from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/21awI3O via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1mTCUKw
Monday, February 22, 2016
PBS’s Frontline: More Crony Coverage?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/21awI3O via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1LCWAJd
URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Sen. Pat Roberts’ voluntary labeling legislation is being rushed through Congress and must be opposed. There is no time to lose. Urgent Action Alert!
Last week, we reported that another voluntary labeling bill in the Senate was in the works, introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS). Last Friday the bill was released, and it has already been scheduled for a mark-up—when a committee debates and amends a piece of legislation. This means the bill could be considered by the full Senate as early as this Friday.
The speed with which this bill is moving through Congress is a testament to the power of the biotech industry and Big Food lobby, which is desperate to pass voluntary labeling legislation before Vermont’s mandatory labeling law goes into effect. When crony forces push hard enough, Congress can move rather swiftly: it is rare for such a major bill to be in the mark-up phase just seven days after being introduced.
Sen. Roberts’ bill has some minor differences with the House-passed Pompeo bill, but the main points are the same: the bill would preempt mandatory labeling efforts by the states and institute instead a voluntary labeling standard.
The alarming rate at which this bill is moving means we must act now to stop the legislation dead in its tracks.
Urgent Action Alert! Write to your senators and urge them to vote NO on Sen. Roberts’ voluntary GMO labeling bill. Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1TvwzC0 via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/21lpg2u
Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Will they listen? Action Alert!
A few weeks ago, we reported on PBS Frontline’s attack piece on the dietary supplement industry. The show’s producers trotted out many of the same debunked arguments that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and supplement critic Pieter Cohen typically cite—supplements are unsafe, unregulated, and are useless to boot. (For a more complete response to these baseless claims, read our article.)
After the Frontline piece aired, natural health advocates responded in force. PBS’s ombudsman Michael Getler—who is charged with reviewing criticisms from viewers—was flooded with emails and phone calls critiquing the show’s lack of balance. On February 5, Getler responded with a review of the response he had received. He had this to say:
I should say at the outset that I am not one of the [show’s] critics. I felt this was a valuable and cautionary presentation and public service; better to know than not to know and that—in the absence of regulation—common sense, consumer diligence and your doctor’s advice is a reasonable way to proceed. I do feel, however, that, given the enormity of routine use of vitamins and supplements by perhaps 100 million or more Americans—and the degree of mistrust by many of the pharmaceutical industry—greater context should have been provided that made clear that, despite some serious examples of bad outcomes on the program, this is not a public health calamity.
You will note that despite the many emails and phone calls he received, Getler continues to perpetuate the notion that supplements are not regulated. This is completely false, as we’ve reported time and time again. Supplements are regulated both by the FDA and the FTC and must follow stringent “current good manufacturing practices” (cGMPS) that are in place to ensure the safety and quality of dietary supplements.
The rest of the above-quoted paragraph uses weasel words to indirectly concede that we were correct—that supplements are overwhelmingly safe and Frontline completely failed to get this message across to viewers. But it does not address the issue of why the show did not disclose the financial ties of those interviewed with Big Pharma.
Later on in his article, Getler dismisses as “nonsense” the charge that PBS’s pharmaceutical sponsors had anything to do with the one-sidedness of the program. Really? It’s “nonsense” to believe the mainstream media is influenced by advertisers with large pockets? Next he’ll have us believe that large donors have no influence over the politicians they contribute to—which might come as news to those donors.
Getler also includes a response from Frontline to the backlash that doubles down on the “lack of regulation” line:
Early in the film, the acting FDA commissioner offers this warning: “The FDA does not do any review of dietary supplements before they come to market, and I think that all consumers need to understand this.”
Frontline continues by saying that “this lack of regulation” serves as the “backdrop” for the rest of the film—and as a contrast to FDA-approved drugs. The implication is that the FDA rigorously regulates drugs, so why not supplements?
There are two important points to be made. First, the FDA uses industry studies to determine if new drugs can come to market. No independent testing is done to check the industry’s results. This system presents many opportunities for manipulation. In the past, drug companies have withheld evidence that might lead a drug to be rejected, and the results have been disastrous (see, for example, the approval of Vioxx, which then killed 60,000 people). In other instances, FDA regulators ignore warnings from the agency’s own doctors in order to rush drugs through the approval process that are later found to be dangerous (see, for example, the case of Avandia). Nor does the FDA test actual pills as they come off the assembly line from who-knows-where (China?), or do follow-up studies.
Second, FDA pre-market approval of drugs has done little to ensure patient safety. Consider that pharmaceutical drugs, when properly prescribed, cause an estimated 1.9 million hospitalizations and 128,000 deaths each year. And that’s just in hospitals—deaths outside hospitals would add considerably to this total if they were recorded. In stark contrast, dietary supplements caused zero deaths in 2013, the last year reported. The same goes for prior years. What few adverse events that are caused by dietary supplements are mainly due to those over 65 having difficulty taking pills and choking.
Getler’s article, then, rationalizes a number of the glaring deficiencies in the Frontline special, while tossing off a half-hearted admission that the producers may have failed to contextualize many of the issues they raise—which is arguably one of the most important aspects of a journalist’s job! The deficiencies of the program are too egregious to be considered oversights—we see the fingerprints of Big Pharma all over this. But as donors to PBS, they have no influence over the programming, right?
Action Alert! Write to the PBS ombudsman and tell him his response is not factual—that the absence of context in the Frontline film is inexcusable, and does not even address the interview subjects’ conflicts of interest. Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q5YyUh via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/21lpeaH
Action Alert: Bad Senate GMO Labeling Bill
Related article: URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
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_iframe2849 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2849 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2849 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2849”).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2849); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1TvwzBQvar ifrm_iframe2849 = document.getElementById(“iframe2849”);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2849 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2849() {}
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q5YyDT via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/21lpdUn
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
New research suggests that a common household food attacks cancer at the root.
