Dr. Mark Hyman's 10-Episode Broken Brain Series

[pamojja]

I have to disagree here. People have incurable chronic diseases not because their doctor failed to explore some complex mesh of all possible causal factors, but simply because science does not have any treatments for these diseases.

I've seen no studies indicating that a functional approach to medicine can cure diseases that other doctors cannot.

Practically I was told by my diagnosing internist that how much greens I would eat additional to pharmacological and surgical interventions, my 5-year mortality would nevertheless remain at 30%. And I would have to take the medications for the rest of my life without hope for substantial improvement. 6 years later I had remission from a 60% walking disability from this PAD II. And 10 years later also experienced improvements with the remaining ME/CFS symptoms. A in the meantime asymptomatic COPD stage I also improved so far, no more monitoring needed, and a T2D is controlled with diet.

I will never show up in any study, nor will the approach I took - Linus Pauling's recommendations for CVD along with his comprehensive supplement recommendations just to maintain good health, along with the functional approach to tackle every possible contributor - ever been studied. Simply because anyone investing millions in such a trial would never see his money back with the non-patentable compounds used and various 'confounder' tackled.

It is as with spontaneous remissions in cancer. One PH.D. working in counseling of cancer patients came to notice this strange phenomena. Started to investigate and surprised found thousand of such case studies in the literature. Baffled that they always were classified as 'spontaneous', while not even noting what these patients might could have done differently. She therefore she set out to interview those spontaneous remissions in cancer. This book and giving courses in becoming coach in 'radical remission' was the outcome.

During the course of the study, Kelly identified more than seventy-five factors that cancer survivors said they used as a part of their healing journey. Nine of these factors were used by almost every one of them. They are as follows:

1. Radically change the diet
Let your food be your medicine, and medicine your food (Hippocrates)
- Avoid sugar, meat, dairy products and processed foods
- eat lots of fruits and vegetables
- limit to organic food
- drink only filtered water

2. Take control of health
Action is the basic key to success (Pablo Picasso)
- actively participate
- be prepared for change
- Resolve resistance

3. Follow your own intuition
In vital matters, the decision should come from the unconscious, somewhere from within (Sigmund Freud)
- listen to body signals
- activate the intuition
- find the right change

4. Take herbs and food supplements
The art of healing comes from nature and not from the physician (Paracelsus)
- help digestion: digestive enzymes, prebiotics and probiotics
- boost the immune system: e.g. Vitamin C, other vitamins (B12, D3, K2), fish oil, trace elements, certain edible fungi, aloe vera; and hormones (melatonin)
- detoxify the body:
- antimycotics (eg olive leaf extract, celery, nettle)
- antiparasitic substances (eg wormwood, yellow root, black nut husks)
- Antibacterial and antiviral (eg garlic, oregano oil, Pau d'Arco)
- Liver detoxification (eg milk spotted dwarf, dandelion root, sweet tooth root)
- supplements alone is not enough

5. Release oppressed emotions
Anger is an acid which can cause much greater damage to the vessel in which it is stored than to what it pours (Mark Twain)
- Disease is blockade
- what are suppressed emotions?
- stress and cancer
- anxiety and cancer
- the waterfall solution

6. Enhance positive emotions
The meaning of life is to be happy (Dalai Lama)
- what are positive emotions?
- what are the positive emotions in the body?
- happiness must be practiced daily
- but one does not have to be permanently happy

7. Allow social support
In poverty and misery, friends are the only refuge (Aristotle)
- experience love
- do not feel alone
- physical contact

8. Deepen the spiritual connection
This is the greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases: that there are doctors for the body and physicians for the soul, where both can not be separated (Plato)
- experience sprituality
- a third kind of love
- the relationship between the physical and the spiritual
- it is important to exercise regularly
- it is important to calm the mind

9. Have strong reasons for life
People say that it is the meaning of life that we all seek. I do not believe that this is what we are really looking for. I believe what we are looking for is an experience of being alive ... (Joseph Campbell)
- place deep trust in his inner being
- the mind directs the body
- find his calling

http://www.radicalremission.com/

This is only a rough and superficial outline. Some of these patient did exactly the opposite, by adding meat again for example. And personally found the book only scratched the surface. However, I found it impressive that those 9 factor in one or an other way were almost always found, just as I can find it in my successful approach to tackle my chronic health condition from every angle.

Again, such result will never be found in an RCT ever. No way to randomize so many confounder, or as you called it: complex mesh of all possible causal factors. Science isn't there yet.

 

[ljimbo423]

So just like @jesse's mom , I'm sort of hedging my bets and taking it all in without completely committing to one side or the other just yet.

