services strategy to benefit the residents of Malibu. He can be reached by e-mail at Dorodny@medscape.com

I also ask, recommend, and urge that incoming city leaders and Mayor Pro Tempore Pamela Conley Ulich create an Office of Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for the City of Malibu on a volunteer basis and that Dr. Victor Dorodny be considered for such appointment.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on this critical and urgent public policy matter.

Robert Donin, MPA
Former Director, Public Affairs and Government Relations
Malibu Medical Reserve Corps
11693 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 346
Los Angeles, CA 90049
(310) 420-2169

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Where do I stand on the issues of animal research.

I am a relatively new, at least publicly, opponent of animal research.

First, and foremost, I unconditionally condemn violence in any shape or form against individuals, organizations and/or their property. Further, I believe that attacks on researchers and their institution by some radical groups seriously undermines their own credibility as well as the legitimacy of mainstream organizations.

Hence, I am not and will never be associated with any individuals, groups and/or organizations that either commit, promote or condone violence as means to achieve their goals.

Second, my objections to animal research are purely scientific since animal-based research is foundationally flawed. Data obtained from animal research data can not be extrapolated to manufacture human-relevant information. There are numerous viable alternatives to produce human-specific data without the use and abuse of animals.

In additional to cell preparations, transgenic modeling, and live human volunteers (please see my early postings on the issue), yet another alternative to using ill-suited animal models could be the use of aborted fetuses and tissues and organs from recently deceased humans.

Fetuses aborted during the first trimester (legally one can do it only up to 10 weeks) provide a representative sample of tissues needed for the study of most biological processes.

I am referring only to fetuses that are already legally aborted. I will neither condone nor condemn legal abortion or legality of abortion.

Organs and tissues could be "kept alive" in recently deceased humans and then used for the studies of toxicity mechanisms.

For example: instead of sacrificing 40-50 rats and "blending" their livers to study the toxicity of alcohol, one can use the liver of a car-crash victim for the same purpose but with better results that are actually applicable to human physiology and relevant to studies of human disease model.

Despite my personal and professional objections to tactics and actions sometimes employed by the Animal Liberation Movement, and my disagreement with the published statements of its Press Officer Dr. Jerry Vlasak, I felt compelled to object to Los Angeles Times Editorial policies and actions and its childish mistreatment of Jerry Vlasak, MD, FACS.

Here is a copy of my "surprisingly" unpublished letter to the Editors of LA Times of November 2, 2007:

"Editors,

When the only paper in Los Angeles market decides to take a position on animal research (or any other issue) instead of reporting, and decides to suppress opposing views of similarly qualified professionals it should not be surprised with its shrinking circulation and profits.

LA Times made an editorial decision to condone animal testing and to deprive its readership from any formation about many scientifically valid ways to rapidly diminish and/or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals.

Your publication of Dr. Vlasak's letter with the intentional omission of his professional titles and affiliations does not limit his credibility but does place the shame on you. Not extending this common courtesy to Dr. Vlasak while affording it to all other authors again proves your bias and, in fact diminishes your paper credibility and will hopefully result in further financial losses for the paper.

Intelligent compassionate people of LA enabled by the Internet will find the truth and spread the word."


We are MAD, you decide!

Dr.D.

P.S. Making a Difference! (MAD)

Monday, November 5, 2007

"Why do I use animals in research" or " Why do I abduct, detain, confine, mutilate, torture and kill animals" by Dr. E. London

Unfortunately for animals used in research Dr. London conducts those sadistic actions without animals expressed consent to participate in her research activities.

The damage inflicted to Dr. London's residence is stupid and reprehensible. Dr. London's fight against addiction to nicotine, methamphetamine and other drugs is admirable. Her use of primates and other animals is incomprehensible. Her justifications for use of animals in non-clinical research could not further away from truth.

Further, she deliberately avoids discussion of non-animal research options such as cell cultures, transgenic modeling and human volunteers to name a few.

Human volunteers recruited among prison inmates, well meaning researchers, executives of pharmaceutical and tobacco companies and their respective family members can provide a new dimension to research--subject's reporting, interactive feedback and ability to follow instructions.

Properly designed and conducted human volunteers study, with preference given to aforementioned groups, will reveal human-specific, hence human-relative data.

These (human) studies are much more likely to be conducted in an ethical and cruelty-free manner, with proper consent, compensation (except for inmates), pain relief, psychological counselling and treatment of any and all complications and adverse outcomes. ACLU can monitor compliance.

In her article Dr. London contradicts herself stating that “While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become “addicted” in the same sense that human…” So why torture monkeys and other animals when there are millions of potential human volunteers stupid enough to subject themselves to tobacco and other addictive substances.

Such (human) studies will invariably yield human-specific hence human-relevant information.

