Wikipedia is the largest and most popular reference site on the Internet. Yet the articles that are pro-health freedom or integrative medicine perspectives are consistently gutted, removed, or vandalized.

• According to Dr. Ronald Klatz, president of American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M), Wikipedia has repeatedly deleted his postings and those from other A4M doctors trying to provide positive information on anti-aging. In other words, they can’t get their perspectives posted even when writing about their own organization.
• Positive, science-based information in the article on Orthomolecular Medicine is repeatedly removed, leaving only critical opinions.
• The entry for Nutritionist states that ADA-registered dieticians are the food and nutrition experts, while mere nutritionists have different (and, it is implied, inferior) training and expertise. This ignores the fact that most dieticians have college degrees only, while many nutritionists have master’s and PhD degrees. The article has more information about dieticians than about nutritionists, who are supposed to be the subject of the article, and its “See Also” section links to the dietician page—though there is no reciprocity of links from the dietician page to this one.
• The article on Alternative Medicine has a lengthy section on how CAM is perceived by the scientific community, at one point quoting evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who defined alternative medicine as a “set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests,” and said that “if a technique is demonstrated effective in properly performed trials, it ceases to be alternative and simply becomes medicine.” The article also includes inflammatory section headers like, “Danger Can Be Increased When Used as a Complement to Standard Medical Care.”
• The article on Dr. Julian Whitaker was flagged in December 2007 as lacking neutrality—yet the controversy has not been resolved to this date. Not only does the piece malign Dr. Whitaker, it contains false and certainly libelous information about ANH-USA under our former name: “The American Association for Health Freedom [is] an advocacy organisation that promotes allowing patients and physicians to receive insurance compensation for procedures not supported by scientific evidence.”

Coming to you soon—and you probably won’t know that you’re eating it.

Genetically modified salmon—the first GMO animal for human consumption—is reaching the final stages in its approval. Most terrifying: they might not have to tell us if our fish is GM or not!

This week the FDA announced a 60-day period of consultation and public hearings over whether to permit a genetically modified strain of salmon (“frankenfish” to its critics) to be eaten by humans. The approval process could take less than a year, and if it gets the green light the fish could be on the market in eighteen months.

There are two sets of hearings: whether the FDA should approve this “new animal drug application,” and whether the fish (if approved) must be labeled as genetically engineered or not. Because it is new ground for the FDA and there are no regulations about genetically engineered animals, it is being evaluated as if it were an animal treated with drugs.

AquAdvantage Salmon, designed to grow twice as fast as traditional fish, is an Atlantic salmon containing the Chinook salmon growth hormone gene, plus an antifreeze protein gene from the ocean pout—an eel-like creature from a different family of marine organisms.

The fish has been created by AquaBounty Technologies of Boston, Massachusetts, and was developed over the past fourteen years at a cost of $50 million. The explanation of the genetic modification on the company's publicity literature, aimed at reassuring the public, makes no mention of the ocean pout gene: “The chinook growth hormone is the same as the Atlantic salmon growth hormone; it is simply regulated differently. Their ability to grow faster does not change the biological make-up of the fish.”

AquaBounty says the fish will be raised in inland waters to ensure that the modified salmon do not enter the oceans. The GM salmon will also be sterile, which eliminates the threat of interbreeding among themselves or with native populations, eliminating the risk to wild populations or the environment.

ANH-USA has consistently opposed genetically modified organisms because of both the documented and the unknown health risks. If GMO products are approved, however ANH-USA strongly supports labeling. We do not have true health freedom if we are prevented from choosing non-GMO foods—which is precisely the result if there are no labels indicating that a particular food has been genetically modified. We do not like untested, new-to-nature substances being forced onto us, but we value the freedom of conscious consumer choice even more.

Eric Hallerman, head of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences at Virginia Tech University, said, “This is the threshold case. If it's approved, there will be others. If it's not, it'll have a chilling effect for years.”

One question the hearings will try to determine is whether and how AquaBounty salmon is “materially different” from regular Atlantic salmon. In past hearings on GMOs, the FDA has never found that genetic engineering in itself constitutes a material difference, and the FDA cannot require labeling based on differences in the production process if the resulting products are not materially different.

Any specific scientific data that might support material differences for this GM salmon will be released anywhere from two weeks to two days before the hearing, which will hardly be enough time for thorough scientific evaluation. The FDA says that if the Agency is unable to provide the materials before the meeting, they will be available at the hearing! This says it all about the FDA’s bias. Can you imagine telling a prosecutor or defense lawyer that the evidence would be withheld until the trial?

To date, FDA has refused to require GMO labeling based on consumer interest alone, and the courts (in Stauber v. Shalala and Alliance for Bio-integrity v. Shalala) have upheld the FDA’s decision.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t yet know what negative health effects such bio-engineering might cause in the salmon. We do know that genetically modified foods affect the human physiology in negative ways. One example: Filipinos who ate GMO corn found that their bodies developed antibodies to Bt toxin—that is, their bodies processed the corn’s engineered traits into their guts and reacted to them. These same consumers also developed a resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin.

Moreover, there are significant nutritional differences between GM and non-GM foods generally:

• GMO soybean varieties produce greater amounts of oleic acid than other soybean varieties. The FDA even acknowledged the differences in the oil they produce, concluding that the term “soybean oil” no longer adequately described the nature of the food but that a term like “high oleic acid” would be required to appear as part of the name of the oil.
• Roundup Ready beans were significantly lower in protein and amino acid, according to Jeffrey Smith in his book Genetic Roulette.
• In 1996, animal tests proved that there was a severe danger from genes spliced from Brazil nuts and soybeans—allergic reactions so severe that the individuals could suffer anaphylactic shock, possibly leading to death.
• We recently reported to you that GM soy made hamsters sterile, but that the effect did not hit until the third generation, a frightening thought if it applies to humans.

One major problem is that the FDA has historically rushed to approve genetically modified products that are later found to be dangerous. For example, the Flavr Savr tomato was genetically engineered in the early 1990s by Calgene Inc. (now owned by Monsanto); it was designed to stay fresh on store shelves longer than regular tomatoes. Even though the FDA’s own scientific advisers were concerned over Calgene’s findings, which showed stomach lesions in lab rats that ingested the GM tomato, the Flavr Savr went to market!

The FDA should certainly have required the Flavr Savr to be labeled as GM: not only were there significant “material differences” between it and a non-GM tomato in terms of its taste, its risk of fungal diseases, and other physical problems, but more importantly, the Flavr Savr tomato was never deemed safe. According to biologist Arpad Pusztai, “the claim that these GM tomatoes were safe as conventional ones is at best premature and, at worst, faulty.” The tomato was withdrawn from the market in 1997.

