America has a representative government. Voters elect leaders who appoint civil servants, and they implement ‘public policy’. This works for much public business, but in areas involving social services—school reform, drug rehabilitation, criminal justice, race relations, poverty and even security policy, results fall far short of aspirations.
The Transpartisan Review Blog #3: The Transpartisan World of Subjects
By Leo Galland, M.D., Author, The Allergy Solution
Are you tired all the time, and don’t know why? Do you have headaches or joint pain or brain fog or digestive problems? Have you put on weight and find that you just can’t lose it? I want to explore with you the unsolved mystery of those common complaints that just won’t go away. In my experience, allergy is often the cause.
Maybe you never thought you had allergies. No runny nose, no itchy skin. Although it might come as a surprise, I have discovered that a hidden allergy is the underlying reason for just about any health issue, because allergies come from something we all share: the immune system.
The rise of allergies is directly attributable to our immune systems being out of balance and reacting to a modern witches’ brew of fast food, stress, chemicals, pollution, and compromised gut health.
Did you know that only one person in 30 had allergies only 50 years ago? Today that number is one in three and rising. The allergy epidemic spreading like wildfire throughout the world is getting worse, with 1 billion people suffering from allergies today.
I have found, in my clinical practice, that we need to do more than merely ask “What are you allergic to?” We need to instead ask: (1) Why are you allergic?; (2) Why have your allergies become worse; and (3) What are the underlying imbalances in your body that open the door to annoying and persistent allergic symptoms?
Hidden allergies emerge
Finding answers to these foundational questions helps us to uncover what we now know to be hidden allergies. A hidden allergy is commonly at the core of your once mysterious health concerns.
Have you experienced or do you have one or more of the following:
- Weight gain?
- Muscle aches or joint pain
- Depression or anxiety?
- Constipation or diarrhea?
- Brain fog?
The culprit could be allergy
While not many are fully aware that allergy can play a pivotal role in these and other health problems, it was this very search for answers to common, yet previously undiagnosed, conditions that inspired me to write The Allergy Solution: Unlock the Surprising, Hidden Truth About Why You Are Sick and How to Get Well.
In my practice, I’ve seen chronic conditions that were previously diagnosed as psychiatric disorders, autoimmune diseases or many other conditions that wind up being allergic in origin.
Taking on allergy with new approaches
We already know the misery that allergies can create. Fortunately, once we find out what is causing or activating them, “The case is afoot,” as Sherlock Holmes would have said!
Allergy has such a far-reaching impact on so many people with so many different problems. But your immune system needs to know when to fight and when not to fight. It needs balance.
My program helps you learn why your immune system is out of balance, so that you can restore its harmony and overcome allergies.
The secret to my program lies in the interaction between what you eat and the environments in which you live. There are 3 levels of environment that matter:
- the outdoor environment that we all share;
- the indoor environment, where we spend 90 percent of our time; and
- the internal environment within our digestive tracts.
Each of these plays a critical role in your immune system, especially with the cells that naturally prevent allergies. They’re called regulatory T-cells, or T-regs.
If you suffer from allergies, your T-regs are broken. My program is designed to help you overcome allergy by restoring the power of your T-regs.
The runaway train of allergies
My program also helps you understand how your allergies developed. While genetics is involved, the runaway allergy epidemic train of the last 40-50 years, however, left the station due to environmental factors rather than genetic changes. Genes merely cause susceptibility.
For example, a study from 2005 found a connection between a defect in the CD14 immune system gene and how bad asthma becomes in families if the family members were also exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke.
Unlocking the causes of allergies
Knowing which factors—like a bad diet, a sedentary lifestyle and excessive exposure to pollutants, such as exhaust and smoke—stack the deck away from wellness is important because addressing them can enable you to regain and maintain a state of health. I refer to these factors as “antecedents”—things which lead to other things—with the most common antecedents for developing allergic illness being: exposure to environmental toxins; unusually heavy exposure to mold or pollen; infection; depletion of the body’s good bacteria; nutritional deficiency; extreme stress; and impaired digestion.
Relief is in sight
Today we know that hidden allergies can bring on a bewildering constellation of unexplained symptoms. Instead of masking these mystery complaints, however, my approach is to help people identify and avoid hidden allergy triggers and to scale back unhealthy inflammatory and immune processes that cause allergic symptoms.
