Antidepressants – An Interesting Story

-->
When I started this blog it was at the prompting of my mother, for whom I had been doing research in the hopes of finding natural cures for her kidney issues. At the time she had been on antidepressants and antipsychotics for several years. When I found out about her kidney issues I assumed that her doctor was “taking care” of her. It wasn’t until later that I realized that this was not true. I began a quest to find out why this was happening and how to help the situation. My research led me to the fact that antidepressants were greatly exacerbating her problem.

The beautiful side effect of discovering the detrimental effects of antidepressants and antipsychotics in relation to kidney disease is that, once I figured this out, my mother got off these drugs immediately and she came back to us. Despite the fact that doctors insist that anyone getting off these medications must do so gradually, my mother was so concerned with her health that she just got off of them cold turkey. This was extremely unexpected. She had been on these medications for quite some time and had tried getting off of them before (cold turkey) but found that it was a shock to her “mental” state and believed that she needed to be on these drugs. At that time I recall thinking that it wasn’t that she needed to be on them but that she had tried getting off of them too quickly. Still, at that time, there was no way to convince her of that. She believed with all her heart (or perhaps just with all her mind) that she needed the medications to be “mentally stable.”

So, fast forward to her treatment for kidney disease and my discovery that these types of pharmaceuticals could exacerbate her kidney problems (you can read about this in a previous blog), she decided she needed to get off these medications once and for all and at once. I was very concerned that she would have the same problem that she’d had before. Still, I couldn’t convince her to get off of them gradually. She was determined just to get off of them at once and stay off of them – she was worried for her health.

I believed I had convinced her to get herself off them gradually, preferably under the care of her doctor and she said she would do that. Then about a month later I asked her how many (of her medications) she was taking a day. She said none, that she had just stopped taking them. My mother is very stubborn and strong-willed (kind of like me). I really should have known that I really hadn’t convinced her of anything and that, regardless of what I’d said, she’d do what she thought she should do.

Of course, I should have known this. I had been telling her for months that she needed to do this and she needed to do that to help her issue but she never did any of it. When she finally made the decision to get off of her medication it was not because I “told” her about it. It was because I had given her actual hard-core facts to read. Duh! My mother is no dummy. She needed to read that this was necessary otherwise there was no reasoning with her.

Anyway, after a while that she had gotten off these medications I realized that I had my mother back. It wasn’t until then that I realized how these medications had changed her personality, to the point that she was no longer herself. Gradually, over the years, she had become a shell of a person. It hadn’t really occurred to me why, I had just noticed that she wasn’t “mom” anymore. One memory that sticks with me was shopping for a birthday (or mother’s day, take your pick) card for her. I remember reading these touchy-feely cards that said things like, “Mom, you’ve been there for me through thick and thin and I have always been able to count on you…” or “Mom, what would my life have been like without you to do all the things a mother should do”…you catch my drift. I remember none of these cards were appropriate for my mom at the time. It was sad, but I remember thinking that I needed a card that said, “Mom, here’s to you coming to visit and sitting on the couch to watch TV….” That might sound bad, but, honestly, this is how it was. We all saw it. My mom always seemed upset and bored. There was no joy in her eyes, or in her voice.  We thought it was due to her “mental illness.” Boy, were we wrong.

I can’t say it was an immediate change from one day to the next. Or maybe it was and I just didn’t notice. But I can say that once I started spending more time with her, I realized that she was my mama again – the one that raised me and took me to the local hamburger joint as a kid so we could enjoy a burger on one of their outdoor tables. It was the same mama that would take me to walk around the plaza in Santa Fe and would buy me a treat at the Woolworth. Looking back, I think it was probably an immediate change, but it took me a while to realize that it was. Maybe I thought it was too good to be true.

I can safely say that three (or whatever) years later, she is my mama again and now I can’t find a card that expresses the love and gratitude I feel for her and all that she does for me. It makes me realize just how devastating those antidepressants and antipsychotics truly are. It also makes me realize how unnecessary they are. Ever since SHE made the decision that she did not need them, she didn’t need them! It may seem really amazing, but I guess it really isn’t, given the power of our minds and that we have the ability to heal just by thinking about it.