My view is that both functional medicine and conventional medicine have their assets and flaws. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world without both.

If I get a MRSA infection and the best and strongest herbs I can get don't get rid of it. I want to be able to go to a doctor and get some very powerful antibiotics to get rid of it.

On the other hand, I think functional medicine has a better chance of treating any chronic disease I might get. Hence my view that I feel that both have a place in medicine.

 

[pamojja]

Agree, in acute conditions conventional medicine usually brings the fasted relieve. That's where they are really best at.

 

[ljimbo423]

Agree, in acute conditions conventional medicine usually brings the fasted relieve. That's where they are really best at.

Yes, well said. Short and rate to the point.

 

[HRManager]

I am not too happy with this statement by Dr Mark Hyman.

The Wessely School psychiatrists set back ME/CFS biomedical research by 30 years with their theory that ME/CFS is simply caused by the thoughts and beliefs of the patient.

I think we have to be very careful with such statements. Maybe in some people a learned stress response may contribute to their illness; but suggesting that one's beliefs cause the symptoms of a disease puts you on a slippery slope.

There is nothing wrong with that statement.. PTSD is tied to trauma. Anxiety is increased by toxic beliefs/thoughts about something.

If he is tying that statement to CFS, then that is another issue!

 

[Hip]

There is nothing wrong with that statement.. PTSD is tied to trauma. Anxiety is increased by toxic beliefs/thoughts about something.

If he is tying that statement to CFS, then that is another issue!

Yes, certainly PTSD is tied to trauma, but PTSD is a very specific condition.

(Although interestingly, PTSD on the battlefield has recently been liked to shock waves from explosions, which cause microscopic damage to the brain; so for soldiers, their PTSD may not be due the trauma of war as was once assumed, but may be due to mechanical damage from shock waves, even though were far enough away from the explosion not to receive any normal physical injury.)

Childhood trauma has also been linked to ME/CFS, though the evidence is not strong.

But the way Dr Mark Hyman has written it (namely "toxic beliefs and traumas can create physical symptoms"), it suggests he thinks these things are general disease-precipitating factors, which I don't think there's much evidence for.

Like many things in functional medicine, this approach is more experimental than one based on evidence of efficacy. There's nothing wrong with being a bit experimental (I do it all the time myself), but it's worth pointing out that an experimental approach is not the same as an evidential approach.

 

[Wayne]

But the way Dr Mark Hyman has written it (namely "toxic beliefs and traumas can create physical symptoms"), it suggests he thinks these things are general disease-precipitating factors, which I don't think there's much evidence for.

I'm not sure how exactly they would find evidence of that, using normal scientific criteria. But the notion that toxic beliefs and traumas can create physical symptoms (in some people at least) seems to me like a common sense deduction (or assessment, or assumption).

I think he's just trying to make the case that we should be aware of how beliefs, thoughts, emotions, etc. can and do affect us. I would agree with that. I think a valid question would be to what extent, but I feel that would vary considerably from one person to the next.

an experimental approach is not the same as an evidential approach.

An experimental approach is often all we have available, especially for people with unconventional, unscientifically understood diseases like ME/CFS. But I don't think it should be assumed an experimental approach is any less valid than an evidential approach. Both have of their strengths and limitations. It's how well we use our own intuition and flexibility (and creativity) in looking at everything from as many angles as possible that will likely give us our best outcomes. Perhaps a silver lining in having such a difficult disease like ME/CFS is to learn just that.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

It was *very* expensive. I made some progress, but I plateaued at which point it was no longer worth what I was paying. But I learned quite a bit. They don't take insurance

Its incredibly expensive to be chronically ill and attempt to deploy a full arsenal of treatments. NEWS ALERT.

I feel that the Insurance industry here has sold us: a product we cannot understand, that cannot be shopped or compared to other products. Nothing explains why the lipid panel my doctor ordered: won't be covered. They simply announce, as they take your blood, that it won't. Sign here. ?????

so the testing that Functional Medicine types recommend should be fully covered by my insurance, yet my Lipid panel isn't. Why? I have no idea why. How many hours do I spend trying to figure out why?

Between my husband and myself we are spending many 100's of dollars a month on supplements. Another extra 100s on sourcing the foods. And my $90 for LDN insurance won't pay for the one pill that helps.`

I then spend a considerable amount per month on miraculous Chinese Herbs which seem to really help me.

I had a brilliant insight recently: I am only on these herbs about 1/4 of the time. So I decided: well what if I am actually taking them every day? Well: I've just tripled my monthly $$ for the herbs. And I feel alot better. So I will therefore continue to: write this huge check.

