Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.


Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New
 Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.

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




from http://ift.tt/1FGHB38

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.


Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New
 Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1MEOphs via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1iJtr6N

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.


Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New
 Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.

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




from http://ift.tt/1jw409J

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.

Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.

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




from http://ift.tt/1jw409w

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.


Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New
 Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.



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

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.

Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1RewcZM via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1O6wd3w

New Evidence that Antidepressants Are Causing an Epidemic of Violence

An article in the current British Medical Journal explains why the link is stronger than previously thought. Action Alert!

ANH-USA has researched dozens of the most high-profile cases of violent crimes over the last few decades. We found that in just under half of the cases (eleven out of twenty-three), the perpetrator was documented to be taking, or had recently stopped taking, some form of antidepressant or antipsychotic medication.

In another seven cases, the killer had been on these medications earlier. We suspect that number is even higher, but the information is either not publicly available or not known.

Other publications support these findings. Mother Jones looked at all mass shootings from 1982 through 2015—seventy-two incidents altogether. Of these, more than half of the perpetrators (forty-three) had shown signs of mental illness prior to the crime. Given the propensity of conventional doctors to prescribe antidepressants and other antipsychotic drugs (more on this below), it does not seem like a large leap to assume that many of these perpetrators were taking medications.

The FDA recognizes this, and many antidepressants carry “black box warnings,” the most stringent precaution a drug label can carry before being removed from the market. Many antidepressants carry a black box warning of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior. Dr. Robert Whitaker notes that there is also a shocking risk of increased violence to others, which is not highlighted in the black box.

Important research has shown major drugs like Paxil and Prozac to be linked with violence at a substantially higher rate than other drugs—users of Paxil are 10.3 times more likely to do violence to themselves or others, while users of Prozac are 10.9 times more likely to commit acts of violence. Other evidence shows that people who have exhibited no propensity for violence or aggression can develop violent behavior soon after beginning antidepressants. (You can find still more evidence of the link between antidepressants and violence inour previous coverage of the topic.)

The FDA relies on studies conducted by major drug companies themselves, which may not be reliable. Even if the data is pristine, the interpretation will almost certainly be skewed in favor of the drug.

Consider the case of Paxil. Fourteen years ago the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), published a study which was interpreted to mean that Paxil was safe and effective for teens. A new analysis of that same data, published this week in the prestigious British Medical Journal, found the exact opposite to be true—that teenagers on Paxil did no better than a placebo on a standard depression assessment, and that GSK had seriously downplayed the drug’s dangerous side effects!

This reinterpretation was only possible because GSK, to its credit, allowed the data to become public. It should be noted, however, that this was only done once the patent had gotten older and was thus less valuable.

Suicide and violence are just two side effects of antidepressants. There have been a total 134 warnings from regulatory agencies in eleven countries including:

  • 30 warnings that antidepressants cause heart problems
  • 21 warnings that they cause birth defects
  • 6 warnings that they cause anxiety
  • 5 warnings that they cause mania or psychosis
  • 4 warnings that they cause death
  • 4 warnings that they cause hallucinations or delusional thinking
  • 4 warnings that they cause involuntary movements
  • 2 warnings that they cause sexual dysfunction

There is a great deal we don’t know, partly because so much of drug companies’ research on these drugs is kept secret. But the correlation between violent crime and the use of these legal, mind-altering prescription drugs is too strong to be ignored, while scientific evidence of the connection continues to mount. So why hasn’t the FDA done anything?

The answer should be clear enough. Antidepressants are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the US. About 10% of Americans—30 million people—are on antidepressants, which includes 25% of women in their 40s and 50s. Antidepressant use has increased an astounding 400% in recent years. This translates into billions of dollars in profits worldwide for the pharmaceutical industry. And drug company money represent a substantial percentage of the FDA’s operating budget.

What is especially tragic about the wide use of antidepressants and their connection to violence and other terrible side effects is the fact that there are far safer, natural alternatives. We’ve reported before about some of these.

Sometimes depression is triggered by a life event or series of events. But what conventional medicine generally fails to notice is the connection between the brain and the body—how the body, and especially the gut, can have a profound effect on the brain, and vice versa. In some cases, it is a simple nutrient that is missing. It is often B vitamins, or it may be a mineral such as magnesium.

An integrative approach to medicine also addresses the imbalances in the body that may cause our mood to be out of whack. Consider that 95% of the body’s serotonin, the chemical that most depression drugs try to increase, is found in the gut. The standard American diet does not optimize either serotonin or gut health, leading to leaky gut syndrome and sustained inflammation.

Antibiotic use can also lead to gut dysbiosis and leaky gut because they destroy the good bacteria lining the intestines, allowing pathogenic bacteria to colonize. When the lining of the digestive system becomes permeable, toxic substances and bacteria leak into the bloodstream, triggering food sensitivities, inflammation, and autoimmune problems.

Additionally, hormone imbalances caused by hypothyroidism, which often goes undiagnosed, may cause mental health problems. Many people taking antidepressant medications, then, should really be addressing the underlying thyroid issue.

To find an integrative doctor in your area who won’t simply prescribe Prozac but will address the root cause, click here for some helpful links.

This is a life-or-death issue. How many more violent crimes will we have to endure before something is done about SSRIs and other mental health medications?

A recent news story told of new protocols and training at the University of Virginia Medical Center, preparing staff for the possibility of a gunman on a shooting rampage, which the Emergency Manager Coordinator views as an “unfortunate inevitability.” The irony of this is completely lost on the hospital staff. They see no connection whatsoever between the drugs they are prescribing and the “inevitable” shooter they are preparing for.

In 2011, ANH submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA asking them to expand the current black box warning on antidepressants to include the danger of violent actions toward other people, in addition to the current suicide warning. This request has so far fallen on deaf ears. This time, we are reaching out to Congress to see if they can urge the FDA to act on this crucial issue.

