Interim address:
1250 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 205
Tempe, AZ 85283
Tel: 480-839-2800





August 22, 2014



In accordance with the requirements of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 56, the nineteenth regular quarterly meeting of the American Naturopathic Research Institute (ANRI) and the Naturopathic Oncology Research Institute (NORI) and the International Naturopathic Clinical Research Institute (INCRI) and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was called to order at 12:30 p.m., August 22, 2014 at 1250 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 205, meeting in Suite 203, Tempe, AZ 85283.


(Membership is open to anyone who has attended at least once, so all of the following may designate themselves as members of ANRI / NORI if they wish.)

The following members and guests were in attendance (alphabetically by last name):

Attending (in alphabetical order)

Brian Archambault, NMD
Inge Barth, NMD
Pepper Brydon
Hazel Chandler
Andrew Dickens, NMD
Colleen Huber, NMD
Cheryl Kollin, NMD
Kenneth Lashutka, NMD
Eric Lopez, NMD
William Nelson, NMD
Mary Ellen O’Brien,NMD
Kenneth Proefrock, NMD
Debbie Rogalla, NMD
Paul Stallone, NMD
Phranq Tamburri, NMD
Robert Waters, PhD
Bonnie Wick, NMD


Chelsea of Theranos Laboratories came to talk to our group about their services. The goal is an 8-hour turnaround time for labs. Sometimes there are only 5 hours of turnaround. Labs go out from Walgreens. Labs are flown each time to central lab for processing. BCBS, United Healthcare and Medicare cover these labs.

Right now, doctors will have to send patients to Walgreens to get blood drawn. 29 Walgreens participate, and 40 more by the end of August. If you’re ordering a lot of panels and a lot of tests, you will notice very significant cost savings over the national laboratories, and a lot fewer vials needed.

The number of labs that can be pulled off one of the small vials, a finger stick could be about 30 labs.

About half the patients who walk out of a doctor’s office for lab work never get it filled. Theranos would like to increase the level of compliance for lab testing. The wait time at the Walgreens is much less than at the national labs. And not having to deal with venipuncture with an especially large needle. Rather, just a small fingerstick for most labs.

Theranos is under the same scrutiny as the major national labs, and subject to the same standards for accuracy. Theranos prides itself on customer service.

Theranos has treated to our lunch today. We thanked them for that and for their introduction and information.

Then we began the formal meeting at 12:30 pm.


Colleen Huber, NMD is secretary of ANRI / NORI and in practice at this clinic.
Bonnie Wick, NMD practices in Mesa and does a lot of chelation IVs.
Andrew Dickens, NMD is in private practice, works with cancer patients.
Deb Rogalla, NMD: Arizona Brain Center is coming soon.
Paul Stallone, NMD, general private practice.
Brian Archambault, NMD, Goodyear, AZ private practice. Vice President of AZNMA.
Kenneth Proefrock, NMD is in private practice, and is President of ANRI / NORI.
Kenneth Lashutka, NMD is Treasurer of ANRI / NORI and is in private practice.
Mary Ellen O’Brien, NMD is in private practice up the road from here.
William Nelson, NMD started working with addiction patients.
Cheryl Hamilton, NMD joins us from Prescott, focusing on women’s health and healing.
Inge Barth, NMD practices at a medical marijuana clinic, and is a juice guru.
Pepper Brydon has a Master of Arts in adult education.
Hazel Chandler is a lay member of IRB, been in total remission now over one year.
Bob Waters, PhD works for ASU and Aviratek and the Liver Lab.

Dr. Nelson announced on September 22 – There is an international mistletoe meeting – a 4 day conference, which will be in Germany sponsored by Holixor. Dr. Nelson has already paid, but cannot go. He has invited any one of us to take his place. They may want to start an IRB.

