Treatment for Alzheimer

The potential, do-it-yourself treatment for Alzheimer’s you can get at your local pharmacy
By Jonathan V. Wright, M.D.

Until very recently, the best strategy for Alzheimer’s disease “treatment” has been prevention (and we covered the best prevention strategies in the October 2008 issue of Nutrition & Healing). Of course, you might remember a few years ago when reports of an “effective” treatment for Alzheimer’s symptoms made the news. Researchers reported that injections of a patent medication called Enbrel® resulted in a significant return of memory in Alzheimer’s patients.1 In fact, one patient even had a noticeable improvement within minutes after a single injection.2 Unfortunately, Enbrel shots aren’t a do-it-yourself treatment: They must be injected directly into the spinal canal­a procedure that can only be done by a specialist in neurology or neurosurgery. And it’s just as dangerous as it sounds­not to mention expensive. The cost of the patent medicine alone would be between $9,918.94 and $19,837.87 per year. However, as my colleague Robert Rowen, M.D., put it, even though Enbrel is a dangerous patent medication, Alzheimer’s is an indescribable tragedy, and with no other effective treatment, the risk and expense may be worth it.

But what if there were a safe, inexpensive, and effective alternative? According to some very recent research, the best treatment for Alzheimer’s may be a simple vitamin you can take right at home.

According to the abstract from the recent study: “We evaluated the efficacy of nicotinamide…in… mice, and found that it restored cognitive deficits associated with [Alzheimer’s disease].”3 After describing the biochemical and structural improvements they observed in the mouse brain cells, the researchers concluded: “These preclinical findings suggest that oral nicotinamide may represent a safe treatment for Alzheimer’s disease…”

“Nicotinamide” is another name for what is more commonly referred to in this country as “niacinamide.” Both are types of vitamin B3.

While the niacinamide didn’t have any effect on the most common marker of Alzheimer’s, beta-amyloid, it did cause a 60 percent decrease in another marker, called “tau protein” (one specifically referred to as “Thr231-phospho-tau”).

Niacinamide was also associated with an increase in “microtubules,” which carry information inside brain cells. “Microtubules are like highways inside cells. What we’re doing with [niacinamide] is making a wider, more stable highway,” one of the researchers said. “In Alzheimer’s disease, this highway breaks down. We are preventing that from happening.”

So it’s easy to understand why the researchers have been so enthusiastic about their findings. But the effects appear to go way beyond prevention.

So effective even the mainstream researchers are calling it a “cure”

In one interview,4 they remarked that niacinamide brought the mice “back to the level they’d be at if they didn’t have the pathology. It actually improved behavior in non-demented animals too.”

One of the co-authors continued, “this suggests that not only is it good for Alzheimer’s disease, but if normal people take it, some aspects of their memory might improve.”

And in an uncharacteristic move for mainstream researchers, one of the co-authors even went so far as to say “cognitively, [the mice] were cured. They performed as if they’d never developed the disease.”

Of course, the research team couldn’t completely abandon their mainstream roots, so they were sure to offer the typical obligatory warning: “Until we’ve done the proper clinical trials, I wouldn’t advocate people rush out and eat grams of this stuff each day.”

And just to make sure that message came through loud and clear, the Vice Chair of the Alzheimer’s Association Medical & Scientific Advisory Council also commented that the new study is “intriguing,” but people should be cautious and not assume that “more is better” when it comes to possible treatments, even ones that appear to be safe.

It’s certainly true that more isn’t always better. But let me tell you why you don’t have to wait around for more research before you reap the benefits of this vitamin breakthrough.

60 years of safety

Although there hasn’t been any human research yet, the results of the animal research are so strong that it gives hope that Alzheimer’s may be treatable in humans by the same means. Plus, niacinamide has been used extensively for many purposes for over 60 years, and its safety is well-known. In fact, two of the “basic books” about niacinamide therapy were written in the 1940s by William Kaufman, Ph.D, M.D., a psychiatrist and exceptionally thorough clinical researcher.

In 1943, Dr. Kaufman wrote his first book on the nutrient, titled The Common Form of Niacin Amide Deficiency Disease: Aniacinamidosis. In it, he lists a number of symptoms he’d observed in his patients who needed niacinamide:

Memory impaired; attention easily distracted; can’t concentrate. Feels as if in a mental fog. Thought slowed. Difficulty comprehending. No longer reads as much as formerly.

