Big Pharma Meds Turned Her into a “Walking Zombie,” Unable to Have a Child

But natural medicine transformed her into a happy, energetic mother.

This is a story about one couple who were given one of the greatest gifts of all: the child they wanted but were told they could not have. (Note: names have been changed to protect the privacy of the family involved.)

This month, Tom and Jessica will have been married for twelve years. Since her late twenties, Jessica had bouts with psoriatic arthritis, an autoimmune disease in which the body’s immune system attacks the joints, resulting in inflammation that triggers pain, stiffness, and swelling.

Jessica believes that her autoimmune issues were triggered by a vaccine she received. She had cut her finger badly and went to the hospital. Having reacted poorly to vaccines in previous years, Jessica was apprehensive when the doctor wanted to give her a tetanus shot. The doctor dismissed her misgivings and strong-armed her into getting the vaccine despite her concerns. A week later, her symptoms began.

Conventional medicine treats psoriatic arthritis with two kinds of drugs: immunosuppressants and anti-inflammatories. The underlying thinking is simple: the body’s immune system is attacking healthy tissue, so conventional medicine’s answer is to dial down—i.e., suppress—the immune system itself and then treat the painful symptoms, while doing nothing to address the source of the disease.

Jessica’s doctor put her on Enbrel, an anti-inflammatory, and methotrexate, an immunosuppressant. Some of Enbrel’s side effects include dizziness, extreme fatigue, hair loss, severe headache, mood changes, unsteadiness, and vision changes. Methotrexate is used in chemotherapy and is a commonly used drug in medical abortions. Side effects include mouth sores, diarrhea, signs of liver failure, easy bruising or bleeding, enlarged glands or lymph nodes, and bone pain. As an immunosuppressant, the drug also leaves patients extremely susceptible to infection.

While taking these medications, Jessica described herself as a “walking zombie.” She could use her joints, but her life was “completely shot,” consisting of little more than waking up, going to work, coming home, and going to bed. The drugs completely sapped her of energy. Looking back, Jessica remembered being sick and on antibiotics for almost the entire time she was on these drugs, dealing with upper respiratory infection after upper respiratory infection since the drugs had basically shut down her immune system. She was constantly going to the doctor so he could monitor her progress, since the long-term side effects of the drugs she was on were cancer and liver failure. The doctor, she said, was checking to see if her organs had failed yet.

To make matters even worse, Tom and Jessica wanted to have a child, a desire made impossible by the fact that Jessica was regularly ingesting an abortifacient drug.

At this point, Tom made a suggestion to Jessica. Tom is an employee of Parker Hannifin, a Fortune 500 company that specializes in motion control technologies like aerospace, climate control, hydraulics, and more. Parker Hannifin distinguishes itself by offering its employees access to natural medicine through the company’s health insurance. The benefit program covers 80% of the costs of various integrative health remedies.

Tom encouraged Jessica to take advantage of the program and see the medical director of the integrative health program at Parker Hannifin.

This doctor ordered a full workup including blood, urine, and hair tests to see if Jessica’s nutrient levels were where they should be. He gave her vitamin D and B12 injections, recommended food-based supplements like curcumin, and in addition put her on a complete multivitamin, DHA, iodine, probiotics, boswellia, maca, matcha, and a daily green smoothie. His health coaches advised Jessica on which foods she should eat and which she should avoid. They recommended a plant-based diet of whole e vegetables and fruits, fermented foods to bolster gut health, lots of sun, and plenty of exercise.

At first, Jessica was skeptical. With conventional medicine, doctors tell us to take this pill and that one, and wait to get better. But this integrative doctor is instead telling her to revamp her diet and get plenty of sun and exercise. How was that going to cure a disease?

One of the first things Jessica noticed was the responsibility that this treatment placed on her. No longer was treatment a passive procedure of taking a pill and waiting—it was making a complete change in lifestyle. She remembers complaining as she went through the exercise regimen and forced herself to go outside despite her fatigue. After a while, she undertook a twenty-one-day cleanse to clear her blood of toxins, where she ate little else but smoothies and plants.

But it paid off. She didn’t experience immediate results, and the recovery was slow—but it eventually worked. And it was a complete cure.

After adhering to the recommended treatments, Jessica fully recovered and no longer had symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. She was healthy and full of energy. Now her and her husband’s attention could turn to having a child. Even though Jessica was no longer taking methotrexate, she was still worried—women in her family had a history of fertility issues. But one month after her last visit to her new doctor, Jessica was pregnant with a baby girl, who is now just about a year old.

Where conventional medicine prescribed Jessica drugs that relieved the pain in her joints but destroyed her quality of life and prevented her from having a child, natural medicine led to a full recovery and helped her get healthy enough to have a baby.

In our Pulse of Natural Health newsletter, we often cover pressing issues related to natural health, whether it’s pending federal legislation, the latest FDA malfeasance, or the scientific evidence in support of natural health alternatives to conventional remedies. But as crucial as facts and figures are, they can also be abstract and impersonal. To experience firsthand the transformative power of natural medicine is something else entirely.

Please visit our “Tell Your Story” page to read other people’s stories of the power of natural healthcare, and submit your own!

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LGFbQH via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1LEjm3C

Pro-GMO “DARK Act” Aims to Keep Citizens in the Dark about What’s in Their Food

A Senate version of Big Food’s voluntary GMO labeling bill is in the works, now that the terrible Pompeo bill is gaining steam. Action Alert!

A few weeks ago, we told you about legislation that would let food producers decide whether to label their products that contain genetically engineered or modified ingredients. It’s being jokingly called the Deny Americans’ Right to Know Act (the “DARK Act”) by pro-labeling advocates, because if HR 1599, the deceptively named Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-CA) passes, it would preempt any state laws mandating the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.

Unfortunately, the bill is gaining bipartisan support: since it was introduced, forty-seven House members have signed on, including twelve Democrats.

Not only is voluntary labeling legislation gaining momentum in the House, it now has a champion in the Senate as well. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) has indicated that his office is also preparing a voluntary GMO labeling bill that would preempt state efforts. Sen. Hoeven’s bill would use the USDA to implement the bill (Pompeo’s bill uses the FDA), placing it under the jurisdiction of the Senate Agricultural Committee—whose chair, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), has received the second highest amount of money from the agricultural services and products sector and is among the top three senators receiving money from the food processing and sales sector.

This is all the more troubling considering the state of mandatory GMO labeling legislation. In the Senate, the Boxer-Blumenthal bill that we favor has no Republican support; the bill’s counterpart in the House, sponsored by Rep. DeFazio (D-OR), has only one Republican cosponsor. Without bipartisan report, neither version is likely to move.

Rep. Pompeo (and other supporters of GMOs and GMO-related special interests) continue to ignore the impact of GMOs on our health and environment while intentionally misleading the public.

In a recent op-ed in Roll Call, the daily Capitol Hill newspaper, Rep. Pompeo touts the same—now thoroughly debunked—myths that have been used for years to mislead the public into thinking that GMOs are biotech’s great gift to humanity. To prove that GMOs are “ushering in a new world of possibilities,” Pompeo makes a number of remarkable claims.

