Letters of SupportTo be published, each letter must include your valid name, address and phone number. Orange County Register article, February 7, 1999 California Physician cover story, January 1999 San Jose Mercury News article, October 21, 1998 Sacramento Bee article September 3, 1998 San Francisco Examiner article July 19, 1998 (this was a smear campaign effort, but we have included it here so you can understand the letters below referring to it) Amicus brief (letter) to Board from California Medical Association Amicus brief (letter) to Board from Center for Public Interest Law Letters by author A.M. || B.C. || B.P. || B.R. || C.K. || C.M.  ||
D.P. ||
F.J.(PhD) ||
J.A.(MD) ||
K.S. ||
K.S.2||
M.R. ||
M.W. ||
N.M. ||
P.L. ||
R.J.(MD) ||
R.K.(MD) ||
R.K.(MEd) ||
R.T.(MD) ||
S.C. ||
T.I.(PhD) ||
T.O. ||
V.M.(MD) ||
V.S. ||
. 12 Mar 1999 As I'd imagine hundreds of others in this country are, I'm frightened by the implications of the Sinaiko Case -- My name is Margaret Russell, I'm currently living in New York (considered living in California, but I'd NEVER go now...) and am receiving EPD shots currently. I'm 27 years old and have been suffering from CFS, MCS, fibro myalgia, problems with candida and an underactive thyroid for the past five years. For four years, I was overmedicated -- steroids, decongestants, muscle relaxers, sleeping pills, nose sprays, inhalers -- you name it. I was also popping caffeine pills to stay awake and alert. I was drugged and feeling worse than ever. I'm sure you receive statements like this every day: EPD is the only procedure that's helped me. After my first shot, I enjoyed two weeks of blissful health -- I hadn't felt this good since I'd been on prednisone! I've just had my second shot, look forward to it's taking effect, and am only taking thyroid medication and a number of over-the-counter supplements. EPD has allowed me to hope for a healthful future. Understanding as I do now the struggle going on for control of my immune system, I've no doubt EPD will help me prevail. And, believe me, after years of doctor hopping (I'd seen neurologists, ears-nose-throat doctors, allergists -- had CAT scans, MRIs -- you name it to help diagnose what was causing my severe dizzy spells), I was not expecting EPD to work. It was a surprise to me. Please let me know if there's anything I can do, outside of the suggestions listed on your site, to help. I'm willing to testify, to share my records -- anything to help. Winning the right for doctors to administer EPD is, for me, a fight for my life.
-- Meghan (Margaret) Russell
. October 30, 1998 To Whom It May Concern, My son Carl was a patient of Dr. Robert Sinaiko for about 2 years. Carl is almost eight years old, and has multiple diagnosis including epilepsy, Landau Kleffner Syndrome, autism and mental retardation. Dr. Sinaiko was able to cure my son of his chronic diarrhea by treating a yeast infection in his intestine with oral Amphotericin B for a few months. At first we tried another anti-fungal medications, Sporanox, but that was ineffective. I am very grateful to Dr. Sinaiko because other doctors were at a loss on how to treat Carl’s diarrhea. My son was potty trained within a few months after the treatment, simplifying our life tremendously. Carl also started receiving EPD shots while he was a patient of Dr. Sinaiko’ s. He just received his twelfth and last shot. Since he began receiving these shots, his hyperactivity has decreased, and he appears more focused. Dr. Sinaiko has always been very understanding, knowledgeable, and patient. He has taken the time to answer all of my questions about treatments for my son. He made himself available for telephone consultations as needed. Once when I needed to speak to him over a weekend he was very reliable in returning my call promptly. I wish more doctors were as concerned about their patients as Dr. Sinaiko. Sincerely yours, CM . October 28, 1998 Letter to MDF: As I was in need of treatment for an allergic condition, I first carefully researched the literature. I found the best hope for my condition to be EPD treatment. Then I found a doctor offering EPD treatment, Dr. Sinaiko. I am pleased to say his treatment was dramatically successful in a condition which had persisted all my life, despite conventional treatment. If this is Voodoo medicine, we need more of it and less of the "alternative." The action of this medical board must be overturned by whatever means available and Dr. Sinaiko's practice of medicine restored to the position of prestige and achievement it deserves and enjoyed prior to this tax payer supported witch hunt. If a fine physician Dr. Sinaiko can be put out of practice by a biased and partisan medical board, the other doctors who offer good, effective alternative therapies cannot be far behind. This would be a great loss of the state of California. RK, MD . October 17, 1998 Members of the Board c/o Medical Board of California 1426 Howe Avenue, Suite 54 Sacramento, CA 95825 Powerful special interests caused an innocent (but troublesome) man to be brought to trial on charges of dubious merit. The government official before whom the trial occurred understood this, but did not have the character to stand up to the political pressure, and convicted as the special interests desired. Pontius Pilate washed his hands. More recently, in Pasteur’s era in Europe, the basic science underlying the practice of medicine was insufficient to explain puerperal fever. The first few physicians to realize that washing their hands would save a lot of lives were removed from their posts – or even livelihoods – for making the profession look bad. To this day, physicians wash their hands in front of the patient to demonstrate that they understand and accept the germ theory of medicine. Today, the