Here is Dr. Jon Barron's take on the Paleo diet from one of his Daily Health Tips
Diet fads come and go, and it seems like many times the newest diets seem to directly contradict the old ones. Recently, the Paleo Diet has been gaining popularity, with several books being published about it and more and more people wanting to know if it's a worthwhile endeavor.
While Jon doesn't necessarily agree with every tenant of the Paleo Diet, it doesn't mean that there's nothing positive to take away from it. With that in mind, here are Jon's recommendations on what parts of the Paleo Diet to incorporate into your personal habits:
Cut way back or eliminate all grains. And if you eat grains, opt for hypoallergenic grains that have been soaked, sprouted, or well cooked.
Eliminate all high omega-6 store bought oils from your diet. For low temperature cooking, use olive oil and coconut oil. For high temperature cooking, use avocado oil, grape seed oil, or rice bran oil. Supplement with omega-3 fatty acids.
Eliminate all added sugars.
When eating fruit, lean more towards berries than tree fruit; they're higher in antioxidants. But there's no need to be afraid of eating tree fruit, which tends to be higher in soluble fiber.
Cut back or eliminate all beans, and if you eat them, make sure you soak them before cooking, and then cook them well before eating.
Nuts are fine if you're not allergic. Use whole fresh nuts that have been soaked/sprouted. Do not use pasteurized or "roasted" nuts -- especially those roasted in oil.
Cut way back on white potatoes, but yams and sweet potatoes are okay in moderation.
Eliminate all commercial dairy from your diet. And if you do opt for some dairy, choose raw dairy despite what the government says -- or at the very least opt for organic, grass-fed dairy.
If you eat meat, use only organic, grass-fed meat. And keep consumption to less than 4 oz a day. And don't overcook it. (And here you're faced with another conundrum if you eat commercial meat. If you undercook it, you face the risk of bacterial infection. If you overcook it, you face the risk of cancer. If you want to eat medium rare meat, you're going to have to buy organic, grass-fed meat from a supplier you trust.)
For a full breakdown of Jon's thoughts on the Paleo Diet, click here.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Don't worry be happy
Don't Worry, Be Happy
The Study: The authors propose that laughter, more specifically, mirthful laughter may serve to provide physiological benefit to the human cardiovascular system. Additionally, they test their hypothesis by using high resolution ultrasound (Brachial Artery Reactivity Testing aka BART) to study to measure flow mediated vasodilation (FMD) in the brachial artery in response to both video induced mirthful laughter (Saturday Night Live clips) and video induced stress (Saving Private Ryan).
The Facts:
a. There is a complex relationship between emotion and the cardiovascular system
b. Cardiovascular events can be triggered by emotional distress and highly emotional events such as natural disasters, can cause sudden cardiac death.
c. A question then arises: If emotional distress can cause problems, is it possible that happy emotions, in this case mirthful laughter, might be good for you?
d. A total of 160 BART measurements were performed and demonstrated strongly divergent effects when patients were shown humorous vs stressful video clips.
e. Patients who watched the "stressful" movies experienced a 35% reduction of flow mediated dilation of the brachial artery compared to their baseline measurement.
f. Patients who watched the laughter inducing videos experienced a 22% increase in flow mediated dilation of the brachial artery, an amount similar to that observed in previous studies with aerobic activity and statin therapy.
g. While it is true that blood pressure elevates during mirthful laughter and that vascular accidents have been documented in association with mirthful laughter, the incidence of such events is very low, suggesting that laughter may possibly provide "an as-yet undelineated sparing factor" in terms of whatever biological stress may be inherent in the process of laughter itself.
h. When looked at in totality "...mirthful laughter may serve as a useful and important vehicle for the promotion of vascular health."
i. But further research is needed to understand the complex relationship between mirthful laughter and health and its true clinical significance.
Take Home: It appears that it really may be better to have a positive outlook on life than being a worrying pessimist. Perhaps there is some truth in that old saying that laughter is the best medicine.
Reviewer's Comments: This article was published in the journal Medical Hypotheses. This is a very interesting journal and as the name suggests, allows the authors to speculate about the subject at hand. This gives the author a greater latitude to express thoughts and perhaps make that intuitive leap from facts to new conclusions. I like this journal.
Reviewer: Roger R. Coleman DC
Reference: Miller M, Fry WF. The effect of mirthful laughter on the human cardiovascular system. Med Hypotheses 2009;73:636-9
Link to Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19477604
The Study: The authors propose that laughter, more specifically, mirthful laughter may serve to provide physiological benefit to the human cardiovascular system. Additionally, they test their hypothesis by using high resolution ultrasound (Brachial Artery Reactivity Testing aka BART) to study to measure flow mediated vasodilation (FMD) in the brachial artery in response to both video induced mirthful laughter (Saturday Night Live clips) and video induced stress (Saving Private Ryan).
The Facts:
a. There is a complex relationship between emotion and the cardiovascular system
b. Cardiovascular events can be triggered by emotional distress and highly emotional events such as natural disasters, can cause sudden cardiac death.
c. A question then arises: If emotional distress can cause problems, is it possible that happy emotions, in this case mirthful laughter, might be good for you?
d. A total of 160 BART measurements were performed and demonstrated strongly divergent effects when patients were shown humorous vs stressful video clips.
e. Patients who watched the "stressful" movies experienced a 35% reduction of flow mediated dilation of the brachial artery compared to their baseline measurement.
f. Patients who watched the laughter inducing videos experienced a 22% increase in flow mediated dilation of the brachial artery, an amount similar to that observed in previous studies with aerobic activity and statin therapy.
g. While it is true that blood pressure elevates during mirthful laughter and that vascular accidents have been documented in association with mirthful laughter, the incidence of such events is very low, suggesting that laughter may possibly provide "an as-yet undelineated sparing factor" in terms of whatever biological stress may be inherent in the process of laughter itself.
h. When looked at in totality "...mirthful laughter may serve as a useful and important vehicle for the promotion of vascular health."
i. But further research is needed to understand the complex relationship between mirthful laughter and health and its true clinical significance.
Take Home: It appears that it really may be better to have a positive outlook on life than being a worrying pessimist. Perhaps there is some truth in that old saying that laughter is the best medicine.
Reviewer's Comments: This article was published in the journal Medical Hypotheses. This is a very interesting journal and as the name suggests, allows the authors to speculate about the subject at hand. This gives the author a greater latitude to express thoughts and perhaps make that intuitive leap from facts to new conclusions. I like this journal.
Reviewer: Roger R. Coleman DC
Reference: Miller M, Fry WF. The effect of mirthful laughter on the human cardiovascular system. Med Hypotheses 2009;73:636-9
Link to Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19477604
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Self love
Just for today ...
Be present to opportunities to practice Self-Love.
Speak kindly of yourself and your dreams. Practice
compassion when self-judgment rises. Identify your
Truth, and live it at all costs. Celebrate the Beauty of
who you really ARE, and Appreciate all that this day
brings.
Be present to opportunities to practice Self-Love.
Speak kindly of yourself and your dreams. Practice
compassion when self-judgment rises. Identify your
Truth, and live it at all costs. Celebrate the Beauty of
who you really ARE, and Appreciate all that this day
brings.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
top ten benefical spices
Two Grams of this Household Spice Lowered Blood Sugar by a Whopping 62 mg/dl
Posted By Dr. Mercola
The popular spice cumin has a long history of medicinal use. It has been used to treat various symptoms including diarrhea, flatulence, gynecological, and respiratory diseases. But a new study looked at a different effect of cumin -- its ability to enhance memory and relieve stress.
Daily administration of cumin to rats inhibited stress-induced urinary biochemical changes. Memory and cognition, as determined by acquisition, retention, and recovery in the rats, was also observed to be enhanced by cumin.
According to the study, as reported by Green Med Info:
“This study provides scientific support for the antistress, antioxidant, and memory-enhancing activities of cumin extract and substantiates that its traditional use as a culinary spice in foods is beneficial and scientific in combating stress and related disorders.”
Sources:
Pharmaceutical Biology July 2011; 49(7): 702-708
Green Med Info
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Every time you flavor your meals with herbs or spices you are upgrading the nutrient content of your food without adding a single calorie. You are taking something ordinary and turning it into something extraordinary by adding color, flavor, vitamins, and often medicinal properties.
Cumin (not to be confused with curcumin, the active ingredient in the spice turmeric), is a common household spice that historically has been used to treat symptoms such as:
Diarrhea
Flatulence
Respiratory diseases
However, more recent research into the health effects of this spice suggests its benefits go far beyond that.
Cumin May Enhance Memory and Help Reduce Stress
According to a recent animal study published in July 2011, cumin appears to have anti-stress properties. Rats were given cumin daily, at doses of 100, 200, and 300 mg/kg body weight, one hour before being stressed. The results showed that the cumin inhibited stress-induced biochemical changes in a dose-dependent manner. Memory and cognition were also found to be dose-dependent.
The authors concluded that:
"This study provides scientific support for the anti-stress, antioxidant, and memory-enhancing activities of cumin extract and substantiates that its traditional use as a culinary spice in foods is beneficial and scientific in combating stress and related disorders."
The antioxidant activity of cumin was also evaluated in a 2009 study, which found that the spice (along with others, such as caraway, coriander, dill and fennel) was far more potent than vitamin C (ascorbic acid).
The Many Health Benefits of Cumin
Green Med Info has compiled a list of research into the health benefits of black cumin (Nigella Sativa), which includes:
Anti-diabetic effect in type 2 diabetics Protecting against and attenuating aflatoxicosis Alleviating symptoms of allergic rhinitis Reducing symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis
Reducing asthma symptoms Reducing damage caused by cadmium poisoning Antifungal activity against candidasis May serve as prophylactic against chemical warfare agents
Cumin May Be Helpful for Diabetics
Two health benefits that may be of particular interest to a majority of people are its anti-diabetic and anti-asthmatic effects. In one 2010 study, black cumin seeds were found to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Here, the seeds were used in conjunction with regular anti-diabetic medications. Nintety-four patients were randomly divided into three groups receiving different doses of the cumin seeds; either one, two, or three grams per day, for three months.