Unwarranted anxiety. Lacks initiative, not co-operative. Delays making decisions; evasive. Dodges responsibility; starts projects, never finishes.

Frequently quarrelsome, mean, unreasonable, intolerant, opinionated, unhappy. Can’t take a joke; little things annoy.

And he discovered that all of these symptoms­and many more­“disappeared or…improved considerably” with the use of niacinamide.

But it was one of Dr. Kaufman’s other observations that led me to recommend niacinamide to the most people. His much longer and more detailed 1949 book focused on treatment of degenerative arthritis with niacinamide. And I saw first-hand many, many times that this therapy was just as effective as he reported.

Two or three years after I first read his books and started recommending niacinamide, I settled on a general dose of 1,000 milligrams taken three times a day. This timing followed Dr. Kaufman’s careful clinical work, which showed that spreading out the total amount was significantly more effective than using it all at once. And­perhaps by co-incidence­this dose is actually the “human equivalent” of the amount given to the mice who recovered from the symptoms of Alzheimer’s in the study mentioned above.

On the road to healing in as little as 3 weeks

Over the years, I’ve found that most people are able to take 1,000 milligrams of niacinamide three times daily indefinitely with no adverse effects. (I say “indefinitely” because, as Dr. Kaufman originally found, and my observations confirmed, niacinamide is a “control” but not an outright cure.) Nearly everyone reported that their arthritis symptoms started to improve in just three to four weeks. And after three to four months they’d most often disappear completely­and stay away as long as the person kept taking the vitamin. However, if they stopped taking it, the symptoms it had relieved would start to return (or worsen) just as quickly as they’d gone away­and come back as bad as ever in within four months months.

Occasionally someone would experience nausea taking the full amount of niacinamide. Whenever this occurred (which wasn’t often) I recommended that the dose be cut in half, to 500 milligrams three times daily. Only one person in 33 years had the nausea persist at the lower dose (and that person was advised to reduce the quantity even further)­everyone else had their symptoms improve in the same pattern noted above with no return of nausea.

A few of those people who got nauseous with the full amount of niacinamide didn’t follow the advice to lower their dose, and, unfortunately their nausea went from mild to severe nausea, and even caused vomiting. Blood tests showed that these patients had elevated liver enzymes, brought on by excess niacinamide (or at least too much for those particular individuals’ livers to process). But every case returned to normal within two to three weeks once the person stopped taking niacinamide completely. This sounds somewhat alarming but keep in mind that this only occurred in a small number of people: less than 10 of at least several hundred­possibly as many as 2,000 individuals­in over 33 years. And in those 33 years, there have been no other adverse symptoms!

According to news reports, clinical trials in humans with Alzheimer’s are set to begin this year in both England and Southern California. But, again, there’s no need for you to wait for the outcome of these clinical trials to try niacinamide for a family member who has Alzheimer’s already. (And even if there’s no “official” diagnosis, it’s worth a try for anyone who has any of the symptoms Dr. Kaufman outlined, listed on this page). Its exceptional safety, affordability, and availability make it worth trying right now. And when it’s Alzheimer’s, the sooner naicinamide is started, the better the chances are for it to work, before the accumulation of “intracellular garbage” has done irreversible damage. Of course it’s best to work with a physician skilled and knowledgeable in nutritional and natural medicine, in case you have any questions.

Niacinamide is available in 500 and 1,000 milligram capsules and tablets. It can be found at nearly any natural food store, compounding pharmacy, and the Tahoma Clinic Dispensary. JVW

Read the label carefully!

Although the names are quite similar, niacinamide is not niacin. Niacin can have many more side effects than niacinamide, particularly at higher quantities. Should you decide to try niacinamide for a family member suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, make certain it’s not niacin.

B3’s other claim to fame

Vitamin B3 also has a history of improving another severe mental health problem­schizophrenia. Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D. (considered to be the “father” of orthomolecular psychiatry) started using niacinamide to treat schizophrenia in 1950. According to Dr. Hoffer’s figures, schizophrenic individuals who started taking niacinamide, along with vitamin C, within five years of being diagnosed have a 66 percent­or higher­chance of recovery (although they also need to continue their niacinamide indefinitely).

