Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the 10 most widely used drugs in the world. In 2012, there were 157 million prescriptions written for these stomach-acid inhibiting drugs.¹ More than likely, either you or someone you know is taking these medications.

While PPIs may alleviate the problem of excess stomach acid, many people don’t realize that these drugs are associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer, pneumonia, c. difficile infections, osteoporosis (you need stomach acid to absorb nutrients such as magnesium and calcium into bones), and vitamin B12 deficiency, among other serious diseases.²

The Rationale Behind PPIs

The stomach secretes digestive fluids with a pH2 value, which creates a highly acidic environment. These acidic gastric secretions sterilize bacteria in foods that are eaten, and are essential for the digestion and absorption of various nutrients, including protein, iron, calcium, and vitamin B12.

Obviously, stomach acid that can digest food can also damage delicate intestinal mucosa. The body has protective mechanisms—including mucosal mucous/bicarbonate secretion and sphincter contraction of the gastroesophageal junction—to prevent gastroesophageal damage. But if the sphincter is weakened, stomach acid can flow back into the esophagus. The backwash of acid irritates the esophageal lining, causing heartburn and the regurgitation of food. If the condition persists, it may cause chest pain, difficulty swallowing, chronic cough, hoarseness, and disrupted sleep. Left untreated, GERD can lead to esophageal ulcers, narrowing of the esophagus, and precancerous changes known as Barrett’s esophagus. 

 I discovered that technology’s quest towards the unknown
requires us to accumulate more and more control,
whereas growing in virtue requires an altogether different capacity:
more and more surrender.
~Nipun Mehta

Believe it or not, I do not own a smartphone. I’m not averse to technology. But I spend so much time on my computer engaged in research and writing that when I take a break from my work, I truly take a break. I want to be fully present in life without the temptation of looking at my smartphone. Instead of focusing on my phone, I walk down the street enjoying my surroundings and smiling at people as I pass by. If I need directions, I ask someone directly, engaging in real communication with another human being.

Along with the benefit of being engaged in life, removing myself from the seductive pull of technology frees up time for my mind to wander, which is essential to creative thought and wellbeing.

On average, people in the U.S. check their smartphones 46 times per day (up from 33 times per day in 2014). And it’s worse for users in the U.K. A study by Nottingham Trent University found that adults ages 18-33 checked their smartphones 85 times a day, or once every 10 minutes—and they don’t even know they are doing it.¹

We are giving up our uniqueness as individuals, becoming mere facts and statistics plugged into technology and artificial intelligence. Many believe this is a good thing and will improve our lives. But as we create smarter robots that are increasingly human-like, humans are at the same time becoming more robot-like. What happens to the human spirit in this race for technology?

I am deeply concerned about the physical, emotional, and spiritual price we are paying for technology, which is advancing at a speed that is impossible for us to adjust to. Drug addiction, drug overdosing, and suicide are epidemic in our society, and feelings of isolation are a primary cause. Social interaction is emerging as perhaps the single most important factor to a long, healthy and happy life, but overdosing on technology leads to isolation, not interaction.

My new motto has become: “Together we heal.”

Understanding Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (Part 2): Research Demonstrating its Role as a Valuable Prognostic Marker in Cancer

A large body of research (as well as my clinical observations) point to chronic inflammation as a powerful force in the initiation, growth, and spread of cancer. As a result, an essential component of my protocol for health includes addressing inflammation.

As I discussed in part 1 of this series, there are three points to consider when evaluating the role of inflammation in cancer. First, a chronic inflammatory state can initiate cancer development. Second, it’s important to discover and address the root cause of the inflammation—for example, pathogenic (chronic infection), life-style, stress, and/or poor dietary habits. And third, recognize that the cancer itself creates inflammation—as the cancer energy mutates and gains intelligence, it manipulates the immune system, creating a pro-inflammatory micro-environment favorable to cancer growth.

Research indicates that the systemic manifestations of inflammation can provide a valuable biomarker for prognosis and treatment stratification. In particular, numerous studies indicate that a simple indicator of systemic inflammation—based on neutrophilia and/or lymphocytopenia—can provide prognostic information in a wide range of cancer types. In particular, the value of one index (the dNLR) derived from total white cell and neutrophil counts, is enabling large retrospective studies to be carried out.

Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio May Be a Predictor of Mortality in All Conditions

White blood cell (WBC) count is one of the useful inflammatory biomarkers in clinical practice. For example, even if WBC is within normal range, subtypes of WBC including N/L ratio may predict cardiovascular mortality.

N/L ratio is a readily measurable laboratory marker used to evaluate systemic inflammation. There are many different conditions that can affect N/L ratio, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome (1), left ventricular dysfunction, acute coronary syndromes, valvular heart disease, abnormal thyroid function tests, renal or hepatic dysfunction, known malignancy (2,3,4), local or systemic infection, previous history of infection (<3 months), inflammatory diseases, and any medication related to inflammatory conditions.

Here’s one example of how the N/L ratio can be useful as part of the evaluation of a specific cancer and the treatment protocol: not only N/L ratio but also mean platelet volume, red cell distribution width (5), platelet distribution width, CRP, uric acid and gamma-glutamyl transferase (6) are easy markers to evaluate the prognosis of colon cancer patients (7). However, one should keep in mind that N/L ratio itself alone without other inflammatory markers may not give exact information to clinicians about the prognosis of colon cancer patients. (8,9).

