More isn’t always better, but neither is less. How do we identify the ideal dose of natural medicines?

By Jacob Schor, ND, FABNO


Two recent studies on the effects of chocolate consumption and incidence of heart failure suggest that consuming increasing amounts of chocolate is associated with declining risk of hospitalization or mortality from heart failure. Yet this effect levels off as consumption increases and may even decline with high chocolate consumption. These associations between risk and consumption can be described by a U-shaped graph. This graphic pattern is not unique to chocolate but also may be used to describe a wide array of natural supplements and their impact on health. For chocolate and an increasing number of other natural substances it appears that there is an optimal level of consumption that provides maximal health benefit and that more or less is associated with reduced benefit. This paper reviews some of these supplements and the current information suggesting ideal dosing.


A common assumption when examining biologic phenomena is that cause and effect should display a linear relationship: As a causative stimulus increases, the measured effect it has will increase in direct proportion. When this is true, a dose response is represented graphically by a straight line with a constant slope.

Real life is rarely so simple. The slope of the graph may vary; certain strength “doses” of stimuli may have greater or lesser effect. Many biological effects actually display not just differing effects based on dose strength, but even opposite effects. When graphed, these actions are represented by U-shaped or J-shaped graphs rather than straight lines. This is not uncommon when it comes to nutritional supplements and lifestyle interventions; certain doses produce the desired effects, but larger or smaller doses may produce less benefit or even negative effects. I refer to these ideal dose ranges as the “sweet spot” in the curve.

Chocolate and Heart Health

Steinhaus et al published a paper in the January 2017 issue of the American Heart Journal. The authors conducted a prospective cohort study using data from 31,917 men, 45 to 79 years old, who had participated in the “Cohort of Swedish Men” study. None of the men had a history of myocardial infarction, diabetes, or heart failure at baseline. The participants were followed for heart failure hospitalization or mortality from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2011, using record linkage to the Swedish inpatient and cause-of-death registries, allowing the researchers to track hospitalizations or death of participants from heart failure. Participants’ chocolate consumption was assessed through self-administered food frequency questionnaires.

Hormesis is a term toxicologists use to describe a J-shaped or U-shaped dose response characterized by a beneficial effect at low doses and a toxic (or inhibitory or opposite) effect at higher doses.

During 14 years of follow-up, 2,157 of the men in the cohort were hospitalized (n=1,901) or died from incident heart failure (n=256). Compared with subjects who reported no chocolate intake, the multivariable-adjusted rate ratio of heart failure was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.99) for those consuming 1 to 3 servings per month; 0.83 (95% CI: 0.72-0.94) for those consuming 1 to 2 servings per week; 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68-0.99) for those consuming 3 to 6 servings per week; and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.84-1.45) for those consuming ≥1 serving per day (P-value for quadratic trend=0.001).(Table 1)

Table 1: Heart Failure Risk and Chocolate Consumption
Chocolate consumption Heart failure risk
No chocolate 1.00
1-3 servings/month 0.88
1-2 servings/week 0.83
3-6 servings/week 0.82
>1 serving per day 1.10 (not significant)

At first glance the implications of this large, prospective cohort study seem simple and obvious. Eating chocolate may be good for men because it is associated with decreasing risks of heart failure. Moderate chocolate consumption was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization or death from heart failure, but the protective association was not observed among individuals who consumed ≥1 serving per day. If one plots a graph of these results, with risk of heart failure on the y-axis and frequency of chocolate consumption on the x-axis, it creates a J-shaped curve (Figure 1).

In an earlier study published in 2010, these same authors reported a very similar benefit in women who consumed moderate amounts of chocolate. Women who consumed 1 to 3 servings of chocolate per month had a 26% lower risk of heart failure than women with no regular chocolate intake, and those who consumed 1 to 2 servings per week had a 32% decrease in risk. Risk may increase at higher levels of consumption, but the numbers did not reach statistical significance.2 These results are also a J-shaped curve.