basic theory underlying the practice of medicine is insufficient to explain Gulf War Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, ADHD, and a host of similar ailments. There are a handful of non-alternative-medicine physicians in the State of California who take these illnesses seriously, both working with patients to mitigate the illness as best they can and advancing the knowledge of the medical profession about such illnesses. Dr Robert Sinaiko is one of these caring, dedicated physicians. However, advancing such knowledge clearly threatens many special interests: pharmaceutical companies selling Ritalin, insurance companies claiming diseases akin to Gulf War Syndrome do not exist, HMOs claiming likewise, and the credibility of medical professionals who were taught to say "it’s all in your head" instead of "I don’t understand." I don’t know why the charges of dubious merit were brought against Dr. Sinaiko, or why the Attorney General’s office spent so much time and energy on a case where no patient was harmed, or why the administrative law judge in the case felt the testimony of a competitor of Dr. Sinaiko’s outweighed that of ten respected mainstream physicians. What I do know is that whether this represents staff run amok, or more likely the influence of one or more powerful special interests, that an innocent, caring, leading edge physician has been stripped of his medical license. This was wrong. It was factually wrong, ethically wrong, and morally wrong. Dr. Sinaiko’s case is back before the Medical board in early November. This decision has your name on it. Please make sure you have the facts, without any possibility that the Medical Board’s staff or anyone else can have slanted the information you are given. If you don’t have time to get the facts, you should seriously consider resigning your post. Because wrong is being done, and it’s being done in your name. Do you know what’s being done in your name, and do you have the character to stand up for what’s right, regardless of political pressure? Ask yourself that question, the next time you wash your hands. Your fellow Californian,
SC
. October 28, 1998 Members of the Medical Board of California: I am writing to you about your case against Dr. Robert Sinaiko. He has been my main physician for fifteen years. He has truly seen me through the worst of times with my health. I have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity - a diagnosis many recognize as a very disabling condition. Because of Dr. Sinaiko’s efforts, my health has greatly improved over the last few years. With his continuing care, I expect that I will look forward to a healthy future, and not one colored by extreme disability. Dr. Sinaiko is steadfast in his dedication and commitment to his patients and to medicine. He is an exceptional role model. I feel extremely fortunate that he is my physician. I admire his courage, honor and integrity - traits that are so obviously absent in those who are prosecuting him. We need more progressive, creative, intelligent and dedicated physicians like Dr. Sinaiko. With the California Medical Board working so hard to destroy the progress of medicine (along with the doctor’s and his patients’ lives) this will not happen. Your persecution of a dedicated physician with high standards and no complaints against him is deplorable. Nobody is fooled by the travesty of justice that you are attempting to carry out. Your blatant attempts to destroy an innocent individual because you don’t like his medical opinion is unamerican. I would equate your efforts with something akin to book burning - the suppression of freedom, information and choice. The biased and inaccurate publicity by the Examiner, the sham trial, and the subsequent $99,000 billed to Dr. Sinaiko for the prosecution of himself, is a deliberate and calculated attempt to ruin a man’s life. If a physician has a medical opinion you do not agree with, he/she either conforms to what you want, or his/her license is pulled and their life is ruined. This is medical terrorism. The actions of Deputy Attorney General , Alfredo Terrazo and the Medical Board and its staff inspire nothing but the most profound contempt. KS, San Jose . To the Editor, I was horrified when I read the one-sided article regarding San Francisco allergist Robert Sinaiko ("Questionable treatment?" July 19.) My 11-year-old daughter was born allergic to life. She had two anaphylactic reactions by the time she was a year and a half. She cried all the time. Traditional medication was useless. We were told to keep her away from things she was severely allergic to -- she could take antihistamines and just live with the rest. A friend steered me to Sinaiko. After nine treatments, my daughter is much better. She is still allergic to molds, but is able to eat a normal diet. She has an optimistic, sunny personality and is rarely ill. I don't live in fear anymore. M.W., Menlo Park . To The Editor of The Examiner, I was appalled by the unfounded attack on the character of one of the brilliant allergy specialists in practice today, Dr. Robert Sinaiko. I could not believe the inaccurate and twisted portrayal of his work by Scott Winokur which you printed on page 1 of the Sunday paper, July 19, 1998, presumably to maximize the sensational effect. There is ample medical literature in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Lancet) supporting the view that diet can affect behavior in children and dietary controls are a preferred alternative for many parents in controlling hyperactivity in children. Likewise there are articles supporting the efficacy of allergy shots based on the low dose tolerance effects of enzyme potentiated desensitization. The method requires one injection every two months in contrast