Dr. Shawn’s Blog

My Trip to Washington DC Opens Eyes

I just recently got back from an enjoyable vacation to our nation’s capital with my family. It’s always good taking time off to visit other parts of the country.

I got to see many interesting sites and enjoyed lots of good food (I LOVE seafood, and the seafood, especially the crabs, in DC are great,) there were two attractions that really made me stop to think.

During our tour of the nation’s capital (thanks to one of my senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison,) I picked up on something profound that was stated in the introductory movie which opened our tour.

In the movie, the narrator stated that our congressional leaders are sent to Washington to do the will of the people.

This is an idea that sadly many of our congress men and women seem to have forgotten, as evidenced by the attempt to force a health care bill on the country that most citizens do not want or need. Maybe our congressional representatives would do well to watch that movie regularly and refresh themselves on just why they are elected to represent us.

I also saw a wonderful exhibit on Nazi propaganda at the National Holocaust Museum. At that exhibit, there were stories of how the Nazis used propaganda to take over Germany at the end of World War I leading up to World War II.

For example, Hitler and the Nazi party promised everyone jobs (to bring down unemployment,) healthcare, and promised to control the media by taking it over so that only opinions favorable to the movement would be allowed in print or on the radio, effectively silencing the opposition.

Kinda sounds similar to what’s going on today in our country doesn’t it?

EPA Warns of Danger with Dog/Cat Flea Products

As a result of an increased number of reports of side effects from using topical flea products, the EPA is taking steps to attempt to increase the safety of chemical flea and tick control products for cats and dogs. The EPA will review labels to determine which ones need stronger and clearer labeling statements and will also develop more testing and evaluation requirements for existing as well as new products.

Minor problems that are being reported with increased frequency in dogs and cats treated with topical flea and tick products include skin itching, hair loss, and redness, gastrointestinal problems including vomiting and diarrhea. More serious side effects such as trembling or seizures and even death may also occur.

While pet owners should always carefully read and follow label instructions before using these products, it’s obvious that many owners use these products despite a lack of need to do so.
Most dogs and cats will never suffer from flea or tick infestations due to minimal exposure to the pests, making the use of chemical insecticides totally unnecessary for most pets.

Owners who are concerned about flea and tick problems can use chemical pesticides on a limited, as needed basis to reduce side effects in their pets and human family members, which can also experience toxicity from these products.

Additionally, using a more natural integrated approach to pest control can provide many of the same benefits as a chemical approach without the potential for side effects.

Proper flea and tick control must be directed at three places: the pet, the inside environment, and the outside environment.
For the pet, regular bathing with organic shampoos (such as Dr. Shawn’s Flea & Tick shampoo) and applying herbal sprays and powders work very well.

To treat the inside environment, regular vacuuming, steam cleaning, and the use of citrus oil sprays as well as borate-containing products for the carpet, also are effective against fleas and ticks.

Finally, the outside environment is best treated with beneficial nematodes, microscopic worms which kill the cocoon stage of the flea life cycle, which is resistant to all known chemical insecticides.

Simply by minimizing the use of potentially toxic topical chemical flea and tick insecticides can improve the health of pets and greatly reduce serious side effects that are becoming increasingly associated with these products.

The Placebo Effect and Alternative Medicine

I recently came across a post on another blog purporting to show that there is no proof that natural/alternative therapies work. This particular blog is devoted to debunking any therapy that falls outside the mainstream. The writer of this blog constantly seeks to show that there is no proof that any natural therapy ever works or helps anyone or any pet.

The post I read was submitted by a reader of this particular blog. Briefly, she shared the following information in her post.
An “alternative therapist” told the owner of a horse that she would “work on” the horse for free if the owner would give her feedback on how the horse performed following the “free therapy session.” Unknown to the owner, the “therapist” never worked on the horse but led the owner to believe she had done so.

The day following the supposed “therapy,” the owner was happy to report that the horse actually “rode better than normal.” The writer of the blog used this one example to prove that natural therapies don’t work and that the reason the owner thought the horse rode better was simply due to the power of suggestion, or the placebo effect.

While this was an interesting post to read, and it can easily deceive people into thinking that this one simple experiment proved that all natural therapies only work by the placebo effect, a more careful examination of the post leaves a lot to be desired.

First, I don’t know what an “alternative therapist” is or what one does. I assume the writer of this blog is referring to some sort of physical therapy such as massage therapy, but that is never explained.

Second, there’s a big difference between someone who claims to be an “alternative therapist” and a licensed doctor trained in integrative medicine.

Third, this particular website on which the blog appears always chastises alternative medicine for the lack of proof for alternative therapies since there are so few well controlled, double-blind placebo-controlled studies. It’s interesting that this website now uses an example of a poorly designed “study” (if an observation of one patient even constitutes a study) to prove that no natural therapies ever work!