The group receiving two grams of cumin seeds per day saw the greatest improvement, reducing their blood glucose by an average of 62 mg/dl at eight weeks. The lower- and higher-dose groups also experienced reductions in blood glucose, but none as great as those receiving the two gram/day dose. The authors concluded that:
"The results of this study indicate that a dose of 2 gm/ day of Nigella sativa might be a beneficial adjuvant to oral hypoglycemic agents in type 2 diabetic patients."
A study published earlier this year concluded that black cumin's anti-diabetic effects appear to be rooted in its ability to improve insulin sensitivity.
Another common spice of particular interest to diabetics is cinnamon, which also has "insulin-like" effects. For example, just half a teaspoon of cinnamon a day has been shown to significantly reduce blood sugar levels, triglycerides, LDL (bad) cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels in people with type 2 diabetes. In another earlier study, cinnamon was found to increase glucose metabolism 20-fold! Many believe it's a very viable contender in the fight against diabetes.
Cumin has Potent Anti-Asthma Effects
A number of studies have also indicated that cumin may be helpful for asthmatics. Here are three of the most recent studies confirming cumin's anti-asthmatic effects:
Black cumin seeds and its oils have historically been used to treat respiratory diseases, including asthma. In one study, thymoquinone (TQ), one of the primary active ingredients in cumin seeds, was found to be instrumental, by reducing two inflammatory mediators of asthma and other inflammatory processes.
Another study from last year confirmed the anti-asthmatic effect of black cumin seeds, showing it acts as a bronchodilator. Here, the researchers used a boiled extract of the cumin seeds.
According to research published in 2009, black cumin seeds also act as a relaxant, and display both anticholinergic (reducing spasms in smooth muscle) and antihistaminic (blocking allergic reactions) effects. In this study, the thymoquinone (TQ) in black cumin seeds was found to be superior to the asthma drug fluticasone (a synthetic glucocorticoid)!
General Health Benefits of Herbs and Spices—A Little Can Go a Long Way!
It may be helpful to know that herbs and spices are actually some of the most potent antioxidants in your food supply; in many instances surpassing other more well-known sources of antioxidants. For example, spices such as cloves and cinnamon have phenol levels that are 30 percent and 18 percent of dry weight, respectively. Compare that to blueberries, which are widely touted for their antioxidant capabilities; they contain roughly five percent phenol by dry weight...
Another example is oregano, which has 42 times more antioxidant activity than apples, 30 times more than potatoes, 12 times more than oranges, and four times more than blueberries! One tablespoon of fresh oregano contains the same antioxidant activity as one medium-sized apple. I personally love oregano and grow it in my garden every year, as it is a perennial plant and faithfully comes back. It is easy to harvest in late summer and fall, and dehydrate and store for future use.
While each spice has a unique set of health benefits to offer, one study, published in the Journal of Medicinal Foods, found a direct correlation between the antioxidant phenol content and the spice's ability to inhibit glycation and the formation of AGE compounds, making them potent preventers of heart disease and premature aging.
According to this study, the top 10 most potent herbs and spices are:
Cloves (ground)
Cinnamon (ground)
Jamaican allspice (ground)
Apple pie spice (mixture)
Oregano (ground)
Pumpkin pie spice (mixture)
Marjoram
Sage
Thyme
Gourmet Italian spice
But it's not just about antioxidants. Herbs and spices also contain a number of other nutrients, including vitamins, minerals and various compounds with medicinal properties that make them a very valuable addition to your diet. Herbs and spices also make your diet more thermogenic, meaning they naturally increase your metabolism. Some spices, such as red pepper flakes, can also increase your feeling of satiety, helping you eat less.
For more information about the specific health benefits of the different herbs and spices on your spice rack, please review the related articles below.
Related Links:
New Year, Younger You -- 20 Anti-Aging Herbs and Spices to Add to Your Diet
Spices Play Role in Reduced Cancer Risk
Top Ten Spices That Defend You Against Aging
Posted By Dr. Mercola
The popular spice cumin has a long history of medicinal use. It has been used to treat various symptoms including diarrhea, flatulence, gynecological, and respiratory diseases. But a new study looked at a different effect of cumin -- its ability to enhance memory and relieve stress.
Daily administration of cumin to rats inhibited stress-induced urinary biochemical changes. Memory and cognition, as determined by acquisition, retention, and recovery in the rats, was also observed to be enhanced by cumin.
According to the study, as reported by Green Med Info:
“This study provides scientific support for the antistress, antioxidant, and memory-enhancing activities of cumin extract and substantiates that its traditional use as a culinary spice in foods is beneficial and scientific in combating stress and related disorders.”
Sources:
Pharmaceutical Biology July 2011; 49(7): 702-708
Green Med Info
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Every time you flavor your meals with herbs or spices you are upgrading the nutrient content of your food without adding a single calorie. You are taking something ordinary and turning it into something extraordinary by adding color, flavor, vitamins, and often medicinal properties.
Cumin (not to be confused with curcumin, the active ingredient in the spice turmeric), is a common household spice that historically has been used to treat symptoms such as:
Diarrhea
Flatulence
Respiratory diseases
However, more recent research into the health effects of this spice suggests its benefits go far beyond that.
Cumin May Enhance Memory and Help Reduce Stress
According to a recent animal study published in July 2011, cumin appears to have anti-stress properties. Rats were given cumin daily, at doses of 100, 200, and 300 mg/kg body weight, one hour before being stressed. The results showed that the cumin inhibited stress-induced biochemical changes in a dose-dependent manner. Memory and cognition were also found to be dose-dependent.
The authors concluded that:
"This study provides scientific support for the anti-stress, antioxidant, and memory-enhancing activities of cumin extract and substantiates that its traditional use as a culinary spice in foods is beneficial and scientific in combating stress and related disorders."
The antioxidant activity of cumin was also evaluated in a 2009 study, which found that the spice (along with others, such as caraway, coriander, dill and fennel) was far more potent than vitamin C (ascorbic acid).
The Many Health Benefits of Cumin
Green Med Info has compiled a list of research into the health benefits of black cumin (Nigella Sativa), which includes:
Anti-diabetic effect in type 2 diabetics Protecting against and attenuating aflatoxicosis Alleviating symptoms of allergic rhinitis Reducing symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis
Reducing asthma symptoms Reducing damage caused by cadmium poisoning Antifungal activity against candidasis May serve as prophylactic against chemical warfare agents
Cumin May Be Helpful for Diabetics
Two health benefits that may be of particular interest to a majority of people are its anti-diabetic and anti-asthmatic effects. In one 2010 study, black cumin seeds were found to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Here, the seeds were used in conjunction with regular anti-diabetic medications. Nintety-four patients were randomly divided into three groups receiving different doses of the cumin seeds; either one, two, or three grams per day, for three months.
The group receiving two grams of cumin seeds per day saw the greatest improvement, reducing their blood glucose by an average of 62 mg/dl at eight weeks. The lower- and higher-dose groups also experienced reductions in blood glucose, but none as great as those receiving the two gram/day dose. The authors concluded that:
"The results of this study indicate that a dose of 2 gm/ day of Nigella sativa might be a beneficial adjuvant to oral hypoglycemic agents in type 2 diabetic patients."
A study published earlier this year concluded that black cumin's anti-diabetic effects appear to be rooted in its ability to improve insulin sensitivity.
Another common spice of particular interest to diabetics is cinnamon, which also has "insulin-like" effects. For example, just half a teaspoon of cinnamon a day has been shown to significantly reduce blood sugar levels, triglycerides, LDL (bad) cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels in people with type 2 diabetes. In another earlier study, cinnamon was found to increase glucose metabolism 20-fold! Many believe it's a very viable contender in the fight against diabetes.
Cumin has Potent Anti-Asthma Effects
A number of studies have also indicated that cumin may be helpful for asthmatics. Here are three of the most recent studies confirming cumin's anti-asthmatic effects:
Black cumin seeds and its oils have historically been used to treat respiratory diseases, including asthma. In one study, thymoquinone (TQ), one of the primary active ingredients in cumin seeds, was found to be instrumental, by reducing two inflammatory mediators of asthma and other inflammatory processes.
Another study from last year confirmed the anti-asthmatic effect of black cumin seeds, showing it acts as a bronchodilator. Here, the researchers used a boiled extract of the cumin seeds.
According to research published in 2009, black cumin seeds also act as a relaxant, and display both anticholinergic (reducing spasms in smooth muscle) and antihistaminic (blocking allergic reactions) effects. In this study, the thymoquinone (TQ) in black cumin seeds was found to be superior to the asthma drug fluticasone (a synthetic glucocorticoid)!
General Health Benefits of Herbs and Spices—A Little Can Go a Long Way!
It may be helpful to know that herbs and spices are actually some of the most potent antioxidants in your food supply; in many instances surpassing other more well-known sources of antioxidants. For example, spices such as cloves and cinnamon have phenol levels that are 30 percent and 18 percent of dry weight, respectively. Compare that to blueberries, which are widely touted for their antioxidant capabilities; they contain roughly five percent phenol by dry weight...
Another example is oregano, which has 42 times more antioxidant activity than apples, 30 times more than potatoes, 12 times more than oranges, and four times more than blueberries! One tablespoon of fresh oregano contains the same antioxidant activity as one medium-sized apple. I personally love oregano and grow it in my garden every year, as it is a perennial plant and faithfully comes back. It is easy to harvest in late summer and fall, and dehydrate and store for future use.
While each spice has a unique set of health benefits to offer, one study, published in the Journal of Medicinal Foods, found a direct correlation between the antioxidant phenol content and the spice's ability to inhibit glycation and the formation of AGE compounds, making them potent preventers of heart disease and premature aging.
According to this study, the top 10 most potent herbs and spices are:
Cloves (ground)
Cinnamon (ground)
Jamaican allspice (ground)
Apple pie spice (mixture)
Oregano (ground)
Pumpkin pie spice (mixture)
Marjoram
Sage
Thyme
Gourmet Italian spice
But it's not just about antioxidants. Herbs and spices also contain a number of other nutrients, including vitamins, minerals and various compounds with medicinal properties that make them a very valuable addition to your diet. Herbs and spices also make your diet more thermogenic, meaning they naturally increase your metabolism. Some spices, such as red pepper flakes, can also increase your feeling of satiety, helping you eat less.
