In 1969 Linus Pauling coined the word "Orthomolecular" to denote
the use of naturally occurring substances, particularly nutrients,
in maintaining health and treating disease. At that time megadose
niacin therapy for schizophrenia and dietary treatment of "hypoglycemia7
were the major focus of the movement. Since then Orthomolecular
psychiatry and medicine have emerged as a distinct and important
specialty area in medical practice.
In the meantime, other medical movements have sprung up out of
the public demand for Hope in the face of a worsening epidemic
of cancer, heart attacks and mental illness and in response to
the outcry against adverse effects of modern medical treatments
and invasive diagnostic and intensive care procedures. Alternative
therapies have come forward to fill the vacuum left by modern
Medicine, which failed to provide effective treatments for the
major epidemic diseases and in protest against Medicine's over-reliance
on pharmacology, for the drug treatments seem to have fostered
the epidemic of drug-dependence which is the major epidemic of
our time. The public majority were ready for a new medicine based
on nontoxic, non-invasive, "natural" medicines to go with the
re-discovered "natural foods".
Holistic medicine became a rallying point for the New Medicine
by putting nutrition, exercise and meditation ahead of surgery,
radiation and drugs. It was an answer to the adverse effects of
MegaMedicine, the cut burn and poison approach to "health". And,
since holistic medicine did not focus on basic science data, it
did not force a paradigm shift in the medical establishment.
Orthomolecular, on the other hand, because it is identified with
Linus Pauling, our greatest living scientist, and because it rests
on vast body of research in the basic and clinical sciences, does
force a major revision in medical thinking. Nutrition, which has
been the stepchild of medicine and generally considered a dead
issue in medicine, suddenly is at the crux of this new medical
movement. No wonder then, that Orthomolecular became a buzzword
to the medical establishment, who saw it only as megavitamins
and judged it as quackery. By contrast, the word, Holistic became
the subject of numerous symposia, journal articles, welcomed by
editors eager to promote the image of modern medicine as a progressive
and responsive institution. But as it gained supporters, Holistic
Medicine also gained additional theories and practices, some of
dubious value, some downright unscientific, Even the most broad-minded
and liberal-minded editor had to recoil from permitting such things
as psychic healing and kinesiology within the pages of a refereed
journal.
Soon the word "Alternative, came to replace Holistic in the medical
journals. Now the establishment could pick and choose individually
between the various therapies that had gathered under the holistic
umbrella; nutrition, biofeedback, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbalism,
homeopathy, massage, hypnosis, iridology, kinesiology, astrology,
psychic healing and other intuitive therapies, to name a few.
The orthomolecular movement was faltered with identity confusion
and, in fact, many of our own members seem to have chosen Holistic
as their preferred badge-word. This is good for the short run,
I agree: it is attractive to patients and profitable while being
non-controversial and safer professionally as well. In the long
run, however, I think Holistic Medicine has no future. It has
already lost its identity, except as a clearing house for medical
novelty. Most important, because it does not identify strongly
with science it has lost reliability. Meantime, Orthomolecular
Medicine retains scientific reason for being: its basic science
foundations of nutrition, biochemistry and clinical nutrition
have grown at a prodigious rate. Megavitamin niacin therapy, which
was am considered dangerous and controversial in treating schizophrenia,
is now the standard of care in the hyperlipidemias. What began
as megavitamin therapy now employs a broad data base and a variety
of therapies applicable to numerous medical and psychiatric conditions.
It is ironic that this positive growth of orthomolecular science
and therapy has actually clouded the identity of the Orthomolecular
movement. On the one hand we are confused with Holistic Medicine;
on the other we are seen only as the avant garde of orthodox medicine
In hopes of defining our true identity let me update the concept
of Orthomolecular Medicine as anew medical specialty.
First of all, the orthomolecular data base rests strongly on the
following areas of scientific knowledge: 1. nutrition, 2. biochemistry,
3. Cell biology, 4. physiology, 5, general medicine, immunology,
7. allergy, 8. endocrinology, 9. pharmacology, 10. toxicology,
11. gastroenterology, 12, parasitology, 13. nephrology, 14. physical
medicine and manipulation therapies, 15. dentistry, 16. veterinary
science, 17. food science, 18, agriculture, 19. climatology, 20.
medical politics.
The following therapeutic modalities fit the definition of orthomolecular:
1. vitamins, 2. minerals 3. amino acids, 4. essential fatty acids
5, fiber, 6. enzymes, 7. antibodies, 8. antigens, 9. cell therapy,
10. chelation therapy, 11. dialysis, 12. plasmapharesis, 13. hydrotherapy,
14. thermal therapy, 15. phototherapy, electrotherapy (including
electroconvulsive therapy), 17. air ion therapy, 18. light therapy,
19. solar therapy, 20. acupuncture, 21. massage, 22. exercise,
23. biofeedback 24. hypnotherapy and other psychotherapies.
All of the orthomolecular practice rests on a foundation of basic
science advances in biochemistry, biophysics, physiology, psychophysiology
and ecology. We do not eschew drug therapy or pharmacology; but
we do recognize their limitations and their potential for toxicity.
Orthomolecular knowledge gives greater choice of benefits for
our patients id with less risk of adverse affects.
