# The High Blood Pressure Hoax, by Dr. Sherry Rogers



## Marilyn in CO

I just gave this book to my neighbor, who happened to stop by. He has been struggling with HBP and chemical sensitivities for the past several years and the doctors just can't figure him out. I am so impressed with Dr. Rogers that I gladly handed him the book and told him to READ until he finishes it and give it back tomorrow, because my clients are waiting to read it.

She has credentials up the wazoo and I identify with her view of the drug world. This book is her most recent and I actually have never read her before, but I am for sure going to seek out her other books. She also has a website.

BTW, I had a HBP concern last year and discovered it was coming from aluminum in my thyroid. After using an ionic foot bath, once a week for 10 weeks and using a far infared hothouse, I managed to bring it down to normal.


----------



## BobK

here is something else Sherry rogers has...a revocation of her medical license due to negligence.....

http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/0/52f2091c5dad51c585256a4a0047ea7a/$FILE/lc106787.pdf

Physician Information

Physician Name: Sherry Anne Rogers, MD 
Address: 2800 West Genesee Street 
Syracuse, New York 13219 
License Number: 106787 
License Type: MD 
Year of Birth: 1943 
Effective Date: 12/16/99 
Action: Censure and reprimand with monitoring for two years, sixty hours of continuing medical education, two hundred hours of community service and $5,000 fine.The physician's period of monitoring was completed December 15, 2001. 
Misconduct Description: The physician admitted to the charge of negligence on more than one occasion.


----------



## Marilyn in CO

When one speaks out as boldly as she does against the establishment of medical protocol, she was bound to and I'm sure she expected to, get nailed for something. I like her, she has guts. Ha. She, of course, is negligent in bowing down to the drug industry.


----------



## Jeff54321

BobK said:


> here is something else Sherry rogers has...a revocation of her medical license due to negligence.....


Under the current system of doctors and the A.M.A. doing the will of major pharmaceutical corporations a revocation due to negligence should probably be viewed as a recommendation.


----------



## BobK

Marilyn in CO said:


> When one speaks out as boldly as she does against the establishment of medical protocol, she was bound to and I'm sure she expected to, get nailed for something. I like her, she has guts. Ha. She, of course, is negligent in bowing down to the drug industry.


No , she admitted she was guilty of neglecting her patients and providing substandard care....you may call that guts I call it incompetence


----------



## BobK

Jeff54321 said:


> Under the current system of doctors and the A.M.A. doing the will of major pharmaceutical corporations a revocation due to negligence should probably be viewed as a recommendation.


I am glad you feel great going to, or taking the advice, of a doctor convicted of patient neglect......not someone i would associate with or have my family get anywhere near...

Sherry Rogers seems to think that sanctioning by the AMA is quite important....nowhere on her websites or accolades does she ever mention her conviction.....hmmm....wonder why that is....maybe she realizes her credibility would be shot if she proclaimed her conviction......that might be it!


----------



## heelpin

I couldn't find any info about a conviction with a Google search but if she has been convicted of anything by the FDA it only makes her more creditable in my eyes.
I think you might like the quackwatch site where anything natural or counter to conventional medicine or taking responsibility for yourself is looked on as quackery, it's interesting that the word quack comes from conventional doctors in the past prescribing mercury.
I think its about time for orthodox medicine to recognize some of the natural approaches to health and combine the best of both worlds. I know this is going to mean less pill sales, maybe thats why they try to discredit any natural alternatives. I've learned personally that there is a lot you can do to improve your health with natural methods but if I break a leg by all means rush me to the emergency room.


----------



## Terri

A conviction might have been political, but, she pled GUILTY! 

*IF* her problem with the establishment was that she was too outspoken, then she would have pled innocent and given the judge an earfull at her trial!

I will take her word for it: she was guilty.


----------



## Pink_Carnation

I would like to know what the negligence was....renewing a prescription without seeing the patient, failure to order tests that were indicated, or leaving them bleeding on the exam table. 

