The following includes HB magazine articles by Doctor Eslinger. A wide variety of subjects are included to educate readers in opening up to integrative/alternative health options.
By Robert A. Eslinger, D.O., H.M.D.
For decades, the “powers that be” said a “healthy” diet consisted of whole grains and other high carbohydrate foods. They formed the base of the “food pyramid”. Look at the people around you at an airport or event and see where that has taken us!
Unfortunately, these recommendations couldn’t be further from the ideal path to a flat belly. A diet high in wheat and other grain products inevitably leads to chronically high blood sugar and poor sensitivity to insulin. Poor insulin sensitivity has been shown to be a major cause of abdominal fat accumulation and high cholesterol.
The vicious cycle is the more abdominal fat you gain, the worse your insulin sensitivity becomes!
On the other hand, fats are instrumental in the regulation of your overall hormonal balance, including many fat-burning hormones.
When you replace the high carb items (grains, bread, and pasta) and start consuming healthy fats, you will be taking some big steps toward not only a flatter belly but a much healthier body and life style.
It was in 1878 in England that a strange new disease was first documented in the medical literature. A patient of Dr. Adam Hammer was diagnosed with what we have come to know as a “heart attack”. It was a very rare occurrence!
What kinds of fat did people eat back then? The fats in common use were lard (pig fat), tallow (beef fat), butter, coconut, palm and olive oil. They did not have the technology to produce corn, soybean, safflower and most other polyunsaturated oils.
So our ancestors, who never heard of “heart disease”, ate mostly animal fats which are loaded with cholesterol and saturated fat. The effects on their health were clearly evident- heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and numerous other “diseases of modern civilization” were rare!
We have heard that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease for so long and so often that we can repeat it in our sleep. But do they really? Both history and medical science say “NO”!
The cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease was first proposed in the 1950’s by researcher Ancel Keys. Keys’ landmark study has since been found to be seriously flawed. He selected his data very carefully from six countries. Out of all his data, he only used those that supported his hypothesis. We have been stuck with the medical community’s acceptance of his theory ever since.
There has never been a study demonstrating that high blood cholesterol causes heart disease. There has never been a study that proved the consumption of saturated fat causes high cholesterol. In fact, the opposite is true. Numerous studies have shown that cholesterol does not cause clogged arteries or heart disease.
It is very interesting to note that sugar consumption started to become more common at the beginning of the 20th century and has steadily increased along with the rate of heart disease. It would seem that there is a much stronger correlation between heart disease and sugar consumption than with saturated fat or cholesterol!
Actually what has been proven is it is healthier to eat a larger amount of fats (coconut oil, butter, eggs, hemp oil and olive oil), a medium amount of protein (including animal protein) and a small amount of carbohydrates.
Fife, Dr. Bruce, The Coconut Ketogenic Diet, Piccadilly Books, Ltd., Colorado Springs, CO, 2014
Krumholz, H.M., Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality in persons older than 70 years, Journal of the American Medical Assoc., 1994;272:1335
FEBRUARY 1, 2017 |BY ROBERT A. ESLINGER, D.O., H.M.D. | CATEGORIES: ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, HEALTHY LIVING
There are three things you need to know about magnesium and heart disease. One, magnesium prevents muscle spasms of the heart blood vessels, which can lead to heart attacks. Two, magnesium prevents muscle spasms of the peripheral blood vessels, which can lead to high blood pressure. Three, magnesium prevents calcium buildup in cholesterol plaque in arteries, which can lead to clogged arteries.
Obstetricians are quite familiar with the use of magnesium for high blood pressure in women about to deliver babies. Unfortunately, they aren’t talking to cardiologists or family doctors about the importance of using magnesium to treat and/or prevent hypertension and heart disease in the general population.
Heart disease is the number one killer of both American women and men. According to the American Heart Association, every 33 seconds someone in the United States dies of cardiovascular disease. That amounts to almost one million deaths annually!