Action Alert! Congress recently observed Mental Health Awareness Month. Write to your legislators and urge them to take meaningful steps towards addressing this serious issue—such as directing the FDA to update their black box warnings of antidepressants to include warnings of increased violent behavior. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Gfhrj0 via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/1iJfANW

Organics Board to Review GMO Vaccines for Animals, Pesticides Allowed on Food

The fall meeting of the National Organic Standards Board is coming up. As usual, we need your help to prevent some bad decisions being made at the behest of industry. Action Alert!

The semi-annual meeting of the NOSB will take place October 26–29 in Vermont. Because NOSB makes decisions that, in large part, determine the future of organic foods, ANH-USA has been engaged with the Board for some time.

After reviewing the agenda, we noted two items of concern.

GMO Vaccines

The NOSB continues to avoid directly addressing the issue of keeping genetically engineered vaccines away from organic livestock. As noted in the materials for the Fall 2015 meeting, it seems the stated rationale for NOSB’s inaction is the difficulty in distinguishing GMO from non-GMO vaccines, and how to define a GMO vaccine. In our coverage of last year’s Fall NOSB meeting, participants identified a need for methods to distinguish between GMO vaccine and non-GMO vaccines—but they did not take any concrete action.

Under current regulation, GMO vaccines are not allowed in organic production unless specifically approved by NOP. The core of the difficulty in keeping GMO vaccines out of organic food, however, seems to be vague definitions contained in NOSB regulations. “Excluded methods” are prohibited in organic production, but the definitions and terms contained in “excluded methods” do not align with the language used by vaccine manufacturers. These inconsistencies make it difficult for organic certifiers and farmers to know which vaccines should not be used in organic production—meaning that it is likely that GMO vaccines are currently being used on organic livestock.

This has been an issue for some time. In 2012 the NOSB recommended that the National Organics Program—the part of the USDA responsible for administering and enforcing organic regulations—identify all vaccines registered to the USDA as either GMO or non-GMO, and make this information available to farmers and certifiers. The USDA, however, has not gone forward with this recommendation, arguing that the creation of such lists would imply that there is something wrong with GMO vaccines.

This is just another unfortunate example of our government refusing to abide by its own laws. The NOSB has the power to end the use of GMO vaccines in organic livestock by creating a list of vaccines that are permissible and those that are not permissible. It is past time to do so.

“Inerts”

One of the primary functions of the NOSB is to create lists of materials and substances that are allowed or not allowed in organic production. One issue over the last few years has been exemptions for “inerts”—synthetic chemicals in pesticides that are considered to be “inactive,” even though, as groups like the Center for Food Safety have shown, many so-called “inerts” are actually toxic and active. Considering that some pesticides are composed almost entirely of “inerts,” it is especially important for these chemicals to be reviewed by NOSB in a timely manner and disallowed in organic production.

Despite this urgent need, the NOSB has been dragging its feet for years when it comes to reviewing and ruling on the lists of “inert” chemicals—some of which are known endocrine disruptors. Following a change in how the EPA classifies “inerts,” the NOSB recommended the creation of a task force at its April 2010 meeting to work with the EPA to reevaluate and update its own list of “inerts.” Then, at its October 2010 meeting, the NOSB renewed its exemptions for “inerts” that were considered to pose minimal risk until October 2017. In May 2012, NOSB recommended the same expiration date for “inerts” with an “unknown toxicity” level.

This may sound good, but the problem is that recent changes have completely undermined how and when non-organic substance are removed from organic production—also known as “sunset” provisions. Previously, any exemptions from organic standards were set to expire, or “sunset,” on a specific date—unless they were reinstated by a “decisive” two-thirds majority vote of the NOSB. Now it’s just the reverse: a synthetic material can be permitted to remain in an organic food indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority votes to remove it from the exempted list. So, if NOSB does not vote to allow “inerts” to be removed, they could stay in organic production indefinitely.

Consumers often pay a high premium to purchase organic products to promote health and avoid the toxic pesticides and other contaminants that have come to characterize our industrial agricultural system. These consumers deserve an organic label that delivers on these promises and prevents companies from taking shortcuts.

Action Alert! Send a message to the NOSB and the USDA, urging them to take concrete steps toward removing GMO vaccines and dangerous “inerts” from organic production, where they do not belong. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1jvMH8v via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/1P4q8E9

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.

Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.

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




from http://ift.tt/1P4qafe

Action Alert: Tell Congress Antidepressants Are Dangerous!

Related article: New Evidence that Antidepressants Are Causing an Epidemic of Violence

Trouble Taking Action? Click here.

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2629 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2629 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2629 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2629”).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2629); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1Gfhr2Avar ifrm_iframe2629 = document.getElementById(“iframe2629”);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2629 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2629() {}

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




from http://ift.tt/1P4q8DX

Action Alert: No GMO Vaccines or Pesticides in Organic Food!

Related article: Organics Board to Review GMO Vaccines for Animals, Pesticides Allowed on Food

Trouble Taking Action? Click here.

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2632 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2632 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2632 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2632”).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2632); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1GfhpaXvar ifrm_iframe2632 = document.getElementById(“iframe2632”);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2632 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2632() {}

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




from http://ift.tt/1P4qaf6

New Evidence that Antidepressants Are Causing an Epidemic of Violence

An article in the current British Medical Journal explains why the link is stronger than previously thought. Action Alert!

ANH-USA has researched dozens of the most high-profile cases of violent crimes over the last few decades. We found that in just under half of the cases (eleven out of twenty-three), the perpetrator was documented to be taking, or had recently stopped taking, some form of antidepressant or antipsychotic medication.

In another seven cases, the killer had been on these medications earlier. We suspect that number is even higher, but the information is either not publicly available or not known.