A recently published study in PLoS indicates that a substance found in ginger called 6-shogaol is a potent agent in fighting breast cancer—much more potent than chemotherapy and much less dangerous.
Shogaol—from the Japanese word for ginger, shōga (生姜)—is special because it doesn’t merely target cancer cells in general, but cancer stem cells that are responsible for the growth of tumors. These cancer stem cells, while few in number, can self-renew, split off, and create new tumors, and are resistant to chemotherapy treatments.
Sayer Ji, writing for GreenMedInfo.com, noted that one of the reasons this finding is so significant is that while conventional techniques such as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation reduce the size of tumors, they often fail to address the root of the problem, the cancer stem cells—not to mention the toll conventional treatments take on the body. If the “mother” cells are not eliminated, tumors grow back.
Ji makes another astute observation based on the studies findings. Natural substances like ginger, curcumin, and green tea
have been “time-tested” as acceptable to the human body in the largest and longest running “clinical trials” known: the tens of thousands of years of direct human experience, spanning thousands of different cultures from around the world, that constitute human prehistory.
As with so many other natural alternatives to conventional remedies (for instance, silver vs. antibiotics, vitamin D vs. flu vaccines), safer, cheaper, and often more effective treatments are rejected by the establishment in favor of patentable drugs that make lots of money for the companies that create them. Producers of natural products can’t even cite the underlying scientific evidence in many cases—like the study mentioned above—without facing fines or even jail. By law, only drugs that go through the FDA approval process at a cost of billions of dollars can make disease claims, and no one can afford to spend that money on natural as opposed to synthetic, patented substances.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1TvwzBS via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/21lpd6M
Action Alert: PBS Bias
Related article: Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
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_iframe2852 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2852 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2852 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2852”).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2852); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1TvwzlAvar ifrm_iframe2852 = document.getElementById(“iframe2852”);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2852 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2852() {}
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q5YyDL via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/21lpd6G
URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Sen. Pat Roberts’ voluntary labeling legislation is being rushed through Congress and must be opposed. There is no time to lose. Urgent Action Alert!
Last week, we reported that another voluntary labeling bill in the Senate was in the works, introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS). Last Friday the bill was released, and it has already been scheduled for a mark-up—when a committee debates and amends a piece of legislation. This means the bill could be considered by the full Senate as early as this Friday.
The speed with which this bill is moving through Congress is a testament to the power of the biotech industry and Big Food lobby, which is desperate to pass voluntary labeling legislation before Vermont’s mandatory labeling law goes into effect. When crony forces push hard enough, Congress can move rather swiftly: it is rare for such a major bill to be in the mark-up phase just seven days after being introduced.
Sen. Roberts’ bill has some minor differences with the House-passed Pompeo bill, but the main points are the same: the bill would preempt mandatory labeling efforts by the states and institute instead a voluntary labeling standard.
The alarming rate at which this bill is moving means we must act now to stop the legislation dead in its tracks.
Urgent Action Alert! Write to your senators and urge them to vote NO on Sen. Roberts’ voluntary GMO labeling bill. Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1TvwzC0 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1TvzeeS
Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Will they listen? Action Alert!
A few weeks ago, we reported on PBS Frontline’s attack piece on the dietary supplement industry. The show’s producers trotted out many of the same debunked arguments that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and supplement critic Pieter Cohen typically cite—supplements are unsafe, unregulated, and are useless to boot. (For a more complete response to these baseless claims, read our article.)
After the Frontline piece aired, natural health advocates responded in force. PBS’s ombudsman Michael Getler—who is charged with reviewing criticisms from viewers—was flooded with emails and phone calls critiquing the show’s lack of balance. On February 5, Getler responded with a review of the response he had received. He had this to say:
I should say at the outset that I am not one of the [show’s] critics. I felt this was a valuable and cautionary presentation and public service; better to know than not to know and that—in the absence of regulation—common sense, consumer diligence and your doctor’s advice is a reasonable way to proceed. I do feel, however, that, given the enormity of routine use of vitamins and supplements by perhaps 100 million or more Americans—and the degree of mistrust by many of the pharmaceutical industry—greater context should have been provided that made clear that, despite some serious examples of bad outcomes on the program, this is not a public health calamity.
You will note that despite the many emails and phone calls he received, Getler continues to perpetuate the notion that supplements are not regulated. This is completely false, as we’ve reported time and time again. Supplements are regulated both by the FDA and the FTC and must follow stringent “current good manufacturing practices” (cGMPS) that are in place to ensure the safety and quality of dietary supplements.
The rest of the above-quoted paragraph uses weasel words to indirectly concede that we were correct—that supplements are overwhelmingly safe and Frontline completely failed to get this message across to viewers. But it does not address the issue of why the show did not disclose the financial ties of those interviewed with Big Pharma.
Later on in his article, Getler dismisses as “nonsense” the charge that PBS’s pharmaceutical sponsors had anything to do with the one-sidedness of the program. Really? It’s “nonsense” to believe the mainstream media is influenced by advertisers with large pockets? Next he’ll have us believe that large donors have no influence over the politicians they contribute to—which might come as news to those donors.
Getler also includes a response from Frontline to the backlash that doubles down on the “lack of regulation” line:
Early in the film, the acting FDA commissioner offers this warning: “The FDA does not do any review of dietary supplements before they come to market, and I think that all consumers need to understand this.”