For more information about the specific health benefits of the different herbs and spices on your spice rack, please review the related articles below.
Related Links:
New Year, Younger You -- 20 Anti-Aging Herbs and Spices to Add to Your Diet
Spices Play Role in Reduced Cancer Risk
Top Ten Spices That Defend You Against Aging
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Beuaty all around
BEAUTY ALL AROUND
Epigenetics reveal that our environment determines
the growth and reproduction of each seed and cell.
Rather than a pre-determined destiny, based on previous
experiences, genetics or out-dated prophecies, we have
the power to program our reality simply by choosing
our vibrational state.
Choosing to see Beauty in all things fills our Hearts with
Gratitude. Beauty inspires and delights our senses, and
we remember all life is Sacred, perfect and profound.
Attuning our senses to Beauty and the glorious nature of
creation provides a nourishing environment for our Dream
Seeds to thrive!
Just for today ...
Be present to the Beauty all around. Open your gaze and
let yourself be amazed at the infinite ways Love is expressed
in the world. Know this is simply a reflection of the Beauty you
are, and will always BE.
=====================================
Blooming Humans are WE!
=====================================
Epigenetics reveal that our environment determines
the growth and reproduction of each seed and cell.
Rather than a pre-determined destiny, based on previous
experiences, genetics or out-dated prophecies, we have
the power to program our reality simply by choosing
our vibrational state.
Choosing to see Beauty in all things fills our Hearts with
Gratitude. Beauty inspires and delights our senses, and
we remember all life is Sacred, perfect and profound.
Attuning our senses to Beauty and the glorious nature of
creation provides a nourishing environment for our Dream
Seeds to thrive!
Just for today ...
Be present to the Beauty all around. Open your gaze and
let yourself be amazed at the infinite ways Love is expressed
in the world. Know this is simply a reflection of the Beauty you
are, and will always BE.
=====================================
Blooming Humans are WE!
=====================================
Monday, August 8, 2011
Better understanding how the AMA works
I know this is an unbelievably long article, so break it up into 2 or 3 short reads it is so worth it and you really owe it to the health of others to pass it on.
Support H.R. 1364 & Dietary Supplements | Natural Health Newsletter
Date: 08/08/2011 Written by: Jon Barron © 1999-2011 The Baseline of Health Foundation
Dietary Supplements under Attack by the AMA, Again
I know it sounds a bit weird for someone ensconced in complimentary medicine, but I regularly read the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). No, not the entire issues! The vast majority of articles are discipline specific shop pieces -- such as an article for dermatologists on a study that has potentially identified a genetic component for a rare (one in 300,000,000) skin disorder. Nor am I particularly interested in studies commissioned by drug companies in support of their drugs. They are often so abusive of facts as to be virtually meaningless. No, my interest is actually reserved for the three smaller, but far more interesting categories of articles: revolutionary medical breakthroughs, anything related to alternative health, and position papers. To me, these articles represent both the best and worst in modern medicine. Unlike many in the alternative health community, I find much to admire in the medical community. True, you have to sift through the lies and propaganda to know what you're reading. But that said, modern medicine is constantly making major breakthroughs in the treatment of disease and in the development of innovative technologies -- to help the blind to see and the paraplegic to walk, for example. It's truly exciting, and it represents a tremendously positive side of modern medicine.
Then there are the articles about alternative health. These I need to read regularly because they often promote hugely flawed studies that, not surprisingly, come to disparaging conclusions about alternative health. Unfortunately, these studies frequently rely on bad science and are far too numerous for those of us in the alternative community to respond to them all. You might almost think that the medical community had an agenda the way they go after complimentary medicine with bad science. (More on this later.)
And finally, there are the AMA position papers, presented in JAMA as "Commentaries." These include far ranging positions on anything that the medical community feels affects its interests -- which at various times has included its advertisers. That's why, back in the day when JAMA carried ads for cigarettes, they also published position papers promoting the virtues of cigarette smoking for weight loss. Now, while it's true those days may be gone, today we nevertheless find equally absurd position papers from the medical community supporting the use of high fructose corn syrup, for example. (And don't you just know they're going to regret that one eventually.)
All of which brings me to the subject of today's newsletter: a recent "commentary" article concerning dietary supplements, written by Bryan E. Denham, PhD. and published in JAMA, thus carrying the imprimatur of the American Medical Association.1 If you were to hazard a guess, what side of the issue do you think the good doctor and the AMA came down on -- pro or con vis-à-vis alternative medicine and dietary supplements? Good guess!
Taking on JAMA
Let's take a look at this article, titled "Dietary Supplements -- Regulatory Issues and Implications for Public Health," quoting the key points, and methodically commenting on them one at a time.
"Currently, for a tainted or otherwise hazardous product to be removed from the supplement marketplace, an agency such as the FDA or the Drug Enforcement Administration must offer evidence that the product is unsafe, contains a controlled substance, or is absent ingredients listed on the product label after the product has appeared in retail outlets."
So, the complaint is that government agencies don't have the right to ban supplements comprised of "generally regarded as safe" ingredients unless that particular supplement is proven to be other than what it claims to be? Really, that's the medical concern here? I know I'm a lot more concerned about pharmaceutical drugs that continue to be sold even after they are proven to be unsafe and kill people. Hormone replacement therapy is still prescribed and sold to over 3,000,000 women a year in the United States alone -- even after it was proven to increase the risk of death from both heart disease and cancer. The number of deaths each year caused by that one prescription alone dwarfs all of the deaths that could be attributed to every single alternative health remedy sold in the United States over the last quarter century! In marketing, that's called valuation by perspective.
"For US health professionals, the fact that more than 150 million US residents use dietary supplements should be a point of concern as many users will almost certainly forgo conventional medical treatment in favor of using products that may offer no medicinal value and taking health advice from medically untrained sales representatives."
When we talk about people using products that may offer no medicinal value, let's talk about statin drugs and antidepressants. Statin drugs have now been shown, by the pharmaceutical companies' own research no less, to have no value at all (none, zero, nada) when it comes to adding even one single day to your life unless you've already had a heart attack. Antidepressants have been proven to be about as effective as a placebo, except in the most severe cases. But even worse, they double your risk of relapsing into depression. Perhaps the medical community should worry a bit more about getting its own house in order before taking on the "complementary" community.
"Counterintuitively, DSHEA became law 5 years after the L-tryptophan amino acid disaster of 1989, in which 38 individuals died and 1500 sustained adverse reactions."
Yes, those statistics are correct…but also misleading. People didn't die because there was anything inherently wrong with L-tryptophan as a supplement. In fact, after an extensive investigation, the Center for Disease Control announced in the New England Journal of Medicine that the problem was not actually with L-tryptophan, but with a batch of contaminated products produced by the Japanese manufacturer Showa Denko. In point of fact, the FDA confirmed this in their official publication, FDA Consumer, which stated, "It appears the problem is not with the amino acid itself, but rather with the product becoming contaminated as a result of a change in the firm's manufacturing process." What they didn't mention is that the change that caused the problem was actually pushed by the FDA to improve safety, no less.
"When the FDA appeared heavy-handed in its response to the supplement catastrophe, industry lobbyists began applying pressure to lawmakers, especially those with a vested political interest in the economic success of supplement companies. US Senator Orrin Hatch, representing Utah, a major producer of dietary supplements, responded to industry appeals by coauthoring DSHEA and shepherding it through Congress."
The JAMA article forgets to mention that rather than just recalling the contaminated L-tryptophan, the FDA chose to ban all L-tryptophan totally from the market -- indefinitely. Why? At the time of its banning, sales of L-tryptophan in health food stores were running around $180 million a year. It sold so well because it worked. It helped with everything from depression to anxiety to stress. Unfortunately, it worked too well, was a natural substance so it couldn't be patented, and was priced too low. This was unacceptable; and so, when the first excuse presented itself, L-tryptophan was pulled from the market.
Amazingly, as "chance" would have it, within 4 days of the banning of L-tryptophan, Prozac was the cover story in Newsweek magazine. Almost, as if by a miracle, it seems, Prozac, which is patented and is far more expensive than L-tryptophan, was there to fill the gap and became the miracle drug to take the place of L-tryptophan. Oh, and as we've already mentioned, unlike L-tryptophan, Prozac works no better than a placebo and it can cause psychotic episodes that lead to murder. Unfortunately, it's part of an $11 billion industry, so it's not going anywhere.
"In 2009, a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 'consumers are not well-informed about the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements and have difficulty interpreting the labels on these products.'"
Just so we're clear here. U.S. law prohibits supplement manufacturers from stating the benefits of supplements as demonstrated in numerous studies, not to mention anecdotally over centuries -- except within carefully defined limits -- which means that consumers aren't being given the information they need to make informed decisions. The complaint that consumers are uniformed, then, is pretty much based on circular logic. Or if you prefer, the game is rigged.
"In fact, one of the most significant problems with DSHEA is that it allows structure and function claims to appear on product labels; as long as products do not claim to treat, prevent, or cure specific diseases, they can enter and remain in the marketplace."
In for a penny, in for a pound, Dr. Denham! So the solution to better "informing" consumers is to provide them with even less information? Fascinating!
"The concern is that consumers may not differentiate between technical descriptions and marketing language and may attempt to use dietary supplements in place of medicines that have been tested in rigorous trials. To that end, a 2010 GAO investigation found that sellers of dietary supplements may actually encourage consumers to substitute supplements for physician-prescribed medications."
So all of the natural health experts who advised pregnant women to take folic acid supplements for decades before the FDA approved the claims were in the wrong, how? The women who followed their advice prevented untold cases of spina bifida and neural tube defects that the FDA actively allowed. And is it really better to have a physician surgically repair spina bifida than to prevent it with a little supplement? And it's not just folic acid. You can add supplements such as Omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, and soluble fiber, to name just a few, where the alternative health community was saving lives and preventing emergency hospital visits for several decades before the medical community finally caught up.
"In preparing its 2010 report, the GAO investigated 22 retailers of herbal dietary supplements, hiring an accredited laboratory to examine 40 single-ingredient supplements for the presence of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and assorted pesticides. Although none of the supplements qualified as having an acute toxicity hazard, trace amounts of at least 1 contaminant were found in 37 of 40 products."