Being a child of Holocaust does not give one a license to inflict Holocaust on animals by using them in research. If nothing else it should have made Dr. London more sensitive to the plight of the weak and defenseless.

Without condoning violence in any shape or form I would like to point out that use and abuse of animals is UCLA researchers is funded and promoted by greedy pharmaceutical companies, such as Amgen that is in serious financial straits due to recent changes in reimbursement for its drugs.

In addition to promoting and conducting animal research (Amgen maintains an extensive vivarium where animals are routinely used for research) by UCLA through its clandestine invitation-only seminars promoting animal research (last conducted October 28, 2007) Amgen simultaneously taints the objectivity and validity of researcher conducted by UCLA.

Hiding behind frequently used and abused "unrestricted educational grant" can not fool any one, Hence, Dr. London's acceptance of tobacco company's money seriously jeopardises UCLA's standing as an "independent third party" seeker of truth!?

I challenge UCLA officials, leadership of Amgen, leadership of tobacco companies, and prominent researches to open a productive dialogue with mainstream activist to reduce and finally eliminate use of animals in research ( and related abuse and exploitation) in favor of genetic modeling and/or use of human volunteers.

We are MAD, you decide.

Dr.D.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Practical Alternative to Animal Research, or What Amgen Does Not Want You to Know?

Sporadic displays of animal cruelty by the likes of Michael Vick and Ellen DeGeneres usually get plenty of media coverage and generate necessary public outcry.

However, ongoing acts of animal abuse committed under the auspices of scientific necessity to “ensure and enhance human and animal health and protection of the environment” remain unnoticed by media and general public (1).

The justification used by researchers for use of animal-only model studies can be found in a handout distributed by Dr. Robert F. Phalen(2) during his clandestine lecture at Amgen, Inc. Corporate HQ October 28, 2007:

“…there is no more powerful tool for protecting human health than the combination of well conducted animal experiments and well conducted epidemiological experiments” Rall (1979).

“…a large number of values for man coincided with remarkable accuracy for the 70 kg animal”, Krasovski (1976).

“…these survey results support the value of in vivo toxicology studies to predict for many human toxicities associated with pharmaceuticals…”, Olson et all. (2000).

“…the human genome is remarkably similar to that of evolutionary ancient organism. Thus, the various life forms on earth share much more in common than anyone had previously envisioned”. Ballatori and Vilalobos (2002).

The Society of Toxicology (SOT) claims that research involving laboratory animals is “necessary” and that “research animals must be used in a responsible manner”. Therefore, according to Dr. Phalen, it is “…unethical to block or impede well-designed, humane animal studies”.

Unfortunately for animals, and despite the alleged strict adherence to the rules and regulations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [P.L. 89-544] and the Health Research Extension Act [P.L.99-158] all animal studies in the world are missing a critical component— informed consent.

Interestingly, both the SOT and Dr. Phalen concede that there are major anatomical differences between humans, mammals, and other laboratory animals that might render results obtained from animal studies to be of limited value.

The SOT and most scientists further concede that animal studies proven less than reliable because in addition to anatomical and resulting physiological (functioning) differences, lifespan of laboratory animals is short; human disease models are generally poor; appropriate “metrics” are poorly understood; mass alone is seldom used; dosage comparisons across species are difficult (3); and individual differences are extremely large.

There are many exciting promising ways to conduct laboratory studies without use of laboratory animals.

With the entire sequence of human genome now deciphered, specific human genetic mutations might be induced and quantified in a cell culture; using organism into which human genes have been incorporated (transgenic systems) and many others. Such methods will enable the scientist to use solid experimental evidence to predict human diseases without use and abuse of animals.

Pending development and practical implementation of these technologies, the SOT’s
stated goal
“…scientifically-valid research design to reduce, refine or replace the need for laboratory animals” falls short of offering the only logical solution—use of human volunteers with proper informed consent.

With the high and ever-rising costs of “housing” inmates in our jail system ($45,000.00 per inmate per year in California) and a burgeoning prison population, there is an untapped resource of human volunteers who might be willing and ready to redeem themselves by participating in laboratory studies.

Given prisons being a true society reflection, scientists should not have any problems recruiting age, race, size, gender-diverse volunteers willing to contribute.

Accurate human-derived (hence human-relevant) data can rapidly diminish or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals now used and abused to ensure and enhance human health and protection of the environment.

We are MAD, you decide!

Dr.D.
___________________________________________________________________
1. The Society of Toxicology (SOT) 1821 Michael Faraday Dr., Suite 300, Reston, VA 21090;
phone (703) 438-31135; fax (703) 438-3113; sothq@toxicology.org;
http://www.toxicology.org/

2. Robert F. Phalen, PhD, Professor of Community & Environmental Medicine, College of
Medicine, Univ. of California Irvine CA.

3. Jarabek et al., 2005; Kuempel et al., 2006