Frontline continues by saying that “this lack of regulation” serves as the “backdrop” for the rest of the film—and as a contrast to FDA-approved drugs. The implication is that the FDA rigorously regulates drugs, so why not supplements?
There are two important points to be made. First, the FDA uses industry studies to determine if new drugs can come to market. No independent testing is done to check the industry’s results. This system presents many opportunities for manipulation. In the past, drug companies have withheld evidence that might lead a drug to be rejected, and the results have been disastrous (see, for example, the approval of Vioxx, which then killed 60,000 people). In other instances, FDA regulators ignore warnings from the agency’s own doctors in order to rush drugs through the approval process that are later found to be dangerous (see, for example, the case of Avandia). Nor does the FDA test actual pills as they come off the assembly line from who-knows-where (China?), or do follow-up studies.
Second, FDA pre-market approval of drugs has done little to ensure patient safety. Consider that pharmaceutical drugs, when properly prescribed, cause an estimated 1.9 million hospitalizations and 128,000 deaths each year. And that’s just in hospitals—deaths outside hospitals would add considerably to this total if they were recorded. In stark contrast, dietary supplements caused zero deaths in 2013, the last year reported. The same goes for prior years. What few adverse events that are caused by dietary supplements are mainly due to those over 65 having difficulty taking pills and choking.
Getler’s article, then, rationalizes a number of the glaring deficiencies in the Frontline special, while tossing off a half-hearted admission that the producers may have failed to contextualize many of the issues they raise—which is arguably one of the most important aspects of a journalist’s job! The deficiencies of the program are too egregious to be considered oversights—we see the fingerprints of Big Pharma all over this. But as donors to PBS, they have no influence over the programming, right?
Action Alert! Write to the PBS ombudsman and tell him his response is not factual—that the absence of context in the Frontline film is inexcusable, and does not even address the interview subjects’ conflicts of interest. Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q5YyUh via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Q63RTK
Action Alert: Bad Senate GMO Labeling Bill
Related article: URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Trouble Taking Action? Click here.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q5YyDT via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1TvzdYx
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
New research suggests that a common household food attacks cancer at the root.
A recently published study in PLoS indicates that a substance found in ginger called 6-shogaol is a potent agent in fighting breast cancer—much more potent than chemotherapy and much less dangerous.
Shogaol—from the Japanese word for ginger, shōga (生姜)—is special because it doesn’t merely target cancer cells in general, but cancer stem cells that are responsible for the growth of tumors. These cancer stem cells, while few in number, can self-renew, split off, and create new tumors, and are resistant to chemotherapy treatments.
Sayer Ji, writing for GreenMedInfo.com, noted that one of the reasons this finding is so significant is that while conventional techniques such as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation reduce the size of tumors, they often fail to address the root of the problem, the cancer stem cells—not to mention the toll conventional treatments take on the body. If the “mother” cells are not eliminated, tumors grow back.
Ji makes another astute observation based on the studies findings. Natural substances like ginger, curcumin, and green tea
have been “time-tested” as acceptable to the human body in the largest and longest running “clinical trials” known: the tens of thousands of years of direct human experience, spanning thousands of different cultures from around the world, that constitute human prehistory.
As with so many other natural alternatives to conventional remedies (for instance, silver vs. antibiotics, vitamin D vs. flu vaccines), safer, cheaper, and often more effective treatments are rejected by the establishment in favor of patentable drugs that make lots of money for the companies that create them. Producers of natural products can’t even cite the underlying scientific evidence in many cases—like the study mentioned above—without facing fines or even jail. By law, only drugs that go through the FDA approval process at a cost of billions of dollars can make disease claims, and no one can afford to spend that money on natural as opposed to synthetic, patented substances.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
URGENT—Bad GMO Bill on the Fast Track
Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Natural Alternative 10,000 Times More Effective than Chemo
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1TvwzBS via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Q63SqF
Action Alert: PBS Bias
Related article: Turning Up the Pressure on PBS
Trouble Taking Action? Click here.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q5YyDL via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Tvzg6v
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
QR Bait and Switch
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LseT3D via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1PDCBOv
QR Bait and Switch
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1LseT3D via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1LshCdv
FDA Attacks Brain Health Supplements
We think this is to pave the way for a new blockbuster drug. Action Alert!
In October we told you about a potential new blockbuster drug for Alzheimer’s from drug giant Eli Lilly. Solanezumab is in the third and final phase of FDA drug trials, and if approved, could bring in at least $7.6 billion in sales by 2024 and probably much more. Other drug companies also have “big” Alzheimer’s drugs in the works.
Now the FDA has sent warning letters to five supplement companies targeting the supplement picamilon, which may help with Alzheimer’s, anxiety, and general brain health. It is a combination of natural ingredients niacin (vitamin B3) and GABA, a substance our body makes from the amino acid glutamine. This particular combination crosses the blood–brain barrier more effectively than GABA alone. The FDA, however, claims that picamilon does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary supplement because it is neither a vitamin, nor (in its combined form) a completely organic substance, nor a minor component of foods. The agency says that although picamilon can be synthesized from niacin, it is a different chemical entity, and is therefore “adulterated.”
According to the Dietary Supplement Label Database, forty-eight supplements currently list picamilon as an ingredient on the label. There is no public record of a single adverse event report with picamilon. It has also been widely used by doctors in Europe for decades, although it may be an approved drug there. It will never be an approved drug in the US, because it is natural and therefore cannot be patented. Not being patentable, no company will pay billions for FDA approval.
Fortunately there are other natural ways to get GABA to the brain, but we are reluctant even to mention them, lest the FDA go after them too.
