New Systolic Blood Pressure Goal of 120

Healthy HeartThe NIH-sponsored the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) in 2009 and has just released preliminary results suggesting that treating blood pressure to a lower goal (systolic of 120 instead of 140) improves health outcomes. The study was designed to answer the question: “Will treating high blood pressure (BP) to a lower blood pressure goal (120 instead of 140 systolic BP) reduce the risk of heart and kidney diseases, stroke, or age-related declines in memory and thinking?” Their results are so impressive that the NIH has released this press release ahead of publication. You can read the press release here…

They found heart attacks, strokes, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and death due to cardiovascular causes were reduced by almost one-third and risk of death was lowered by almost one-quarter!

Heart disease is the leading killer from heart attacks and cause of disability in the form of strokes, reduced heart function, and age-related memory decline. Heart disease is responsible for nearly 800,000 deaths a year in the USA. The study, “Vital Signs: Predicted Heart Age and Racial Disparities in Heart Age Among U.S. Adults at the State Level,” published September 2015,  which you can find here… found that “overall, average predicted heart age for adult men and women was 7.8 and 5.4 years older than their chronological age, respectively.”

While the findings of the SPRINT study will have many running to their doctor for another prescription, and if you are already older and/or experiencing health issues from your heart disease, you should work to get your systolic closer to 120, even if that requires medication. What excites me more is the opportunity for us all to realize that the heart disease that gets us in old age can be prevented – YES PREVENTED – if we lower our heart risk factors now!

A simple way to determine your heart attack and stroke risk is to calculate your heart age. Almost half of Americans have a heart age that is at least 5 years older than they are. It is estimated that 3/4 of heart attacks and strokes could be prevented by modifying risk factors. “Adopting a healthy lifestyle could have a profound effect on reducing excess heart age. For example, a male smoker aged 50 years with untreated systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg, no diabetes, and a BMI of 30, has a predicted heart age of 72 years (74 years for a female with similar characteristics) Quitting smoking for 1 year alone would have reduced predicted heart age by 14 years (15 years), reducing systolic blood pressure to 120 mm Hg alone would have reduced predicted heart age by 6 years (10 years), and removing both risk factors would have lowered predicted heart age by 19 years.” Again, you can read more on this here…


  1. Quit smoking
  2. Reduce your weight (if over weight)
  3. Eat to avoid or reduce diabetes risk (whole foods and low or no processed foods)
  4. Maintain a normal blood pressure
  5. Exercise to assist in all the above


To determine your heart age, visit:


You will need to know your BMI (Body Mass Index) which can be calculated by many apps like:


I found it personally very motivating to enter my own data. It was clear that weight reduction would be my main task and could potentially add many years to my life. Try it!

More than the added years to spend with your loved ones and follow your passions, you will have more productive years with greater health and less disability. No one wants to live long if they are disabled and suffering.


Dr. Paul



Want More Anxious and Poorly Adjusted Kids? Beat Them- A Study on Corporal Punishment

spankingNow I know I will immediately get hate mail from those who spank their kids and quote the bible, “spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as the many that were beaten and say, “I turned out fine”.  To all those who fit that description, all I can say is I am sorry for you and for your children. If what you are doing is not working out so well, might you be open to learning a different way of doing things?  I have heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

The study “Corporal Punishment, Maternal Warmth, and Child Adjustment: A Longitudinal Study in Eight Countries,” discussed how previous research has found that corporal punishment generally is related to worse child adjustment (anxiety and aggression) and is generally moderated by maternal warmth. They found in this study across 8 countries (China, Colombia, Jordan, Kenya, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States) that the above was true and that in some cases, if moms were both providing the warmth and the corporal punishment there was even more anxiety created. You can read the study here…

Discipline means ‘to teach,’ not ‘punishment’.  I learned from raising my own children that taking things away from a teenager didn’t work for some. Getting a teenager to participate in activities that benefit others has a very positive effect. Putting younger children in time-out may work but the real magic in parenting comes from positive random love, kindness, and just noticing your child.  I recommend the book “The Conscious Parent”, which is full of great examples of how to create a child who is filled with self esteem and will be less likely to have anxiety, anger, or behavior issues.