A similar J-shaped relationship between dark chocolate consumption and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) was reported in 2008; individuals who consumed up to 1 serving (20 g) of dark chocolate every 3 days had serum CRP concentrations that were significantly lower than both nonconsumers and higher consumers. Since regular consumption of dark chocolate is associated with low serum concentrations of CRP, it is not surprising that these decreased levels of inflammation appear to translate into differing risk for heart failure.3 Again, chocolate consumption followed a J-shaped curve, suggesting more is not necessarily better.

These findings of benefit from chocolate are consistent with other past studies that suggest chocolate has beneficial effects on cardiovascular health.4-9 Multiple studies have reported both acute and chronic chocolate consumption reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure.10-14 In addition, habitual chocolate eating is associated with lower incidence of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI),15 lower incidence of mortality from coronary heart disease,5 lower cardiac mortality and heart failure after incident MI,16 and improved vascular function in patients with heart failure.17 Thus these current Steinhaus findings are consistent with earlier data and should come as no surprise.

The J-shaped dose response is worth investigating. Such dose-response curves draw our attention as they are not uncommon when describing biological responses to natural substances. J-shaped or U-shaped curves are classically associated with what are called hormetic responses. Hormesis is a term toxicologists use to describe a J-shaped or U-shaped dose response characterized by a beneficial effect at low doses and a toxic (or inhibitory or opposite) effect at higher doses.18

Forget the assumption that dose relationships should follow straight lines and instead start assuming that, in nature, J-shaped curves may actually be more common than we thought; the very nature of the response may change with the dose even to the degree of having the opposite effect at high doses of what occurred at low doses.

A 2010 prospective study (N=1.46 million) reported a J-shaped association between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality after adjusting for potential confounders, including smoking and alcohol intake. All-cause mortality was lowest among those with BMI of 20.0 to 24.9 (kg/m2) and higher on either side of that interval.19 Thus, being either underweight or overweight increased one’s risk of death.

Vitamin D

Too little or too much vitamin D may also pose a problem. This should give us pause as many of us have practiced for years under the belief that high-normal levels of vitamin D posed no health risks to our patients. An October 2016 analysis of the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Norfolk Cohort reported, “In older adults, the relationship between vitamin D status and fracture risk was observed to be J-shaped.”20

Schwartz had reported back in 2014 on the Safety and Efficacy Large-scale Evaluation of COX-inhibiting Therapies (SELECT) trial data related to prostate cancer prevention that the effects of vitamin D followed a U-shaped curve. The authors noted that the ideal range of circulating vitamin D for preventing prostate cancer may be narrow, and that supplementing in men with adequate levels may be harmful. “There were U-shaped associations of vitamin D with total cancer risk: compared with the first quintile, HRs [hazard ratios] were 0.83, 0.74, 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-1.07; P=0.181), and 0.98, for the second through fifth quintiles, respectively,” they reported. In addition, men with moderate concentrations (approximately 45–70 nmol/L) [18- 28 ng/ml] had significantly reduced risks.21 This “sweet spot” is notably lower than most of us might guess.

Studies that have looked at vitamin D levels and cardiovascular disease or overall mortality also report J-shaped associations. A 2014 analysis reported that, as expected, mortality risk increases in those who are deficient but also increases at serum vitamin D levels above 125 nmol/L (about 50 ng/mL).22 Many labs report the normal range for vitamin D as extending up to 100 ng/mL so practitioners may rationalize keeping patients at the upper end under the assumption that more is better.

This J-shaped curve in mortality was reported a year earlier in 2013, in an analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. The authors reported that the lowest risk of mortality, what they called “the nadir of risk,” was at 81 nmol/L (95% CI: 73-90 nmol/L) or 32.4 ng/mL.23

Fish Oil

A November 2016 meta-analysis suggests that fish oil’s impact on depression also follows a J-shaped pattern. Data from 31 studies were pooled (N=255,076), yielding over 20,000 cases of depression. Fish consumption was associated with a 22% reduction in relative risk (RR) of depression (RR: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.69-0.89). Examination of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) supplement use revealed a J-shaped association, with a peak decreased risk at 1.8 g/d intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.09-0.98).24 Thus with fish oil it appears a moderate dose may offer greater benefit than higher or lower doses.