First, Pompeo argues that GMOs are decreasing pesticide usage, citing a 2003 figure showing a 46.4 million pound reduction that year. The trouble is that the truth is the exact opposite, as confirmed by a former senior scientist at the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. In a paper released last September, Dr. Ramon Seidler wrote,

Much has been written by scientific and mainstream media about the advantages of using genetically engineered (GE) crops because, according to popular belief, these crops require significantly less pesticide to control weed and insect pests….These accounts are inaccurate and rely on annual pesticide and application rates and volumes reported prior to 2010, when widespread resistance began to emerge in “superweeds” and “superinsects”….These reports also ignore the now widespread practice of coating seeds in systemic pesticides, which has emerged in the past ten years. This lack of journalistic and scientific integrity distorts the facts on the ground.

Second, Pompeo makes the familiar argument about GMOs increasing crop yields. We covered this claim, one of biotech’s favorites (“GMOs will feed the world!”), a few years back in an in-depth report. The evidence suggests that, overall, corn and soybean yields have risen over the past fifteen years, but this is mainly because of traditional breeding or improvement in agricultural practices. According to a Union of Concerned Scientists report, several recent studies show that organic and low-external-input farming methods (i.e., using reduced amounts of fertilizer and pesticides) can improve yield by over 100% in those countries, along with greater health benefits.

Next, Pompeo cites research projects that have affirmed the safety of GMOs. The fact is, there have been no epidemiological studies done on GMOs, nor any scientific consensus on their safety. Most of the studies showing GMOs to be safe have been done by the biotech companies themselves.

(Note: you can find all of this information and more on our GMO Fact Check site.)

By laboring to prove the benefits of GMOs by bringing up these arguments, proponents of biotech crops are diverting attention from the main issue. This debate is about consumers’ right to know what’s in their food, and the bottom line is this: the Pompeo and Hoeven bills, supported by biotech and Big Food giants like Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, keep consumers in the dark. We must prevent this from becoming law. The 93% of Americans who support labeling foods with GMOs must make their voices heard.

Action Alert! Write your senators and representatives, and tell them consumers have a right to know what’s in their food and that you support the mandatory labeling of GMOs. Urge them NOT to support the House and Senate bills that would leave it up to food companies to decide whether or not to label GMOs. Please send your message immediately!

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LGFbAj via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1dvLT0T

LabCorp To Allow Patients to Order Tests Online

This is bigger news than it might seem: advanced testing is one of the pillars of natural health and integrated medicine, along with diet, supplements, and lifestyle. Action Alert!

Regular readers will remember our coverage of Theranos, a biotech company that offers diagnostic tests to consumers at (as of now) select Walgreens stores, without a doctor’s order, for a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the wait time, and with more accurate results.

Seeing an increasing demand from patients who take a more hands-on approach to their healthcare, LabCorp, one of the largest diagnostic companies in the US, will now allow consumers to order tests online.

The landscape is rapidly shifting from what it once was. Previously you would visit a LabCorp or Quest Diagnostics facility, present the order from your doctor, wait, and then have a vial of blood drawn for each test. The results were sent to your doctor in three to seven days, so you had to see your doctor a second time to learn the results and what they mean. The total bill may be near a thousand dollars for an incomplete and often dated battery of tests. Now, LabCorp will let a patient go online to order tests, with or without a doctor’s approval, and view the results on the Internet.

It is one thing for Theranos, a relatively small startup doing extremely exciting work, to offer such tests; it’s quite another for a company the size of LabCorp to start offering this kind of service. It should signal to others in the industry that this is the way the diagnostics industry is heading.

Other commentators have noted the rapid rise of consumer demand for devices that monitor health information, like FitBit and the Apple Watch. The availability of easily accessible, cheap, and accurate information will empower consumers to become even more involved in their health. A person might read an article about the importance of vitamin D in the morning and, on the spur of the moment, order a vitamin D 25-OH test, thus providing a near-immediate answer to the question of his or her own vitamin D level.

Theranos seems to be the more affordable and convenient service, but LabCorp’s decision as an industry giant to offer more freedom to the consumer is nothing short of a victory for individualized medicine.

A victory, that is, so long as the government does not interfere with these technologies. As we’ve previously reported, the FDA is attempting to extend its regulatory reach to cover laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and instead of going through the normal rulemaking process, the agency issued a draft guidance last October outlining its stance on LDTs. This is a common FDA maneuver to remove the public entirely from the process, as we’ve seen when it issued a draft guidance on new dietary ingredients.

One additional note. Last week, we reported on the latest draft of the 21st Century Cures bill. One of the issues still being negotiated is whether, if at all, to include provisions on LDTs—something ANH-USA would likely support, since the FDA is trying to regulate LDTs without congressional approval. As specific provisions of the bill come into clearer focus, we will be sure to update our readers.

Tests like this are the future of medicine. People are already able to test for and spot cancers long before they manifest themselves using current methods. But few doctors, much less consumers, know about the tests. Testing can already help prevent diabetes, heart and blood vessel illness, prostate cancer, and other diseases. Making these tests more affordable and accessible to consumers will help to move medicine back to where it should be: under consumer control.

Action Alert! Write to the sponsors of the 21st Century Cures bill and encourage them to include provisions about increasing the availability of diagnostic tests. Even if you sent an earlier message about the 21st Century Cures bill, send another: we have updated the language of our Action Alert to specifically include laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LEafzU via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1LEjnVj

Action Alert: GMO Labeling Bills

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2477 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2477 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2477 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2477″).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2477); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1GBylMfvar ifrm_iframe2477 = document.getElementById(“iframe2477″);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2477 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2477() {}

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1FerjIQ via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1LEjnV9

Big Pharma Meds Turned Her into a “Walking Zombie,” Unable to Have a Child

But natural medicine transformed her into a happy, energetic mother.

This is a story about one couple who were given one of the greatest gifts of all: the child they wanted but were told they could not have. (Note: names have been changed to protect the privacy of the family involved.)

This month, Tom and Jessica will have been married for twelve years. Since her late twenties, Jessica had bouts with psoriatic arthritis, an autoimmune disease in which the body’s immune system attacks the joints, resulting in inflammation that triggers pain, stiffness, and swelling.

Jessica believes that her autoimmune issues were triggered by a vaccine she received. She had cut her finger badly and went to the hospital. Having reacted poorly to vaccines in previous years, Jessica was apprehensive when the doctor wanted to give her a tetanus shot. The doctor dismissed her misgivings and strong-armed her into getting the vaccine despite her concerns. A week later, her symptoms began.

Conventional medicine treats psoriatic arthritis with two kinds of drugs: immunosuppressants and anti-inflammatories. The underlying thinking is simple: the body’s immune system is attacking healthy tissue, so conventional medicine’s answer is to dial down—i.e., suppress—the immune system itself and then treat the painful symptoms, while doing nothing to address the source of the disease.

Jessica’s doctor put her on Enbrel, an anti-inflammatory, and methotrexate, an immunosuppressant. Some of Enbrel’s side effects include dizziness, extreme fatigue, hair loss, severe headache, mood changes, unsteadiness, and vision changes. Methotrexate is used in chemotherapy and is a commonly used drug in medical abortions. Side effects include mouth sores, diarrhea, signs of liver failure, easy bruising or bleeding, enlarged glands or lymph nodes, and bone pain. As an immunosuppressant, the drug also leaves patients extremely susceptible to infection.

