Issue: November/December 1996
Author: W. Bradford Smith
RECLAIMING OUR HEALTH
Exposing the worst of the American medical system, authorJohn Robbins implores us to trust in our own healing power and retake control of our health care.
At the age of 21, John Robbins, heir-apparent to the Baskin Robbins fortune, walked away from the family business, realizing that the purpose of his life didn't include selling ice cream.
In many ways the business represented a life-style diametrically opposed to what the young Robbins wanted. Almost 20 years later, with the publication of Diet for a New America, he gained national prominence as an advocate for healthy living, including eating a vegetarian diet. In his book, Robbins took on what he called the Great American Food Machine and revealed the emotional, economic, and ecological price we pay for our dependency on animal foods.
Diet for a New America touched many Americans deeply. Robbins received over 50,000 responses, many from people requesting additional information and wanting to know how they could translate the book's message into their own lives. Realizing he needed a way to channel this interest, Robbins formed EarthSave, a nonprofit organization set up to teach people the advantages of a plant-based diet.
Since that time, the per-capita consumption of beef has dropped from about 74 pounds per person per year to 59 pounds, a 20 percent decrease. For Robbins, the decrease translates into fewer heart attacks, strokes, and cases of diabetes and cancer; many miles of tropical rain forests left standing that would have otherwise been obliterated; and many more species still around that would have otherwise been extinguished. But Robbins isn't someone who rests on his laurels. The ink had barely dried on Diet for a New America when he began looking around for a new giant to slay. The fact that so many people look to their physicians for nutritional and dietary guidance as well as preventive medicine troubled Robbins, especially since, as he points out, three-quarters of the MDs in this country have never completed a single course in nutrition. Other peculiarities about the Western medical model didn't sit well with him either, particularly the "medical myth" that health comes from the doctor, drugstore, or hospital.
After all, Robbins had had first-hand experience that convinced him this myth wasn't true. As a child, he'd been diagnosed with a form of polio that left him paralyzed from the waist down for a time. Even though mobility eventually came back, his left leg continued to be weak, and by the time he was 21, it measured several inches shorter than his right. His physician told him there was nothing anyone could do for him, since he had stopped growing. Luckily, Robbins didn't listen. He continued practicing the yoga he had started a few years earlier, changed to a much healthier diet, and began taking more responsibility for his life. As he did so, his leg grew and became as strong as the other. Today he is a marathon runner and competitive triathlete.
For Robbins, his next task was clear: to explode the medical myth he saw as so limiting and destructive. Ten years-and volumes of research-later, he completed his most recent book, Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing. According to one physician who read it, what Diet for a New America did for the National Cattleman's Association, Reclaiming Our Health will do for the American Medical Association.
Yoga Journal: In your new book, you show how the AMA has been waging a systematic and successful effort to suppress and discredit all other forms of medicine which they view as competition.
John Robbins: Yes, the campaign to protect their monopoly has been fought on many fronts. One of the most blatant examples is the case of chiropractic. There was an extremely important lawsuit and trial in the 1980s. The chiropractors sued the AMA and other members of the medical establishment for trying to destroy their profession. It produced a bitter and drawn-out court battle that lasted almost 15 years and was fought at every level of the legal system, all the way to the Supreme Court. It was an incredibly important case, much more deserving, to my mind, of being called the trial of the century than the O.J. Simpson case. The AMA was finally found guilty of conspiring to eliminate the chiropractic profession.
YJ: Since that court case, it doesn't appear that the AMA has learned its lesson. From what you say, it's still practicing "Medical Monopoly-the game nobody wins."
JR: That's right. I feel sad when I think about how many people have suffered because alternative therapies that could have helped them have been unjustly discredited and never given a fair chance to be tested. Yet it continues. The AMA currently publishes a book titled Alternative Health Methods, which stands as it's primary statement on the subject. The AMA catalog describes the book as an authoritative source of information on "unproven, disproven, controversial, fraudulent, and/or otherwise questionable approaches, such as acupuncture, faith healing, biofeedback, homeopathy, naturopathy, colonic irrigation, and more!" With a less than open-minded attitude, the AMA book calls holistic medicine "a melange of banalities, truisms, exaggerations and falsehoods, overlaid with disparagement of logical reasoning itself." This from an organization whose motto is "physicians dedicated to the health of America," which calls itself the voice of American medicine. I think, rather, it is the voice of fear and greed.
