ETHICS AND DENIAL IN MEDICINE
A search of The New England Journal of Medicine's shows it has never published a report of chelation therapy for multiple toxic metals to discover how many patterns of ill-health can be reversed with removal of toxic metals. Does it mean the patients of doctors who read the journal never suffer from toxicity of mercury, lead, cadmium, or other toxic metals? An internet search of the Journal of the American Medical Association's website reveals it has never published a report of the benefits of liver detoxification therapies. May one reasonably surmise that the patients of doctors who read the journal never suffer from liver toxicity that responds well to topical castor-oil liver packs and other non-drug measures?

The readers of Gastroenterology do not think mycotoxins sicken any of their patients. If they did, why wouldn't they test their patients for mycotoxins and treat them with antifungal therapies? The readers of Chest maintain their asthmatic patients never suffer from mold allergy. If they did, why wouldn't they test and treat mold and pollen allergy with desensitization protocols? Rheumatologists never test patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other collagen disorders for food allergy and adverse food reactions because the Archives of Rheumatology has never published papers demonstrating that some foods, under certain conditions, provoke chronic inflammatory response—by immune complex, IgE-mediated, mast cell degranulation, and other mechanisms—and cause autoimmune disease. If they knew that, why wouldn't they address those crucial dietary issues?

One may conclude from the above that those who control The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)—and enormously enrich themselves in the process—have convinced doctors that Americans are completely immune to toxic metals, industrial toxicants, pesticides, mycotoxins (mold toxins), and mold allergy. Similarly, one may deduce those who publish and profit from Gastroenterology, Chest, and the Archives of Rheumatology preach that Americans are completely immune to health consequences of toxic environment, toxic foods, and toxic thoughts.

Diagnosis Versus Detection

Pathological diagnosis continues to be the gold standard in medicine. Pathologists make diagnoses with their microscopes after the tissue damage occurs. So, they always observe the aftermath of the disease process—the tail end events, so to speak—caused by whatever agents(s) initiated the process. Biochemical diagnoses of autoimmune and degenerative diseases by measuring markers—rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis and anti-DNA antibodies for lupus, for example—are commonly made. However, such markers never reveal what elements of toxic environment, toxic foods, and toxic thoughts induced the generation of those markers of disease. The story of genetic diagnosis is always incomplete. Gene-disease associations used for diagnosis cannot rule the coexistence of other implicated, but as yet unrecognized, genes. This is abundantly evident to those who have closely followed the history of genomic diagnosis during the last three decades.

The histopathologic diagnosis of malignant disorders is crucially important for optimal management; however, such diagnoses never completely delineate the involved carcinogenic factors—the asbestos-mesothelioma theories of "meso-lawyers" notwithstanding. How, for instance, may anyone exclude the cancer-causing effects of tobacco smoking, environmental carcinogens, and persistent inflammatory triggers in the genesis of any mesothelioma? How can anyone, other than meso-lawyers, assert that asbestos is the only carcinogen that causes mesothelioma in their clients? The essential point is: How much an individual suffers from any disease is determined by the total body burden of all relevant factors that impede cellular energetic and detox mechanisms in his body.

In 1954, I learned that tuberculosis is caused by Mycobacterium species and influenza pneumonia by the flu virus. I recognized this information was incomplete. My mother had open tuberculosis, and she coughed out thick phlegm month after month, year after year, not infrequently one foot or so from my face. I have six siblings. Eventually, most of us responded positively to a tuberculin test, indicating a subclinical tubercular infection. However, none of us contracted a clinical disease requiring treatment.

In 1958, while some students in my class became ill during flu season, more did not. The professors in my medical school told me the state of immunity determines who gets sick and who does not. That raised the obvious question: what determines the state of an individual's immunity? The professors gave glib answers about the risk factors of poor immunity, but never a definitive answer concerning the cause of poor immunity of a given individual. There was seldom, if ever, any reference to toxic environments, toxic foods, and toxic thoughts.