Taking advantage of tools and strategies I provide in The Allergy Solution, you and your healthcare practitioner will be able to shine a light on your symptoms and the factors most likely to be triggering them. My book has chapters that will equip you to fix your gut health issues, shed unwanted pounds, reduce stress with mind-body techniques, and show you how to reduce your exposure to environmental toxins.
Leo Galland, M.D.
Leo Galland, M.D. is a board-certified internist, author and internationally recognized leader in integrated medicine. Dr. Galland is the author of The Allergy Solution. Discover how to get well. Follow The Allergy Solution on Facebook and Twitter.
Citizens for Health has partnered with the Institute for Integrative Nutrition because we have seen the impact of their Health Coach curriculum and how it can empower you to transform your health and happiness and launch a fulfilling new career. Click on the banner to the left to learn more.
Get an exclusive look at the The Institute for Integrative Nutrition® annual conference!
On March 5th and 6th, you’ll have the opportunity to learn from the world’s most influential experts in health and wellness during IIN’s annual conference. They’re opening up exclusive access to their live stream to give you a sneak peek into this incredible weekend. Register now to gain access and witness the transformation made possible through their Health Coach program. It is absolutely free, and it is the only way you can eavesdrop on this powerful event.
- What: Access to an exclusive LIVE STREAM of the annual conference!
- When: Saturday, March 5th and Sunday, March 6th from 10am – 12pm ET.
- Where: Anywhere! Use your computer or mobile device – All you need is internet access!
- Who should attend: Everyone who wants to experience the amazing energy of an Integrative Nutrition live event and sneak a peek at student life! It is specifically recommended for anyone considering becoming a Health Coach. IIN has created a special page and video for CFH supporters – just click on the banner to the left.
- Note: There will not be a replay. So be sure to register now and mark your calendar!
Another Choice for Immunization?
New video series shows how to protect against disease with No Pricks
Washington, DC – We attended a conference recently and learned about an emerging new alternative in disease protection called “HP” – short for “HomeoProphylaxis”. Around here we like to refer to it simply as a “Smart Choice”, because with all the debate around vaccines and questions regarding their safety, an alternative free from such concerns is most welcome.
The “Smart Choice” is being used by millions worldwide – no surprise, given it is non-toxic and highly effective. Fortunately the organizers of the conference filmed it for a series of presentation videos and have made each available to CFH supporters at a reduced rate – $13.95 vs. the usual $39.95. There are also several presenters, including leading U.S. vaccine rights attorney Alan Phillips, and leading medical researcher Neil Z. Miller, who share some little known and eye-opening facts vaccine science and law.
To learn more and see a preview of all the speakers, click on the screen image below or visit the HP WORLDWIDE CHOICE STORE. To get your Citizens for Health discount, enter the promo code CITIZENS35 when you make a purchase before February 14. A bonus: 10% of what you spend is donated to CFH!
We think we can all agree we’re due for a Smart Choice – now it looks like we have one, and another way to preserve our health freedom.
Please take a moment to share this information with anyone interested in an alternative to vaccines – spread the word on health freedom!
[For access to HP, or if you’re a healthcare provider and want to add HP to your practice, please contact Cilla Whatcott by visiting www.WorldwideChoice.org. Program access is also available through www.HPWWC.org.]
The following is reprinted with the permission of McClatchyDC
Dental group defends mercury fillings amid mounting evidence of risks
The association has lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to ensure the fillings, which contain one of the world’s most menacing toxins, receive a government seal of safety and wouldn’t be tightly regulated.
For years, the ADA also resisted Environmental Protection Agency rules that would force dentists to stop dumping tons of mercury debris down public sewer lines, even as the United States and 128 other nations negotiated a treaty to curb mercury’s global spread.
But now, evidence is emerging of the potential consequences of the U.S. dental industry’s longtime reliance on mercury and its chief advocacy group’s determined crusade to fend off any and all challenges.
New scientific research has found that the fillings may indeed harm millions of people, especially men and boys. Further, the lax controls over dental clinic discharges have allowed the chemical to spread into rivers and streams, into the air through sludge incineration and even onto cropland as fertilizer.
The new research, by a team based at the University of Washington, concluded that low-level releases of mercury from fillings present long-term risks of brain damage for people with certain genetic variants. The findings are based on data underpinning one of the same two pivotal clinical studies of American and Portuguese children that the dental association has cited as proof the compounds are safe.