Aside from these areas of interest, there are by now some well
defined beliefs and principles that also distinguish the orthomolecular
practitioner from orthodox health practitioners. These principles
actually are an important part of our professional identity. Just
as knowledge of science and therapeutics might be thought of as
our Ego, these principles makeup our professional conscience or
Superego, The desire to be in the avant garde of medical progress,
to share the excitement of discovery, no doubt, is a major source
of our motivational energy or libido, our medical Id, as it were.
No, the love of our grateful patients, those we are privileged
to heal and comfort, this must be the ultimate motive. At any
rate, I think you will agree that the orthomolecular professional
is a different personality, with different beliefs and values
than most present-day practitioners of medical orthodoxy. Of course
all physicians do cherish our Hippocratic oath, but the orthomolecular
identity confers upon us additional values and beliefs. Hippocrates
first rule was: "Primum non nocere," i.e. "first, do no harm".
We in orthomolecular practice have less need for the primacy of
that rule, for it is already implicit in the essence of Orthomolecular
practice, which is: "put nutrition first".
Here is a list of 15 principles that identify the spirit" of Orthormolecular
Medicine:
1. Orthomolecules come first in medical diagnosis and treatment.
Knowledge of the safe and effective use of nutrients, enzymes,
hormones, antigens, antibodies and other naturally occurring molecules
is essential to assure a reasonable standard of care in medical
practice.
2. Orthomolecules have a low risk of toxicity. Pharmacological
drugs always carry a higher risk and are therefore second choice
if there is an orthomolecular alternative treatment.
3. Laboratory tests are not always accurate and blood tests do
not necessarily reflect nutrient levels within specific organs
or tissues, particularly not within the nervous system. Therapeutic
trial and dose titration is often the most practical test.
4. Biochemical individuality is a central precept of Orthomolecular
Medicine. Hence, the search for optimal nutrient doses is a practical
issue. Megadoses, larger than normal doses of nutrients, are often
effective but this can only be determined by therapeutic trial.
Dose titration is indicated in otherwise unresponsive cases.
5. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of the United States
Food and Nutrition Board are intended for normal, healthy people.
By definition, sick patients are not normal or healthy and not
likely to be adequately served by the RDA.
6. Environmental pollution of air, water and food is common. Diagnostic
search for toxic pollutants is justified and a high "index of
suspicion" is mandatory in every case.
7. Optimal health is a lifetime challenge. Biochemical needs change
and our Orthomolecular prescriptions need to change based upon
follow-up, repeated testing and therapeutic trials to permit fine-tuning
of each prescription and to provide a degree of health never before
possible.
8. Nutrient related disorders are always treatable and deficiencies
are usually curable. To ignore their existence is tantamount to
malpractice.
9. Don't let medical defeatism prevent a therapeutic trial. Hereditary
and so-called 'locatable disorders are often responsive to Orthomolecular
treatment.
10. When a treatment is known to be safe and possibly effective,
as is the case in much 0 Orthomolecular therapy, a therapeutic
trial is mandated.
11. Patient reports are usually reliable, The patient must listen
to his body, The physician must listen to his patient.
12. To deny the patient information and access to Orthomolecular
treatment is to deny the patient informed consent for any other
treatment.
13. Inform the patient about his condition; provide access to
all technical information and reports; respect the right of freedom
of choice in medicine.
14. Inspire the patient to realize that Health is not merely the
absence of disease but the positive attainment of optimal function
and well-being.
15. Hope is therapeutic and orthomolecular therapies always are
valuable as a source of Hope. This is ethical so long as there
is no misrepresentation or deception.
The following tabulation further clarifies the role of Orthomolecular
Medicine in relation to medical orthodoxy.
GOAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT ETHIC UNPROVEN REMEDY DOUBLE-BLIND STUDIES PATIENT REPORTS RESPONSIBILITY PLACEBO EFFECT MEGAVITAMINS INCURABLES cure of cause nutrient levels wellness model orthomolecular safety first often useful on individual basis false negatives occur usually correct patient is educated and responsible useful adjunct safe, effective treat; offer hope palliation of symptom chemistry levels disease model surgery efficacy first always quackery; do not use - too risky infallible standard of proof unreliable data patient is ignorant and incompetent suspect, dishonorable unsafe, unproved don't treat; offer no "false' hope
FACTOR
ECOLOGIC VIEW
ORTHOMOLECULAR
history, physical history
ecologic view
exercise
meditation
nutrient ecology and toxic factors
good treatment is lost
medical therapyORTHODOXY
physical
germ theory
radiation
pharmacology
hazy on diet and toxic factors
accept no therapy without it
worthless therapy
The essentials boil down to 7 cardinal rules:
1. Nutrition comes first in medical diagnosis and treatment.
2. Drug treatment is used only for specific indications and always
with an eye to the potential dangers and adverse effects.
3. Environmental pollution and food adulteration are an inescapable
fact of modern life and are a medical priority.
4. Biochemical individuality is the norm in medical practice;
therefore stereotyped RDA values are unreliable nutrient guides.
5. Blood tests do not necessarily reflect tissue levels of nutrients,
6. Nutrient diagnosis is always defensible because nutrient related
disorders are usually treatment responsive or curable,
7. Hope is an indispensable ally of the physician and an absolute
right of the patient.
Finally, let me repeat, that our rallying point and badge-word
must be "Orthomolecular", a landmark concept that conveys the
genius of Dr. Pauling, who saw the need to resurrect nutrition
and put it first, not last, in our science of health and disease.