The truth behind Truvia

By now, you’ve probably seen the ads for Truvia, the new FDA-approved stevia-based sweetener. That’s right­I used the terms “FDA-approved” and “stevia” in the same sentence. And, on the surface, it seems like a major victory for natural supplements. But there’s much more to the stevia story­and it’s not all as rosy as the media is making it out to be.

It’s true that Truvia is natural. And since it’s natural, it’s far less likely to cause problems than completely unnatural chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose. However, even though it’s natural, Truvia is actually an incomplete version of stevia, using only a fraction of the whole herb.

But what bothers me most about it is the hypocrisy involved in its sudden “approval.”

From book burning to “generally accepted as safe” in a single decade

For years, the FDA has been vehemently opposed to stevia. In fact, in 1998, James R. Lahar, FDA Compliance Officer in the Dallas (Texas) District, sent a letter to Oscar Rodes, President of Stevita, Inc., a supplier of stevia products and books and publications about the herb.

In that letter Mr. Lahar wrote: “….a current inventory must be taken by an investigator of this office, who will also be available to witness destruction of the cookbooks, literature, and other publications for the purpose of verifying compliance.” [emphasis added]

No, I’m not kidding­I have a copy of the letter! In complete violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of these United States, an FDA official was threatening to burn books! The last time that happened was in 1956, when the publications of Dr. Wilhelm Reich were burned, once again in an action instigated by FDA. And of course book burning was common in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, and throughout Europe during the “Inquisition”­but these United States are (we’re told) a “free country.”

And that letter was written only 10 years ago! So what happened in the last decade to transform stevia from such a dangereous substance that publications concerning it were to be destroyed into a perfectly safe food additive?

Here are a few quotes that may give you a hint:

“I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.” ­Dr Richard Crout, Director, Bureau of Drugs, FDA (quoted in the Spotlight for January 18, 1982)

Senator Long: “Did you notice a tendency [by FDA] to spend a great deal of time going after the little manufacturer rather than some of the large ones?”

Witness: “I have definitely noticed that…when a small company is purchased by a large company, the…attacks stop.”

Senator Long: “The merchandise becomes alright, then?”

Witness: “Becomes sacrosanct.”

­1966 U.S. Senate Subcommittee Hearings, as reported in The Dictocrats, by Omar Garrison, ARC Books, New York City, 1970, p. 64

And here are three more clues: Coca Cola, PepsiCo, and Cargill.

For those of you who may not have heard of it before, Cargill is a multi-billion dollar agribusiness similar in size (and power) to the other mega-corporations listed.

On December 17th, 2008 Cargill announced that the FDA notified them that it had “no objection” to Truvia (which is also used by CocaCola). In fact, the agency even granted it the coveted “generally recognized as safe” (or GRAS) status. The FDA also informed PepsiCo that it had “no objection” to its natural (but also incomplete) stevia product, called “PureVia™”.

So now that the giant corporations have taken an interest in it, stevia fractions are magically OK (although some people are wondering if the “whole” stevia used by smaller companies may still be subject to attack by los Federales).

How you can help change history

This so-called victory­and the long history behind it­is further proof that FDA reform is long overdue. And it’s not just the decades-long history of “cuddling up” to giant corporations, but also FDA’s self-admitted incompetence. Among many other things, the FDA’s own report admitted that the agency “cannot even keep up with the advances in science”! (For further details, refer to the August 2008 issue of Nutrition & Healing or search the Internet for the full-text version of the report, titled FDA Science and Mission at Risk).

Don’t let the FDA play games with other natural alternatives the way it has with stevia. Please visit to read much more about the reform effort being led by some of the key organizations in natural health, including the American Association for Health Freedom and the Life Extension Foundation. And please consider signing the petition! Your own health­and the health of all Americans is at stake. JVW

Herbs are safe for kids!
4 rules every parent­and grandparent­needs to know
By Kerry Bone

I’ve been getting a lot of calls from concerned parents and grandparents lately, wondering if herbal remedies are safe for their little ones. It’s no wonder they’re worried, now that the most common over-the-counter cold and cough remedies have been pulled from the market amid serious safety concerns. Luckily, herbs are safe­even for children­as long as you follow a few specific rules.