And keep sending the Insurance Company who provides nothing: all that money.

 

[Hip]

An experimental approach is often all we have available, especially for people with unconventional, unscientifically understood diseases like ME/CFS.

I am not knocking an experimental approach, and many of treatments I try on myself are just experiments.

However, I don't think it is good when experimental approaches, which we have no evidence might work, are hyped up, especially by people who are selling these approaches. When you see such hype, it is always useful to point out that there is no evidence that the approach actually works.

I have the impression that functional medicine doctors often think that only they "get it", they feel their approach is patently superior other medical approaches, and that other doctors are inferior.

When someone tells you that their medical approach is the best thing since sliced bread, then that prompts the obvious question: "do you have any evidence that your approach gets better results?". If you look for actual evidence that functional medicine gets better results, you will not find much, if any.

 

[bjl218]

Right. There's definitely some arrogance there on the part of functional medicine practitioners. Although a somewhat different type of arrogance than is exhibited by the traditional medical establishment. One functional medicine practitioner I really like is Chris Kresser who seems to have no problem re-examining his beliefs--even some of the beliefs that have been strongly held by functional medicine for some time. His blog is worth reading although I don't think there's anything there that would specifically address ME/CFS.

I have the impression that functional medicine doctors often think that only they "get it", they feel their approach is patently superior other medical approaches, and that other doctors are inferior.

 

[Hip]

Right. There's definitely some arrogance there on the part of functional medicine practitioners.

It may be some arrogance, and/or perhaps it may just be the enthusiasm of functional medicine doctors. My own approach to treating my ME/CFS roughly follows the functional medicine approach, and whenever I start experimenting with a new treatment idea, I get really enthusiastic about it, and I am full of hope that it might work.

So maybe functional medicine doctors are the same, it may be their enthusiasm for trying to help via various treatment ideas that makes them feel their approach is better. And of course, most patients I think would prefer an enthusiastic doctor over a doctors whose heart is not really in it.

But the bottom line is empirical evidence of efficacy. In my own treatment experiments, I would say that 90% of the treatment ideas I have tried did not help. But now and then I hit upon something that does work for me (often just by accident — I may take a drug or supplement for one intended purpose, and then find it helps a completely different symptom).

Perhaps it may be the same for functional medicine doctors: perhaps 90% of the time they don't really do much better than regular doctors, but maybe for 10% of cases they are able to find a treatment that works for the patient — a treatment angle that regular doctors probably would not have stumbled upon.

 

[pamojja]

So maybe functional medicine doctors are the same, it may be their enthusiasm for trying to help via various treatment ideas that makes them feel their approach is better.

Many functional medicine docs did become so, because their conventional MD's training didn't thought them how to treat chronic conditions, other than managing their symptoms. And the enthusiasm most probably comes from their success with this more comprehensive approach in treating their own condition. With Mark Hyman that was certainly the case.

 

[Wayne]

And the enthusiasm most probably comes from their success with this more comprehensive approach in treating their own condition. With Mark Hyman that was certainly the case.

I watched very little of this 10-part series, but at the end of Episode 6, Mark Hyman describes how his brain almost completely broke down only about two years ago. He did many things to try to correct it, but the one therapy that proved invaluable and got him started in the right direction was a process where his blood was withrdrawn from his body, exposed to ozone, and then returned to the body. It took about 5 months of doing this and other things to finally recover.

This is something that I believe no conventional doctor would ever attempt, or even think of. I heard a story about a prominent oxygenation health practitioner from Europe who once had the opportunity to ask the head of the AMA why oxygenation therapies weren't used in the U.S., especially since they were so safe, effective, and low cost. The head of the AMA replied by saying he didn't know anything about these kinds of therapies.

When it was explained to him how they are widely used in Europe, the AMA head replied by asking whether he would be willing to submit these therapies to randomized double blind placebo control studies, or what he considered the "gold standard" of whether there's any efficacy to them. I'm pretty sure the answer somewhat stunned the AMA head: He said there was no way he would submit them to these studies, because it would entail preventing people from having oxygenation treatments that have proved the test of time over the past several decades.

And so it is. "Never the twain shall meet". (Rudyard Kipling)

 

[ljimbo423]

Many functional medicine docs did become so, because their conventional MD's training didn't thought them how to treat chronic conditions, other than managing their symptoms. And the enthusiasm most probably comes from their success with this more comprehensive approach in treating their own condition. With Mark Hyman that was certainly the case.

Great point! Functional medicine doctors Jill Carnahan and Amy Myers are two more doctors that became functional medicine doctors. Both were very sick and turned their health around with functional medicine. That was a big factor in both of them becoming functional medicine doctors (FMD).