This complaint is a red herring. The GAO is talking about trace amounts of contaminants. You do realize that virtually all of the food you buy has trace contaminants of exactly those same contaminants -- not to mention insect parts and rat feces. The water you drink has trace levels of contaminants -- not to mention known added carcinogens such as chlorine and fluoride. Anything connected with nature is going to have trace levels of contamination. That's life. But let's get real here; most of the flu vaccine injected by the loyal doctors of JAMA is manufactured with Thimerosal, a preservative that is 50% mercury!! I would suggest pulling the 50% mercury that you directly inject in people's veins before you complain about the trace levels of contaminants in naturally sourced supplements.
"According to the GAO, more troubling than the contaminants was the dubious and potentially hazardous advice offered to investigators who had posed as elderly customers. The GAO gathered written materials from online retailers, observing claims of treating, preventing, and curing conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Among the more egregious marketing efforts were claims that garlic could be taken in place of high blood pressure medication and that ginkgo biloba could be used to treat Alzheimer disease, depression, and impotence. Studies conducted by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have shown that ginkgo biloba, in particular, does not reduce the risk of cancer nor does it prove effective in reducing high blood pressure among older adults."
Please tell me that I'm not the only one who just noticed the distorted logic used by the good doctor. You saw the shameless switch he pulled here too, right? If not, take note:
• First, he says that "among the more egregious marketing efforts were claims that…ginkgo biloba could be used to treat Alzheimer disease, depression, and impotence. (We'll talk more about those claims in a moment.)
• Then he shoots gingko down by saying, "Studies…have shown that ginkgo biloba… does not reduce the risk of cancer nor does it prove effective in reducing high blood pressure among older adults."
• What does one sentence have to do with the other?
By the way, as to the "egregious" claims that gingko can treat, Alzheimer's, depression, and impotence, let's take a look. Yes, there are two studies that indicate that it is no better than a placebo when it comes to Alzheimer's. On the other hand, there are numerous studies that indicate that it offers definite benefits for several conditions.2,3,4,5 Perhaps, one of the reasons for the inconsistent results is the use of standardized extracts in testing. As I've explained on numerous occasions, although standardization meets "medical standards," it often short-changes "herbal standards." Standardization is only as effective as what you standardize for. If there's a beneficial component that is not yet recognized as such by the scientific community, then it will not be standardized for in any current formulation.
Imagine how embarrassing it is when down the road, scientists discover what they missed. "My bad!" A great example is vitamin E, which scientists long identified as alpha-tocopherol. For years, all vitamin E supplements were standardized to alpha-tocopherol alone (and in most cases, still are). Imagine how embarrassing it was when it was discovered that vitamin E is actually comprised of eight bio-chemicals (four tocopherols and four tocotrienols) -- with alpha-tocopherol turning out to be one of the least beneficial. How effective could your vitamin E supplement have been all those years missing seven key components -- and with the one component used being synthetic at that in many cases?
So what does that have to do with gingko and all of the testing done on it? Literally just a couple of months ago, scientists discovered two "new" bio-active gingkolides.6 That means that all of the previous standardized supplements that didn't know about these two gingkoloids are suspect -- as are all tests conducted using them. On the other hand, any guaranteed potency (as opposed to standardized) whole herb supplement would have contained them. Theoretically then, different gingko supplements would have produced different results. Oh, and if the medical community is thinking of jumping in with, "And that's exactly the problem with natural medicines VS pharmaceutical drugs," it's worth noting that the problems stems not from herbal medicine, but with herbal medicine being forced by the medical community to look like standardized pharmaceutical drugs -- which they are not.
"Careful review of National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine studies reveals a similar lack of efficacy for garlic, chromium picolinate, and St John's wort."
Really, doctor, garlic? You're going to go there? The antipathogenic effects of garlic have been demonstrated repeatedly.7,8,9,10,11 It's even been proven to kill anthrax.12,13 For more on why garlic works so well, check out Why Antibiotics and Antivirals Fail.
"Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act (S 3002) in February 2010. Although this act did not propose significant changes in efficacy assessment, it would have required supplement manufacturers to register with the FDA and disclose all product ingredients. The legislation also would have given the FDA mandatory recall authority, the lack of which had resulted in the agency taking 10 years to remove ephedra from the marketplace."
Let me begin by saying that I am not a fan of ephedra. I've never used it in any of my own formulations. Not because it causes heart attacks and strokes, but because it exhausts the adrenals.
But wait a second, weren't there at least 100 people who died as a result of using ephedra products? Not really. Despite the medical community's "party line" that the doctor has apparently bought into, the case against ephedra is based on statistical nonsense. The FDA compiled, over several years, a list of people who had died from heart attacks or strokes and had been using ephedra. They then determined that 100% of the people on that list of people who died had been using ephedra. That makes ephedra pretty dangerous, yes? No!!! You could make the same argument against water. Make a list of all those who have died from heart attack and stroke and also drank water. By definition, 100% of the people on that list would be water drinkers. That doesn't mean that drinking water caused those strokes and death. It actually doesn't mean anything. It's bogus logic.
The truth is that in studies comparing groups of people who used ephedra products with those who did not, there was virtually no difference in the rate of heart attacks and strokes!! Just as a point of reference, consider the case of Steve Belcher, the Baltimore Orioles pitcher whose death in 2003, supposedly from using an ephedra product, was the final straw for the FDA. As it turns out, Steve Belcher had the following risk factors:
• A prior history of heat illness episodes while in high school - which heightens the probability of reoccurring incidents.
• A family history of sudden death following exercise (his half-brother died of an aneurysm at the age of 20 after overheating from playing baseball).
• A history of hypertension and liver problems, including a severely enlarged liver.
• He had not eaten solid food for a day or two, in an apparent attempt to lose weight.
• He was apparently not adequately acclimatized to training in the heat and humidity of South Florida.
• It appears that he was wearing two or three layers of clothing during workouts, again, in an attempt to lose weight.
• He was overweight and did not have a high enough fitness level to make it through conditioning drills.
• He was allowed to exercise until he collapsed with a core temperature reportedly of 106°F before being removed from the field.
Was the ephedra an added risk factor in his death? Possibly -- although there was no evidence that he had actually used any before going out to exercise. They merely found a bottle in his locker. Was it the cause? Not likely. Any single one of the factors above could have killed him. Cumulatively, they represent a virtual death sentence. The bottom line is that the case against ephedra was made with smoke and mirrors.
"Few industries enjoy the level of protection DSHEA provides supplement manufacturers."
Oh my goodness, that's just so hypocritical. Nothing compares with the pharmaceutical industry. They get to sell billions and billions of dollars worth of products that have been proven to be no more effective than placebos and have some truly nasty side effects besides. I'm talking about flu shots, statin drugs, antidepressants, and hormone replacement therapy to name just a few. But even better, even when one of their drugs has been found to actually kill people by the thousands, they are often allowed to continue selling those drugs. You think that's an exaggeration? Consider the fact that even after Vioxx was implicated in the deaths of over 27,000 people,14 a 32-member FDA advisory committee decided that the benefits of Merck's Vioxx and Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra outweighed the risk of cardiac damage for patients taking them -- even though non-lethal alternatives were available.15
How can this be? Because the same medical doctors who own stock in the pharmaceutical companies that market these drugs get to sit on the FDA advisory committees that determine whether or not those drugs should be sold. In the real world, that's called conflict of interest -- unfortunately, not in the medical world. Whatever "protection" DSHEA provides for the supplement industry is like a T-Ball league for four- year olds compared to the major leagues, as represented by the pharmaceutical industry and their friends in the FDA and the medical community.
"The basic tenets of science are frequently ignored by companies that use the term to lend credence to their industry, and it is safe to assume that supplement manufacturers will not make an announcement each time a study finds no relationship between a dietary supplement and a health condition. For cases in which the null hypothesis is actually rejected, HR 1364 would allow industry leaders to promote their findings -- a practice with which they appear comfortable."
Is this article really talking about the supplement industry, because it just described the exact position of the pharmaceutical industry? They get to conduct their own tests, reject and bury any that don't produce the findings they want, and then submit only the cream of the crop to the FDA for approval. Dr. Denham's complaint is like a Wall Street banker accusing the American consumer of mismanaging their finances!
"Since October 1994, when DSHEA became law, industry statements about life in a free society and the rights of consumers have frequently overridden practical arguments about the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements, resulting in a conversation that has privileged demagoguery over informed debate."
Quite simply, if this article in JAMA qualifies as "informed debate," who really needs it.
"The conversation needs a more sophisticated tone and the FDA took a positive step in 2007, issuing a rule on good manufacturing practices. Ideally, good manufacturing practices will help reduce availability of products containing contaminants such as pesticide residue or oxidation by-products; however, as the GAO investigations revealed, there is still room for improvement. Physicians should support future efforts to improve or reform DSHEA because individuals with serious medical conditions may be relying on products with no medicinal value. Like dietary supplements, the regulations should be efficacious and formulated for legitimate ends."
And at last we come to it -- the true purpose of this position paper. It is a call for physicians to support a further tightening of the regulatory screws on what, in economic terms, can only be viewed as a financial competitor. And where have we heard this before?
• First, most people are not aware that the AMA was actually formed to combat homeopathic medicine -- or as stated in the AMA's original charter, "An enemy who has many strongholds upon the affection of the people; and one who in many places rivals us in their esteem."
• Second, in 1980, the US Court of Appeals upheld a 1978 FTC ruling that found that the AMA was guilty of "conspiracy to restrain competition" in regard to chiropractic. The AMA fought this decision for seven years, when in 1987, US judge Susan Getzendanner, ruled that the AMA had engaged in "systematic, long-term wrongdoing and the long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession." The AMA continued to fight these rulings, and it wasn't until 1990 that they finally lost for good.
• AMA trustee, Dr. Ronald M. Davis, testified before Congress that the AMA calls for the "premarket approval by the FDA of all dietary supplements."16 Dr. Davis also stated, "The AMA has been concerned for years about the use and abuse of dietary supplements. Congress must provide the FDA with greater regulatory power over dietary supplements to bring needed oversight to the industry and to protect the health of America's consumers."
Quite simply, the AMA will tolerate no competitors.
