|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
 A Physician's Guide to Natural Health Products That Work Oct 19, 2009
I've been in the health food business for over 20 years. And this book has brought me more info on many of the items I use and recommend. I would also recommend this book to any one who wants updated uses of the items and info contained inside.
Great book Aug 07, 2009
One might be able to find points where this book falls a little short, BUT- one thing for sure- there needs to be more of such books with the same approach. Modern day cut, burn and poison allopathic therapy is woefully failing to help the general population.. USA is #37 in health care in the world and falling. Pharmaceutical companies have a near monopoly on "health care" and are making obscene fortunes at the expense of the people.. "They" are trying to keep the people from this knowledge- calling practitioners "quacks" while "they" are the real true "quacks.".. This monopoly extends to education as to what is to be considered proper treatments.. Pharmaceutical companies would like to outlaw natural treatments as unscientific, outmoded and witchcraft.. No. The very word Pharmacy comes from Greek word "Pharmakiea" which in FACT translates to sorcery, witchcraft and poison.. Vaccinations and mercury amalgams need to be ceased- stopped entirely.. Also this is the 1st edition about 350 pages.. 2nd Edition is out now 2008 and over 800 pages.. I ordered one, no two. Probably order a couple more to share- give away.
Alternative health therapies May 11, 2009
I rate this book at 5 star. Dr. Howenstein covers therapies for many common ills including heart, cancer, memory and others. For the ones I have looked at in reasonable detail, they look effective and safe. But, like regular medicines, they are not guaranteed. Buy the book.
Reagan Houston, MS, PE.
For cancer, see the tags.
1 of 5 found the following review helpful:
 It's OK May 07, 2008
It is interesting, but I have read better and more comprehensive books on similar topics.
5 of 21 found the following review helpful:
 The good, the bad, the ugly Aug 31, 2007
[...]
Dr. Howenstine, MD, states in his Introduction, "My medical education was very conventional. We had a few lectures abut (sic) vitamins, but very little information about nutrition." The book contains a wealth of information that can benefit many.
On sunlight, Dr. Howenstine is very credible. He states, "Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem in tropical countries where sun exposure is normal." He continues, "The incidence of osteoporosis, hip and spinal fractures, cataracts, and colon and prostate cancer are lower in the tropics." More priceless wisdom is contained in "....one reason for the rising frequency of skin cancer is the switch from natural butter to synthetic margarine," as a highly active form of Vitamin D can be isolated from butter.
Chapter 15 is a must read on Truth About Sunlight relating light as a nutrient to chronic disease and lack of sunlight. Dr. Howenstine quotes noted Light authority, Dr. John Ott, on the inability to achieve pregnancy related to tinted sunglasses. After advising 6 women to throw away their sunglasses, they all became pregnant (p.170). However, I would not recommend that sun lovers wear sunglasses as a sole means of birth control.
Chapter 14, Malignancies, however, is a different story. Readers must cautiously read this chapter and not stray down the path of ignorance.
Chapter 14--THE GOOD. Dr. Howenstine maintains medical credibility in citing Dr. Timothy Murrell (p.163) in which female readers are reminded that tight, compressed clothing inhibits circulation in the breast and is a causative agent in breast cancer, explaining a higher incidence of breast cancer in cold climates. He also cites lack of Vitamin D as another possible cause. However, strict laws in most of the US against women going topless at beaches contribute to this problem, once the sleepy-eyed, dazed and confused allow organized religion to invade our legal system and declare exposed breasts as "indecent." Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Chapter 14--THE VERY BAD. The book's major flaw occurs on page 160 in which Dr. Howenstine suffers a major loss in credibility in attributing abortion as a cause of breast cancer. He opens the section with "more than 30 studies have confirmed a relationship...." First, you can make a study say anything that you want. Predictable outcomes to support religious dogma have no place in medical writing. There is absolutely no reason that after 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency (including the first year as internship), that a highly skilled practitioner continues to corrupt his thinking with agenda-based propaganda that strips one naked to ridicule and public scorn. It gets even worse. Dr. Howenstine quotes biblical scripture (Proverbs 14:12)(p.162) and thereby relegates this entire volume to one of a hysterical morass. Now, Dr. Howenstine, you must have had this in your medical training...a nonviable fetus is not a "child" and cannot get "killed," and for this nonsense in a purported medical text, Dr. Howenstine should be compelled to retrain in those areas he must have slept through, as a precondition for maintaining a license to practice medicine. Even in his discussion on organochlorines, Dr. Howenstine can't give it up, again incorrectly linking abortion to breast cancer. While some early studies suggest an association between abortion and breast cancer, this was due to inherent design flaws of the studies, as reported in the Journal of National Cancer Institute, and the American Journal of Epidemiology. In 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine examined the medical records of 1+ million Danish women, concluding definitely that abortion has no overall effect on a woman's breast cancer risk. My edition of Dr. Howenstine's book was published in 2002. Is this a case of sloppy research on Dr. Howenstine's failure to include, or a case of cognitive dissonance (don't tell me what I don't want to hear). One 2003 study by Erlandsson, et al, suggests that abortion may be associated with a REDUCED RISK of breast cancer, as reported in the International Journal of Cancer. This was corroborated further in a reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries and reported in Lancet (2004). The American Cancer Society, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, ACOG, and WHO, have all concluded that no link has been established between abortion and breast cancer.
I was also disappointed that Cholesterol was not indexed. Readers need to know the lowdown on the emotional hype to force cholesterol lowering drugs on the uninformed public and why consumers are better off avoiding them.
|
| | |
|
|