In the case of the GM salmon, there are two different FDA hearings—one on the AquAdvantage product, and one on the need for a labeling requirement—so we need your help with a two-pronged Action Alert. Please contact the FDA and voice your opinions on genetically modified salmon and on full disclosure in labeling. As always, we’ve drafted sample letters to help you. Please TAKE ACTION now!

• reproductive tract changes that may be permanent • testosterone decreases • breast and prostate cancer cells predisposed to cancer • hyperactive behavior • prostate weight increase. While Health Canada and the U.S. FDA and EPA fail to take action pending safety tests, it is critical to vote with our pocket books. And, take urgent action urged by ANH-USA for a Citizens Petition to ban BPA in cash register receipts. Click here to learn more https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=595. It is alarming that the FDA has failed to take action on a petition by ANH-USA to ban BPA in dental sealants in the mouths of children. Can we afford to potentially sacrifice our children's health while further safety studies are conducted? Deborah Ray, MT (ASCP)

• One Australian study found that low vitamin D levels in expectant mothers are clearly linked to a higher risk of MS in their children. Experts suspect that mother’s lack of exposure to sunlight—the main source of vitamin D—may affect the fetus’s central nervous system or immune system, predisposing it to developing MS later in life.
• A US study showed that low vitamin D blood levels are associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse attacks in MS patients.
• Neurologists at the University at Buffalo have found that low vitamin D levels may be associated with more advanced physical disability and cognitive impairment in persons with MS.
• And Dr. Colleen Hayes’s research shows that MS does not occur below a certain latitude—where direct sunlight is much more prevalent—and that many cases of MS may be undiagnosed vitamin D deficiency. The Society mentions the latitude connection  on its website but ties it to sunlight rather than vitamin D.

• Cuts in Medicare spending of $575 billion over the next decade;
• 7½ million members of Medicare Advantage plans to lose their coverage and cause another 7½ million to face higher premiums and benefit cuts;
• About one in seven facilities—hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and hospices—to become unprofitable and possibly drop out of Medicare altogether; and
• Many more doctors to quit seeing Medicare patients entirely.

• lack of weight bearing exercise to build bone density • a diet rich in foods that set the stage for an acidic pH (high in sugar, meats from conventional sources, low in fruits and vegetables) • lack of a balance of essential fatty acids (Omega 3:Omega 6 fatty acids) essential for bone health • the side effects of medications such as acid blocking drugs and steroids • deficiency of nutrients key to bone health including vitamin D and vitamin K (K1 and K2) • hormonal balance • adequate sun exposure to optimize vitamin D production In 2002 the US Preventive Task Force drafted guidelines that stated, in part, all women over the age of 65 should get a bone density test. Now, a new draft of the guidelines is pending that states all postmenopausal women should undergo bone density testing if their risk of fracture is the same or greater than the average 65 year old woman. Part of the US Preventive Task Force’s effort is to educate American women that certain medications, smoking, heavy alcohol use, less than optimal weight, and family history of a parent with a hip fracture increase their risk of bone fracture. The US Preventive Task Force has failed in several important respects. The most important is the failure to educate consumers that no less than 26 nutrients are essential for bone health. It is widely recognized in many medical circles that up to 85%+ of Americans are vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D is now recognized to be as important as calcium for bone health. Other key bone health nutrients including the essential Omega 3 fatty acids, magnesium, and other minerals are all-too-frequently deficient in the standard American diet that is rich in calories but less than optimal in nutrient density. Vitamin K1 and K2 have profound research that acknowledges their importance in bone nutrient and bone strength. Important government aging research at Tufts University has revealed that those who ate a diet rich in fruit and vegetables had the strongest bones. Those who ate a diet richest in sugar had the weakest bones. One simple step every American can take daily is to increase their daily intake of fruit and vegetables. Cutting back on sugar not only is important for dental health and to reduce the risk of obesity but also critical to keep our bones strong. Another important failure of the draft guidelines posted for public comment is that many experts point to studies that show positive bone density tests often fail to be correlated with bone fractures. That is, bone density tests can demonstrate bone thinning but that does not translate to bone fractures. Experts including noted integrative medical practitioner Jonathan Wright, MD advise their patients to use tests that reveal bone loss as well as vitamin D sufficiency as better measures of bone health. The US Preventive Task Force uses FRAX, a Web-based bone loss risk calculator, http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX. It is designed to estimate the odds of bone fracture within 10 years. However, the OR Health and Science University researcher, Dr. Heidi Nelson, who led the scientific review of how frequently bone mineral density x-rays should be repeated, “found no advantage to repeating the test (bone density testing) even after eight years.” In the words of Dr. Nelson, “so we can really lay off a lot of these repeat screening tests.” How many bone fractures could be prevented if this government-appointed panel put its efforts towards science-based lifestyle factors including: • vitamin D status • regular weight bearing exercise • optimal diet to maintain alkaline pH (fruits and vegetable rich) • education about medications that promote bone thinning • education about all the nutrients that are essential for bone health including vitamin K1 and K2, magnesium, the omega 3 fatty acids, among others? As healthcare reform moves to mandate preventive screening, it is critical we examine the current effort of early detection that masquerades as prevention while lives are lost, quality of life suffers, and money and efforts are wasted by these action steps that miss the mark. American healthcare consumers deserve better. Deborah Ray, MT (ASCP)]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/with-a-new-mandate-of-required-payment-of-preventive-testing-does-the-us-preventive-task-force-miss-the-mark-with-women%e2%80%99s-bone-health-recommendations/feed/ 4 http://www.anh-usa.org/the-new-american-family-mother-and-dad-are-overweight-and-the-children-are-overweight-too-obesity-can-now-be-inherited/ http://www.anh-usa.org/the-new-american-family-mother-and-dad-are-overweight-and-the-children-are-overweight-too-obesity-can-now-be-inherited/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:27:54 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=6455 If you have recently been to a U.S. theme park, it is startling to most to notice the waistlines of American families. Mom and Dad are overweight and more often than not, every child is overweight, too. Many experts were quick to comment that obesity must be related to genetic susceptibility. Really, what about mother and father’s lifestyle and the lifestyle messages they teach their children? That line of thinking may be about to change. According to a French biochemist, “this is the first time that we have shown a trans-generational increase in obesity" linked to omega intake referring to a newly reported study which found that overeating when it is combined with the wrong balance of fats in the diet can cause obesity to be carried over from one generation to the next. When Walter Willett, MD, MPH, Chair, Harvard University Department of Nutrition and Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, commented in the January 2000 issue of Time magazine that the most significant change in nutritional science of the 20th century was the fact that Americans ‘changed the fats in their diet’. We moved away from dietary sources of omega three and omega six fatty acids to trans hydrogenated fats in increasing amounts with a profound abundance of omega six to omega three fatty acids in our diet. Fats are one of the fundamental three building blocks of our diet (proteins, carbohydrates, and fats) essential for cellular membranes, brain function, immune function, hormonal function, cardiovascular health,and  energy, just to name a few. Books such as “Smart Fats” by Michael Schmidt, DC, CCN and “The Omega Three Connection” by Andrew Stoll, MD are but a few to chronicle what it is essential to get enough good fatty acids in our diet in a proper ratio of omega three: omega six. As this study notes, the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in a typical Western diet has shifted from an optimal five-to-one to 40-to-one in the United States. In the breast milk of American women, the average ratio has gone from six-to-one to 18-to-one. American women have the lowest tissue stores of DHA, an important omega three fatty acid, in the world. It has been established that an imbalanced ratio can be linked to conditions such as depression which has become all-too-common among the American population. Fatty acid deficiency and imbalance are truly public health crises to be addressed by the American scientific and medical community. The epidemic of inflammation related to neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, to cardiovascular/heart disease, to immune system imbalances such as autoimmune diseases, to allergies and asthma, to the risk of stroke, hormonal imbalances, behavior and learning disabilities are all related to this very fatty acid deficiency and imbalance. Europe embraced this beginning with important research in the decades of the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. was a ‘slow adopter’ and only recently did the American Heart Association and its physician community embrace adequate good fats for heart health. It is critical that every American physician follow the lead of the integrative medical community which began in 1980 thanks to educational leaders like Jeffrey Bland, PhD to address, educate, and empower their patients regarding fatty acid sufficiency and balance. Future generations will depend upon the conventional medical community embracing this research and making sure it is the standard of care for all Americans and for future generations. We cannot afford to wait as heart doctors waited for years to embrace essential fatty acids. Integrative medicine has long made fatty acid sufficiency and fatty acid balance the standard of care for medical practice. It is critical that conventional medicine include this critical nutrient for every American as well. Deborah Ray, MT (ASCP)]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/the-new-american-family-mother-and-dad-are-overweight-and-the-children-are-overweight-too-obesity-can-now-be-inherited/feed/ 1 http://www.anh-usa.org/risk-to-benefit-ratio-when-is-a-drug-too-risky-to-stay-on-the-market/ http://www.anh-usa.org/risk-to-benefit-ratio-when-is-a-drug-too-risky-to-stay-on-the-market/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:24:49 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=6452 Pundits have said it takes at least 100 deaths for the FDA to act regarding pulling a prescription drug from the marketplace. The playing field is far from level for risky medications versus the risks of supplements including herbs. It is of little comfort to consumers that the FDA has no written guidelines for deciding such action (that is, pulling a drug from the market). In fact, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner, states “each drug has its own complex story”. Click here to read further http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-07-03-unsafe-drugs_N.htm. The drug approved in 1999 to control high blood sugar, Avandia, now has faced a review of its heart attack and death risk. A 700-page review has been posted by the FDA in advance of the meeting that considered action on Avandia which is used by hundreds of thousands of diabetics in the U.S. One of the multiple considerations that faced the FDA included “Is there a safer alternative?” Not included on the FDA’s review are the following questions:

• Does targeting the blood test result number (in this case, blood sugar) change the outcome of the disease for the patient? • What is the drug induced nutrient depletion of the medication? The FDA considers the seriousness of the illness being treated, the harm, and the frequency of the risks versus the benefits from the medication. The FDA seems oblivious to the current literature which has stated repeatedly that targeting a blood sugar number often worsens the outcome for type II diabetes. Click here to read current studies on the topic: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100629122946.htm

• Near-Normal Blood Sugar Target Did Not Delay Risk of Organ Damage in People with Diabetes, Study Finds http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0802987
• Intensive Blood Glucose Control and Vascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852576140048867C852577580071F591?OpenDocument&id=48dde4a73e09a969852568880078c249&c=Diabetes&count=1
• Intensive Blood Glucose Control and Vascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/prof/heart/other/accord/q_a.htm#die

Also Featured in the August 17, 2010 Newsletter: News Briefs ]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/memo-to-political-leaders-when-you-think-job-creation-think-natural-health-if-you-dont-other-countries-will/feed/ 20 http://www.anh-usa.org/news-briefs/ http://www.anh-usa.org/news-briefs/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:44:23 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5697 Sour milk politics; Congress tries to improve school lunches; court says no to Monsanto; and Harvard researchers develop Frankenstein machine.