Dr. Paul


GABA Receptor Polymorphism Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

Abstract red atom (done in 3d, isolated)

Abstract red atom (done in 3d, isolated)

GABA is the main calming neurotransmitter in the brain. Those with autism, ASD, and indeed ADHD and anxiety might be expected to have issues with the GABA receptor. The study, “Association between GABA(A) receptor subunit polymorphisms and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)”, found:

  • Significant differences in allele freq. (ASD patients versus controls): rs1912960 GABRA4.
  • Significant differences in genotype freq. (ASD patients versus controls): rs1912960 GABRA4.
  • Haplotypes: markers rs1912960 (GABRA4) and rs211037 (GABRG2) overrepresented in ASD.
  • GABRA4 involved in etiology of ASD in Argentinean sample independently or with GABRG2.

You can read this study for yourself by clicking here…

As the hundreds of thousands or millions of polymorphisms are identified and associations are found, we will gradually learn more and more about what makes each of us more vulnerable to various disorders and diseases. These same polymorphisms may offer strengths that allow us to survive better under various stresses. The key to ongoing health and wellness will be determining which environmental stresses are most dangerous for which individuals. Someone who cannot handle a particular stress might be guided to avoid certain careers which have high exposures to which they genetically are vulnerable.

Some polymorphisms might make you more vulnerable to vaccine damage. We know that those with autism (ASD) are more likely to have the SNP MTHFR. The study, “Association of MTHFR Gene Variants with Autism,” showed, “increased frequency of the homozygous mutation 677CT allele (TT): 23% in the autistic children compared to 11% in the control population (P<0.0001).” You can read that study here…  When you have this defect, you cannot methylate folate to the vital methyl-folate making your ability to methylate (turn on and off genes) and your ability to get rid of toxins, impaired. These are children who would not do well with toxin containing vaccines for example.  If the researchers would look at these aspects, we could selectively shield those vulnerable to vaccine damage from getting certain vaccines, for example. We are still in the early stages of identifying polymorphisms. Determining their meaning and what we choose to study will determine whether or not this huge data base will lead to better health or just more drugs.


Dr. Paul


A Sad Day for Medical Freedom: California Joins West Virginia and Mississippi in Removing Religious and Personal Vaccine Exemptions

stupid questionAs a board-certified pediatrician, I am embarrassed by the article, “FAAP helps change California vaccine law,” published yesterday, June 30th, 2015.

California State Senator Richard J. Pan, M.D., a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP), sponsored the bill, SB 277, that Governor Jerry Brown has just signed into law.

This law removes the informed consent process and takes the right to make medical, philosophical, and religious decisions away way from parents. If you decide in tandem with your doctor to forgo just one vaccine on the state-mandated schedule, your child will no longer be able to attend public or private school in California, and will also be barred from daycare.

Physicians in California will now no longer be allowed to fairly and honestly explain the pros and cons of various vaccines to families. With the state legislature making medical decisions for families by threatening to exclude children from school, the physician-patient relationship becomes irrelevant.

“I hope that it causes parents to receive information about vaccines, to have conversations with their pediatrician and other health care professionals and rethink why they had concerns about vaccines, (and) that they will become more open to listening to the actual science and facts and turn away from the misinformation that’s been peddled by too many people,” Senator Pan told the AAP.

The truth is that it is Senator Pan, Governor Brown, and many of my mainstream medical peers who need to “turn away from the misinformation that’s been peddled” to the doctors by the Centers for Disease Control, the AAP, and the pharmaceutical companies that profit enormously by this new program of forced vaccines.

What misinformation?

Why do I say this?

I must be crazy, right?

Everyone knows that vaccines are “safe and effective.”

I am a pro-vaccine doctor.

I give vaccines in my office to children every single day.

I have been practicing medicine for over 27 years. I have about 11,000 patients in my integrative practice. And a YouTube Channel with over 12,000 subscribers.

It is true that many vaccines are very safe and very effective.

It is also true that some vaccines are not so safe, especially for some children, when given either to the very young, or when given in combination with many other vaccines.

Timing is everything when it comes to the safety and benefit of vaccines.

Consider the Hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted disease most often spread by sex workers, drug addicts, and through tainted blood products.

Twenty years ago, when my children were young, this vaccine was given to teenagers. This made sense, since one catches Hepatitis B from blood products (unprotected sex and sharing dirty needles with IV drug abuse).