Other publications support these findings. Mother Jones looked at all mass shootings from 1982 through 2015—seventy-two incidents altogether. Of these, more than half of the perpetrators (forty-three) had shown signs of mental illness prior to the crime. Given the propensity of conventional doctors to prescribe antidepressants and other antipsychotic drugs (more on this below), it does not seem like a large leap to assume that many of these perpetrators were taking medications.

The FDA recognizes this, and many antidepressants carry “black box warnings,” the most stringent precaution a drug label can carry before being removed from the market. Many antidepressants carry a black box warning of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior. Dr. Robert Whitaker notes that there is also a shocking risk of increased violence to others, which is not highlighted in the black box.

Important research has shown major drugs like Paxil and Prozac to be linked with violence at a substantially higher rate than other drugs—users of Paxil are 10.3 times more likely to do violence to themselves or others, while users of Prozac are 10.9 times more likely to commit acts of violence. Other evidence shows that people who have exhibited no propensity for violence or aggression can develop violent behavior soon after beginning antidepressants. (You can find still more evidence of the link between antidepressants and violence inour previous coverage of the topic.)

The FDA relies on studies conducted by major drug companies themselves, which may not be reliable. Even if the data is pristine, the interpretation will almost certainly be skewed in favor of the drug.

Consider the case of Paxil. Fourteen years ago the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), published a study which was interpreted to mean that Paxil was safe and effective for teens. A new analysis of that same data, published this week in the prestigious British Medical Journal, found the exact opposite to be true—that teenagers on Paxil did no better than a placebo on a standard depression assessment, and that GSK had seriously downplayed the drug’s dangerous side effects!

This reinterpretation was only possible because GSK, to its credit, allowed the data to become public. It should be noted, however, that this was only done once the patent had gotten older and was thus less valuable.

Suicide and violence are just two side effects of antidepressants. There have been a total 134 warnings from regulatory agencies in eleven countries including:

  • 30 warnings that antidepressants cause heart problems
  • 21 warnings that they cause birth defects
  • 6 warnings that they cause anxiety
  • 5 warnings that they cause mania or psychosis
  • 4 warnings that they cause death
  • 4 warnings that they cause hallucinations or delusional thinking
  • 4 warnings that they cause involuntary movements
  • 2 warnings that they cause sexual dysfunction

There is a great deal we don’t know, partly because so much of drug companies’ research on these drugs is kept secret. But the correlation between violent crime and the use of these legal, mind-altering prescription drugs is too strong to be ignored, while scientific evidence of the connection continues to mount. So why hasn’t the FDA done anything?

The answer should be clear enough. Antidepressants are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the US. About 10% of Americans—30 million people—are on antidepressants, which includes 25% of women in their 40s and 50s. Antidepressant use has increased an astounding 400% in recent years. This translates into billions of dollars in profits worldwide for the pharmaceutical industry. And drug company money represent a substantial percentage of the FDA’s operating budget.

What is especially tragic about the wide use of antidepressants and their connection to violence and other terrible side effects is the fact that there are far safer, natural alternatives. We’ve reported before about some of these.

Sometimes depression is triggered by a life event or series of events. But what conventional medicine generally fails to notice is the connection between the brain and the body—how the body, and especially the gut, can have a profound effect on the brain, and vice versa. In some cases, it is a simple nutrient that is missing. It is often B vitamins, or it may be a mineral such as magnesium.

An integrative approach to medicine also addresses the imbalances in the body that may cause our mood to be out of whack. Consider that 95% of the body’s serotonin, the chemical that most depression drugs try to increase, is found in the gut. The standard American diet does not optimize either serotonin or gut health, leading to leaky gut syndrome and sustained inflammation.

Antibiotic use can also lead to gut dysbiosis and leaky gut because they destroy the good bacteria lining the intestines, allowing pathogenic bacteria to colonize. When the lining of the digestive system becomes permeable, toxic substances and bacteria leak into the bloodstream, triggering food sensitivities, inflammation, and autoimmune problems.

Additionally, hormone imbalances caused by hypothyroidism, which often goes undiagnosed, may cause mental health problems. Many people taking antidepressant medications, then, should really be addressing the underlying thyroid issue.

To find an integrative doctor in your area who won’t simply prescribe Prozac but will address the root cause, click here for some helpful links.

This is a life-or-death issue. How many more violent crimes will we have to endure before something is done about SSRIs and other mental health medications?

A recent news story told of new protocols and training at the University of Virginia Medical Center, preparing staff for the possibility of a gunman on a shooting rampage, which the Emergency Manager Coordinator views as an “unfortunate inevitability.” The irony of this is completely lost on the hospital staff. They see no connection whatsoever between the drugs they are prescribing and the “inevitable” shooter they are preparing for.

In 2011, ANH submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA asking them to expand the current black box warning on antidepressants to include the danger of violent actions toward other people, in addition to the current suicide warning. This request has so far fallen on deaf ears. This time, we are reaching out to Congress to see if they can urge the FDA to act on this crucial issue.

Action Alert! Congress recently observed Mental Health Awareness Month. Write to your legislators and urge them to take meaningful steps towards addressing this serious issue—such as directing the FDA to update their black box warnings of antidepressants to include warnings of increased violent behavior. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Gfhrj0 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1KQtrtl

Organics Board to Review GMO Vaccines for Animals, Pesticides Allowed on Food

The fall meeting of the National Organic Standards Board is coming up. As usual, we need your help to prevent some bad decisions being made at the behest of industry. Action Alert!

The semi-annual meeting of the NOSB will take place October 26–29 in Vermont. Because NOSB makes decisions that, in large part, determine the future of organic foods, ANH-USA has been engaged with the Board for some time.

After reviewing the agenda, we noted two items of concern.