Sour Milk Politics

Congress Tries to Improve School Lunches

Court Again Says No to Monsanto

Harvard Researchers Create Frankenstein Machine

Also in Featured in the August 17, 2010 Newsletter: Memo to Political Leaders: When You Think Job Creation, Think Natural Health (If You Don't, Other Countries Will)]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/news-briefs/feed/ 12 http://www.anh-usa.org/what-your-waistline-means-to-your-health/ http://www.anh-usa.org/what-your-waistline-means-to-your-health/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:11:56 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5803 The New England Journal of Medicine in a November 2008 issue published research that had tracked nearly 360,000 men and women in 9 European countries for nearly 10 years. The results confirm research that has proliferated in the U.S. medical literature that is, a full to bursting waistline is a stronger predictor of premature death than one's overall weight. It is called apple shaped weight deposition. Carrying your excess weight around your middle is correlated with insulin resistance, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, poor blood sugar control, acne, polycystic ovarian syndrome, male pattern baldness, and fatty liver, to name many of the symptoms that comprise this symptom complex called Syndrome X among other names. Adipose tissue is better termed 'an organ' that produces hormones that have total body effects. The current medical approach of treating the respective symptoms individually, i.e. a pill for high cholesterol and another pill for high blood pressure is uniformly poor in the long run. Researchers like Loren Cordain, PhD at CO State University, author of The Paleo Diet, find their research falls on deaf ears in a medical system devoted to treating using prescriptions and procedures. There is no concerted public health effort to adopt this message even though the fastest growing group of type II diabetics is teenagers in the U.S. The TN Medicaid system was convinced to reimburse chromium supplementation as a means of dealing with insulin resistance that underlies the medical conditions that consume billions of dollars in the treatment of chronic disease. Chromium is critical yet it is only one piece of the multifactoral lifestyle to address carrying excess weight around your waist. Integrative medicine treats the bulging waistline and its healthcare consequences very effectively because it treats the whole person rather than the symptoms of the consequences of carrying weight around the waistline. While this study ended with the traditional call for more money for more study (further research should focus on whether treatment for weight problems should focus on preventing increases in waist size rather than holding down weight overall), perhaps the money is better spent to adopt integrative health practices into the prevention and treatment of chronic disease. From Deborah A. Ray, MT(ASCP) Copyright © 2010 Natural Health Science News. Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution to Natural Health Science News.]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/what-your-waistline-means-to-your-health/feed/ 4 http://www.anh-usa.org/diabetes-rate-up-90-in-last-10-years/ http://www.anh-usa.org/diabetes-rate-up-90-in-last-10-years/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:08:48 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5796 Washington University, in a NIH-funded grant request in 2005 to study ginseng and its blood sugar modulating effects, called diabetes an epidemic. They predicted 10% of the US population would be type II diabetic within the year. Their predictions have proven to be all-too-accurate. US health officials have indicated that the rate of new type II diabetes cases soared by 90% in the US during the past decade. The problem is most common in the southern states where rates of obesity are skyrocketing. Even the American Diabetes Association indicates the rates of diabetes have yet to level. While the diagnosis often shortens lives and creates a complex web of additional complications that range from neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney dysfunction, and failure-to-heal wounds leading to 150,000 amputations in the US each year, there is a staggering financial toll. Two new federally-funded studies published in the current Archives of Internal Medicine reveal that diabetic Americans doubled their spending on drugs for their disease in the last 6 years. Last year's bill was an eye-popping $12.5 billion. More patients got multiple drugs as new classes of drugs came onto the market. Yet, few studies lasted longer than 6 months. And findings indicate that the widely prescribed Avandia may increase the risk of heart disease death. Avandia costs nearly 8 times the bill for generic metformin a month. The FDA has received a petition to ban Avandia after the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes unanimously advised against using Avandia; click here to read more http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122537774874284331.html. Most puzzling of all is the lack of attention in American government public health circles to the 30-years of government funded research on chromium and blood sugar control as well as insulin sensitivity, the published lifestyle focused research from Walter Willett, MD, MPH and his colleagues at Harvard, and the latest published research from the scientific journal of the American Physical Therapy Association. Click here http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=127776 to read the study that demonstrated that patients with diabetes who participate in a program that combined aerobic exercise along with resistance movements demonstrated improved blood sugar control, physical feats, and body fat composition. Integrative physicians have been the targets of their respective state boards of medicine for decades relating to their use of lifestyle-based medicine along with the medical use of clinical nutrition. Their success rate exceeds 90% as documented by the above mentioned research.  Please SUPPORT the efforts of ANH-USA to protect the rights of practitioners to practice and consumers to choose. From Deborah A. Ray, MT(ASCP) Copyright © 2010 Natural Health Science News. Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution to Natural Health Science News. ]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/diabetes-rate-up-90-in-last-10-years/feed/ 1 http://www.anh-usa.org/drugs-in-our-water-drugs-from-cows/ http://www.anh-usa.org/drugs-in-our-water-drugs-from-cows/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:06:21 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5792 Thanks to the imagination of a school girl in WV, a growing appreciation exists of our exposure to pharmaceutical drugs in our water supply system. It was her school experiment after reading about drugs in Swiss lakes that sparked the US Geological Service to launch a survey of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. The results were startling to all; widespread contamination of our waters was present from pharmaceutical drugs dumped down drains, in the trash, and from commodes. Click here to read further http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/keep-drugs-out-of-the-water-supply.html. However action remains limited on this issue nearly eight years later. Now with the recent report that the Center for Food Safety and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration in December 2009 that called for an immediate withdrawal of arsenic-containing compounds in animal feed, comes further scrutiny of our exposure to drugs and to compounds such as arsenic in animal feed. You may be unaware that arsenic-containing compounds are widely used in chicken production. Most arsenic-containing animal feed additives are not used to treat sickness but are, instead, added  in poultry production to induce faster weight gain and create the appearance of a healthy color in meat from chickens (and to a lesser extent, turkeys and hogs). Arsenic is a known and powerful heavy metal and carcinogen. It is now well known that these feed additives lead to arsenic residue in conventionally raised chickens, those sold in supermarkets and served in restaurants across the country, and in the environment, putting our health and that of wildlife at risk. Former FDA commissioner Dr. Donald Kennedy (appointed by Secretary Califano in the 1970s, neurophysiologist, and Stanford professor emeritus of environmental science) recently called in Congress to take a simple step to protect the health of all Americans. His call was to eliminate the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal feed. He noted, click here to read further http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18kennedy.html, that the total number of antibiotics used in animal feed to promote their growth, continues to grow even after one antibiotic class, fluoroquinolones, was banned in 2005 from poultry feed. At present, seventy percent of all antibiotics are used in animal feed in the U.S.  Dr. Kennedy and other noted experts including Tufts University professor Dr. Stuart Levy, president of Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, have warned about the growing correlation between drug-resistant infections and the overuse and abuse of antibiotics including their use in farm animal feed. At present there are over 2 million annual hospital acquired infections that kill up to 106,000 Americans each year. These unnecessary infections are more difficult than ever to treat thanks, in part, to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in farm animals as well as the overuse in medical practice. Dr. Levy, director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University in Boston, spoke of the consequences of Sweden's 1986 ban on antibiotics to promote livestock growth. While infectious outbreaks in the first year increased the need for antibiotic therapy, Levy says, use of the drugs fell thereafter. Total antibiotic use for food animals in Sweden is now 55 percent lower than before the ban, according to a report to be published in the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics Newsletter, click here to read further http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/7_18_98/fob7.htm. But again, this news has yet to raise alarm in government circles. As we now learn that substances are present in personal care products that never appear on the label, there is growing awareness of what’s in my water, what’s in my grilled chicken, what’s in my filet, and the list goes on. We spend enormous dollars within government agencies with the goal in mind to protect and educate consumers in order to make informed lifestyle choices. How is it possible that not only are these facts overlooked for decades but ignored when brought to light? Every consumer has the right to know about the mercury in their fish, the arsenic in their chicken, the antibiotics in their beef. Only then can consumers vote with their pocket-book and action within this nation’s agribusiness will change. From Deborah A. Ray, MT(ASCP) Copyright © 2010 Natural Health Science News. Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution to Natural Health Science News.]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/drugs-in-our-water-drugs-from-cows/feed/ 1 http://www.anh-usa.org/raw-and-organic-almonds-lawsuit-scores-its-first-major-victory/ http://www.anh-usa.org/raw-and-organic-almonds-lawsuit-scores-its-first-major-victory/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:00:53 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5148 A group of almond growers has been fighting for three years to keep their almonds from being adulterated against their will. Now their plea will finally be heard in federal court. From 2001 to 2004, there was a string of salmonella outbreaks in California that were linked to almonds. In response, the Almond Board of California made a deal with the US Department of Agriculture. Effective September 2007, the USDA ordered all almond growers to “sterilize” almonds in one of several ways: heat them using steam, irradiate them using a controversial ionization process, roast or blanch them, or treat them with propylene oxide (PPO). PPO is a known carcinogen, and most countries, including the EU, have banned imported nuts treated with PPO. The chemical is so nasty that it’s even been banned by both the National Hot Rod and American Motorcycle Racing Associations, where it had been used as a fuel additive before it was deemed too dangerous. The new rule created deceptive labeling. Almonds that have undergone chemical treatments or heating for pasteurization are still labeled “raw.” Consumers who purchase “raw” almonds may well think that those almonds are natural and unprocessed. Moreover, there will be no label requirement to specify what kind of pasteurization treatment was used among the many approved methods or combination of options. In March of 2007, we instituted an Action Alert and joined with the Organic Consumers Association, the Cornucopia Institute, and other groups to seek changes to the regulations. Before the regulations went into effect, an exemption was given for small-scale growers, who were allowed to sell truly raw almonds, but only direct to the public from farm stands. It was still illegal for them to say that theirs were untreated, thus denying them the right to tell the truth and also any competitive advantage from doing so. Since the new requirement took effect, a group of raw and organic almond farmers continued the fight. Last Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that their challenge can proceed. “At long last the farmers who have been injured by this rule will have the opportunity to stand in court and state why this poorly thought out regulation should be thrown out,” said Will Fantle, research director at the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based sustainable agriculture advocacy group coordinating the legal strategy for the farmers’ lawsuit. One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, almond farmer Nick Koretoff, said, “I am very happy with this first step in overturning this destructive regulation….My consumers want raw, untreated, healthy almonds, and I have been denied the opportunity to sell them what they want.” An attorney representing the farmers in the current lawsuit said, “We are pleased that the Appeals Court rejected USDA’s argument that courthouse doors are closed to farmers. We now intend to demonstrate to the federal district court that USDA acted outside of authority granted by Congress when it denied California almond growers a consumer market for raw almonds.” This is not the first time ANH-USA has battled over nuts. In April we issued an Action Alert over FDA’s censorship of the scientific evidence supporting health claims for walnuts. The FDA had sent a Warning Letter to a nut processor and distributor because the company dared to list some of the health benefits of walnuts on its website. The FDA said that the walnuts were being “promoted [as] drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” In other words, if you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, or ease arthritis or inflammation, your words have magically changed that food into a drug, and that’s illegal! The Free Speech About Science Act (HR 4913), which we strongly support to put a stop to FDA censorship ( and ultimately USDA censorship as well) is currently in committee.