to the weekly shots of traditional allergy desensitization. While the material per shot is more expensive than the traditional extracts, the total cost to the patient is less, not to mention the added convenience. Taken orally, Amphotericin B is one of the safest antifungal drugs. It is often given intravenously in catastrophic illness and is then associated with renal damage. The sad story of Mr. Hawkins is poorly served by this report. The drug Flagyl is FDA cleared in the U.S. and was used appropriately by Dr. Sinaiko. One has to wonder what Dr. Sinaiko did to this tragically unfortunate patient to make him attractive to night-crawling tarantulas. I suspect Mr. Hawkins saw a number of other physicians who failed or even refused to try to treat him before Dr. Sinaiko gave what I am sure was his best effort to help. Sincerely yours, V.M., MD . Dear Editor, I, too, must add my support for one of the greatest doctors I have had the privilege to know professionally. At 70 I am still leading a productive and adventuresome life thanks to the medical knowledge of Robert Sinaiko. I was under his care and treatment for many years. I was one of the first receivers of the EPD treatment and responded most favorably. I could again work; I could again drive a car; I could again be around people and not suffer from their colognes and perfumes; I could eat and drink many items that had previously made me severely ill. And, I could get up at 5a.m. put in a full day without the feelings of complete exhaustion. Life became meaningful again! For over 22 years I had been told all of my aches and pains were "in my head" and to see a psychiatrist. I did and was pronounced to be NORMAL! In fact, extremely normal! I looked healthy and felt lousy. I had to stop teaching. My psychologist husband and I were at a loss as to what was transpiring. Extensive reading took us into the area of environmental medicine with doctors who have had more training than so-called allergists. Finally an accurate diagnosis was made: cerebral reactions influenced by chemicals. Instead of having a psychosomatic illness, I had a somaticpsycho illness .... body exposures affected mind performances. Yes, the procedure was expensive. Yes, I had to pay for it, for my insurance company wouldn't. But, the results have far exceeded the cost. I am up and doing! Thank you, Robert Sinaiko, for giving me back my life! C.K., Redwood City . To the Editor, Scott Winokur's article on the case of Dr. Robert Sinaiko left the impression that those of us who suffer from varying degrees of environmental illness/multiple chemical sensitivities (EI/MCS) are either psychological disturbed or immensely gullible. This impression was conveyed by quotes from Deputy Attorney General Alfredo Terrazas and Robert Fellmeth [director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego] without research into how much this condition has been recognized in the last few years. No one could accuse the Social Security Administration of being progressive or "gullible," yet this federal agency now recognizes EI/MCS as a potentially disabling condition. Industry has created close to 200,000 synthetic toxic chemicals in the last 50 years. It is hardly "paranoid" for consumers and patients to wonder whether exposure to such chemicals (many of them in common consumer products) is partially responsible for the enormous increases in asthma, cancer, environmental illnesses, etc., found in our country and throughout the world. A.M., San Francisco . Editor: I write this letter in defense of Dr. Robert Sinaiko as a patient whose life he may have saved. readers of your July 19th front page article, "Questionable Treatment?" would be surprised to know that Dr. Sinaiko is on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, a medical school hardly reputed for quackery. He is also a Diplomate of the American Board of Allergy and Immunology, and a Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine, distinctions not given lightly. You refer to desensitization as though it were some exotic or bogus therapy when in fact it is the standard medical procedure for the treatment of allergy. EPD differs from other desensitizing treatments by including a large number of allergens in low doses that make EPD safer than the standard treatments. EPD is accepted in other countries including England, where EPD is recognized by the National Health Service, and is under study by the Food and Drug Administration in this country. Clinical research on EPD appears in the leading British medical journal, Lancet. You state that Flagyl (Metronidazole) is carcinogenic in lab animals. Many prescription drugs are carcinogenic or deadly when used in high doses. Nonetheless, Flagyl is the standard treatment for parasites such as amoebas and Giardia. You may verify this in either the Physicians Desk Reference, the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, or if you prefer a layman's reference, The Pill Book. Your article implies that Dr. Sinaiko is out to fleece patients. Far from it. Dr. Sinaiko is the only doctor I have ever known to provide free scheduled telephone consultations; moreover, during these consultations he types notes into a computer to keep a full record of the caller's progress. Additionally, Dr. Sinaiko has the best bedside manner of any physician I have known. Your article gives the impression that Dr. Sinaiko practices alternative medicine and to reinforce this impression, the article makes ridiculing use of quotes, e.g., "desensitize," to refer to standard medical terms. Dr. Sinaiko may be unconventional in some regards, but he is not an alternative practitioner. In 1992 when I entered Alta Bates Hospital's emergency room doubled over in agony, the staff physicians, not knowing