Conclusion
In summary, this position paper in JAMA pretty much qualifies as sanctimonious claptrap. And this from the group (organized medicine) that, according to its own figures, may be the single leading cause of death in the United States today. Heck, at 106,000 "reported" deaths a year, side effects from prescription medicine alone rank as the 4th leading cause of death. But make no mistake, this is not about health; it's about money! The article states its position so eloquently early on, "For US health professionals, the fact that more than 150 million US residents use dietary supplements should be a point of concern as many users will almost certainly forgo conventional medical treatment in favor of using [dietary supplements]."
As the AMA has shown repeatedly, no competition will be allowed! And 150 million consumers using supplements that may obviate their need for medical services, is simply unacceptable.
Bottom line: if you like the supplements you're currently taking, keep taking them. Despite what the AMA says, much of alternative medicine works.
And if you'd really like to let the AMA and JAMA know how you feel, then contact your Congressional representative and let them know you support H.R. 1364: The Free Speech about Science Act of 2011. The bill was introduced in April and has been referred to the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow the legitimate distribution of information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, if that information is based on legitimate scientific research.
• Here’s a link to a summary of the bill.
• And here’s a link to the Members of the Committee currently evaluating the bill. (Note: the actual Subcommittee on Health has not been assigned yet, but will be drawn from these members.)
If your representative is on the committee, absolutely contact them ASAP. (By the way, be sure and customize your letter. Representatives take it more seriously if you do.) I can’t think of anything that would be more irritating to the AMA and the FDA than the passage of this bill. And it will help to counter the influence of the non-progressive side of the medical community that is being called to arms to work against the passage of H.R. 1364. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but the timing of the JAMA position paper that we've looked at today -- just 90 days after H.R. 1364 was filed -- is highly suspect. And even if it is coincidental, it certainly is capable of being used as a pointed counter-argument to the more open dissemination of information espoused in 1364. It would certainly be a crime if they succeeded in this blatant attempt to further curtail your access to life saving information, not to mention the supplements you depend on. You don't want them to get away with that, do you?
• 1. Bryan E. Denham, PhD. "Dietary Supplements -- Regulatory Issues and Implications for Public Health." JAMA. 2011;306(4):428-429. Published online July 5, 2011.
• 2. Wang BS, Wang H, Song YY, Qi H, Rong ZX, Wang BS, Zhang L, Chen HZ. "Effectiveness of standardized ginkgo biloba extract on cognitive symptoms of dementia with a six-month treatment: a bivariate random effect meta-analysis." Pharmacopsychiatry. 2010 May;43(3):86-91. Epub 2010 Jan 26.
• 3. Bachinskaya N, Hoerr R, Ihl R. "Alleviating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: the effects of Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761. Findings from a randomized controlled trial." Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2011;7:209-15. Epub 2011 Apr 20.
• 4. Cohen AJ, Bartlik B. "Ginkgo biloba for antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction." J Sex Marital Ther. 1998 Apr-Jun;24(2):139-43.
• 5. Gorby HE, Brownawell AM, Falk MC. "Do specific dietary constituents and supplements affect mental energy? Review of the evidence." Nutr Rev. 2010 Dec;68(12):697-718.
• 6. Liao HJ, Zheng YF, Li HY, Peng GP. "Two New Ginkgolides from the Leaves of Ginkgo biloba." Planta Med. 2011 May 25. [Epub ahead of print]
• 7. Lu X, Rasco BA, Jabal JM, Aston DE, Lin M, Konkel ME. "Investigating Antibacterial Effects of Garlic (Allium sativum) Concentrate and Garlic-Derived Organosulfur Compounds on Campylobacter jejuni by Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Raman Spectroscopy, and Electron Microscopy." Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Aug;77(15):5257-69. Epub 2011 Jun 3.
• 8. Hannan A, Ikram Ullah M, Usman M, Hussain S, Absar M, Javed K. "Anti-mycobacterial activity of garlic (Allium sativum) against multi-drug resistant and non-multi-drug resistant mycobacterium tuberculosis." Pak J Pharm Sci. 2011 Jan;24(1):81-5.
• 9. Chavan SD, Shetty NL, Kanuri M. "Comparative evaluation of garlic extract mouthwash and chlorhexidine mouthwash on salivary Streptococcus mutans count - an in vitro study." Oral Health Prev Dent. 2010;8(4):369-74.
• 10. Aviello G, Abenavoli L, Borrelli F, Capasso R, Izzo AA, Lembo F, Romano B, Capasso F. "Garlic: empiricism or science?" Nat Prod Commun. 2009 Dec;4(12):1785-96.
• 11. Guo NL, Lu DP, Woods GL, Reed E, Zhou GZ, Zhang LB, Waldman RH. "Demonstration of the anti-viral activity of garlic extract against human cytomegalovirus in vitro." Chin Med J (Engl). 1993 Feb;106(2):93-6.
• 12. Sasaki J, Kita J. "Bacteriocidal activity of garlic powder against Bacillus anthracis." J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2003 Aug;49(4):297-9.
• 13. Sharma VD, et al, "Antibacterial property of Allium sativum: in vivo and in vitro studies." Indian Journal Experimental Biology 15: 466-68, 1977. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/598878 >
• 14. Unknown. "FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths." 4 November 2004. consumeraffairs.com. Accessed 1 August 2011
• 15. Cush JJ, Kavanaugh A, Matteson EL. "Hotline: American College of Rheumatology. Hotline: The Safety of COX-2 Inhibitors: Deliberations from the February 16-18, 2005, FDA Meeting." American College of Rheumatology.
• 16. Hearing Before the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate. "Dietary Supplement Safety Act: How Is the Food And Drug Administration Doing 10 Years Later? 8 June 2004
Support H.R. 1364 & Dietary Supplements | Natural Health Newsletter
Date: 08/08/2011 Written by: Jon Barron © 1999-2011 The Baseline of Health Foundation
Dietary Supplements under Attack by the AMA, Again
I know it sounds a bit weird for someone ensconced in complimentary medicine, but I regularly read the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). No, not the entire issues! The vast majority of articles are discipline specific shop pieces -- such as an article for dermatologists on a study that has potentially identified a genetic component for a rare (one in 300,000,000) skin disorder. Nor am I particularly interested in studies commissioned by drug companies in support of their drugs. They are often so abusive of facts as to be virtually meaningless. No, my interest is actually reserved for the three smaller, but far more interesting categories of articles: revolutionary medical breakthroughs, anything related to alternative health, and position papers. To me, these articles represent both the best and worst in modern medicine. Unlike many in the alternative health community, I find much to admire in the medical community. True, you have to sift through the lies and propaganda to know what you're reading. But that said, modern medicine is constantly making major breakthroughs in the treatment of disease and in the development of innovative technologies -- to help the blind to see and the paraplegic to walk, for example. It's truly exciting, and it represents a tremendously positive side of modern medicine.
Then there are the articles about alternative health. These I need to read regularly because they often promote hugely flawed studies that, not surprisingly, come to disparaging conclusions about alternative health. Unfortunately, these studies frequently rely on bad science and are far too numerous for those of us in the alternative community to respond to them all. You might almost think that the medical community had an agenda the way they go after complimentary medicine with bad science. (More on this later.)
And finally, there are the AMA position papers, presented in JAMA as "Commentaries." These include far ranging positions on anything that the medical community feels affects its interests -- which at various times has included its advertisers. That's why, back in the day when JAMA carried ads for cigarettes, they also published position papers promoting the virtues of cigarette smoking for weight loss. Now, while it's true those days may be gone, today we nevertheless find equally absurd position papers from the medical community supporting the use of high fructose corn syrup, for example. (And don't you just know they're going to regret that one eventually.)
All of which brings me to the subject of today's newsletter: a recent "commentary" article concerning dietary supplements, written by Bryan E. Denham, PhD. and published in JAMA, thus carrying the imprimatur of the American Medical Association.1 If you were to hazard a guess, what side of the issue do you think the good doctor and the AMA came down on -- pro or con vis-à-vis alternative medicine and dietary supplements? Good guess!
Taking on JAMA
Let's take a look at this article, titled "Dietary Supplements -- Regulatory Issues and Implications for Public Health," quoting the key points, and methodically commenting on them one at a time.
"Currently, for a tainted or otherwise hazardous product to be removed from the supplement marketplace, an agency such as the FDA or the Drug Enforcement Administration must offer evidence that the product is unsafe, contains a controlled substance, or is absent ingredients listed on the product label after the product has appeared in retail outlets."
So, the complaint is that government agencies don't have the right to ban supplements comprised of "generally regarded as safe" ingredients unless that particular supplement is proven to be other than what it claims to be? Really, that's the medical concern here? I know I'm a lot more concerned about pharmaceutical drugs that continue to be sold even after they are proven to be unsafe and kill people. Hormone replacement therapy is still prescribed and sold to over 3,000,000 women a year in the United States alone -- even after it was proven to increase the risk of death from both heart disease and cancer. The number of deaths each year caused by that one prescription alone dwarfs all of the deaths that could be attributed to every single alternative health remedy sold in the United States over the last quarter century! In marketing, that's called valuation by perspective.
"For US health professionals, the fact that more than 150 million US residents use dietary supplements should be a point of concern as many users will almost certainly forgo conventional medical treatment in favor of using products that may offer no medicinal value and taking health advice from medically untrained sales representatives."
When we talk about people using products that may offer no medicinal value, let's talk about statin drugs and antidepressants. Statin drugs have now been shown, by the pharmaceutical companies' own research no less, to have no value at all (none, zero, nada) when it comes to adding even one single day to your life unless you've already had a heart attack. Antidepressants have been proven to be about as effective as a placebo, except in the most severe cases. But even worse, they double your risk of relapsing into depression. Perhaps the medical community should worry a bit more about getting its own house in order before taking on the "complementary" community.
"Counterintuitively, DSHEA became law 5 years after the L-tryptophan amino acid disaster of 1989, in which 38 individuals died and 1500 sustained adverse reactions."
Yes, those statistics are correct…but also misleading. People didn't die because there was anything inherently wrong with L-tryptophan as a supplement. In fact, after an extensive investigation, the Center for Disease Control announced in the New England Journal of Medicine that the problem was not actually with L-tryptophan, but with a batch of contaminated products produced by the Japanese manufacturer Showa Denko. In point of fact, the FDA confirmed this in their official publication, FDA Consumer, which stated, "It appears the problem is not with the amino acid itself, but rather with the product becoming contaminated as a result of a change in the firm's manufacturing process." What they didn't mention is that the change that caused the problem was actually pushed by the FDA to improve safety, no less.