In the early 1960s, I was much impressed by my professor of neurology. He made brilliant diagnoses by deductive reasoning. I thought he was an astute detective. That was then. Now, neurologists cannot help me with my patients with neurological problems. They only know as much as the MRI and CAT scan reports tell them. I can read those reports just as well. I do not know neurologists who diligently engage in detective work to discover all relevant toxic factors that cause neural injury—mycotoxins (mold toxins), toxic metals, industrial toxicants, pesticides, stress molecules, and allergic triggers—that impede or block hepatic detox pathways and impede mitochondrial functions. I do not know any neurologists who vigorously address all those issues. I can only conclude that contemporary neurologists have little, if any, interest in conducting any real detective work.

The Krebs Cycle Biochemistry

In 1958, I was taught the biochemistry of the Krebs cycle. It amazes me as I look back at the following thirty years. I attended over 5,000 lectures during those years. Not a single professor at Columbia University, New York, national medical conferences, or speakers at our hospital told me how he investigated Krebs cycle biochemistry and glycolytic pathways, and clinically applied that information for superior clinical results. For me, the Krebs cycle appeared on the scene in 1958 and then disappeared until 1990s.

In the 1970s, I became preoccupied with a simple question: What is the boundary between the state of health and a state of absence of health. In 1980s, I wrote about spontaneity of oxidation in nature and the oxygen model of aging.1-5 By 1990s, my attention was sharply focused on dysoxygenosis 6-13—my term for oxygen dyshomeostasis characterized by mitochondrial failure, cell membrane dysfunction, and matrix dysregulation—and efforts to detect and address as many environmental, food-related, and stress elements as I could in the integrative management of my patients.

Specifically, I saw objective and unequivocal evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in all chronically ill individuals.14-22 I also observed good to excellent results with robust efforts to detect and address all agents(s)—bowel-derived mycotoxins, altered gut microbiota, toxic metals, pollutants, autonomic blockers, adrenergic overdrive, and allergies—that disrupted oxygen homeostasis and oxygen signaling in a given individual. It was expedient for me to order a urinary organic acids profile in all chronically ill patients. This made it possible for me to objectify and quantify metabolic and detoxification pathways by the direct measurements of: (1) metabolites of Krebs cycle and glycolytic pathways; (2) products of lipid and protein breakdown; (3) catecholamines; (4) metabolites of vitamins; and (5) disruptors of mitochondrial electron transport chain. It was possible to focus my detective work on real agents of molecular injury.

Ethics in Medicine

Ethics, simply stated, is the study of the consequences of one's actions on others. For a people, ethics is the study of the consequences of its actions on other peoples of the world. For a profession, ethics is the study of the consequences of the actions of its members on the public it serves. There, however, is another crucial aspect of ethics: the consequences of one's failure to take the needed action on others. For example, a pilot not completing his checklist before flight may be jeopardizing the lives of his passengers, and so is being unethical. It would be considered clearly unethical for a nurse not to give a patient the prescribed.

The relevance and significance of no action when action is clearly needed by a doctor should be self-evident as well. It should also be clearly unethical when a doctor fails to do the necessary detective work to uncover the substances and/or elements that cause, or contribute to, the illness of a patient. In this light, how ethical is the prevailing drug medicine? Is it ethical for doctors to use drugs to suppress symptoms caused by heavy metals toxicity? Is it ethical for pulmonologists to ignore mold allergy and prescribe steroid—and chemotherapy, when steroids cease to work—to treat asthma? Is it ethical for internists to never address issues of industrial toxicity among their patients? How ethical is a doctor who never tests for mycotoxins and never treats patients suffering from mold toxicity? How ethical is a doctor who never tests for overload of pesticides and environmental pollutants on the liver and never prescribes liver detox therapies for patients with chronic fatigue, myalgia, brain fog, and eczema? How ethical is a pulmonologist who never tests for mold allergy, never does mold desensitization, and prescribes steroids for his patients with asthma?

