WHAT I THINK....DR. RALPH CINQUE

I realize that most people do not read this newsletter to find out what I think about politics. And it may anger some if I use this forum for that purpose. However, I have been asked by several people to write on behalf of Dr. Ron Paul, which I promised to do, and I feel impassioned to do everything I can to promote his candidacy. It is such a rare thing to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who is not beholden to the political establishment in this country, and there is no telling when we will have this opportunity again. I'll consider it a personal favor if you will read this.

First, I want to be upfront with you: I would vote for Ron Paul just because of his promise to bring the troops home from Iraq. I am appalled and sickened by what happened in Iraq, especially by the catastrophic loss of human lives, and the perilous use of depleted uranium weapons, which will endanger health there for decades to come. And I am certain that Ron Paul would keep his word and end the war immediately- at least our involvement in it. But, I don't know how you feel about that, so that's all I'm going to say about it.

And I would vote for Ron Paul just because of his staunch opposition to the Federal Reserve. It's true what he says, that it's just a tricky way for the government to print money. They couldn't possibly finance the wars, the bank-bailouts, the housing bubble, the global military bases, the prescription drug program, etc. from tax revenues and loans from the Far East. They have to print money to do it all. But since counterfeiting is frowned on, they do it in a roundabout way using the Federal Reserve. And, of course, the dollars lose value because of it. Why else would counterfeiting be illegal? No one in the government or the media likes to talk about it except in euphemisms- except for Ron Paul. And I'm sure he would put an end to it too, if elected.

But, I don't know how you feel about that either, and I don't presume to know how you feel about a great many other things. However, since you are a reader of my health newsletter, I presume that you share some of my views about health. And there are plenty of reasons to vote for Ron Paul based on health alone.

You believe in health freedom, right? You want to make your own decisions about what you put in your body, don't you? You believe in individual responsibility, and you want the government to butt-out, correct? Well, you have no better friend in government than Dr. Ron Paul, because he believes in health freedom too, including your right to make your own decisions about dietary supplements. Here is what he says about it on his website:

"Millions of Americans take dietary supplements every day, and the numbers are growing as the Baby Boom generation ages. More and more Americans understandably are frustrated with our government-controlled health care system. They have concluded that vitamins, minerals, and other supplements might help them stay healthy and less dependent on the system. They use supplements because they can buy them freely at stores and research them freely on the internet, without government interference in the form of doctors, prescriptions, HMOs, and licenses. In other words, they use supplements because they are largely free to make their own choices, in stark contrast to the conventional medical system."

Ron Paul is a medical doctor, but how many doctors talk like that? And, more importantly, how many politicians talk like that? Ron Paul happens to be my Congressman, but one of my senators from Texas is John Cornyn, and he is leading the charge in the Senate to outlaw DHEA! What a contrast. But read more from Dr. Paul:

"The health nannies insist that many dietary supplements are untested and unproven, and therefore dangerous. But the track record for FDA-approved drugs hardly inspires confidence. In fact, far more Americans have died using approved pharmaceuticals than supplements. Not every dietary supplement performs as claimed, but neither does every FDA drug."

Baycol for high cholesterol, Fen-Phen for weight loss, Vioxx for osteoarthritis, Enbrel for rheumatoid arthritis, Zellnorm for constipation, and Avandia and Rezulin for diabetes are just a small sampling of FDA-approved drugs that have been withdrawn in recent years after devastating and sometimes deadly consequences. Yet this arrogant agency wants to restrict your access to comparatively safe and natural dietary supplements. But it's not just about safety. It's about bypassing the medical establishment- which they don't want you to do. Here is what Dr. Paul says about the FDA:

"The FDA gives people a false sense of security, while crowding out private watchdog groups that might provide truly unbiased consumer information. It fosters a complacent attitude and a lack of personal responsibility among people who assume that a government stamp of approval means a drug must be safe, and that they need not study a drug before taking it. The FDA, like all federal agencies, ultimately uses its regulatory powers in political ways. Certain industries and companies are rewarded, and others are punished. No regulatory agency is immune from politics, which is why the FDA should not be trusted with power over our intimate health care decisions. The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them."

Dr. Paul often warns about the coming threat of Codex regulation. Codex is a UN commission that is trying to standardize the rules and restrictions on dietary supplements worldwide. Under Codex, many basic vitamin and mineral supplements, which we take for granted, will become illegal without a prescription. Europe has already moved a long way towards adopting Codex, and it could happen here too- but not if Ron Paul is elected.

However, the biggest health issue in the campaign is national health insurance. The so-called "populist" candidates are promising medical insurance for all. Out of 300 million Americans, 45 million are currently uninsured. I am one of them. There are two main reasons why I go uninsured. The first is that there is very little in Modern Medicine that I would want even if I were sick. Yes, I realize that they perform some miracles and save some lives, particularly in the areas of trauma, birth defects, emergency care, and infections. And there are other great things that they do, such as cataract surgery. But all of that together comprises a relatively small part of medical practice. Medicine is mostly about trying to alter and manipulate the signs and symptoms of disease using dangerous and powerful drugs which have noxious and troubling effects, euphemistically called "side effects." And they keep trying to fix one abnormality by creating another abnormality. For instance, if you have acid reflux, which is an abnormality, they figure they can fix it by giving you achlorhydria, which is another abnormality. Of, if you have a failing heart, with resultant fluid retention, they figure they can fix it by giving you a powerful diuretic, which causes your kidneys to start failing. (That is correct. Even though a diuretic increases urinary output, which sounds good and superficially looks good, it does so by interfering with the normal functioning of the kidneys.) There are whole swaths of medical practice that I consider to be dangerous and detrimental- an extreme statement I realize, but nonetheless true. In Cardiology, for instance, I don't like any of the drugs they use- not the statins, not the calcium channel blockers, not the beta blockers. I think the clotbusters are useful in extreme situations, but that's about it. In Gastroenterology, I don't like any of the drugs they use, not the proton pump inhibitors, not the H2 antagonists, and not the ever-popular Miralax, which is closely related to antifreeze. In Rheumatology, I don't like any of the drugs they use, not the NSAIDs, not the Cox-2 inhibitors, not the muscle relaxants. I wouldn't take any of the drugs they use for Type 2 diabetes except for Metformin, which is actually based on a natural herbal substance. And I don't like any of the drugs they use for high blood pressure either.