"When the FDA appeared heavy-handed in its response to the supplement catastrophe, industry lobbyists began applying pressure to lawmakers, especially those with a vested political interest in the economic success of supplement companies. US Senator Orrin Hatch, representing Utah, a major producer of dietary supplements, responded to industry appeals by coauthoring DSHEA and shepherding it through Congress."
The JAMA article forgets to mention that rather than just recalling the contaminated L-tryptophan, the FDA chose to ban all L-tryptophan totally from the market -- indefinitely. Why? At the time of its banning, sales of L-tryptophan in health food stores were running around $180 million a year. It sold so well because it worked. It helped with everything from depression to anxiety to stress. Unfortunately, it worked too well, was a natural substance so it couldn't be patented, and was priced too low. This was unacceptable; and so, when the first excuse presented itself, L-tryptophan was pulled from the market.
Amazingly, as "chance" would have it, within 4 days of the banning of L-tryptophan, Prozac was the cover story in Newsweek magazine. Almost, as if by a miracle, it seems, Prozac, which is patented and is far more expensive than L-tryptophan, was there to fill the gap and became the miracle drug to take the place of L-tryptophan. Oh, and as we've already mentioned, unlike L-tryptophan, Prozac works no better than a placebo and it can cause psychotic episodes that lead to murder. Unfortunately, it's part of an $11 billion industry, so it's not going anywhere.
"In 2009, a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 'consumers are not well-informed about the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements and have difficulty interpreting the labels on these products.'"
Just so we're clear here. U.S. law prohibits supplement manufacturers from stating the benefits of supplements as demonstrated in numerous studies, not to mention anecdotally over centuries -- except within carefully defined limits -- which means that consumers aren't being given the information they need to make informed decisions. The complaint that consumers are uniformed, then, is pretty much based on circular logic. Or if you prefer, the game is rigged.
"In fact, one of the most significant problems with DSHEA is that it allows structure and function claims to appear on product labels; as long as products do not claim to treat, prevent, or cure specific diseases, they can enter and remain in the marketplace."
In for a penny, in for a pound, Dr. Denham! So the solution to better "informing" consumers is to provide them with even less information? Fascinating!
"The concern is that consumers may not differentiate between technical descriptions and marketing language and may attempt to use dietary supplements in place of medicines that have been tested in rigorous trials. To that end, a 2010 GAO investigation found that sellers of dietary supplements may actually encourage consumers to substitute supplements for physician-prescribed medications."
So all of the natural health experts who advised pregnant women to take folic acid supplements for decades before the FDA approved the claims were in the wrong, how? The women who followed their advice prevented untold cases of spina bifida and neural tube defects that the FDA actively allowed. And is it really better to have a physician surgically repair spina bifida than to prevent it with a little supplement? And it's not just folic acid. You can add supplements such as Omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, and soluble fiber, to name just a few, where the alternative health community was saving lives and preventing emergency hospital visits for several decades before the medical community finally caught up.
"In preparing its 2010 report, the GAO investigated 22 retailers of herbal dietary supplements, hiring an accredited laboratory to examine 40 single-ingredient supplements for the presence of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and assorted pesticides. Although none of the supplements qualified as having an acute toxicity hazard, trace amounts of at least 1 contaminant were found in 37 of 40 products."
This complaint is a red herring. The GAO is talking about trace amounts of contaminants. You do realize that virtually all of the food you buy has trace contaminants of exactly those same contaminants -- not to mention insect parts and rat feces. The water you drink has trace levels of contaminants -- not to mention known added carcinogens such as chlorine and fluoride. Anything connected with nature is going to have trace levels of contamination. That's life. But let's get real here; most of the flu vaccine injected by the loyal doctors of JAMA is manufactured with Thimerosal, a preservative that is 50% mercury!! I would suggest pulling the 50% mercury that you directly inject in people's veins before you complain about the trace levels of contaminants in naturally sourced supplements.
"According to the GAO, more troubling than the contaminants was the dubious and potentially hazardous advice offered to investigators who had posed as elderly customers. The GAO gathered written materials from online retailers, observing claims of treating, preventing, and curing conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Among the more egregious marketing efforts were claims that garlic could be taken in place of high blood pressure medication and that ginkgo biloba could be used to treat Alzheimer disease, depression, and impotence. Studies conducted by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have shown that ginkgo biloba, in particular, does not reduce the risk of cancer nor does it prove effective in reducing high blood pressure among older adults."
Please tell me that I'm not the only one who just noticed the distorted logic used by the good doctor. You saw the shameless switch he pulled here too, right? If not, take note:
• First, he says that "among the more egregious marketing efforts were claims that…ginkgo biloba could be used to treat Alzheimer disease, depression, and impotence. (We'll talk more about those claims in a moment.)
• Then he shoots gingko down by saying, "Studies…have shown that ginkgo biloba… does not reduce the risk of cancer nor does it prove effective in reducing high blood pressure among older adults."
• What does one sentence have to do with the other?
By the way, as to the "egregious" claims that gingko can treat, Alzheimer's, depression, and impotence, let's take a look. Yes, there are two studies that indicate that it is no better than a placebo when it comes to Alzheimer's. On the other hand, there are numerous studies that indicate that it offers definite benefits for several conditions.2,3,4,5 Perhaps, one of the reasons for the inconsistent results is the use of standardized extracts in testing. As I've explained on numerous occasions, although standardization meets "medical standards," it often short-changes "herbal standards." Standardization is only as effective as what you standardize for. If there's a beneficial component that is not yet recognized as such by the scientific community, then it will not be standardized for in any current formulation.
Imagine how embarrassing it is when down the road, scientists discover what they missed. "My bad!" A great example is vitamin E, which scientists long identified as alpha-tocopherol. For years, all vitamin E supplements were standardized to alpha-tocopherol alone (and in most cases, still are). Imagine how embarrassing it was when it was discovered that vitamin E is actually comprised of eight bio-chemicals (four tocopherols and four tocotrienols) -- with alpha-tocopherol turning out to be one of the least beneficial. How effective could your vitamin E supplement have been all those years missing seven key components -- and with the one component used being synthetic at that in many cases?
So what does that have to do with gingko and all of the testing done on it? Literally just a couple of months ago, scientists discovered two "new" bio-active gingkolides.6 That means that all of the previous standardized supplements that didn't know about these two gingkoloids are suspect -- as are all tests conducted using them. On the other hand, any guaranteed potency (as opposed to standardized) whole herb supplement would have contained them. Theoretically then, different gingko supplements would have produced different results. Oh, and if the medical community is thinking of jumping in with, "And that's exactly the problem with natural medicines VS pharmaceutical drugs," it's worth noting that the problems stems not from herbal medicine, but with herbal medicine being forced by the medical community to look like standardized pharmaceutical drugs -- which they are not.
"Careful review of National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine studies reveals a similar lack of efficacy for garlic, chromium picolinate, and St John's wort."
Really, doctor, garlic? You're going to go there? The antipathogenic effects of garlic have been demonstrated repeatedly.7,8,9,10,11 It's even been proven to kill anthrax.12,13 For more on why garlic works so well, check out Why Antibiotics and Antivirals Fail.
"Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act (S 3002) in February 2010. Although this act did not propose significant changes in efficacy assessment, it would have required supplement manufacturers to register with the FDA and disclose all product ingredients. The legislation also would have given the FDA mandatory recall authority, the lack of which had resulted in the agency taking 10 years to remove ephedra from the marketplace."
Let me begin by saying that I am not a fan of ephedra. I've never used it in any of my own formulations. Not because it causes heart attacks and strokes, but because it exhausts the adrenals.
But wait a second, weren't there at least 100 people who died as a result of using ephedra products? Not really. Despite the medical community's "party line" that the doctor has apparently bought into, the case against ephedra is based on statistical nonsense. The FDA compiled, over several years, a list of people who had died from heart attacks or strokes and had been using ephedra. They then determined that 100% of the people on that list of people who died had been using ephedra. That makes ephedra pretty dangerous, yes? No!!! You could make the same argument against water. Make a list of all those who have died from heart attack and stroke and also drank water. By definition, 100% of the people on that list would be water drinkers. That doesn't mean that drinking water caused those strokes and death. It actually doesn't mean anything. It's bogus logic.
The truth is that in studies comparing groups of people who used ephedra products with those who did not, there was virtually no difference in the rate of heart attacks and strokes!! Just as a point of reference, consider the case of Steve Belcher, the Baltimore Orioles pitcher whose death in 2003, supposedly from using an ephedra product, was the final straw for the FDA. As it turns out, Steve Belcher had the following risk factors:
• A prior history of heat illness episodes while in high school - which heightens the probability of reoccurring incidents.
• A family history of sudden death following exercise (his half-brother died of an aneurysm at the age of 20 after overheating from playing baseball).
• A history of hypertension and liver problems, including a severely enlarged liver.
• He had not eaten solid food for a day or two, in an apparent attempt to lose weight.
• He was apparently not adequately acclimatized to training in the heat and humidity of South Florida.
• It appears that he was wearing two or three layers of clothing during workouts, again, in an attempt to lose weight.
• He was overweight and did not have a high enough fitness level to make it through conditioning drills.
• He was allowed to exercise until he collapsed with a core temperature reportedly of 106°F before being removed from the field.
Was the ephedra an added risk factor in his death? Possibly -- although there was no evidence that he had actually used any before going out to exercise. They merely found a bottle in his locker. Was it the cause? Not likely. Any single one of the factors above could have killed him. Cumulatively, they represent a virtual death sentence. The bottom line is that the case against ephedra was made with smoke and mirrors.
"Few industries enjoy the level of protection DSHEA provides supplement manufacturers."