I would be interested in the research behind the info in the book or is it just an opinion based on what she has seen. Many Dr's have written books but how many have others verrify the info with studies? It seems to be "I noticed this in my practice therefore buy my book to see what to do to fix yourself."


----------



## Jeff54321

BobK said:


> not someone i would associate with or have my family get anywhere near...
> 
> Sherry Rogers seems to think ................


Okay, but don't you think that your speaking on behalf of what Sherry Rogers thinks is just a bit bold?


----------



## BobK

Jeff54321 said:


> Okay, but don't you think that your speaking on behalf of what Sherry Rogers thinks is just a bit bold?


Actually no....read her websites and see how she crows about being a MD in practice for 26 years...it is quite clear this is a major selling point for her books and lecture fees......and she makes no mention of her convictions on her website nor on any of those that promote her and her theories/books....so no I don't think it is a great leap of faith to conclude that promoting her self as a MD...not a formerly delicensed Md...is very important for her financial bottom line.....is seems very self-evident....


----------



## Marilyn in CO

I found out what her so called convictions were: failure to replenish her drug supplies(probably because she doesn't use them), only being in her office 6 days a month(probably out teaching), and being absent and not overseeing allergy immunotherapys. Nobody died, nobody suffered. Looks like she complied with all the demands.


----------



## BobK

nothing so-called about it she was guilty of negligence by her own admission......had she not pled guilty to the seventh charge she would have been convicted of all eight charges. Gross negligence over a period of three years, failure to adequately diagnose and treat NUMEROUS patients due to her not being there with no other physician present between 1993-1996, failure to correct the outdated EMERGENCY medications she was required to have on hand in private practice, failure to be present for three years while treatment is administed to patients with no other physician present......and the list goes on.....I'm surprised it took you so long to find out the information on the conviction since I posted the link.....


----------



## suburbanite

Bob, her license wasn't revoked. She was put on monitoring--basically, had to work with another physician present to check her work, much like an intern or resident. This for two years. After proving to the board that she was competent/successfully retrained they let her go back into practice.

This woman was born in 1943. Chances are she finished her medical training in the early 1970's. Licenses of that vintage are not required to take continuing medical education classes or renew their licenses--they are licensed for life. This changed sometime in the late 1970's, and physicians licensed after a certain date are required to renew their license every 2 years and take a certain number of accredited education units per year.

In short, there's every reason to believe that she had fallen behind current standards of care because she wasn't required to be trained in them.

If she was working only 6 days a month she should have had other doctors cover the other days for her patients, or let her patients go to someone else for ongoing care and offered only urgent-care services.


----------



## BobK

I am quite sure that doctors trained in the 1970's were told that is was prudent to be present when your patients are diagnosed and treated.....and I also think that the pharmacology of that era made it very clear on the dangers of expired medications ...especially those used in emergencies with patients....some were more than 12 years out of date.....she was negligentwith her patients in her private practice....that is part of her credentials 'out the whazoo'....I've also looked into her claims of being a member of several socities......some do not have her listed as being a member...contrary to her claims.......seems she is not only incompetent but a lair also...


----------



## donsgal

I always think it is interesting how, when any medical practicioner goes against the standard party line of the AMA, that their character is immediately suspect and called into question. They may have saved hundreds of lives, and helped the quality of life of thousands more but let them lose a patient or make one or two little mistakes and immediately they are villified.

On the other hand, medical doctors can lose patients left and right, one right after another to any number of horrific diseases and they are deified because they "did everything they could" even though the patient died. Statistically, allopathic doctors KILL over 100,000 people every year through negligence, incompetence, making errors on edications, etc. And yet, they remain in the highest regard by the average person.

I have not read the book, nor am I familiar with Sherry Rogers, but in my opinion anyone who causes you to question traditional medical care and treatment is a hero. And the people on this board would be well advised to read it and start thinking for themselves instead of sucking up what medical doctors have to say as though it was scripture.

donsgal


----------



## Marilyn in CO

donsgal, I agree. 