Fourth, the observation in this case was entirely subjective rather than objective. Rather than using an owner’s observation that the horse “rode better” after a particular therapy, why not use a more objective measurement such as gait analysis or forced plate analysis? In my practice, I can objectively measure things such as a pet’s blood pressure or blood count and easily determine if my therapy (conventional or natural) is working. This can totally eliminate the subjective assessment an owner may make in determining if a pet simply “feels better.”

Fifth and finally, the same “conclusion” could easily be reached in this case if a conventional drug had been used rather than an alternative therapy. For example, suppose a doctor told the same horse owner that he was going to give the horse a pill which would improve its performance. But suppose the doctor secretly did not give the horse the medication but the owner still reported that the horse “rode better” the next day. If we follow the blogger’s (lack of) logic, we have to draw the same conclusion-namely that this one example proves that conventional drug therapy doesn’t work!

It’s interesting how much hatred and negativity one encounters among people who don’t like natural/alternative medicine. To use one example as this blogger has done as universal proof that integrative medicine doesn’t achieve successful results is ludicrous and deceiving. Fortunately, it’s easy to see through all the hypocrisy in this blog and understand the real goal of people who write this rubbish-destroy your choice in determining what kind of therapy you would like for you, your family members, and your pets.

Fighting Finches

Unfortunately there is another new cruel sport popping up in back alleys. In addition to dogfights and cockfights, now we have finch fights.

Finches, very small cute birds, can become aggressive during the mating season, especially males. Unscrupulous folks have discovered that these males will attack each other if confined in an enclosed space. As a result, another cruel sport has arisen in which criminal elements profit from animal abuse, injury, and death.

When I hear of things like this, I am saddened at how low humanity will sink in the name of entertainment and profit. As I have suggested for other crimes involving animal abuse, penalties should be harsh (large fines and lengthy jail terms.) If not, there is no reason these types of cruel activities won’t continue as the profit motive is too great and the penalties too minimal and meaningless to worry about. Only by severely punishing those who engage in animal or people abuse can we hope to make a dent in these horrible crimes.

Microchipping Dangerous Dogs-a Good Idea?

A proposal in the UK calls for microchipping all dogs so that dangerous dogs will be more easily identified. A separate proposal calls for requiring pet insurance that would cover bodily damage to an innocent third party. The proposals are designed to make it easy to identify dangerous dogs and hold their owners responsible for their actions.

While I tend to be against numerous government regulations, I do believe that pet ownership is a privilege rather than a right, and sensible legislation (that affects all dogs rather than singling out certain breeds that are deemed “dangerous” by the government) is important.

Microchipping involves inserting a glass chip approximately the size of a grain of rice under the pet’s skin. In my practice, we offer this as an option to owners in an effort to make it easy to recover their pets if the pet should become lost or stolen. It is most easily and painlessly done while the pet is under anesthesia for another procedure such as spaying, neutering, or cleaning the pet’s teeth.

The concern I have about requiring micro-chipping is similar to gun control laws. Law abiding citizens will have the procedure done while the criminals who own dangerous dogs for the purpose of dog fighting or other criminal activity will not have the procedure done. Therefore, I’m not sure if mandatory microchipping will achieve the desired goal set forth by its proponents.

I do however, like the idea of requiring pet insurance for all owners, similar to requiring automobile insurance for those who drive cars. Once again though, how will this be enforced? Will criminals or those of low income ignore the law, not purchase insurance, and still not be able to provide financial assistance to cover the cost of medical care for a third party that might become injured during a dog attack?

I look at dog attacks similar to injuries received by a weapon such as a gun. If I’m attacked and injured by your dog, you should be forced to pay for my care. Jail time may also be imposed depending upon the circumstances of the attack. If you cannot pay for my medical care, mandatory jail time must be imposed as you knowingly kept a dog likely to cause harm to someone.

At this point, I’d like to see more debate on these issues and try to figure out if these proposals would achieve their desired results. As is so often the case with good ideas, once they become laws there are unintended consequences and often the good ideas do not achieve their desired results. If that in fact is the case, innocent law abiding pet owners would be punished or as criminals would once again continue to not be held accountable for their actions.

Fatal Attractions-New TV Show Discourages Ownership of Exotic Pets A

A new TV show on Animal Planet called Fatal Attractions will air next weekend. While I have not had the opportunity to screen an advanced copy, from what I’ve been able to gather it looks like a pretty interesting show. As an expert on exotic animal care, I agree with the premise that wild animals should never be owned as pets.

It is true that some exotic pets, such as smaller reptiles, non-poisonous snakes, birds, and small mammals can make acceptable pets IF the owner is willing to take the time to learn about a particular animal’s behavior and husbandry needs.