There is something else, very important that I need to point out. While I was learning about the detrimental effects of those medications, I was also learning how to naturally heal the kidneys. It is no coincidence that dehydration causes all sorts of issues, including kidney disease AND mental illness (along with probably every other disease out there) or that vitamin D is a necessary supplement for overall health. Well, among learning about the pharmaceuticals, I was also learning about other “natural” cures for her kidney issues. Little did I realize that implementing these things was also helping the “mental” issues along with just believing that she didn’t need the pharmaceuticals but now I know that it all was working together.

I know this particular post doesn’t give many tips on how to heal naturally…or maybe it does and you just have to read between the lines. But I thought it was a good story for anyone who is on antidepressants or antipsychotics that believe that they actually need them. My mother was in a hospital for a while and we really believed she was “mentally ill.” After all of this I realize more than anything that she is a strong, strong woman who had it in her all along to be mentally healthy. Even now, with her kidney issues, I realize that it is her strength, more than anything, which is keeping her going.

Let this be hope for anyone out there who thinks they “need” drugs…for anything, especially for “mental health”. Even though it seems like a true illness, I believe, and not to diminish anyone’s experiences with this, that mental health is really all in our heads (no pun intended).

Here’s to your healthy mind, and healthy body!

Vitamin D and Kidney Health

This post has been a long time coming. In fact I have been meaning to write this for a year. My absence has not been for lack of caring but a result of a whirlwind of a year. But enough of that. It's time to get back to business.

This post is very important to me as it ties into the very reason I started this blog. As the title states, this post is about vitamin D and kidney health so I will be discussing the affect of vitamin D on the kidneys. More precisely I'll be discussing the effect that a deficiency of vitamin D can have on the kidneys.

I noticed several months ago, perhaps even a year ago, that the result on my mother's blood lab showed a deficiency in vitamin D. I didn't notice it until after we left the office and realized that the doctor hadn't noticed it either. I was about to be up in arms but in the doctor's defense she called later that day and informed my mom that she had called in a prescription for vitamin D because she had noticed the deficiency.

The prescription was written for her to take a high dosage once a month for 6 months and not refilled. Unfortunately it took several more months/appointments/blood tests showing vitamin D deficiency for me to fully understand, through research, what that doctor was doing to my mom's health by allowing her to continue being deficient in vitamin D.

Vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with kidney problems. Unfortunately my mom's doctor did not, (and I'm guessing most nephrologists do not) look at the vitamin D level as any real indicator of kidney health. In fact, she told me as much. While she did write the prescription the one time, she never talked to my mom about taking vitamin D as a supplement even when she was not on the prescription or even if she believed she was not exactly deficient. She also expressly said that she looks at the parathyroid hormone level (which I will discuss later in the blog) as an indicator of vitamin D deficiency. After studying everything I have researched, it is astonishing to me that this is the case.

I believe I established in an earlier blog that vitamin D is essential to every aspect of our health. I also established that the healthiest form of vitamin D to which our body has access is that which is produced from exposure to the sun. However, as I mentioned in a previous blog, most people do not get enough sun and therefore most people do not get enough vitamin D. This means that most people require supplementation to get an adequate amount of vitamin D; an amount that would help fend off illness and disease. It is my belief that this is one of the main reasons we have such a sickly society.

As it turns out, it is our kidneys that take the vitamin D from the sun and convert it to the activated form used by our bodies (calcitriol). Unfortunately, in compromised kidneys this action is either greatly reduced or impossible, which means that patients with kidney problems require even more supplementation than the average, deficient person with good kidney health. While there is no limit to the amount of D we receive from the sun, the medical community claims that there is such a thing as vitamin D toxicity when received from supplements. Currently the "normal" range of vitamin D level is purported to be 32 - 50 ng/dl. The lower level of this range was reduced a few years ago from 36 to 32. Doctors are claiming that toxicity results from dosages of 10,000 IUs a day and above. For this reason they are prescribing (or recommending) very low dosages of supplementation, many times in the range of 800 to 1000 IUs a day.