There are many other FMD that have similar stories. Conventional medicine only treated their symptoms and they got worse. Where with functional medicine they completely healed.

When you meet Dr. Jill, you will immediately sense her compassion and genuine desire to help people find answers and give them hope that they can feel healthy again. What you may not know is that her own journey through life-threatening illness was a powerful force in shaping her passion for teaching people how to heal through functional medicine.

Now over twelve years later, after relentless pursuit of personal healing I am currently in the best health of my life, completely free of breast cancer and 100% healed from Crohn’s disease! I continue to eat an organic, whole food, gluten-free Paleo-style diet, exercises regularly, and practice my faith through prayer and meditation.

https://www.jillcarnahan.com/my-story/

This is a link to Amy Myers story- https://www.amymyersmd.com/about/my-story/

 

[Rufous McKinney]

So maybe functional medicine doctors are the same, it may be their enthusiasm for trying to help

They also must promote their practise via: salesmanship. If they aren't taking insurance, which seems to be the case, (since I assume insurance decided it doesn;t matter if your missing an enzyme, don't have enough of some trace element, or otherwise are not interested in the specifics of your particular body)....

They won't last unless they are good salesmen. The other doctors patients get referred by the insurance companies.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

They won't last unless they are good salesmen

At times there are also awkward conflicts of interest. So when a Doctor also profits off the sale of a prescription, or supplement, then there is a kind of conflict there which is concerning.

At the same time, I don't see this conflict at my Chinese herbalist. Even tho he sells me the herbs he prescribes. So thats evidence I"m being : selectively opinionated. (herbs cost less from him than if you go wander off to find them on your own). (so there).

 

[Hip]

He said there was no way he would submit them to these studies, because it would entail preventing people from having oxygenation treatments that have proved the test of time over the past several decades.

I think that shows a lack of ethics on the part of that European oxygenation health practitioner. Anyone who is given the opportunity to conduct a proper clinical trial on a therapy that could help millions of patients if it is proven effective, but refuses to do so, clearly does not have patients' interests at heart.

Conducting a trial would not prevent oxygenation treatments being given, as although in such trials one group of patients is given the real treatment, and another group given a placebo, after the trial is done, even the placebo arm can then be given the treatment.

 

[pamojja]

Anyone who is given the opportunity to conduct a proper clinical trial on a therapy that would help millions of patients if it is proven effective, but refuses to do so, clearly does not have patients' interests at heart.

@Hip I really don't understand you're harping on ethics? You certainly do understand that almost all clinical trials to get a pharmaceutical approved does cost about 30 millions, which really no investor would want to waste on compounds which can't be patented and which would be totally lost. Medicine approval has become investment business with very, very little patient's iterests at heart.

 

[Hip]

@Hip I really don't understand you're harping on ethics? You certainly do understand that almost all clinical trials to get a pharmaceutical approved does cost about 30 millions, which really no investor would want to waste on compounds which can't be patented and which would be totally lost. Medicine approval has become investment business with very, very little patient's iterests at heart.

We are not talking about getting a new drug licensed, we are just talking about providing simple evidence of efficacy.

If you look up supplements (vitamins, minerals, herbs) on PubMed, you will find thousands of relatively inexpensive randomized controlled trials (RCT) showing efficacy (or lack of efficacy) for various illnesses.

To give an example, this RCT study found the spice cinnamon was not effective for patients with type II diabetes.

Nobody is going to make any money from a supplement which is found effective for a given disease, except the hundreds of various supplement manufacturers in general. Yet in spite of nobody in particular profiting, the studies are still conducted on supplements.

 

[pamojja]

To give an example, this RCT study found the spice cinnamon was not effective for patients with type II diabetes.

A good example to show, that it's always worthwhile to check study results oneself:

I don't know about you, but a 4 mg/dl decrease after 1 month, 10 mg/dl decrease after 2 month, does for me show some effectiveness, even increasing with time of use.

However, anyone fighting high blood glucose knows that no pharmaceutical does work as well as an individualized diet (armored with a cheap blood glucose meter). And then the addition of a large number of such natural compounds, each contributing such tiny decreases, does make the difference.

I'm lazy tonight, therefore I just add an entry of labtestanalyzer.com about what such a multifaceted approach to lower glucose can all entail. And which is already used by many today with good results, who aren't satisfied with conventional medicine treatment with no hope of recovery. All with references.