However, wild animals such as monkeys, bears, and exotic felines should NEVER be owned as pets. Having worked with some of these animals, I can honestly tell you that they all retain their wild nature. While they can be trained and even habituated to allow human contact, they can never be trusted and any of them can at any moment seriously injure or even kill the people who work with them.

It’s unfortunate that it is very easy and inexpensive to purchase a wild animal. The black market wild animal trade is alive and well, and sadly penalties for people involved in illegally acquiring and shipping wild animals are minimal to nonexistent.

My hope is that viewers of Fatal Attractions will see the seriousness and danger of owning wild animals and will refuse to do so.

Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs and CRP-I’m Right Again

Two years ago I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who’s a big wig drug salesman for the giant pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. He makes a lot of money selling their drugs, including their blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drug Mevacor, to large hospitals and doctor groups.

I mentioned to him that elevated blood cholesterol levels were not a major cause for coronary artery disease. Instead, other factors including elevated levels of fibrinogen, homocysteine, and CRP produced inflammation which then caused coronary artery disease. He disagreed with me (no surprise.) My friend told me that Merck recently had their cardiologist talk to their sales force, teaching them that elevated blood cholesterol levels were the only factor responsible for heart disease and that elevated CRP was totally meaningless.

I knew I could not convince him otherwise. He bought the company line, and since he made a large amount of money selling a cholesterol-lowering drug (that most people do not need,) I knew he would not be open to hearing the truth about coronary artery disease. Since he was also a good friend and I did want to get into an argument with him, I let the matter drop. I did however ask him why, if elevated blood cholesterol levels were so important in the genesis of coronary artery disease, there were many people dying of coronary artery disease who had normal blood cholesterol levels. He was unable to answer the question, but reiterated that people with elevated blood cholesterol levels must be placed on cholesterol-lowering drugs or they would die of coronary artery disease.

Fast forward to a few months ago. I noticed that Merck and other manufacturers of cholesterol-lowering drugs are now advertising that these drugs, in addition to lowering cholesterol levels, also lower…….CRP levels!

Wow. I guess I was correct several years ago when I tried convincing my friend of the importance of elevated CRP levels.
It’s nice that drug companies are now admitting something we’ve known for over 10 years.

However, since the drug companies have refused to acknowledge, until recently, the importance of elevated CRP levels, there are only two possible conclusions to this “recent” discovery by the drug companies.

1.CRP levels really are important as a factor in coronary artery disease.
2.CRP levels are not important, which has been the drug company mantra until recently. If this is the case, who cares if their cholesterol-lowering drugs now also lower CRP levels, since CRP levels are meaningless.

Now that the drug companies have discovered that their cholesterol-lowering drugs also lower CRP, it’s interesting to see that they have made an about-face on their insistence for many years that cholesterol levels were the only important factor in causing coronary artery disease.

Of course there are many natural therapies that can also lower CRP and cholesterol levels, without the expense or danger of serious side effects (muscle damage, kidney failure, dementia, etc.) posed by cholesterol-lowering drugs.

I guess this just shows that I was right all along, and the skeptics who kept denying the importance of other risk factors for coronary artery disease have proven to be wrong yet again.

“Keep an open mind, and you’ll be amazed at the level of healing you can attain.”

Once again those who favor natural therapies are years ahead of the close minded conventional mainstream.

Natural Therapies and the Studies That “Prove” They Don’t Work

“But at this point, there is little scientific justification for the widespread use of such products for nearly any condition with the assumption of safety and efficacy.”

The above quote was taken from a website well known for trying to debunk natural/alternative therapies. It was in reference to the use of probiotics (natural healthy bacteria) to help pets suffering from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract.

When I read quotes like this the first question that comes to my mind is this: ”Is the sky blue in your world?”

It’s interesting that skeptics of natural health always seem to find one or two articles that supposedly “prove” that natural therapies don’t work, all the while ignoring hundreds if not thousands of articles as well as years of clinical experience “proving” that the same therapies work remarkably well.

Whenever I read about a study that supposedly proves a natural therapy doesn’t work, I have to carefully examine that study for any design flaws. For example, there was a study done several years ago in people that purportedly showed that the herb St. John’s wort was ineffective for treating people with severe depression. Duh! People with severe depression require hospitalization not an herb! However, noticeably absent from media reports and blogs discussing the ineffectiveness of St. John’s wort for depression (notice how the term “severe” was cleverly left out of many of these discussions) was the fact that the same study showed that a placebo worked better than one of the drugs commonly prescribed for depression.

Unfortunately the public does not take the time, nor do they have the medical knowledge, to carefully sort through these studies. Instead, they rely upon the media and bloggers to hopefully give them factually correct information. Unfortunately, due to a bias in the media, it’s unlikely the public will ever get the truth about the benefits of natural therapies.