A 2010 study suggested a J-shaped curve for fish consumption for reducing psychotic-like symptoms. The associations were J-shaped with the strongest reduced risk for an intermediate intake of fish or PUFA. For fatty fish (herring/mackerel, salmon-type fish), the strongest inverse association was found for an intermediate intake (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.66-0.98), whereas a high intake of fatty fish was associated with an increased risk of psychotic-like symptoms (RR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.34-2.70).25

Vitamin C and Breast Cancer

There is reason to believe that vitamin C from the diet affects postmenopausal risk of breast cancer and this too has a sweet spot. A paper published in July 2016 reports on data from the E3N cohort in France, a group of 57,403 women followed for 13 years during which 2,482 cases of invasive breast cancer occurred. Dietary vitamin C intake was assessed via regular questionnaires during the study.

Vitamin C supplement use was associated with higher breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women in the fourth quartile of vitamin C intake from foods (hazard ratio (HR): 1.32; 95% CI: 1.04-1.67). This suggests a potential U- or J-shaped relation between total vitamin C intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. This could suggest menopausal women might be better off not taking vitamin C supplements if they have a healthy diet.26


We’ve long known that too little or too much iodine is a problem clinically. In pregnancy this narrow range of safety is even more critical. A 2015 paper (N=7,190) of pregnant women in China states, “The upper limit of iodine intake during early pregnancy in an iodine-sufficient region should not exceed UIC 250 μg/L, because this is associated with a significantly high risk of subclinical hypothyroidism.”27

This iodine information is specifically for those who are iodine-deficient at the time of pregnancy. The US Institute of Medicine recommends much more than 250 µg during pregnancy. Suddenly dosing iodine to anyone who is deficient can induce hypothyroid response. Obviously dosing nutrients is more complicated than making any broad recommendations. Optimal dosing is complicated by many factors, not least of which is the individuality of one’s biochemical needs.


The findings in these studies may result from confounders that are either not identified or overly compensated for. For instance, the vitamin D studies are observation studies, and they don’t comment on the vitamin D source. We may postulate that fish or dairy are the biggest sources in northern countries. To obtain high blood levels of vitamin D from fish, there is probably a larger intake of potentially toxic compounds such as mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and others. Since these were not evaluated, we cannot exclude an effect from these to explain the J-shaped relationship. The same can be said for most observational studies.

In the case of chocolate, chocolate per se may be a health food but the behaviour of someone eating more than 20 g per day can be problematic. So the U-shaped association may not be due to the chocolate intake but to other factors, such as overall diet.


While we might suspect that many other substances will also have a dosing “sweet spot,” at this time that ideal dose remains unknown for most substances. Based on reports of hormetic actions in vitro, we may eventually be able to define sweet spots for resveratrol,19 curcumin,28berberine,29 green tea,30 licorice,31 olive oil polyphenols,32 and even blueberries.33 Until then we have to let go of the simplistic idea that if a little bit helps, more is always better. While our minds may reflexively conclude that larger doses and stronger concentrations will be more efficacious when treating patients with vitamins, supplements, or food, we need to be reminding ourselves that much of what we employ therapeutically has a sweet spot and that giving a surplus may reduce efficacy of treatment.

This limiting of doses may not always be the easiest thing to do; it may be hardest with chocolate.

About the Author 

Jacob Schor ND, FABNO, is a graduate of National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland, Oregon, and now practices in Denver, Colorado. He served as president to the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Physicians and is on the board of directors of both the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians and the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. He is recognized as a fellow by the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology. He serves on the editorial board for the International Journal of Naturopathic Medicine, Naturopathic Doctor News and Review (NDNR), and Integrative Medicine: A Clinician’s Journal. In 2008, he was awarded the Vis Award by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. His writing appears regularly in NDNR, the Townsend Letter, and Natural Medicine Journal, where he is the Abstracts & Commentary editor.