More recently, an amino acid called homocysteine has been identified as the trigger of a cascade of bad effects that can lead to a heart attack. Elevated homocysteine levels can injure the lining of the blood vessels triggering an inflammatory process. This attracts “bad” (oxidized) cholesterol and calcium, which can build up into a solid scar leading to distorted blood flow and eventually a blockage.
Magnesium has a role to play in reducing homocysteine levels, preventing the damage and normalizing high blood pressure.
Angina describes a temporary episodic pain in the region of the chest or down the left arm due to lack of oxygen to the heart muscle. This is usually caused by a spasm in the coronary vessels, and can usually be relieved by rest or a dose of nitroglycerine.
James Pierce, PhD, believes he has identified the cause of a specific kind of angina because it occurs most commonly at two specific times in the day, early morning and late afternoon, coincidentally when magnesium levels are at their lowest. Dr. Pierce estimates that up to 50 percent of sudden heart attacks may be due to magnesium deficiency.
The best treatment for angina is prevention. By eliminating sugar, alcohol and junk food from your diet, you help prevent heart disease in part because these foods are lacking magnesium and only serve to create magnesium deficiency.
Magnesium has been studied for its effects on the heart since the 1930s and used by injection for the treatment of heart conditions since the 1940s. Doctors, who are looking for alternatives to drug therapy and its many side effects, are starting to look at the many studies that have been done since that time that have proven that the use of magnesium can treat and also help prevent life- threatening heart problems.
Shechter M., “Magnesium and the cardiovascular system”, Magnes Res, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 60-72, 2010
Wills MR, Magnesium and potassium, Inter-relationships in cardiac disorders, Drugs vol. 31, suppl. 4, pp. 121-131, 1986
Breast cancer is the disease most women fear most. An abundance of published research links high-normal blood sugar levels to increased breast cancer risk.
In a recent issue of Life Extension magazine (Feb. 2013), an analysis of the scientific literature was published. Of 12 separate studies identified, nine showed an association between higher fasting “normal” blood sugars and higher breast cancer risk.
For example, premenopausal women with a fasting blood sugar above 84mg/dL, (normal range is 65-100), had more than two times the risk of developing breast cancer compared to those with a blood sugar below that number.
In another study involving more than 10,000 women in Italy, it was found that women in the highest glucose “quartile” (average 96mg/dL) had a 63 percent increased risk for breast cancer compared to those in the lowest “quartile”(average 73mg/dL) after being fully adjusted for multiple variables. The authors stated, “we found that elevated fasting glucose levels were significantly associated with subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in both pre and post-menopausal women.”
High-normal blood sugar is a leading cause of premature death overlooked by mainstream doctors today. Most people with these high-normal blood sugars are not diagnosed with diabetes, but just by having a fasting sugar above 85mg/dL, their risk of death from cardiovascular disease increases by 40 percent. This is according to a long term study of close to 2,000 people.
A large body of published scientific research documented that people with higher “after meal” glucose spikes have sharply increased risks for diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, kidney failure, retinal damage and vascular blockages.
So…what to do? You can start by reducing the ingestion of simple sugars and starches, while eating a higher protein, lower carbohydrate diet. High sugar foods are being cited as the “tobacco issue” of the 21st century. A growing body of evidence indicates this just might come true!
Use of the prescription drug Metformin (as discussed in one of my past articles) can lower blood sugar levels by impeding excess production of glucose in the liver and improving insulin sensitivity. The down side is you have to get a prescription from your doctor and most of them won’t prescribe it to “healthy” people. The good news is that close to the same effects can be accomplished by taking green tea extract, green coffee bean extract, chromium, vanadium and lipoic acid.
One study showed that consumption of 12 cups of coffee daily shows similar benefits, but then there is the issue of all that caffeine!