Also Featured in the August 10, 2010 Newsletter: Biased and One-Sided Consumer Reports Article Attacks Supplements JAMA Reports that Vitamin B6 May Reduce Lung Cancer. Will the FDA Turn Natural B6 into a Drug?]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/raw-and-organic-almonds-lawsuit-scores-its-first-major-victory/feed/ 65 http://www.anh-usa.org/biased-and-one-sided-consumer-reports-article-attacks-supplements/ http://www.anh-usa.org/biased-and-one-sided-consumer-reports-article-attacks-supplements/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:00:13 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5146 Consumer Reports Health just published an exposé of twelve “dangerous supplements.” It’s an example of such skewed information and biased reporting from a once respected organization that we have issued a new Action Alert. The report, subtitled “What you don't know about these 12 ingredients could hurt you,” highlights every possible negative event linked to supplements. The list is long; it is as though they went out of their way to find every possible negative angle. Consumer Reports Health’s position seems to be that supplements generally are unsafe and unregulated. In fact, supplement are arguably the safest part of the food market, as we explained on June 1. And they are highly regulated, as we explained on July 13. The FDA may remove any unsafe, misbranded, or adulterated supplements from the market. It is charged with enforcing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which holds supplement manufacturers to “good manufacturing practices” (industry standards for product quality); and it may take any necessary action based on adverse event reports. Both the FDA and the FTC also have to power to stop any fraudulent advertising. Moreover, nowhere in the main article are the health benefits examined or weighed in a neutral fashion. They cite the Nutrition Business Journal’s figure of $26.7 billion in spending by Americans on supplements, without recognizing that the reason most people continue to take supplement is because they work—usually as supplements to diet, but often to improve health more effectively, more reliably, and more safely than prescription drugs. Let’s look at some of CRH’s points.

• “What consumers might not realize…is that supplement manufacturers routinely, and legally, sell their products without first having to demonstrate that they are safe and effective.” CRH ignores that supplement companies must comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices, which require companies to evaluate the identity, purity, quality, strength, and composition of dietary supplement ingredients, among hundreds of additional safeguards. The article also ignores the “Catch-22” of current drug regulation. It easily costs on average a billion dollars to demonstrate safety and effectiveness to the FDA. What supplement company can afford this sum for an unpatented product? And natural products are generally barred from being patented.

• CRH continues: “Undercover investigators from the Government Accountability Office, posing as elderly consumers, caught salespeople on tape dispensing potentially harmful medical advice. In one case, a salesperson told an investigator that a garlic supplement could be taken in lieu of high blood pressure medicine.” Yet the article also says that “It's against the law for companies (or their employees) to claim that any supplement can prevent, treat, or cure any disease except some nutrient-deficiency conditions.” Clearly, if reported correctly, this salesperson broke the law—but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the supplement industry in general. And never mind that consumers do need to be told by somebody about the risk of prescription blood pressure medications.
• The article discusses adverse reactions from a couple of products, including an old formulation of Hydroxycut, and colloidal silver (which if taken in large enough doses can turn the skin a bluish gray). Yet the article never mentions adverse reactions from drugs which went through the “safe and effective” certification required for FDA approval yet still killed or harmed people in large numbers. In 2009, the FDA received reports of more than 373,000 serious adverse events and nearly 64,000 deaths associated with pharmaceutical drugs. In contrast, the FDA received only 1275 serious adverse event reports and not a single reported death from the use of vitamins, minerals, amino acids or herbs by the Poison Control Center.
• CRH recommends consulting one’s “doctor or pharmacist” about supplements. But CRH knows perfectly well that most MDs and DOs, and certainly most pharmacists, do not know much or have current information about vitamin therapy or about herbal or nutrient supplements. Consumers should consult a qualified natural health practitioner instead.
• The last section of the report does a sudden 180 degree turn and lists eleven supplements to consider taking. CRH even lists some (but by no means all) of the potential benefits—together with alleged potential dangers. They mention fish oil, but don’t talk about its anti-inflammatory effects; lactobacillus, ignoring its immense benefits to people with yeast overgrowth and celiac disease; and vitamin D, without discussing its effectiveness against colds and flu viruses.

