Menu Content/Inhalt

Main Menu

About Dr. Pais
Naturopathic News
Contact Us

Subscribe to Naturopathic News


Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Dr. Gregory Pais, ND
Find me on Facebook

Home arrow Naturopathic News arrow Issue # 137 February 2014
Issue # 137 February 2014

Welcome to this issue of Naturopathic News, issue #137. It's my mission to help you find optimal solutions to health problems. This newsletter is one way to do that. The more educated you are about your health options the better able you will be to take control of your health. If you would like to stop receiving my newsletter please send me an email and let me know. If you have a friend or family member who you think would appreciate the information provided, send me their email address.


2014 Class Series 

Discover New Concepts in Cancer Prevention…

"If You’re Serious About Lowering Your Risk For Cancer, No Matter What Your DNA May Have To Say About It, And Are Ready To Learn How You Can Create A Cancer Free Lifestyle, Then This Is What You’ve Been Looking For" 

·   Don’t give up. You can make a difference in your health!

·   Your genes aren’t the only determinant of whether you will get cancer.

·   2 out of every 3 cancers are actually caused by the environment.

·   It’s so easy to get overwhelmed and not know where to start.


I remember what it felt like to see so many members of my family (both sides) develop cancer as I was growing up. When my dad died of colon cancer I knew there had to be something I could do to change my impending health future.

It was scary but there had to be some way that I could make a difference. If I could understand the causes I could influence the outcome.

Over the last 22 years I’ve guided hundreds of patients in their efforts to remain cancer free. I truly believe there are fundamental elements that must be in place if you are to create the health you desire.

Three Fundamental Elements!

I’ve developed a Cancer Prevention Master Class that addresses three of the most important areas to work on to reduce your risk of cancer.

1. Epigenetics-Understanding how the choices we make can literally Turn Off/Turn On how much risk we have. Give yourself the opportunity to change, starting Now.

2. Cancer As A Metabolic Disease-Using diet and food choices to directly target the metabolism of the disease.

3. Vitamin D-How to use Vitamin D in the best manner to lower your risk for cancer.


Give Me 6 Hours and I’ll give you more than enough material to help you get started in this new path to cancer prevention.

Option #1: Cancer Prevention Master Class

Strict Limit: 24 22 Participants (2 people registered today)

Normally, I’m paid $100s of dollars per hour to teach a full day class. I want to make it available to those who are the most interested. So I'm pricing this Master Class at only $107, if you register by March 7, $137 thereafter.


OPTION #2: Master Class Diet Diary

Strict Limit: 12 Participants

Given the detailed nature of the main class, I know from past experience that there will be a few people left out if I don't offer a second option.

That's why I have decided to offer a Diet Diary option for those who need it. If you are a self starter, and need no further guidance then the Diet Diary option is NOT for you. But, if you are ready to take an up close and personal look at your daily food intake, and use that to help be well, then this is a great way to do it.

Over the last 16 years dozens of people have gotten great benefit from the $125 they paid for this 1 hour nutrition consultation by itself. Limited to Master Class participants I am offering this option for $157 if registered by March 7, $207 thereafter. As this is such an in depth look at the foods in your diet I can only offer this option to the first 12 who request it.

With Option 2 you'll get the 1 day Cancer Prevention Master Class PLUS a Diet Diary nutrition consultation. Giving you the best chance to hit the ground running and make the most of what you will learn. We'll look in depth at what you eat and review the supplements you're taking in order to get the program working for you.


OPTION #3: Inner Circle

Strict Limit: 6 Participants

In response to demand from previous students I’ve decided to open up my Inner Circle again and make it available. I haven't offered this in many years. I want only the most committed participants for this program. 5 hours of follow up after the class is over to help you put into practice what you’ve learned. $500 if you register by March 7 (includes Master Class, Diet Diary, and Vitamin D test-$70 value), $575 thereafter.


If you register by March 7, you will also receive the class handout from my Healing Arthritis Master Class taught last October. This is the ‘nuts n bolts’ of how you can heal your arthritis and be free from joint pain.


