Cutting-edge Medical research has been looking into the interplay between genes and nutrition (Nutrigenomics) and has also been showing a link between health issues in general and inflammation, extending to Mental Health. The exciting promise is to address individual gene mutations and offset their effect through specific nutrient supplementation. Targeted Nutrient Therapy is based on broad biochemical markers instead of individual genes so isn’t this approach now obsolete?
It is now understood in light of new research that there are more advanced ways of dealing with these problems than the ‘established’ Hoffer/Pfeiffer/Walsh approach. It used to be seen as a more effective way of addressing the ‘root’ causes of symptoms which pharmaceutical interventions only mitigated with problematic side effects and relatively limited efficacy. Many people have had powerful experiences of both the differences in side-effects and efficacy. It’s only with recent work of more widely funded scientists that these complex ‘root’ causes themselves have been seen to have complex roots and despite the new developing advances there lies a problem of sorts.
The trend today in mass Medicine seeks to provide simplified standardised treatments for the sake of cost efficiency. Addressing these ‘roots of roots’ while theoretically more effective introduces further levels of complexity which it would seem not many would be able to afford financially as things are today. There is a complex relationship between chronic illness and financial stability in individuals. This is a reason the detail of treatment and the outcomes from Targeted Nutrient Therapy can vary so much depending on physical and financial circumstances of the patient as it is not covered by any insurance or government subsidies. Addressing the causes of the functional deficiencies is beyond the scope of the research conducted at the Walsh Research Institute (WRI) though they are aware of them and work with specialists in these fields.
Because of the issue of treatment cost the work of the WRI seems to be providing a solution which even in its simplest form will address their target Mental Health and brain disorder issues at the lowest cost to the consumer, using their extensive database of clinical research outcomes. In the wait for funding of the expensive multivariate Randomised Control Trials needed to officially validate this treatment we have to rely on this outcome data from the WRI. It would be expected that more tailored individual approaches involving newer research may have better outcomes, but this data has yet to be compiled and published for easy cross-comparison. As of now the Walsh approach seems to be the most tried-and-true method though things are always expected to evolve.