Dosage: Getting it “just right”

One of the obvious issues is figuring out how much to give to a child­in other words, determining a safe dosage. There are lots of factors to consider here­especially the immature metabolism and digestion of children and infants. And given these difficulties, most experts agree that dosage guidelines for children are a bit of an imprecise affair. In fact, even a major pediatric medical textbook states that:

“Optimal tailoring of a drug’s [and herb’s] dose to the newborn infant and child is a delicate obligation of the treating physician… No universal dosage rule can be recommended.”

But even though there’s no single universal rule, there have been several different guidelines developed over the past few years. With that­and the need to be flexible and to use our judgment­in mind, let’s talk about how you can apply the safety standards that do exist for your own children or grandchildren.


Dosage rules are usually based on age, weight, or body surface area. While it’s probably the least familiar to you, most experts agree that body surface area is probably the most valid way to calculate dosage for children. The problem is, these sorts of calculations can be very complex. Which is likely why the earliest dosing rules simply used age as the basis for calculation. In fact, one of these age-based calculations, called Dilling’s rule, actually dates back to the 8th century. Dilling’s rule simply divides the child’s age by 20 to determine what fraction of the adult dose to administer. By today’s standards, though, Dilling’s rule is a bit outdated.

It’s been replaced by two other age-based rules, known as Young’s rule and Fried’s rule. Young’s rule involves taking the child’s age (in years) and dividing that number by the sum of the child’s age plus 12 (refer to the box on page 6 to see what Young’s rule looks like in mathematical terms).

Young’s rule is best for children between 2 and 12 years old. For infants, Fried’s rule is a better bet. Fried’s rule simply involves dividing the baby’s age (in months this time) by 150. The result is the fraction of the adult dose safe for the baby to take. Obviously the resulting dose will be quite low: For example, in the case of a one month old baby, only 1/150th of the adult dose would be given. The fact that Fried’s rule is so conservative is what makes it ideal for infants and toddlers up to about 2 years old.

Age-based rules are the simplest to calculate, but, despite the more complicated math, I always lean towards weight-based dosage rules as more relevant and useful for determining children’s doses of herbal remedies.

Size matters

The first of the weight-based rules, called Clark’s rule, was developed back in the 1930s. It involves dividing the child’s weight (in pounds) by 150. The resulting number is the fraction of the adult dose that should be administered to the child.

Again, like the age-based rules, Clark’s rule is easy to calculate, but, in my experience, it’s a bit oversimplified. I prefer another weight-based rule, one that is based on Clark’s rule. This one, called Augsberger’s rule, takes the child’s weight in kilograms (to determine kilograms, divide the weight in pounds by 2.2), multiplies it by 1.5, then adds 10. The result of this equation gives you the percentage of the adult dosage appropriate for the child. I know it sounds a bit complicated, but here’s an example that may help explain it a bit more.

Let’s say a child weighs 44 lbs. To determine his weight in kilograms, divide 44 by 2.2. This gives you a result of 20 kilograms. Now, to apply Augsberger’s rule, multiply the kilogram weight by 1.5. This equals 30. Then add 10 to that, giving you a total of 40. That final amount is the percentage of the adult dose that should be given to the child­in this case, 40 percent of the adult dose.

I mentioned above that, recently, most experts have come to agree that body surface area (BSA) is the best parameter to use in dosage calculations for children. Augsberger’s rule is actually a very good approximation of body surface area in children.2

But a group of anesthesiologists at Salisbury Hospital in England have come up with a simpler way to approximate BSA calculations.2 If the child’s weight is less than 30 kg, his or her weight is simply multiplied by 2 to determine the percentage of the full adult dose to administer. If the child weighs more than 30 kg, simply take his or her weight and add 30 to it to determine the correct percentage. So for a 20 kg child the dose is 40% (20 times 2) of the adult dose. And for a 35 kg child the dose is 65% (35 plus 30) of the adult dose.

Which rule fits best?

Again, I know all of this is probably more than a little confusing, so I put together a chart on page 7 that might help shed some light on things. The chart compares the percentages of the adult doses calculated using the different dosage rules. (Of course, the weights of different children vary for any given age, so for comparison purposes I used average weights.) For the Fried and Young rules, the “A” you see in brackets indicates that they’re based on age. For the Augsberger and Salisbury rules, the “W” indicates they’re based on weight (and the “BSA” added to the Salisbury rule indicates that it’s also an approximation of body surface area).