Seating is strictly limited to just 24 22 primary attendees so you get up-close-and-personal attention; your questions will be answered throughout the day! We’re keeping the Cancer Prevention Master Class small for  good reason. This is critical if you want to walk away from this seminar with the tools you need to succeed.


There are 22 spots available—that’s it. And when they’re gone, they’re gone. So if you’re serious about reducing your cancer risk, then register now!


Cancer Prevention Master Class

Saturday, March 29, 9-4pm

Residence Inn, Williamsport

 To register, Call 570-974-9294 or email This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it



This 2012 study reports an association between higher prediagnostic levels of vitamin D and increased survival among patients with colorectal cancer.

The study evaluated the association between serum vitamin D levels and mortality among 1,202 men and women enrolled in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, which recruited over 520,000 participants from 1992 to 1998. Subjects in the current study were diagnosed with colorectal cancer between enrollment and June, 2003. Blood samples obtained upon recruitment were analyzed for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Over a mean follow-up period of 73 months, 444 deaths due to colorectal cancer and 97 deaths from other causes occurred.

Men and women whose serum vitamin D levels were among the top 20 percent of participants had a 31 percent lower risk of dying from colorectal cancer and a 33 percent lower risk of mortality from any cause compared to those whose levels were among the lowest 20 percent. Having a high vitamin D level was protective against cancers of both the colon and the rectum.

January 25, 2012 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention

DR. PAIS’S COMMENTS: Colorectal cancer is a malignant tumor, which is a group of cancerous cells that can grow into other areas around it. Colon cancer starts in the cells of the colon (large intestine), whereas colorectal cancer starts in either the colon or the rectum.  Since these cancers are similar, they are usually discussed together and called colorectal cancer.

Tumors are made when there is a buildup of unneeded, old, or damaged cells and they form a mass, which then becomes a tumor. In colorectal cancer, cancer cells can travel from the colon or rectum to other parts of the body and form new tumors, which is called metastasis.

Tumors can either be benign or malignant. Benign tumors are usually not harmful, whereas malignant tumors are cancerous and can spread to other body parts. When cancerous cells spread, they usually first spread to small organs called lymph nodes.

Most of the time, colorectal cancers take several years to develop. A polyp is a non-cancerous tumor that grows in the colon or rectum. Polyps can sometimes change into cancerous tumors. The cancerous polyps can then grow into blood vessels or vessels in the lymph nodes, which makes it easy for the cancer cells to metastasize into other body parts. 

Up to this point no studies have been done treating colon cancer just with Vitamin D. However, the following observations have been confirmed.

People who have low levels of vitamin D in their body are more likely to develop colorectal cancer.

Regions where people are exposed to the lowest amount of sunlight have higher rates of colorectal cancer than people in sunny places.

Studies have found what is called a dose-response relationship, where for each increase in vitamin D levels in the body, there is a decrease in colorectal cancer risk.      

High levels of vitamin D in the body may improve survival from colorectal cancer.



Research over the last 20 years shows that the environment is more important to health than some had previously imagined. Recent information indicates that toxic effects on health can be inherited by children and grandchildren, even when there are no genetic mutations involved. These inherited changes are caused by subtle chemical influences, and this new field of scientific inquiry is called "epigenetics."

Since the 1940s, scientists have known that genes carry information from one generation to the next, and that genes gone haywire can cause cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. But scientists have also known that genes aren't the whole story because identical twins can have very different medical histories. One identical twin can be perfectly healthy while the other develops schizophrenia or cancer, so the environment must play a significant role, not merely genes.

What's surprising is that scientists are now revealing that these environmental effects can be passed from one generation to the next with far-reaching implications for human health. Epigenetics is showing that environmental influences can be inherited even without any mutations in the genes themselves and may continue to influence the onset of diseases like diabetes, obesity, mental illness and heart disease, from generation to generation.

In other words, the increased cancer susceptibility you have today may be traced to your grandmother's exposure to an industrial poison 50 years ago, even though your grandmother's genes were not changed by the exposure. Or the mercury you're eating today in fish may not harm you directly, but may harm your grandchildren.