1. Multi P, Quattrin T, Grant BJB, et al., Fasting glucose is a risk factor for breast cancer: A Prospective study, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(11):1361-8
2. Bjornholt JV, Erikssen G, Aaser E, et al., Fasting blood glucose: an underestimated risk factor for cardiovascular death. Results from a 22 year follow-up of healthy non-diabetic men. Diabetes Care, 1999 Jan; 22(1):45-9
Just imagine you were diagnosed with a cancerous tumor, and your doctor told you that his/her proposed treatment could reduce the size of your tumor by 30 percent, but at the same time increase your chances of developing secondary tumors by a whopping 300 percent!
That is exactly what is demonstrated in recent research (at Harvard and MD Anderson Cancer Centers), and published in conventional Oncology Journals! The history of conventional anti-cancer therapies is replete with cases where the treatment turned out to be far more devastating than the disease itself.
A 2012 study, supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sheds new light on why the effectiveness of a relatively new class of cancer fighting (anti-angiogenic) drugs is actually short-lived, and can turn into a frightening scenario, very likely triggering fatal consequences. This study was published in the January 17, 2012 issue of Cancer Cell.
These drugs act by cutting off the blood supply to the tumors. Scientists and Oncologists from around the world made the shortsighted assumption that by cutting off a tumor’s life support system, they could achieve a successful and permanent tumor regression…WRONG! Little did they know that this would open Pandora’s Box and create a cancer nightmare! This same study described in Cancer Cell found that a group of little-explored cells (called pericytes), which are part of every primary cancerous tumor, likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis. In this investigation, Raghu Kalluri, M.D., PhD, professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, had actually intended to find out if killing pericytes could inhibit growth of tumors. They knew that the pericytes are important in supporting the growth of new blood vessels. What they discovered instead was both startling and disturbing: pericytes actually help PREVENT metastasis!
Dr. Kalluri and his colleagues found that by depleting the pericyte numbers by 60 percent in breast cancer tumors, they saw a 30 percent decrease in tumor volumes over 25 days. Conventional “medical wisdom” hailed this as a “breakthrough in cancer treatment.” However, the researchers also discovered that by destroying pericytes by 60-70 percent, the number of secondary lung tumors increased threefold!
These entire findings question the very argument that is pushed on unsuspecting cancer patients by most Oncology medical professionals; is treatment-caused tumor regression a desirable objective?
What is even more distressing is the high cost of these new drugs. In addition to that, other research shows an increased incidence of perforated bowels, perforated stomachs and heart attacks!
Open minded Physicians have long maintained the importance of focusing on treating the whole person, and not just the tumor. When the therapy destroys, or does significant damage to the patient, it cannot be beneficial! For some reason, conventional Oncologists have not caught on to this idea and continue to focus their efforts on tumor shrinkage, at all costs.
1. Ribatti, Domenico, Dept. of Human Anatomy & Histology, University of Bari Medical School, Bari, Italy, “The Inefficacy of Antiangiogenic Therapy”, Journal of Angiogenesis Research, 2010,2:27.
2. Kalluri, Raghu, M.D., PhD, “Study Shows How a Group of Tumor Cells Prevent Cancer Spread-Paradoxical discovery finds that pericyte cells help prevent metastasis”, Cancer Cell , January 17,2012.
A growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings annually–they do this without knowledge of their true health risks. The primary focus has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, not on the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.
In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-Rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme”, revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed!
Recent radiobiological studies provided compelling evidence that low energy X-rays, as used in mammography, are between four to 600 percent more effective in causing mutational damage (genotoxicity/carcinogenicity) than higher energy X-rays!
This is not the only study to demonstrate that mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. Current risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer (principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study) are based on the effects of high energy gamma rays.
A more recent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011, titled “Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report”, not only confirmed the previous findings but also found the situation likely worse!
What are the legal ramifications for all the “pink” stuff out there–and the doctors who continue to recommend radiation-based screening in the face of this peer reviewed, published medical research (known since 2006!)?
With the advent of non-ionizing radiation-based diagnostic technologies such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist. Until then, we must use our good sense–and research like this–in order to make informed decisions. As far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, err on the side of caution whenever possible.
Please share this article with someone you know or love. Also, share it with your doctor and maybe bring him/her up to date.