what to do, knocked me out with Demerol. After I regained consciousness, the attending physician said to me, "We don't know what's wrong with you, but we understand that you see Dr. Sinaiko. He's the expert. Call him when you get home." Does this imply a bad reputation among Dr. Sinaiko's conventional medical peers? Six years ago, I became Dr. Sinaiko's patient after a thoroughly conventional East Bay doctor completely mismanaged my case, nearly presiding over my death. Now I work full time as an associate research scientist. I believe that Dr. Sinaiko saved my life. Diagnosis and treatment of my illness, a chronic invasive parasitic infection, had eluded every physician I had seen for eleven years, I was homebound, running out of money, and considering suicide. Most worrisome to me is that the irresponsible journalism your article represents jeopardizes the continued practice of the physician who saved my life, and restored and maintains my health. Sincerely, F.J., PhD, Berkeley . To the Editor, As a patient of Dr. Robert J. Sinaiko, I wish to state that in my experience, he is a capable, professional, compassionate, and supportive doctor. His treatments have been appropriate and prudent, and have helped in improving my medical condition. His fees are reasonable and in keeping with fees of other physicians I have seen. I am glad to have a doctor who is intelligent and has sufficient training to deal with the complex medical situation I face, and who is interested enough in his profession to continually avail himself of current research which may benefit me as a patient. He has made every effort in his communications with me to translate complicated medical terminology into understandable English so that I can make informed decisions about my options for medical care. Your article seems misinformed regarding allergic diseases like asthma and anaphylactic shock, which are life threatening and can wind you up in the emergency ward, or worse yet, in intensive care. These are not mere "annoyances." It is standard medical advice for asthma to avoid pesticides, perfumes, cleansers, solvents, and carpeting (which is notorious for holding molds, bacteria, animal danders, and dust mites). You don't have to take my word for this, you can contact your local chapter of the American Lung Association or Lungline, a service of the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, at 1-800-552-LUNG. Most of us are not willing to make major changes in our lifestyles because of "annoyances." I know I wasn't. In conclusion, I would like to say that Dr. Sinaiko has been in every way worthy of my trust as a patient, and I believe you owe him a public apology in your newspaper.
Sincerely, . To the Editor, I am a former patient of Dr. Sinaiko. Throughout my relationship with him, he treated me with utmost thoroughness and respect and the highest degree of integrity and medical professionalism. When tests indicated need for another medical opinion, he consistently referred me to appropriate professionals. I experienced only the most cautious and tempered approach to medical treatment from him. I hold Sinaiko in the highest regard as a professional and a human being. He is not among the "fringe" practitioners who take advantage of unsuspecting patients. He treats patients with dignity and equity, a combination rarely found in the medical community today. P.L., San Francisco . To the Editor, This letter is written as a professional response to the article in the San Francisco Examiner, appearing on July 19, 1998, entitled "Questionable Treatment? Patients Take San Francisco Allergist to State Medical Board," authored by Scott Winokur. This article centers on Robert Sinaiko, M.D. and charges brought by Deputy Attorney General Alfredo Terrazas. The controversy portrayed is far out of proportion to the scientific reality and centers on four key issues:
With regard to enzyme potentiated desensitization, this is portrayed as a new experimental therapy. In reality, it is simply an attempt to improve upon the oldest method of allergy treatment, that of hypoimmunization. Hypoimmunization , commonly referred to as "allergy shots," administers a small dose of the antigen of the allergen or substance to which the person is allergic in increasing concentrations over a prolonged time period. Conventional immunotherapy requires weekly or biweekly office visits for injections of two to five years, with the success rate of approximately 70% for allergic rhinitis. The time commitment and expense prohibits many patients from completing or benefiting from the therapy. EPD (enzyme potentiated desensitization) is an attempt to prime the immune system to respond to less frequent injections nandstill have the development of immunological protection against the allergen which causes the allergic reaction. EPD is used and accepted in Europe, and is considered to be "cutting edge" allergy medicine in this country. Dr. Robert Sinaiko holds a research position in the Immunology Department at University of California-San Francisco, and is an expert on EPD. The second point of contention calls into question the validity of environmental sensitivities. Scientifically, we as physicians fail the patient with environmental sensitivities such as allergies to fumes or smoke. We cannot objectively test for these sensitivities as we can objectively test for pollen or grass allergy, yet these compounds can trigger the same immunological cascade and are perceived as illness by the suffering patient. These patients are frequently categorized as disturbed, because of our lack of scientific understanding, thereby inducing more human suffering. With the increasing chemicalization of our environment, we are literally making life unbearable for many among