Baking cookies and sharing them with friends is part of our family’s holiday tradition. This year, I created a new recipe that I’d like to share with you. It’s a delicious holiday treat (made with spelt, walnuts, and other healthy ingredients) that I hope you’ll enjoy as much as we do!

Ingredients:

• 4 oz butter (1 stick butter)
• 2 oz coconut oil
• 1 ½ teaspoon vanilla
  

  Walnut-Coconut Crescent Holiday Cookies

• ½ cup maple syrup
• 1/3 cup coconut sugar
• 1 cup oat flour
• 1 cup sprouted spelt flour *
• ½ cup Pamela’s baking mix
• ½ teaspoon sea salt
• 1 ½ cups chopped walnuts*
• 1 cup shredded coconut, toasted on stove for 2 minutes, stirring frequently

Sugar and spice topping:

• 1 tsp. cinnamon
• 1/8 tsp. cardamom
• 2 tsp. maple sugar
• 1 tsp. coconut milk powder

Instructions:

1. Soften butter and mix with coconut oil and vanilla. Beat in maple syrup and coconut sugar.
2. Sift oat flour, spelt flour, baking mix, and sea salt and add to wet ingredients.
3. Fold in chopped walnuts and coconut.
4. Shape into crescents and refrigerate for at least 1 hour before baking.
5. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F convection.
6. Bake cookies for 20-25 minutes, or until golden brown.
7. Remove from oven, place on rack to cool, and using a sifter, dust cookies with the sugar and spice mixture.

Christmas, Hanukkah, and the Winter Solstice are a good time for reflection and renewal as well as celebration. This year, I invite you to take time to consider the way that you view the world, and how you might shift your thinking to become happier, healthier, more compassionate, and more at peace.

In my work, I am acutely aware of the adverse effects of a pessimistic, negative view of life. Depression, anxiety, and loneliness continue to increase in our society. There is no doubt that these are challenging and unsettling times in our world. But the truth is that we have always faced the painful challenges of war, political strife, prejudice, and tragedies on a global and personal level.

I encourage you to not fall into the quagmire of pessimism, discouragement, negativity, or bitterness. I hear many people speak of their distress and their belief that the world is doomed. They see only tragedy, hatred, and destruction, and believe nothing good is happening in the world. Keep an open heart, my brothers and sisters. Take time for stillness, seek the truth, and devote yourself to acts of loving-kindness.

“Devote yourself to acts of loving kindness”

Keep Your Focus on Responding, not Reacting

I find it helpful in life to focus on responding, not reacting. This is difficult when we are continually reacting to the barrage of information presented by technology. The more fast-paced and frenzied life becomes, the more we tend to react. Slowing down is a simple way of allowing the opportunity for thoughtful response.

We can begin to slow down by reducing our access to personal smart phones, computers, and electronics in general. Instead, take the time to meet a friend in the park or at a coffee shop. Relax, converse, and enjoy. This may sound radical, but occasionally leave your phone in the car or at home. You may be surprised at how much richer and more meaningful your interactions and life are when not lived through technology. We need to have fellowship, and we need to give love, receive love and feel a sense of belonging. This is spiritual nourishment, and without it we starve.

I recently read a paper entitled “Integrative Oncology” ¹ published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. To say I was shocked at the misrepresentation presented as “fact” is an understatement.

I am strongly compelled to offer a rebuttal to this article. I can only hope that those who most need the perspective of someone who has worked in clinical practice with cancer patients on a daily basis for almost three decades will benefit from my experience.

Personally, I prefer to use the term “Unified Medicine” over “Integrative Oncology” to more appropriately describe the wholistic ETMS (Eclectic Triphasic Medical System) model I developed and practice, known as ‘Mederi Medicine’ or ‘Mederi Care’.

Mederi Medicine is an approach where all aspects of an individual are addressed for optimal health and well being. This includes the fundamental building blocks of nutrition, herbs, lifestyle, and spiritual and emotional health, with the tools of modern conventional medicine employed when necessary. As a musician, I think of Mederi Medicine as similar to the way that the various parts of an orchestra each play an essential role in creating beautiful music. The ETMS is not a fragmented approach, but is synergistic, meaning that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This harmonious approach is something that is sorely lacking in modern conventional medicine”.

“I think of Mederi Medicine as similar to the way that the various parts of an orchestra each play an essential role in creating beautiful music”

What’s Wrong with the “Integrative Oncology” Paper?

Honestly, when I first saw the title “Integrative Oncology” I felt hopeful. I thought perhaps this paper would offer helpful information to those suffering from cancer, or to those who dedicate their lives to working with people with cancer. Instead, I found bias, misrepresentation, and outright twisting of the facts and outcomes of studies. This paper clearly states that it has been peer-reviewed, but given the many errors, I find that difficult to believe.

I find it strange that the subtext delineates “integrative approaches (e.g., lifestyle, meditation, yoga, acupuncture, massage)” but overlooks botanical and nutritional medicines, which are widely used as adjunct therapies in cancer protocols. I have no idea what the underlying agenda is in this paper. Why would scientifically and clinically proven modalities be dismissed or overlooked when they offer the potential for help without harm?