It is so blindingly clear that the AMA/drug companies/FDA are all out to squelch anything that goes against their cut/burn & poison mindset. Obviously, Ms. Rogers is a healer, who is seeking and finding answers. The tide is turning and faster every day, in that thinking people are wanting to get to the root causes of their symptoms(that have disease names). It seems that especially baby boomers are demanding a doctor that has time to listen to them, to take time with them and know what their whole body, mind and emotions are saying. Interest in the holistic approach to mind-body is at an all time high. People are searching for answers beyond the hurried specialist and the toxic drugs. Ms. Rogers looks like that kind of doctor. 


Here are some more books by Sherry Rogers:

Detoxify or Die
Pain Free in 6 Weeks
No More Heartburn
Total Wellness
The EI syndrome
You Are What you Ate
Tired or Toxic
The Cure is in the Kitchen
Macro Mellow
Wellness Against All Odds
The Scientific Basis for Selected Environmental Medical Techniques
Chemical Sensitivity
Depression cured at Last


----------



## Jeff54321

Marilyn in CO said:


> donsgal, I agree.
> 
> It is so blindingly clear that the AMA/drug companies/FDA are all out to squelch anything that goes against their cut/burn & poison mindset. Obviously, Ms. Rogers is a healer, who is seeking and finding answers. The tide is turning and faster every day, in that thinking people are wanting to get to the root causes of their symptoms


So true. One should look very closely at the practices of modern medicine and the A.M.A. In my experience if you give them half a chance, they will end your life after they have extracted tens of thousands of dollars from you and your insurance company. They are the cause of illness and, "death by doctor" is one of the leading killers in the USA.

If you trust corporate America to feed you and corporate America to heal you.....big trouble is headed your way.


----------



## Kee Wan

I'd like to weigh in here. 

First, I am a chemist, a research scientist and a teacher. 

I spent three years reading and researching Dr. Rogers books. In that time, I have not yet come acrosse a single case where the documents she cites are not in 100% agreement with what she states in her books. Not one case where she took something out of context to proove her point and not one case where she relied on a small portio of available research or played "statistics" games. I went throught two of her books and read EVERY WORD of EVERY SOURCE that she cited.....I found NO discrepancies. NONE. 

While I agree that she should either limmit her practice to a size and number of patients that SHE can manage, being there for help and so on, I also think that her lecturing and teachign and philosophies are such that she is somehwat forced into havign a "practice" no matter how small that is still going.....What would YOU think of a physician who did not actually practice medicine....

Admittedly, she made a mistake....HOWEVER, it was NOT the patients who complained. It was the Medical establishment. 

Think of the drug companies....They make trillions from people being sick. The research is VERY CLEAR that:

First, Nutrition defecits and toxic chemical exposure CAUSE illness, they facilitate bodily weakness and they harm us. Slowly, but surely...

Second: Drugs do not CURE anything. EVER. They simply mask symptoms and with the occasional exception of antibiotics, have an overall, long-term, negative effect on health. 

Third: Food, nutrients and so on are not patentable. Drug companies are not interetsed in us being cured. Cures for Cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and so on.....WHAT is going to happen to the drug comapnies who "give" billions for "research" (that is then writen off as donation) for these causes.....or the multibillion dollar corporations that exist only to "find" a "cure"?? What do you suppose is going to happen to the "cancer industry" if the American public learns that Mexico has a CURE for cancer - AND that the FDA BANNED (with no evidence AT ALL that it was even potentially harmful....i'ts a vitamin) itin the USA?? The ACS, and all those "foundations" with all those employees???

FACE IT, NO physician in this country that advocates non-drug therapits as Dr. Rogers does is going to come out unscathed. There is an ENTRIRE ECONOMY here in this nation that relies upon the drug companies to keep it going...if that fails....its' going to be hard for those guys - they're going to FIGHT any way they can to keep their monopoly. 