While the “average” person (with normal kidney health) might (but probably not) benefit from this low level of supplementation, this would not make a dent in the vitamin D deficiencies in kidney patients. I feel that these numbers are way too low based on the research. Science itself has proven that these numbers are low. According to a paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, “Published cases of vitamin D toxicity with hypercalcemia, for which the 25(OH)D concentration and vitamin D dose are known, all involve intake of > or = 1000 microg (40000 IU)/d. Because vitamin D is potentially toxic, intake of >25 microg (1000 IU)/d has been avoided even though the weight of evidence shows that the currently accepted, no observed adverse effect limit of 50 microg (2000 IU)/d is too low by at least 5-fold." This means that people can take over 10,000 IUs in supplementation daily and not even be close to the purported “toxicity” dosage.

Articles written in http://www.naturalnews.com and http://www.mercola.com go into much greater detail regarding vitamin D toxicity and many other health issues related to vitamin D deficiency. I will not reference the exact article here that refers to what I am about to say because I am hoping that people go to those web sites and read some of the many articles on the topic. According to one of the articles written, the D levels of people with kidney patients should be aimed toward the higher end of the accepted range. Just because 32 ng/dl is considered normal, people with kidney problems should be showing a level of 45 -50 ng/dl.

It is my belief that the claim of vitamin D toxicity being much lower than necessary, the lowering of the "normal" vitamin D range, and especially the vilification of the sun via sunscreen-promoting campaigns by the mainstream health community are ultimately techniques used by the pharmaceutical companies to keep people sickly so that they can sell more drugs. The basic premise of this blog is to encourage people to choose natural methods of healing over allopathic/conventional drugs. The main reason I encourage this is because I have read many publications discussing the mega profits made by pharmaceutical companies and the fact that Big Pharma is, at the end of the day, big business. This means that they are in the business of making money, not helping people as many would like to believe.


It's hard not to sound like a conspiracy theorist based on everything I have learned about vitamin D. Clearly it would behoove Big Pharma to either keep this information from the mainstream channels and/or to encourage the FDA and other government entities to essentially keep people deficient in vitamin D so that they suffer from illness and therefore "require" pharmaceutical drugs on an ongoing basis. It is in their best interest for people to be sick because they then can sell more drugs. On top of this all pharmaceuticals come with side effects and the typical practice is to prescribe more drugs to address the side affects. This means that the more drugs they sell the more drugs they sell. It is very profitable.


With this in mind let's get back to vitamin D and the kidneys. So, as I said, the more deficient a person with kidney problems is, the more supplementation they would need. This means that my mom's nephrologist should have either had her on an ongoing prescription until the deficiency was fully gone or she should have counseled her on the importance of taking a vitamin D supplement. Of course in my mom's case or that of other kidney patients it would have been more of a benefit to keep her on an ongoing prescription at least until she showed a consistent level in the upper range of the acceptable levels (~49 ng/dl). The reason for this is because the supplement available over the counter is in the form of cholecalciferol. Our kidneys then take this form and convert it to the activated form of calcitriol. Because people with impaired kidney function cannot efficiently perform this activation and much of the D they receive naturally is therefore lost, they must take the prescription version of the supplement, which is vitamin D already in its active form - calcitriol.


During the last conversation I had with my mom's ex-nephrologist (I made the decision to seek a new doctor because I felt this doctor was at best incompetent and at worst completely negligent in my mother's care) I brought up the fact that I had done research on this topic and I pointed out that my mom had been deficient in D the entire time she was under the doctor's care (around 4 years). The doctor attempted to defend herself by showing me a number (level) from early on in my mother's care that showed that she was at 36 ng/dl, which (as she stated) was not a deficiency. I told her that at the time of that particular test, the range had not yet been changed to reflect the lower number as deficient. At the time of the 36 reading, the range began at 36 and therefore she was on the cusp of deficiency at the time. The fact that the recommended range had changed after that to 32 on the low end was of no consequence. The point was that my mother's level had been extremely low, particularly for a person with kidney problems. As mentioned, it is recommended that people with kidney problems aim for something closer to the high end of the range (i.e. 47 ng/dl).


