Saturday, April 17, 2010

Dr. Linus Pauling

The next man Doctor Watch introduces is consistently considered internationally to be the man who shares with Albert Einstein the distinction of being one of the top two scientists of the twentieth century.

You may consider yourself an informed objective thinker. But, unless you're familiar with the leading roles that Linus Pauling played in science, politics and power in the 20th century, you have not even found one of the largest pieces of the puzzle.

The sooner you're acquainted with the multifaceted work of this genius and the worlds reaction to it, the better you will understand the world.

Everyone knows about Albert Einstein. And, because of his many contributions to science, peace and medicine, everyone should also know Linus Pauling because no one else is ranked nearly as high as these two scientists in the last one hundred years.

But, this is not the case because of Pauling's work against nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation for which he was black-balled by the US government which even revoked his passport to limit his association with other scientists. Ironically, his contributions in this area for which he was awarded his second Nobel Prize may have been his largest contribution to humanity because it expedited international nuclear treaties which may have prevented nuclear war.

The next reason his name isn’t a household word is that to the dissappointment of the pharmaceutical and medical industries working the for-profit business model, he focused his cutting edge scientific genius on understanding the role natural organic compounds played in prevention and cure of disease in what he called, “orthomolecular medicine” which can not be patented. Because all of Pauling's successes would REDUCE the prized profits of conventional medicine, he has been labeled a quack by and the pharmaceutical industry lead medical community.

Linus Pauling is the fourth person we've highlighted at Doctor Watch, but, as the founder of Orthomolecular Medicine, he belongs at the top of the list.

You can enjoy a fascinating journey into the accomplishments of this most amazing man by following this link to Oregon State University's Linus Pauling Institute:

Gary Springer,
Author of They're Making You Fat and Sick
Founder of Perfect Health Institute

Friday, April 16, 2010

Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O.

The third doctor that Doctor Watch is proud to introduce you to is Dr. Joseph Mercola. Dr. Mercola is a D.O. or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.

Because saturated fat-fear and cholesterol-fear are such dangerous myths, and because Dr. Mercola has done such a fine job publishing a hilarious cartoon video that is now on YouTube, we introduce Dr. Mercola by briefly explaining the “Town of Allopath”.

The Town of Allpath is a parody that shows the foolishness of trying to prevent heart disease by lowering blood choleterol levels.

The Town of Allopath was named after the type of medicine all MD’s learn in the United States, Allopathic Medicine.

Instead of identifying the cause of a health problem, Allopathic Medicine is devoted to treating the symptom by blocking the body’s ability to produce the symptom. In essence, the MD prescribes a toxin that blocks the normal operation of the body so the body can no longer produce the symptom.

In this video:

Town of Allopath represents Allopathic medicine
Dr. West represents western doctors
SkidMarks Disease substitutes for "High Cholesterol Disease" (LOL)
Roadaceuticals parallels the pharmaceutical industry
Auto Repair Businesses represent the health care industry

Teflon coatings sold by Roadaceuticals to the town of Allopath are very effective in eliminating Skidmarks Diesase.

Cholesterol lowering statin drugs are very effective in lowering blood cholesterol levels too.

But, because auto accidents aren’t caused by the skid marks, when you use Teflon to reduce skid marks, you increase traffic accidents.

And, because heart disease is not caused by cholesterol, blocking the bodies ability to make life supporting cholesterol not only does not lower risk of heart disease, statin drugs designed to lower blood cholesterol levels increase death from all causes.

Laughter is good for the health so watch Dr. Mercola’s, Town of Allopath by clicking HERE

To Your Health,

Gary Springer,
Author of They're Making You Fat and Sick
Founder of Perfect Health Institute

Dr. Ray Sahelian, M.D. discusses Quackwatch and Dr. Stephen Barrett

The second MD that Doctor Watch introduces you to is Dr. Ray Sahelian.

Here's part of a short bio from the doctors own website located at

"Ray Sahelian, M.D. is the bestselling author of Mind Boosters, The Stevia Cookbook and several other books (more than 1,000,000 copies sold). See Bio. He is also a superb herbal product formulator with such popular products as Mind Power Rx, Passion Rx, Eyesight Rx, Prostate Power Rx, Joint Power Rx, Diet Rx, and others."

Following is communication between Dr. Sahelian and Dr. Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch. Dr. Sahelian published this exchange on his website.

Quackwatch review by Ray Sahelian, M.D.

Is Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch a Quack?

Is he fair, balanced, or biased?

Over the years I have had many people ask my opinion regarding Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch, but I have been reserved in voicing my thoughts. However, in March 2006 we received an email from someone who claimed that Stephen Barrett had told him negative things about a product I had formulated. Then, in June, 2006 my staff received an email from Stephen Barrett (see below). This prompted us to create a page regarding in order to present our point of view. According to the Quackwatch website, this is what Stephen Barrett, M.D. says about himself.

"Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides in Allentown, Pennsylvania, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)."

Is Dr. Stephen Barrett fair in his analysis of nutrition research and those involved in the nutrition industry?

I have not read every single page on Quackwatch but the ones I read give me the impression that in many cases Stephen Barrett, M.D. has done good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams (for instance, Hulda Clark and her pitiful book "The Cure for all Cancers").

However, I hardly came across reports on his website regarding some of the scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry. Why is this? Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused almost all of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs? If he truly claims to be a true consumer advocate, isn't it his responsibility to make sure the big scams are addressed first before focusing on the smaller scams? It's like the government putting all of its efforts going after the poor misusing food stamps while certain big companies cheat billions of dollars from consumers with hardly any governmental oversight.

Why is there no review of Vioxx on Quackwatch? Why is there no mention on of the worthless cold and cough medicines sold by pharmaceutical companies and drug stores? Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year by consumers on these worthless and potentially harmful decongestants and cough syrups. Why is there no mention on quackwatch of the dangers of acetaminophen use, including liver damage? There are probably more people who are injured or die from over the counter Tylenol and aspirin use each year than from all the natural supplements people take throughout a year. If Dr. Barrett had focused his career on educating people in reducing the use of useless and dangerous prescription and nonprescription drugs (even just one, acetaminophen) he would have helped many more people than attempting to scare people from the use of supplements.

Another point I would like to make regarding Quackwatch is that Dr. Barrett often, if not the majority of the time, seems to point out the negative outcome of studies with supplements (you can sense his glee and relish when he points out these negative outcomes), and rarely mentions the benefits they provide. A true scientist takes a fair approach, and I don't see this in my review of the Quackwatch website. I subscribe to the Quackwatch newsletter (which often has interesting information) but there is hardly any mention of the benefits of supplements. As an example, see a paragraph from the August, 2006 Quackwatch newsletter mentioned a few paragraphs below.

Bottom line: Overall, Dr. Barrett does some good in pointing out scams in the alternative health field, but, in my opinion, he is not fair and balanced, and he is not a true objective scientist as he claims to be. Someone who has a website specifically tailored for criticism needs to have a higher and more objective scientific standard, and Barrett fails in this regard.

Could Stephen Barrett, M.D. post his thoughts on Quackwatch regarding these two topics:

The first is on the billions of dollars spent on worthless and dangerous Alzheimer's drugs as noted in The New York Times: "Alzheimer’s Drugs Offer No Help, Study Finds" By Benedict Carey, October 12, 2006. The article begins, "The drugs most commonly used to soothe agitation and aggression in people with Alzheimer's disease are no more effective than placebos for most patients, and put them at risk of serious side effects, including confusion, sleepiness and Parkinson’s disease-like symptoms."

The second is on drug company charlatanism by Robert Bazell, a medical correspondent for NBC.

Am I, Ray Sahelian, M.D., perfectly fair in my review of supplement research?
I try to be, but this is a very difficult task. I cannot be fully objective and I don't believe anyone can be. It is well known in psychology that people perceive things according to how they want to see them. We all approach scientific research results with our own bias and interpretation (even actual researchers have their bias or may be influenced by vested interests). But the difference between me and Dr. Barrett is that I don't have a website that primarily focuses on bashing other people or bashing a particular and important aspect of the health industry, such as the nutritional field which holds enormous promise in health and medicine and has long been ignored, and its potential barely tapped.

Apparently Stephen Barrett is a retired psychiatrist. Does he take any supplements himself to learn firsthand how they work? Does he treat patients with nutritional supplements in order to get an insight how these herbs and nutrients influence the body? Anyone who comments about supplements and has not taken them, or has not had feedback for several years from hundreds or thousands of patients, does not have a full understanding of how they work or what benefit or side effects they have. Their opinion cannot be fully relied on, no matter how many articles they have read regarding the effect of these supplements on rodents or in vitro lab studies......snip...

.....Is Stephen Barrett, M.D. a Quack?

According to the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, M.D. says this about quackery: Dictionaries define quack as "a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan" and "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed."

Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science. He has been trained in psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of medicinal use of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to "have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously" without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine.

A person can't be an expert at a topic if they have not had hands-on experience. Would you feel comfortable having heart surgery by a doctor who has read all the medical books on how to surgically replace a heart valve but has never performed an actual surgical procedure in an operating room? Would you feel comfortable relying on nutritional advice from a retired psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch, even though he has not had hands-on experience using supplements with patients and does not have a degree in nutrition science?