YJ: What has been the cost, to the general public, of having such a powerful force as the AMA play this game of Medical Monopoly?
JR: It's enormous. For one thing, it's certainly been one of the reasons that we spend far more money on health care than any other nation in the world, and yet we are the only fully industrialized country that does not guarantee minimum health care to every single citizen. We've gone the route of drugs and expensive medical technology instead of pursuing low- tech, community-based, health-supporting approaches. It has also been spiritually impoverishing, because the approaches that have been denounced and repudiated without being fairly tested are often the very ones that can help us live in our bodies with integrity and wholeness. They can often help us unify and balance our internal forces.
YJ: Unfortunately, too many of us continue to listen to the voice of fear and greed instead of learning to listen to our own intuition.
JR: Yes. So many of us trust doctors, and we don't trust ourselves. We trust experts to know more than we do about our own bodies. We need to learn about our own bodies; we need to appreciate the exquisite interactions that take place between our bodies, minds, and souls. We need to see doctors as resources, not gods. A lot of people seem to think that M.D. stands for "Medical Deity."
YJ: Reading your book, I was shocked by the many instances of greed, deception, and blatant discrimination by the American Medical Association you uncovered. How did you feel discovering such practices apparently designed to convince the American public that alternative health care is a sham?
JR: At times I've felt saddened by what I've learned and sometimes greatly outraged. I believe these emotions exist to provoke a response. Seeing so many people harmed by a medical system fixated on drugs and surgery, and seeing alternative approaches condemned as quackery without being given a fair chance to be tested, has fueled my commitment to see this change. I want to see our dominator-oriented medical system shift to more of a partnership system. I want to see the best practices and methods of alternative medicine available side by side with the best conventional approaches. I want to see people getting the support they need and deserve in assuming control over their lives. Modern Western medicine is quite male dominated. I'm not just referring to the fact that the AMA has never in its 148-year history had a woman president. Or that it never even had a female board member until 1989. Or that only three percent of all the medical school deans in the U.S. today are female. These numbers are telling, but beyond that is the fact that the feminine principle is so dishonored in U.S. medicine. Alternative approaches such as midwifery, acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy, herbs, chiropractic, and many others nurture the innate healing forces and potentials of the human body and being. Seeking to nurture more than to control, they represent a more feminine aspect of medicine. When these methods are denounced and banished from practice, as they have been in the U.S. more than anywhere else in the world, people are not only deprived of the physical health benefits these ways can bring, but also of the understanding and relationship to life that they represent.
YJ: You just touched on two models of society, which Riane Eisler discusses in The Chalice and the Blade. The dominator model, commonly thought of as patriarchal, involves the ranking of one human over another. The partnership model is based on the principle of linking rather than ranking. Could you comment on how these two models have impacted our health care system?
JR: We have today what almost amounts to an imperial medical profession. Doctors are, for the most part, still taught to see their roles as dictators, not collaborators. Patients are expected to be subservient, to do what they're told. In fact, doctors today frequently talk about patient "compliance." They assume the patient's role is merely obedience rather than growth and responsibility. In fact, according to an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Nov. 1984), the average amount of time a patient is allowed to speak to his or her physician before being interrupted is 18 seconds. But, even more to the point, only two percent of those patients go on to finish their statements after being interrupted. The dominator approach has produced a medicalized society where parents who feed their children junk food but take them for yearly checkups are considered to be doing the right thing. And where people who eat bacon and eggs for breakfast and then take cholesterol-lowering drugs are viewed as responsible. Every day, women who have obediently followed the rules say to their doctors, "I can't understand how this happened to me; I've come in for exams every year; I've had regular mammograms; and yet now I've got cancer."
If we are to create a society dedicated to supporting and maintaining health for all peoples, then it is up to us to do everything we can to place genuine responsibility for our lives into our own hands. The medical establishment will only get off its pedestal when we get off our knees.
YJ: What about the partnership model? How would that make things better?