Denial in Medicine

If Americans are not completely immune to toxic foods, toxic environments, and toxic thoughts, how do their doctors manage to thrive in denial of those facts? Psychologists have much to say about denial. However, my mind is uninitiated in psychological theories. So, I do not know if what I say here about the nature of denial among doctors is consistent with the prevailing psychological theories.

What is the nature of denial among doctors? Is it benign neglect? Simple inattention? Brain fog? Paralysis of intellect? Planned blindness? Willful subversion? Or, is it intellectual laziness?

Doctors deny the reality for various reasons. The primary and saddest reason is plain intellectual laziness. They consider The New England Journal of Medicine a safe harbor. The Journal material is easy to grasp (names of drugs), convenient to live with (writing drug prescriptions), and, of course, very enriching (prescription-writing reimburses well). Going against the Journal—struggling with issues of toxic foods, toxic environment, and toxic thoughts—is cumbersome, time-consuming, and fraught with the risk of alienation from drug doctors.

Denials in medicine have others structures as well. From 1968 to 1978, I attended weekly departmental and medical staff meetings at College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, and Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, New Jersey. Drugs promoted by The New England Journal of Medicine were discussed or mentioned in nearly all meetings. In those days, I—like my peers in pathology and clinical medicine—had no interest in the issues of toxic foods, toxic environment, and toxic thoughts. There were seldom, if ever, any discussions of those issues. The furthest thing on my mind then—as was the case with my peers—was any ethical issue.

Drilling deep into the policies of American politicians and mega-biz of disease-maintenance system is unsettling. Drilling deeper into the mindset of doctors who limit their work to drugs and surgical scalpels is profoundly disturbing.

In the modern vernacular, to say someone is “in denial” is to deliver a savage combination punch: one shot to the belly for the cheating or drinking or bad behavior, and another slap to the head for the cowardly self-deception of pretending it’s not a problem.

The New York Times November 20, 2007

Oops! That hurts, doesn't it? However, is Times off the mark here? I do not think so. Consider just three aspects of the sordid story of statins drugs used to lower blood cholesterol levels: (1) suppression of information concerning cancer-causing effects of statins; (2) the practice of drug companies buying editorials to push drugs; and (3) fear-mongering to promote drug abuse.

The Sordid Cholesterol Story

Cholesterol has been demonized by merchants of medicine. It is a precious commodity. The body spends 36 molecules of its primary energy currency (ATP), 16 units of secondary currency (aceytl-CoA), and 18 molecules of tertiary currency (NADPH) to make one molecule of cholesterol. Why would Nature allocate so much energy to its synthesis if cholesterol were really a molecular villain? Cholesterol is the queen-mother of all steroid hormones and other essential substances, such as vitamin D, and bile acids. Beyond that are the crucial regulatory roles of structural and functional integrity of biomembranes. Specifically, cholesterol participates in the formation of ordered lipid domains called lipid rafts, which are composed of lipids in the liquid-ordered phase surrounded by the liquid-disordered phase.

The Statin-Cancer Connection

The statin drugs used to lower blood cholesterol levels have well established cancer-causing effects in experimental animals and human is well established. Statin TV commercials include a quick sentence about liver toxicity, fatigue, and potentially fatal rhabdomyocytolysis. However, I have never seen a statin commercial mention the cancer-causing effects of statin drugs. Statins earn over $30 billion for the drug makers, who can well afford to spend enough ad dollars to keep carcinogenicity of their drugs from the public eyes. It is a sad comment that doctors seldom, if ever, mention to their patients the carcinogenic effects of statin drugs when they dole out prescriptions. The following two quotes, the first from JAMA and the second from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), speak for themselves:

All members of the two most popular classes of lipid-lowering drugs (the fibrates and the statins) cause cancer in rodents....In the meantime, the results of experiments in animals and humans suggest that lipid-lowering drug treatment, especially with fibrates and statins, should be avoided except in patients at high short-term risk of coronary heart disease.23