  1. Steinhaus DA, Mostofsky E, Levitan EB, et al. Chocolate intake and incidence of heart failure: findings from the cohort of Swedish men.Am Heart J. 2017;183:18-23.
  2. Mostofsky E, Levitan EB, Wolk A, Mittleman MA. Chocolate intake and incidence of heart failure: a population-based prospective study of middle-aged and elderly women.Circ Heart Fail. 2010;3(5):612-616.
  3. di Giuseppe R, Di Castelnuovo A, Centritto F, et al. Regular consumption of dark chocolate is associated with low serum concentrations of C-reactive protein in a healthy Italian population.J Nutr. 2008;138(10):1939-1945.
  4. Cooper KA, Donovan JL, Waterhouse AL, et al. Cocoa and health: a decade of research.Br J Nutr. 2008;99:1-11.
  5. Ding EL, Hutfless SM, Ding X, et al. Chocolate and prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.Nutr Metab (Lond). 2006;3:2.
  6. Mink PJ, Scrafford CG, Barraj LM, et al. Flavonoid intake and cardiovascular disease mortality: a prospective study in postmenopausal women.Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(3):895-909.
  7. Hooper L, Kay C, Abdelhamid A, et al. Effects of chocolate, cocoa, and flavan-3-ols on cardiovascular health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(3):740-751.
  8. Engler MB, Engler MM. The emerging role of flavonoid-rich cocoa and chocolate in cardiovascular health and disease.Nutr Rev. 2006;64(3):109-118.
  9. Esser D, Mars M, Oosterink E, et al. Dark chocolate consumption improves leukocyte adhesion factors and vascular function in overweight men.FASEB J. 2014;28(3):1464-1473.
  10. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Effect of cocoa on blood pressure.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008893.
  11. Desch S, Kobler D, Schmidt J, et al. Low vs. higher-dose dark chocolate and blood pressure in cardiovascular high-risk patients.Am J Hypertens. 2010;23(6):694-700.
  12. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis.Am J Hypertens. 2010;23(1):97-103.
  13. Grassi D, Necozione S, Lippi C, et al. Cocoa reduces blood pressure and insulin resistance and improves endothelium-dependent vasodilation in hypertensives.Hypertension. 2005;46(2):398-405.
  14. Taubert D, Roesen R, Schomig E. Effect of cocoa and tea intake on blood pressure: a meta-analysis.Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(7):626-634.
  15. Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, et al. Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular disease in German adults.Eur Heart J. 2010;31(13):1616-1623.
  16. Janszky I, Mukamal KJ, Ljung R, Ahnve S, Ahlbom A, Hallqvist J. Chocolate consumption and mortality following a first acute myocardial infarction: the Stockholm Heart Epidemiology Program.J Intern Med. 22222 2009;266(3):248-257.
  17. Buijsse B, Feskens EJ, Kok FJ, et al. Cocoa intake, blood pressure, and cardiovascular mortality: the Zutphen Elderly Study.Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(4):411-417.
  18. Borriello A, Bencivenga D, Caldarelli I, et al. Resveratrol and cancer treatment: is hormesis a yet unsolved matter?Curr Pharm Des. 2013;19(30):5384-5393.
  19. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Hartge P, Cerhan JR, et al. Body-mass index and mortality among 1.46 million white adults.N Engl J Med. 2010;363(23):2211-2219.
  20. Julian C, Lentjes MA, Huybrechts I, et al. Fracture risk in relation to serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and physical activity: results from the EPIC-Norfolk Cohort Study.PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164160.
  21. Kristal AR, Till C, Song X, et al. Plasma vitamin D and prostate cancer risk: results from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(8):1494-1504.
  22. Zittermann A, Prokop S. The role of vitamin D for cardiovascular disease and overall mortality.Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;810:106-119.
  23. Sempos CT, Durazo-Arvizu RA, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. Is there a reverse J-shaped association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and all-cause mortality? Results from the U.S. nationally representative NHANES.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(7):3001-3009.
  24. Grosso G, Micek A, Marventano S, et al. Dietary n-3 PUFA, fish consumption and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.J Affect Disord. 2016;205:269-281.
  25. Hedelin M, Löf M, Olsson M, et al. Dietary intake of fish, omega-3, omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin D and the prevalence of psychotic-like symptoms in a cohort of 33,000 women from the general population.BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:38.
  26. Cadeau C, Fournier A, Mesrine S, Clavel-Chapelon F, Fagherazzi G, Boutron-Ruault MC. Vitamin C supplement intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk: interaction with dietary vitamin C.Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(1):228-234.
  27. Shi X, Han C, Li C, et al. Optimal and safe upper limits of iodine intake for early pregnancy in iodine-sufficient regions: a cross-sectional study of 7190 pregnant women in China.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(4):1630-1638.
  28. Rainey N, Motte L, Aggarwal BB, Petit PX. Curcumin hormesis mediates a cross-talk between autophagy and cell death.Cell Death Dis. 2015;6:e2003.
  29. Zhang C, Li C, Chen S, et al. Berberine protects against 6-OHDA-induced neurotoxicity in PC12 cells and zebrafish through hormetic mechanisms involving PI3K/AKT/Bcl-2 and Nrf2/HO-1 pathways.Redox Biol. 2016;11:1-11.
  30. Deusing DJ, Winter S, Kler A, et al. A catechin-enriched green tea extract prevents glucose-induced survival reduction in Caenorhabditis elegans through sir-2.1 and uba-1 dependent hormesis.Fitoterapia. 2015;102:163-170.
  31. Ohno H, Miyoshi S, Araho D, et al. Efficient utilization of licorice root by alkaline extraction.In Vivo. 2014;28(5):785-794.
  32. Menendez JA, Joven J, Aragonès G, et al. Xenohormetic and anti-aging activity of secoiridoid polyphenols present in extra virgin olive oil: a new family of gerosuppressant agents.Cell Cycle. 2013;12(4):555-578.
  33. Elks CM, Reed SD, Mariappan N, et al. A blueberry-enriched diet attenuates nephropathy in a rat model of hypertension via reduction in oxidative stress.PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24028.