1. The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, http:www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/featured-october-article
2. Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report. British Medical Journal 2011; 342:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID:22155336, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155336
If at some point one of my patients is given the diagnosis of cancer, they tell me that they were told that they need chemotherapy, radiation, surgery or a combination of them all. Many of them are well aware of the horrors in taking any of these courses of action; so, their first question to me is, “What else is available?” To this question, the conventional answer usually is…nothing else is available.
I am here to tell you, unequivocally, that is NOT true! What is true is that there are a number of therapies available to fight cancer, all of which were found to be as effective (if not more effective) than conventional treatment, without the significant morbidity and mortality that often accompany conventional chemotherapy and radiation.
One of these therapies is called Insulin Potentiated Therapy, or IPT. This treatment is based on sound principles that were proven and understood by the establishment, and ignored, for almost 80 years. It was first discovered and utilized in Mexico in the 1930’s.
In 1931, a German physician, Otto Warburg, M.D., PhD, received a Nobel prize for proving that all cancer cells (regardless of location or type) use an abnormal type of metabolism (way of burning sugar in order to obtain energy to grow and prosper) called anaerobic metabolism. This way of processing sugar is 18 times less efficient than what our normal cells do, which is to combine oxygen with sugar, called aerobic metabolism, before chemically burning it to produce the energy. What many people have heard is that cancer cells “LOVE” sugar. This is not true. What is true is that they “REQUIRE” 18 times more sugar than normal cells in order to grow; and they can be big bullies about getting it, as well as many other nutrients in the body. That is why you see many cancer patients “waste away” or become “cachechtic” before they die. It is also the proven reason that cancer cells have between 10-20 times the number of insulin receptors on their cell membranes than normal cells. This makes them much more responsive to fluctuations in insulin (and sugar) levels.
This characteristic can be used as a weapon to selectively deliver a variety of compounds into the cancer cells and kill them, while helping protect the normal cells. It’s kind of like a laser guided bomb.
Interestingly, these principles are applied every day in conventional oncology when the doctor does a PET scan. The mechanism of a PET scan is that they radioacitvely “tag” some sugar molecules and inject them into a vein. They then wait about and hour and put you under a “nuclear scanner” to see where the sugar went first. And, guess what, it always goes to, and concentrates in, the cancer cells first; and that is how they can tell where the cancer is. Do you think sugar intake can help support tumor growth? Of course it can!
This being said, it is not possible to totally eliminate sugar from your diet, in part, because all our cells require a certain amount of it, most especially the brain, to function normally. But the cancer cells are “bullies” about grabbing much of it first! All carbohydrates get turned into sugar in the body. Let’s be clear, you cannot cure cancer by not eating sugar. However, it is safe to say that, if you have been diagnosed with cancer, it is a good idea to stay away from all sources of concentrated sugar. That means no candy, alcohol, and what are called “simple” carbohydrates (white bread, pasta, saltine crackers, white rice, etc.), because they will quickly raise the blood sugar.
If you Google IPT, you will find many websites where doctors claim that it is dangerous, because of lowering the blood sugar. To them I say, “Dangerous compared to what…full dose chemotherapy!?!” Since 2004, I have supervised over 7500 IPT treatments and have not lost one patient to IPT during that time.
The treatment itself must be done in an office that can perform intravenous therapies, run by a licensed physician. First, a dose of insulin is given in an IV to the fasting patient. That is designed to drop the blood sugar about half way between a low to normal sugar of 65, down into the 30’s. The sugar is monitored closely and never allowed to go below that. At this level, the cancer cells literally start “starving” for sugar (because of their increased need for it) and they do what is called opening up their cell membranes in an attempt to catch or grab any sugar molecules floating by in the blood. It is called the “therapeutic window”. At this point, they become more vulnerable to other compounds penetrating into the cell and the patient is given an IV push of sugar. However, mixed in with the sugar is a formula of different possible compounds that can target the cancer cells more exclusively, due to accompanying the sugar across the cell membranes. Conventional chemo drugs can be used in this formula (although not always) but they are given at 1/10th of the full dose. The reason it can be done effectively this way is because of the “targeting” characteristic of IPT. Thus most, if not all, of the bad side effects of chemo can be avoided. The patient is then given certain supplements along with oral Gatorade to help bring the sugar level back up to normal.