Dr. Waters talked about the very large study for which he is writing the IRB paperwork. The whole set of documents will be about 30 megabytes. So we will have to use Google Drive or Dropbox to download. It is so large, because there are many ingredients – and so there are lots of white papers – which will be in the IRB. That will be good information to have. Information about therapeutic foods, nutrition has been changed – and we had to change a lot of background on hepatology. There is a common ground: viral infections that are associated with steatosis and hepatosis. They are having success in Canada in early stage cirrhosis and fibrosis. The Fibroscan technology came out of France. This was the first FDA approved clinical trial in US history for reversal of liver fibrosis.

Dr. Waters then reviewed a little bit of his previous study with Aviratek. If the ongoing use of the gel is something that this IRB decides to review, we would have to travel and monitor activity in a hospital in another state. This is being welcomed by a staunch MD surgeon, who is disappointed in the resistance of the conventional medical community to genuinely therapeutic treatments. For the recent safety study done here, Aviratek was very pleased with the results. No pathology was associated with the product.

Dr. O’Brien asked if the gel was available. Dr. Waters responded that it was available for oral and genital herpes. And shingles and EBV. And cervical dysplasia in female patients. There is some idea that tumors in the lungs may be virally induced, that there may be high titres of HPV. Some may be spread from primary colon cancers. Serracenia seemed to be vital to reversing smallpox and other severely pathogenic viruses. You can get it online. Relief Red and Relief Blue are the brand names that are now available.

Dr. Waters is asking us as IRB members to send our liver fibrosis patients to go use the Fibroscan. We want to look at f1, f2 and f3 patients in fibrosis. They cannot be consuming alcohol. Then they go get a Fibroscan if they’re between f1 and f3. The treatment is 21 pills a day, with multiple nutrients such as a precursor to carnitine and many other nutrients. Nutrients should be kept at a steady level, not pulsed. Then after about 6 months he expects exponential improvement, not linear.

Dr. Huber asked if the IRB would be willing to review this clinical trial. Dr. Proefrock made the motion for the trial to be reviewed. Dr. Lopez seconded the motion. Ayes were unanimous; there were no nay votes. Either Google Drive or Dropbox will be necessary to read the files, because they are so large.


Dr. Huber described an interaction with a compounding pharmacy, in which she acknowledges that neither she nor the pharmacy are lawyers, but that both she and the compounding pharmacy looked at the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), to try to determine a feasible way to produce IV nutrient treatments, and not go broke, and act in conformity with the new laws. It is now the case that if a physician purchases from a compounding pharmacy, that doctor must write prescriptions for nutrients that are compounded by them. Therefore, each vial purchased must be designated for and only used for a specific patient. So in order not to throw out product, you would need to try to have that patient sign up for package deals in which they purchase multiple IV nutrient treatments. Therefore, the vial purchased and prescribed for John Smith goes to him, over the course of multiple visits. The vial purchased and prescribed for Mary Jones goes to her, over the course of multiple visits.

Dr. Nelson pointed out that he had once been sanctioned by the Board due to the pre-selling of treatments, even as part of a package deal with a discount, and that that was termed “professional misconduct.”

Dr. Proefrock described the situation of a compounding pharmacy that had 17,000 vials of tainted product. Because it was so many vials, they were not acting as a compounding pharmacy; rather they were acting as a manufacturer. However, the FDA has used that one incident in order to crack down on all compounding pharmacies. They are shutting them down left and right. Very few are left. Very minor excuses are used to shut them down.

In the State of Arizona, you have a right to make anything that a physician writes an order for, for a specific patient. The stipulation was you make a vial for that person, and it may be one or two or more. We never needed a separate license to do that as physicians.