Petition by “Minister Scott Morrison: Don’t punish parents for making an informed choice about their children’s health, all parents deserve to make an un-coerced choice!”

Our goal is to reach 5,000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:


Features 5 of the most intelligent doctors on the face of the Earth talking about health and public safety – like you’ve never heard before.  Truly extraordinary information!

To hear this event for FREE – simply click here:

An urgent call to action!

I have put in countless hours to organize this event.  The speakers, the content and the design of the web site.

My mission is to make this information easily accessible for everyone and to make this EASY TO SHARE with your family and friends.

As soon as you can, take time to hear these interviews – I promise you will be amazed at what these doctors have to say and I urge you to share this information using Facebook, Twitter, Google + and/or by email.

The ‘social sharing’ feature on the page makes it so easy to distribute this information to those you love.

To hear this event for FREE – simply click here:

Help us end the confusion about vaccines; dramatically improve public safety through education and, quite literally, save thousands of lives.  Education holds the key to our ability to thrive as a society.

Jonathan Landsman, Host –

For guidance on professional responsibilities and how to best assist people experiencing sexual assault and domestic and family violence

1800 respect – click here

Australian Institute of Family Studies, Child and Family Community – click here for information sheets and requirements for each state and what professions are under mandatory reporting instructions.


The below petition was sent into us by a concerned  CMA member, and is passed on for information purposes only, as an impartial party.

