Category Archives: Lab testing

Connecticut Training – PowerPoint Presentation

Mitochondrial Insufficiency, Type II Diabetes and Infertility/Pregnancy

Autism, Asthma, Allergies and Obesity Presentation

I’d like to thank the people who attended a training session I was part of this past weekend in Old Greenwich, Connecticut. It gave me a great surge of energy to meet so many people who are passionate about health and nutrition.

As promised I have uploaded my two presentations above for you to read and use (just make sure you tell people where you got the slides). Please also visit my other blog site, ToxicWorldBook.

Toxins and Diseases – The Research

There is a lot of data out there on the links between disease and environmental toxins. Problem is, there is a LOT of data on the links. Where to go if you need to see how strong the data is? Well look no further than The Collaborative on Health and the Environment’s – CHE Toxicant and Disease Database.

From Abnormal sperm (morphology, motility, and sperm count) to Wilm’s Tumor, this database is chock full of information on the links between the poison’s we are exposed to and the health concerns many of us face.  A definite favorite link to keep if you’re a health care practitioner.

An important thought as well is to make sure you test for the toxins instead of just going out and looking at a disorder and immediately thinking that the toxins listed are the cause of the disease. You can’t treat strictly based on what you think is there. Both the US Biotek test for Environmental Pollutants and the Whole Blood Elements Test from Doctor’s Data is the way to go.

My Latest Presentation on Lab Testing and Environmental Health

San Francisco and Los Angeles April 2008 Presentation by Dr. Mark Schauss

I’d like to thank the people who came to my presentation I did with Robert Crayhon this past weekend in San Francisco and Los Angeles. It was fun to see old friends and make new ones. The enthusiasm to help people that everyone had was invigorating and inspiring. Also, please stop by my other blog ToxicWorldBook.

As promised, here is the PowerPoint presentation for you to read and use (just tell everyone where you got it from). Just click on the link above. Tomorrow, I’ll add the PDF file of the presentation as well.

Antidepressants – Hidden Drug Trials Show Negative Results

It almost seems to be an everyday issue, but more and more we see how drug trials that don’t show benefits are being either ignored, hidden or modified by the pharmaceutical industry. In a review of the studies on 12 antidepressant drugs, researchers led by Erick H. Turner found that 31% of the studies on these drugs went unpublished and the majority were negative or were conveyed to have a positive outcome which was contrary to the data. The paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, in their January 17, 2008 issue. What was truly remarkable was how much the perceived benefits of the drugs were changed because of the lack of publication of all of the data. According to the authors, if you looked at the published research, the antidepressant drugs had positive outcomes 94% of the time. If you include the unpublished research that number drops to a mere 51%. This is a huge difference and should make everyone think twice before agreeing to be put on the medications or at least safer, alternatives should be investigated first.

According to the papers conclusion, “We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients.” In my opinion, it is the sponsors who are probably most likely to apply pressure to stop publication. This would mean that the pharmaceutical industry is to blame. We need to take research on drug efficacy out of their hands and into the hands of real researchers without the onus of pressure and conflict of interest.

Why is this so damaging? When you do a search on meta-analysis of antidepressant drugs, you find a number that show how beneficial the drugs are, like the one by Drs. Dubika, Hadley and Roberts entitled, “Suicidal behaviour in youths with depression treated with new-generation antidepressants” published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2006. Would that study’s conclusion, which is that “Antidepressants may cause a small short-term risk of self-harm or suicidal events in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder” have changed to a large short-term risk or a small long-term risk or maybe worst case scenario, a large long-term risk? Chances are, based on the Turner paper that the answer is yes, the results would have changed but by how much, we cannot tell.

What we can say is that there is a major problem that needs a solution and it has to come sooner than later. How many of us are on medications that may not be helping us or maybe damaging our health and that of our loved ones?
So what do we do about it? Determine biochemical imbalances and toxicity influences on behavior as well as inflammatory processes that have been shown to cause depression in people for decades. The research exists but it is being downplayed by greedy pharmaceutical giants whose obvious intention is to make money at all costs and deflect criticism and downgrade safe alternatives.

Tomorrow, I will discuss a few tests I think are extremely helpful in working with mild to moderate depression in both adults and children.

Cholesterol Lowering Drugs are Worthless in Most Cases – Part Three

Before I get into today’s discussion on inflammation, please go to this link put up by Chance News, a group dedicated to reviewing information about the use of statistics in the news. They review the cholesterol news and and the statistics behind it. Go down halfway down the page to see the report.

Inflammation. That is the key driver of many disease progressions. From arthritis to coronary heart disease and from cancer to many neurological disorders, if you control inflammation, you control the disease. Two things are important in determining what to do when it comes to your, or your patient’s inflammatory issues. First is proper laboratory testing is lifestyle changes.

The tenet of biochemical individuality is that each person must be dealt with as a unique being. By suggesting that everyone who has a risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) should take one drug or one supplement is an insult to Dr. Roger Williams concept. The only way to determine what is going on is to do the appropriate lab tests.

When looking for markers of inflammation as they relate to coronary heart disease, one jumps out as being a primary marker and that is C-Reactive Protein. CRP is a protein produced by the liver and is increased during inflammatory processes. People with elevated levels are more likely to have a coronary event than people with low levels. It is important to note that a single high reading is not a good marker for CHD, a number of elevations (>3.0 mg/L) would signify a problem. ZRT Laboratories is a place to get a simple, in-home test (Cardio/Hormone Risk Test) that uses blood spot and saliva to test not only for CRP, but a number of other coronary risk factors as well as hormone levels.