Some chronic conditions that can lead to elevated fasting glucose levels include:

• Insulin resistance [R, R]
• Glucose intolerance [R]
• Metabolic syndrome [R]
• Type 1 and type 2 diabetes [R, R]
• Pregnancy and gestational diabetes [R, R]
• Fatty liver and other liver disease [R, R, R]
• Hyperthyroidism [R]
• Cushing’s disease (too much cortisol) [R]
• Acromegaly (excess growth hormone) [R]
• Pheochromocytoma (benign tumors of the adrenal gland) [R]
• Pituitary tumors [R]
• Myocardial infarction [R]
• Pancreatitis [R]
• Pancreatic adenoma [R]
• Cystic fibrosis [R]
• Head injury/brain damage [R]
• Kidney disease [R]

The following factors can also lead to high blood sugar levels:

• Acute and chronic stress [R, R, R]
• Poor sleep quality or not enough sleep [R, R, R]
• Obesity [R]
• Smoking, but also quitting smoking [R, R, R]
• Chronic exposure to toxins such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and organochlorine pesticides (OCP) [R]
• Low hematocrit [R]
• Estrogen [R]
• Oral contraceptives [R]
• Epinephrine/adrenalin [R]
• Glucocorticoids [R, R]

These drugs can increase glucose levels:

• Phenytoin (Dilantin), used to treat seizures [R]
• Antipsychotics [R, R]
• Thiazide diuretics, used to treat high blood pressure [R]
• Beta blockers, drugs that reduce blood pressure and manage irregular heart rhythms [R]
• Antidepressants [R]
• Lithium [R]

Improve your diet. A healthy diet will help control your blood sugar levels. An example of a good, balanced diet is the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in plant-based foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, herbs, and spices. It is also high in monounsaturated fats found in olive oil [R, R].

Eat regularly, and especially take care not to skip breakfast. Starting your day without breakfast can lead to increased blood glucose [R].

On the other hand, you may want to refrain from nighttime snacks. Studies show that these are associated with obesity and high blood sugar levels [R].

Exercise is a great way to manage your blood glucose levels. Find something fun that you will enjoy doing regularly [R, R, R, R, R].

Drink plenty of water [R].

Lose some weight if overweight. This will improve the ability of your body to use and respond to glucose more efficiently [R].

Get adequate rest. Sleep deprivation and poor sleep quality decrease the ability of cells to react to insulin, and over time causes increases in blood sugar levels [R, R, R].

Manage stress. Stress can increase blood sugar levels, by increasing hormones such as cortisol and inflammatory molecules in your body [R, R, R, R].

Reduce red meat consumption. It is associated with higher blood sugar [R].

Avoid artificial sweeteners. These may cause glucose intolerance [R].

Studies show that moderate alcohol consumption can lower blood glucose levels and prevent diabetes and heart disease [R, R, R, R]. However, heavy consumption has a negative effect, and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Supplements that can help:

• Fenugreek [R, R]
• Cinnamon [R, R]
• Garlic [R, R]
• Green tea [R]
• Thiamine (vitamin B1) - high blood sugar increases the excretion of this vitamin. Diabetics are often deficient and benefit from thiamine supplementation [R, R, R]
• Vitamin D [R, R]
• Zinc [R]
• Magnesium [R, R]
• Chromium [R, R]
• Mango [R]
• Vinegar [R]
• Beta-glucans (a type of fiber found in cereals, mushrooms, yeasts, seaweed, and algae) [R]
• Pistachios [R]
• Alpha-lipoic acid [R, R]
• Multispecies probiotics [R]

This list is by no means complete, as this off-spring of selfhacked.com only searched through the literature since 1 year only, and certainly didn't already cover everything available.

Of course, one always has to consider too, that any RCT study result is only the mean of all participants, some might have even better, others even detrimental results with any of the interventions. But to know to whom one belongs no study today can tell. A cheap blood glucose meter can.

This example also shows the other fundamental problem why the functional medicine approach can ever be proven with any RCT design possible today. Simply because it involves so many variables, which any RCT by design always would want to eliminate.

On the other hand that isn't really problem. Since anyone with the determination and circumspection can implement and see the result for oneself, instead of suffering the consequences of less controlled diabetes.

Optimal glucose levels put you at significantly reduced risk of:

• Blood clots [R]
• Elevated blood pressure [R]
• Metabolic syndrome [R]
• Heart disease [R]
• All-cause mortality [R, R, R, R]

The real problem I see with the functional medicine approach is, that it never will be for the majority of people. For example my GP - with a bustling practice with up to 150 patients in only 2 hours practicing time - tells me I'm the only of his many patients interested in my lab-results..

Such a comprehensive approach can only be tackled by someone inclined - which apparently is very rare - or by someone having the money to remunerate for the time a regular GP usually treats 150 patients - at least 2 times an hour as a bare minimum.