I spoke at a dog show yesterday, and one of the participants who uses a lot of natural therapies for herself and her dogs was discussing this bias with me. As I explained to her, even if natural therapies don’t work other than by inducing a placebo effect (which can’t happen in pets by the way,) wouldn’t it be better to take one of these safe and effective natural remedies rather than take a drug that is likely to be more expensive and have more side effects but also would be ineffective other than by inducing healing through a placebo effect?

In other words, if you or your pet will get better no matter what you take, why not take a natural remedy free of side effects rather than a potentially toxic medication?

For now, I’ll continue to take and prescribe probiotics are my patients. I’ve seen the positive results and life-saving miracles when I use natural therapies, including probiotics, even though a few poorly designed studies supposedly “prove” that my natural therapies don’t work.

Just don’t tell my patients that my natural therapies don’t work, as they are all feeling better and many have been cured from diseases that were deemed incurable by conventional doctors whose conventional “proven” drugs failed these patients.

Vaccines, Autism, and Pthalates

Tommy B., a cute young boy a little over one year old, recently received another set of immunizations from his pediatrician. According to his parents, Wanda and Tony, and Tommy’s pediatrician, he was a normal healthy infant prior to his recent immunization. Developmentally he was in line with what would be expected for his age.

Shortly after his immunization, Tommy’s parents noticed something was not right with him. Several months later, he was diagnosed with autism. When asked if his immunizations could have anything to do with this common developmental problem, his pediatrician answered with a firm “No.”

Unfortunately, stories like Tommy’s are quite common. Seemingly normal children receive yet another set of (in many cases unnecessary) immunizations, only to develop severe medical problems including autism shortly following their immunizations.

For years the conventional medical community has refused to acknowledge even the slimmest possibility that the temporal relationship between immunization and autism is at all meaningful.

The autism community, along with naturopathic and integrative medical doctors, feels otherwise.

New information released in the major news media this week suggests other possible causes of autism, including exposure to household phthalate chemicals (common in vinyl floors,) and asthma or autoimmune diseases in the pregnant mother.

Most doctors do agree that autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder that has increased dramatically in children over the past 20 years, is likely related to a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Unfortunately, those in the mainstream still refuse to acknowledge that childhood vaccines could be one of these environmental causes.

After reviewing the literature, and applying common sense along with scientific knowledge, my own belief is that autism is likely a combination of some sort of genetic predisposition that renders the child less capable of or incapable of detoxifying toxins introduced into the body. Many doctors consider these children “poor methylators,” which simply means they may lack the enzyme systems necessary to turn toxic compounds into non-toxic ones, allowing these toxic compounds to be safely and quickly removed from the body before they can harm the developing nervous system.

There is certainly no question that most children who receive vaccines do not develop autism (whether or not they are predisposed to other disorders later in life such as asthma, allergies, autoimmune diseases (which have been linked to vaccines) or cancers is another story.)

There is also no question that infants and young children receive way too many vaccines, as pediatricians adopt a “one approach fits all” model for immunization, rather than formulating specific vaccine protocols for each individual patient.

The best advice I can give parents to find a pediatrician who will design a logical vaccine protocol for your children if you decide to immunize your children. Since antibodies against diseases can be passed from the mother to the infant, it may be more prudent for women desiring to become pregnant to consider limited immunizations so that their newborns will have a level of protective immunity and not require immunizations so early in life. Once again this is something for the woman to discuss with her holistic obstetrician and pediatrician.

Killer Whale Kills Trainer at Sea World

As I’m sure all of you have heard, veteran Sea World trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed when a 12,000-lb. male orca “killer whale” grabbed her in front of an audience at the Orlando theme park.

The so-called pet experts and pet psychologist are now sharing their opinions with the media. We may never know exactly why this tragedy occurred.

Was the whale, a carnivorous killer by nature, trying to harm his beloved trainer?

Or was the whale simply trying to play with the trainer?

While facts are sketchy, the information I have heard does not indicate play behavior but rather indicates the typical behavior a killer whale would exhibit when seeking out prey to kill.

The surprising thing about this tragedy is that it hasn’t happened with any frequency before.

Despite their advanced training and “bonding” with their trainers, killer whales are wild animals. Trainers, wearing their wet suits, resemble the favorite prey of killer whales, seals.

It’s easy for audience members, and sometimes trainers, to forget that we’re dealing with wild animals that by their nature don’t typically associate with humans.

As a result, tragedies like this should not come as a surprise but rather as a reminder of the danger trainers face every day when working with the animals in their care. It’s also another reminder why most people should never own wild animals of any sort as pets.