JR: A partnership model for medicine would bring about a change in the way many health professionals relate to their patients. Their interactions would no longer be examples of dominance and submission, but would be examples of cooperation and mutual respect. Doctors would not have to carry the burden of pretending they know it all, but could befriend the people in their care, support them in claiming their integrity, and help them to take responsibility for their lives and choices. A shift in a partnership direction would also change the way we experience our bodies. Dominator thinking views the human body as a machine beset by the propensity to break down and cause problems. A more enlightened approach would recognize that each human body is extraordinary, and that every single human being is a miracle. It would help people respect the exquisite intelligence their bodies possess and see the body as an ally and a teacher, naturally blessed with marvelous healing capabilities. Such a medical system would help people to honor the wisdom of their bodies.
YJ: When you speak of the partnership approach, you're including aspects of conventional medicine, right?
JR: Right. The partnership approach involves the best of both, using each when they're appropriate. This is important. Some people have become so fanatically against Western medicine that they deprive themselves of the very real benefits it has to offer. There are times when conventional medicine can be glorious. If I had appendicitis, or a broken leg, or was in a car accident, or had certain kinds of bacterial infections, I would definitely utilize modern medicine. For many structural and mechanical difficulties, and particularly for crisis and emergency medicine, Western medicine has a great deal to offer. Some of our medical technology is spectacular. But in other areas, Western medicine is not so effective. For most degenerative diseases, for autoimmune conditions, for viral infections including the common cold and herpes and AIDS, for cancer, alternatives are often a better bet. The idea is to use the type of medicine that's appropriate for the given condition. But the AMA orientation is fixated on drugs and other high-tech approaches. It is monopolistic and territorial and has been very successful in keeping the alternative approaches down, in refusing to recognize them as legitimate.
YJ: Is there a danger of the dominator mentality taking over and influencing the alternative health movement too?
JR: Yes, I think so. Some people in alternative health are very dogmatic in their approach. They can be as patriarchal and totalitarian in their way as the AMA is in its. Most of us have been taught to doubt ourselves. When we become ill, we automatically assume that our bodies have betrayed us, and we seek an outside authority to tell us what to do. When we lose faith in ourselves, we become more vulnerable to authoritarian attitudes. We may encourage these attitudes in our practitioners by the fear we bring to the interaction.
But I think that illness can be viewed as a messenger, one bringing gifts as well as pain. The dominator approach treats illness as an enemy to be extinguished, a war to be won, but there is another possibility. Illness can be seen as a life-changing process, a rite of passage, an opportunity for change and transformation. It doesn't just bring danger and threat. Always, in some way or another, it brings opportunities. Herman Hesse once wrote that God does not send us despair to destroy us but to awaken new life in us. So, too, I believe that illness, even terminal illness, can be an opportunity for healing. Few things seem as important to me today as restoring our faith in ourselves, in our own minds and hearts, and in the activities that truly generate and protect health.
YJ: Are there implications in all this for how we die?
JR: Yes. Today, fewer than 20 percent of people in the U.S. die at home, the lowest figure in the world. And institutionalized deaths can be spiritually draining. I remember a story of a 78-year-old man in a hospital who witnessed the intubation and unsuccessful resuscitation attempt on a fellow patient. Afterward, he begged to be left alone. "Listen, doctor," he said. "I don't want to die with tubes sticking out all over me. I don't want that my children should remember their father that way. All my life I tried to be a mensch, you understand? All my life, I tried to live so I could hold my head up. Rich I wasn't, but I managed to put my sons through college. I wanted to have dignity, even though I didn't have much money and didn't speak good English. Now I'm dying. Okay, I'm not complaining. I'm old and tired and have seen enough of life, believe me. But I still want to be a man, not a vegetable that someone comes and waters every day- not like him."
Although this man was clearly a competent adult, and made his wishes clear, they were not honored. He was "coded," tagged by hospital personnel to be resuscitated at all costs. Eventually, he managed to disconnect himself from the machinery, leaving a handwritten note to his physician: "Death is not the enemy, Doctor. Inhumanity is."
YJ: That's very sad and all too common. How would a shift to partnership medicine change the way we treat the dying?
JR: Dominator thinking sees death as a failure. In a system more oriented to partnership, death would be embraced as part of the human experience and understood to be as natural as life itself. Dying people would be allowed to die, when their time had come, with dignity and without unnecessary pain. They would not be manipulated and controlled; they would be cherished.
YJ: You talk not only about our culture's treatment of death and dying, but dominator medicine's view of birth. How does this view impact the birthing experience for American women?