Many people (including physicians) hear the terms “Alternative or Integrative” Medicine and think of massage, incense and acupuncture. They might think, “It can’t be powerful enough to treat something like cancer!” Nothing could be further from the truth, and this is only one of a number of different possible treatments found “outside the box”!
1.“Insulin-induced enhancement of anti-tumoral response to methotrexate in breast cancer patients”, Cancer Chemotherapy/Pharmacology/53, 220-224; Lasalvia-Prisco, Cucchi, Vazquez, Sasalvia-Galante, Golomar; 2004
2.Hauser, M.D., Hauser, M.S., R.D. “Treating Cancer with Insulin Potentiation Therapy.” Beulah Land Press, Oak Park, Illinois. 2002
3.“Metabolic modification by insulin enhances methotrexate cytotoxicity in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells”; European Journal of Clinical Oncology/17, 1223-1228; Alabaster, Vonderharr,
The traditional approach to cancer therapy (slash, poison, burn) is increasingly being called into question because of its toxicity, destruction to quality of life, and poor success rates–two percent with a five year survival for full dose chemotherapy patients, according to the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Fortunately, people are becoming less and less willing to accept when the oncologist says “there is nothing else available,” and they are becoming more and more informed about alternatives.
Again, there are many scientifically-based therapies available that are far less toxic and more effective, especially when combined intelligently with certain conventional treatments. You can read about such therapies as IPT, UBI, Oxidative therapies, and high dose IV Vit C in the archives of this magazine.
The term “Integrative Oncology” means integrating or combining the best of conventional and alternative medicine to provide better outcomes. Unfortunately, the term has also been adopted by some big cancer treatment institutions to mean chemo, radiation and surgery combined with massage, meditation and yoga. This is a joke, and a gross misuse of the term, as well as very misleading to the patients.
Integrative Oncology means combining conventional and alternative “medical” therapies. Anything less is untrue.
Also, very misleading to the public is the total devotion to information published in supposed “peer-reviewed” medical journals.
“Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval from medicine and in the media, yet many, if not most of the findings are incredibly misleading”, this, a quote from Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. In her book, The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted and said flat out, “Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time.”
There are some journals that are not supported by advertising money from drug companies. One such journal is “Alternative Medicine Review.” In an article published way back in 1999, a review was made of a number of valid studies that found the use of a number of different vitamins, trace elements, anti-oxidants and fatty acids, in combination with chemotherapy and irradiation, “prolonged the survival time of patients compared to the expected outcome without the composite oral therapy.”
Still today, cancer patients are routinely told by their oncologists, “stop taking all your supplements before starting therapy.”
For some people, conventional therapy is the right way to go. I always tell my patients, “Follow the path with heart and the one you believe in, that will give you a much greater chance of a positive outcome.” People need to realize that they do have choices. The Oncology of the New Millennia is here, right now.
1. Lamson, Davis W., MS,ND, Altern Med Rev, 4(5), 1999,304-329
2. Weijl, NI, Cleton FJ, Osanto S, Free radicals and antioxidants in chemotherapy induced toxicity, Cancer Treatment Review, 1997, 23:209-240
Written By Robert A. Eslinger, D.O., H.M.D.
Dendritic Cell therapy represents a new and promising immunotherapeutic approach for treatment of advanced cancer, as well as for secondary prevention of cancer. The immune system is an astoundingly complex and wonderful system, perhaps second only to the brain in complexity and mystery. It has many different pathways, mechanisms, and feedback loops that enable it to recognize and destroy highly evolved invaders like bacteria, viruses and parasites; and sometimes, tumor cells, without destroying the normal healthy cells which make up your body.