The next thing the doctor indicated or implied was that the vitamin D level shown on the lab report does not prompt her decision to prescribe supplementation of D. She actually uses the parathyroid hormone (PTH) level to determine if she should prescribe supplementation. This angered me because an elevation in PTH level is indicative of severe vitamin D deficiency and can create additional problems. Interestingly the medication prescribed to kidney patients with elevated PTH is the activated form of vitamin D (with a pharmaceutical name - Hectorol).

Based on this, it seems that most doctors, particularly my mom’s recent doctor, do not put a lot of stock in vitamin D levels. As long as the patient’s level is within this broad range, even if it is at the low end, it is deemed okay and supplementation is not prescribed or recommended. Ironically the medication prescribed is nothing more than the activated form of vitamin D. This just makes no sense to me. Instead of waiting to see a problem that results from D deficiency, why not just nip it in the bud and increase the supplementation before the problem ever occurs? I guess that would make too much sense.

Additionally, a deficiency of D, particularly in kidney patients, increases the risk of hypertension (high blood pressure). Hypertension further damages kidney function. This means it becomes a downward spiral. The more deficient a person is in D, the more likely they will become hypertensive which will then further cause kidney damage. This was the other prescription my mother's nephrologist was trying to get her to take - a high blood pressure medication. Because of the negligence of this doctor my mom is now very leery of medications. Unfortunately she really does need to get her BP down. Fortunately she is seeing someone locally that consults on natural treatments. That is a topic for another blog, but I do want to emphasize that it is imperative that kidney patients aim for a lower blood pressure. In fact, it is imperative that all people aim for lower blood pressure because anyone with high blood pressure is at risk of developing kidney disease.

But again, my point here is that the doctor – any doctor – could have prevented the hypertension by ensuring an adequate D level. Of course the doctor was looking for a symptom to prescribe a medication – in this case it was high blood pressure.

I put quite a bit of though after we'd left and in the days following about the fact that the doctor had been trained (as most or all doctors are) to treat a symptom as opposed to finding the underlying cause. In addition to treating a symptom, doctors are trained to look for specific symptoms that could be treated with drugs. They look for specific indicators and then treat that one indicator. The doctor reviews the blood work at each appointment and also has the patient's vitals taken. The doctor then "treats" the patient based on the results of these tests, however, the "treatment" is nothing more than the prescribing of drugs. Clearly vitamin D level is not one of them. If my conspiracy theory is correct, why would it be? Vitamin D supplementation is incredibly cheap. Not only that, Big Pharma would be losing out on billions of dollars of profit from the drugs that the doctor is not having to prescribe.

Had the doctor been monitoring and "treating" her vitamin D levels all along and had she "prescribed" a vitamin D supplement from the get-go, the hypertension might have never occurred or the PTH level may have never been elevated. In fact, I believe that if the doctor had been monitoring her D levels and making an active effort to get them to rise to something closer to the upper limit of the "normal" range, my mother's kidney function would not have continued to decline. Instead, the doctor waited until her kidney function had declined to the point of hypertension and elevated PTH which caused further kidney damage. Furthermore, if her regular doctor had been monitoring her vitamin D levels in the first place, she may have never had to refer my mom to a nephrologist and her kidney function might not be where it is today.

This entire situation has taught me a huge lesson. It is my responsibility to take control of my and my loved ones' health care. I have learned that I cannot just trust that the doctors are aware of the implications of a deficiency in vitamin D. Most doctors spend 2 years of their schooling learning anatomy. The remainder of their training (approximately 6 years) is focused on pharmacology. This means that they learn much more about the pharmaceuticals available to prescribe than they do about the way the body functions.


If it hadn't been for the fact that I took control and looked at the lab results levels I would have never discovered any of this. Next on my to-do list is to have my own vitamin D levels checked. Although I have been taking supplementation for a year or so, I can't trust that I am not still deficient.