The FDA approval process allows for any FDA manufacturer to be able to make any FDA approved item. So now the question is if you wanted to administer glutathione. This will probably never be FDA-approved. So you can make a small vial, but you cannot make a large volume. If you wanted to get an FDA manufacturer permit, you can do so, but you cannot make glutathione. So then the doctor is on the top tier, then the pharmacy, then your other staff. When Dr. Proefrock had his pharmacy in 2007 – 2008, Dr. Runbeck was concerned about doing this under the certificate to dispense. And he became a FDA-registered manufacturer. Now the FDA has taken oversight and wants to apply the same restrictions on a compounding pharmacy. Now it means that if you are a doctor and making an IV for a patient with more than 3 items in the IV, then you are now in need of an ISO class 5 hood. A laminar flow hood will be somewhere between $2500 and $5000. This has now pushed us to a greater scrutiny.

We are in a unique predicament in the State of Arizona – because the board has changed some of the rules, and that it has to be a licensed compounding pharmacy or a FDA registered manufacturer who makes the IV nutrients. The board’s new rule has made it harder. So we as doctors who make IVs with more than 3 substances need to have a hood.

Dr. Archambault asked if we would be governed by the NPBOMEX or by the pharmacy board in this respect.

Dr. Proefrock said no, we are under the NPBOMEX, and if we were under the pharmacy board that would probably be even worse. We need our Board to protect our medicine to such an extent that if the FDA walked into your office to determine if you can do what you do, then we could justify that, being mostly regulated by our board.

If we found ourselves able to buy a lot of a product and wanted to dispense to other doctors we could.

So if you’re putting more than 3 ingredients in an IV, you’re going to have to start using a hood. From there the question is how do you start accessing raw materials. If you want to buy ascorbic acid you can go through a FDA manufacturer because that is now FDA-approved. Now any physician, by the federal statutes, any doctor can make up any compound that they determine to be appropriate for any individual, so there is no restriction as long as you do that. So now we all have to become compounding physicians in order to abide by the rules.

So if you buy a bulk substance from a compounding pharmacy, you have to procure a 30 ml bottle of glutathione, you are able to use that bulk substance for compounding you need pedigrees and tracking. You need a certificate of analysis from your raw materials manufacturer. Then you as compounding physician are the compounder. Then let’s say your patient has a problem with that product. Each IV becomes a compounding medicine. Physicians are at the top tier by federal statute. Now if a compounding pharmacy produces a vitamin c no problem. But if you put in substances that must be compounded, then it becomes subject to a whole lot more scrutiny and regulation.

So we have to say to the compounding pharmacy, “I need a bulk substance; lots of vitamin c, but can you put it in 30 ml vials, which fit in our drawers better?” CGMP requires you to have a tracking method for your raw materials.

Dr. Dickens asked, how about if you use filtration?

Dr. Proefrock said, “We use filtration always.”

Here is yet another problem, he said. We are almost out of pyrogen tests. But now the FDA is not allowing pyrogen tests to be sold. So a lot of the changes that have happened will ultimately affect us. In the world of selective enforcement, it is only a matter of time before we are scrutinized for this as well.

Apparently the NPBOMEX felt that there was a need to appease the pharmacy board. However the pharmacy is there to cater to the doctor. We have no need to appease or cater to the pharmacy board. We are trying to expedite the process of reversing the rule that appeased, because that rule jeopardizes the practice of our medicine and limits what we can do. So our legal counsel for example has found that the more restrictive rule is the one that is dominant, which is a problem here, because the state rule is more restrictive than the federal rule.

140 new cases of Ebola have been found over the last few days, and half of them are already dead.

There is a worldwide shortage of IV fluids. We need to transfer that whole production to glass. Baxter, Braun and Abbott all use the same packaging system, but they don’t own that plastic bag company. So we have moved entirely to glass. We’ve chunked the $35,000 cost down to $5,000 in order to have a do-able process to produce sterile water for IV fluids in parts of Africa, where the number one cause of child mortality is dehydration. So we want to have a way to make that IV fluids production affordable for them.

Dr. Nelson then asked, are we then able to compound as doctors or not?

Dr. Proefrock said yes. However, that is being made more difficult by Rule R4-18-904.

Dr. Archambault said the argument was that Dr. Runbeck had said there was a need to appease the pharmacy board.