JR: Living in a medicalized society, many of us have lost trust in our natural cycles and processes. The birthing process is a prime example. Many people believe that U.S. birth practices have changed greatly since the 1960s. But although many American hospitals now present a birth- friendly image, the reality of most hospital births is distressingly high- tech and impersonal. Women are still treated as objects from which babies are to be extracted. Birth is still seen as a dangerous process that must be managed and controlled. It is true that husbands and other significant others are now usually allowed to be present, but the fear of something going wrong is still the dominant underlying emotion. The furniture is more homey, and the wallpaper is more cheerful, but I'm sorry to report that the last few decades have actually seen an increasing reliance on technology and interventions. The result is that women giving birth in modern hospitals often feel like passive victims of events that are occurring completely outside of their control.
Dominator medicine is patriarchal medicine and is particularly hard on women. Some 80 percent of today's obstetricians and gynecologists are male, even though all of their patients are female. They are also surgeons, trained to see women's bodies as accidents waiting to happen, and have been taught to intervene. In the 1960s, the U.S. cesarean rate was only five percent. Yet today, nearly 25 percent of U.S. births are cesarean sections. Nearly a quarter of all laboring mothers have their babies surgically removed from them. In some hospitals in more affluent areas, the cesarean rate approaches 50 percent.
YJ: Why the increase?
JR: Well, that's interesting. I asked an obstetrician whom I was debating on national television how much he got paid for doing a cesarean and how much he got paid when a woman gave birth naturally. He looked very uncomfortable when I mentioned that in the state of Washington, the cesarean rate in nonprofit hospitals is 20 percent; the rate in for-profit hospitals is 36 percent. And when a Kansas health maintenance organization, Total Health Care, changed its policies and began to reimburse doctors equally for cesareans and for normal deliveries so that there was no longer a financial incentive to do cesareans, the cesarean rate dropped from 28.7 percent to 13.5 percent in one year.
YJ: But aren't obstetrical interventions necessary to ensure the delivery of healthy babies?
JR: U.S. doctors typically say that they deliver babies. This language bespeaks such arrogance. Women deliver their babies. And they do better when attended by other caring women, including midwives. Studies have consistently shown that midwifery produces healthier outcomes for both mothers and babies in all but the highest-risk cases. In Europe, 75 percent of births are attended by midwives, but in the U.S. the figure is less than four percent.
While our cesarean rate has been skyrocketing, our international rank in infant mortality has actually plummeted. The United States, with the highest per capita expenditure on health care of any nation in the world, now ranks 25th in infant mortality.
The American obstetrical establishment continues to persecute midwives, attack home birth, and try to close down freestanding birth centers. Yet the incidence of fetal distress in babies born in hospitals is 17 times greater than for comparable babies born in freestanding birth centers. The incidence of neurological abnormalities is three times greater; and the incidence of jaundice is six times greater. Women laboring in hospitals need far more drugs, and the cesarean section rate is four times greater in hospitals. These are important statistics. Child abuse is three to nine times more common among cesarean mothers than among mothers who give birth naturally.
YJ: I've heard obstetrical interventions touted as being responsible for the tremendous historical decline in maternal and infant mortality over the years. Is that true?
JR: No. The real reasons are advances in public health, sanitation, and nutrition, improvement in women's working conditions, the addition of vitamin D to milk (thus preventing rickets), and the development of antibiotics.
YJ: You spoke about the dominator model's influence on women's birthing experience, but it's also had a real impact on the overall health care of women, particularly on our views about birth control, abortion, menopause, and the use and misuse of hormones, particularly estrogens like Premarin. How did the medical profession get to be so chauvinistic?
JR: The AMA was first chartered in 1847. The name, the American Medical Association, was chosen to give the impression that the organization was the voice of American medicine itself, and to disguise the fact that it was really a trade lobby formed to further the self- interest of its members. It was as if the American Bar Association called itself the American Justice Association, pretending to represent the idea of justice itself rather than the interests of the lawyers who are its members.
One of the first goals of the AMA, according to the actual language of its charter, was to eliminate the competition. In order to accomplish this, the AMA sought to discredit and destroy the female healing community, because at that time it was to women that most people went for health care.
YJ: Not just for births?
