Begin Solids After 16 weeks, and Continue Breast Feeding to Reduce Allergies

solid foodsDr Grimshaw et. al. have published in Pediatrics November 2013,  “Introduction of Complementary Foods and the Relationship to Food Allergy.”

This was not a large study and it compared 41 infants who developed food allergies by age 2 to 82 infants who did not develop allergies.  Since we have conflicting studies in the world literature on early introduction of solids causing or preventing allergies (depending on the study), this study does support the concept of starting solids at 4 months and not before. 

Two key points from this article:

1. Breast feeding promotes tolerance to solid foods reducing allergies.

2. Introducing solid foods before 17 weeks (4 months age) especially if not breast feeding, creates more allergies. 


Dr. Paul


New Immunization Rules for School Attendance in Oregon- Effective March 1st, 2014

Vaccine4The recent law is removing the religious exemption in Oregon.  Parents who do NOT want to do all the recommended immunizations on the schedule required for school attendance will have two ways to keep their child in school, if they don’t want to get all the vaccines done:  



  1. Watch and document that you have watched a video being created by the State to educate you on the benefits of vaccines and risks of not vaccinating.
  2. Get a signed document from your physician that they have educated you on the risks of not vaccinating and the benefits of vaccines.

I will be encouraging all my patients to use option 1.  I am typically supportive of your choices and we typically have had extensive talks about the pros and cons of each vaccine for your child. However, the State is placing us doctors in a very difficult spot.  Here is what they are saying we can say:

(12) Evidence of nonmedical exemption must include documentation that the parent has completed a vaccine educational module approved by the Public Health Division or signature from a health care practitioner verifying that risks and benefits of immunization have been discussed with the parent. Information provided must be consistent with information published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including epidemiology, the prevention of disease through use of vaccination, and the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

As you can see, the ruling ties the hands of physicians to say only what they, the State, want physicians to say about vaccines.  For this reason, it becomes legally impossible to have an honest discussion about risks that some vaccines have without seeming to contradict the teachings of the CDC and the Oregon State Medical Officer who would review such cases.  

I believe in individual vaccination schedules for your child, not one size fits all. But this does not fit in with the state law as written.  I will continue to share all the evidence that favors vaccination and the evidence that would suggest a different schedule for your child.  Your child deserves the best use of all of the evidence. If you need further discussion on these topics, this is something we do at all the well child visits here at Integrative Pediatrics LLC.  

View the OAR School Immunization Rules Here (it’s big)

Dr. Paul

Eczema and Food Sensitivities

dermatitisFlohr and colleagues have published a study called, “Atopic Dermatitis and Disease Severity are the Main Risk Factors for Food Sensitization in Exclusively Breast fed Infants”, in The Journal of Investigative Dermatology.  What is known to the authors is that 1 out of 5 children in the UK have eczema and 1 out of 12 have food allergies. What the authors are proposing is that a breakdown in the skin barrier that occurs in eczema could trigger food allergies rather than this being a gut associated immune system issue. They are assuming that because the infants were exclusively breast fed, “this suggests that allergic sensitization to foods can be mediated by cutaneous antigen-presenting cells”.

I couldn’t disagree more. Clinical experience has shown that infants who develop eczema recover when you identify the foods that are triggering the immune response and remove them from the diet.  Treating the skin is like closing the barn door after the horses have left the barn!  Breast milk will contain proteins that are eaten by the mother.  If mom eats gluten and this protein is sensitizing to the baby, you have a gluten issue that can trigger eczema in that baby, even if they are exclusively breast fed. The origin of the immune response is in the gut- GALT (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue).  

While the skin barrier is indeed an important barrier that protects us from toxins and allergens in the environment, it is my experience that you can heal the skin (eczema) by healing the gut and not the other way around.  I have seen hundreds of eczema patients who have seen dermatologists and had their skin treated by the most powerful steroids and immune suppressors, yet they never get better until we identify the food sensitivities and remove those foods.  Almost without fail— eczema cured!

Dr. Paul

TRANS Fat Ban May Lead to Use of More Nutritionally Inferior GMO Soy Oil, Benefiting Monsanto and Dupont

TransfatI am not in favor of Trans fats, and I was delighted when I first read that our FDA was banning them. It was curious that it took decades to ban these clearly harmful fats.  I had not put 2 and 2 together until reading this article (link below) from the Alliance for Natural Health.  I’m including it in it’s entirety as they explain the situation well. 