In 2006, after results of the initial studies were published, several of the researchers decided to re-evaluate data from 330 Portuguese students to identify those with subtle genetic impairments and see if they were more vulnerable to mercury inhalation in annual tests of their memory, concentration and other neurological activities. Kids with mercury fillings performed significantly worse on the tests than those who got mercury-free treatments.
The results, in four papers published in scientific journals from 2011 to 2014, have escaped public attention, although the authors say up to 40 percent of the population has at least one of the genetic traits and could be affected.
Diana Echeverria, a scientist who collaborated with University of Washington toxicologist James Woods and others in the reassessment, said the susceptible groups face “a lifetime risk” of neurological damage.
“We’re not talking about a small risk,” said Echeverria, who works for the Seattle-based Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation.
“Twenty-five percent to 50 percent of people have these (genetic variants). There were these deficits that were accounted for by having them. . . . We reasoned that we would see these if we would simply genotype these children. That is indeed what we saw.” Former University of Washington toxicologist James Woods
The Food and Drug Administration has staunchly defended the safety of the mercury-laden dental products, known in the trade as amalgams. But the University of Washington’s findings prompted a European Union scientific panel to urge dentists to explore alternatives, such as popular tooth-colored plastic resins.
Behind the scenes, FDA officials also have shown deepening concern about mercury fillings, especially since two scientific advisory panels, in 2006 and 2010, criticized the agency’s analysis of science on the issue and its failure to protect vulnerable groups.
In July, McClatchy reported that the FDA drafted a safety communication that urged dentists to avoid using mercury fillings, where possible, and advised them not to use them in susceptible groups, including pregnant women and small children.
But officials of the Department of Health and Human Services blocked the warning on grounds that the cost of pricier alternatives might lead low-income patients to let decayed teeth go untreated, an argument often sounded by the American Dental Association.
The 157,000-member dental association and its state and local chapters have long been potent — and successful — advocates for dentists. Again and again, they have prevailed in impeding or weakening efforts to control mercury in dentistry.
Over the years, the ADA has:
— Argued against FDA safety warnings about mercury fillings for pregnant women and small children.
— Imposed a gag rule barring member dentists, including those specializing in the safe removal of mercury fillings, from telling patients the compounds could harm their health.
— Lobbied to ensure that the international treaty signed by 129 countries would call for a phase-down of mercury uses worldwide, not a phase-out that eventually would ban dentists’ use of mercury fillings.
— Cut a deal in the final days of George W. Bush’s presidency that put off the issuance of regulations requiring dentists to install mercury “separators,” so they can properly dispose of their mercury debris, in favor of a voluntary approach.
“They (the dental association leaders) are powerful, and they are very scared of good science, because if it comes out on the wrong side of their goal of using amalgam, then they have to rethink and retool their practice. . . . These people should be more open-minded and more scientifically driven — evidence-based, rather than protecting their turf.” Diana Echeverria, researcher into mercury’s effects
The dental association declined to make any senior officials available for an interview, but its president, Maxine Feinberg, recently wrote McClatchy: “No properly designed, peer-reviewed scientific study links dental amalgam to any neurological or systemic disease, and that’s the scientifically sound bottom line.”
In written responses to questions, the association said it supported the international treaty, the Minamata Convention, which ultimately set no deadlines for nations to meet its goals and gave them great leeway in how to do so.
The association also said it generally supports the EPA’s proposed rule to require safe disposal of mercury waste but hopes the agency will accept its “simple suggestions” for easing burdens on its members, such as by relaxing from 99 percent to 95 percent requirements for the separators’ efficiency to reduce the devices’ estimated average $1,300 one-time cost — plus a few hundred dollars each year to operate them.
The dental industry’s long-held position that mercury fillings are the safest, most durable solution for restoring decayed teeth, however, appears to have produced a troubling legacy.
Not only have America’s dentists placed compounds that continuously release toxins into the mouths of an estimated 181 million people, but they also have washed hundreds of tons of mercury-tainted debris into public sewer lines — and ultimately the environment — over the last several decades.
Washington attorney James Turner, who has represented consumers in a 23-year campaign to ban mercury fillings, believes the dental association’s advocacy on these issues has been motivated at least in part by an unspoken economic interest: to “avoid enormously costly product liability suits” by patients sickened from mercury exposure.
“The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. . . . Dissemination of information related to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury.” American Dental Association response to a patient lawsuit
For decades, the dental association contended the alloys, comprising about 50 percent elemental mercury and a blend of metals that usually includes tin, copper and silver, were inert once placed in teeth.