While taking these medications, Jessica described herself as a “walking zombie.” She could use her joints, but her life was “completely shot,” consisting of little more than waking up, going to work, coming home, and going to bed. The drugs completely sapped her of energy. Looking back, Jessica remembered being sick and on antibiotics for almost the entire time she was on these drugs, dealing with upper respiratory infection after upper respiratory infection since the drugs had basically shut down her immune system. She was constantly going to the doctor so he could monitor her progress, since the long-term side effects of the drugs she was on were cancer and liver failure. The doctor, she said, was checking to see if her organs had failed yet.

To make matters even worse, Tom and Jessica wanted to have a child, a desire made impossible by the fact that Jessica was regularly ingesting an abortifacient drug.

At this point, Tom made a suggestion to Jessica. Tom is an employee of Parker Hannifin, a Fortune 500 company that specializes in motion control technologies like aerospace, climate control, hydraulics, and more. Parker Hannifin distinguishes itself by offering its employees access to natural medicine through the company’s health insurance. The benefit program covers 80% of the costs of various integrative health remedies.

Tom encouraged Jessica to take advantage of the program and see the medical director of the integrative health program at Parker Hannifin.

This doctor ordered a full workup including blood, urine, and hair tests to see if Jessica’s nutrient levels were where they should be. He gave her vitamin D and B12 injections, recommended food-based supplements like curcumin, and in addition put her on a complete multivitamin, DHA, iodine, probiotics, boswellia, maca, matcha, and a daily green smoothie. His health coaches advised Jessica on which foods she should eat and which she should avoid. They recommended a plant-based diet of whole e vegetables and fruits, fermented foods to bolster gut health, lots of sun, and plenty of exercise.

At first, Jessica was skeptical. With conventional medicine, doctors tell us to take this pill and that one, and wait to get better. But this integrative doctor is instead telling her to revamp her diet and get plenty of sun and exercise. How was that going to cure a disease?

One of the first things Jessica noticed was the responsibility that this treatment placed on her. No longer was treatment a passive procedure of taking a pill and waiting—it was making a complete change in lifestyle. She remembers complaining as she went through the exercise regimen and forced herself to go outside despite her fatigue. After a while, she undertook a twenty-one-day cleanse to clear her blood of toxins, where she ate little else but smoothies and plants.

But it paid off. She didn’t experience immediate results, and the recovery was slow—but it eventually worked. And it was a complete cure.

After adhering to the recommended treatments, Jessica fully recovered and no longer had symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. She was healthy and full of energy. Now her and her husband’s attention could turn to having a child. Even though Jessica was no longer taking methotrexate, she was still worried—women in her family had a history of fertility issues. But one month after her last visit to her new doctor, Jessica was pregnant with a baby girl, who is now just about a year old.

Where conventional medicine prescribed Jessica drugs that relieved the pain in her joints but destroyed her quality of life and prevented her from having a child, natural medicine led to a full recovery and helped her get healthy enough to have a baby.

In our Pulse of Natural Health newsletter, we often cover pressing issues related to natural health, whether it’s pending federal legislation, the latest FDA malfeasance, or the scientific evidence in support of natural health alternatives to conventional remedies. But as crucial as facts and figures are, they can also be abstract and impersonal. To experience firsthand the transformative power of natural medicine is something else entirely.

Please visit our “Tell Your Story” page to read other people’s stories of the power of natural healthcare, and submit your own!

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LGFbQH via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Asldbu

Pro-GMO “DARK Act” Aims to Keep Citizens in the Dark about What’s in Their Food

A Senate version of Big Food’s voluntary GMO labeling bill is in the works, now that the terrible Pompeo bill is gaining steam. Action Alert!

A few weeks ago, we told you about legislation that would let food producers decide whether to label their products that contain genetically engineered or modified ingredients. It’s being jokingly called the Deny Americans’ Right to Know Act (the “DARK Act”) by pro-labeling advocates, because if HR 1599, the deceptively named Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-CA) passes, it would preempt any state laws mandating the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.

Unfortunately, the bill is gaining bipartisan support: since it was introduced, forty-seven House members have signed on, including twelve Democrats.

Not only is voluntary labeling legislation gaining momentum in the House, it now has a champion in the Senate as well. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) has indicated that his office is also preparing a voluntary GMO labeling bill that would preempt state efforts. Sen. Hoeven’s bill would use the USDA to implement the bill (Pompeo’s bill uses the FDA), placing it under the jurisdiction of the Senate Agricultural Committee—whose chair, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), has received the second highest amount of money from the agricultural services and products sector and is among the top three senators receiving money from the food processing and sales sector.

This is all the more troubling considering the state of mandatory GMO labeling legislation. In the Senate, the Boxer-Blumenthal bill that we favor has no Republican support; the bill’s counterpart in the House, sponsored by Rep. DeFazio (D-OR), has only one Republican cosponsor. Without bipartisan report, neither version is likely to move.

Rep. Pompeo (and other supporters of GMOs and GMO-related special interests) continue to ignore the impact of GMOs on our health and environment while intentionally misleading the public.

In a recent op-ed in Roll Call, the daily Capitol Hill newspaper, Rep. Pompeo touts the same—now thoroughly debunked—myths that have been used for years to mislead the public into thinking that GMOs are biotech’s great gift to humanity. To prove that GMOs are “ushering in a new world of possibilities,” Pompeo makes a number of remarkable claims.

First, Pompeo argues that GMOs are decreasing pesticide usage, citing a 2003 figure showing a 46.4 million pound reduction that year. The trouble is that the truth is the exact opposite, as confirmed by a former senior scientist at the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. In a paper released last September, Dr. Ramon Seidler wrote,

Much has been written by scientific and mainstream media about the advantages of using genetically engineered (GE) crops because, according to popular belief, these crops require significantly less pesticide to control weed and insect pests….These accounts are inaccurate and rely on annual pesticide and application rates and volumes reported prior to 2010, when widespread resistance began to emerge in “superweeds” and “superinsects”….These reports also ignore the now widespread practice of coating seeds in systemic pesticides, which has emerged in the past ten years. This lack of journalistic and scientific integrity distorts the facts on the ground.

Second, Pompeo makes the familiar argument about GMOs increasing crop yields. We covered this claim, one of biotech’s favorites (“GMOs will feed the world!”), a few years back in an in-depth report. The evidence suggests that, overall, corn and soybean yields have risen over the past fifteen years, but this is mainly because of traditional breeding or improvement in agricultural practices. According to a Union of Concerned Scientists report, several recent studies show that organic and low-external-input farming methods (i.e., using reduced amounts of fertilizer and pesticides) can improve yield by over 100% in those countries, along with greater health benefits.

Next, Pompeo cites research projects that have affirmed the safety of GMOs. The fact is, there have been no epidemiological studies done on GMOs, nor any scientific consensus on their safety. Most of the studies showing GMOs to be safe have been done by the biotech companies themselves.

(Note: you can find all of this information and more on our GMO Fact Check site.)