One observer noted that “almost all vitamins and minerals are bound to some salt or compound for stability of the molecule, and usually for better bioavailability”—meaning that the same logic could be used to target any number of supplements on the market.
The FDA’s attack on picamilon appears to be an attempt to give Big Pharma an unobstructed playing field for their Alzheimer’s drug. Picamilon is the perfect ingredient to attack if you want to rewrite DSHEA (the law governing supplements) without actually rewriting it—simply because picamilon has very small sales and is too “small potatoes” for anyone to mount a major protest. But banning it sets a massive legal precedent that could affect countless other supplements. It could have devastating ramifications for the supplement industry.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and tell them that picamilon is not a synthetic drug at all, and needs to stay on supplement store shelves! Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
Will Congress Eliminate a Critical Supplement?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1onrjFo via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1SvWtqr
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
These three want lab-testing pioneer Theranos to be history. The future of medicine is at stake. Action Alert!
In 2013, we reported on Theranos, a new and exciting venture that had the potential to revolutionize medicine by making medical testing cheaper, faster, and more convenient. The basic idea was simple—to create testing technology that would allow individuals to keep tabs on their own health at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience of traditional blood testing. This idea was powerful enough to attract a flood of investments and a star-studded board of directors.
Recently, however, Theranos has been repeatedly attacked both by federal regulators and the mainstream media, both of whom seem particularly eager to deflate the enthusiasm over this innovative company. Worse, it seems to be working— Walgreen’s recently announced that it is suspending many aspects of its relationship with Theranos, including closing the Theranos Wellness Center in Palo Alto, California.
Walgreen’s announcement comes in the wake of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) letter detailing an inspection of a Theranos laboratory in which a number of deficiencies were found—including one that the agency said “posed immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety.”
This CMS letter must be put into perspective. Experts say that federal regulators issue many of these kinds of letters to labs as well as providers—suggesting this is less of a “five-alarm fire” than routine government business. Further, the CMS citation that posed “immediate jeopardy” to patients applied to one specific area of their Newark, California, operation—not the entire lab, and certainly not Theranos’ Arizona lab where 90% of the company’s tests are processed!
It hardly needs to be said that media coverage does not emphasize these nuances. The Wall Street Journal in particular seems to have an axe to grind. Recall that last November the newspaper published back-to-back front-page stories attacking Theranos. Their more recent story is titled “Deficiencies Found at Theranos Lab.” Other stories echo this sentiment with titles like, “Is Theranos Finished?” and “Theranos Sounded Too Good to Be True—and It Is.”
As has been the case with many innovators before Theranos, the sharks are circling—including the FDA. We’ve noted before how the FDA is seeking to regulate laboratory tests as medical devices, a clear overstep of its authority noted even by members of Congress.
The road to innovation is often a bumpy one, but if we allow federal regulators, entrenched medical testing companies, and the media to bury Theranos, it is consumers who lose. Let’s remember what’s at stake: the refinement of this technology could alter the medical landscape for millions of consumers who will no longer be at the mercy of a medical monopoly. Right now, two companies (LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics) control most of the market for medical testing. Enticed by all the money to be made in this field, hospitals are also increasingly getting in on the action.
Consider the world that a company like Theranos could make possible. Chronic diseases could be caught early and monitored like they never could before. With the speed and convenience of this testing, more individuals would be empowered to take control of their health. For instance, a person might read an article about the importance of vitamin D in the morning and, on the spur of the moment, pop in to a nearby drug store that afternoon to get an inexpensive vitamin D 25-OH test, thus providing a near-immediate answer to the question of their own vitamin D level. Or, rather than a hypothyroid patient going to an endocrinologist every few months to measure hormone levels, a patient can simply stop into a Walgreen’s and get the routine blood work they need to manage their condition. Anyone who has ever had to try to convince their doctor of why a certain test is needed will appreciate the approach being pioneered by Theranos. We must defend it and other innovators from those who want to use government regulation as a weapon to kill competitors, especially competitors offering a cheaper product.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and urge them to not kill this important potential innovation. Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QjXGdU via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1SvWtql
New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
…plus other GMO updates. Federal and State-based Action Alerts!
A recent USDA report acknowledging the spread of genetically engineered alfalfa into the wild is just further proof of what natural health advocates have known for a long time: that genetically engineered crops cannot “coexist” with traditional, organic agriculture.
The report details the findings of a USDA team that analyzed three areas where alfalfa is grown: California, Idaho, and Washington. Of the over 400 areas the researchers studied, over a quarter (27%) contained GE alfalfa with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready-resistant gene. The study’s results stated that “transgenic [GE] plants could spread transgenes to neighboring feral plants, and potentially to neighboring non-GE fields.”
This should come as no surprise. In 2013, a Washington farmer intending to grow non-GE alfalfa had his crop rejected by a broker after evidence of genetic modification appeared. Contamination also affected alfalfa exports to China after shipments tested positive for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene. When farmers complained to the USDA that their crops were rejected for export, the agency did nothing. In a letter to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), state agricultural officials blithely noted at the time that the levels of contamination were “within ranges acceptable to much of the marketplace”—except, of course, for foreign importers, on whom many farmers rely for income.
The problem is getting worse. Farmers in Oregon, fighting for a bill that would allow local governments to regulate crops and seeds, recently told legislators that contamination leads to real financial losses: “We lose money when we have a GMO contamination event, which I’ve had happen twice. We lose money directly, as have other growers,” said one organic farmer at a committee hearing.