us. Thirdly, the article mentions yeast and calls into question the concept that yeast may induce illness. On this question, medical science has again failed to provide adequate diagnostic tools to be used to diagnose or gauge illness. Our testing for mold illness and pathogenicity is limited to antibody tests which do not indicate the severity of invasion of this organism. All too commonly, it is not until we have positive blood cultures for yeast that we, as physicians, recognize invasive yeast infection. Yeast, like many other common infections, has a spectrum of disease which spans from asymptomatic to deadly invasive infection. Even a simple vaginal yeast infection can cause great human suffering. Fungi, as a class of organisms, are increasingly becoming disease-causing organisms, as demonstrated by the increased recognition of fungal sinusitis and invasive fungal infections. Lastly, great emphasis is placed on Dr. Sinaiko's care of what the medical insurance industry refers as self-reported illness, or illnesses that cannot be given a specific diagnosis. These patients are ill from an unidentifiable cause which, again, speaks to the failure of medicine. Many succumb to despair. These patients are often appropriately or inappropriately given a psychiatric label as opposed to a genuine attempt to identify organic illness. It is my belief, that all illness, including all psychiatric illnesses, will one day be found to have an organic cause. Often Dr. Sinaiko's patients have previously sought the medical attention of many, many other physicians prior to finding Dr. Sinaiko. They are physically ill, and have been frequently abandoned by their other physicians. I have referred many patients to Dr. Sinaiko and share in the care of many of his patients. All of these patients were found, after exhaustive testing, to be suffering from an occult identifiable illness. All were grateful for the care provided by Dr. Sinaiko. I have utmost respect for Dr. Sinaiko as a physician and a man. When I was a young physician, I marveled at the power and advances of medicine. As I age, I feel that the science of medicine to now be primitive in terms of both diagnosis and treatment. The darkness of disease prevails. The darkness of man prevails. Medical opinions are bought, sold, bartered, and popularized, yet preached as gospel. We must scrutinize the judicial and State medical review process to ensure that progress and original thought are never suppressed, for these qualities are the very foundation for the advancement of medicine. Sincerely,
R.T., MD . To the Publisher, Subject: July 19, 1998 article by Scott Winokur on Dr. Robert Sinaiko My name is K.S. I have had Multiple Chemical Sensitivity for 15 years and have been a patient of Dr. Sinaiko's for over 12 years. I know Dr. Sinaiko to be an ethical and competent doctor with very high standards. My sister (who also has MCS) and I feel he has been tremendously helpful to us. I have received 15 injections of EPD. This treatment has had the most profound and positive impact on my health. After I completed the first sequence of EPD injections my autoimmune thyroiditis (for which I'm genetically predisposed and had been receiving treatment for 13 years) spontaneously healed. I no longer need any thyroid medication. My endocrinologist and I believe this is an indirect effect from the EPD injections on my immune system. The inaccuracies and incomplete information in your article include:
In conclusion, your article is very biased and incomplete. On the basis of a few dubious sources, you are slandering a caring and excellent physician who is working hard to help very ill people. K.S., San Jose . Dear Editor, The story about Dr. Robert Sinaiko in the Sunday edition presents a harmful and most unfortunate portrayal of an excellent physician who has been subjected to unjust scrutiny by a collection of individuals who see themselves as the champions of orthodoxy in medicine. Mr. Winokur has clearly become aware of some of the testimony in the Sinaiko hearing and has presented bits of it in an attempt to bias his audience, presuming to take for himself the authority and judicial responsibility -- authority and responsibility that the real judge is deliberating with care over a considerable time. All of us in medicine take risks for our patients and have both happy and unhappy results. None of Dr. Sinaiko's happy results were described in the article. Dr. Sinaiko has seen at least 6 members of my family for various conditions. In each instance careful diagnostic thought and work was done. Risks of some sort are always associated with medical treatment and they have always been addressed. It has been my experience that patients rarely remember what they do not want to hear. When the condition found or under consideration is not in his area of expertise, he has consistently suggested referral to another physician. I believe you have heard from my wife who is the director of a school for the learning disabled. Dr. Sinaiko has helped many of her students whose disabilities have been assisted by management of their allergic problems. If you were to embark upon an investigation of this question you would find that physicians believe emphatically that brain function can be altered by allergic or dietary circumstances, or they believe, with equal emphasis, that it cannot. The orthodox position is the latter -- Dr. Sinaiko's position is the former. This problem is one of the medical equivalents of the strife in Northern Ireland, and is at the bottom of some of Dr. Sinaiko's difficulties with his peers. It is really unfortunate for Dr. Sinaiko and for the peaceful resolution of this problem that the EXAMINER has gotten into it with such little sophistication. I believe that the EXAMINER