Oh my goodness, that's just so hypocritical. Nothing compares with the pharmaceutical industry. They get to sell billions and billions of dollars worth of products that have been proven to be no more effective than placebos and have some truly nasty side effects besides. I'm talking about flu shots, statin drugs, antidepressants, and hormone replacement therapy to name just a few. But even better, even when one of their drugs has been found to actually kill people by the thousands, they are often allowed to continue selling those drugs. You think that's an exaggeration? Consider the fact that even after Vioxx was implicated in the deaths of over 27,000 people,14 a 32-member FDA advisory committee decided that the benefits of Merck's Vioxx and Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra outweighed the risk of cardiac damage for patients taking them -- even though non-lethal alternatives were available.15
How can this be? Because the same medical doctors who own stock in the pharmaceutical companies that market these drugs get to sit on the FDA advisory committees that determine whether or not those drugs should be sold. In the real world, that's called conflict of interest -- unfortunately, not in the medical world. Whatever "protection" DSHEA provides for the supplement industry is like a T-Ball league for four- year olds compared to the major leagues, as represented by the pharmaceutical industry and their friends in the FDA and the medical community.
"The basic tenets of science are frequently ignored by companies that use the term to lend credence to their industry, and it is safe to assume that supplement manufacturers will not make an announcement each time a study finds no relationship between a dietary supplement and a health condition. For cases in which the null hypothesis is actually rejected, HR 1364 would allow industry leaders to promote their findings -- a practice with which they appear comfortable."
Is this article really talking about the supplement industry, because it just described the exact position of the pharmaceutical industry? They get to conduct their own tests, reject and bury any that don't produce the findings they want, and then submit only the cream of the crop to the FDA for approval. Dr. Denham's complaint is like a Wall Street banker accusing the American consumer of mismanaging their finances!
"Since October 1994, when DSHEA became law, industry statements about life in a free society and the rights of consumers have frequently overridden practical arguments about the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements, resulting in a conversation that has privileged demagoguery over informed debate."
Quite simply, if this article in JAMA qualifies as "informed debate," who really needs it.
"The conversation needs a more sophisticated tone and the FDA took a positive step in 2007, issuing a rule on good manufacturing practices. Ideally, good manufacturing practices will help reduce availability of products containing contaminants such as pesticide residue or oxidation by-products; however, as the GAO investigations revealed, there is still room for improvement. Physicians should support future efforts to improve or reform DSHEA because individuals with serious medical conditions may be relying on products with no medicinal value. Like dietary supplements, the regulations should be efficacious and formulated for legitimate ends."
And at last we come to it -- the true purpose of this position paper. It is a call for physicians to support a further tightening of the regulatory screws on what, in economic terms, can only be viewed as a financial competitor. And where have we heard this before?
• First, most people are not aware that the AMA was actually formed to combat homeopathic medicine -- or as stated in the AMA's original charter, "An enemy who has many strongholds upon the affection of the people; and one who in many places rivals us in their esteem."
• Second, in 1980, the US Court of Appeals upheld a 1978 FTC ruling that found that the AMA was guilty of "conspiracy to restrain competition" in regard to chiropractic. The AMA fought this decision for seven years, when in 1987, US judge Susan Getzendanner, ruled that the AMA had engaged in "systematic, long-term wrongdoing and the long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession." The AMA continued to fight these rulings, and it wasn't until 1990 that they finally lost for good.
• AMA trustee, Dr. Ronald M. Davis, testified before Congress that the AMA calls for the "premarket approval by the FDA of all dietary supplements."16 Dr. Davis also stated, "The AMA has been concerned for years about the use and abuse of dietary supplements. Congress must provide the FDA with greater regulatory power over dietary supplements to bring needed oversight to the industry and to protect the health of America's consumers."
Quite simply, the AMA will tolerate no competitors.
Conclusion
In summary, this position paper in JAMA pretty much qualifies as sanctimonious claptrap. And this from the group (organized medicine) that, according to its own figures, may be the single leading cause of death in the United States today. Heck, at 106,000 "reported" deaths a year, side effects from prescription medicine alone rank as the 4th leading cause of death. But make no mistake, this is not about health; it's about money! The article states its position so eloquently early on, "For US health professionals, the fact that more than 150 million US residents use dietary supplements should be a point of concern as many users will almost certainly forgo conventional medical treatment in favor of using [dietary supplements]."
As the AMA has shown repeatedly, no competition will be allowed! And 150 million consumers using supplements that may obviate their need for medical services, is simply unacceptable.
Bottom line: if you like the supplements you're currently taking, keep taking them. Despite what the AMA says, much of alternative medicine works.
And if you'd really like to let the AMA and JAMA know how you feel, then contact your Congressional representative and let them know you support H.R. 1364: The Free Speech about Science Act of 2011. The bill was introduced in April and has been referred to the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow the legitimate distribution of information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, if that information is based on legitimate scientific research.
• Here’s a link to a summary of the bill.
• And here’s a link to the Members of the Committee currently evaluating the bill. (Note: the actual Subcommittee on Health has not been assigned yet, but will be drawn from these members.)
If your representative is on the committee, absolutely contact them ASAP. (By the way, be sure and customize your letter. Representatives take it more seriously if you do.) I can’t think of anything that would be more irritating to the AMA and the FDA than the passage of this bill. And it will help to counter the influence of the non-progressive side of the medical community that is being called to arms to work against the passage of H.R. 1364. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but the timing of the JAMA position paper that we've looked at today -- just 90 days after H.R. 1364 was filed -- is highly suspect. And even if it is coincidental, it certainly is capable of being used as a pointed counter-argument to the more open dissemination of information espoused in 1364. It would certainly be a crime if they succeeded in this blatant attempt to further curtail your access to life saving information, not to mention the supplements you depend on. You don't want them to get away with that, do you?
• 1. Bryan E. Denham, PhD. "Dietary Supplements -- Regulatory Issues and Implications for Public Health." JAMA. 2011;306(4):428-429. Published online July 5, 2011.
• 2. Wang BS, Wang H, Song YY, Qi H, Rong ZX, Wang BS, Zhang L, Chen HZ. "Effectiveness of standardized ginkgo biloba extract on cognitive symptoms of dementia with a six-month treatment: a bivariate random effect meta-analysis." Pharmacopsychiatry. 2010 May;43(3):86-91. Epub 2010 Jan 26.
• 3. Bachinskaya N, Hoerr R, Ihl R. "Alleviating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: the effects of Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761. Findings from a randomized controlled trial." Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2011;7:209-15. Epub 2011 Apr 20.
• 4. Cohen AJ, Bartlik B. "Ginkgo biloba for antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction." J Sex Marital Ther. 1998 Apr-Jun;24(2):139-43.
• 5. Gorby HE, Brownawell AM, Falk MC. "Do specific dietary constituents and supplements affect mental energy? Review of the evidence." Nutr Rev. 2010 Dec;68(12):697-718.
• 6. Liao HJ, Zheng YF, Li HY, Peng GP. "Two New Ginkgolides from the Leaves of Ginkgo biloba." Planta Med. 2011 May 25. [Epub ahead of print]
• 7. Lu X, Rasco BA, Jabal JM, Aston DE, Lin M, Konkel ME. "Investigating Antibacterial Effects of Garlic (Allium sativum) Concentrate and Garlic-Derived Organosulfur Compounds on Campylobacter jejuni by Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Raman Spectroscopy, and Electron Microscopy." Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Aug;77(15):5257-69. Epub 2011 Jun 3.
• 8. Hannan A, Ikram Ullah M, Usman M, Hussain S, Absar M, Javed K. "Anti-mycobacterial activity of garlic (Allium sativum) against multi-drug resistant and non-multi-drug resistant mycobacterium tuberculosis." Pak J Pharm Sci. 2011 Jan;24(1):81-5.
• 9. Chavan SD, Shetty NL, Kanuri M. "Comparative evaluation of garlic extract mouthwash and chlorhexidine mouthwash on salivary Streptococcus mutans count - an in vitro study." Oral Health Prev Dent. 2010;8(4):369-74.
• 10. Aviello G, Abenavoli L, Borrelli F, Capasso R, Izzo AA, Lembo F, Romano B, Capasso F. "Garlic: empiricism or science?" Nat Prod Commun. 2009 Dec;4(12):1785-96.
• 11. Guo NL, Lu DP, Woods GL, Reed E, Zhou GZ, Zhang LB, Waldman RH. "Demonstration of the anti-viral activity of garlic extract against human cytomegalovirus in vitro." Chin Med J (Engl). 1993 Feb;106(2):93-6.
• 12. Sasaki J, Kita J. "Bacteriocidal activity of garlic powder against Bacillus anthracis." J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2003 Aug;49(4):297-9.
• 13. Sharma VD, et al, "Antibacterial property of Allium sativum: in vivo and in vitro studies." Indian Journal Experimental Biology 15: 466-68, 1977. < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/598878 >
• 14. Unknown. "FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths." 4 November 2004. consumeraffairs.com. Accessed 1 August 2011
• 15. Cush JJ, Kavanaugh A, Matteson EL. "Hotline: American College of Rheumatology. Hotline: The Safety of COX-2 Inhibitors: Deliberations from the February 16-18, 2005, FDA Meeting." American College of Rheumatology.
• 16. Hearing Before the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate. "Dietary Supplement Safety Act: How Is the Food And Drug Administration Doing 10 Years Later? 8 June 2004
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Flouride awareness
Important! The producers of this powerful film are allowing a full and FREE preview
through August 13th in celebration of Fluoride Awareness Week (Aug 7 - 13)! You can support Fluoride Action Network by purchasing the Professional Perspectives DVD at a special price of $9.95 during Fluoride Awareness Week.
Visit the Mercola Video Library
By Dr. Mercola
Dr. Mercola Recommends...
Every "Like" Helps Support This Cause
Did you know there's an "invisible" drug that a majority of Americans consume on a daily basis—a drug so harmful it's been proven to cause serious health issues, including damage to your bones and teeth, as well as your kidneys, thyroid, pineal gland, and even your brain. This drug is so pervasive that over 40 percent of all American teens between the ages of 12 and 15 show visible signs of having been overexposed to it, and, shockingly, recent international studies indicate that even small doses of this drug can lower the IQ in children.
What is this drug?
Fluoride.
You are Being Drugged Without Your Consent…
Many do not realize that fluoride is indeed a drug. In fact, if you decided you wanted to take it, you'd have to get a prescription for it. Yet it's added to municipal water supplies reaching more than 180 million Americans, including infants and the elderly. This is a significant problem, because once you add it to the water supply, you have no way of gauging how much of the drug any particular person will consume on any given day.