When the biotech industry targets organic farmers, the farmers lose. Look at Steve Marsh, an organic farmer in Western Australia. He claimed he lost organic certification on approximately 70 percent of his property after winds carried his neighbor’s Roundup Ready canola seeds onto his farm in 2010. Unfortunately, Monsanto financially supported his neighbor’s defense, and Marsh lost the case. The Supreme Court of Western Australia has denied Marsh any further appeals—and told him he has to pay court costs of about $804,000. So it looks like Monsanto won’t be out a single penny, while Marsh lost practically half his growing income for three years because of the contamination. He’s now trying desperately to hang on to the farm itself.
There’s more bad news. Our sources tell us that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) is intending to introduce another voluntary GMO labeling bill that would preempt state initiatives to mandate the labeling of GMO foods, much like the legislation from Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS). It is unclear whether this is separate from the efforts of Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) on similar legislation. The biotech industry and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) are working hard to enact federal preemption legislation as soon as possible to prevent Vermont’s law from going into effect in July 2017.
There is, however, some good news on the GMO front. The recently approved AquaAdvantage genetically engineered salmon (“Frankenfish”) will not come to market until the FDA completes guidelines on how the GE fish should be labeled. This is entirely thanks to language added to the 2016 omnibus budget bill by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Additionally, a mandatory labeling bill in New York, A.617, was recently approved by the Committee on Consumer Affairs. It must now be approved by the Codes Committee.
There is also a lot of action at the state level to pass mandatory labeling legislation. Check below to see if your state is one of them, and click on the link to take action. Importantly, New Hampshire and Massachusetts are considering legislation which, if approved, will kick Maine’s GMO labeling law into effect. In New Hampshire’s case the situation is particularly urgent—the House Environment and Agriculture Committee recently gave the bill an unfavorable recommendation in a 12-to-7 vote. Legislators in New Hampshire—and all other states considering labeling bills—must hear from their constituents that a consumer’s right to know matters.
Action Alerts! Click the button below to send a message to your senators urging them to oppose federal preemption of state efforts to mandate the labeling of GMOs. Please send your message immediately.
State-based Action Alerts! Check below if your state is considering mandatory GMO legislation, and click on the corresponding link.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
FDA Attacks Brain Health Supplements
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
Will Congress Eliminate a Critical Supplement?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1onrlwO via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1mFTsWg
Will Congress Eliminate a Critical Supplement?
Vinpocetine has a number of established benefits. So why is Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) trying to eliminate it?
Last October, we told you that Sen. McCaskill, ranking member of the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging, asked FDA to pull vinpocetine from store shelves pending an investigation into whether it should be sold as a prescription drug rather than a supplement.
The rationale for this action was the same used to attack picamilon: because vinpocetine is composed of what the senator considers to be “synthesized ingredients,” it should not be sold as a dietary supplement.
As we noted with picamilon, this is very curious reasoning. Vinpocetine is a derivative of the lesser periwinkle plant, Vinca minor, making it akin to a botanical extract. It has a number of uses, including neuroprotective effects as well as improving brain health and cognitive function, and has virtually no side effects. Dr. Russell Blaylock, in the February Blaylock Wellness Report, notes other positive effects of vinpocetine including reducing cellular calcium (too much calcium in cells is very toxic), improving blood flow, reducing excitotoxicity, protecting mitochondria, reducing inflammation, reducing fat peroxidation, and exhibiting anti-cancer potential.
Further, vinpocetine is considered a new dietary ingredient (NDI) by the FDA after a number of companies filed the NDI paperwork in the late 1990s—meaning that vinpocetine is legally marketed as a dietary supplement. An NDI is defined by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) as any dietary ingredient introduced to the market after 1994, and any company wishing to market an NDI must submit notice and safety information to the FDA. As we’ve noted previously, however, industry is still waiting on guidance from the FDA explaining how, exactly, to comply with this part of the law, so companies that submitted an NDI for vinpocetine have gone above and beyond to comply with what they think the government wants. What message does this send to companies that are trying to comply with the law?
If vinpocetine is under scrutiny for being “synthesized,” then dozens of other plant extracts could be next, which would play right into Big Pharma’s hand and eliminate an important source of competition for their drugs.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
FDA Attacks Brain Health Supplements
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QjXEmq via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1SvWt9G
Action Alert: No Voluntary Labeling Standard
Related article: New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
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_iframe2846 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2846 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2846 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2846”).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2846); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1onrlguvar ifrm_iframe2846 = document.getElementById(“iframe2846”);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2846 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2846() {}
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QjXGdS via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1SvWrPj
FDA Attacks Brain Health Supplements
We think this is to pave the way for a new blockbuster drug. Action Alert!
In October we told you about a potential new blockbuster drug for Alzheimer’s from drug giant Eli Lilly. Solanezumab is in the third and final phase of FDA drug trials, and if approved, could bring in at least $7.6 billion in sales by 2024 and probably much more. Other drug companies also have “big” Alzheimer’s drugs in the works.
Now the FDA has sent warning letters to five supplement companies targeting the supplement picamilon, which may help with Alzheimer’s, anxiety, and general brain health. It is a combination of natural ingredients niacin (vitamin B3) and GABA, a substance our body makes from the amino acid glutamine. This particular combination crosses the blood–brain barrier more effectively than GABA alone. The FDA, however, claims that picamilon does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary supplement because it is neither a vitamin, nor (in its combined form) a completely organic substance, nor a minor component of foods. The agency says that although picamilon can be synthesized from niacin, it is a different chemical entity, and is therefore “adulterated.”