The latest information appears in a new study by Michael Skinner and colleagues at the University of Washington, published in Science magazine. Skinner found that mother rats exposed to hormone-mimicking chemicals during pregnancy gave birth to four successive generations of male offspring with significantly reduced fertility. Only the first generation of mothers was exposed to a toxin, yet four generations later the toxic effect could still be detected.

Prior to this study, scientists had only been able to document epigenetic effects on the first generation of offspring. These new findings suggest that harm from toxins in the environment can be much longer lasting and pervasive than previously known. And therefore a precautionary approach to toxics is even more important than previously believed.

For now scientists are seeing that disease can be passed from generation to generation without any genetic mutations. The DNA molecule itself gets another molecule attached to it, which changes the behavior of the genes without changing the genes themselves. The attachment of these additional molecules is caused by environmental influences, but these influences can then be passed from one generation to the next, if they affect the germ cells, i.e. the sperm or the egg.

Scientists began to see direct connections between human diseases like cancer and these subtle epigenetic variations back in 1983 when Andrew Feinberg and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins found that cancer cells had an unusually low incidence of activity control compared to non-cancer cells. Over the past 20 years, Feinberg and many other cancer specialists have documented the wide-spread influence of epigenetics on the development of cancer in humans and laboratory animals.

Epigenetic Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors and Male Fertility, Science Vol. 308, June 3, 2005, pp. 1466-1469.

Stochastic epigenetic variation as a driving force of development, evolutionary adaptation, and disease, Feinberg AP, Irizarry RA., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107 Suppl 1:1757-1764, 2009.

DR. PAIS’S COMMENTS: You would think that all this new information would make the control of toxic chemicals even more important that previously thought. It’s obvious that the health of future generations is at stake.

The development of epigenetics also greatly complicates toxicity testing and chemical risk assessment. Epigenetics tells us that much additional toxicity testing will be needed. So far, there are no standardized, government-approved protocols for conducting epigenetic tests. No one has checked any of the 84, 000 chemicals that were introduced into our environment last year.



More than 1 million additional men have been diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer since the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1980s. And the "vast majority of these additional 1 million men did not benefit from early detection," write the authors of a study published in August 2009. 

"Prostate cancer screening has resulted in substantial overdiagnosis and in unnecessary treatment," Otis W. Brawley, MD, medical director of the American Cancer Society, writes in an editorial that accompanies the new study. These new findings once again question the benefits of prostate cancer screening, says Dr. Brawley. “Does prostate cancer screening save lives?”, is still a legitimate question," he states.

This study examined national prostate cancer incidence and treatment data in the United States from 1986 — the year before prostate-antigen screening (PSA) was introduced — to 2005. The study's conclusions stem from the idea that, for cancers detected early in a population, there should be a reduction in the number of cancers detected later in that same population. In the United States, that offsetting reduction has not occurred in prostate cancer.

Instead, overall incidence rose rapidly after 1986, before peaking and declining in 1992 — but the decline was to levels "considerably higher than those in 1986," write the study authors. The excess incidence — and thus overdiagnosis — has been worst in young men. The relative incidence rate (2005 relative to 1986) was 7.23 in men younger than 50 years. This rate is considerably higher than the relative incidence rates found in older men — 0.56 in men 80 years and older, 1.09 in men 70 to 79 years, 1.91 in men 60 to 69 years, and 3.64 in men 50 to 59 years.

Study authors believe that clinicians should "explicitly communicate," to men considering the screening, the relative magnitude of the number of deaths averted to the number overdiagnosed. There is uncertainty about whether the benefit exists at all.

However, this is a difficult task, the authors admit. "Estimating the trade-off between a mortality benefit and an overdiagnosis is problematic when there is uncertainty about whether the benefit exists at all," they write.

J Natl Cancer Inst. Published online before print August 31, 2009.

New Engl J Med. 2009;360:1310-1319).

European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (New Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320-1328).

DR. PAIS’S COMMENTS: The current study conservatively estimates that 1 death is averted for every 20 men overdiagnosed, say the authors. A recent European study suggests a 1 to 50 ratio, which is a "more plausible" estimate because it is from a randomized clinical trial (screened vs. unscreened groups).