One more thing.....Dr. Rogers. SHe's a HUMAN BEING. She has her issues - just like all of us, she makes mistakes, and has an ego....JUST LIKE US ALL. If you expect perfection from a physician....go see a robot...and hope that his programmer was not human, hope that he was fully charged....

Best yet. Take your OWN health into your OWN hands. Do not rely on anyone but yourself for your health. 

Used to be that a person went to see a physician only when home remedies had not helped. Now we go once a month....whether we need it or not. Now, in many states it is against the law for a physician to practice "non-consensus" medicine....meaning that it is illegal for them to practice medicine that is not "accepted" by most physicians and the AMA and so on....Whether or not it could be harmful....it is illegal.....THAT"S BAD. IT's bad pracrtice and it's bad science.


----------



## Jeff54321

Kee Wan said:


> I'd like to weigh in here.


And I am glad you did.

Jeff


----------



## Marilyn in CO

Me too, Jeff, me too.....we do so appreciate you, Kee Wan.


----------



## Jeff54321

I know that many will find this information quite useful:

"It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US."

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm


----------



## BobK

here is an excerpt from an article critiquiing Sherry Rogers writings...quite to the mark and point....and certainly contrary to the claims that she has never taken things out of context...in many cases she uses vague definitions without supplying any references...if you think Sherry Rogers represents good science I feel badly for 'you'....how do you defend that stance given the critique and the numerous unfounded and unsubstantiated claims made by Sherry rogers? Good science requires careful dosumentation and citations...neither of which Sherry Rogers is familiar with it appears.......Dr. Dalefieldand does have credentials out the whazoogood!!!

A Critique of Dr. Sherry Rogersâ Chapter 29
Environmental Medicine for Veterinary Practitioners


By Rosalind Dalefield BVSc, PhD, DABVT, DABT*

The author of this chapter, Dr Sherry Rogers, is a MD. It is hard to see how she is qualified to write a chapter for what is purportedly a veterinary textbook. Indeed much of the chapter appears to have little or no relevance to veterinary science, and this reader was left with the impression that Dr Rogers seldom recalled, while writing it, that it was intended for a veterinary readership. In particular, the repeated use of the term "symptom" is irritating, since veterinary patients do not have symptoms; they have clinical signs.



Introduction

The assertions related to urea foam formaldehyde in homes in the 1970s made in this section should be referenced. We are told that "hundreds of thousands of people" developed symptoms but that "no two patients had the same symptoms." It is hard to imagine that so many disorders exist! At any rate this should be referenced; surely by now there is a review article in the peer-reviewed literature?

The "conventional assumption that everyone reacting to one chemical would have the same symptoms" is a straw man argument. No competent clinician would claim this. On the contrary, I think most clinicians, both medical and veterinary, would agree that many cases are not "textbook cases." However we would expect clinical signs in different individuals to overlap somewhat and to fall within a set of possible clinical signs for any given disease.

What is Environmental Medicine?

This section attacks âconventionalâ medicine on spurious grounds. History taking is a vital part of conventional medicine and most definitely covers environmental factors. A conventional diagnostic approach can certainly cover any or all of the disciplines of nutrition, allergy, endocrinology and toxicology, and is certainly capable of diagnosing genuine "environmental food, chemical or mold sensitivities" as well as genuine "deficiencies of vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, amino acids and hormones." To suggest that conventional physicians and veterinarians are unable to consider or diagnose disorders with these aetiologies is to gravely insult both the medical and the veterinary medical professions.

The assertion that in conventional medicine "aside from the use of antibiotics for infections, cure is rarely established" is a ludicrous claim, yet Dr Rogers makes this claim while providing no grounds for this assertion whatsoever. She follows this with the extraordinary assertion that "very seldom is medication temporary", again without providing any date to show that this is the case.

Dr Rogers claims that when "properly trained" (presumably in environmental medicine), physicians can induce reversal of coronary artery plaque, regression of metastatic end-stage cancer, and reversal of rheumatoid arthritis, but provides no references to case histories of these events occurring. Incidentally, surely it has long been recognised that metastatic cancer that has been considered terminal may sometimes regress for no known reason?