By laboring to prove the benefits of GMOs by bringing up these arguments, proponents of biotech crops are diverting attention from the main issue. This debate is about consumers’ right to know what’s in their food, and the bottom line is this: the Pompeo and Hoeven bills, supported by biotech and Big Food giants like Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, keep consumers in the dark. We must prevent this from becoming law. The 93% of Americans who support labeling foods with GMOs must make their voices heard.

Action Alert! Write your senators and representatives, and tell them consumers have a right to know what’s in their food and that you support the mandatory labeling of GMOs. Urge them NOT to support the House and Senate bills that would leave it up to food companies to decide whether or not to label GMOs. Please send your message immediately!

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LGFbAj via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1FewecQ

LabCorp To Allow Patients to Order Tests Online

This is bigger news than it might seem: advanced testing is one of the pillars of natural health and integrated medicine, along with diet, supplements, and lifestyle. Action Alert!

Regular readers will remember our coverage of Theranos, a biotech company that offers diagnostic tests to consumers at (as of now) select Walgreens stores, without a doctor’s order, for a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the wait time, and with more accurate results.

Seeing an increasing demand from patients who take a more hands-on approach to their healthcare, LabCorp, one of the largest diagnostic companies in the US, will now allow consumers to order tests online.

The landscape is rapidly shifting from what it once was. Previously you would visit a LabCorp or Quest Diagnostics facility, present the order from your doctor, wait, and then have a vial of blood drawn for each test. The results were sent to your doctor in three to seven days, so you had to see your doctor a second time to learn the results and what they mean. The total bill may be near a thousand dollars for an incomplete and often dated battery of tests. Now, LabCorp will let a patient go online to order tests, with or without a doctor’s approval, and view the results on the Internet.

It is one thing for Theranos, a relatively small startup doing extremely exciting work, to offer such tests; it’s quite another for a company the size of LabCorp to start offering this kind of service. It should signal to others in the industry that this is the way the diagnostics industry is heading.

Other commentators have noted the rapid rise of consumer demand for devices that monitor health information, like FitBit and the Apple Watch. The availability of easily accessible, cheap, and accurate information will empower consumers to become even more involved in their health. A person might read an article about the importance of vitamin D in the morning and, on the spur of the moment, order a vitamin D 25-OH test, thus providing a near-immediate answer to the question of his or her own vitamin D level.

Theranos seems to be the more affordable and convenient service, but LabCorp’s decision as an industry giant to offer more freedom to the consumer is nothing short of a victory for individualized medicine.

A victory, that is, so long as the government does not interfere with these technologies. As we’ve previously reported, the FDA is attempting to extend its regulatory reach to cover laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and instead of going through the normal rulemaking process, the agency issued a draft guidance last October outlining its stance on LDTs. This is a common FDA maneuver to remove the public entirely from the process, as we’ve seen when it issued a draft guidance on new dietary ingredients.

One additional note. Last week, we reported on the latest draft of the 21st Century Cures bill. One of the issues still being negotiated is whether, if at all, to include provisions on LDTs—something ANH-USA would likely support, since the FDA is trying to regulate LDTs without congressional approval. As specific provisions of the bill come into clearer focus, we will be sure to update our readers.

Tests like this are the future of medicine. People are already able to test for and spot cancers long before they manifest themselves using current methods. But few doctors, much less consumers, know about the tests. Testing can already help prevent diabetes, heart and blood vessel illness, prostate cancer, and other diseases. Making these tests more affordable and accessible to consumers will help to move medicine back to where it should be: under consumer control.

Action Alert! Write to the sponsors of the 21st Century Cures bill and encourage them to include provisions about increasing the availability of diagnostic tests. Even if you sent an earlier message about the 21st Century Cures bill, send another: we have updated the language of our Action Alert to specifically include laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LEafzU via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1HJCn44

Action Alert: GMO Labeling Bills

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1FerjIQ via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1GBBr2V

ANH Interviewed Regarding 21st Century Cures

The Alliance for Natural Health- USA has been very vocal in its criticisms about the 21st Century Cures Bill that has been introduced. The fact that the bill exists shows a recognition of the broken nature of our medical system, but its contents demonstrate an inability to look for innovative approaches to address the problem.

Our own Allison Murphy spoke with John Mitchell of HealthCare Business News about the issue. You can access John’s story here.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LsQZ91 via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1FD5YfO

ANH Interviewed Regarding 21st Century Cures

The Alliance for Natural Health- USA has been very vocal in its criticisms about the 21st Century Cures Bill that has been introduced. The fact that the bill exists shows a recognition of the broken nature of our medical system, but its contents demonstrate an inability to look for innovative approaches to address the problem.

Our own Allison Murphy spoke with John Mitchell of HealthCare Business News about the issue. You can access John’s story here.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LsQZ91 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1K92jGw

GMH: Genetically Modified Humans?

In addition to the ethical questions and the serious unintended health consequences, this would also open the door to patenting human DNA. Action Alert!

Late last month, a group of Chinese scientists published a study that tried to answer the question, “Is it possible to edit the genetic makeup of human embryos?”

It’s a question that has occupied scientists and medical researchers for some time. An estimated 12 million Americans are affected by genetic disorders like hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and many others. While treatments exist for some of these, other conditions have no known cure. This has led to research in genetic manipulation as a means of curing disease.

Scientists recently developed CRISPR, which stands for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat.” The Chinese scientists used this genome-editing technique in their study to target and manipulate specific genes.

The idea for CRISPR came from studying bacteria’s ability to fight viruses. Bacteria create molecules that can attack specific stretches of a virus’s DNA. Why not use this, the scientists reasoned, as a way to attack and replace the mutated genes that are causing disease in humans with properly functioning DNA? Or, to go one step further, why not attempt to “fix the mistake” early on in the embryo and replace the faulty genes from the outset?

This is precisely what the Chinese scientists set out to accomplish. Using defective embryos that would never grow into babies, the team hoped to end with an embryo that had precisely altered DNA in each cell and no other damage.

Out of eighty-six human embryos, not a single one met that criteria of success by the end of the study. Seventy-one embryos survived long enough to study, but most of these either died before the study was completed, or else the target gene never altered. In a few cases the researchers were able to successfully alter the gene—but these resulted in potentially disastrous problems with wide-reaching implications, like unintended mutations and genetic “mosaics” where some cells in the embryo were edited while others were not.

The study caused quite a controversy in the scientific community. One of the Chinese researchers said their study was rejected by the journals Nature and Science for ethical reasons. Dr. George Daley, an expert in stem cell research at Harvard Medical School, said, “Their study should be a stern warning to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes.” Before the study was even published, a group of scientists published a letter in Science warning that this was dangerous ground. A few days after the study was published, the National Institutes for Health reaffirmed its ban on funding any research that involves gene editing in embryos.