GMO Vaccines

The NOSB continues to avoid directly addressing the issue of keeping genetically engineered vaccines away from organic livestock. As noted in the materials for the Fall 2015 meeting, it seems the stated rationale for NOSB’s inaction is the difficulty in distinguishing GMO from non-GMO vaccines, and how to define a GMO vaccine. In our coverage of last year’s Fall NOSB meeting, participants identified a need for methods to distinguish between GMO vaccine and non-GMO vaccines—but they did not take any concrete action.

Under current regulation, GMO vaccines are not allowed in organic production unless specifically approved by NOP. The core of the difficulty in keeping GMO vaccines out of organic food, however, seems to be vague definitions contained in NOSB regulations. “Excluded methods” are prohibited in organic production, but the definitions and terms contained in “excluded methods” do not align with the language used by vaccine manufacturers. These inconsistencies make it difficult for organic certifiers and farmers to know which vaccines should not be used in organic production—meaning that it is likely that GMO vaccines are currently being used on organic livestock.

This has been an issue for some time. In 2012 the NOSB recommended that the National Organics Program—the part of the USDA responsible for administering and enforcing organic regulations—identify all vaccines registered to the USDA as either GMO or non-GMO, and make this information available to farmers and certifiers. The USDA, however, has not gone forward with this recommendation, arguing that the creation of such lists would imply that there is something wrong with GMO vaccines.

This is just another unfortunate example of our government refusing to abide by its own laws. The NOSB has the power to end the use of GMO vaccines in organic livestock by creating a list of vaccines that are permissible and those that are not permissible. It is past time to do so.

“Inerts”

One of the primary functions of the NOSB is to create lists of materials and substances that are allowed or not allowed in organic production. One issue over the last few years has been exemptions for “inerts”—synthetic chemicals in pesticides that are considered to be “inactive,” even though, as groups like the Center for Food Safety have shown, many so-called “inerts” are actually toxic and active. Considering that some pesticides are composed almost entirely of “inerts,” it is especially important for these chemicals to be reviewed by NOSB in a timely manner and disallowed in organic production.

Despite this urgent need, the NOSB has been dragging its feet for years when it comes to reviewing and ruling on the lists of “inert” chemicals—some of which are known endocrine disruptors. Following a change in how the EPA classifies “inerts,” the NOSB recommended the creation of a task force at its April 2010 meeting to work with the EPA to reevaluate and update its own list of “inerts.” Then, at its October 2010 meeting, the NOSB renewed its exemptions for “inerts” that were considered to pose minimal risk until October 2017. In May 2012, NOSB recommended the same expiration date for “inerts” with an “unknown toxicity” level.

This may sound good, but the problem is that recent changes have completely undermined how and when non-organic substance are removed from organic production—also known as “sunset” provisions. Previously, any exemptions from organic standards were set to expire, or “sunset,” on a specific date—unless they were reinstated by a “decisive” two-thirds majority vote of the NOSB. Now it’s just the reverse: a synthetic material can be permitted to remain in an organic food indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority votes to remove it from the exempted list. So, if NOSB does not vote to allow “inerts” to be removed, they could stay in organic production indefinitely.

Consumers often pay a high premium to purchase organic products to promote health and avoid the toxic pesticides and other contaminants that have come to characterize our industrial agricultural system. These consumers deserve an organic label that delivers on these promises and prevents companies from taking shortcuts.

Action Alert! Send a message to the NOSB and the USDA, urging them to take concrete steps toward removing GMO vaccines and dangerous “inerts” from organic production, where they do not belong. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1jvMH8v via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1O6qCud

Natural Health News Briefs: September 29, 2015

Statins Age You Faster?—New Study

A recently published study in the American Journal of Physiology has shown that statins—anti-cholesterol drugs—are disrupting our stem cells.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the ability to create different kinds of cells (such as skin, muscle, or bone cells). They are central to the body’s ability to heal itself and also seem to be involved in the body’s aging process.

Dr. Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist at Tulane and the lead author of the study, was quoted as saying,

Our study shows statins may speed up the aging process. People who use statins as a preventive medicine for heath should think again, as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems, and joint problems [as well].

Even after a only a few weeks on statins, many patients begin feeling years older. Patients experience memory loss, muscle pain, diabetes, cataracts, liver dysfunction, diabetes, and fatigue.

Despite the long laundry list of negative side effects that have been linked to statin use, they are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in existence: one in four Americans are on this medication.

Doctors, Already Buried in Needless Paperwork, Face a New Avalanche of It

On October 1, new regulations go into effect that will expand the set of codes that doctors use to describe illnesses and injuries to insurance companies. The number of codes is increasing from 14,000 to a staggering 70,000.

As we noted previously, imagine being required to use an online drop down menu to search through 70,000 options to find just the right one. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Many of the codes are absurdly detailed. For example, why should a doctor have to note that an injury was sustained in a prison swimming pool, or in a human stampede while resting or sleeping? Believe it or not, each of those circumstances, plus thousands more, has its own unique code. Dr. Julian Whitaker, in his October 2015 newsletter, found these ridiculous examples as well: “burn due to water skis on fire,” “struck by turtle,” “hurt at opera,” and “sucked into jet engine”!

It isn’t just bureaucrats who have a stake in this nonsense. So does the American Medical Association, which has a very lucrative government granted monopoly in coding services.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1GfhriQ via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1O6qCu7

Action Alert: Tell Congress Antidepressants Are Dangerous!

Related article: New Evidence that Antidepressants Are Causing an Epidemic of Violence

Trouble Taking Action? Click here.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1jvMIJE via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Reqya5

Action Alert: No GMO Vaccines or Pesticides in Organic Food!

Related article: Organics Board to Review GMO Vaccines for Animals, Pesticides Allowed on Food

Trouble Taking Action? Click here.