Some readers may be surprised to discover that the above quote is taken from a 1996 issue of JAMA. Eleven years later, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology fully supported the JAMA position with the following words:

However, the risk of cancer is significantly associated with lower achieved LDL-C levels. These findings suggest that drug- and dose-specific effects are more important determinants of liver and muscle toxicity than magnitude of LDL-C lowering. Furthermore, the cardiovascular benefits of low achieved levels of LDL-C may in part be offset by an increased risk of cancer.24

How did the above paper escape the eagle eyes of the marketers of statin drugs? That question takes us to a yet higher level of deception. The above article was accompanied by an editorial which trashed the original report with the following words:

In truth, currently available data cannot provide a definitive answer to this question. In the data that contributed to their analysis there is no single form of cancer that predominates, so that the effect low achieved LDL would have to have been one that stimulated neoplasia in a variety of tissues. Although not impossible, such a universal trigger mechanism would have to involve some change in cell biology or immunity not yet described or related to cholesterol metabolism.25

In truth, currently available data cannot provide a definitive answer! I read the above passage, then re-read it with astonishment. How much might the writer of this editorial know about cancer biology?, I wondered. Readers with some knowledge of cancer literature will recognize that this was one of the main arguments made by pseudoscientists of tobacco industry who denounced the tobacco-cancer link in the 1950s. And then in 2007, this editorialist expects to get away with this silly argument. I read along and found the following statement as a footnote: "Dr. LaRosa receives occasional honoraria for speaking or consulting from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers-Squib, and Merck. Such is the power of editorialists! Or, is it a tribute to the cunning of statin-makers?

No Evidence That the Cholesterol Drug Reduces Heart Attacks and Strokes

On December 21, 2007, The New York Times ran a story entitled "Data About Zetia Risks Was not Fully Revealed." The drug maker claims that Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug, protects its users from heart attacks and strokes. Below, I include the complete sentence from the Times article:

But in the case of Zetia, despite its widespread use, there is no evidence to show that the cholesterol drug can reduce heart attacks and strokes.

The Times reported that before the drug was approved in 2002, one F.D.A. reviewer advised against clearing Zetia for use with statins because the combination had caused liver damage in animals. The warning was ignored. Since then, there have been several reports of severe liver damage in patients taking Zetia in combination with statins.

Selective Amnesia

The December 21 Times article also reported that in the safety findings of the Trial P2173C of Zetia with Zocor, a statin drug, showed a "19 percent of patients suffered problems from taking the drugs. Below, I include some other sobering quotes from the Times report:

When there have been adverse effects, when the benefits don’t look impressive, those are the trials that historically don’t make it to press.

A Schering executive, when asked by a reporter about the unpublished studies, confirmed their existence. But the executive, Dr. Robert J. Spiegel, said the companies had not considered the studies scientifically important enough to publish their findings. Some may eventually be published, he said.

“We keep telling people we want to practice evidence-based medicine, and what we keep finding out is that much of the evidence is obscured,” said Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist at Yale, when told about the previously undisclosed studies. “There is important evidence, but it’s not in public view. It’s hidden from investigators.”

The pseudoscience of drug medicine profits much from selective amnesia. That is understandable. What is not easy to understand is selective amnesia among doctors. Most doctors do read articles like the one quoted above. While they talk about an evidence-based practice of medicine, they full well know that the clinical trials, upon which they base their drug therapies, are perverted. As the Yale cardiologist recognizes in the above quote, the drug companies regularly hide data about drug toxicities and exaggerate their benefits.

Complicity In Silence: Two Nobel Laureates Participate In Pill Pushing

If you were the CEO of Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor, how much would you pay to get two Nobel laureates to declare on national public television (PBS)TV that most people should take one of your drugs, considering the viewers of such television run into millions and millions of people. Five million dollars? Ten million? Twenty million? What would you pay to get two Nobel laureates and one of the most well respected hosts of PBS to tell viewers that everyone should take your drug? Would you pay $40 million? $50 million? Or, $60 million?