Setting aside the widely publicized trepidation of many scientists and government agencies about the ethics of experiments like this, there are other major concerns about this type of research:

• Even if the government agrees not to fund embryo gene-editing research, there are other ways for the research to continue. In fact, there is at least one US genetics center using CRISPR on abnormal embryos rejected by in-vitro fertilization clinics—and this center is far less transparent about its work.
• We recently reported that the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) is considering a different framework for determining the patent eligibility for natural substances. If a patent claim describes “a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea,” it must amount to “significantly more” than what is found in nature to be eligible for a patent. The Supreme Court has previously struck down patents on human genes, but if a company is able to successfully create a novel process of genetic alteration of human DNA, this sort of loose definition of “natural” could be enough to give that company a patent. As we’ve noted before, the change in USPTO’s framework could also allow Big Pharma to steal natural supplements and monopolize previously affordable substances like bioidentical estriol and 17P.
• While some of the more alarming scenarios are still a long way off, there are more immediate dangers in editing human genes. Genetic manipulation in humans, rather than curing disease, could create a host of new and even more dangerous diseases and genetic mutations. Changing the genetic makeup of the germ line—which includes the egg, sperm, and embryo—could have severe consequences for a research subject’s descendants. Scientists simply do not know what the effect will be of genetic alterations passed down from generation to generation.

Action Alert! Write to the USPTO and tell them they must NOT allow natural substances to be patented. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1F0625N via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1Jx3rFK

Feds and States Keep Tightening the Screws on Vaccines—Including a New Bill in Congress

Meanwhile, the federal Vaccine Court keeps paying the victims hurt by vaccines—a clear acknowledgement that some vaccines are dangerous. Action Alert!

Earlier this month, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) introduced HR 2232, the Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act by requiring states seeking federal grants to prove that each student enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school has been vaccinated following the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

So far, the bill has no cosponsors. But there may well be other such bills soon, and it is time to let Congress know that strong-arming schools is not the way to go. Currently there are also over two dozen state-level efforts to eliminate or restrict non-medical exemptions to vaccination—religious, personal, philosophical, and conscientious belief exemptions. Federal programs have also revved up their efforts to increase vaccination rates across the board and instill “vaccine confidence” in the public. In some states, pediatricians are being told by insurance companies that they will be paid less if all of their patients are not vaccinated on schedule.

After a string of lawsuits in the 1980s imperiled vaccine profits, vaccine manufacturers threatened to leave the US market. The government responded by relieving vaccine manufacturers of all legal liability when patients suffered an adverse reaction from a vaccine. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was set up in 1988 as a substitute to give support to families who were harmed by vaccines.

Since 1988, the VICP has awarded almost $3 billion to over 4,000 families who were harmed by vaccines—even though the window to file a claim is so tight that many families miss it. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) receives an average of 30,000 reports each year, 13% of which are considered “serious”—that is, associated with “disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death.” One recent article pointed out that adverse events from vaccines are significantly underreported, since healthcare providers, doctors, and vaccine manufacturers—all of which have major incentives not to submit adverse events—account for 73% of the VAERS reports. There have been estimates that perhaps less 10% of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. There are no legal sanctions to doctors for not reporting.

As we have noted before, the government’s response to adverse events from vaccines is to say that research on them has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, so they need not be considered—yet when asked to do such research, the government refuses.

There is more. Readers familiar with this issue know the vitriol and disdain directed by the mainstream media at anyone who even suggests a link between vaccines and autism, an extremely emotional and heated issue. The link is widely reported as “debunked,” the case “closed,” and any relationship “ruled out.” But if there is no link between vaccines and autism, then why has the Vaccine Court made payouts to injured children who become autistic after receiving a vaccine?

A law review article published in 2011 found eighty-three cases of autism among those compensated by the VICP for vaccine-induced brain damage. Of the eighty-three cases,

seventeen note an autistic disorder in a published decision of the Court of Federal Claims and twenty two have SCQ (social communication questionnaires) confirming caregiver reports of autism. In other words, thirty-nine of the eighty-three cases, or 47% of this sample, have confirmation of autism beyond parental report alone.

Further, twenty-one decisions by VICP acknowledged autism or autism-like symptoms associated with vaccine-induced encephalopathy and seizure disorder.

What makes this all worse is that government officials seem to be aware that vaccines are not as safe as they insist they are. We already know that the CDC has covered up inconvenient data. Now, according to an Associated Press report, the VCIP has been more stringent in its pay-outs over the years because officials are afraid concessions will erode the public’s confidence in vaccines, thus reducing vaccination rates. The AP report also details how families seeking relief from the VCIP could wait over a decade for the first check to arrive. In fact, fewer than 7% of the 7,876 claims not involving autism met the 240-day target in which cases were supposed to be resolved.

The latest attack on vaccine exemptions and choice has clearly been driven by the wave of alleged public concern over last year’s measles outbreak in California. We say “alleged” because (a) the concern is not coming from the public, but from agencies with a vested financial interest in selling vaccines, and (b) the measles outbreak was hyped out of all proportion to the facts of the case. As we previously reported, this measles “outbreak” consisted of fewer than 200 people out of 320 million people in the country—in other words, about 0.0000625% of the population—with no reported deaths at all. Here’s the kicker: many of those who came down with measles were vaccinated or may have picked it up from recently vaccinated kids! Moreover, deaths from the vaccine itself have been well documented.

These few measles cases were seized upon by the mainstream media as an opportunity to trumpet the supposed safety of vaccines, and to demonize anyone who raises legitimate concerns about vaccines—whether about some of the vaccines in the government’s recommended schedule, or the demonstrably dangerous ingredients and adjuvants in vaccines, or the problem of overloading a young child’s immune system with too much at one time, administered too early.

The media has consistently and conveniently downplayed crony capitalist connections between the CDC and the vaccine industry, which has a world market share of about $24 billion:

• The story from a CDC whistleblower about the agency covering up evidence of harm to young black males from the measles vaccine was quickly and quietly buried.
• So was the story of how the head of the CDC vaccine division gave the Gardasil vaccine to Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, and then left to become president of the Merck vaccine division.
• A CDC doctor whose work was meant to disprove the link between vaccines and autism fled justice in 2010 after officials uncovered massive fraud involving the theft of $2 million in taxpayer dollars.

In light of all this, how can state legislators seek to remove important non-medical exemptions to vaccines? And how can federal lawmakers seek to pass unprecedented federal mandates to vaccinate all children? Given the documented and indisputable safety risks with vaccines, parents deserve to have a choice when it comes to their children’s health.

Action Alert! Write to your representative in Congress and urge him or her NOT to co-sponsor the Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015. Please send your message immediately.

Check below to see if your state has pending legislation to remove vaccine exemptions.

Connecticut
Illinois
Maine
Minnesota
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1F064KV via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1Jx3oKe

Will Congress Protect Your Right to Know Where Your Meat Comes From?

The World Trade Organization wants to keep us in the dark. And what exactly is inside the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement? Action Alert!

The United States currently has had a mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law in place since 2009. It requires meat to be labeled to indicate where it was born, raised, and processed—even when the meat is exported. Seafood labeling has been covered since 2005.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) previously ruled that this law unfairly discriminates against meat from Canada and Mexico and is an infringement upon international trade obligations, and now an appellate panel has upheld the WTO rulings. As a result, Canadian and Mexican officials could take retaliatory measures against US exports to cover what they argue are billions of dollars in lost revenue as a result of the food label. To forestall this, Congress may cave and rewrite our law.

Some Republicans in Congress have indicated a readiness to amend or repeal the law to avoid a trade war with Canada and Mexico. The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson (D-MN), said he would oppose a repeal of the law. Two of the largest trade groups for beef and pork issued statements urging Congress to act swiftly to amend or repeal COOL before economic retaliation from Canada and Mexico begins.