Definitions

Most of this section (up to and including the Klaassen citation) is a brief synopsis of detoxification, which is simplistic but essentially correct.

At the end of this section Dr Rogers claims that there are "scores" of papers showing that "hidden" food sensitivities are the cause of bloody diarrhea. It is a pity she does not reference a single one of them. A reference to a review article would be even better. It is also a pity that although this claim is found in a section titled "Definitions", she fails to explain what a "hidden" food sensitivity is. Arenât all food sensitivities "hidden"? Peanuts do not grow with allergy warnings on them.

An Environmental Medicine Scenario

In this section Dr Rogers attacks the use of NSAIDs and steroids, citing theorized toxic effects of NSAIDs via magnesium deficiency. She lists a number of toxic effects of magnesium deficiency up to and including cardiac arrest, but fails to present any evidence that any human or veterinary patient has even suffered clinically significant magnesium deficiency as a result of using NSAIDs at the therapeutic dose.

The section continues in this scare-mongering tone. Dr Rogers raises the spectre of "intestinal hyperpermeability" but again fails to provide any reference to the frequency of this condition in NSAID users. Likewise she uses the logical fallacy known as the "Slippery Slope" to progress from "nutrient imbalance" to cholesterol-lowering drugs, to cholesterol deficiency, to clinical endocrinopathy, and finally to suicide and cancer. Furthermore, cholesterol-lowering drugs appear to be of no relevance in a veterinary textbook.

Rogers cites a single publication which asserts that "numerous "undiagnosable" and "untreatable" arthritic, musculoskeletal, metabolic, renal, hepatic and malignant diseases occur because of the ingestion of hydrogenated polyunsaturated oils containing trans-fatty acids." If these are the diagnoses, and "trans-fatty-acids" are the cause, then surely they are not "undiagnosable diseases" at all? However, examination of this reference shows that it is not in the peer-reviewed literature but has been published by the author. It is of no apparent veterinary relevance.

On the other hand the sweeping assertion that "many people and animals have a total package of food, chemical (e.g. pesticide, hydrocarbon) and inhalant (e.g. pollen, dust, mold, dander) overloads... goes completely unreferenced and unjustified, so perhaps any reference is better than none. Similarly the startling claim that "very common causes of arthritis, which in many cases can be completely eliminated without drugs or surgery, are unsuspected food, chemical and mold sensitivities, as well as undiagnosed nutrient deficiencies" is made without any data or references to support it. <snipped>

http://www.vet-task-force.com/SW29Dal.htm


----------



## BobK

....and this section from the end of the article is quite pertinent to Sherry Rogers allegedly practicing 'good sceience' .....the evidence derived from her own writing seems to counter that claim very quickly.......

Cancer Decline

Perhaps low-level solvent exposure is not the hazard Dr Rogers would have us believe?

Several sections follow in which a variety of synthetic chemicals including perchloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, formaldehyde and organophosphate insecticides are discussed. Apparently the practitioner of "environmental medicine" is not only a wannabe nutritionist and a wannabe allergist, but a wannabe toxicologist as well. The give-away flaw in these sections, to this toxicologist, is that Dr Rogers never discusses the issue of dose. Dose is all-critical to the properly trained toxicologist, but apparently irrelevant to the "environmental medicine" practitioner. Such is the difference between a legitimate science and quackery.

Dr Rogerâs claim that "Anyone can react to any chemical and any target organ can be affected "at any time" is simply absurd. Some chemicals are totally inert. Those that are biologically active have target organs determined by the properties of the substance.