According to the Dietary Supplement Label Database, forty-eight supplements currently list picamilon as an ingredient on the label. There is no public record of a single adverse event report with picamilon. It has also been widely used by doctors in Europe for decades, although it may be an approved drug there. It will never be an approved drug in the US, because it is natural and therefore cannot be patented. Not being patentable, no company will pay billions for FDA approval.
Fortunately there are other natural ways to get GABA to the brain, but we are reluctant even to mention them, lest the FDA go after them too.
One observer noted that “almost all vitamins and minerals are bound to some salt or compound for stability of the molecule, and usually for better bioavailability”—meaning that the same logic could be used to target any number of supplements on the market.
The FDA’s attack on picamilon appears to be an attempt to give Big Pharma an unobstructed playing field for their Alzheimer’s drug. Picamilon is the perfect ingredient to attack if you want to rewrite DSHEA (the law governing supplements) without actually rewriting it—simply because picamilon has very small sales and is too “small potatoes” for anyone to mount a major protest. But banning it sets a massive legal precedent that could affect countless other supplements. It could have devastating ramifications for the supplement industry.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and tell them that picamilon is not a synthetic drug at all, and needs to stay on supplement store shelves! Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
Will Congress Eliminate a Critical Supplement?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1onrjFo via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1RKpU76
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
These three want lab-testing pioneer Theranos to be history. The future of medicine is at stake. Action Alert!
In 2013, we reported on Theranos, a new and exciting venture that had the potential to revolutionize medicine by making medical testing cheaper, faster, and more convenient. The basic idea was simple—to create testing technology that would allow individuals to keep tabs on their own health at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience of traditional blood testing. This idea was powerful enough to attract a flood of investments and a star-studded board of directors.
Recently, however, Theranos has been repeatedly attacked both by federal regulators and the mainstream media, both of whom seem particularly eager to deflate the enthusiasm over this innovative company. Worse, it seems to be working— Walgreen’s recently announced that it is suspending many aspects of its relationship with Theranos, including closing the Theranos Wellness Center in Palo Alto, California.
Walgreen’s announcement comes in the wake of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) letter detailing an inspection of a Theranos laboratory in which a number of deficiencies were found—including one that the agency said “posed immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety.”
This CMS letter must be put into perspective. Experts say that federal regulators issue many of these kinds of letters to labs as well as providers—suggesting this is less of a “five-alarm fire” than routine government business. Further, the CMS citation that posed “immediate jeopardy” to patients applied to one specific area of their Newark, California, operation—not the entire lab, and certainly not Theranos’ Arizona lab where 90% of the company’s tests are processed!
It hardly needs to be said that media coverage does not emphasize these nuances. The Wall Street Journal in particular seems to have an axe to grind. Recall that last November the newspaper published back-to-back front-page stories attacking Theranos. Their more recent story is titled “Deficiencies Found at Theranos Lab.” Other stories echo this sentiment with titles like, “Is Theranos Finished?” and “Theranos Sounded Too Good to Be True—and It Is.”
As has been the case with many innovators before Theranos, the sharks are circling—including the FDA. We’ve noted before how the FDA is seeking to regulate laboratory tests as medical devices, a clear overstep of its authority noted even by members of Congress.
The road to innovation is often a bumpy one, but if we allow federal regulators, entrenched medical testing companies, and the media to bury Theranos, it is consumers who lose. Let’s remember what’s at stake: the refinement of this technology could alter the medical landscape for millions of consumers who will no longer be at the mercy of a medical monopoly. Right now, two companies (LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics) control most of the market for medical testing. Enticed by all the money to be made in this field, hospitals are also increasingly getting in on the action.
Consider the world that a company like Theranos could make possible. Chronic diseases could be caught early and monitored like they never could before. With the speed and convenience of this testing, more individuals would be empowered to take control of their health. For instance, a person might read an article about the importance of vitamin D in the morning and, on the spur of the moment, pop in to a nearby drug store that afternoon to get an inexpensive vitamin D 25-OH test, thus providing a near-immediate answer to the question of their own vitamin D level. Or, rather than a hypothyroid patient going to an endocrinologist every few months to measure hormone levels, a patient can simply stop into a Walgreen’s and get the routine blood work they need to manage their condition. Anyone who has ever had to try to convince their doctor of why a certain test is needed will appreciate the approach being pioneered by Theranos. We must defend it and other innovators from those who want to use government regulation as a weapon to kill competitors, especially competitors offering a cheaper product.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and urge them to not kill this important potential innovation. Please send your message immediately.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QjXGdU via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1RKpU6Y
New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
…plus other GMO updates. Federal and State-based Action Alerts!
A recent USDA report acknowledging the spread of genetically engineered alfalfa into the wild is just further proof of what natural health advocates have known for a long time: that genetically engineered crops cannot “coexist” with traditional, organic agriculture.
The report details the findings of a USDA team that analyzed three areas where alfalfa is grown: California, Idaho, and Washington. Of the over 400 areas the researchers studied, over a quarter (27%) contained GE alfalfa with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready-resistant gene. The study’s results stated that “transgenic [GE] plants could spread transgenes to neighboring feral plants, and potentially to neighboring non-GE fields.”
This should come as no surprise. In 2013, a Washington farmer intending to grow non-GE alfalfa had his crop rejected by a broker after evidence of genetic modification appeared. Contamination also affected alfalfa exports to China after shipments tested positive for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene. When farmers complained to the USDA that their crops were rejected for export, the agency did nothing. In a letter to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), state agricultural officials blithely noted at the time that the levels of contamination were “within ranges acceptable to much of the marketplace”—except, of course, for foreign importers, on whom many farmers rely for income.