However, the discussion took a turn in the 1980s when new instrumentation showed microscopic amounts of mercury coming off the compounds’ surfaces, especially during chewing.
The World Health Organization says inhaling or ingesting mercury, “even in small amounts . . . may cause serious health problems,” including depression, tremors, memory loss, cognitive and motor dysfunction, as well as damage to the lungs, kidneys and digestive and immune systems.
Courtesy of Randall Moore, director/producer of the documentary Evidence of Harm
That hasn’t dissuaded the dental association, which has continued to challenge any implication that mercury fillings might cause harm.
The association’s Model Code of Ethics bars members from even suggesting to a patient that mercury fillings can be injurious, and dentists who have done so have risked their careers.
Numerous state dental boards, including those in Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, have adopted similar prohibitions and enforced them by revoking or threatening to revoke the licenses of dozens of dentists specializing in the safe removal of mercury fillings, charging they made false advertising claims in describing the compounds as hazardous. Some dentists lost their licenses.
In 2008, as the FDA considered whether mercury fillings were devices warranting tighter controls, the dental association went so far as to argue that no safety warnings should be issued, not even for pregnant women and children under 6, because research had yet to prove the fillings to be dangerous.
The FDA posted such a warning on its website for about a year as part of a settlement with consumer lawyers but removed it in 2009, when the agency upheld the mercury products’ safety.
Nonetheless, growing numbers of dentists have abandoned mercury fillings, in part because patients prefer more cosmetically appealing alternatives.
The number of mercury compounds placed in Americans’ teeth has fallen steadily, from 157 million in 1979 to 96 million in 1990 and perhaps to under 20 million in 2015, according to claims data from Delta Dental, the nation’s largest dental insurer, with 68 million members and a 34 percent share of the market.
The trend has been aided by a narrowing price gap between mercury and resin fillings, whose durability also has improved. Composites cost about 25 percent to 28 percent more than mercury fillings, said Bill Kohn, chief science officer for Delta Dental. However, safety concerns also have arisen about some resin products.
Even a ban on mercury fillings — like bans already imposed in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Japan — wouldn’t eradicate the potential health risks in the United States anytime soon.
According to the last U.S. government estimate, in 2004, 181 million Americans carried 1.46 billion mercury restorations in their teeth.
Much of that mercury, once estimated by the EPA to total 1,200 tons, could add to the environmental harm if there were to be continuing increases in the percentage of people opting to have their bodies cremated when they die. By 2025, incineration of corpses could send as much as 12 tons of mercury per year into the air, according to an analysis by the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project, an environmental group.
The University of Washington’s followup study of genetic variants, known as polymorphisms, in children at the Casa Pia School in Lisbon, Portugal, could help solve the mystery of why some people seem to suffer serious effects from mercury fillings and others do not.
“We’ve clearly demonstrated at least a dozen very common genetic polymorphisms make worse the effects of mercury on some behavioral processes in children,” Woods, a recently retired University of Washington toxicologist who helped lead the research, said in a phone interview.
Men and boys are likely more susceptible, the researchers found, because girls in the study generally excreted more mercury in their urine, suggesting their immune and hormonal systems were better able to protect them from the toxin.
Echeverria, the Battelle researcher, said that while the observed effects were subtle, children in the study with genetic variants were increasingly impaired as their mercury exposures rose.
“If you have mercury in your fillings, you’re exposed to it for your entire life,” Woods said. “It gets to the point where it can override your ability to excrete mercury. The rest of it backs up and can bio-accumulate, especially in your brain.”
The American Dental Association has sought to play down the genetic findings.
Its science division rated the University of Washington team’s work “of medium quality” and said research on the subject has produced inconsistent results.
However, in a letter to consumer lawyers in January 2015, the FDA described the study as “well conducted” and said it offers evidence people with genetic abnormalities “may be at a higher risk for adverse health effects” from mercury fillings. The evidence isn’t yet strong enough to justify banning the compounds, the agency said.
The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks wasn’t so tentative. It advised dentists in the European Union’s 28 member countries to consider alternatives, because patients’ “genetic variants appear to impart increased susceptibility to mercury toxicity.”
James Love, a Tulsa, Oklahoma, consumer lawyer also fighting for a mercury ban, called the FDA’s inaction “a clear dereliction of duty” that fuels beliefs the agency “is the puppet of industry and has abdicated its role as the protector of the public.”