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

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

New Congressional Bills Aim to Protect Consumer Access to Raw Milk

Federal bills have been introduced that will make it easier to sell raw milk across state borders—but they need our support to succeed. Action Alert!

Late last week, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and a bipartisan coalition of sixteen other lawmakers including Jared Polis (D-CO), have reintroduced two important bills, the Milk Freedom Act and the Interstate Milk Freedom Act.

The Milk Freedom Act would prohibit the government from interfering with the interstate traffic of raw milk products. The Interstate Milk Freedom Act would explicitly allow the shipment of raw milk between two states where the sale of raw milk is already legal.

While the goals of these bills may seem rather modest, their passage would mean a huge step forward, given the lunacy of the government’s current stance on raw milk. Although Congress has never banned raw milk directly, the FDA has been aggressively targeting small family producers of raw milk for years, as in the year-long sting operation on an Amish dairy farmer, which climaxed in an early morning armed raid and the destruction of his business.

This aggressive stance toward raw milk is no doubt linked to the government’s close ties to massive dairy companies and “Big Farma”—whose agenda these two bills threaten. The truth is that the FDA’s harassment of small dairy producers has almost nothing to do with consumer safety but a great deal to do with guaranteeing the profits of large dairy producers.

The FDA warns that raw milk can carry dangerous pathogens, but these bad bacteria are often the result of the conditions and practices found on industrial farming operations. Drinking raw milk from CAFO-raised cows would, indeed, be dangerous, but drinking raw milk from an organically raised, grass-fed cow has been shown to have numerous health benefits. For more on the safety of raw milk, please see our companion article on the FDA’s war on cheese from raw milk and also our earlier coverage of this issue.

These federal bills are a welcome chance to reverse long-standing narrow-mindedness and cronyism that protects large dairy producers and increase consumer access to quality raw milk.

Action Alert! Write to your legislators in Congress and urge them to support the Milk Freedom Act and the Interstate Milk Freedom Act! Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action

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




from http://ift.tt/1V885lg

Think You’re Buying Raw Milk Cheese? Maybe Not.

Some raw milk cheese you’re buying from large companies in the US may be falsely labeled. It isn’t raw at all—it’s been “subpasteurized”!

The Healthy Home Economist, a website run by Sarah Pope, recently ran a fascinating article detailing how large health food companies are tricking consumers into thinking they’re buying real raw milk cheese by “subpasteurizing” the product.

Federal regulation strictly defines pasteurization. According to federal law:

If the cheese is labeled as pasteurized, the milk shall be pasteurized by subjecting every particle of milk to a minimum temperature of 161 degrees Fahrenheit for not less than 15 [fifteen]seconds or by any other acceptable combination of temperature and time treatment approved by the Administrator.

In short, a cheese that has been heated to a temperature of below 161°F for under fifteen seconds—temperatures high enough to deactivate the critical enzymes which make raw milk cheese desirable—could still be labeled “raw.”

Now, the Healthy Home Economist reports that the Organic Valley company admits to “subpasteurizing” its products, but has not divulged details on what exactly this means. This seems to us to be a ruse to charge a premium for a product that is deceptively labeled and does not deliver the health benefits consumers are expecting when they purchase the product.

The moral of this story? When purchasing raw milk cheese, it’s best whenever possible to do so from a local cheese maker—particularly one with whom you can directly speak to find out how the product is made. It is worth making the effort to seek out food producers who deserve your trust. Organizations such as the Weston Price Foundation and the Cornucopia Institute can help.

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




from http://ift.tt/1V887ts

The FDA’s New Attack on Raw Milk Cheese

Help us protect the best tasting and healthiest cheese from a spurious new government attack. Action Alert!

George W. Bush’s FDA banned the import of the finest French artisanal cheeses, which are usually made from raw milk that has been cultured with special bacteria, and then aged, which makes it even safer. This ban just happened to coincide with the French government refusing to join us in the invasion of Iraq and instead criticizing us.

Now it appears that Barack Obama’s FDA is going after our best domestic artisanal cheeses, also often made from raw milk.

Late this summer the agency began accepting public comments that would “assist the agency in identifying and evaluating measures that might minimize the impact of harmful bacteria in cheeses made from unpasteurized milk.”

What is the stated rationale for this? The FDA and Health Canada issued a joint assessment claiming a higher incidence of listeriosis—the disease caused by the food-borne pathogen listeria—in cheese made from raw milk as compared to cheese made from pasteurized milk. As we have always pointed out, the real risks are from industrially produced dairy products, even when pasteurized, not from small, artisanal cheese makers.

Consider these facts about listeria. Recent evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that, between 2009 and 2011, cheese made from raw milk accounted for one listeria outbreak and fifteen illnesses, whereas cheese from pasteurized milk caused five outbreaks and thirty-six illnesses.

Let’s put this in further perspective. The CDC determined that between 1993 and 2006, all raw milk products combined caused 202 hospitalizations and two deaths. If the FDA is truly motivated by food-safety concerns, why not take a more aggressive stance towards Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), since contaminated meat and poultry sicken an estimated one million people and kill at least one thousand each year?

Lots of evidence shows that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk:

  • Pasteurization has been shown to decrease the nutritional content of the milk, reducing levels of copper and iron.
  • The FDA even acknowledges that pasteurization reduces the vitamin C found in milk.
  • The pasteurization process also impairs beta-lactoglobulin, a heat-sensitive protein that helps the intestines absorb vitamin A.
  • As our colleagues at ANH-Europe point out, “Raw milk contains a host of enzymes, immune-modulating proteins, diverse beneficial bacteria, sugars, proteins, fats, minerals, nucleotides, antibodies, and other essential elements needed to nourish a developing baby.”