The problem is getting worse. Farmers in Oregon, fighting for a bill that would allow local governments to regulate crops and seeds, recently told legislators that contamination leads to real financial losses: “We lose money when we have a GMO contamination event, which I’ve had happen twice. We lose money directly, as have other growers,” said one organic farmer at a committee hearing.
When the biotech industry targets organic farmers, the farmers lose. Look at Steve Marsh, an organic farmer in Western Australia. He claimed he lost organic certification on approximately 70 percent of his property after winds carried his neighbor’s Roundup Ready canola seeds onto his farm in 2010. Unfortunately, Monsanto financially supported his neighbor’s defense, and Marsh lost the case. The Supreme Court of Western Australia has denied Marsh any further appeals—and told him he has to pay court costs of about $804,000. So it looks like Monsanto won’t be out a single penny, while Marsh lost practically half his growing income for three years because of the contamination. He’s now trying desperately to hang on to the farm itself.
There’s more bad news. Our sources tell us that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) is intending to introduce another voluntary GMO labeling bill that would preempt state initiatives to mandate the labeling of GMO foods, much like the legislation from Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS). It is unclear whether this is separate from the efforts of Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) on similar legislation. The biotech industry and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) are working hard to enact federal preemption legislation as soon as possible to prevent Vermont’s law from going into effect in July 2017.
There is, however, some good news on the GMO front. The recently approved AquaAdvantage genetically engineered salmon (“Frankenfish”) will not come to market until the FDA completes guidelines on how the GE fish should be labeled. This is entirely thanks to language added to the 2016 omnibus budget bill by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Additionally, a mandatory labeling bill in New York, A.617, was recently approved by the Committee on Consumer Affairs. It must now be approved by the Codes Committee.
There is also a lot of action at the state level to pass mandatory labeling legislation. Check below to see if your state is one of them, and click on the link to take action. Importantly, New Hampshire and Massachusetts are considering legislation which, if approved, will kick Maine’s GMO labeling law into effect. In New Hampshire’s case the situation is particularly urgent—the House Environment and Agriculture Committee recently gave the bill an unfavorable recommendation in a 12-to-7 vote. Legislators in New Hampshire—and all other states considering labeling bills—must hear from their constituents that a consumer’s right to know matters.
Action Alerts! Click the button below to send a message to your senators urging them to oppose federal preemption of state efforts to mandate the labeling of GMOs. Please send your message immediately.
State-based Action Alerts! Check below if your state is considering mandatory GMO legislation, and click on the corresponding link.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
FDA Attacks Brain Health Supplements
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
Will Congress Eliminate a Critical Supplement?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1onrlwO via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1PDcw1T
Will Congress Eliminate a Critical Supplement?
Vinpocetine has a number of established benefits. So why is Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) trying to eliminate it?
Last October, we told you that Sen. McCaskill, ranking member of the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging, asked FDA to pull vinpocetine from store shelves pending an investigation into whether it should be sold as a prescription drug rather than a supplement.
The rationale for this action was the same used to attack picamilon: because vinpocetine is composed of what the senator considers to be “synthesized ingredients,” it should not be sold as a dietary supplement.
As we noted with picamilon, this is very curious reasoning. Vinpocetine is a derivative of the lesser periwinkle plant, Vinca minor, making it akin to a botanical extract. It has a number of uses, including neuroprotective effects as well as improving brain health and cognitive function, and has virtually no side effects. Dr. Russell Blaylock, in the February Blaylock Wellness Report, notes other positive effects of vinpocetine including reducing cellular calcium (too much calcium in cells is very toxic), improving blood flow, reducing excitotoxicity, protecting mitochondria, reducing inflammation, reducing fat peroxidation, and exhibiting anti-cancer potential.
Further, vinpocetine is considered a new dietary ingredient (NDI) by the FDA after a number of companies filed the NDI paperwork in the late 1990s—meaning that vinpocetine is legally marketed as a dietary supplement. An NDI is defined by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) as any dietary ingredient introduced to the market after 1994, and any company wishing to market an NDI must submit notice and safety information to the FDA. As we’ve noted previously, however, industry is still waiting on guidance from the FDA explaining how, exactly, to comply with this part of the law, so companies that submitted an NDI for vinpocetine have gone above and beyond to comply with what they think the government wants. What message does this send to companies that are trying to comply with the law?
If vinpocetine is under scrutiny for being “synthesized,” then dozens of other plant extracts could be next, which would play right into Big Pharma’s hand and eliminate an important source of competition for their drugs.
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
FDA Attacks Brain Health Supplements
FDA, Allied Monopolists, and Allied Media Continue War on Medical Testing Innovation
New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QjXEmq via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1oHpraa
Action Alert: No Voluntary Labeling Standard
Related article: New Study: GMO Crop Contamination Spreading
Trouble Taking Action? Click here.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QjXGdS via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1oHptix
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Is Your State Being Targeted by a Medical Monopoly?
It may be—if a secretive, private, and powerful organization called the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) gets its way. State-based Action Alerts!
For years now, we have been reporting on the machinations of the FSMB, especially their most recent efforts to pass their Interstate Medical Licensure Compact in as many states as possible.
Don’t be deceived. While this is supposedly a private federation of all seventy state and territorial medical and osteopathic boards, the real forces behind it are hidden—though our evidence suggests it’s the American Medical Association working together with Big Pharma.
As the 2016 legislative session gets underway, a number of states are considering bills that would enact the Interstate Compact. We’ve reposted our most recent article on the FSMB here to give you the full story behind this shadowy organization and its push to establish a medical monopoly. If you already know the story, hit this link to see if your state is considering a bill and take action.