Dr. Proefrock said that they had had a conversation about that, and that Dr. Proefrock had told Dr. Runbeck back then in 2012 that we don’t have to cater to other boards. And Gail Anthony is not a physician, so she cannot weigh in on these matters as easily.

Dr. Archambault said that she does understand the concept of not restricting the scope of practice. But which laws take precedence in this area: state or federal law?

Dr. Proefrock responded that the more restrictive law trumps the more lenient law.

Dr. Huber responded that that is true, because if you follow the more strict law, you are necessarily also in compliance with the more lenient law, in a given area of law. However, in this particular case, the federal law specifically disallowed any pre-emption by the states. That is, US Congress specifically reserved to itself the power in this case for the federal law not to be pre-empted by any state law, which is stated verbatim, and therefore, Rule R4-19-904, which contradicts federal law, is null and void and unenforceable, according to the attorney with whom we consulted.

Dr. Proefrock said as a practical consideration, it’s a shame when we were on the verge of getting hospital residencies, it is really embarrassing and self-defeating and disabling to have to go into a hospital and say that we are not allowed to do this, and not allowed to do that, due to this new Rule.

Bob Waters added that yes, there is another hospital in Anchorage that wants us to do residencies also.

The Healthy Medicine Academy conference is in November. Dr. Proefrock will present compounding information in a separate Monday seminar. If you are making up eyedrops or capsules you are compounding, and the laws apply to your doing that. He said, When the FDA comes in to our place, we find that we have to educate the FDA and explain to them why we do what we do, and they actually tend to be open-minded and interested. Because IV therapy is so prevalent in our profession, we want to be careful to avoid doing things that would make the FDA agitated.


Dr. Kollin presented her ozone treatment in cancer, and has looked at that effect on lactate dehydrogenase. She submitted her abstract. Sometimes intravenous ozone is used, and sometimes rectal insufflation, and sometimes autohemotherapy. There is a case study here of a patient whose LDH level drastically decreased after ozone tx, and that was possibly due to the ozone. If it would lower the acidity around tumors said Dr. Waters, then that would be worth looking at. So Dr. Kollin said that it would be interesting if we look at this study. She presented this for IRB review.

Dr. Dickens made a motion that this IRB undertake review of Dr. Kollin’s research with ozone.

Dr. Nelson seconded the motion.


Pepper Brydon talked about looking at a collaborative effort for finding funding for disenfranchised people facing serious chronic diseases often with risk of death, and those who refused chemotherapy or radiation.

Dr. Huber talked about having worked toward these non-profit organizations since our founding back in February 2014. So we have started the two organizations, one for finding funding for cancer patients in need, and the other for mainly non-cancer patients in need. Dr. Huber is the President of the Naturopathic Cancer Society, and Dr. Lopez is the President of the Naturopathic Humanitarian Network.

Hazel and Pepper have both had people close to them recently pass from cancer, partly due to not being able to afford naturopathic treatments. We have now jumped through the state hurdles, and now we are in the process of the final 501c3 with the IRS. We have covered that. It is a lesson in compassion in our medical systems.

Dr. Huber explained that because she, and all the doctors who work with cancer patients, are excluded from all decisions of which patients receive funds and how much, and how do you determine when somebody is truly in need, more so than others?

So Hazel and Pepper met this morning working through some of the other task lists – in the way of patient advisory boards, getting things established, discussed conflict of interest and policies. How can things be equal and fair within federal guidelines.

Pepper explained that partnering with other organizations is often required, having 3 x 501 c3s. Harvest for Humanity is our umbrella organization until our 501c3 goes through.
Bob Waters expressed concern that MDs and DOs seem to be excluded by the names including the words “naturopathic.”