The COOL law, like mandatory GMO labeling, is popular with the public. One poll found that 92 percent of Americans support COOL. Any decision to alter or remove COOL is to surrender to large industrial pork and beef producers in the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Perhaps even more troubling is the precedent this ruling sets. If the WTO can override our law, couldn’t it act similarly against other country-of-origin laws, and then against any future GMO labeling laws? From there it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for WTO to be telling us what can be on other food labels—or even supplement labels.

The WTO is hardly a democratic institution, either: WTO dispute panels consist of three trade bureaucrats who meet in secret, do not take any input from the public, and are not screened for conflicts of interest.

This isn’t the first time the WTO has made a ruling that undermines consumers. In 1997, the WTO ruled that a European Union (EU) ban on US beef treated with hormones was illegal. Because of that ruling, the US was allowed to slap high retaliatory tariffs on a number of European exports like pork, cheese, chocolate, jams, and fresh truffles, which cost the EU $250 million annually until an agreement was reached in 2011.

This also isn’t the first time that meat industry trade groups have tried to keep consumers in the dark. As we’ve pointed out previously, until 2007, it was illegal for private beef producers to test their own cows for mad cow disease. Larger meat companies feared that if smaller companies tested their meat and could advertise it as safe from mad cow disease, they would be forced to test all of their cows—so they persuaded the USDA to block individual producers from doing the test, until a federal judge stopped this in 2007.

The bottom line is this: consumers should have access to health and safety information about their food so they can make informed choices about what to feed their families. Congress should preserve COOL and not let the WTO eliminate laws made in the public interest.

This story further illustrates how carefully we need to scrutinize the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), when and if the language is released. So far, even members of Congress have been able to see it only in secure rooms, with staff present, and without being able to take any notes! There are rumors that the agreement could shift sovereign decisions about many things—not just labeling—to organizations like the WTO, but nobody knows for sure yet. President Obama should be ashamed about keeping the American public in the dark about this.

Action Alert! Please write your legislators in Congress and urge them NOT to repeal COOL, which gives consumers important information about their food. Also indicate your concern about the secrecy surrounding the TPP. Please take action immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1F064ui via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1Jx3ql9

GMH: Genetically Modified Humans?

In addition to the ethical questions and the serious unintended health consequences, this would also open the door to patenting human DNA. Action Alert!

Late last month, a group of Chinese scientists published a study that tried to answer the question, “Is it possible to edit the genetic makeup of human embryos?”

It’s a question that has occupied scientists and medical researchers for some time. An estimated 12 million Americans are affected by genetic disorders like hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and many others. While treatments exist for some of these, other conditions have no known cure. This has led to research in genetic manipulation as a means of curing disease.

Scientists recently developed CRISPR, which stands for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat.” The Chinese scientists used this genome-editing technique in their study to target and manipulate specific genes.

The idea for CRISPR came from studying bacteria’s ability to fight viruses. Bacteria create molecules that can attack specific stretches of a virus’s DNA. Why not use this, the scientists reasoned, as a way to attack and replace the mutated genes that are causing disease in humans with properly functioning DNA? Or, to go one step further, why not attempt to “fix the mistake” early on in the embryo and replace the faulty genes from the outset?

This is precisely what the Chinese scientists set out to accomplish. Using defective embryos that would never grow into babies, the team hoped to end with an embryo that had precisely altered DNA in each cell and no other damage.

Out of eighty-six human embryos, not a single one met that criteria of success by the end of the study. Seventy-one embryos survived long enough to study, but most of these either died before the study was completed, or else the target gene never altered. In a few cases the researchers were able to successfully alter the gene—but these resulted in potentially disastrous problems with wide-reaching implications, like unintended mutations and genetic “mosaics” where some cells in the embryo were edited while others were not.

The study caused quite a controversy in the scientific community. One of the Chinese researchers said their study was rejected by the journals Nature and Science for ethical reasons. Dr. George Daley, an expert in stem cell research at Harvard Medical School, said, “Their study should be a stern warning to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes.” Before the study was even published, a group of scientists published a letter in Science warning that this was dangerous ground. A few days after the study was published, the National Institutes for Health reaffirmed its ban on funding any research that involves gene editing in embryos.

Setting aside the widely publicized trepidation of many scientists and government agencies about the ethics of experiments like this, there are other major concerns about this type of research:

• Even if the government agrees not to fund embryo gene-editing research, there are other ways for the research to continue. In fact, there is at least one US genetics center using CRISPR on abnormal embryos rejected by in-vitro fertilization clinics—and this center is far less transparent about its work.
• We recently reported that the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) is considering a different framework for determining the patent eligibility for natural substances. If a patent claim describes “a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea,” it must amount to “significantly more” than what is found in nature to be eligible for a patent. The Supreme Court has previously struck down patents on human genes, but if a company is able to successfully create a novel process of genetic alteration of human DNA, this sort of loose definition of “natural” could be enough to give that company a patent. As we’ve noted before, the change in USPTO’s framework could also allow Big Pharma to steal natural supplements and monopolize previously affordable substances like bioidentical estriol and 17P.
• While some of the more alarming scenarios are still a long way off, there are more immediate dangers in editing human genes. Genetic manipulation in humans, rather than curing disease, could create a host of new and even more dangerous diseases and genetic mutations. Changing the genetic makeup of the germ line—which includes the egg, sperm, and embryo—could have severe consequences for a research subject’s descendants. Scientists simply do not know what the effect will be of genetic alterations passed down from generation to generation.

Action Alert! Write to the USPTO and tell them they must NOT allow natural substances to be patented. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1F0625N via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Fmi3F3

Feds and States Keep Tightening the Screws on Vaccines—Including a New Bill in Congress

Meanwhile, the federal Vaccine Court keeps paying the victims hurt by vaccines—a clear acknowledgement that some vaccines are dangerous. Action Alert!

Earlier this month, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) introduced HR 2232, the Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act by requiring states seeking federal grants to prove that each student enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school has been vaccinated following the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

So far, the bill has no cosponsors. But there may well be other such bills soon, and it is time to let Congress know that strong-arming schools is not the way to go. Currently there are also over two dozen state-level efforts to eliminate or restrict non-medical exemptions to vaccination—religious, personal, philosophical, and conscientious belief exemptions. Federal programs have also revved up their efforts to increase vaccination rates across the board and instill “vaccine confidence” in the public. In some states, pediatricians are being told by insurance companies that they will be paid less if all of their patients are not vaccinated on schedule.

After a string of lawsuits in the 1980s imperiled vaccine profits, vaccine manufacturers threatened to leave the US market. The government responded by relieving vaccine manufacturers of all legal liability when patients suffered an adverse reaction from a vaccine. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was set up in 1988 as a substitute to give support to families who were harmed by vaccines.

Since 1988, the VICP has awarded almost $3 billion to over 4,000 families who were harmed by vaccines—even though the window to file a claim is so tight that many families miss it. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) receives an average of 30,000 reports each year, 13% of which are considered “serious”—that is, associated with “disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death.” One recent article pointed out that adverse events from vaccines are significantly underreported, since healthcare providers, doctors, and vaccine manufacturers—all of which have major incentives not to submit adverse events—account for 73% of the VAERS reports. There have been estimates that perhaps less 10% of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. There are no legal sanctions to doctors for not reporting.