What would cause an elevation in inflammatory markers? Toxicity is one so testing for urinary markers of petrochemicals which is done only by US Biotek, is a good place to start. By seeing if you are excreting chemicals like benzene, styrene, xylene, toluene, phthalates or parabens, you can find out where your exposures might be coming from. Another good test to run is a Hair Elements test from Doctor’s Data to determine possible heavy metal exposure. To help you better understand the report, I suggest Dr. Andrew Cutler’s book – Hair Test Interpretation: Finding Hidden Toxicities.

Another source of inflammatory triggers is food and the best test I have ever found in determining which foods can cause inflammation is the LEAP MRT. Developed by Signet Diagnostics, it can pinpoint the foods that cause the body to release pro-inflammatory prostaglandins, leukotrienes and cytokines that drive the inflammation process. It was the one test that helped my daughter control her seizure activity as well as behavioral issues. It has a great track record in relieving irritable bowel syndrome as well as migraines, both driven by inflammatory triggers.

If you want to become heart healthy, you need to find out whether your body is inflammed and if so, what is causing it. Once you do that, you reduce your risk of developing not just heart disease, but a number of other health conditions.

Perchlorates and Iodine – Another Reason to Ban this Substance

Turns out that the molecular pump that drives iodine also does the same to the toxic chemical perchlorate. Researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, led by Dr. Nancy Carrasco, found that perchlorate does double damage to lactating mothers and their babies because the chemical depletes the child of much needed iodine.

This finding is proof that perchlorates (found in jet engine fuel) is more dangerous than the industry admits. Isn’t that how it always works?

Since perchlorate is unavoidable, it is yet another reason to make sure you get adequate amounts of iodine in your diet or at least take a supplement (75 mcg should do for healthy people). Better yet, get tested. Doctor’s Data has a great iodine challenge test that everyone should get at least once every five years.

DNA Testing of Stool for Bacterial and Parasitic Markers – Unanswered Questions

The latest lab test being marketed heavily is a DNA Stool test for bacterial and parasites. While the theory of testing for pathogens using their DNA signatures sounds real good, is it necessarily ready for use, especially as a way of determining treatment protocols?  I for one am not sold on the idea yet.

A couple of issues come up that I haven’t heard adequate answers for.  Here are my main problems with this test:

  • If we find the DNA for a bug, yet it was dead before we ingested it, does this warrant treatment?  Obviously no but how do the labs determine if it is alive or not. An answer I heard was that they deal with it but how?  I’d be interested in knowing.
  • If our body already is dealing with a bacterial or parasitic pathogen and the DNA is picked up, do we deal with it or not?  Remember, overuse of antibiotics or other medications may lead to the development of resistant strains.
  • How accurate and specific is the test? I have not been convinced that it is that accurate as the DNA of pathogenic bacteria is often times very similar to non-pathogenic ones.
  • Quantification of bacteria and parasites is another issue. Does the lab have anyway of saying that the bacteria level is high, low, normal or not. There is a claim that there is a developed reference range but how? What if the infection level is high but not much DNA sloughs off?  What if a lot of DNA from a particular bug is found but there isn’t a high level of infection?

These issues do happen according to the literature I have reviewed so are we ready for the clinical use of this test or do we need more research? My feeling is that more research is needed before we abandon the gold-standard of stool testing, which is culturing. Why drop a very well respected and time-tested methodology for something that has not been shown to actually be superior?  This is akin to trying Nexium® because it has a 3% better efficacy than Prilosec® but is 10 times more expensive.

Another issue I have is that when we treat for a bacteria or parasite, the treatment often times kills more than just the specified “enemy”. When we use antibiotics or even natural treatments, we run the risk, and often times do, kill both beneficial and pathogenic species. Caution is the concept to remember here. The beneficial bacteria are extremely important in a healthy immune response, detoxification of xenobiotics, creation of nutients from food and more.

The use of genetic testing is a sexy concept but some labs seem to be way ahead of the practicality curve here. Just because a test is new and is accompanied by hot marketing doesn’t mean it’s time to abandon what works.

I would be real interested in hearing from the experts who claim DNA stool testing is the best and how they would respond to my concerns.

Prostate Biopsies? An Unneeded Procedure? An Alternative is Available.

For any man over the age of 40 who goes to his physician, a simple blood test known as a PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) is done to look for the possibility of prostate cancer. Unfortunately, the test is quite unspecific and even if you have a high reading, between 4-10, the likelihood of having prostate cancer is still low but around 1 million men still have biopsies at that range. The problem with that is the side-effects of the procedure include incontinence and sexual dysfunction.

Of the men with higher than expected PSAs, only 20 percent turn out to have cancer which means that 80 percent have had a procedure done unneccesarily. But there is a simple test, known to the medical community for a number of years that can cut back on biopsies dramatically and it is known as the Free-PSA.  Free PSA is the antigens that are not bound to proteins. The higher the percentage of Free-PSA the lower the likelihood of prostate cancer. If the level is >25% then the risk of having prostate cancer is 5% in men between 50 and 65 and 9% in men 65-75.

The Free-PSA is around a $100 when combined with a total PSA and the biopsy is far more expensive and invasive. If you are a man and you’ve had a PSA done and it is between 4-10 and your doctor insists on doing a biopsy before running a Free-PSA, get another doctor.

Lab Testing – What Test When

Lab Testing Protocols (PDF)

Lab Testing Protocols – PowerPoint

Here is the PowerPoint and PDF of the presentations that I did in Denver and Boulder, Colorado this past weekend October 27 and 28, 2007.  Hope the information helps you find your way to optimal health.