Comments for Articles on Complementary Medicine

Comment on Hormone Testing by Dr Michael Serafin

Dr Michael Serafin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:00:31 +0000

Peter
The problem with relying on serum analysis for detecting transdermal progesterone is that it is a fundamentally flawed methodology and will never be able to demonstrate suitable serum levels. The reason for this is due to the fact that when progesterone is absorbed into the blood stream from the skin it binds to red blood cell membranes in order to minimize unfavorable interactions between the fat loving progesterone molecule with the aqueous (water) serum phase (remember oil and water do not mix!). When a patient goes for a serum blood test the blood sample is centrifuged before it is analyzed to remove all red blood cells, along with any progesterone attached to them. Therefore serum analysis cannot possibly accurately measure transdermal progesterone if most of it is being thrown out before being tested for. This phenomenon is not observed to such a degree with oral progesterone due to the fact that once absorbed it initially enters the liver (the reason why it has such poor bioavailability - 10 to 15%) where it is attached to the Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG). This protein then allows progesterone to remain in serum by minimizing the unfavorable interactions mentioned above and thus will show up in serum analysis. Therefore we cannot rely on serum testing to verify the validity of transdermal progesterone. Secondly, serum analysis only detects hormone levels in serum. It does not reflect hormone levels inside the cells where they are actually active. Therefore I cannot understand why so much emphasis has been placed on serum testing to the detriment of other methods. Saliva and urine tests both show that transdermal progesterone does indeed raise progesterone levels. The level achieved obviously depends on the dose and rate of absorption. I however usually adjust the dose until I obtain a reading within an optimal target range. I feel that the validity of both these methods of analysis has been well proven and thus more accurately reflect the true level of transdermally absorbed progesterone. Finally over the last 10 years or so I have been involved with 1000’s of women using transdermal progesterone. Our saliva/urine testing almost always shows improved progesterone levels not to mention the fact there is a great improvement in the patients symptoms - which is what it is all about!

Comment on Hormone Testing by Peter Gal

Peter Gal — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:01:57 +0000

I think transdermal progesterone is left with a quandry which needs explanation to a level satisfactory to convince the research scientists - not necessarily doctors at this stage, I believe baby steps are acceptable initially:

1) The vast majority of research papers which validate the therapeutic benefits for progesterone do so by comparing the improved clinical symptoms to the serum levels of progesterone, not the saliva levels of progesterone.

2) Until transdermal progesterone raises the serum level of progesterone to the same levels as were achieved by the research scientists who validated the therapeutic benefits of progesterone, therefore transdermal progesterone cannot justifiably lay claim to achieve the same therapeutic benefits as are achieved by an increase in serum progesterone.

3) I see no possible logical basis by which the transdermal progesterone researchers can lay claim to the same therapeutic benefits as have been previously associated with increased levels of serum progesterone, until the transdermal progesterone is demonstrated to increase the serum levels of progesterone.

4) Therefore the transdermal progesterone researchers must lay claim to their own therapeutic benefits for humans (not mice, sorry) after they first demonstrate that an increase in salivary progesterone is linked to a therapeutic benefit, AND that a reduction of salivary progesterone is linked to a therapeutic decline. It is not sufficient to demonstrate only one of these relationships.

When the dosages and measurements of such studies are published in peer reviewed journals, AND repeated by at least two independent parties (all results on which we are going to base a therapy must be repeatable), then the corresponding transdermal progesterone dosages and salivary measurements as used by the researchers, are the ones we should observe.

I have not been able to find any peer-reviewed research papers which demonstrate the above.

I give you all the benefit of my doubt and I believe that you have all found the research papers which demonstrate these relationships. Well done. Perhaps one day I might find them too.

Comment on Human Growth Hormone by michael

michael — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:12:30 +0000

We sell pharmaceutical quality HGH for $500 for a 40 day supply based on a half a unit dose per day dosing programe. Refer to the ordering information section of this website for ordering details.