As we have noted before, the government’s response to adverse events from vaccines is to say that research on them has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, so they need not be considered—yet when asked to do such research, the government refuses.

There is more. Readers familiar with this issue know the vitriol and disdain directed by the mainstream media at anyone who even suggests a link between vaccines and autism, an extremely emotional and heated issue. The link is widely reported as “debunked,” the case “closed,” and any relationship “ruled out.” But if there is no link between vaccines and autism, then why has the Vaccine Court made payouts to injured children who become autistic after receiving a vaccine?

A law review article published in 2011 found eighty-three cases of autism among those compensated by the VICP for vaccine-induced brain damage. Of the eighty-three cases,

seventeen note an autistic disorder in a published decision of the Court of Federal Claims and twenty two have SCQ (social communication questionnaires) confirming caregiver reports of autism. In other words, thirty-nine of the eighty-three cases, or 47% of this sample, have confirmation of autism beyond parental report alone.

Further, twenty-one decisions by VICP acknowledged autism or autism-like symptoms associated with vaccine-induced encephalopathy and seizure disorder.

What makes this all worse is that government officials seem to be aware that vaccines are not as safe as they insist they are. We already know that the CDC has covered up inconvenient data. Now, according to an Associated Press report, the VCIP has been more stringent in its pay-outs over the years because officials are afraid concessions will erode the public’s confidence in vaccines, thus reducing vaccination rates. The AP report also details how families seeking relief from the VCIP could wait over a decade for the first check to arrive. In fact, fewer than 7% of the 7,876 claims not involving autism met the 240-day target in which cases were supposed to be resolved.

The latest attack on vaccine exemptions and choice has clearly been driven by the wave of alleged public concern over last year’s measles outbreak in California. We say “alleged” because (a) the concern is not coming from the public, but from agencies with a vested financial interest in selling vaccines, and (b) the measles outbreak was hyped out of all proportion to the facts of the case. As we previously reported, this measles “outbreak” consisted of fewer than 200 people out of 320 million people in the country—in other words, about 0.0000625% of the population—with no reported deaths at all. Here’s the kicker: many of those who came down with measles were vaccinated or may have picked it up from recently vaccinated kids! Moreover, deaths from the vaccine itself have been well documented.

These few measles cases were seized upon by the mainstream media as an opportunity to trumpet the supposed safety of vaccines, and to demonize anyone who raises legitimate concerns about vaccines—whether about some of the vaccines in the government’s recommended schedule, or the demonstrably dangerous ingredients and adjuvants in vaccines, or the problem of overloading a young child’s immune system with too much at one time, administered too early.

The media has consistently and conveniently downplayed crony capitalist connections between the CDC and the vaccine industry, which has a world market share of about $24 billion:

• The story from a CDC whistleblower about the agency covering up evidence of harm to young black males from the measles vaccine was quickly and quietly buried.
• So was the story of how the head of the CDC vaccine division gave the Gardasil vaccine to Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, and then left to become president of the Merck vaccine division.
• A CDC doctor whose work was meant to disprove the link between vaccines and autism fled justice in 2010 after officials uncovered massive fraud involving the theft of $2 million in taxpayer dollars.

In light of all this, how can state legislators seek to remove important non-medical exemptions to vaccines? And how can federal lawmakers seek to pass unprecedented federal mandates to vaccinate all children? Given the documented and indisputable safety risks with vaccines, parents deserve to have a choice when it comes to their children’s health.

Action Alert! Write to your representative in Congress and urge him or her NOT to co-sponsor the Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015. Please send your message immediately.

Check below to see if your state has pending legislation to remove vaccine exemptions.

Connecticut
Illinois
Maine
Minnesota
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1F064KV via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Jx0mW7

Will Congress Protect Your Right to Know Where Your Meat Comes From?

The World Trade Organization wants to keep us in the dark. And what exactly is inside the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement? Action Alert!

The United States currently has had a mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law in place since 2009. It requires meat to be labeled to indicate where it was born, raised, and processed—even when the meat is exported. Seafood labeling has been covered since 2005.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) previously ruled that this law unfairly discriminates against meat from Canada and Mexico and is an infringement upon international trade obligations, and now an appellate panel has upheld the WTO rulings. As a result, Canadian and Mexican officials could take retaliatory measures against US exports to cover what they argue are billions of dollars in lost revenue as a result of the food label. To forestall this, Congress may cave and rewrite our law.

Some Republicans in Congress have indicated a readiness to amend or repeal the law to avoid a trade war with Canada and Mexico. The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson (D-MN), said he would oppose a repeal of the law. Two of the largest trade groups for beef and pork issued statements urging Congress to act swiftly to amend or repeal COOL before economic retaliation from Canada and Mexico begins.

The COOL law, like mandatory GMO labeling, is popular with the public. One poll found that 92 percent of Americans support COOL. Any decision to alter or remove COOL is to surrender to large industrial pork and beef producers in the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Perhaps even more troubling is the precedent this ruling sets. If the WTO can override our law, couldn’t it act similarly against other country-of-origin laws, and then against any future GMO labeling laws? From there it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for WTO to be telling us what can be on other food labels—or even supplement labels.

The WTO is hardly a democratic institution, either: WTO dispute panels consist of three trade bureaucrats who meet in secret, do not take any input from the public, and are not screened for conflicts of interest.

This isn’t the first time the WTO has made a ruling that undermines consumers. In 1997, the WTO ruled that a European Union (EU) ban on US beef treated with hormones was illegal. Because of that ruling, the US was allowed to slap high retaliatory tariffs on a number of European exports like pork, cheese, chocolate, jams, and fresh truffles, which cost the EU $250 million annually until an agreement was reached in 2011.

This also isn’t the first time that meat industry trade groups have tried to keep consumers in the dark. As we’ve pointed out previously, until 2007, it was illegal for private beef producers to test their own cows for mad cow disease. Larger meat companies feared that if smaller companies tested their meat and could advertise it as safe from mad cow disease, they would be forced to test all of their cows—so they persuaded the USDA to block individual producers from doing the test, until a federal judge stopped this in 2007.

The bottom line is this: consumers should have access to health and safety information about their food so they can make informed choices about what to feed their families. Congress should preserve COOL and not let the WTO eliminate laws made in the public interest.

This story further illustrates how carefully we need to scrutinize the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), when and if the language is released. So far, even members of Congress have been able to see it only in secure rooms, with staff present, and without being able to take any notes! There are rumors that the agreement could shift sovereign decisions about many things—not just labeling—to organizations like the WTO, but nobody knows for sure yet. President Obama should be ashamed about keeping the American public in the dark about this.