On December 20, the guests of Charlie Rose on PBS included two Nobel Laureates, Paul Nurse and Eric Kendell, and three professors of medicine, one from The Johns Hopkins University. The program was sponsored by Pfizer, the company that rakes in more than 15 billion dollars from the sales of Lipitor, a drug prescribed to lower blood cholesterol levels. At one point, Mr. Rose asked, "Why don't we all go out and get Lipitor?" A burst of laughter was followed by a quick rejoinder, "We do." What a commercial for Lipitor! What a coup for Pfizer! The bully pulpit doesn't get any better. How many viewers would recognized that those two Nobel laureates did not win the Nobel Prize for work in cholesterol metabolism, I wondered. Did the Nobel laureates know the program was sponsored by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor? How could they not know it? It was announced. Charlie Rose hardly qualifies as a medical expert. Did he know the program was sponsored by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor? How could he not know it? He made the announcement. How many viewers would recognize this act of shameful pill pushing at PBS?

Holy Grail Discovered With Spectacular Results

Lowering blood levels of LDL cholesterol and raising those of HDL has been the Holy Grail of drug doctors. On November 22, 2007, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that the Holy Grail had been discovered with stunning result. Below, I include two quotes from that report:

At 12 months in patients who received torcetrapib, there was an increase of 72.1% in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and a decrease of 24.9% in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as compared with baseline (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The trial was terminated prematurely because of an increased risk of death and cardiac events in patients receiving torcetrapib.26

Many people were killed when the blood levels of LDL cholesterol were lowered and HDL raised. The doctor-scientists kept by the drug company moved on to new areas of drug research.

Fear Mongering

American doctors are indoctrinated in fear-mongering. I illustrate this phenomenon with the following case study. On December 18, 2007, I saw a 69-year-old yoga and nutrition teacher. She was extremely distraught and eager to show me the results of her blood test.

"I'm very upset," she spoke as she handed me her laboratory reports with trembling hands.
"Let me see what the reports say," I said softly and looked at the report.
"You know me, I do not tolerate drugs well. My cardiologist looked at my lab reports and prescribed Lipitor. Statins make me very tired. I told him that," she pressed before I read the reports.
"Well,..."
"He's a very nice man." she interrupted me. "He said if you don't take Lipitor, you might have a stroke. He scared me so."
"Let's do it slowly and calmly."

I looked at her laboratory report and saw the following values: total cholesterol, 255 mg/dL; HDL cholesterol, 80 mg/dL; triglycerides, 267 mg/dL; and a C-reactive protein, 13.1 mg/L.

"I don't see anything here that should trouble us," I spoke reassuringly.
"The cardiologist was insistent. He said if I don't lower the cholesterol level with Lipitor I might have a stroke. I'm so frightened." She stood up, shaking.
"I don't agree with your cardiologist. The stress which his advice has created for you is much more likely to get you into trouble than the cholesterol levels."
"Can you lower it with natural therapies?" she asked anxiously.
"The remedy you really need is a bit of truth-telling and understanding," I tried to humor her. "Please sit down. Let me first review your previous lipid values."

She sat down fitfully. I looked at the Lab Result Sheet in her clinical chart. The total cholesterol values from 2002 to 2004 ranged between 188 and 224, with excellent HDL cholesterol values of 71 to 95. Clearly, her lipid profiles have been good (Table 1). The November values (the source of distress) showed an elevation of 31 points. I asked her questions to discover a source of inflammation that might have raised her cholesterol levels. She was too anxious and obsessed with her cholesterol numbers to calmly answer my questions.