I am confident that most diseases (including cancer) are reversible with the right information and natural methods. I understand that in severe (potentially fatal) cases of, for example, infections, an antibiotic might kill the infection more quickly than a natural method but those cases are rare. In this case conventional medicine is necessary and beneficial. However, I feel that holistic treatments should be tried first and that conventional treatments should be the last resort. Not the other way around.

My mom's D levels have increased since she has been on the medication for the PTH as well as an additional D supplement. She is also taking natural steps to reduce her hypertension. It is my hope that this will either reverse the kidney damage she has now or at least prevent further damage. My mom is my heart and I hope to have her around for a very long time; moreover I hope that for time that she is around she has an exceptional quality of life.


I hope this information is helpful. Feel free to comment and/or contact me with any questions or for more information. In the coming weeks (or months or depending on my schedule) I hope to get into this subject more deeply and discuss potential causes of kidney damage in patients that do not have kidney disease, such as patients as my mom, so be on the look out. Kidney damage and kidney failure is becoming more and more prevalent in our society as our diets become less healthy, more prescriptions are handed out, and obesity continues to rise.

Till next time!


References:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5459758_vitamin-kidney-function.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/288645-vitamin-d-and-kidney-damage/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16076348
http://www.livestrong.com/article/232907-kidney-function-and-vitamin-d/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/316228-vitamin-d-creatinine-kidney-function/
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/otherendo/vitamind.html

Sunscreen and Skin Cancer

I recently read an article in Glamour Magazine regarding the importance of getting any unusual spots checked for cancer. They run this article or something similar every year around this time. They say that this article has helped many women identify potential cancerous spots. It is extremely informative regarding the types of spots to look for, etc., however, I have an issue with the assertion that the sun is the cause of skin cancer.

The sun is natural; it’s been around since the beginning of time. We NEED the sun; without it we would cease to exist. The sun’s rays allow our bodies to produce much needed vitamin D which helps us absorb calcium and also prevents many diseases. I feel it is extremely contradictory that something that is so good for us and absolutely necessary could also be so bad as to cause a potentially fatal illness.

While I do believe that everything should be had in moderation and that anything to an extreme could be harmful I have serious doubts that the sun is actually causing the cancer. I agree that getting burned by the sun is probably not healthy and I could buy into the notion that having severe sunburn could possibly increase the odds of skin cancer. I haven’t yet seen any data that points to how this would happen but with a good argument I could stand behind that. Perhaps the sunburn makes the skin more vulnerable allowing an external toxin to cause the cancer. I don’t know but I know there must be a reason the odds of getting skin cancer are increased after having been sunburned. This still doesn’t tell me that the sun actually causes the cancer. I don’t believe the sun is a carcinogen and if it is I’m not sure how that was ever proven. I get the whole "radiation" argument and the sun's rays being a form of radiation but still, the sun is necessary and life-giving.

The article states that “…the number of young women diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma has more than doubled over the past 30 years.” This is attributed to the use of tanning beds; however, I wonder if it could possibly have anything to do with the increased use of sunscreen.

The Glamour article also states that you can get cancer on your palms and the soles of your feet. I’m confused. If the sun is causing the skin cancer, how can the soles of your feet get it from the sun? How often do the soles of your feet see the sun? I would venture that it’s extremely rare. I also don't see most people walking around all day with their palms facing out or up. In fact, I can't remember the last time I witnessed that. The palms are, however, the one part of the body that is exposed to every, single product we use on ourselves from shaving cream to body lotion to shampoo.

It should be a well-known fact that women, since the beginning of time, have been sunning themselves. I recall my mother telling me that she’d become (much) tanned every summer because of all the time she spent outside. I’m fairly certain that she wasn’t using sunscreen in the 1940s. Bathing suits have been in existence for decades, yet the number of young women with basal cell carcinoma has more than doubled over the past 30 years? I hear the argument of young women using tanning beds clearly more than women 30 years ago (were there tanning beds in the 80s? I think so but maybe not as prevalent? Who knows?) but I also know that the awareness campaigns about their supposed danger have been highly pushed over the past twenty to thirty years also. To me this would suggest that many more women are aware of their perceived dangers and are either avoiding them altogether or avoiding them as well as slathering on the sunscreen.