Consider this: It is illegal and unethical for a medical doctor to give you a drug without specifying dosage, and to fail to monitor your health for side effects from the drug. Yet, your water authority is not only allowed, but encouraged to add a toxic drug—fluoride—to your drinking water without your consent and without any way of knowing who in your household is drinking it, how much, and the effect it is having.
The Science Incontrovertibly Opposes Water Fluoridation
Water fluoridation began in the mid 1940's as a solution to fluoride pollution generated by the Atomic Bomb Program and the aluminum industry, but it was cleverly "sold" to dentists and the general masses as a preventive strategy for reducing tooth decay... It has been heralded as one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
Alas, it may actually be more accurate to describe it as one of the greatest mass poisonings in our history. Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that fluoride is highly toxic.
In a sane world, public health policy would be based on sound and conclusive science. Unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to water fluoridation. In fact, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that fluoride is not an effective preventive strategy against tooth decay and may be causing significant health problems in many individuals, the practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies continues unabated. A majority, 64 percent, of all drinking water in the United States still receives this ill-advised treatment.
Why does this practice continue when it flies in the face of all the current research?
The answer to this question is just one of the countless shocking revelations featured in Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation. The film, which features a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, scientists, dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, reveals the science behind fluoridation, the effects it has on your health, and why there is no logical or rational reason to continue fluoridating ANY water supply.
Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?
The only science that mildly supports the use of pharmaceutical-grade fluoride as a preventive against dental caries is topical use of fluoride (although even that is debatable, based on more recent findings). There is really no scientific basis at all for ingesting fluoride to protect your teeth! In fact, when fluoride is taken internally, it actually damages your teeth, causing a condition known as dental fluorosis; the pitting and discoloration of teeth. Today, 41 percent of American children between the ages of 12 and 14 have dental fluorosis. But that's not all. When you swallow, fluoride it can also cause:
Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Impaired mental development, lowered IQ, and dementia Gastrointestinal problems
Hyperactivity and/or lethargy Arthritic symptoms Kidney issues
Lowered thyroid function Chronic fatigue Disrupted immune system
This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications of fluoride ingestion. And, yet, rather than taking the precautionary approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.
The CDC and ADA Advise Against Fluoridated Water for Infants
In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula.
Why?
Because an average glass of treated water contains 250 times more fluoride than breast milk. A few days later, the CDC followed suit. But neither of them openly informed the public!
As a result, millions of parents are still using tap water to make up formula, completely oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have also issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose. Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, you doom many low income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information.
The evidence suggests that minorities and low-income families are being disproportionately harmed by water fluoridation, and two Atlanta Civil Rights leaders, Andrew Young and Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, recently requested that Georgia legislators repeal the state's mandatory water fluoridation law based on this fact.
African American children have been found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride than white children. African American mothers are also less likely to breastfeed than most other racial groups, and since breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride, babies fed formula made with fluoridated water could receive up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. Thus African American children have a higher risk of being overexposed to fluoride from infancy on.
Get Informed; Get the Facts…
Knowledge is power, and you have the power to not only protect yourself, but also to help protect others once you know the truth. The United States is one of the few remaining developed countries in the world that still fluoridates a majority of its water supply.
Don't you agree that it's time for our policymakers to stop putting your and your family's health at risk? I strongly recommend viewing Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation. We can eliminate this harmful practice, but it's going to take people like you to make it happen—so please watch the film to get the cold hard facts, and share it with everyone you know.
How You Can Help END Water Fluoridation
FAN Advocacy PosterThe Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to end water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States, and this Fluoride Awareness Week will hopefully bring us a lot closer to that goal by spreading mass awareness. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. A few weeks ago the city of Calgary stopped fluoridating over a million people and last October the citizens of Waterloo, Ontario voted it out in a referendum. If we can get the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. Please, join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.
Contact Information for Canadian Communities:
1. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.
Contact Information for American Communities:
We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:
1. New York City, NY: With the recent victory in Calgary, New York City is the next big emphasis. The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply." A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference. The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com . Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.
2. Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or telephone: (512) 371-3786
3. San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at pbrooks936@aol.com.
In addition, you can:
* Tell the EPA you expect them to uphold their duty to protect you and your children from this toxic food fumigant.
* Make a generous tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, to help them fight for your rights to fluoride-free food and water.
* Check out FAN's Action Page, as they are working on multiple fronts to rid our food and water supplies of fluoride.
* For timely updates, join the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page.
Republish this article
Follow Dr. Mercola on Twitter Follow Dr. Mercola on Facebook
through August 13th in celebration of Fluoride Awareness Week (Aug 7 - 13)! You can support Fluoride Action Network by purchasing the Professional Perspectives DVD at a special price of $9.95 during Fluoride Awareness Week.
Visit the Mercola Video Library
By Dr. Mercola
Dr. Mercola Recommends...
Every "Like" Helps Support This Cause
Did you know there's an "invisible" drug that a majority of Americans consume on a daily basis—a drug so harmful it's been proven to cause serious health issues, including damage to your bones and teeth, as well as your kidneys, thyroid, pineal gland, and even your brain. This drug is so pervasive that over 40 percent of all American teens between the ages of 12 and 15 show visible signs of having been overexposed to it, and, shockingly, recent international studies indicate that even small doses of this drug can lower the IQ in children.
What is this drug?
Fluoride.
You are Being Drugged Without Your Consent…
Many do not realize that fluoride is indeed a drug. In fact, if you decided you wanted to take it, you'd have to get a prescription for it. Yet it's added to municipal water supplies reaching more than 180 million Americans, including infants and the elderly. This is a significant problem, because once you add it to the water supply, you have no way of gauging how much of the drug any particular person will consume on any given day.
Consider this: It is illegal and unethical for a medical doctor to give you a drug without specifying dosage, and to fail to monitor your health for side effects from the drug. Yet, your water authority is not only allowed, but encouraged to add a toxic drug—fluoride—to your drinking water without your consent and without any way of knowing who in your household is drinking it, how much, and the effect it is having.
The Science Incontrovertibly Opposes Water Fluoridation
Water fluoridation began in the mid 1940's as a solution to fluoride pollution generated by the Atomic Bomb Program and the aluminum industry, but it was cleverly "sold" to dentists and the general masses as a preventive strategy for reducing tooth decay... It has been heralded as one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
Alas, it may actually be more accurate to describe it as one of the greatest mass poisonings in our history. Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that fluoride is highly toxic.
In a sane world, public health policy would be based on sound and conclusive science. Unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to water fluoridation. In fact, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that fluoride is not an effective preventive strategy against tooth decay and may be causing significant health problems in many individuals, the practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies continues unabated. A majority, 64 percent, of all drinking water in the United States still receives this ill-advised treatment.
Why does this practice continue when it flies in the face of all the current research?
The answer to this question is just one of the countless shocking revelations featured in Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation. The film, which features a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, scientists, dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, reveals the science behind fluoridation, the effects it has on your health, and why there is no logical or rational reason to continue fluoridating ANY water supply.
Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?
The only science that mildly supports the use of pharmaceutical-grade fluoride as a preventive against dental caries is topical use of fluoride (although even that is debatable, based on more recent findings). There is really no scientific basis at all for ingesting fluoride to protect your teeth! In fact, when fluoride is taken internally, it actually damages your teeth, causing a condition known as dental fluorosis; the pitting and discoloration of teeth. Today, 41 percent of American children between the ages of 12 and 14 have dental fluorosis. But that's not all. When you swallow, fluoride it can also cause:
Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Impaired mental development, lowered IQ, and dementia Gastrointestinal problems
Hyperactivity and/or lethargy Arthritic symptoms Kidney issues
Lowered thyroid function Chronic fatigue Disrupted immune system
This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications of fluoride ingestion. And, yet, rather than taking the precautionary approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.
The CDC and ADA Advise Against Fluoridated Water for Infants
In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula.
Why?
Because an average glass of treated water contains 250 times more fluoride than breast milk. A few days later, the CDC followed suit. But neither of them openly informed the public!
As a result, millions of parents are still using tap water to make up formula, completely oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have also issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose. Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, you doom many low income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information.
The evidence suggests that minorities and low-income families are being disproportionately harmed by water fluoridation, and two Atlanta Civil Rights leaders, Andrew Young and Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, recently requested that Georgia legislators repeal the state's mandatory water fluoridation law based on this fact.
African American children have been found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride than white children. African American mothers are also less likely to breastfeed than most other racial groups, and since breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride, babies fed formula made with fluoridated water could receive up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. Thus African American children have a higher risk of being overexposed to fluoride from infancy on.
Get Informed; Get the Facts…
Knowledge is power, and you have the power to not only protect yourself, but also to help protect others once you know the truth. The United States is one of the few remaining developed countries in the world that still fluoridates a majority of its water supply.
Don't you agree that it's time for our policymakers to stop putting your and your family's health at risk? I strongly recommend viewing Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation. We can eliminate this harmful practice, but it's going to take people like you to make it happen—so please watch the film to get the cold hard facts, and share it with everyone you know.
How You Can Help END Water Fluoridation
FAN Advocacy PosterThe Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to end water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States, and this Fluoride Awareness Week will hopefully bring us a lot closer to that goal by spreading mass awareness. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. A few weeks ago the city of Calgary stopped fluoridating over a million people and last October the citizens of Waterloo, Ontario voted it out in a referendum. If we can get the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. Please, join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.
Contact Information for Canadian Communities:
1. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sprules@cogeco.ca.
2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca.
Contact Information for American Communities:
We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:
1. New York City, NY: With the recent victory in Calgary, New York City is the next big emphasis. The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply." A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference. The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com . Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.
2. Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or telephone: (512) 371-3786
3. San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at pbrooks936@aol.com.
In addition, you can:
* Tell the EPA you expect them to uphold their duty to protect you and your children from this toxic food fumigant.
* Make a generous tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, to help them fight for your rights to fluoride-free food and water.
* Check out FAN's Action Page, as they are working on multiple fronts to rid our food and water supplies of fluoride.
* For timely updates, join the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page.
Republish this article
Follow Dr. Mercola on Twitter Follow Dr. Mercola on Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