"Jane (not her real name), I have known you for several years. I have reviewed your past cholesterol numbers. I strongly suspect the 31-point rise in the cholesterol value is caused by some unusual source of severe stress. The high number of CRP indicates an inflammatory response triggered by that stress. Maybe we will pin it down, maybe not. In either case, I really don't see any real reason for us to worry so much. There are many natural things we can do. How is your sleep?"
"Okay," she nearly snapped.
"Is there something else you are not telling me?" I asked, leaning forward in my chair.
"No. Yes, no," she stuttered, then suddenly stood up and began pacing in my office.

I pretended to study her chart as I observed her distress. She paced some more, then turned to look in my face, her eyes brimming with tears, and spoke,

"I didn't want to tell. George (not her husband's real name) passed on four months ago. last August. We were married 42 years."
"I'm sorry," I stood up as well.
"I'm not sorry," she spoke, her voice finding strength. "Near the end he couldn't eat, nor swallow. He loved to eat and drink and smoke. You saw him over ten years ago. I pleaded with him to come and see you all these years, but he wouldn't. He was stubborn that way." A faint smile appeared on her face.

She fondly and sadly told me many more things about her husband, a stoic man, as I remembered him. I was engaged in an inner narration. Why do young women and men study so hard to become doctors? What is the calling of a physician? How did we physicians become so numb? So insensitive? So stupid, to be brutally candid? How do intelligent people lose their senses? How did such fear-mongering become the common fare of medicine? If authentic understanding liberates, then did understanding in medicine become so unauthentic? For compassion to be authentic, it must be universal. What happened to compassion in medicine?

I knew her cardiologist. She was right. He is a nice man. He practices at a world famous hospital in New York. What could he do except to follow the standards of cardiology care and prescribe Lipitor for her? He has his to protect his license, bring food to table for his family, and maintain his stature among his peers. He has to be a cardiologist who is "up on his statistics."

I looked up. Her eyes were fixed on me.
"I trust you, Dr. Ali," she began with a smile. "I cannot take Lipitor. And I don't want to be stupid with myself either. I don't want a stroke. If you tell me I don't have to take Lipitor, I won't take it. I just need your support."
"You have my support," I smiled back. "But we have some other good stuff for you as well. Don't worry, your cholesterol values will return to the levels you have had in past years."

Was I being silly? Full of myself? Unschooled in medical statistics? Ignorant of the ways of modern cardiology? Putting a frightened woman at risk for a stroke? Ignoring danger for her out of my ignorance? I answer these questions at length in Chapter entitled "Why Statins Do Not Work for Women" in Darwin, Oxygen Homeostasis, and Integrative Protocols, the twelfth volume of The Principles and Practice of Integrative Medicine. Below, I quote one passage from that chapter to close this preface:

Why don't statin drugs work for women? In 1997, My colleague Omar Ali and I addressed this question at length in an article published in The Journal of Integrative Medicine.1 We marshalled 13 lines of evidence to support our view that the use of statin drugs is ill-advised for the vast majority of people taking such drugs. I reproduce text concerning those lines of evidence later in this chapter. Specifically we asserted that there is no evidence that statin drugs used for primary prevention confer any survival benefits on women. In 2007, the British journal The Lancet published an article which fully validated our statement made ten years earlier.2 In this article professors, John Abramson of Harvard University and James Wright of University of British Columbia, analyzed published data for over 40,000 women who were given statin drugs for primary prevention. Consider the opening paragraph of their paper:

The last major revision of the US guidelines, in 2001, increased the number of Americans for whom statins are recommended from 13 million to 36 million, most of whom do not yet have but are estimated to be at moderately elevated risk of developing coronary heart disease. In support of statin therapy for the primary prevention of this disease in women and people aged over 65 years, the guidelines cite seven and nine randomized trials, respectively. Yet not one of the studies provides such evidence.

Yet not one of the studies provides such evidence! This comment should surprise only those who have never critically examined the data on the subject published during the last few decades.



