Into the Light: Reflections on Whole-Systems Research After a Case Series Finds Reversal of Alzheimer's.

J. Weeks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2016.29008.jjw

2016-08-01

Abstract:AUCLA team led by Dale Bredesen, MD, recently published a study entitled ‘‘Reversal of Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease.’’ The report was a two-year update of outcomes from the initial paper by the same group. The team presented 36 potential clinical strategies, from which a personalized protocol was developed. A few were core: detoxification, sleep, and a strict relationship between eating and sleep. Also recommended and linked were: a gluten-free diet, yoga or another form of mindfulness, and a number of natural agents including curcumin, fish oil, and Vitamin D. Bredesen’s team dubbed their approach the MEND protocol—Metabolic Enhancement for NeuroDegeneration. While the authors did not present the approach as integrative, functional, or naturopathic, the approach was philosophically and practically aligned with these overlapping models. Each of the proposed therapeutics was intended either to reduce obstacles to health or to enhance the body’s capacity to heal. The outcomes were compelling. Patients who had left jobs were able to return to work. Others regained core math skills and made significant functional gains. Nine of 10 patients in the case series were doing better after treatment, many significantly. Science Alert quickly reviewed the study, echoing the prior headline: ‘‘Small trial shows memory loss from Alzheimer’s disease can be reversed.’’ A month later, on July 16, 2016, the article had 17,300 Facebook shares. The blogsite at the Medicaid-contractor Altarum Institute accepted a piece entitled ‘‘Is an Integrative Medicine Protocol Reversing Alzheimer’s?’’ Between the two reports from the UCLA group, Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine hosted Bredesen for grand rounds, and George Washington University’s Center for Integrative Medicine announced that they would deliver the MEND protocol. Given the cost of Alzheimer’s and its intractability with drug therapy, the study arguably represented the most potent argument for the value of whole-systems integrative practice since 1990 when Dean Ornish published on reversal of atherosclerosis through a multimodality, group-based, mind– body protocol. The irony is that this breakthrough report of an integrative health and medicine clinical approach did not come from a randomized or controlled trial. Instead, it was the result of a research method ranked for reliability at spitting distance from the bottom of the observational heap: case reports. The UCLA team’s work and the resulting public interest in the outcomes provoked a memory from a quarter century ago, general reflection on roads not taken in our research priorities, and an interest of this journal going forward. The specific recollection was from 1991, in the darkness before the dawn of the integrative era in the United States. Funds for alternative and complementary research were virtually non-existent. I was working with colleagues in the re-emerging field of naturopathic medicine to bootstrap observational research. Our twin goals from back then apply to most emerging professions, including present-day, wholesystems, complementary and integrative medicine fields: provide data to legislative bodies and decision makers to support the advancement of the field, and support continuous quality improvement in the field itself. Our group of research-minded professionals included three who would later serve on the National Advisory Council of the not-yet birthed National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. A fourth served on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services panel that eventually approved federal reimbursement for Dean Ornish’s integrative program. Our plan: for that year’s annual conference, rather than accepting proposals based on the three presentation forms that dominated prior events—literature reviews, philosophy, or stories of favorite patients—we asked each would-be presenter to share intimate data from their own practice. We called for retrospective or prospective case series, in a category of their choosing. Recruiting presenters was my job. The pitch went like this: Imagine an 11" · 17" sheet of paper with time across the top and patients down the side. Share what you did, when you did it. Document when you intervened again, and any outcomes, lab results, or merely subjective comments as captured in the patient’s record. It doesn’t matter if it’s 3 or 10 patients; just that it is sequential. Include those who don’t return. Share what you did and what you discovered, patient by patient, side-by-side. Let’s look at the patterns.