Hazel and Dr. Huber responded that it was important right now to have this be specifically naturopathic. Dr. Huber explained that she had been working toward being able to start these organizations over the last 4 and a half years, because we need to level the playing field. MDs often find it very easy to get their treatments covered by insurance, whereas insurance covering naturopathic treatments is very scanty at best. Plenty of money is available for chemotherapy and radiation treatments for cancer, and all of the other organizations have sold out – pink ribbons, stand up to cancer, all have been bought and paid for by big chemotherapy dollars. So therefore, these non-profits have to be naturopathic for now. However, because of what Pepper said, that it is advantageous to have partnering organizations, when applying for grants, if the MDs and DOs would like to form a similar organization, we can certainly have a very cordial relationship with them, and partner with them on applications for grants.

Dr. Huber made an appeal to the membership to bring in their patients to a patient advisory committee, that it should probably not be more than two or three patients from each clinic, and that they would have to act in a completely unbiased way regarding the use and release of funds for patient care. So please bring your patients on to this Committee!

Hazel re-emphasized the point that it is really important that fund recipients not have any affiliation with a particular clinic, and so we need guidelines. The protocols that we approved in the By-Laws for the Naturopathic Cancer Society. It has to be an IRB-approved cancer protocol. It is very important that there be no mandatory chemotherapy, and in fact the By-Laws specifically prohibit funds being used for that purpose, not even IPT. The Patient Advisory Commitee will say to fund recipients that you can use these funds for naturopathic cancer treatments alone or you can use them for adjunct naturopathic treatments. Those are the choices.

Pepper said we need legal counsel to review our By-Laws.

Dr. Huber responded that that is pre-empted in the case of Naturopathic Cancer Society by the First By-Law. Legal counsel may advise but not decide or veto, because that final decision is reserved to the President.

Dr. Archambault said that the education has to start well before the diagnosis, because people cannot be paying back money. So they can pay back in community hours – they have to go out in the community being advocates. Pay it forward, by discussing how therapeutic and life-changing this medicine is.

There was general enthusiasm and agreement with Dr. Archambault’s well-articulated idea.

Dr. Waters again encouraged the invitation to MDs and DOs to participate, or be invited to participate.

Dr. Waters asked, Would any of us be willing to go to Colorado, to Pueblo to serve as IRB representative for the hospital there? Dr. Huber made a motion that we review that as an IRB. Pepper seconded the motion.


That’s a lot of acronyms! Dr. Huber went to the 2nd International Congress of Naturopathic Medicine in Paris, France last month, presenting her paper on sugar intake in cancer patients, and representing our organization there. The Congress was well-attended, several hundred people from around the world.

Dr. Tamburri will likely submit an abstract, and we hope he will be our representative there next year. This certainly does not mean that others among you would not be welcome to go and submit abstracts also. The deadline is early January. Please make a strong showing for ANRI / NORI anywhere and everywhere.


The next ANRI / NORI meeting is Friday November 14, noon, at the usual place.




Dr. Tamburri addressed the group, whose focus has been specialty / affiliate status. There has been an issue with certain specialty boards, saying that you have to be part of one specialty group in order to have freedom to practice. When we announced our presence a few years ago, there was some alarm expressed by an existing specialty organization. They tried to push through a law a few years ago. The new change is that decisions are now made top-down at the AANP. The AANP delegates – there used to be 100 reps and everybody votes. Now it’s top down, secret closed-door meetings, and it is easier to have a few people make the decision on where these things all go. They had a special meeting at the AANP conference where they decided to stop all new affiliate status with the AANP. So the question is who authorizes AANP? The AANP then grants affiliate status. I’m from Arizona, and I want to be an affiliate. Our group was told there are issues with us being a specialty group. So we applied for affiliate status with the AANP. So has the endocrinology specialty organization. Now everybody is trying to grab for affiliate status. But the AANP is trying to grant affiliate status to one group over another and is having problems, because they only want one of each, and which do you choose?

Dr. Archambault said these specialty organizations were self-sustaining, self-formed, so AZNMA said who are we to say what gives the AZNMA the authority? By what standards? Who watches the watchers?