Take a look at the example of a 10-year-old child (average weight 32 kg). The Augsberger and Salisbury rules both indicate that around 60 percent of the adult dose is a good amount. Young’s rule only gives 45 percent, which is likely a bit too low. This is where the age-based rules start to break down: For older children they tend to lead to underdosing.

But looking at the chart example of a 6-month-old, there are some big differences. Young’s rule doesn’t even apply (it’s not used until a child reaches 1 or 2 years of age). Fried’s rule recommends 4% of the adult dose, Augsberger’s suggests 22%, and the Salisbury rule indicates 16%. The most accurate dose in this context is probably the 16% from the Salisbury rule, but keep in mind what we talked about earlier: infants have a very high degree of uncertainty because of their developing metabolisms. So even though it may not be as accurate, Fried’s rule is the best starting point for dosage in babies because it’s so conservative. The dose can always be adjusted upwards (to the Salisbury rule amount), if necessary, depending on the child’s response.

In general, I suggest Augsberger’s or the Salisbury rule for children 2 years old and up. For infants under 2 years, Fried’s rule should be used as the dosage starting point (especially when you’re using alcohol-based herbal extracts, such as tinctures). The dose can then be increased if necessary towards that predicted by the Salisbury rule. But I don’t recommend Augsberger’s rule for infants because it will very likely result in overdosing.

Winning the other half of the battle

Of course, finding the right dose is just one of the challenges in treating children. Delivery method can also present some problems. I’ve found that most kids can’t swallow tablets or capsules whole until they’re at least 9 or 10 years old. So that limits the options to liquid extracts, crushed tablets, or the powder contents emptied from capsules. Generally, none of them taste very good­and most children won’t willingly swallow things that don’t taste good!

But there are a few tricks you can use that will help, starting with mixing the herbal extract or supplement with some sort of natural sweetener. Some of the favorite “mixers” of my pint-sized patients include honey, all-natural fruit juice, juice concentrate, or pure maple syrup. Just add a dash of one of them to the extract or crushed supplement, and be sure to have more juice or water on hand as a “chaser.”

When all else fails, the “jello technique” is a good fallback. This involves mixing up a natural form of jello using fruit juice and agar powder (a natural gelling agent found in many natural food stores). Once the agar is dissolved into the juice, pour the mixture into the compartments of an ice cube tray, then add a single dose of the herbal extract to each cube. Put the tray into the refrigerator to set, and each time a dose is called for, give the child one jello cube.

For more information on using herbal treatments for young children, you may want to refer to the book I published last year on this topic (along with my colleague Rob Santich), titled Healthy Children: Optimising Children’s Health with Herbs. KB

Following the rules

Below are the mathematical equations for each rule. A=age, W=weight. (To convert lbs to kg, divide by 2.2)

Young’s rule

A/(A+12) = the FRACTION of the adult dose

For a 4-year old child: 4/(4+12)= 4/16= 1/4

The child would receive 1/4 the adult dose. (Multiply the adult dose by ¼ or .25)

Fried’s rule

A in months/150 = the FRACTION of the adult dose

For an 8-month-old infant: 8/150

The child would receive 8/150 of the adult dose. (Multiply the adult dose by 8/150 or .053)

Augsberger’s rule

(1.5 x W in kilograms) + 10 = the PERCENTAGE of the adult dose

For a child weighing 25 kilograms: (1.5 x 25) + 10 = (37.5) + 10 = 47.5

The child would receive 47.5% of the adult dose. (Multiply the adult dose by .475)

Salisbury rule If weight is less than 30 kg, W in kilograms x 2 = the PERCENTAGE of the adult dose

For a child weighing 25 kilograms: 25 x 2 = 50

The child would receive 50% of the adult dose. (Multiply the adult dose by .5)

If weight is more than 30 kg, W in kilograms + 30 = the PERCENTAGE of the adult dose

For a child weighing 45 kilograms: 45 + 30 = 75

The child would receive 75 percent of the adult dose. (Multiply the adult dose by .75)

Different rules, different doses
The following chart outlines the dosage recommendations calculated from the various rules. All the numbers indicate the percentage of the full adult dose that would be administered to the child, based on the particular rule.