In 2001, we started the routine vaccination of every newborn in America regardless of risk for Hepatitis B, despite the fact that less than 1% of American moms have Hepatitis B. The only way a baby can catch Hepatitis B is if the mom has Hepatitis B. We were told that we could have a population that grows up immune to Hepatitis B and potentially eradicate Hepatitis B from the world but no study had ever been done on the length of immunity of the Hepatitis B vaccine (vaccine-induced immunity often wears off, which is why some of the childhood vaccines require booster shots).

My obstetrician colleagues do an excellent job with prenatal screening. These days, we know ahead of time if a given mom has Hepatitis B or not. When a mom is Hepatitis B positive, vaccinating her newborn is medically indicated. In my practice if a dad has Hep B or if there is a possibility a caregiver may be a carrier for Hep B (a more common illness in Asia), I also recommend the vaccine.

The current program of vaccinating every newborn in America at birth, and repeating the Hepatitis B vaccine at 2 months and again at 6 months is lucrative for the pharmaceutical industry but flies in the face of science.

  1. We now have the long term studies that show that, indeed, the vaccine does not give lasting protection. Only a fraction of people given the shot as infants (24%) had lasting immunity as teenagers, which is when they would most need it. A minority of teenagers still had protection when they would most need it.
  2. There is evidence that the newborn series of Hepatitis B vaccine causes brain damage in some infants. This study (you can read it here… ) links the vaccine with increased autism when given to boys in the newborn period.
  3. The Hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum, which far exceeds the safe dose of injectable (parenteral) aluminum that was recommended by the FDA. Guidelines specify not to exceed 5 micrograms/ Kg/ day (a newborn weighing 10.4 pound = 5 Kg should not get more than 25 micrograms.

    In a letter to explain why he was signing SB 277 into law, Governor Brown wrote, “The science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect children against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases.”

    Governor Brown, you are correct overall but absolutely wrong in the case of the mandated Hepatitis B for newborns. Mandating vaccines is a mistake. Mandating Hepatitis B is criminal.

    Our legislators, the CDC, the AAP, and doctors around the country need to understand that it is a reasonable, evidence-based, and scientific approach for parents (in conjunction with their doctors) consider each vaccine on a vaccine by vaccine basis for each of their children. Unless there is an ongoing epidemic of epic proportions (in which case there would be no need for mandates because parents would line up for necessary vaccines), there is no reason to try to force Californians to accept one-size-fits-all medical interventions that their children do not need.

    Senator Pan and other lawmakers justify this law by citing the measles “epidemic” that occurred last year.

    Yet many of those who were infected with the measles at Disneyland were fully vaccinated.

    No one died.

    No unvaccinated child in any school in California spread the measles to any other child.

    Using a small outbreak of measles as an excuse to throw out informed consent and to strip intelligent tax-payers of their right to a public education and child care for their children is wrong.

    This is an assault on medical freedom, informed consent, and the poor who cannot afford day care or home schooling.

    Dr Pan says, “You can certainly choose not to vaccinate your child and there’s nothing in this law now that will make you vaccinate your child, however there is a consequence to that and you cannot endanger other children and other people through your decisions.”

    Delaying the Hepatitis B vaccine until your infant is a teenager endangers no one.

    Shall we also bar teenagers who have lost their immunity to Hepatitis B because they were vaccinated as newborns from attending California schools?

    Shall we bar children who were not breastfed, since we know from literally thousands of scientific studies that formula-feeding compromises a child’s lifelong immune system and makes it more likely for him to succumb to (and spread) infectious diseases?

    Of course that is ridiculous.

    This law is ridiculous.

    This idea of removing a parents right to decide what medical procedures are done on their children is ridiculous.

    “Our success here in California can only be followed up by people willing to be bold and willing to take on the opposition toe-to-toe on the facts, on the science and not waiver.”

    Well, Dr. Pan, this response is your toe-to-toe answer to your ridiculous bill.

    I lean on science. You cannot pick and choose which peer reviewed articles you want to quote.

    AAP President Sandra G. Hassink, M.D., FAAP, called the legislation, “a very positive step,” and said she hopes other states will follow suit.

    God forbid.

    Every parent in America, especially in California, and every doctor in this country needs to keep fighting against SB 277 and similar legislation across the U.S.

    I am a doctor who supports children, parents’ rights, informed consent, and medical freedom. I hope you do too.




Dr. Paul


1 2 3 4 14