Dentists’ discharges of mercury-tainted debris first drew attention around 2002, when analyses concluded their offices were producing about half of the toxin in public waste streams.
In 2005, a study funded by the dental association concluded that U.S. dentists were using about 35 tons of mercury each year, of which about 6.5 tons was channeled into sewer systems. The EPA now puts that figure at 4.4 tons.
As a naturally occurring element, mercury cannot be destroyed, so its disposal poses a daunting challenge.
At wastewater treatment plants, most of the mercury settles into tons of sewage sludge, portions of which are incinerated, dumped into landfills or spread as fertilizer over cropland, a method environmentalists say puts the toxin in the food chain.
“Mercury is like a hot potato,” said Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project. “The dentists don’t want it, so they dump it down the drain. The sewage sludge facilities can’t handle it, so they allow it to be dumped into the sludge, and the community incinerators pick up the tab. It’s not costing the lazy wastewater utilities. It’s an externalized cost of dentistry.”
“They say the solution to pollution is dilution. But you can’t dilute mercury. It never goes away. Scientists say it ping pongs from the atmosphere, into the water and back into the air. These folks with the smoke and mirrors, they’d like you to think the mercury disappears.” Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project
Many dental clinics’ current efforts to collect mercury waste get low grades.
About half of dentists use dry vacuums to suction large chunks of mercury from patients’ mouths and deposit them into tanks, one former dental industry figure said.
But a valve at the bottom of many of the tanks is set up to automatically open at day’s end, when the dental staff turns off the vacuum lines, said this person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid damaging relationships. If a dentist failed to first empty his tank into hazardous waste receptacles, the toxic brew goes into sewer lines. Asked about this allegation, two EPA officials did not dispute it.
The American Dental Association has walked a narrow line between publicly supporting efforts to contain dental mercury waste and quietly seeking to put off regulations.
In 2003, the association adopted “best practices” to guide its members’ handling of mercury waste. It did not include a recommendation that dentists install separators until 2007, after it became possible to recycle the mercury.
“We have worked with the EPA on a separator rule for years. We support the proposal in its essence and have offered only constructive comments.” American Dental Association
Curt McCormick, who worked for 20 years in the EPA’s Denver regional office, said he began in 2004 to advise communities with high mercury levels in their drinking water to require dentists to install separators. That brought an emailed rebuke from Jerry Bowman, then an assistant counsel for the dental association. At a meeting that December in Washington, Bowman complained about McCormick’s activities to Ben Grumbles, chief of the EPA’s Office of Water.
Weeks later, Bowman wrote Grumbles that the regional office had “not shifted its position one inch” and expressed frustration the agency wasn’t accepting a voluntary approach.
On Dec. 29, 2008, three weeks before Barack Obama was sworn in as president, the dental association and a seemingly unlikely ally, a trade group representing nearly 300 of the nation’s big-city wastewater treatment utilities, signed a deal with Grumbles, acting on behalf of departing President George W. Bush’s EPA. It gave dentists time to address the mercury pollution voluntarily.
Within a year, Obama’s EPA concluded the voluntary route wasn’t working.
Ken Rosenblood, a Los Angeles entrepreneur who for 20 years sold equipment to help dental offices remove toxins, said he experienced the problem firsthand. Hundreds of times, he said, he heard this refrain from dentists: “If the law doesn’t require it, I’m not going to do it.”
In California’s Sacramento County, dentists have accounted for 42 percent of the annual 40 to 67 pounds of mercury in sewage since 2010, county officials said. Over the last two years, the county sent circulars beckoning about 800 dentists to join a program to install separators voluntarily. Ten dentists signed up.
McCormick said many cities use testing methods not powerful enough to detect traces of mercury, so they don’t know how much is in their waste streams.
It was September 2014 before the EPA formally proposed a rule requiring the nation’s 110,000 dental offices to buy mercury separators and submit to waste disposal policing by public utilities. The agency estimates that about 40 percent, or 44,000 of the nation’s dental offices, have dealt with their mercury problems, most located in 13 states that have lurched ahead of the EPA and now require separators.
The dental association’s newfound ally, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and its members, rained negative comments onto the EPA’s rule-making docket, complaining that they would be saddled with a huge administrative burden and that the EPA’s $49 million cost projection “greatly underestimates the cost of the rule.”