must apologize to Dr. Sinaiko and his family for the harm it has done and that a balanced reporting of the story is mandatory. R.J., M.D. . Letters Editor, Multiple inaccuracies and misinformation appearing in Scott Winokur's article "Questionable Treatment?" requires a somewhat lengthy response. The correct facts are: [1]. Amphotericin-B is an FDA approved prescription pharmaceutical anti-fungal (Fungizone/Bristol- Myers Squibb) intended for oral use in adults and children; it is very poorly absorbed from the digestive tract and therefore has no potential for renal toxicity (which is of concern only for intravenously administered Amphotericin-B; [2] Enzyme potentiated desensitization (EPD) is not an experimental or unscientific procedure; developed by a highly respected British immunologist, it is currently being evaluated by the FDA under a closely monitored Investigational Review Board status, as a promising new immuno-therapeutic treatement for allergic diseases; approximately 80 physicians in North America are participating and contributing to the IRB data base involving over 8,500 patients; [3]. Preliminary outcome studies from the EPD/IRB database show EPD to be superior to conventional immunotherapy (allergy shots) in both long term benefits, safety and cost effectiveness; practically speaking, the cost differential is remarkable; $2,000-2,500 for 10 EPD treatments (injection every 2-4 months or less often) over a 3 year period, versus $7,000-8,500 for conventional immunotherapy over the same time period; [4]. Environmental Illness or Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a complex disorder with often coexisting immunological, neurological, metabolic/endocrine, and neuro-psychological dysfunction as described in multiple scientific publications including the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences treatise; Deputy Attorney General Terrazas' dismissal of (Sinaiko's patient) Mr. Hawkins as simply "alienated and paranoid" is naive at best. Given these facts, one might need to ask "where's the beef" in the state medical board's case against Dr. Sinaiko? If it is true, as the article implies, that the medical board's action against Sinaiko was, at least in part, motivated by Dr. Vreeland's ill-founded accusation, why would such obvious pharmacological ignorance carry such weight? That this and other disturbing questions remain unanswered should be of concern to every physician and patient interested in freedom of choice in health care. J.A., MD, Corte Madera . Editor, Your July 19 article on the legal issues faced by Dr. Robert Sinaiko is not only a blatant injustice to him, but, ironically, a case of a missed expose. Dr. Sinaiko is regarded as an exceptional provider in the health care community; for his knowledge, style and ability to help very difficult cases. His case highlights the fact that any licensed professional today is subject to administrative law, one of the most arcane and biased systems imaginable. Cases are often prosecuted by assistant attorney generals who use any tactic, including blatant misrepresentation, to win their case. Doctors, dentists, and psychologists have far fewer due process rights than the most common criminal. False accusations are common in this system, and in Dr. Sinaiko's case, your reporter has become a mouthpiece for them. The inaccuracies in the article itself are almost too many to mention. (Any physician will tell you Flagyl has been the drug of choice for parasites; how can your subheadline about patients taking Dr. Sinaiko to the medical board be true when no patient has ever filed a complaint!) Your reporter has made himself an extension of an accusatory system that lacks basic due process checks and balances. Where else in law is one considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent? Where else could a fellow doctor's misinformed and possibly unethical statement snowball into a career threatening prosecution? The real issue is the lack of a true peer review process when evaluating professionals. If it can happen to Robert Sinaiko, an exceptional practitioner, it can happen to anyone. Ultimately all patients suffer. Sincerely, T.I., PhD . Dear Mr. Cook, I was stunned to read Scott Winokur's article on Dr. Sinaiko! I have been a patient of his for the past 4 years, and found the article to be inaccurate. He has always been thorough, diligent, and professional in his practice; and compassionate and understanding as a human being. Upon numerous tests, he never coerced or pressured me into seeking any type of therapy. And, in fact, he encouraged and referred me to other medical specialists who could also help me. Whenever I had questions, he was available by phone and was unselfishly patient and willing to discuss issues that surrounded my problems. His knowledge and professionalism made me feel at ease, and his energy surrounded my well-being. I think the Examiner needs to investigate the TRUTH, and apologize to Dr. Sinaiko and his family for the inaccuracies and damage this article has done. B.C., San Francisco . To Mr. Winokur, As a patient of Dr. Robert Sinaiko, I read with great interest your July 19, 1998 article, "Questionable Treatment?" As a patient, I was also greatly dismayed to see a doctor who has only helped me subjected to half truths and misleading statements. Dr. Sinaiko has been my physician for a number of years. During that time, he has never insisted I continue with a drug to which I was having adverse reactions or that I follow a protocol I did not want. EPD was offered with full disclosure that it was not FDA approved and I have benefited from my decision to use it. In fact, I credit Dr. Sinaiko with improving my health and helping me continue working at a time when my health was