Monsanto’s herbicide probably causes cancer

“I just signed this important petition to protect our health and stop Monsanto silencing science!”

Join me here:

The below link is information sourced by the CMA as some further information on the topic.

ABC report link.

Your freedom to receive private health fund benefits for natural therapies is at serious risk! 

A government review of 17 holistic therapies and health-enhancing practices has been underway for a while, and is being conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in collaboration with the Department of Health.

Based on current plans, any policy containing a modality that is classed as ‘unproven’ is set to have its 10-39% rebate removed on April 1st this year. Health funds will be pressured to remove natural therapies classed as ‘unproven’ from their policies in order to protect rebates on their other coverage areas.

A full list of those covered under the review is:

  • Alexander technique
  • Aromatherapy
  • Ayurveda
  • Bowen therapy
  • Buteyko
  • Feldenkrais
  • Herbalism/Western herbalism
  • Homeopathy
  • Iridology
  • Kinesiology
  • Massage therapies, including shiatsu
  • Naturopathy
  • Pilates
  • Reflexology
  • Rolfing
  • Tai Chi
  • Yoga

This review is looking for what it describes as ‘high-quality’ evidence, and has narrow criteria for what it is prepared to include. It is looking at systematic reviews rather than randomised controlled trials, thereby bypassing what is known as ‘Level 1’ evidence, and the time window being examined is a five-year period.

A leaked draft of the report that has been reported in the media indicates that all are set to fail the test. Alexander technique, massage, tai chi and yoga are considered to have the best evidence to back them up, but as this is considered low to moderate quality, they will still fail to meet the stringent requirements.

Click here to go to the Department of Health web page.

A parallel review of homeopathy has been underway for a while. When Complementary Medicines Australia put in a Freedom of Information request, it found that two of the three experts consulted by the NHMRC expressed numerous concerns about the methodology and selective use of data, but they were overridden.

Using the NHMRC report, which is still in a draft form, anti-naturopathy forces have been working to undermine homeopathy by:

  • Putting pressure on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to review accreditation of homeopathy in the higher education sector.
  • Trying to remove financial support to students via the VET FEE-HELP scheme.
  • Criticising pharmacies that sell homeopathic medicines.

Unfortunately, there is a risk that lack of ‘high-quality’ proof for all the 17 modalities above may be used as leverage in a similar fashion.

Because natural therapies offer preventative health benefits, likely downstream effects from this backward move would include an increase in GP visits, plus upward pressure on both Medicare rebates and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme costs. Other consequences may include increased health fund premiums due to greater demand on allopathic medical services.

While demand for natural therapies have been increasing rapidly, upward pressure on taxpayer-funded health fund rebates is likely to be very slight, and is probably offset many times over via the preventative health benefits.


1) Sign the petition at (ignore the small number of signatories, and the fact that the Federal Health Minister is now the Hon. Sussan Ley.)

2) Sign the Association of Massage Therapists petition here

3) Write to the Hon. Sussan Ley at, if possible giving testimonials about how one or more of these therapies has helped you, or your patients and how you/they rely on it to maintain health, and how you/they would be impacted if regular appointments were no longer affordable.

Or copy and paste the following message:

I strongly object to the government’s plans to remove the private health insurance rebate on policies that contain at least one ‘unproven’ therapy, thereby pressuring health funds to remove these therapies from their coverage. Leaked information indicates that all 17 therapies under review will be classed as ‘unproven.’ 

I do not accept the validity of this review due to the fact that it involves systematic reviews and excludes randomised controlled trials, thereby bypassing Level 1 evidence, and the time window being examined is a narrow five-year period.  

As I have strong doubts that this review is being conducted due to upward pressure on taxpayer-funded rebates, please provide me with a credible justification for this exercise.

4) If you have experienced benefit from homeopathy, or would like to defend it from being further undermined, sign up for updates with Friends of Homeopathy Australia here.

5) Please share this via social media, send it out to your friends, colleagues, patients and other networks.

Source: Martin Oliver