Age (weight)                   Fried’s rule               Young’s rule     Augsberger’s rule       Salisbury rule
                                   [A]               [A]               [W]                           [W/BSA]

6 months (8 kg)





1 year (10.5 kg)





2 years (12.5 kg)





4 years (16 kg)





7 years (23 kg)





10 years (32 kg)





Grandparents Corner
The simple secret to stopping strep throat once and for all

Children seem to come down with strep throat too often. Actually, even once is too often, since strep throat is almost always completely preventable.

Just in case there are a few of you who are lucky enough to have avoided it and aren’t sure what strep throat may be, it’s a painful bacterial infection of the throat (and frequently the tonsils) usually accompanied by chills, muscle pains, headaches, nausea, and a fever of over 101.3°F. And it’s most common in children five to 12 years of age.

Over 30 years ago, I read a book by a pediatrician who wrote that­in his experience of nearly 40 years­removing all milk and dairy products from children’s diets eliminated strep throat entirely. No more strep throat­simple as that.

The rest of the book seemed perfectly reasonable and believable as well, so I began I recommending milk and dairy elimination to parents of kids who developed strep throat. It worked every time. The parents were pleased, and I started taking a harder look at food allergy in general as a major contributor to recurrent infections of all sorts.

The one and only time the dairy elimination approach didn’t appear to stop recurrent strep throat infections, the child’s mother did some detective work on her own. She discovered that her daughter was “sneaking cheese” at her best friend’s house. Once that stopped, those strep throats stopped, too.

Of course, eliminating dairy isn’t always an easy thing to do, especially if your grandkids are accustomed to drinking milk and eating dairy products. Fortunately there are many substitutes that can help make the transition easier. While occasional soy cheese is OK, I don’t recommend regular use of it­or of soy milk­since they contain too much plant estrogen for small children. But most kids like almond and rice milk, which is available in all natural food stores and even in most supermarkets.

It’s a little extra work at the supermarket, but it’s worth the trouble­those strep throats will be gone for good! JVW

Claim your spot at this month’s information-packed seminar!

It’s just days away, but there’s still time for you to claim your spot at the latest seminar being presented by three of the top organizations in natural medicine: The Medical Educator Consortium, the Bio-Identical Hormone Society, and the American Academy of Anti-aging Medicine.

The seminar is called A Practical Application in Treating Adult Hormone and Nutritional Deficiencies Utilizing Advanced Testing Protocols, Bio-Identical Hormones and Nutraceuticals; An Advanced Course with Basic Introduction. It may be a mouthful, but the information that we’ll be sharing is just as comprehensive as the title.

The three-day seminar will include insightful observations about the basics of bio-identical hormone use presented by Dr. Ron Rothenberg, who will also discuss relationships of hormones to the cardiovascular system. Dr. Ellis and I will provide descriptions of safe, natural modulation of hormone pathways, and analyses of clinical and laboratory monitoring of bio-identical hormones for effectiveness and safety. I’ll also cover aldosterone and hearing loss recovery, adrenal therapy, and early diagnosis and treatment of insulin resistance to prevent type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Jorge Flechas will speak about his extensive experience with another bio-identical hormone, oxytocin, and it’s effect on fibromyalgia, as well as human bonding and intimacy. Dr. Kristina Rudgear will discuss vitamin D as well as incretin, gut hormones, and insulin resistance. And Dr. Shari Lieberman will cover hidden gluten/gliadin sensitivity and the application of the glycemic index to improving the “metabolic syndrome.”

The seminar starts on February 26th and runs through the 29th and will be held in Las Vegas, at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.

For further information and to register, call (866)444-9475 or (619)398-2740 or go to

Dr. Ames finally gets his day in court

It’s been nearly three years since you first read about the outrageous attack by the Washington State Medical “Quality” Assurance Commission (M”Q”AC) on Dr. Geoffrey Ames. And now his case has finally arrived at the Washington State Supreme Court. It will be heard by the court at the State Capitol, Olympia, on March 20, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. If you can attend to show support for Dr. Ames and his wife Kris, please do!


American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM)
Phone: (888)439-6891

American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
Phone: (316)684-5500

Tahoma Clinic for appointments only
Phone: (425)264-0059

Tahoma Clinic Dispensary
Phone: (888)893-6878
to order supplements and products only

American Association of
Naturopathic Physicians
Phone: (866)538-2267

Meridian Valley Laboratory
Phone: (425)271-8689

International College
Integrative Medicine
Phone: (866)464-5226

Nutrition & Healing online

Leave a Reply