What is the FDA’s real motivation? We know the agency tends to back the biggest food and drug producers, because they directly help pay the agency’s bills and are also easier to regulate for a number of reasons—it’s much less work to inspect and interact with a small number of large companies, rather than a multitude of smaller organizations; big companies have larger staffs and more resources to make a regulator’s job much easier; if a problem arises with a big company, Congress can help keep it under wraps and conceal it from the public; and, since big companies know they need to “pay to play” in order to create monopolistic conditions, they can help create a revolving door by offering departing regulators cushy, high-paying jobs.

Big food companies are also always eager to stamp out competition from smaller companies with better products. If they are wiped out by the FDA, consumers will only be able to buy the big company’s products, no matter how poor in quality or taste they may be.

If the FDA receives enough messages protesting the path they are clearly on to ban raw milk cheese, they will likely back off for fear of offending Congress, which has to listen to the voters—so please take action on this issue! For more information on it, please also see our other articles in this issue, on raw milk cheese, and two important raw milk bills Congress is considering.

Action Alert! Send a message to the FDA telling them to look into CAFOs, the real culprits behind foodborne illnesses, rather than artisanal cheesemakers. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action

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




from http://ift.tt/1V8854T

GOP Candidates Criticize CDC Vaccine Schedule

But, like most people, they seem to be completely unaware of the recently disclosed CDC cover-up of crucial evidence on vaccine safety.

Toward the end of CNN’s Republican presidential candidate debate last week, moderator Jake Tapper tried to set off a firestorm by asking Dr. Ben Carson about vaccination:

Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines, childhood vaccines, to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes. You’re a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?

The question seems to have been intended to embarrass Trump or Carson or both. Carson’s initial response showed that he was completely unaware that a top CDC scientist had confessed to a massive CDC cover up of data showing a link between the MMR vaccine and a significantly increased risk of autism, particularly for African American boys.

In fact, a re-analysis of the original, raw CDC data found a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism in African-American boys who were vaccinated for MMR in the first two to three years of life. In fact, the incidence of autism was 340% higher.

This damning evidence was, and has continued to be, suppressed in the media. For a long time, the media has unquestioningly toed the government line on the issue of vaccination. Politico’s Sarah Karlin, for instance, wrote this regarding the GOP debate:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities have said repeatedly that science has demonstrated there is no link between vaccination and autism. Giving children multiple vaccinations at the same has also been proven to be safe, the CDC said.

Of course, the evidence from the CDC cover-up shows this blanket denial of any link to be a patent falsehood.

But even without acknowledging or probably knowing about the CDC cover-up, Carson noted that there are substantial problems with the CDC childhood vaccination schedule:

It is true that we are probably giving way too many [vaccines]in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.

Tapper then turned to the other doctor on the stage, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for his position on this issue. Sen. Paul’s response:

[I’m] all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom. I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines out a little bit at the very least.

It was brave of these two candidates to respond in this way. This is an emotional issue, and the major media is on the side of the vaccine manufacturers, the big drug companies, which also happen to be keeping traditional media afloat with their ad budgets.

Not surprisingly, the attacks rolled in. The Washington Post reported that Dr. Carson drew immediate criticism from doctors and pediatricians across the country.

For example: “No, Ben Carson,” Baltimore pediatrician Scott Krugman wrote. “The answer is ‘yes,’ Donald Trump is wrong. Vaccines don’t cause autism. What are you talking about?”

Perhaps someone should direct those who hold this and similar positions on vaccines to some facts. For instance, though no child died from measles between 2005 and 2014, 108 babies died from the MMR vaccine. And despite the widely touted belief that the link between vaccines and autism has been “debunked,” researchers found eighty-three cases of autism among those compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for vaccine-induced brain damage.

Sadly, a reasonable discussion of the facts has long been absent from the debate over vaccination, as the mainstream media repeatedly attempts to slam and defame anyone who dares point to legitimate questions about vaccine safety, or who recommends, as Ben Carson does, a rethinking of the doses and schedule.

For more information about vaccines and some of the dangers that have been associated with them, visit our Protect Vaccine Choice page.

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




from http://ift.tt/1V8854J

New Congressional Bills Aim to Protect Consumer Access to Raw Milk

Federal bills have been introduced that will make it easier to sell raw milk across state borders—but they need our support to succeed. Action Alert!

Late last week, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and a bipartisan coalition of sixteen other lawmakers including Jared Polis (D-CO), have reintroduced two important bills, the Milk Freedom Act and the Interstate Milk Freedom Act.

The Milk Freedom Act would prohibit the government from interfering with the interstate traffic of raw milk products. The Interstate Milk Freedom Act would explicitly allow the shipment of raw milk between two states where the sale of raw milk is already legal.

While the goals of these bills may seem rather modest, their passage would mean a huge step forward, given the lunacy of the government’s current stance on raw milk. Although Congress has never banned raw milk directly, the FDA has been aggressively targeting small family producers of raw milk for years, as in the year-long sting operation on an Amish dairy farmer, which climaxed in an early morning armed raid and the destruction of his business.

This aggressive stance toward raw milk is no doubt linked to the government’s close ties to massive dairy companies and “Big Farma”—whose agenda these two bills threaten. The truth is that the FDA’s harassment of small dairy producers has almost nothing to do with consumer safety but a great deal to do with guaranteeing the profits of large dairy producers.

The FDA warns that raw milk can carry dangerous pathogens, but these bad bacteria are often the result of the conditions and practices found on industrial farming operations. Drinking raw milk from CAFO-raised cows would, indeed, be dangerous, but drinking raw milk from an organically raised, grass-fed cow has been shown to have numerous health benefits. For more on the safety of raw milk, please see our companion article on the FDA’s war on cheese from raw milk and also our earlier coverage of this issue.