Comment on Human Growth Hormone by Jacqui

Jacqui — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:33:06 +0000

Does anyone know where I can purchase quality but inexpensive HGH. I currently purchase my supply through my Dr but it costs me approximately $800 per month.

Comment on Meditation for Health by michael

michael — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:01:38 +0000

John
Cheers! I agree with you, however just to clarify meditation is about connecting to our soul, or our innermost essence, through the breath. If done incorrectly you will continue to breathe a pranic breath and therefore increase the prana in your body. Therefore it is very important it is a gentle firey breath.
Once connected our soul can infuse our body with the firey soulful energy which will reconfigure our body energetically and help transmute the excess of prana, the energy responsible for illness and dis-ease. By doing so this will then erase all disease from our body and we will be in the firey livingness rather than the pranic existence.

Regards Michael

Comment on Meditation for Health by John

John — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:41:14 +0000

Great article!
I have always told my friends that meditation is nothing more than breathing a certain way and entering a different mood.
It is a state we enter, moving our energy around the body. We are scientifically speaking made up of atoms of energy - and thus all things are moving energy.

When we are in a state of lower health it is usually a sign of a blockage of energy and breathing in the above method will help drastically restore moving energy to system in a way to kickstart the immune system into action. Everything is interlinked - even science and spirituality.

Cheers,
John
http://www.secrets2meditation.com

Comment on Emotional healing by Michael

Michael — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:52:51 +0000

Terence
Thanks for your thoughts! In regards to the environmental factors you mentioned I believe fundamentally they too are energetically determined. By that I mean if you have a certain energetic entrapment held within your body it may physically attract certain environmental toxins towards you and make you susceptable to their negative physical effects thus creating a disease. If you do not have such a energetic entrapment then even if you were exposed to the same environmental toxin in question it would have no physical effect on your body. If you are open to the possibility of reincarnation then the whole genetics argument is also energetically determined as your soul choses its incarnation (genetics), along with your kama, in order for you to learn what ever lesson that incarnation has to offer you and in effect clear an energetic entrapment. The energetic influence always comes first which then causes a physical outcome.
I too do not feel that god theories need to be incompatible with the science of energy or modern day science as often argued. They must all complement each other perfectly when expressed in truth. The problem is in the past these teachings have been totally misunderstood and inaccurately taught to the masses in order to keep us from the real truth - that god exists inside everyone of us - therefore I would have to argue that we need to look within to realise this truth and not fall for the illusion that we need to seek outside of ourselves. We have been doing that for thousands of years and it has not worked at all!

Comment on Glutathione by michael

michael — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:49:52 +0000

In regards to using precursors (of any kind) it is very unpredictable as to weather or not there will be any significant conversion of it into the desired end compound. As we all vary greatly the degree of conversion of any precursor will vary greatly due to a whole variety of reasons such as presence of cofactors, protein intake, enzyme efficiency and numbers, to name but a few. The more conversion steps required to achieve the end product the more chance of failure to produce sufficient amounts of it to produce a therapeutic effect therefore making the use of precursors ineffective in many cases. In addition the more conversion steps required a far greater dose of precursor is required to produce a relatively small amount of end product as a great deal of loss will occur through side reactions, alternative reaction pathways, liver metabolism and elimination, etc, etc. With this unpredictable nature I feel it is more effective to use the compound in question so you know for a fact that you are actually getting a therapeutic dose of the desired end product rather than assuming you may be getting it through conversion of a precursor. A great error is to assume anything including that there will be significant conversion. If you can measure the end product through some form of accurate and proven testing method such as blood tests, say, then you will know for sure if the end compound in question is being formed from the precursor and if proven to be so well and good. However in this example glutathione cannot be practically measured due to its reactivity so you have no way of knowing if significant amounts of conversion is occuring to produce a therapeutic effect. Therefore the use of precursor therapy is questionable in individual cases.