Predictably, "pesticides" (a term that covers a colossal range of chemicals, both natural and synthetic) are villainized, but the scare-mongering is unreferenced, with the exception of one of Dr Rogersâ own publications. Dr Rogers is particularly fond of claiming that pesticides can cause "undiagnosable symptoms." How convenient; whatever you have or imagine you have, you can always blame it on pesticides! The notion that a three-year-old child can develop "mysterious behavior problems" as a result of a petâs flea collar is blatant and groundless scare-mongering of the worst kind. Dr Rogers also insults one branch of her own profession, as well as people who are suffering from short-term depressive illness, by implying that psychiatrists routinely condemn patients to "a lifetime prescription of antidepressants."

Dr Rogers is much given to sensationalizing. She likes to use the word "host"; over and over one reads about "a host of diseases" or "a host of symptoms." There are the predictable dark hints of conspiracies by latex manufacturers and other industries. There are the predictable, oh-so-convenient "undiagnosable symptoms." Dr Rogers seems disinclined to believe that any illness could be psychiatric in origin. She is not fond of references or of the peer-reviewed literature. Perusal of the references section shows an inappropriate emphasis of books over original research papers. Anyone can write a book; you can write and publish a book claiming that the moon is made of green cheese if you wish to. Original research papers in the peer-reviewed literature are far more reliable, although not, of course, infallible.

From this chapter it appears that an environmental medicine practitioner is a person who picks and chooses what they want from nutrition, allergy and toxicology, while ignoring anything in any of those disciplines that contradicts their preconceived notions. Based on this chapter, there appears to be very little scientific thought, and a great deal of scare-mongering, in environmental medicine.


----------



## Jeff54321

Bob,

I must say you really caught me off guard this time. I had no idea that you had such a sense of humor. Quoting Rosalind Dalefield is absolutely hysterical, I just love it. 

You should be a bit careful though, some of the younger readers could actually take this seriously.

Jeff


----------



## BobK

Rosalind dalefield is hysterical....how?

As a toxicologist myself I find her comments right on the mark....perhaps you'd care to enlighten us where she was mistaken in the critique....?


----------



## backachersfarm

I would imgine Dr. Rogers would plead guilty just to get it over with and go on with her life. To fight these people would have been a very costly waste of time. When any Dr. feels they have come across a better treatment for anything, the AMA doesn't take it well. Healthcare in the USA has been leading us all down a rosey path for yrs. It's all reactive and very little proactive. An older gent I know says "90% of the people who die were under the care of a DR."

Sharon


----------



## Jaclynne

BobK said:


> Rosalind dalefield is hysterical....how?
> 
> As a toxicologist myself I find her comments right on the mark....perhaps you'd care to enlighten us where she was mistaken in the critique....?


Not knowing who Rosalind Dalefield was, I googled her name. I was very enlighten by how much she sounds like a raving kook. Did I get the wrong toxicologist? 

Halo


----------



## Kee Wan

Chemical: I'm using this to mean a synthetic (laboratory created), or naturally enhanced or strengthened chemical (naturally found chemical that was changed or mass manufactured in a lab) compound that most people would not have encountered in any detectible concentration 200 years ago. (we have to define this - everything is made of "chemicals")

Arguably, some of Dr. Rogers earleir works are harder to read, and make more assertions than they have documentation. In addition, that documentation is hard to follow, and at times, impossible to place in context, because of the way that she cites things. In more recent books her citation methods have evolved to make both the reading of hte text easier and the location of relavent source materials easier to find and use. 

I have not researched every on eof Dr. Rogers claims. I said that I looked at her claims and her citations and could not find a claim that she backed up with a misused citation. Every time she made a claim that I looked into - and had a citation to back up that claim, it matched...no "creative interpretations" no statistical "playing", no word twisting...it matched. I'm sorry of there was confusion. I have not delved in depth into every single one of Dr. Rogers claims. 

I have no clue what the reviewer was talking about when stating that Dr. Rogers was asserting that there was not sufficient documentation in terms of her claims about Magnesium. There is. I've seen it. I've read it. LOTS Of it. Her citations are not from funky "pseudo-medical" journals....she cites JAMA, Lancett and other peer-reviewed journlas of similar caliber. (In fact, I have seen two articles that dealt with using MgCl IV for AMI patients to GREAT benefit.) 