The European trial reported that 1410 men need to be screened to avoid 1 death, this translates into a trade-off of approximately 1 death averted to 50 men overdiagnosed with prostate cancer.

However, in the 2009 American randomized cancer screening trial, prostate cancer screening did not provide a mortality benefit. Thus, the possibility is that the true mortality benefit "approaches 0,". Meaning that the estimate of the ratio of deaths averted to men overdiagnosed "approaches 1 to infinity," write the authors.

"All overdiagnosed patients are needlessly exposed to the hassle factors of obtaining treatment, the financial implications of the diagnosis, and the anxieties associated with becoming a cancer patient," the authors write. Of course, there’s also fatigue, urinary incontinence, and sexual dysfunction, all common side effects of conventional treatment.



This study compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening. 

89, 835 Canadian women, aged 40-59, were randomly assigned to mammography (five annual mammography screens) or control (no mammography). Women aged 40-49 in the mammography segment and all women aged 50-59 in both segments received annual physical breast examinations. Women aged 40-49 in the control segment received a single examination followed by usual care in the community.

During the five year screening period, 666 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in the mammography segment (44, 925 participants) and 524 in the controls (44, 910 participants). Of these, 180 women in the mammography segment and 171 women in the control segment died of breast cancer during the 25 year follow-up period.

The findings for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 were almost identical. During the entire study period, 3250 women in the mammography segment and 3133 in the control segment had a diagnosis of breast cancer, and 500 and 505, respectively, died of breast cancer. Thus the cumulative mortality from breast cancer was similar between women in the mammography segment and in the control.

After 15 years of follow-up a residual excess of 106 cancers was observed in the mammography segment, attributable to over-diagnosis.

Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, BMJ 2014;348:g366

DR. PAIS’S COMMENTS: The conclusion from this study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual. Overall, 22% of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial.

Over-diagnosis refers to the possibility that a screen detected cancer might not otherwise become clinically apparent during the lifetime of the woman. Over-diagnosis can be estimated in a randomized screening trial when a sufficiently long period has elapsed from the cessation of screening—that is, when all cancers should have become clinically apparent in both trial segments.

Assuming that nearly all over-diagnosed cancers in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study were non-palpable, 50% of mammogram detected, non-palpable cancers were over-diagnosed.

“In conclusion, our data show that annual mammography does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care in the community. The data suggest that the value of mammography screening should be reassessed.”



Here are some pages that are of particular interest:

Store: There are 411 products from Emerson listed on this page. If yours isn’t one of them please let me know and I will add it so you can order online. This is particularly convenient after hours or on the weekend. Of course, you can always order by phone from Emerson at 800-654-4432.

Newsletter: Here you will find all 137 issues of my health newsletter, "Naturopathic News”.

Optimal Health Points: This is my blog that I update periodically. Check out my latest post, "Hydrotherapy For The Season, Wet Sock Treatment"



Come join my fan page at

Help me bring information, news, and stories about natural medicine to the Facebook community.

For those of you who don’t know, Facebook is a social networking website. Users can add friends and send them messages, and update their personal profiles to notify friends about themselves. Additionally, users can join networks organized by city, workplace, and school or college.

Facebook pages help you discover new artists, businesses, and communities as well as those you already love. On my fan page I post discussions that you can join in with and relay breaking health news related to disease prevention, clinical nutrition, and ways to make you healthier.

I’m looking forward to exploring this community with you. See you there!



As is often the case, a recent new patient asked if I would review their choice and use of supplements and herbs. Why does this happen so often? For many, taking a vitamin or herb is their introduction to natural medicine. Their desire to be healthier drives them to take supplements and herbs. The death, pain, discomfort, and side effects experienced with over the counter and prescription drugs compel people to look elsewhere. It’s very different with supplements and herbs which, when used correctly, have an incredibly low risk of harm.