In addition what is the difference in the end if you use a precursor or the compound itself? In this example assume you take N-acetylcysteine to increase glutathione and assume it actually works in this particular individual. The end result is an increase in glutathione levels. If you use glutathione itself the same end result occurs without any assumptions or guess work. As both these agents are considered safe I do not see any benefit using a precursor for a therapeutic effect. In addition if several conversion steps are required then you will need to take a far greater amount of N-acetylcysteine to produce only a small amount of glutathione as you will never get 100% conversion (or anywhere close to it) so in fact you could argue that it would be a disadvantage to use a precursor in most cases as a greater dose is required and arguably placing more pressure on your liver and system in general.

As most of the information I present is for the treatment of various disease states and as such the treatments suggested must achieve a therapeutic effect I prefer to use predictable and reliable treatments that I can confidently say will work in a majority of cases. Hence I do not generally recommend prescursors. Obviously in cases where achieving therapeutic doses is not as critical, such as supplements for well being, precursors may be used because if insufficient amounts of the end product is produced it will no have any major detrimental effects on the patient.

I hope this explains my reasons for doing so.

Comment on Glutathione by Earl Conroy DC, ND

Earl Conroy DC, ND — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 05:17:32 +0000

Dr Serafin:
I have just found your web site and have downloaded a number of your articles. I am always on the look for people who understand physiology/biochemistry…and are not married to the medical model.
With that said, in the article on glutathione….
You only suggest taking some form of formed glutathione.
Would it not be a better idea, cheaper, more readily available to take the pre-cursors??
With precursors the body can make what it needs as it needs it, with no hassles of breaking down.
I think that some writers have a tendency to cater to the pharmaceutical/supplement approach rather than…how can we synthesize this hormone or compound from readily available materials. yes?
With best wishes,
Earl Conroy

Comment on Emotional healing by Terence Kearns

Terence Kearns — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:08:37 +0000

Interesting. I think the idea that we are fundamentally created from energy makes a lot of sense (consistent with Einstein’s theories and the idea that God spake and it was so). As you say, we don’t have the connect between practical science and the energy source. Everyone has to believe in something so you have to pick the most plausable. Some people choose evolutionary theory. I think that takes a temendous amount of faith. There are many theories on life, energy, and how we are here. They sprawl off in different directions.
I think the idea that emotions are connected to desease is an obvious one - it explains addiction (additiction to emotional states) which is causal to desease IMO. However, there are also environmental factors (like genetics). So like many things, it’s complicated. More complicated than energy theory (not that we should abandon energy theory). Us humans have an instinct to discern, but often we crop our abilities to descern with simplifications. This is often related to our in-built nature to fear in addition to the absolute limits of our comprehension - although it is usually the forma IMHO.
People often pull away from the monotheistic “God” theory because we recoil at the idea that we could never be in ultimate control. Often this may be a result of “bad teachings” we’ve been exposed to but I think it is more along the lines of the instinct to “suppress” out of fear - which is one of the things you mentioned.
I think the pure energy theory makes a lot of sense but some of the conclusions extrapolated from it need to be explored more tentatively. Other older theories (like the God theory) need to be re-considered IMHO. They needn’t be as incompatible as we’ve been conditioned to believe they are. Beware of those who would polarise issues (ie. bible bashers and the like, but more increasingly religeious atheists), because these people only limit our ability to discern (grow). It’s amazing how much discernment can be obtained through faith, however. Since faith is a bridge across to ideas we wouldn’t be able to otherwise reach on our own. In the past, people have made roadmaps of many discerned ideas as a kind of “database”, if you will, to transcend time. So you have ancient “religeous” texts like the Tora, the Koran, and the Bible etc. I’ve been studying the Bible recently and I’ve found that a proper understanding of the map there-in has made a huge difference in healing emotionally which has lead to measurable physical improvements. Because us humans cannot exist in isolation, our relationships are also part of us and healing relationships is the primary part of the emotional healing. However there is a profound thing to note here: one needs to have an “outward”, not an “inward” paradigm for this to really work in the kind of long-lasting and perminent way that we need. That’s the principle and the key behind “seek ye first” in the Bible and the 6th habbit (from 7 habits of Stephen Covey).

Anyway. Just thought I would share my thoughts/experience. Keep up the good work. I think you have an amazing gift.