The immune system attacks things it recognizes as foreign. This recognition involves binding to very specific molecular sequences called “antigens.” These compounds on the surface of the foreign (tumor) cells stimulate what are called cytotoxic T-cells, which bind to the cells and send them a signal telling them to self-destruct.
Once cytotoxic T-cells are activated, they will not only kill cells displaying the antigen they recognize, but they will also multiply. Cytotoxic T-Cells are activated by encounters with special immune cells called “Antigen Presenting Cells.” Dendritic cells are a type of antigen presenting cell created in a high temperature incubator in the presence of tumor cells, along with a specific kind of bacteria.
Scientists at Duke University discovered how dendritic cells can be used as vaccines by mixing them with genetic material (tumor cells), incubating them, and then infusing them back into the patient. The dendritic cells present the tumor antigens to the body’s white blood cells (T-lymphocytes) for destruction.
According to Dr. Harmon Eyre, Vice President of Research at the American Medical Association, “Patients’ responses [to dendritic cell vaccines] are far out of proportion to anything that any current therapy could do.”
When BCG vaccine, a type of bacterial vaccine made from the mycobacteria family, is combined, and incubated, with the dendritic cell vaccine, it stimulates the lymphoreticuloendothelial system and results in stimulating increased resistance to, and attack on cancer cells. BCG has been shown to be a potent activator of NK (T-lymphocyte) cells. The mechanism of action by BCG is considered to be primarily that of stimulating and mobilizing of certain cells called macrophage cells. It stimulates them to produce interferon (a very potent imunostimulator), which in turn stimulates cancer killing NK cells. The vaccine is injected into and under the skin once per week for 3 weeks and then monthly as a booster until the cancer is gone.
Vaccine therapy offers promising new hope in the fight against this old scourge of humankind.
1. Rosenthal, Sol, M.D., PhD. BCG Vaccine: Tuberculosis-Cancer. PSG Publishing Company, Inc. Littleton MA, 1980.
2. Yang, Yiping, M.D. Dendritic Cell Vaccine, Nature Immunology, April 4, 2004.
The regular readers of this magazine will remember when I wrote an article a few years ago called “Stay Away from those Statins”, well it has gotten worse.
Dr. Kallash Chand, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association has commented on recent research which found those who take statin (cholesterol-lowering) drugs are more than twice as likely to develop Parkinsons’s disease in later life than those who do not.
Another recent study showed statin use increases the risk of diabetes by 46 per cent.
This has led to calls to end the widespread use of the drugs!
The Parkinson’s research carried out over 20 years, and involving nearly 16,000 people, suggests cholesterol may have a vital role in protecting the brain and the nervous system. The brain itself is between 70-80% cholesterol!
The findings have alarmed experts who say if applied to the number of Britons deemed eligible for statins, it could equate to 150,000 extra patients with Parkinson’s disease, a central nervous system disorder affecting one in 350 mostly older people.
The studies have also fuelled concerns that statins, now recommended for up to half the adult population over 50 by government drug policy adviser the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, may be doing patients more harm than good.
Other studies have shown a link between the cholesterol-lowering drugs and potentially disabling side effects including cataracts, diabetes, muscle pains, fatigue, memory loss and dementia.
Dr. Xuemei Huang, who led the research on the link with Parkinson’s disease, recently published in the Journal of Movement Disorders, expressed concerns about the widespread prescription of statins.
The professor of neurology at Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania said: “If we blanket prescribe statins to people, we could be creating a huge population of people with neurological problems.”
Dr. Chand is quoted as saying “The risks of side-effects of these drugs are far greater than any potential benefits and it is high time these drugs were restricted in the low-risk population and only given to people with existing heart disease.”
Isn’t it time we started paying attention to studies like this and stop this madness!
For further information contact Reno Integrative Medical Center, 6110 Plumas St., Ste. B, Reno, NV, 89519, 775-829-1009, www.renointegrative.com
Reno Integrative Medical Center
6110 Plumas St. Ste. B, Reno, Nevada 89519
Phone: 775- 829-1009 1-800-994-1009