Do You Trust Your Doctor 100 Percent (Part 2)

This is a continuation of part one.   Here are a few most frequently heard statements from friends when I ask them about where they get their source of health information,"I don't need to read more on health online, I can get the information from CDC, WHO, AMA or ADA."

"I get all my news from the Straits Times or Herald Tribune, etc."

"If it's important, you'll catch it on TV or via radio."

Dr. Mercola once expressed his surprise,"Isn't it odd that some doctors are reading more than Head of Departments (HOD)?  Even odder that HODs know NOTHING more than the conventional treatments taught?"

Dr. Mercola revealed that his interactions with one HOD of a hospital had said he is too busy to read more than 4 medical journals a year.  I presume the journals the HOD referred to are like the ones published by ADA and AMA.

I can't go into all the associations at one go (that would take a book!) so I'll just share a very small fraction of things AMA (American Medical Association) and ADA (American diabetic Association) had done and published in the past.  The following is based on my observations:

*    ADA is good at managing volunteers and recommending boot-camps for diabetic children. They also announce recalls of faulty insulin-related devices, etc.

ADA had also once said Diabetics can eat ANYTHING.  (And many people follow this advise blindly.)

Google for books endorsed by ADA, you will find at least ONE recipe book filled with all sorts of sugary food diabetics (more than 400 recipes!) should actually avoid eating too much of.  One such book I read even had SPLENDA (artificial sugar, sucralose) in them!   [ Forum discussed Splenda/Sucralose ::  For info on aspartame (another artificial sugar) ]

Is the ADA telling diabetics they need chemically-made chlorine atoms for their sugar?  Isn't this (such endorsements) a disservice to diabetic sufferers?


*    Like ADA, AMA has a great marketing "task force".  AMA also once said that FOOD has nothing to do with acne but ironically has something to do with heart failures.

If you tell Dr. John McDougall, legendary doctor and friend of Professor T Collins Campbell (famous author of THE CHINA STUDY), that acne has nothing to do with food, you will see him FIGHTING MAD.  (This "fighting mad" is a 'mental' diseases that I too have!  lol )

Dr. McDougall (McDougall Wellness Center) once traced to a seriously-flawed study by Dr. James Fulton (AMA).  Dr. James Fulton was paid by the Chocolate Manufacturers Association of America (who represented chocolate manufacturers in the USA of course) to test 30 adolescents and 35 young and fit male prisoners.

In the Journal of American Medical Association (way back in 1969), Dr. James Fulton said that chocolates improved the complexion of 10 people while the rest of the others' complexion remained largely the same.  Dr. Fulton concluded that diet had nothing to do with acne.

Dr. Johnny Bowden, author of Living a Low Carb Life, said,"I hate to be cynical but one reason doctors and dermatologists say diet doesn't cause acne is because they can't sell a healthy diet.  In addition they were trained to believe there's no connection between what you eat and what your face looks like."

My pre-conclusion to this is, science results can be flawed and altered when it is backed up by people who pay scientists/researchers so they can dictate what to say about a food product.

At one point, I remember AMA and ADA linked to a "Medical Quack Watch" website run by a de-licensed doctor (who called every good and reputable doctor QUACKS).  I've not visited any of the sites since - may be the information on their sites have been changed to reflect new and medically-correct information.


"How about FDA?  FDA could be trusted, right?"

In 2005, the USA's FDA banned information about the scientifically proven health benefits of cherries from appearing on websites, calling cherries "unapproved new drugs".

And more recently (2009), scientists say the naturally occurring antioxidant lycopene, found in abundance in tomatoes, helps block the body from absorbing "bad" LDL cholesterol. A new supplement derived from tomatoes can reduce the oxidation of harmful fats in the body to almost zero within eight weeks. What will the FDA's response be, when they've already called cherries an "unapproved new drug"

FDA also said the maker of Cheerios cannot claim any health benefits of the cereal lest they too be declared a new drug.

And if the FDA could ban God from pushing natural sunlight from helping our bodies create Vitamin D, they would!

FDA has done MANY things like approving harmful Vioxx.  (And no one was called to trial for the deaths of so many people due to Vioxx.)  At one point, the FDA has admitted its own inefficiency too.

Note:  Any natural anti-oxidants like lycopene that is chemically extracted becomes more of a harmful anti-oxidant.  Even Stevia that is chemically extracted from natural harmless Stevia plants (used as natural sugar by Peruvians and Brazilians for more than 1,800 years) becomes a questionable substance called "Reb-A", now found in some brands of fizzy drinks.

It must be clarified that FDA has NEVER approved safe Stevia leaves,  FDA only approves prescription drugs!  They approved Reb-A (a chemical extract of Stevia leaves).



Which doctors can we trust now??  The problem is, most conventional doctors are trained to treat diseases and not prevent them.  Many doctors are clueless when they themselves "get hit" with Cancer.

I make no secret that I trust Dr. Mercola (Mercola.com ) and Dr. Nicole Sundene and other doctors and dieticians from KitchenTable Medicine.com  Although Dr. Mercola's website was not rated very well via BBB.org I see that he's had rectified most complaints.  If you've ever sold online, I am sure you have met a few who try to fleece or did not have a GENUINE case of complaint, and for those I know they cannot be solved regardless of who the mediator is.

I also trust Naturopathic and Ayuverdic doctors.

As a simple guideline, look for doctors who are certified by the Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists (CBNS) of the American College of Nutrition.  The CNS designation is applicable in a variety of professional settings, including but not limited to:  hospital or clinic-based nutrition support, laboratory or field research, individual and group counseling, classroom teaching, commercial development of new nutritional products, authorship and public policy development.

Have a different opinion?  Please share without feeling pressurised - I am NOT FDA!  lol 

It's a personal decision who you wish to put your trust in.  I only provide the information and that's all there is to it.  Wishing everyone good health!

Credits for bits and pieces of information that helped shaped this Blog Entry:
Non-Profit Soap Box

Kelly blogs at MyQute.com and tweets at Twitter! Itching to talk back? Just comment below! I (Kelly) usually replies within 24 to 48 hours. If you find my blog entry useful and see it can benefit someone, please forward or post to your Facebook! Disclaimer: This blog entry is NOT a source of medical advice. Any and all suggestions stem from personal opinion and experience. Any and all information you deem important should be presented to your TRUSTED medical practitioner/vet for evaluation and incorporation into YOUR personal situation