On a positive note, Stephen Barrett, M.D. often does a good job when it comes to researching credentials of individuals in the nutritional industry, or researching the legitimacy or marketing practices of certain supplement companies. He has uncovered or brought to light several cases of companies that have shady or fraudulent practices. I suggest he stay on this course (which is his forte) rather than giving his uneducated opinion on nutritional medicine or supplement research. I also hope he becomes more balanced in his reviews and makes the effort to also mention positive outcomes regarding supplement research, and not just negative outcomes."

Again, the full communication can be found at Dr. Sahelian's website by clicking Please visit the site so you can read the discussion in its entirety, including others who have added their comments about Dr. Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch.

Furthermore, Dr. Sahelian's site is one of the top health and nutrition sites on the internet. Visit now, you'll be glad you did!

Have a Healthy Day!!!!!

Gary Springer,
Author of They're Making You Fat and Sick

Founder of Perfect Health Institute

Dr. Marcia Angell, MD New England Journal of Medicine

In its work of exposing the truth about Joe American, MD and the American medical establishment, Doctor Watch introduces to you an MD who worked for the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years.

Marcia Angell, MD, former Editor-in-Chief
New England Journal of Medicine

Following is a brief bio of Dr. Angell, a review of her 2008 book called "The Truth About the Drug Companies", a recent interview of Dr. Angell, and the beginning of her report that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Book Recommendation from Random House, Inc.
author spotlight by Random House

Former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine and now a member of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Social Medicine, Marcia Angell is a nationally recognized authority in the field of health policy and medical ethics and an outspoken critic of the health care system. Time magazine named her one of the twenty-five most influential people in America. Dr. Angell is the author of Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case.

“The Truth About the Drug Companies” by Dr. Angell, MD

During her two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell had a front-row seat on the appalling spectacle of the pharmaceutical industry. She watched drug companies stray from their original mission of discovering and manufacturing useful drugs and instead become vast marketing machines with unprecedented control over their own fortunes. She saw them gain nearly limitless influence over medical research, education, and how doctors do their jobs. She sympathized as the American public, particularly the elderly, struggled and increasingly failed to meet spiraling prescription drug prices. Now, in this bold, hard-hitting new book, Dr. Angell exposes the shocking truth of what the pharmaceutical industry has become–and argues for essential, long-overdue change.

Currently Americans spend a staggering $200 billion each year on prescription drugs. As Dr. Angell powerfully demonstrates, claims that high drug prices are necessary to fund research and development are unfounded: The truth is that drug companies funnel the bulk of their resources into the marketing of products of dubious benefit. Meanwhile, as profits soar, the companies brazenly use their wealth and power to push their agenda through Congress, the FDA, and academic medical centers.

Zeroing in on hugely successful drugs like AZT (the first drug to treat HIV/AIDS), Taxol (the best-selling cancer drug in history), and the blockbuster allergy drug Claritin, Dr. Angell demonstrates exactly how new products are brought to market. Drug companies, she shows, routinely rely on publicly funded institutions for their basic research; they rig clinical trials to make their products look better than they are; and they use their legions of lawyers to stretch out government-granted exclusive marketing rights for years. They also flood the market with copycat drugs that cost a lot more than the drugs they mimic but are no more effective.

The American pharmaceutical industry needs to be saved, mainly from itself, and Dr. Angell proposes a program of vital reforms, which includes restoring impartiality to clinical research and severing the ties between drug companies and medical education. Written with fierce passion and substantiated with in-depth research, The Truth About the Drug Companies is a searing indictment of an industry that has spun out of control.

Dr. Angell interview by PBS
The entire interview is available at

Are we in a health care crisis?

We certainly are in a health care crisis. If we had set out to design the worst system that we could imagine, we couldn't have imagined on as bad as we have. Here's a system in which we spend over twice what the next most expensive country spends on health care -- that's Switzerland.

We spend roughly $4500 for every American, whether they have insurance or not. Switzerland spends maybe $2500 for every citizen. Canada spends maybe $2,000. Great Britain, poor little Great Britain, spends about $1,000 for every British citizen. And what do we get for it? What do we get for that $4500? Well, we certainly don't get our money's worth. We have roughly 43 million people with no insurance whatsoever, and among the rest of us, many of us are underinsured. That is, we have shrinking packages. This might be covered, but that won't be covered.

Our life expectancy is shorter. Our infant mortality is higher. Our childhood immunization rate is lower. And look at how often we get to see the doctor, how long we get to stay in the hospital. Canadians see their doctors far more often than we do. Americans really can't afford to go see their doctor. There's always some co-payment, some deductible, or they have to pay out of pocket, or something isn't covered. But in Canada, where everybody is covered for everything, they go to the doctor much more often. When they are hospitalized, their hospital stays are longer. If they're having a baby, they get to stay four or five days. Japan has very long hospital stays. Ah, it's almost a rest cure. People in Japan who are hospitalized might lie around the hospital for a week or two just to take a rest. So we're really not getting our money's worth. It's going to all sorts of things, but not to doctors and patients.