I just don’t buy the argument that the sun causes skin cancer. I also believe that because the sun is necessary and healthy it doesn’t cause any type of cancer at all. I’m not saying that women should lie outside all day long getting fried I’m just saying that I don’t believe the sun is the villain that it has been made out to be. As I stated earlier, I feel that anything to an extreme could be “bad” and therefore I feel that the sun, in moderation, is not and is in fact a good thing. In fact I recall learning this in a toxicology class I took in college - that anything in the right quantities can be toxic. Fair enough. But is it really fair to place all the blame on the sun? I really don't think so.

Okay then, if that is the case then what IS causing the skin cancer? Could it possibly be the sunscreen itself? Could it be the product(s) that is being recommended to prevent the thing that is actually causing the thing? The article, “Sunscreen Causes Cancer!” actually states this as fact and corroborates this postulation. Additionally the article “Sunblock Can Actually Increase Your Cancer Risk” discusses a link between the food we eat and skin cancer. Both articles provide viable arguments and we all know that nutrition affects every aspect of our health.

Then, after the question from a friend and subsequent research, I found out that most sunscreens contain Oxybenzone, which is also known as Benzophenone-3. Not only has it been linked to allergies, hormone disruption and cell damage (http://www.vivawoman.net/2008/04/10/avoid-sunscreens-containing-oxybenzone/) it is potentially a photocarcinogen (Wikepedia). This means that if so, when exposed to the sun, the sunscreen actually becomes a carcinogen! Does that make any sense at all? Push a product on people under the pretense that it prevents cancer only it actually CAUSES cancer!

Most Glamour articles contain suggestions/recommendations for specific brands of products relating to the topics discussed within their articles. I went back to that article to find out what, exactly, they were recommending as “good” products to use for sun protection. They recommended three different products – one “for face”, one “for every day” and one “for beach days”. After Googling these products and searching the Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database I found that all three contain Oxybenzone and therefore all three are probably more detrimental to a person’s health than the “protection” they are claiming to provide. The cosmetic database rates the products on a scale from 0 to 10 – zero being non-hazardous and ten having the most hazards. The products ranked 0 – 2 are recommended for use, those ranked 3 – 6 should be used with caution and those ranked 7 – 10 should be avoided. All three of the products recommended by Glamour had high hazard ratings ranging from 8 to 10.

It would stand to reason that topical application products could be the culprit for skin cancer if it is also found on the palms and soles of the feet. I’ve read several articles and have heard references to studies of products that are now being found to be the cause of several illnesses and problems, particularly in women. The skin, being one large organ, is very porous. According to aforementioned Natural News article, anything that is absorbed by the skin makes its way to the bloodstream fairly quickly. For this reason it is important to limit the toxins and chemicals used on the skin in the form of beauty products. As it states, you shouldn’t put on your skin anything that you wouldn’t eat.

The bottom line is that the sun is necessary, without it we would die. In fact, it has been reported that many illnesses that people are suffering today are a direct result from vitamin D deficiency. It is recommended that everyone spend at least 15 minutes a day out in the sun while exposing as much skin as possible so that the body can produce the necessary vitamin D. This means no sunscreen. Sunscreen blocks the necessary rays that allow the body to produce the necessary D. There are many articles that point to this. My logic tells me that the sun is not the cause of skin cancer. Perhaps, in large doses and after having severe sunburns it triggers the negative effects of an outside toxin. I haven’t read information from any such study but that is something I could understand; however, it would take quite a bit for me to ever believe that the sun, in and of itself, actually causes any form of cancer.

I still believe that if you choose to spend hours in the sun you should use some sort of protection either in the form of a hat, long sleeved shirt, and/or non-hazardous sunscreen, which does exist. Burning is never good. After researching a variety of products, I found that several do not contain harmful chemicals. I recommend a variety of products that I have researched and have listed on my web page http://www.marciemartinez.ws/skincare. I have included several options for non-hazardous sunscreen for those times when you have to be out in the sun longer than 15 minutes. You will also find other useful information regarding natural health and alternative products and treatments for various issues by browsing my web site. Please bear with me as I'm still populating my site with my recommendations but I believe you will find the information I've provided so far to be useful.