The association told McClatchy that separators “primarily shift the point of capture from a treatment plant to the office. In either case, the amalgam is captured.” It did not explain how this occurs, since tons of mercury wind up in sewage sludge.
EPA spokeswoman Monica Lee declined to say whether the agency, which has imposed tough curbs on hundreds of coal-fired power plants to cap emissions of greenhouse gases and mercury, will act by next June to compel dentists to limit mercury discharges, leaving enough time for the rule to take effect before Obama leaves office.
The dental association says it supports the Minamata treaty, which directs each country to choose at least two of nine options for phasing down mercury fillings.
But in 2011, as the treaty negotiations heated up, Raymond Gist, then the president of the dental association, sent a letter urging the State Department to make the Food and Drug Administration, not the EPA, the lead U.S. negotiator over the environmental pact. FDA officials not only had defended mercury fillings, but they also never required manufacturers of dental fillings to file statements assessing the environmental impacts of their products.
The next year, an outside lobbyist hired by the association reported he had been paid $40,000 to “oppose” the treaty.
A couple of weeks after its 2013 signing, Charles Norman III, then the dental association president, issued a statement praising the treaty, emphasizing first that it “upholds the use of dental amalgam, a durable, safe, effective cavity-filling material.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 30, 2015
Big Names; Big Mistakes
Consumers Misled by Supplement Bashing
by Gert Schuitemaker, PhD (1) and Bo Jonsson, MD, PhD (2)
(OMNS, Oct 30, 2015) Big names: the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world. Plus, the New York Times. On October 14th, the latter mentioned: “Dietary Supplements Lead to 20,000 E.R. Visits Yearly, Study Finds.” It was a report of a study published in the NEJM with the headline: “Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements.”
Whoa! What is that again? Is there really something new and terrible about vitamin C or magnesium?
Naturally, it was time to investigate. First, a look at the original paper from NEJM, and a direct examination as to how the study was designed. [ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/
Let’s say someone is exercising Sunday morning and suddenly gets palpitations. Oh, he thinks, what’s going on here? A little bit frightened, and just to be sure, he decides to go to the E.R. He says: “Doctor, something is going wrong. I have palpitations.” The doctor examines him and asked about the circumstances. Then he learned that the visitor had used that morning a dietary supplement. Aha! That’s it! Dietary supplements! Suspicious!
There was not even one death caused by any dietary supplement in 2013, according to the most recent information collected by the U.S. National Poison Data System. [Reference at http://orthomolecular.org/
This observational report is done by just the one doctor serving at that time. The data collection in this investigation can be considered as poor as well as subjective. It falls scientifically short. Moreover, as we already know, too many physicians 1) have little affinity for dietary supplements and 2) are virtually untrained as to nutrition and supplements.
But wait: there’s more
We continued by looking over the results section. We had already noticed that the researchers drew the conclusion that problems with dietary supplements were underestimated. Duffy Mackay, a spokesman for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement industry trade group, argued that the results showed that only 0.01% of all Americans demonstrated an adverse effect from dietary supplements. So he came to an opposite conclusion: the study highlighted how relatively safe supplements are given how many people took them. [Scroll down at http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/
In the study, it was striking that the biggest segment of that 0.01% was 20 to 34 year olds who took energy products and weight loss products. They showed symptoms like chest pain, heart palpitations and irregular heart rhythms. What kind of supplements could these be? We are not aware that vitamin C, vitamin B3 or any of the essential nutrients show these types of adverse effects.
The most misleading part of the NY Times article’s headline is “leads.” It is important to distinguish causation from correlation, and guilt from association. – W. Todd Penberthy, PhD
Where, then, is the problem? Mainly so-called “supplements” containing alkaloid substances. In most cases caffeine, but also ephedra, already banned in 2004 by the FDA as a supplement, but still offered for sale via the internet. Therefore, a comparison with “energy drinks” is more apt than to label these products as dietary supplements. However, caffeine-laden drinks were for some reason not included in the study. Aside from both being available as tablets and capsules, caffeine and nutrients have very little in common. Caffeine is a (medicinal) stimulant; nutrients are part of the human metabolism which are necessary for maintaining proper health.
It is significant that neither the New York Times nor the original NEJM paper mentioned caffeine or coffee-extract. The researchers only mentioned ‘energy products’ and ‘weight loss products,’ not specifying the substances involved. In order to find out that the study mainly concerned caffeine, we had to get into a separate annex which was somewhat difficult to for the public to find, and only available via the website of the NEJM.