Action Alert! Please write your legislators in Congress and urge them NOT to repeal COOL, which gives consumers important information about their food. Also indicate your concern about the secrecy surrounding the TPP. Please take action immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1F064ui via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Jx0lBH

Action Alert: Don’t Repeal COOL

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2472 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2472 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2472 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2472″).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2472); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1cN9fxYvar ifrm_iframe2472 = document.getElementById(“iframe2472″);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2472 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2472() {}

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Aj3wuA via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1L6KBn2

Action Alert: Vaccinate All Children Act

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2469 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2469 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2469 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2469″).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2469); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1EhvamIvar ifrm_iframe2469 = document.getElementById(“iframe2469″);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2469 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2469() {}

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Aj0K8E via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1Hsvtmd

Action Alert: Protect Natural Substances

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2262 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2262 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2262 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2262″).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2262); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1Ehv8vmvar ifrm_iframe2262 = document.getElementById(“iframe2262″);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2262 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2262() {}

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Aj0I0t via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1L6KyYu

Action Alert: Don’t Repeal COOL

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Aj3wuA via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1R0DK2q

Action Alert: Vaccinate All Children Act

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Aj0K8E via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1dhNJ5d

Action Alert: Protect Natural Substances

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Aj0I0t via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1dhNLdi

Government Agencies Agree to Undertake Research on Folic Acid Risks

Will this convince the FDA to drop its proposed folate ban?

Last year, we reported on a proposed rule coming out of the FDA that would ban the word “folate” from Supplement Fact labels. Only “folic acid” could be listed on the labels.

We noted that the FDA’s maneuver would result in natural folate disappearing from the market entirely. If a product can only list “folic acid” as an ingredient, it would be fraudulent for it to contain anything else, even natural folate.

Folate is incredibly important to human health. Our bodies need it to synthesize and repair DNA, to produce healthy red blood cells and prevent anemia, and to support many other vital functions. Folate supplementation in pregnant women has been shown to protect against neural tube defects like anencephaly and spina bifida in children.

What we refer to as folate is the naturally occurring form of the water-soluble vitamin B9, while folic acid is the biologically inactive, synthetic form of folate. This distinction is crucial. Most people can convert folic acid to the folate that the body needs, but it is estimated that about a third of the human population cannot efficiently convert synthetic folic acid into folate. For these people, too much unmetabolized folic acid can build up in the blood, which could lead to an increased risk of prostate, lung, and colon cancer, or worsen already present cancerous lesions. This refers to very large amounts of folic acid, much larger than in current supplements, but more research is needed to account for individual differences.

In response to the proposed rule, ANH-USA submitted a formal comment to the FDA pointing to these concerns and laying the groundwork for future legal action if the agency did not change its approach. We also encouraged ANH-USA members to weigh in and demonstrate the widespread public opposition to such an action. We are happy to report that our concerns appear to have been heard!

After ANH-USA, our members, and other concerned stakeholders expressed their concerns about the FDA’s action, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) announced they will be conducting research into the potential adverse health effects of ingesting high levels of folic acid. ODS serves as an advisor to the FDA on issues relating to dietary supplements. NTP and ODS asked for public input on what specifically they should look into, and ANH-USA’s scientific director, Dr. Robert Verkerk, supplied a number of suggestions, such as the need for research into how much unmetabolized folic acid persists in the bloodstream in people consuming large amounts of folic acid. He also discussed the need for a better understanding of the effects of multiple genetic polymorphisms that effect the conversion of folic acid into folate.

We hope this research will cause the FDA to abandon its proposal to ban the use of the word “folate” on supplement labels, an action which could put the health of millions of Americans in jeopardy.

We will continue to monitor the situation, and will notify ANH-USA members of any further developments.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1ctlmAa via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1F57WnS

“21st Century Cures” Bill Is Actually a Throwback to the 20th Century

This legislation reveals once again that government will always be decades behind cutting-edge healthcare, and beholden to special interests as well. Action Alert!

After a year of discussions and negotiation, Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Fred Upton (R-MI), together with three other co-sponsors, finally released a preliminary draft of their 21st Century Cures bill.

It’s clear that the authors intend this bill to be landmark legislation to propel healthcare innovation into a new era. In a video launching their effort, Rep. DeGette said that “America can be—it must be—the healthcare innovation capitol of the world.” In the hearing that the Energy and Commerce Committee held on the draft, proponents invoked President Kennedy’s plan to go to the moon in a description of the boldness and scope of their vision.

Will this bill be the harbinger of a new era in healthcare in the United States? So far, it doesn’t look like it.

The bill is still in draft form, and significant portions of the text are still being negotiated. We had a number of criticisms of older drafts of the bill, and the good news is that a number of them were addressed in the latest draft.

The biggest victory was the elimination of several provisions that would have extended market exclusivity for Big Pharma drugs. All but one of these provisions were removed. Unfortunately, proposed language still seeks to extend the patents of drugs that were originally rejected if they can be repurposed for serious and life-threatening diseases—still a clear giveaway to Big Pharma.

We also had concerns with a provision calling for a study of patients with chronic diseases without including input from integrative doctors, since true chronic disease prevention must include nutrition and lifestyle factors. It appears that this provision has been removed.

We previously commented on the draft bill’s treatment of the antibiotics issue, which remains extremely problematic. While it appears that market exclusivity for certain antimicrobial drugs has been removed, the focus of the bill is still on developing new antibiotic drugs. The logic here makes the mind reel: the overuse of antibiotics is what has led to the current problem of antibiotic resistance, yet the answer provided by the bill’s authors is to develop more antibiotics—rather than explore natural alternatives that we’ve written about at length.

The sections dealing with vaccination remain unchanged. We would like to see a requirement that the government investigate all adverse event report (AER) data. As we reported previously, the government currently refuses to look at AERs, taking the position that correlation does not equal causation. In particular, the data about adverse events from vaccines raises some serious red flags that need to be investigated thoroughly.

The bill also includes an expedited review-and-approval process for “breakthrough vaccines,” especially in the face of public health crises, but it doesn’t put important safeguards in place to protect the public, such as informed consent or post-market studies.

The bill, even after the changes that were made, is still a far cry from the lofty rhetoric supplied by its authors about innovation and ushering in a new era of healthcare in America. It offers nothing substantially new or innovative, just more of the same outdated thinking. In our view, a real 21st century healthcare system would shift the paradigm away from healthcare modalities that don’t work and aren’t sustainable—as we’ve seen in the case of antibiotic overuse—and toward healthcare that is aimed at prevention, testing, and natural remedies. The bill’s authors stress that their intent is to put the patient at the center of care, but continue with the current government-mandated, monopoly-supported, “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Here are a few our suggestions for what a real 21st century health system would look like:

• Less emphasis on pharmaceutical interventions as the only “cure”;
• Patients and medical professionals educated on “real” disease prevention through advanced testing, diet, nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle;
• The growing problem of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” addressed by banning antibiotic overuse on factory farms as well as their over-prescription, while encouraging the use of natural alternatives such hyperbaric oxygen therapy or treatments that include silver, intravenous vitamin C, the herbs Cat’s Claw and Artemisia, some essential oils, or grapefruit seed extract, along with much more research on natural cures;
• Improved access to natural health practitioners along with greater respect for informed choice in healthcare; and
• Endorsement of individualized medicine at the heart of the new paradigm.

We will continue to monitor this legislation as the final language gels, and we’ll let you know what is happening.

Action Alert! Write to the bill’s sponsors and ask them to make changes to the bill so it can actually live up to the name of “21st Century Cures.” Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1FirIzn via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1dZx2eU