Dr. Huber pointed out that AANP has no jurisdiction, no legal authority at all.

Dr. Archambault asked, Who authorized OncANP? Oncanp authorized oncanp. So this group challenges that group? And where do they get their authority?

Dr. Tamburri said that AANP said a few years ago that OncANP holds the highest standard of cancer treatments. However it certainly opens up a ball of worms because they obviously need to find out who trumps whom? So if 4 or 5 of you formed a Board of Urology. Yet I am a professor of urology, but not part of your group, then where does that leave me? Possibly out in the cold, even if I have way more knowledge and experience of urology than you do.

Dr. Archambault said that if they make oncanp that pinnacle of standard, and I’m not a member of that organization, then where does that leave me as a doctor of a prostate cancer patient?

Dr. Tamburri said, so if you’re out there twisting in the wind, what do you do? One is if I taught you to use krispy donuts for treatment, then you could go before the board and said Tamburri said it was okay to treat with krispy donuts. But because there is the precedent of two or three members of the community justifying these treatments. So the genesis of all this is that we can create a consensus, and this IRB is a way to protect all of us, and to keep naturopathic treatments done by all of us stronger by us being there for each other, in order to affirm that yes, it is okay to do this or that treatment, as long as you are guided by good medical judgment and the patient’s safety.

Dr. Hamilton said, why do we have to section us off and decide I do this, and you do that? You don’t need specialty boards to save the public. You pay your dues to NPBomex for protection of this profession. You don’t need another board.

Dr. Tamburri said that some of the specialty organizations flipped out when they read our statement for patient freedoms. CTCA says you cannot work here, because you’re not part of a particular specialty organization. We are the old timers; you can’t come after us. I keep hearing from naturopathic students that they believe, somehow they got the idea, that you have to be a member of a certain organization in order to work with cancer patients.

Dr. Archambault said that AZNMA will have its second medical marijuana summit in October. Foremost researchers on cannabis will present, and have gotten hugely enthusiastic responses from audiences.
Dr. Archambault informed us that 90% of the prescriptions in the state for Medical Marijuana have been written by naturopaths. We have to be careful that we do it appropriately. Somebody prescribed it to a pregnant mom, unfortunately.

Dr. Tamburri said that the problem is that the wrong doctors are prescribing it. The right doctors are afraid to get involved with it. These are kids right out of school desperate for a way to pay back a quarter million in student loans. I want the right doctors to be writing those scrips.

[Dr. Huber didn’t say it in the meeting, but would ask that we not be hypocritical. That is if we object to just one elite specialty group, we probably have to be careful about thinking about the “right” doctors vs. the “wrong” doctors. That is, maybe it’s not the doctors who are wrong, but the motivation, the desperation, the degree of careful attention, knowledge and thought put into their dealing with patients.]

Dr. Archambault said, don’t settle for this low hanging fruit that makes our profession look poor.

Dr. Tamburri said things like that are the botox fad, replaced by the hCG fad, and the next fad …

Dr. Barth took issue with that, because she said if I see a patient who needs extra care that I can’t give in my office, then I refer. Whereas some pts need extra care with medical marijuana, and therefore I can help them, and receive such referrals.

1. Pepper said, Dr. Tamburri, I have a question. This ANRI / NORI has had a list of criteria for naturopathic oncologyi Would you want to step forward to the Board to discuss ANRI / NORI’s criteria for the specialist designation?

Dr. Huber said there is one problem with that. This ANRI / NORI has produced only one specialist – yours truly (naturopathic oncologist). Therefore, that paltry number is not a very strong position to argue for general recognition of specialists. Dr. Huber urged that others come forward and also jump through the specialist hoops if they want to. However, it is also possible to be a fellow of ANRI – not a specialist in any one field, but accomplished to practice a broad scope of naturopathic medicine.