deteriorating and I was afraid I would have to go on disability. You owe Dr. Sinaiko, his patients and your readers the whole truth. Your article mentions both Flagyl and Amphotericin B as very dangerous drugs and goes on to state that Flagyl is carcinogenic and causes adverse reactions. Many drugs have unwanted side effects. Dr. Sinaiko is not responsible for them. Surely if these drugs are too dangerous to be prescribed, it is appropriate to go after the FDA (both are FDA-approved drugs) and the manufacturers, not one doctor who prescribes them. Your article gives Deputy Attorney General Alfredo Terrazas too much credit. people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity have a complex physical illness. Mr. Terrazas has decided it doesn't exist and belittles people who seek help for their symptoms by referring to them as alienated and paranoid. Mr. Terrazas goes on to claim that factors to which we react adversely, such as exhaust, are simply annoyances. Car exhaust is a major component of smog. For every smog alert, everyone is advised to limit physical activity outside. Smog is known to be especially hard on people with asthma. Thus, car exhaust can hardly be considered merely an irritant. That is only one example. Your article has done a disservice to an excellent doctor, people struggling with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and anyone who wants to retain the freedom to choose what kind of medical care they receive. Sincerely, V.S., San Jose, CA . To the Editor, Scott Winokur's story on Dr. Robert Sinaiko was both misleading and one-sided. Mr. Winokur fails to mention that the EPD treatment cited in the story has been approved and widely used with successful outcomes for many years in Great Britain. Further, he does not cite any examples of success experienced by Dr. Sinaiko's patients. I, for one, have benefited from Dr. Sinaiko's treatment, which has resulted in a substantial cure for my lifelong food and nasal allergies. Over a decade's worth of traditional allergy therapy, previously administered by two other physicians, had not provided relief in my case. I believe Dr. Sinaiko is a compassionate physician with his patients' best interests in mind and at heart. D.P., San Francisco . Dear Editor, Wow! Talk about one sided, irresponsible journalism! Mr. Winokur's story in the July 19th Examiner was very biased and incomplete. Constantly quoting Mr. Terrazas comments (is he a healthcare professional?) and then failing to include any of the "extensive documentation" provided by Dr. Sinaiko is inexcusable. I do not consider myself in any way a "paranoid," "alienated" person ready to "believe just about anything." I own and manage a business with revenues in excess of $10 million, employ 350, have a Masters in Business Administration from the University of California at Berkeley, and went to Dr. Sinaiko on the recommendation of another doctor who herself had experienced very successful treatments from Dr. Sinaiko. "Research without his patients' informed consent?" Ridiculous! The first time I went to Dr. Sinaiko he gave me detailed explanations of his treatments. Every time I was scheduled for an injection, I received in the mail a complete explanation of EPD along with all precautions necessary. Before every injection I was again asked to read a sheet about EPD and sign a consent form. I was also asked if I would be part of a research study, and I signed a consent form for that study. EPD treatments have worked for me and many others. Why weren't people who have been helped included in the article? Why did Mr. Winokur assume that the problems the two individuals had were due to the treatments? Is he a judge? "Experimental" treatments (which are nothing more than treatments which have not yet been accepted as standard by the medical profession) are what got civilization beyond such treatments as bloodletting, once considered standard practice. Thank goodness there are doctors around like Dr. Sinaiko who are willing to venture out, obviously at risk to their own careers, to help people who have not been helped by conventional medicine, how can we be anything but grateful for and respectful of a doctor who believes a person's problem is "real," not "imagined" as so often suggested by those who can't find a cure, and who accepts the challenge to seek new knowledge which may ultimately help thousands? Mr. Winokur and the Examiner owe Dr. Sinaiko a prominently placed, unbiased article and an apology! Sincerely, B.P. Moraga, CA . Dear Editor, Your Sunday hatchet piece on Dr. Robert Sinaiko is without parallel as a piece of unbalanced reporting. You detail the sensational charges against him, including "quackery," without even bothering to mention his impressive credentials, numerous awards, teaching appointments and contributions to the community. Moreover, the article is shamefully long on innuendo and painfully short of facts. EPD treatment is widely accepted in Europe, and many highly reputable American physicians are convinced that Candida is implicated in severe allergies and treat their patients accordingly with anti-fungal medications. You even attempt to impugn the integrity of his wife, Lois Salisbury, for helping him to defend himself! As a patient of Dr. Sinaiko's, I can attest to his competence, caring and thorough professionalism. How many doctors in this day and age spend as much time as necessary with each patient? How many physicians make themselves available each week for 10-15 minute telephone consultations with their patients without any charge? According to my calculations, the whopping $900,000 he earned in 14 years of EPD treatments averages out to about 64,000 a year. Is this a scandalous sum for any physician, much less one who is Board Certified in both Allergy & Immunology and Internal Medicine? I think not. Dr. Sinaiko's real crime appears to be that he has angered the power that be by daring to use his best medical judgment and to offer his patients a choice of scientifically sound but non-mainstream treatments. If this dedicated and caring physician is disciplined, it will be tragic for his patients, and will have a chilling effect on any physician who offers any kind of medically-sound but alternative medical therapy. You acknowledged that Dr. Sinaiko is fighting for his professional life. It is too hard that the Chronicle "Ned not help to make it a fair fight. Sincerely,
