There’s an old proverb about what constitutes news: “It’s not so much what the dog said, but that he spoke at all.” Meaning sometimes the actual information is not news—but the source that is giving out that information is earth shattering.
That’s how I am tempted to think about the UCLA Alzheimer’s study I told you about on page 1. It was labeled a new “priority research paper” in the mainstream medical literature. But the elements of its natural approach to reversing Alzheimer’s is hardly novel to me or my readers. Although, unfortunately, it really is news to many conventional doctors.
Mainstream Alzheimer’s treatments have been a complete bust—and it could be said again in this tragic instance that medicine has really gone to the dogs. But that “dog” has finally spoken out.
I have often explained that there are many scientific studies showing beneficial activities, effects, and/or outcomes of a nutrient for a variety of ailments and chronic diseases.
So why don’t more doctors use these natural approaches? Well, if physicians are going to use any remedy in medical practice, they need clinical protocols. These protocols detail whom the remedy applies to, and how and when it should be used to achieve the desired health outcomes.
Take diabetes treatments, for example. Readers often ask about, and I have reported on, the dozens of herbal remedies that help balance and reduce blood sugar.
But the medical community still falls far short of having clinical protocols that tell us (a) who qualifies for such remedies (in terms of clinical history, and blood sugar and HgA1c levels), (b) how much of an herb to take, when, how often, and under what circumstances, and (c) the desired outcomes in terms of lowering blood sugar, keeping HgA1c levels low, reducing homocysteine and C-reactive protein, and (d) ultimately preventing the vascular complications of diabetes in the eyes, heart, kidneys, and peripheral nerves.
The only way to establish those kinds of clinical protocols is through studies designed and followed like the UCLA Alzheimer’s study. But of course, when the government agency charged with investigating promising natural approaches (the NIH’s laughable Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine) claims there is no role for natural remedies in the treatment of diabetes, for example, it essentially guarantees the necessary clinical studies will never be funded and never get done.
Sadly, the hundreds of millions of dollars lavished on researching a single drug will never be made available to study natural approaches (which also will never lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from a desperate public). The amounts of research dollars spent on even one drug for one condition are many times the entire annual government budget for studying all non-drug, natural approaches to all diseases!
So the upshot is that the only “natural” diabetes remedy that has a proven clinical protocol is metformin. Although metformin is a drug, it comes from the ancient herb French lilac. It’s been shown in many studies to be safe, with all of the desired effects for diabetes treatment. But unlike diabetes, there has never been a safe and effective drug (whether originally from natural sources or otherwise) for dementia. And practicing physicians know it.
That’s why I’m so excited about the new, truly integrative, all-natural clinical protocol for reversal of Alzheimer’s dementia that I’m putting together, including the UCLA study findings—and dozens of others.