Of course, I am only speaking for myself, and forgive me for getting off-point. But remember, I have rights as a consumer too, and I am telling you, honestly, that there are very few drugs in Medicine that I would be willing to take. Perhaps in the future, there will be great things being done in Medicine, with stem cells for instance, and I hope that is so. But as of now, I am mostly leery of Medicine, so it doesn't bother me to live without medical insurance. And secondly, if I bought medical insurance, I would be helping to support the whole pharmico-medical complex in this country. By putting money in their coffers, I would be helping to make Medicine stronger- and believe me: I want Medicine to be weaker. Medicine is already too strong and influential: in government, in media, and in education. I don't want to add to it. But I realize that I am the exception that way. Most people respect Medicine- a lot more than I do. And they value having medical insurance.

And then there is the whole humanitarian argument. Many anti-war activists, for instance, believe that instead of waging war, the government should use the money to provide universal health care. But I cringe when I hear it. They don't see the contradiction in it. If government can't be trusted to keep us out of unnecessary and disastrous wars, if it can't be trusted to secure the levees over New Orleans to prevent a catastrophic flood or to effectively manage the relief effort afterwards, and if it can't keep an obligatory retirement fund solvent even after confiscating a whopping 15 percent of all the earned income, and if it can't regulate the banking system without causing first an S&L crisis and then a sub-prime mortgage crisis, and if it can't issue money without causing it to lose over 95 percent of its value in less than a century, then why on earth would anyone think that entrusting government with health care is a good idea? But don't all other civilized countries provide universal coverage to their citizens? Many do, but you already know about the problems in Canada, which lead some Canadians to come to the US for their health care. And the unvarnished truth is that across these countries, from East to West, there are two parallel health care systems: the government-run one and the private sector one. And I don't have to tell you which one is better.

What does Dr. Paul offer as an alternative to more government in health care? He wants less government. He wants doctors to be able to negotiate with insurance companies to drive down costs. He wants to eliminate federal regulations that make it hard for small businesses to provide coverage. He wants to make all medical expenses tax-deductible. He wants to make Health Savings Accounts available to all. He wants to reform licensure requirements to increase free market competition. And in the long run, he'd like to reverse the whole trend towards third-party payers. He envisions a system in which people pay cash for ordinary medical services and carry insurance only for catastrophes. He says that it will cost less that way, as it did before the era of government-mandated HMOs. He points to courageous doctors who right now offer low-cost medical care without accepting insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, and they charge much less than other doctors- often not much more than the insurance co-pay that others charge. And by the way, he was one of those doctors himself, offering very low-cost, but high-quality, obstetrical care in a poor Houston neighborhood.

But ultimately, as important as costs are, it's the quality of care that matters most. And from my perspective, the quality of care will suffer with more government involvement. Here's an example of what I mean: Just yesterday, (January 9) the FDA flexed its muscle to deny women the right to take bio-identical estrogen, as prepared by compounding pharmacies. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the leading maker of horse estrogen (Premarin) petitioned the FDA to do it. But women were not buying the bio-identical estrogen directly from pharmacies-it was being prescribed to them by their doctors! So, the FDA was, in effect, overruling the doctors themselves, and many of them have filed complaints. How dare the FDA tell doctors how to think and practice! Of course, the FDA says that bio-identical estrogen is unapproved, unregulated, etc. The FDA even demands that pharmacies cease using the word "bio-identical" even though the term is accurate. This is just a blatant attempt to preserve market share for Wyeth in the face of increased competition from compounding pharmacies which offer a superior product. There is no reason to think that bio-identical estrogen is any less safe and standardized than bio-identical DHEA, or bio-identical melatonin, or bio-identical pregnenolone, all of which are readily available without a prescription and without FDA oversight. People have been taking these hormones for 14 years, and I have never heard of any quality-control problems. In fact, bio-identical estrogen is made from the same phyto-sterols in Mexican yam from which DHEA and pregnenolone are made. Of course, the FDA would love to restrict those hormones as well, and perhaps they will succeed, although I sure hope they don't.

But what do you think would happen if we had government health care across the board? Don't you think Big Pharma would step in to use the force of government to champion its interests? They will set protocols for everything and make it hard , or impossible, to get coverage for alternative treatments, natural treatments, nutritional treatments, etc. As Ron says, if Medicine is politicized, then freedom and choice go down the drain, and that would be the biggest casualty of all.

If you love freedom, particularly health freedom, then you should vote for Ron Paul. And don't believe any of the smears spewing from the mainstream press, which are certain to increase if he continues to do well. I met him once. It was at a campaign stop in Cuero, Texas in 1988. And my friend, Dr. Ward Dean, knows him quite well, the two of them having discussed health and medical issues together, doctor to doctor. Ron Paul strikes me as being as kind and compassionate as any human being can be, and he lacks what other politicians have in great abundance: arrogance, hubris, and megalomania. He's such a rare breed in politics that we can't let him slip away. His ascendance would be our ascendance.