Until next time have a fabulous week and enjoy the warm sun…in moderation!

Kidney Problems and the Effects of Antidepressants

For the past two years my mother has been having kidney problems. Her kidneys have been functioning only at 25%. The only real advice her doctors (primary care and nephrologist) have given her is to reduce her sodium intake. She understands the need to do whatever it takes to get her kidneys functioning properly so she has done a very good job at reducing her sodium intake.

What I found odd was that neither of her doctors recommended that she drink more water – you know that pure fluid that our kidneys require to flush out all those pesky toxins we ingest every single day? No, her doctor told her that drinking more water would not necessarily help get her creatinine to an ideal level.

For years we have been telling my mom that she needs to drink more water. We visibly see her dry mouth – which, she claims is a result of her medications. "All the MORE reason to drink more water," we tell her. It was very frustrating to know that her doctor, in whom she has placed much trust, would give her this kind of information. Although she has tried to drink more water since we have explained that it is indeed important for optimal kidney function – regardless of what her doctor says – I felt like that was a huge step back in our quest to help her see where she could do something so simple to improve her health.

My mother has a tendency for stubbornness. I’ve been telling her for years that she needs to take supplements because we just don’t get the proper nutrition from the food we eat. Due to the over-processing of food as well as all the pesticides used on our “fresh” produce our food is just not very nutritious. She disagreed with me again, of course. She believes that she eats just fine, thank you very much. She’s set in her ways, what can I say?

She’s been seeing her nephrologist every six months at which time she goes over my mother’s blood test results with her and tells her at what percentage her kidneys are functioning. I decided that I should go with her to her last appointment to hear the latest verdict. It turned out that her kidney function had dropped, yet again. I sat there listening to the doctor asking questions…and checking my mom’s legs. I watched as the nephrologist took a phone call on her cell phone during my mom’s visit. I also saw her check the phone a second time at which point I was prepared to say something to her had she taken the call. She then asked my mom again, the same question…and checked my mom’s legs for swelling…again. Had she forgotten she’d already done it? She then said that there was a note from my mom’s regular doctor that stated that her liver enzymes were high now so she wanted my mom to have another blood test and go back to see her in two months. 

That was about the gist of the appointment. Had it not been for the liver count, my mom would have made an appointment for 6 months out and that would have been that. Additionally (more of an aside), her blood pressure was up. The doctor recommended that my mother have her blood pressure checked over the next couple of weeks and if it showed her blood pressure to be high, she would recommend a medication to lower it.

Meanwhile I apparently forgot that I was actually able to speak. The only useful thing that came out of my mouth was “Can I have a copy of the blood test results?” which she “allowed” me to have. I got the copy and we left.

A couple of days later I started thinking, “What the heck was wrong with me? Why didn’t I say something about the phone call…or ask what her real purpose was? Was she just monitoring my mom’s creatinine levels until her kidney function got so low that she had to go on dialysis?” She had absolutely no useful information to help my mom get better. This is when I decided that I needed to take matters into my own hands. I took a copy of the blood test results to my chiropractor who had been treating my mom. I also wanted to try and figure out what was causing the kidney problems in the first place.

After looking at the blood test results, it became clear that much of the problem was likely the medication she had been on for over a decade. It is no secret that, for the most part, conventional doctors only look at whether or not levels are within the accepted range. They rarely, if ever, look at what the implications of other issues might be; it doesn’t really matter if they’re on the cusp. They also typically only look at each issue separately and not how they may contribute to the main problem or be part of the same problem.

For example, the results of her test showed that while her blood sugar was...

Read More (this blog has been moved to NaturesPresence.net)

Also, please find the follow up blog regarding specific information about Zyprexa and Effexor by clicking here: "Are Antidepressants Destroying Your Organs?"