JR: No, I'm not speaking just about births but all kinds of health care. In those days, healing was a community affair. It had not yet become a commodity. It wasn't a business yet. We are so used to the idea of the doctor as a man. But our situation today, in which most doctors are men, is a rather bizarre historical aberration. For centuries, people turned to women for help when they were ill, not to men. Women were the primary repositories of the healing traditions. They were the nurturers and the counselors, the ones who understood how to use native plants, who knew ancient methods of birth control and taught them to other women, who could, if necessary, perform abortions. The arts of healing lay primarily in the female domain, linked to the spirit of motherhood, combining wisdom and caring, tenderness and skill. The arts and practices of healing were neighborly and familial services, intimately interwoven with all of the rest of life. The skills and knowledge of healing were not held exclusively by a particular profession; they were shared freely and belonged to the community as a whole.
YJ: So how did the AMA go about destroying these practices?
JR: In order for the AMA to do away with its competition, it had to attack the network of female healers. Hence the war on midwifery. And because it was the female healers who performed abortions, the AMA campaigned to make abortions illegal. The campaign would succeed in making every woman who performed or who underwent an abortion a criminal. Before the AMA's campaign, abortions were legal in the U.S. up until the mother could feel the fetus move or kick, an event that typically takes place in the 16th to 18th week of pregnancy. At that time, even the Catholic Church was relatively tolerant of early abortion. It was not until 1869 that Pope Pius IX declared the Church opposed to all abortions. The AMA, however, beat the Pope to the punch. In the 1850s, the AMA launched a crusade to outlaw abortion. This was the organization's first national lobbying effort and the campaign that put the group on the political map. Although AMA public statements opposing abortion were often expressed in ethical terms regarding the sanctity of life, internal documents show that the real motive was to get rid of female healers. In 1871 the AMA issued an official policy statement on abortion, referring to those who performed the procedure as executioners and paid assassins. This proclamation remained in place for nearly a hundred years, during which time millions of U.S. women suffered, and many died, from abortions performed under unsanitary conditions.
Meanwhile, the fact that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies was rarely mentioned, because the AMA was opposed to birth control. Until 1937, the AMA opposed doctors giving any kind of contraceptive advice to patients. And it wasn't until 1970 that the organization got around to mentioning birth control in its service guidelines.
Currently, a remarkably high percentage of all U.S. abortions (about a third of the total) are undergone by teenage girls. The lack of education regarding family planning methods is one of the primary reasons that we now have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy among teenagers in the industrial world. Yet, in 1994, the AMA issued a policy statement declaring that physicians "should be free to withhold contraceptive advice from teenage girls whose sexual behavior exposes them to possible conception."
YJ: Certainly one area where the Medical Deity mentality has flourished has been in the treatment of cancer. The AMA has staunchly backed chemotherapy and radiation therapy, dumping billions of dollars into those efforts and research. Yet, according to your findings, these treatment regimes are far from effective. Have we been backing the wrong horse for so many years?
JR: Yes, I think we have. When chemotherapy was first being developed, there were really grand hopes for it. That was in the day when a lot of people believed that technology was the path to enlightenment. Nuclear energy was going to produce energy too cheap to meter. Atomic bombs were going to end war forever. The green revolution, with its hybrid seeds, petroleum-based fertilizers, and pesticides, was going to eliminate world hunger. We were so impressed with antibiotics that we thought we'd soon have the magic bullet for cancer.
So we poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the chemotherapy effort. And there were some gains-just enough to keep the effort alive. Extended remissions were achieved in some forms of childhood cancer, most notably acute lymphocytic leukemia, as well as in cancers that primarily strike adolescents, such as Hodgkin's disease. It became possible to cure a number of childhood cancers that had previously been fatal. And yet, for the vast majority of cancers, chemotherapy has little positive to offer. The experience can be brutal, and offers realistic hope of cure in only about three percent of cases. Only rarely can the drugs extend survival or enhance quality of life. Yet they are given today to most people with cancer.
YJ: If that's the case, why would oncologists continue to use chemotherapy as a treatment?
JR: The cancer establishment is deeply wedded to the chemotherapy approach. There are some rather egregious conflicts of interest involved. For example, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York is the world's largest private cancer research and treatment center. James D. Robinson III is chairman of the board. He also just happens to be the director of Bristol-Meyers Squibb, the company that by itself accounts for nearly half of all chemotherapy drug sales in the world. Richard L. Gelb, chairman of the board at Bristol-Meyers Squibb, happens also to be the vice chairman of Memorial Sloan-Kettering. When Samuel Broder resigned as executive director of the National Cancer Institute in 1995, he took a new post as director of Ivax, Inc., another prominent chemotherapy company. To find a replacement for Broder, the National Cancer Institute hired Paul Marks, who happened to be a director of Pfizer, Inc., yet another leading manufacturer of chemotherapy drugs. These are the people who run the war on cancer. They are pursuing a course in which they are heavily invested financially. They're not about to change.