Perhaps whatever it was that she wrote for "vetrinary" practice was not as meticulously documented because she (erroneously) thought that they would require less stringent standards - or beacuse it was written so long ago that it's from her "poorly documented" era.

As for the (correct, I might add) claim that she does not talk about dose when talking about toxic chemicals. I have this to say:

It's true that no matter WHAT the chemical, any acute toxic reaction is going to be "dose specific" - (and some chronic exposures will too - those from compounds that are known to bio-accumulate) that is to say that some doses will not cause any clear, immediate, harm, and other doses will (and some will build up until they reach a concentration that they do harm)...it is also correct to say that the method of dose is of VITAL importance (after all....water is nasty when inhaled...but usually harmless on the skin...Vinegar is ok on the skin...but hell in the eyes.)

It is also true that chemicals can act in a synergystic way. Cyanide, some nitrites and carbon monoxide are all toxic in various doses...but a person could "get into" a non-lethal dose of each of them and die - because they all bind to hemaglobin and seriously mess with it's ability to transport oxygen. (actually, Cyanide is a little different, but the end result is that the hemaglobin/oxygen system is messed with)..you get the picture. 

There are two things that make the discussion of "dose" more or less irralavent when discussing chronic exposure, such as we are talking about here....acute exposure is VERY dose specific, but chronically.....First there is the fact that most people do not just get into a single chemical. There are hundreds of thoushands of chemicals that are reasonably harmless, but few cary warnings about use with other chemicals (see your toilet bowl cleaner - it says DO NOT USE WITH BLEACH - that's because it liberates CL gas - Hitler used this....) No one lives in a world with only one or two chemical exposures.....So there are synergistic effects that are not only unknown, but thesheer nymber of chemicals in our world make it statistically to know them. 

Second is the fact that some of us are "more sensitive" and some are "less sentsitive"..(why do you think that only some of us get allergies?? - it's because some of us are less sensitive to pollen (or pick your favorite allergen) than others) These differences could be gentic, ethnic, a function of previous chemical exposure...NO ONE KNOWS. 

The fact is that it is statistically impossible to do ANY research about chemical toxicity that is universally meaningful....there are ALWAYS going to be potential synergistic effects that no one ever thought of, and there are ALWAYS going to be personal, genetic or individual "nuances" that make various people ract in various ways...and not all of them will overalp. 

So....If you compare the fact that Dr. Rogers advocates (essentially) nutrients and vitamins and various supliments, a good, (as much as possible) chemical-free diet that is whole, unadulterated and of a VERY wide variety..Excercise and some other things that may or may not be relavent for everyone.....

With modern medicine that (statistics show) kills nearly as many people each year as ANY OTHER CAUSE, is RIFE with errors, includes medications that are NOT tested beyond the laboratories of the corporations that created them (and have financial intersts in selling as man y as possible)- adn have "side effect" rates that often EXCEED the rates of those experiencing theraputic effect....

It's a NO BRAINER. 

It's COMMON SENSE that human beings lived for MILLENIA without ANY of this pharmeceutical "help"....Look at ANY native people.....and it's CLEAR that despite being the most "medicated" people in the world (or in teh history of the world) we are NOT the healthiest.....

If you eat right, whole, varied and unadulterated foods, no "processed" garbage, and if your foods are nutrient rich, and not full of chemicals of unknown origin or concentration...excercise and so on.....

THe SINGLE things that I like so much about Dr. Rogers is that for EVERY "illness" that I remember reading about, I also find a CAUSE. Or several potential causes. All documented in medical literature. 

Above all, Dr. Rogers asks all who read her book to QUESTION their physicians, LOOK up things, KNOW what's in what they are consuming. LARN about various interactions in teh body and things that we intake. EXCERCISE, live, try new things BEFORE we resort to chemicals to help us.....

for me....I'ts simple.


----------