These federal bills are a welcome chance to reverse long-standing narrow-mindedness and cronyism that protects large dairy producers and increase consumer access to quality raw milk.

Action Alert! Write to your legislators in Congress and urge them to support the Milk Freedom Act and the Interstate Milk Freedom Act! Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LLOxsu via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Qwy8fc

Think You’re Buying Raw Milk Cheese? Maybe Not.

Some raw milk cheese you’re buying from large companies in the US may be falsely labeled. It isn’t raw at all—it’s been “subpasteurized”!

The Healthy Home Economist, a website run by Sarah Pope, recently ran a fascinating article detailing how large health food companies are tricking consumers into thinking they’re buying real raw milk cheese by “subpasteurizing” the product.

Federal regulation strictly defines pasteurization. According to federal law:

If the cheese is labeled as pasteurized, the milk shall be pasteurized by subjecting every particle of milk to a minimum temperature of 161 degrees Fahrenheit for not less than 15 [fifteen]seconds or by any other acceptable combination of temperature and time treatment approved by the Administrator.

In short, a cheese that has been heated to a temperature of below 161°F for under fifteen seconds—temperatures high enough to deactivate the critical enzymes which make raw milk cheese desirable—could still be labeled “raw.”

Now, the Healthy Home Economist reports that the Organic Valley company admits to “subpasteurizing” its products, but has not divulged details on what exactly this means. This seems to us to be a ruse to charge a premium for a product that is deceptively labeled and does not deliver the health benefits consumers are expecting when they purchase the product.

The moral of this story? When purchasing raw milk cheese, it’s best whenever possible to do so from a local cheese maker—particularly one with whom you can directly speak to find out how the product is made. It is worth making the effort to seek out food producers who deserve your trust. Organizations such as the Weston Price Foundation and the Cornucopia Institute can help.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LLOxZL via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Qwy7YQ

The FDA’s New Attack on Raw Milk Cheese

Help us protect the best tasting and healthiest cheese from a spurious new government attack. Action Alert!

George W. Bush’s FDA banned the import of the finest French artisanal cheeses, which are usually made from raw milk that has been cultured with special bacteria, and then aged, which makes it even safer. This ban just happened to coincide with the French government refusing to join us in the invasion of Iraq and instead criticizing us.

Now it appears that Barack Obama’s FDA is going after our best domestic artisanal cheeses, also often made from raw milk.

Late this summer the agency began accepting public comments that would “assist the agency in identifying and evaluating measures that might minimize the impact of harmful bacteria in cheeses made from unpasteurized milk.”

What is the stated rationale for this? The FDA and Health Canada issued a joint assessment claiming a higher incidence of listeriosis—the disease caused by the food-borne pathogen listeria—in cheese made from raw milk as compared to cheese made from pasteurized milk. As we have always pointed out, the real risks are from industrially produced dairy products, even when pasteurized, not from small, artisanal cheese makers.

Consider these facts about listeria. Recent evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that, between 2009 and 2011, cheese made from raw milk accounted for one listeria outbreak and fifteen illnesses, whereas cheese from pasteurized milk caused five outbreaks and thirty-six illnesses.

Let’s put this in further perspective. The CDC determined that between 1993 and 2006, all raw milk products combined caused 202 hospitalizations and two deaths. If the FDA is truly motivated by food-safety concerns, why not take a more aggressive stance towards Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), since contaminated meat and poultry sicken an estimated one million people and kill at least one thousand each year?

Lots of evidence shows that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk:

  • Pasteurization has been shown to decrease the nutritional content of the milk, reducing levels of copper and iron.
  • The FDA even acknowledges that pasteurization reduces the vitamin C found in milk.
  • The pasteurization process also impairs beta-lactoglobulin, a heat-sensitive protein that helps the intestines absorb vitamin A.
  • As our colleagues at ANH-Europe point out, “Raw milk contains a host of enzymes, immune-modulating proteins, diverse beneficial bacteria, sugars, proteins, fats, minerals, nucleotides, antibodies, and other essential elements needed to nourish a developing baby.”

What is the FDA’s real motivation? We know the agency tends to back the biggest food and drug producers, because they directly help pay the agency’s bills and are also easier to regulate for a number of reasons—it’s much less work to inspect and interact with a small number of large companies, rather than a multitude of smaller organizations; big companies have larger staffs and more resources to make a regulator’s job much easier; if a problem arises with a big company, Congress can help keep it under wraps and conceal it from the public; and, since big companies know they need to “pay to play” in order to create monopolistic conditions, they can help create a revolving door by offering departing regulators cushy, high-paying jobs.

Big food companies are also always eager to stamp out competition from smaller companies with better products. If they are wiped out by the FDA, consumers will only be able to buy the big company’s products, no matter how poor in quality or taste they may be.

If the FDA receives enough messages protesting the path they are clearly on to ban raw milk cheese, they will likely back off for fear of offending Congress, which has to listen to the voters—so please take action on this issue! For more information on it, please also see our other articles in this issue, on raw milk cheese, and two important raw milk bills Congress is considering.

Action Alert! Send a message to the FDA telling them to look into CAFOs, the real culprits behind foodborne illnesses, rather than artisanal cheesemakers. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1OsTEEe via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Qwy7YG

GOP Candidates Criticize CDC Vaccine Schedule

But, like most people, they seem to be completely unaware of the recently disclosed CDC cover-up of crucial evidence on vaccine safety.

Toward the end of CNN’s Republican presidential candidate debate last week, moderator Jake Tapper tried to set off a firestorm by asking Dr. Ben Carson about vaccination:

Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines, childhood vaccines, to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes. You’re a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?

The question seems to have been intended to embarrass Trump or Carson or both. Carson’s initial response showed that he was completely unaware that a top CDC scientist had confessed to a massive CDC cover up of data showing a link between the MMR vaccine and a significantly increased risk of autism, particularly for African American boys.