YJ: This sounds quite corrupt.
JR: I'm only giving you the barest tip of the iceberg. Some of it is hard to believe. John S. Reed is director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Board of Overseers and Managers. He is in a position of enormous influence at the world's largest private cancer center. Yet this man, John S. Reed, also happens to be a director of Philip Morris.
YJ: What bothers me is that the cancer industry doesn't seem to provide cancer patients with choices. Given the success rate of chemotherapy, you would think physicians would be willing to try anything that worked.
JR: I agree. People living with cancer face many difficult choices, and I believe passionately that they deserve the best of all available worlds. If an aspect of conventional medical treatment can be of use, I'm all for it. If surgery can help them (and it often can), then they should have that option. If chemotherapy or radiation, provided at just the right time with ample nutritional and emotional support, can truly help them, then wonderful. And yet, by the same token, if blends of herbs, or dietary changes, or other alternative methods can be useful, as they often can, then these options, too, should be made available. What we don't need is an inquisition-like atmosphere, where any practice or belief that does not conform to the dominant paradigm is considered heresy.
YJ: Even with all the corruption you've uncovered, as I read Reclaiming Our Health I kept getting a sense of optimism coming through, even though we're dealing with some very difficult problems-a sense that we can do something about this.
JR: I believe it's possible that the chaos, upheaval, and dysfunction that marks our current health care system could represent a potential turning point, a healing crisis, a pivotal point of transformation, perhaps an unprecedented opportunity for fundamental personal and social change. I see that it's possible for the breakdown of our medical system to lead to a greater healing, both for us as individuals and for society itself. The intensity of the crisis is shocking many of us into taking more responsibility for our health and our lives. Increasing numbers of us are seeing that we cannot remain passive bystanders to our own health and expect the medical system to rescue us. We're seeing how false and destructive is the belief that the more money we spend and the more technology we employ, the healthier we will be. We're seeing how alienating and harmful it can be to think that experts always know more than we do about our bodies and our minds.
The current medical crisis is serving to challenge the assumptions many of us have held and, in the process, leading us to become aware of more satisfying and fulfilling ways to live. We're seeing that there may not always be a technological or pharmaceutical answer to our ills, and that consuming drugs may not always be the best way to alleviate our difficulties. We're seeing that if we don't want to be dependent on a system that is increasingly expensive and dehumanized, we need to find other approaches on which we can reliably depend.
When we awaken to our mortality and to the vulnerability of the human body, to its frailty and its fragility, we can awaken also to its healing powers and to its sacredness. Then we naturally begin to undertake healing practices and to live more healthy and purposeful lives. When we realize that doctors aren't gods, we are more free to seek the divine within us and to give it increasing expression in our lives.
As a society, we are going through a hard time now, a collective dark night of the soul. Some of us have learned to respond to this with fear. But at the same time many of us are learning to look for the positive and healing possibilities inherent in this situation. As a society, we're in the midst of a healing crisis. It's a vulnerable time, and whether it leads to greater healing or to greater destruction depends in large part on the individual choices that we make. A lot depends on whether we activate ourselves and take actions that add beauty and understanding to our lives and to the world. Insofar as we are imprisoned in the medical myth, we do not know the healing power of our own passion and love. Insofar as we liberate ourselves to our own healing potential, we can best serve the unfolding of love in our lives and in our world.
W. Bradford Swift is codirector of the Life On Purpose Foundation, 1160 W. Blue Ridge Rd., Flat Rock, NC 28731; e-mail: LifeOnPurpose@aol.com. RESOURCE
To receive information about EarthSave, the nonprofit organization founded by John Robbins, or to receive bulk copies of Reclaiming Our Health, call (800) 362-3648.
end-
Dual-Cartridge Drinking Water Enhancement System
Complete
with twin filter cartridges, chrome faucet diverter and easy to follow
instructions. Installs in seconds, switch from filtered to unfiltered
with the touch of a button.
Voted Best Buy 2006 by Consumers Digest Magazine
Price: $99.99
| |