Also Featured in the August 10, 2010 Newsletter: Raw Organic Almonds Score its First Major Victory JAMA Reports that Vitamin B6 May Reduce Lung Cancer. Will the FDA Turn Natural B6 into a Drug?]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/biased-and-one-sided-consumer-reports-article-attacks-supplements/feed/ 57 http://www.anh-usa.org/jama-reports-that-vitamin-b6-may-reduce-lung-cancer-will-the-fda-turn-natural-b6-into-a-drug/ http://www.anh-usa.org/jama-reports-that-vitamin-b6-may-reduce-lung-cancer-will-the-fda-turn-natural-b6-into-a-drug/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:59:58 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5143 In stark contrast to Consumer Reports Health’s profoundly negative view of supplements comes a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reporting that high levels of vitamin B6 may reduce lung cancer risk. JAMA represents the heart of the medical establishment and has heretofore been the source of many poorly designed studies critical of supplements. But this study was different. According to the Science News article on the JAMA study, “People with vitamin B6 levels ranking in the top one-fourth of all the samples taken had less than half the risk of lung cancer as those with the lowest vitamin B6. A similar comparison found that people with high levels of methionine seemed to have almost half the cancer risk of people with low levels. High folate levels seemed to give less protection. But having stellar levels of all three compounds lowered a person’s risk of lung cancer by a full two-thirds, the scientists calculated, after accounting for whether they were a smoker, former smoker, or a never-smoker. The findings may indicate that long-term exposure to the vitamins is the key, says Graham Colditz, a physician and epidemiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.” This is especially fascinating when you consider that the JAMA study was based on medical data from 380,000 Europeans. So here is European data confounding the work of the European authorities, who are trying to put absurdly low limits on vitamin and supplement levels. And don’t forget that the FDA has already turned one natural form of vitamin B6 into a prescription drug (because a drug company wanted it) and may do the same to the most important natural form of B6. This remaining natural form of B6, called P5P, is the only form that your body can directly use to keep you alive and to prevent both heart disease and cancer. Other forms must be converted into P5P and not everyone does it efficiently. If you have not already sent a message to the FDA protesting the possible conversion of P5P into a drug at the behest of a drug company, please do so now.

Also Featured in the August 10, 2010 Newsletter: Raw Organic Almonds Score its First Major Victory Biased and One-Sided Consumer Reports Article Attacks Supplements]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/jama-reports-that-vitamin-b6-may-reduce-lung-cancer-will-the-fda-turn-natural-b6-into-a-drug/feed/ 13 http://www.anh-usa.org/readers%e2%80%99-corner-2/ http://www.anh-usa.org/readers%e2%80%99-corner-2/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:59:33 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5141 This week’s questions and answers concern last week’s action alert: toxic BPA in cash register receipts, the most common pathway into our bodies. Charles writes: “Why the fuss about BPA in cash register receipts? We don’t eat the receipts, we throw them away.” Karen writes: “I don’t spend much time fondling my cash register receipts, so I’m just not gonna worry about this one until someone demonstrates that the amount of BPA absorbed through the skin of an average consumer is significant.” The science so far suggests that that the amount absorbed through the skin is indeed significant—that it is in fact, as noted above, the primary pathway that BPA gets into our bodies. The form of BPA used in coating receipts is an unstable form compared to that used in plastic bottles and liners. Because it absorbs directly through the skin, it bypasses the liver and goes directly into the bloodstream. Remember that your skin is your body’s largest organ and readily absorbs hormones into the bloodstream (the principle upon which the birth control patch and nicotine patches operate). Even a small amount of BPA is dangerous. Findings published by the Environmental Working Group confirm that contaminated receipts were between 0.8% to nearly 3% pure BPA by weight, some of which was easily wiped off with a damp cloth. Another study, published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemstry, indicated that BPA from receipts can enter the skin to such a depth that it cannot be washed off. Of course, the general public is not as much at risk as people who work the cash registers: grocery store clerks, gas station attendants, restaurant and fast food servers, retail store clerks—mostly lower-wage workers who can ill afford to get sick or worse, pass the chromosome-damaging effects on to children. Ironically, even the ultrasound print outs that mothers get of their babies generally contain BPA. So when mothers admire the ultrasound images, they may be sending BPA to the unborn child. A panel convened by the National Institutes of Health determined that there is clear evidence for concern about BPA’s effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior. In addition, there are concerns that BPA could interfere with the sexual development of children. There are alternatives to BPA in thermal cash register paper. We just need to use them.]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/readers%e2%80%99-corner-2/feed/ 1 http://www.anh-usa.org/deborah-ray%e2%80%99s-blog-the-campaign-to-cover-up-americans-from-sun-exposure-what-are-the-risks-versus-the-benefits/ http://www.anh-usa.org/deborah-ray%e2%80%99s-blog-the-campaign-to-cover-up-americans-from-sun-exposure-what-are-the-risks-versus-the-benefits/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:31:01 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5197 The Campaign to Cover Up Americans from Sun Exposure; what are the risks versus the benefits The campaign to address Americans’ sun exposure has become the standard of care in American medicine. One of this country’s leading medical educators and researchers, Michael Holick, MD, even lost his tenure ship in dermatology at Boston University when he dared to question this dogma to avoid and cover up from exposure to the sun. With the news that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has called on the FDA to reveal the findings between a possible link between a chemical found in most sunscreens, retinyl palmitate, and skin cancer, perhaps it’s time to discuss the risks versus the benefits of reasonable, modest sun exposure. Click here to read further http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100613/hl_nm/us_sunscreen/print;_ylt=Apahx2gqoqhRtFQ4d3S7yOop_aF4;_ylu=X3oDMTBvajZzaTFyBHBvcwMxNQRzZWMDdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA--. Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University in Omaha, ND, agrees that we may have taken avoiding all sun exposure too far stating, "Holick provides a much-needed antidote to the scare tactics of the skin mafia." Other medical experts agree including Dr. John Adams of UCLA stating that Dr. Holick’s book The UV Advantage "provides the clinical community with the first balanced, unbiased view of the benefits and dangers of sunlight exposure in the last 50 years." Click here to read further http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/537784. While the American Academy of Dermatology has adopted a policy to advise all Americans to practice a "comprehensive sun protection program, including avoiding outdoor activities between 10 am and 4 pm when the sun's rays are strongest, seeking shade wherever possible, wearing a broad-spectrum sunscreen with a sun-protection factor (SPF) of at least 15 and reapplying it every 2 hours, and wearing sun-protective clothing," there is not uniform agreement among medical experts. Medicine has now recognized the vast extent of vitamin D deficiency among Americans who studiously avoid sun exposure and attempt to get vitamin D through dietary sources (fortified milk and orange juice, mushrooms, cod liver oil). Vitamin D deficiency is linked to a growing list of cancer including melanoma. While no one including Dr. Holick, Dr. Heaney, or other medical experts who study vitamin D advocate unlimited sun exposure, or overexposure, it is increasingly clear that our bodies were designed to produce vitamin D when exposed to the sun for many medical reasons. One of the most prominent is cancer prevention; others include healthy bones, heart disease and cancer prevention, diabetes prevention, healthy minds, balance, immune system function, and potentially reversing autoimmune conditions including multiple sclerosis. Avoiding all sun exposure or using sunscreens whenever going outside is now linked with the realization that as many as 80% of Americans are vitamin D deficient. We clearly link cancer with Vitamin D deficiency. Researchers such as Dr. Colleen Hayes, UWI-Madison, educate us that vitamin D deficiency is unknown at the equator. Autoimmune conditions are also unknown at the equator. There, we would get the equivalent of 5000 IU of vitamin D daily. While we have yet to learn from the FDA what risk retinyl palmitate in sunscreens creates for us, we are the first generations to cover ourselves with chemicals to avoid sun exposure. We simply don’t know the long term consequences of this action. For thousands of years we have survived and excelled with reasonable sun exposure. It may be time to rethink what “the skin mafias” have culturally conditioned each of us to do, that is, avoid and cover up from the sun. Educate yourself and make the decision about regular modest sun exposure that is right for you. From Deborah A. Ray, MT(ASCP) Copyright © 2010 Natural Health Science News. Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution to Natural Health Science News.]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/deborah-ray%e2%80%99s-blog-the-campaign-to-cover-up-americans-from-sun-exposure-what-are-the-risks-versus-the-benefits/feed/ 1 http://www.anh-usa.org/anh%e2%80%93usa-files-petition-to-ban-bpa-in-cash-register-receipts/ http://www.anh-usa.org/anh%e2%80%93usa-files-petition-to-ban-bpa-in-cash-register-receipts/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:00:48 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=4997 Today, the Alliance for Natural Health USA is filing a Citizen Petition with the Consumer Products Safety Commission to have bisphenol-A (BPA) banned from cash register receipts, the little-known but most common pathway into your body. Please help make the CPSC pay attention to the latest science. As we have reported numerous times, there are serious health risks from exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemical BPA. As a result, there have been nationwide efforts to ban it from food and beverage containers, especially those used by babies and children. Animal tests show that BPA, a plastics hardener that is also a synthetic estrogen, can cause reproductive and behavioral abnormalities and lower intellectual ability, and sets the stage for cancers, obesity, diabetes, asthma, and heart disease. ANH-USA filed a Citizen Petition with the US Food and Drug Administration last year, asking the FDA to study and warn the public of the effects of BPA in children’s dental treatments and devices, an area that has received almost no attention. Children’s teeth are commonly coated with BPA, which is absurd. The FDA acknowledged receipt of our petition, but has otherwise responded with silence. This spring, researchers at the Environmental Working Group collected samples of “carbonless” and thermal cash register receipts from fast food restaurants, big retailers, grocery stores, gas stations and post offices in seven states and the District of Columbia and had them tested by a renowned lab. The lab found that 40 percent had high levels of BPA. And just last week, a new study by John C. Warner, acclaimed as the co-founder of “green chemistry,” found measurable levels of BPA in receipts from eight out of ten suburban Boston-area grocery stores. We now need your help with a two-pronged Action Alert. Please contact the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) in support of our petition, and ask them to make a rule that bans BPA in register receipts. Then please contact the FDA and ask them to address the petition we submitted to them eighteen months ago. As always, we’ve drafted sample letters to help you. Please TAKE ACTION now!

TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE CPSC Click THIS LINK to go to the CPSC Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter. After taking action on this alert, you will automatically be redirected to our FDA Action Alert.	TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE FDA Click THIS LINK to go to the FDA Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter.
We’d also love to hear your comments about this article—just add your thoughts below—but remember that the messages below are only seen by our ANH-USA readers and not Congress, the FDA, etc.

]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/anh%e2%80%93usa-files-petition-to-ban-bpa-in-cash-register-receipts/feed/ 45 http://www.anh-usa.org/calcium-and-heart-attack%e2%80%94what-you-really-need-to-know/ http://www.anh-usa.org/calcium-and-heart-attack%e2%80%94what-you-really-need-to-know/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:59:44 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5039 You saw the sensational media headlines last week: calcium supplements cause heart attacks! We told you the truth about this several weeks ago, before the latest research came out. If you take calcium, be sure to read this. The source of the media hype was a British Medical Journal article which reported on a survey of fifteen trials in which participants (all over age 40) were given at least 500 mg of elemental calcium per day. The researchers concluded that calcium supplements increase the risk of myocardial infarction by about 30% over five years. This was another example of bad research, poorly constructed from a scientific point of view. But it does contain an element of truth that we all need to understand. First, the research itself: Daniel Fabricant, PhD, vice president of scientific regulatory affairs for the Natural Products Association, said the results of this study go against years of research showing the benefits of calcium supplementation, and suggested that the authors of the research “cherry picked” the fifteen studies from hundreds of available research studies in the area. Andrew Shao, PhD, senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), said that their conclusions are “dramatically overstated….Seven of the fifteen trials evaluated had no, or incomplete, data on cardiovascular outcomes…. Further, the researchers chose to exclude any trials administering calcium plus vitamin D—including the Women’s Health Initiative, which found calcium plus vitamin D had no effect on the risk of coronary heart disease or stroke.” This last point—about taking calcium with vitamin D—is vital but still incomplete. As we reported just last month, supplemental calcium should never be taken alone. It needs additional magnesium, vitamin D, omega–3 fatty acids, and vitamin K (in particular, vitamin K-2, which is especially important). Without these essential co-factors, the calcium may end up in our blood vessels or our heart, where it causes harm, rather than our bones, where it is needed. So long as these co-factors are taken as well, many studies have shown that added calcium plays an important role in building and maintaining bone mass—and also reduces the risk of colon cancer. It is unarguably true that many people are taking calcium in the wrong way. The answer is not to stop taking it. There are enough cases of bone loss (osteoporosis) as it is. And the potential side effects of osteoporosis drugs are truly scary. In the article we ran about calcium several weeks ago, the World Health Organization was urging world governments to put extra calcium in everyone’s water supply. We explained that this was a bad idea. Now the British Medical Journal is implying that any supplemental calcium is unsafe, which is untrue if the needed co-factors are taken too. So, in effect, one conventional medicine authority is saying one thing, and another conventional medicine authority is saying the opposite. What this underscores is that the general public needs access to health advisors—including integrative MDs, and doctors of osteopathy (DOs)—who know about proper supplementation and can give the kind of expert advice that is needed. Conventional medicine’s attacks on the licenses of integrated doctors for practicing outside the conventional “standard of care,” which often means recommending particular supplements, doesn’t harm those physicians alone, but the entire American public. People will take supplements whether conventional medicine (and especially the giant drug companies backing conventional medicine) like it or not. So it is particularly dangerous to try to shut down doctors who are skilled in the use of functional foods and supplements.]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/calcium-and-heart-attack%e2%80%94what-you-really-need-to-know/feed/ 46 http://www.anh-usa.org/readers-corner-ama-monopoly/ http://www.anh-usa.org/readers-corner-ama-monopoly/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:58:23 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=5044 AMA Monopoly on Billing Codes Tom (a physician) writes:

OK, so you want me to not accept Medicare and any insurance to win the point that we need to move towards the ABC billing? While this proposition makes sense to my rebel side, who will pay my bills in the mean time?