In fact, a re-analysis of the original, raw CDC data found a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism in African-American boys who were vaccinated for MMR in the first two to three years of life. In fact, the incidence of autism was 340% higher.

This damning evidence was, and has continued to be, suppressed in the media. For a long time, the media has unquestioningly toed the government line on the issue of vaccination. Politico’s Sarah Karlin, for instance, wrote this regarding the GOP debate:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities have said repeatedly that science has demonstrated there is no link between vaccination and autism. Giving children multiple vaccinations at the same has also been proven to be safe, the CDC said.

Of course, the evidence from the CDC cover-up shows this blanket denial of any link to be a patent falsehood.

But even without acknowledging or probably knowing about the CDC cover-up, Carson noted that there are substantial problems with the CDC childhood vaccination schedule:

It is true that we are probably giving way too many [vaccines]in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.

Tapper then turned to the other doctor on the stage, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for his position on this issue. Sen. Paul’s response:

[I’m] all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom. I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines out a little bit at the very least.

It was brave of these two candidates to respond in this way. This is an emotional issue, and the major media is on the side of the vaccine manufacturers, the big drug companies, which also happen to be keeping traditional media afloat with their ad budgets.

Not surprisingly, the attacks rolled in. The Washington Post reported that Dr. Carson drew immediate criticism from doctors and pediatricians across the country.

For example: “No, Ben Carson,” Baltimore pediatrician Scott Krugman wrote. “The answer is ‘yes,’ Donald Trump is wrong. Vaccines don’t cause autism. What are you talking about?”

Perhaps someone should direct those who hold this and similar positions on vaccines to some facts. For instance, though no child died from measles between 2005 and 2014, 108 babies died from the MMR vaccine. And despite the widely touted belief that the link between vaccines and autism has been “debunked,” researchers found eighty-three cases of autism among those compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for vaccine-induced brain damage.

Sadly, a reasonable discussion of the facts has long been absent from the debate over vaccination, as the mainstream media repeatedly attempts to slam and defame anyone who dares point to legitimate questions about vaccine safety, or who recommends, as Ben Carson does, a rethinking of the doses and schedule.

For more information about vaccines and some of the dangers that have been associated with them, visit our Protect Vaccine Choice page.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1OsTCMz via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1L3XCm4

The FDA’s New Attack on Raw Milk Cheese

Help us protect the best tasting and healthiest cheese from a spurious new government attack. Action Alert!

George W. Bush’s FDA banned the import of the finest French artisanal cheeses, which are usually made from raw milk that has been cultured with special bacteria, and then aged, which makes it even safer. This ban just happened to coincide with the French government refusing to join us in the invasion of Iraq and instead criticizing us.

Now it appears that Barack Obama’s FDA is going after our best domestic artisanal cheeses, also often made from raw milk.

Late this summer the agency began accepting public comments that would “assist the agency in identifying and evaluating measures that might minimize the impact of harmful bacteria in cheeses made from unpasteurized milk.”

What is the stated rationale for this? The FDA and Health Canada issued a joint assessment claiming a higher incidence of listeriosis—the disease caused by the food-borne pathogen listeria—in cheese made from raw milk as compared to cheese made from pasteurized milk. As we have always pointed out, the real risks are from industrially produced dairy products, even when pasteurized, not from small, artisanal cheese makers.

Consider these facts about listeria. Recent evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that, between 2009 and 2011, cheese made from raw milk accounted for one listeria outbreak and fifteen illnesses, whereas cheese from pasteurized milk caused five outbreaks and thirty-six illnesses.

Let’s put this in further perspective. The CDC determined that between 1993 and 2006, all raw milk products combined caused 202 hospitalizations and two deaths. If the FDA is truly motivated by food-safety concerns, why not take a more aggressive stance towards Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), since contaminated meat and poultry sicken an estimated one million people and kill at least one thousand each year?

Lots of evidence shows that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk:

  • Pasteurization has been shown to decrease the nutritional content of the milk, reducing levels of copper and iron.
  • The FDA even acknowledges that pasteurization reduces the vitamin C found in milk.
  • The pasteurization process also impairs beta-lactoglobulin, a heat-sensitive protein that helps the intestines absorb vitamin A.
  • As our colleagues at ANH-Europe point out, “Raw milk contains a host of enzymes, immune-modulating proteins, diverse beneficial bacteria, sugars, proteins, fats, minerals, nucleotides, antibodies, and other essential elements needed to nourish a developing baby.”

What is the FDA’s real motivation? We know the agency tends to back the biggest food and drug producers, because they directly help pay the agency’s bills and are also easier to regulate for a number of reasons—it’s much less work to inspect and interact with a small number of large companies, rather than a multitude of smaller organizations; big companies have larger staffs and more resources to make a regulator’s job much easier; if a problem arises with a big company, Congress can help keep it under wraps and conceal it from the public; and, since big companies know they need to “pay to play” in order to create monopolistic conditions, they can help create a revolving door by offering departing regulators cushy, high-paying jobs.

Big food companies are also always eager to stamp out competition from smaller companies with better products. If they are wiped out by the FDA, consumers will only be able to buy the big company’s products, no matter how poor in quality or taste they may be.

If the FDA receives enough messages protesting the path they are clearly on to ban raw milk cheese, they will likely back off for fear of offending Congress, which has to listen to the voters—so please take action on this issue! For more information on it, please also see our other articles in this issue, on raw milk cheese, and two important raw milk bills Congress is considering.

Action Alert! Send a message to the FDA telling them to look into CAFOs, the real culprits behind foodborne illnesses, rather than artisanal cheesemakers. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action

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




from http://ift.tt/1QwuEJN