Dr. Nelson asked, has this come up? If someone is treating, – you don’t treat with blinders on; you don’t get reductionistic. So what if we come up before the board, has there been an instance where someone treated with nature cure, and got called before the board and criticized for not conforming to the dictates of some specialty group?

Nobody knew of a specific instance. But Dr. Huber recalled the Board getting very dictatorial in the past, once haranguing a doctor for recommending the Paleo Diet for a patient. The intent seemed to be to humiliate the doctor and to find any excuse to criticize him. It was painful to listen to and watch. Fortunately, the person who did that is no longer on the Board.

Dr. Waters again brought up the idea of medical doctors and osteopaths getting involved in our IRB.

Dr. Archambault said, I don’t know if that’s such a great idea. We are at the back of the line in the healthcare professions. We don’t need to dilute our brand; we don’t need to invite MDs to this meeting. We naturopaths are the pinnacle of health care, and we have been diluted already too much. Let’s keep these meetings for just us.

Dr. Waters responded that Dr. David Payne, known since 1984, is a specialist in ozone, was doing ozone as far back as the 1980s to 1990s, many, many years. I have met some of his AIDS patients still alive after 17 or 18 years. He deserves to be invited to be part of this group.

Dr. Huber acknowledged the truth and very articulate way that Dr. Archambault expressed the need for integrity of the naturopathic profession, not diluting it. However, there are excellent practitioners with a variety of degrees, and she would welcome them.

Dr. Archambault responded there are some phenomenal physicians of all kinds. That wasn’t the point of my comment. If we start inviting others, then that loses some of essentially what makes us different.
Dr. Nelson agreed, saying we have been the poor step child. I was told get into a real medical school. Now it’s going the other way, and MDs are saying “we do naturopathic treatments,” even if they do not have a naturopath on staff at all.

Dr. Tamburri said, people 50 years ago took herbs and supplements, because they couldn’t afford conventional medicine. Now with insurance reimbursement being so lopsided, people do conventional, because they can’t afford us!

Dr. Wick emphasized the importance of educating about what naturopathic means. It means treating the whole person. That’s what attracts me to naturopathic medicine – It’s about treating people as a whole and not as a bunch of body parts.

Dr. Wick said she had been to some of the homeopathic meetings and conferences with MD(H)s. It’s funny because some of the MDs are more naturopathic in their thinking and philosophy than some of our fellow naturopaths. A good physician is a good physician, but with new grads it comes back to getting a job and being able to provide more residents.

Dr. Waters talked about his personal health history, having been stricken with polio at age 2. Back in Montana in the 1950s, if you got polio, you got hit with a hammer, literally. That was the treatment of the time. Being a farm boy, his parents had contact with veterinarians who treated with intravenous B vitamins. Bob got those B-vitamin treatments, and walks today. At a recent meeting of polio victims from that era, he was the only one walking and not in a wheelchair, and the only one among them who had been given the vitamin treatments.

NEXT BOARD MEETING: Friday, November 14, 2014 at noon, at the usual place, the Nature Works Best Medical Clinic in Tempe. Food from Chipotle’s will be served, unless objections surface before then. We will ask you a few days in advance to choose something from that menu.

Don’t forget $10 dues per quarter per person, payable to Dr. Lashutka in cash.

Please mark your calendars now, to keep that afternoon November 14 open for ANRI / NORI.

Please remember to bring your case studies in to present, at least one. We may have time for two each, for those of you feeling ambitious. And we should allow extra time for those who have not presented many cases yet.

Please remember the reason for having started this organization and bringing in your cases. Bringing in cases or your research, and discussing them and letting the IRB review them is probably the strongest thing that you can do, not only to protect your own practice – if ever scrutinized for the non-conventional treatments that you employ (treatments considered to be experimental by the FDA) – but also to protect the breadth of scope that we Arizona naturopathic physicians use!

Of course, agenda items may even be added at the last minute. Meeting adjourned 3:50 p.m.

Colleen Huber, NMD
Secretary, ANRI / NORI
August 22, 2014