What are the dangers that we're facing right now?

Well, the danger is that our health care outcomes will start to drop. As I said, they're not all that good in the developed world. We're of the 25 richest countries in the world, we're somewhere around 22-23 in terms of our health. That could get worse, but the greatest danger is that spending so much money on health care risks the feeling that we somehow have to cut back on access, we have to cut back on availability, we have to cut back on quality because it costs too much. Right now the economy is doing well. We're rolling in money. So we feel, yes, we can have it all. We can put all this money into health care and we can also have patients' rights bills and maybe a pharmaceutical benefit for Medicare patients. But that's going to increase the cost in this system. The only way to both reduce cost and increase access and quality is to change the system, to scrap it and start over.

Toss it out and start over?

Yes, because it's based on a false premise. Our health care system is based on the premise that health care is a commodity like VCRs or computers and that it should be distributed according to the ability to pay in the same way that consumer goods are. That's not what health care should be. Health care is a need; it's not a commodity, and it should be distributed according to need. If you're very sick, you should have a lot of it. If you're not sick, you shouldn't have a lot of it. But this should be seen as a personal, individual need, not as a commodity to be distributed like other marketplace commodities. That is a fundamental mistake in the way this country, and only this country, looks at health care. And that market ideology is what has made the health care system so dreadful, so bad at what it does. Yes, it does do what markets are supposed to do. It expands. That's what markets are supposed to do. And it distributes a good according to the ability to pay. But that sure is not what we want of health care.

What led us to this situation?

It's very American. This is a very capitalistic country with relatively few safety nets as compared with Europe and Canada. It's a cowboy country. It's always been a cowboy country, and health care, as I said, has been seen as just one more commodity and the genius of the marketplace will take care of it. People don't think, "Well, how will that play out? Suppose you're poor and you're sick, what will the marketplace do for you," because if you want a VCR, for example, and you're poor, you don't get it. So you do without a VCR. Are you really going to say that to someone that has a brain tumor? So you do without your brain surgery. And also what markets do is they put out a lot of goods. The consumer pays out of pocket. He or she looks around, looks for a bargain, decides maybe he can't afford a VCR this year, he'll get one next year. Well, imagine you have a brain tumor. You're gonna shop for a bargain? You're gonna say, "Well, I don't want an excellent brain surgeon. I want a mediocre brain surgeon. I want a cheap piece of brain surgery." No. And you can't say, "And I'll wait until next year," either. This is a life and death thing and we ought to treat it that way. We ought to treat it the same way we treat education. You don't personally buy education insurance or your employer doesn't buy you education insurance. It's something that a decent society supplies to everyone..........

For the full version of this PBS interview, visit PBS at

Report in the Journal of the American Medical Association

OVER THE PAST 2 DECADES, THE PHARMACEUTICAL industry has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation of its own products. Drug companies now finance most clinical research on prescription drugs, and there is mounting evidence that they often skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer. Two recent articles underscore the problem: one showed that many publications concerning Merck's rofecoxib that were attributed primarily or solely to academic investigators were actually written by Merck employees or medical publishing companies hired by Merck; the other showed that the company manipulated the data analysis in 2 clinical trials to minimize the increased mortality associated with rofecoxib. Bias in the way industry-sponsored research is conducted and reported is not unusual and by no means limited to Merck…………….(we do not have access to the full report at this time. If you have access to this full report, please share it with us).
The Journal of the American Medical Association , 2008, 300 (9) : P.1069-1071
ISSN:0098-7484 Language: English

To Your Health!!

Gary Springer,
Author of They're Making You Fat and Sick
Founder of Perfect Health Institute

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Welcome to Doctor Watch

Doctor Watch was created in response to

Because of the failure of traditional MD's to make positive differences in the health status of millions of people, with each passing year, more and more people are turning to nutrition and alternative approaches to cure and health maintenance. is devoted to slowing the continued erosion of the faith Americans have in MD's, the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry. founder, Dr. Stephen Barrett, bashes nutritional cures and alternative approaches to health and healing with every word he publishes. is in essence the attack dog for the traditional medical industries.

Doctor Watch is hereby founded to counter the attacks of

Doctor Watch will publish articles written by MD's who are working to expose the corruption and ignorance surrounding the Americal Medical Association, the pharmaceutical companies, medical schools and the average Joe American, MD.

If you become aware of the work of an MD who is parting with doctors trained in pharmaceutical controlled medical school, please let us know about that doctors work.

To Your Health!!

Gary Springer,
Author of They're Making You Fat and Sick

Founder of Perfect Health Institute