If the ABC codes are different from the CPT codes and include integrative medicine treatments and evaluations, but the CPT does not, how can the ABC codes be converted to CPT codes without risking inaccurate or fraudulent CPT coding, putting the M.D. integrative medical practitioner (like me) at risk?

I will post this on my Twitter page, Facebook and send this to my patients. Thanks for letting me know. I will be adding things like this to my site as well as other things.

Doctors Being Threatened With Jail

I read with interest your frightening report [on jail time for doctors]. However, you did not outline a solution that can be implemented into Federal and State Legislation. If you have solutions to this crisis, please outline it immediately and publish it on your website, so we can submit comments and express concern to our congressional leaders. It’s an emergency! If we don’t have a healthcare system, you might as well cancel your website.

• An immediate first step is to repeal the language that makes any “unnecessary treatment” billed to the government a matter of fraud. This is much too vague and is interpreted to include integrative treatments as well as truly unnecessary ones.
• The next step is to repeal the provision that allows insurance companies as well as the government to decide if a treatment is “unnecessary” in the criminal sense of fraud.
• A third step is to make a clearer distinction in the law between billing error and fraud, since even Medicare staff can't make sense of the rules.
• A fourth step would be to exempt doctor protests over government price controls from anti-trust.

As a RN who cannot bill Medicare, there are many other threats to nurses from HIPAA, including jail time, fines, and a ruined life. This is just one of the many reasons not to go into health care in the first place and I’m working diligently to get out of it altogether.

Correction

RE: “Trent Lott (D–MS) ”: Retired Senator Trent Lott is probably surprised that he was a Democrat. He always claimed to be a Republican.

• they are HIPAA-compliant (HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; passed by Congress in 1996, it allows for people to transfer and continue their health insurance coverage when they change or lose their jobs, mandates industry-wide standards for healthcare information on electronic billing, and requires the protection and confidential handling of protected health information);
• they can be used by both licensed and non-licensed healthcare practitioners on standard claim forms;
• they complement existing code systems used in the allopathic setting;
• they accurately document the care patients receive, covering a vast range of healthcare practices; and
• they fulfill requirements imposed by both state medical boards and payers.

• Senator McCain’s Dietary Supplement Safety Act (S. 3002) is no longer supported by McCain himself, but cannot be formally withdrawn and so remains for this session.
• The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173), which passed the House in late 2009, included a buried provision written in impossible-to-follow legalese that would have drastically expanded the powers of the Federal Trade Commission, powers that would have been used against supplements. Although you stopped it in the Senate and in conference committee, it could still be added to another bill.
• The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510). You succeeded in getting language added that would protect us from sliding down a slippery slope toward harmonizing US standards for supplements with the irrationally restrictive European standards—under rules set by the global Codex Alimentarius. Other provisions of the bill we still oppose, but it has been sitting on the Senate calendar for ten months with no activity. One possibility is that it will emerge and be reconciled with the House bill in the very dangerous lame duck session after the fall elections, when defeated or retired legislators can take positions without worry about voter reaction.
• The Food Safety Enhancement Act (H.R. 2749). This is a terrible bill. It has passed the House, so the last chance to stop its toxic provisions is in the House–Senate Conference when it eventually comes. Among the worst provisions, it includes jail time—up to 10 years—for “misbranding” or “adulterating” supplements. And the definitions are very broad: “adulteration” includes recordkeeping violations, while “misbranding” includes citing peer-reviewed science about the benefits of a dietary supplement. This new threat of sanctions (only in the House bill, not the Senate’s) would give the FDA a hammer with which to threaten and coerce companies engaging in completely legal activities.

1. It can take any supplement off the the market that is unsafe, mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated, or makes false or misleading claims. (The FTC also has the power to stop any fraudulent advertising.)
2. It is charged with enforcing the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which holds supplement manufacturers to “good manufacturing practices” (industry standards for product quality) as defined by the FDA itself.
3. It collects and takes any necessary action based on “adverse event reports,” that is, any reported negative reactions to dietary supplements.

• Be composed of at least 95 percent truly natural ingredients, or ingredients that are derived from natural sources, excluding water;
• Contain no ingredients with any suspected human health risks;
• Be made with no processes that significantly or adversely alter the natural ingredients;
• Contain ingredients that come from a purposeful, natural source (flora, fauna, mineral);
• Be made with minimal processing and without the use of synthetic or harsh chemicals;
• Contain non-natural ingredients only when viable natural alternative ingredients are unavailable and only when there are absolutely no suspected potential human health risks; and
• Have transparent and full disclosure of all ingredients.

Jim writes: June 30, 2010 at 9:12 am

“Someone on the internet has written that you are part of a Rockefeller family driven agenda to create a single world government. Can you please comment?”

ANH-USA says: July 2, 2010

“ANH-USA is exclusively devoted to natural health and health freedom issues.

In our opinion, the perennial problem with government is keeping it honest, free of corruption, and free of special interest control. A single world government would only make that problem worse.

We also have no relationship with the Rockefeller family, nor are we controlled by or secretly funded by any other organization or group. We are entirely independent. ”

• Under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government lacks authority to compel individuals to purchase health insurance or pay an offsetting penalty.
• Forcing patients to participate in Medicare Part A, at the risk of losing their Social Security benefits, is also unconstitutional. It harms physicians who operate surgery centers outside of Medicare, and the provision is beyond the powers of HHS to enact in the first place.
• Nowhere in the Constitution is there authorization for the federal government to require businesses or private employers (without direct connection to the government) to purchase health insurance for employees or to set the acceptable terms of health insurance for such individuals.
• Requiring the private purchase—by individuals or businesses—of insurance with greater coverage than the purchaser desires constitutes a “regulatory taking,” that is, a prohibited capitation or direct tax.

• Nutritionists are health practitioners with comprehensive knowledge of the impact nutrition has on the whole body. They focus on nutrition therapy for better health, metabolism, and biochemistry, and practice an integrative approach to health, concentrating on the prevention and treatment of chronic disease.

• Dietitians’ training focuses on institutional diets and food service management—developing diets for hospital patients, school food service programs, and nursing homes, although they can also provide individualized counseling on diet and disease. Hospital food by law is controlled by dieticians, and almost everyone recognizes that the poor food in hospitals is a medical disgrace.

• As noted, that there can be an overlap in the type of work each profession practices. There are many different dietary and nutritional therapies to choose from, which is why freedom of consumer choice is absolutely essential in this field.