Clinical Reference Guide vs. Adjuvant Protocols for Healing:
What Is the Difference?

Now that Joseph Antell’s Adjuvant Protocols for Healing: A Practitioner’s Manual (APFH) is available, we hear this question often. The Clinical Reference Guide (CRG) has long been an essential reference for practitioners—but it also has its drawbacks. Recently, a doctor wrote asking about the differences she encountered as she researched both the CRG and the APFH manuals. Mark’s reply below clarifies the choices presented by both.

Hi Mark,
I have used the CRG for years and am now wondering why the protocols vary so much from Adjuvant Protocols for Healing (APFH). For instance, under “Eye Floaters” the April 2018 CRG lists Iplex and Cruciferous Complete as the top two products. But neither of those supplements are recommended for floaters in APFH.

Maybe you can enlighten me…as you usually do!


Hi Tamara,
Glad you asked. The Clinical Reference Guide is a conglomeration of many different inputs over a long period. It’s the proverbial “too many cooks spoil the broth.” Like a Wiki-type project under no direct authority, it has many voices and almost no editing.

On the other hand, Adjuvant Protocols for Healing is the product of a lifetime of learning from the best minds at Standard Process, direct feedback from Joseph’s own clients and the doctors he’s mentored over the years, and, of course, his deep immersion into the writings and lectures of Dr. Royal Lee. I personally reviewed every single page of the book and offered recommendations in the prepublication phase. Joseph and I have a century between us of working in this field.

This is why, for example, the APFH protocol titled “Eye Floaters” lists three possible causes and protocols rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. We must always nuance our recommendations to fit the patient, not the other way around. Different causes can produce similar effects, which is why you must treat the person and not the symptom. For that very reason, doctors who use APFH will find space on each protocol page to make notes and observations tailored to each patient.

I’m impressed at your desire to not only learn this but to learn it in a contextual way. APFH is meant to be used as a dynamic tool, not simply a book of recipes.



Image from iStock/Prostock-Studio.

Mark Anderson

Mark Anderson is an author, researcher, gentleman farmer, and owner of Standard Process West, Inc. He has been educating health professionals from all branches of the healing arts in the science and skills of therapeutic nutrition for almost 50 years. His foundation is the compiled works of Dr. Royal Lee, and his lectures are steeped in current peer-reviewed scientific studies and principles. He is also the heart and soul of Back to School for Doctors, the largest whole food nutrition conference in the US, held every year in Denver for over 3 decades.

For five decades now, Mark Anderson has been with Standard Process, training health professionals from all branches of the healing arts in the science of nutritional therapeutics. Along with the legendary holistic pioneer Bernard Jensen, Mark co-authored the critically acclaimed Empty Harvest: Understanding the Link Between Our Food, Our Immunity, and Our Planet.

Mark compiled, edited, and published three volumes from the works of Dr. Royal Lee, the “father of nutritional therapeutics.” He also developed and created the Selene River Press Historical Archives, a one-of-a-kind vast online resource for doctors, health seekers, and researchers. Free to all, the Historical Archives preserves the immense body of work produced by nutritional pioneers of the 20th century. The collection documents the origins of holistic thinking, a philosophy that is now bearing fruit. As Mark knows better than most, so-called “new discoveries” heralded by today’s scientific press as fundamental breakthroughs in health and healing can be traced back to discoveries made decades ago—and reported in the corpus of the Historical Archives. Mark believes that unless you want to be the ninth person to be the first to discover something, you better know your history. After all, what we often call “progress” is nothing more than the rediscovery of a truth encountered—but rejected—long ago. And too bad—credit is almost never afforded retroactively.

Products by Mark R. Anderson

Back to School for Doctors Series

Back to School for Doctors 1997–1998


Back to School for Doctors Series

Back to School for Doctors 1999–2000


3 thoughts on “Clinical Reference Guide vs. Adjuvant Protocols for Healing:
What Is the Difference?

  1. Joseph says:

    As Mark wisely points out, there is no “One size fits all”. Hence the beauty of APFH. Mark is far more my superior in these matters, but I still love the CRG and reference both most days. Using the floaters reference, my understanding is that AC Carbamide was originally formulated for treating floaters and I myself and MANY patients have eliminated floaters with this product, not referenced in neither CRG nor APFH! Many perspectives have merit. Some more than others. To soap box, this is why “Systems Analysis” as in the Symptom Survey often produces improved results over treating only by symptoms. Long story….

  2. Stephanie says:

    Thanks, Joseph. One correction: Eye Floaters is listed in APFH on pg. 174 (Index page 422: under “E” for Eyes).

  3. Stephanie says:

    Also, AC Carbomide is not recommended for floaters unless there are eye pressure issues. Then AC Carbomide is added to the rest of the protocol. That’s why it’s not listed in the eye floaters protocol.

Leave a Reply