Once Healing Arts Were a Calling

Once there was no medicine, only passionate individuals who searches for ways to ameliorate suffering. The men of the spirits doubled for the men of healing. Healing arts were a calling. Then these arts morphed into medicine. Then medicine became a profession. Men of money entered medicine to turn it into an industry. Now, medicine is in the clutches of eco-monsters, clutches of craven men with pathologic needs for maniacal control of everything. They can buy all medical editorialists— indeed, they have for decades. We physicians have but one weapon: the liberating power of truth. Only if we could muster the courage to use that weapon!

References

1. Ali M. Spontaneity of Oxidation in Nature and Aging, (monograph). Teaneck, NJ, 1983.
2. Ali M. The agony and death of a cell. In: Syllabus of the Instruction Course of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Denver, Colorado, 1985.
3. Ali M. Leaky Cell Membrane Disorder (monograph). Teaneck, NJ, 1987.
4. Ali M. Immunology as it applies to clinical ecology. Syllabus. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. 1988. 13th Instructional Course. Part I. Denver, Colorado. pp45-50. Clinical Ecology Publications. Denver, Colorado.
5. Ali M. An ecologist's view of the immune system. Syllabus. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. 1988. 13th Instructional Course. Part II. Cleveland, Ohio. pp 71-81. Clinical Ecology Publications. Denver, Colorado.
6. Ali M: Oxidative regression to primordial cellular ecology. J Integrative Medicine 1998; 2:4-55.
7. Ali M: Darwin, fatigue, and fibromyalgia. J Integrative Medicine 1999;3:5-10.
8. Ali M: Darwin, oxidosis, dysoxygenosis, and integration. J Integrative Medicine 1999;3:11-16.
9. Ali M: Fibromyalgia: an oxidative-dysoxygenative disorder (ODD). J Integrative Medicine 1999; 3:17- 37.
10. Ali M. Ali A. Oxidative coagulopathy in fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:566-7.
11. Ali Recent advances in integrative allergy care. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery 2000;8:260-266.
12. Ali M. Respiratory-to-Fermentative (RTF) Shift in ATP Production in Chronic Energy Deficit States. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2004. August/Sept. issue. 64-65.
13. Ali M. Oxidative coagulopathy in environmental illness. Environmental Management and Health. 2000;11:175- 191.
14. Ali M: ODD trigger points in fibromyalgia: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and resolution J Integrative Med 1999; 3:38-47.
15. Efficacy of ecologic-integrative management protocols for reversal of fibromyalgia: an open prospective study of 150 patients. J Integrative Med 1999; 3:48-64.
16. Ali M. Bone homeostasis is but one face of oxygen homeostasis. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2005;261:86-93.
17. Ali M. Juco J, Fayemi, A, et al. The dysox model of asthma and clinical outcome with integrated management plan. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2006;274:58-61. (May 2006)
18. Ali M. Fischer S, Juco J, et al. The dysox model of coronary artery disease. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2006;270/71:110-112.
19. Ali M. The Dysox Model of Diabetes and De-Diabetization Potential. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007; 286:137-145.
20. Ali M. Limbic breathing. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007; 288:160-166.
21. Ali M. The unifying dysox model of hormone disorders and receptor restoration therapy. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007; 291;145-151.
22. Ali M. Oxygen, Inflammation, and Castor-Cise Liver Detox. Hormones. Townsend Letter-The examiner of Alternative Medicine. 2007 (in press).
23. Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali, AA, Prasad V. Maddukuri PV, Han H, et al. Effect of the Magnitude of Lipid Lowering on Risk of Elevated Liver Enzymes, Rhabdomyolysis, and Cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:9-418.
24. LaRosa, J. C. Means and Ends of Statins and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:419-420.25.
25. Newman TB, Hurley SB. Carcinogenicity of Lipid-Lowering Drugs. JAMA. 1996;275:55-60.
26 Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M, et al. Effects of Torcetrapib in Patients at High Risk for Coronary Events. N Eng J Med. 2007;357:2109-2122.