Take home message: Don’t go back to trans fats, but most definitely we need to avoid GMO products and those made with these GMO oils.  It’s simply becoming more and more clear that we must eat real food that we prepare ourselves and avoid the processed foods in bags and boxes.

Trans Fat “Ban” Not What It Appears

December 3, 2013

It may actually be a way to promote a Monsanto GMO product. Action Alert!

You may have already heard the news: the FDA has banned trans fats! Well, sort of.

Under the FDA’s proposed rule, trans fat itself is not banned. Instead, the ban is on the major source of trans fats in processed food—partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs). PHOs are artificial trans fats, created via the process of adding hydrogen to vegetable oils in order to make them semi-solid. Naturally occurring trans fat is found in some meat and dairy including beef, lamb and, in small amounts, butter. Many margarines, on the other hand, are made with PHOs and therefore contain high levels of artificial trans fats. Increasingly, margarines are switching to palm oils (which are semi-solid at room temperature and solid if refrigerated) to eliminate PHOs.

It’s important to note that since this is a proposed rule, and not a final one, there’s still a chance it could be changed or dropped. In the rule, the FDA mentions that the agency is open to alternate approaches to addressing PHOs in food, such as the setting of acceptable trans fat threshold levels.

The timing and intent of the FDA’s rule is suspect for two reasons. First, it was announced only after most companies had already eliminated trans fat—it’s currently only in a handful of foods. Second, the ban will promote market demand for two new GMO soybeans by Monsanto and DuPont, which are engineered for trans fat free oils.

Essentially, the FDA released the PHO ban at a politically perfect point: when it would no longer anger Big Food, but would be of tremendous benefit to Big Biotech’s and Big Food’s newly deregulated products.

Here’s the timeline:

  • January 2006: The FDA mandates labeling for foods containing trans fat. There is, however, a loophole that allows foods containing fewer than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving to claim “zero trans fat.”
  • 2007 to 2011: By 2011, trans fat is reduced or eliminated in 66% of the most common processed supermarket products. Essentially, the “war” on trans fat in processed food is over.
  • January 2011: The FDA signs off on a “safety assessment” on Monsanto’s Vistive Gold soybean (aka MON 87705)—based, of course, on studies submitted by Monsanto.
  • December 2011: The USDA deregulates the Vistive Gold soybean, meaning it can be planted anywhere without restrictions.
  • November 2013: The FDA issues its proposed ban on trans fat.

Monsanto and DuPont’s soybeans and the oils derived from them (DuPont makes a competing product called Plenish High Oleic Soybean Oil) are meant to appeal to consumers by giving them a “healthy” veneer since they are trans fat free. This is only the beginning: increasingly biotech companies are marketing products that are positioned to benefit consumers’ health but actually contain GMOs. (Read more about it in our article on the subject).

This move ignores the fact that since many processed foods and most whole foods are already free of trans fats, the new GMO soybeans are a superfluous “innovation.” The biotech giants also fail to tell the public that conventional soybean oil, due both to its overuse in American foods and the way it is created, can be incredibly unhealthy.

For the past five or six decades, soybean oil—which is composed of 35% to 55% omega 6 fats—has been the leading fat in processed food: the average American consumes 10% of their total daily calories from soybean oil. The overconsumption of soybean oil is one of the contributing factors to the average American’s imbalance of omega 3 and omega 6 fats. Additionally, the way nonorganic soybean oil—hydrogenated or not—is produced is inherently toxic:

  • Soybean, canola, corn, sunflower, and cottonseed oils are processed with hexane, a known neurotoxin. It’s the same substance that’s used to make gasoline.
  • It’s likely that trace amounts of hexane remains in final oil, yet the FDA does not require testing and has not set a maximum residue level for hexane.
  • Soybean oil is also treated with sodium hydroxide and phosphoric acid; it’s thenbleached with hydrochloric acid, which removes all vitamin A from the oil.
  • The “deodorizing” process (in its natural state, soybean oil can be smelly) strips the oil of vitamin E and phytosterols, completing its transition to “nutritionally void.”

In light of its likely political motivations—and despite the rapturous announcement in the mainstream media—we find little to praise in the FDA’s PHO ban.

Action Alert! The FDA is soliciting comments on its proposed ban on PHOs. Please send your message to the FDA today, and ask them to ban PHOs immediately. That would put a monkey wrench in what seems to be the plan, because the toxic GMO oils wouldn’t be available yet.

 Take Action Here-Tell the FDA to Implement its Trans Fat Ban Immediately!

 Dr. Paul

1 2 3 6