And what is in the future for unsuspecting consumers? The headline, “Dietary Supplements Finally Banned.”
It could happen. You can be sure the media will let you know when it does.
1. Gert E. Schuitemaker, PhD
Gendringen, The Netherlands
2. Bo H Jonsson, MD, PhD
Department of Clinical Neuroscience
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
Find a Doctor
To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Peter H. Lauda, M.D. (Austria)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: email@example.com This is a comments-only address; OMNS is unable to respond to individual reader emails. However, readers are encouraged to write in with their viewpoints. Reader comments become the property of OMNS and may or may not be used for publication.
OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/
OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/
“Monsanto’s Dream Bill” – also known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, HR 1599, and the “DARK Act” – standing for the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act would ban states from passing legislation to label food and products containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms), undoing years of hard-won progress at the states level made by food labeling advocates like Citizens for Health and Food and Water Watch.
Now there is a renewed sense of urgency stemming from testimony at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing held yesterday. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and food manufacturers were out in force to protect their interests by confusing the debate with repeated assertions about the safety of GMOs. It didn’t help that Ag Committee Chair, Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), demonstrated they have drunk the industry Kool-Aid when they wasted spectators’ time making the same claims about GMOs’ safety.
The issue is not one of safety, even though there is compelling evidence that we should be concerned about the prevalence of GMOs. As Consumers Union director of food policy initiatives, Jean Halloran has noted, “Safety is not the point. Almost all the labels required on food—such as ingredients and fat content—are informational. So is GMO labeling. The debate over GMO labeling is about consumers’ right to know what they are eating.”
A joint letter from a bi-partisan group of state lawmakers urging Congress to oppose HR 1599 also points out that a District Court in April affirmed that states have a constitutional right to pass GMO labeling laws. Whether everyone agrees they are safe – or not.
Senator Stabenow called for “a bipartisan bill that can pass the Senate by the end of this year.”
Don’t let the biotech industry and food manufacturers hide behind questionable claims about the safety of GMOs as they trample over the US Constitution and your right to know.
Study will investigate the effects of an aloe multinutrient supplement on several behavior disorders including autistic spectrum disorders, mood disorders, depression, psychosis etc.
Freedom of Health Information is something that Citizens For Health continues to fight for, just as we have for the past 21 years. You have partnered with us during that time, petitioning Congress, the FDA, and other government entities to stand for health freedom. Now, we are asking that you partner with us again in the next phase of health freedom.
Billions of dollars are wasted on meaningless research, making little difference in the health or healthcare of our citizens. It’s time for a change.
Citizens For Health is asking for your donations towards research that makes a difference.
Aloe Vera has been used for centuries, and is well-known for healing externally. Recently, a study with moderately to severely impaired Alzheimer’s patients revealed significant internal improvement. Brain function improved, and CD 14 Stem Cells from the patients’ own bone marrow increased an average of 377% over the course of the year long study. (Refer to the Upcoming CFH Education Foundation page of the Alzheimer’s research).
There is reason to believe that such results may also apply to other kinds of brain injuries, such as inoculation injured people. $75,000 is needed to research 100 inoculation injured people over the course of one year. These people will receive aloe Vera capsules to be consumed daily.
Results will be tabulated after 12, 32, and 52 weeks, and will be reported to you via the Citizens For Health Education Foundation. Your donation will make an impact not only in the lives of 100 people participating in the research, but potentially many others who suffer from various injuries resulting from side effects of inoculations.
Thank you for your financial investment in the next step of health freedom!
Proposed Warnings Have Been Kept Secret for More Than Three Years
WASHINGTON – For the first time the Food and Drug Administration has proposed curbing dentists’ use of mercury in treating Americans’ decayed teeth. This would be a major step forward in protecting Americans from one of the planet’s nastiest toxins.
It would be – if senior U.S. health officials hadn’t put the kibosh on the proposal after a cost-benefit analysis by officials at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The proposal, which was approved by FDA officials in late 2011 and kept under wraps ever since, would have advised dentists not use mercury fillings when treating cavities in pregnant women, nursing moms, children under 6 and people with mercury allergies, kidney diseases or neurological problems. It even went so far as to urge dentists that when considering using mercury fillings, the best course of action is simply not to – ever.
For your convenience, we have attached the FDA’s recommendations here – please share far and wide: FDA 2012 Safety Communication Mercury