T.O., San Francisco
. Dear Editor, Scott Winokur's article on Dr. Robert Sinaiko, Sunday, July 19, was extremely interesting. I compliment you on pursuing an article that questions the legitimacy and effectiveness of a physician, a medical professional who has veered from the mainstream of medicine. We must question whether a physician is a pioneer -- breaking new ground -- based on education, training, insight and courage, or is a 'quack', doing harm, willingly or unknowingly. As founder of the Alpha Institute and author of the Alpha Book on Cancer and Living, I have had many experiences among this wide spectrum of the great to the dangerous. And concerning Dr. Sinaiko, I have had my own personal experience with him as his patient. Fifteen years ago I suffered two years of constant ill health; no energy and other flue like symptoms. I went to several conventional doctors, had many tests, but no cause was ever found. I even went down to Los Angeles and had all of my teeth fillings removed thinking that I might be experiencing a poisonous reaction from the mercury contained in silver fillings. If the placebo effect was going to be a factor, it definitely would have happened at this point. But there was no improvement of my health situation. It was at that point that I went to Dr. Sinaiko. He put me on a special diet and prescribed mediation, and I started on the road to excellent health. I've referred more people to him than I can remember. And in every case, those that followed what he prescribed were greatly helped. We must continue to question, continue to be diligent and a 'watchdog' over this important area that affects us all. Journalists need to question doctors and treatments outside of the norm, but must be careful and wary that they don't foster misconceptions or categorize someone just because it makes a good story. Concerning Dr. Sinaiko, he is one of the great men of medicine. We need innovative and tenacious doctors like him. He has helped countless people who couldn't find help elsewhere. I hope that this newspaper pursues his case further for the sake of journalistic integrity. I hope that you are committed to finding such truth and promoting such awareness. Sincerely, B.R., Director, Alpha Institute . To the editor of the Sacramento Bee: Your editorial is a chilling recount of a heinous decision by a judge who appears to have no respect for our country's most cherished possession-- freedom. She capriciously and arbitrarily plays God, deciding what is scientifically proven-- when the reality is that the standard she has used to convict Dr. Sinaiko could be used to revoke the licenses of 98% of the physicians, psychologists, chiropractors and other health care providers in practice. This country is slowly being strangled by hypersphinctered, (tight-assed) obsessively over-controlling people who believe they have the right to tell others how to live and work. The reality of the history of health care is that leaders and visionaries can expect to be castigated and derided before their ideas are finally accepted as better. Think about the mold Pasteur created penicillin from, or the surgeons who laughed at Semmelweiss, who argued for clean surgical fields, at a time when Macho surgeons maintained the "scientifically accepted standard of practice" of going into surgery with bloody surgical gowns-- the bloodier the better. I guess this fool of a judge would have convicted Pasteur and Semmelweiss too. Of course, she is just carrying out the medical board's mission. It is quite common for medical or psychological or other licensing boards to attack people who do things differently. I've seen this kind of thing happen in North Carolina and Texas too, when innovators growing practices made local competitors feel threatened. That's often what this is really about-- business and turf. There is no way that any government entity should have the ability to infringe on people's rights to take self responsibility for their own health. Congress recently protected this right when it quashed the FDA's efforts to control herbal and nutritional supplements As an organizer of meetings and seminars on various aspects of biofeedback, with 25+ years in a field perpetually at the cutting edge, because it empowers the patient without creating dependency upon the doctor, I have seen the many ways the medical establishment fights unfairly. This case is one of the worst, and one of the most threatening to American liberties. The precedent it sets could be used to arbitrarily attack almost any healer who uses any vision or creativity. This is the kind of action which hurts so many dimensions of the future. There is a growing pattern in this country of the development of groups who fear the future, and almost in spasm, they try to prevent any change, and to constrict freedoms which reach out in the directions of new possibilities. Things are changing so fast, that this futurephobia is understandable. But it cannot be allowed to prevent the emergence of the new ideas and strategies which will enable us to make the most of the opportunities the future offers. R.K., M.Ed., Trevose PA |