Some people take this to an extreme and take every supplement or herb that someone tells them is ‘good for them’. It might be a clerk, an internet ‘expert’ source, or a friend who is marketing the latest or greatest fad. Most of these individuals or companies have no professional training or experience in the medical use of the supplements or herbs that they’re selling. The people they’re selling to come into my office with 5, 10, 15, or more supplements that they’re taking. Sometimes it’s been so long since they started taking them that they don’t remember why they’re doing it. When I ask, they can’t tell me what, if anything, a particular product is doing for them. Yet, they can be quite fearful of stopping any of these items, as if their health would careen off a precipice without them.

Why do I think my approach is any different? Partly, it’s because of my background. I’ve literally been working with nutritional supplements since 1974. That’s 36 years assessing the quality and effectiveness of supplements. Beginning in 1980 I started working with Western and Chinese herbs. The quality of herbs used and how they’re combined together has the greatest effect on the efficacy of the final product. Because I’ve grown, identified, harvested, and produced medicinal herbal products I recognize a good formula when I see one.

Licensed naturopathic doctors like myself receive the most extensive academic and clinical training in the use of nutritional supplements and herbal medicines of any professional in the United States. Nothing can substitute for such hands on experience, especially when you see, and are responsible for, the results of your treatments. Very different from the clerk in the store, or coworker who’s part of a MLM scheme.

What I’m offering to is easy access to this experience and training. Both for you and your family. If you have questions about the supplements or herbs you are taking, or are thinking about taking, now is the time to ask. Send me an email with the brand and name of the product you’re taking. Let me know that you want to bring the bottles in at your next visit, so I can see what you’re taking. Start a discussion on my Facebook fan page. Either way I’ll give you honest feedback about what I think is good, or what isn’t. We’ll fine tune what you’re taking to maximize effect and eliminate waste.

Let me hear from you and we’ll get started.



It just happened again the other day. A patient sent me a copy of the Vitamin D test she just had done. With frustrating results. The wrong test was done. After all these years, and all the information available, MDs and laboratories still order the wrong test. What a waste of money and time.

For a long time I looked for a home Vitamin D test. One that would be simple, easy, and accurate to do on your own. I finally found one. ZRT Laboratory in Beaverton OR. ZRT emphasizes research and technological innovation.

Until now, venipuncture blood serum has been the standard medium for testing Vitamin D. ZRT has developed and refined Vitamin D testing in blood spots. A few drops of blood from a quick and nearly painless nick of the finger, placed on a filter paper to dry are all that is needed. The total 25 (OH) Vitamin D is then determined by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). This method has been shown to be as accurate as the assay standard.


Ordering A Vitamin D Test

ZRT allows anyone to order a Vitamin D test kit for $95 plus shipping and have it sent to their home. ZRT will let me prepay for kits and send them to my office for $55 each, plus $8 shipping. I am charging $65 per kit for patients to cover the total.

If you are interested in getting a Vitamin D test done through my office please prepay so I can order you a kit. Then you can either pick it up at my office or have it shipped to your home. Once you’ve taken the sample and sent it back to ZRT it’s only a matter of time before your results are sent back to me. I can even look at them online before the mail arrives.

If your doctor has refused to order a Vitamin D test or worse, ordered the wrong one, this is the fastest, least expensive, most accurate way to do it ourselves. Once we know what your Vitamin D levels are, the next step is making sure that you achieve optimum levels for prevention of disease and maintenance of health.



I am often asked what supplements I recommend. Many of you have been surprised to discover that I favor food over pills; lifestyle changes over fads. I have been working with nutrition for over 30 years, herbs for over 20 years. Where and when appropriate I recommend them to my patients. I strive to act from knowledge, experience, and research.

Emerson Ecologics (800-654-4432) carries almost all of the nutritional supplements and botanical extracts that I think are useful. Their customer service is excellent and their delivery is reliable (often only 2-3 days to this region). It’s a great way to get physician quality products at reasonable prices.

To offset the cost of shipping, reference my name when you establish your account and receive a 10% discount on every order. At the same time, I receive a percentage of each supplement sale. If you have any questions about these items feel free to email me.

That’s it for this issue of Naturopathic News. If you’ve thought a bit extra or learned something new, then I achieved my goal. As usual, if you have questions or concerns brought up by these subjects, let me know.

Gregory Pais, ND, DHANP
580 E. 3rd. St.
Williamsport PA 17701
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it