New Power Grab by Federation of State Medical Boards Threatens Integrative Medicine
Back in September 2014, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) released model legislation for the creation of an interstate medical licensing compact. The stated intent of the legislation is to streamline the licensing process for physicians who wish to apply for medical licenses in multiple states. According to Medscape, the model legislation would allow physicians to apply for an expedited license “in a state other than their own without filling out another formal application or providing another set of documents to the other state’s board. If they meet the eligibility requirements specified in the compact, the board in their ‘principal state’ of license can attest to their qualifications, and the second state can license them.”
The compact would take effect only after at least seven states approve the legislation. Once enacted, an Interstate Commission comprised of representatives of each member state would be created to administer the interstate medical licensing compact.
This may look like an innocuous or even useful move by FSMB, but a deeper analysis of this proposal reveals that the opposite is true.
The FSMB—a private trade association that sets standards which are often followed by state medical boards—has historically been no friend to integrative medicine. Despite having no public funding, transparency, or accountability, FSMB wields a tremendous amount of power over the practice of medicine in all fifty states. The organization has demonstrated its antipathy toward natural health since the mid-1990s, when it discussed altering the definition of health fraud to include alternative medical care! It would appear that FSMB considers innovative approaches to healthcare to be nothing more than exercises in “quackery.”
Operating in the dark as it does, it is hard to say who is running the organization or setting its agenda. But we suspect, based on the available evidence, that it is funded and controlled by some combination of the American Medical Association and Big Pharma. If so, it is one of the chief forces behind the kind of corrupt crony medicine we see today. At the very least, states should be wary of following the FSMB’s lead, much less ceding their power to an organization with so little transparency and public accountability.
FSMB claims its proposal “reflects the effort of the state medical boards to develop a dynamic, self-regulatory system of expedited state medical licensure over which the participating states maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process,” and is therefore the “ultimate expression of state authority.” Such a claim, however, is frankly not credible—especially considering that the language of the compact clearly states that rules made by the Interstate Commission would have “the force and effect of statutory law in a member state.”
The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts echoed these concerns, noting that
the Compact [takes] away the state’s autonomy and authority to grant licenses.…If [an] applicant is deemed “compact eligible” by any other compact state, all member states must grant licensure based on that eligibility. There is no discretion to look at moral character, malpractice history, training irregularities, or other requirements. There is also no opportunity for a state to disagree with another state’s interpretation of the compact requirements or their determination that a particular applicant meets those requirements.
In other words, contrary to FSMB’s claim elsewhere, the interstate compact clearly takes power away from the states.
There is a stunning lack of accountability with the FSMB-created Interstate Commission. While we’ve been critical of the actions of some state medical boards, at least there is some degree of process by which the public can weigh in when rules are created. But when one bad rule can affect at least seven different states, how can the public have any input? Considering FSMB’s record of enmity toward integrative medicine, we should be extremely wary of its proposal.
Another worrisome aspect of FSMB’s interstate compact is its Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements. FSMB would require physicians seeking a license through the compact to participate in a credentialing process overseen by one of twenty-four approved medical specialty boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). While ABMS argues that its recertification process maintains high standards, many physicians see this as little more than a money-making endeavor for ABMS—in fact, the chair of ABMS makes $1,000 a day. Worse, these certifications are often used as a requirement for hospital employment. As with monopolistic nutrition licensure laws, FSMB’s interstate compact could be a similar attempt to exercise undue control over the practice of medicine.
As the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons notes, the compact “would be a giant leap towards entrenching MOC as mandatory for ALL physicians and [would put]in place a new bureaucracy that will most certainly only continue to increase its power over the ability of physicians to practice and the rights of patients to see the physician of their choice.”
In short, FSMB’s proposal is an underhanded attempt to increase its control over the practice of medicine—power that would likely be wielded against integrative doctors. Currently, fourteen states have introduced FSMB’s model legislation. We must vehemently oppose this legislation wherever it pops up.
You may be wondering if it’s even legal for a state to delegate authority to a private organization. It seems that the answer depends on the state. Some states are strict and permit delegation of authority only if the delegating statute provides definitive standards or procedures. Other states with looser standards find the delegation of legislative power okay if the recipient has adequate procedural safeguards.
Political philosopher John Locke argued centuries ago that no legislature can legitimately delegate its power of legislating to any other body. The founders of our country thought they were incorporating this principle in our Constitution. Alas, we have increasingly deviated from this basic English and American common-law principle.
State-based Action Alerts! Check below to see if your state is considering, or has already passed, the FSMB’s Compact, and urge your legislators to oppose or repeal it. Please send your message immediately.
States where legislation is pending:
States where the compact is enacted:
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
HSAs Should Cover Supplements!
Tide Turning against Ag-Gag Laws?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q7wPrG via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1QTQSGZ
HSAs Should Cover Supplements!
New bills in both chambers of Congress agree. Action Alert!
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and three of his colleagues, Sens. Rubio (R-FL), Barrasso (R-WY), and Johnson (R-WI), have introduced a bill that would allow Health Savings Account (HSA) funds to go toward dietary supplements without having to get a doctor’s prescription; the same would apply to health Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs).
The legislation, called the Health Savings Act of 2016, does this by expanding the term “medical care” to include vitamins, minerals, herbs, homeopathic remedies, and other natural health products, and would allow spending up to $1,000 each year. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Erick Paulsen (R-MN).
Sen. Hatch and Rep. Paulsen introduced similar legislation in 2011 and 2013. The more support we can provide, the greater the chances that this legislation will either pass or be included in the next round of healthcare legislation. Patience and persistence will be rewarded. Please let Congress know how much this matters to you!
These bills are even more important because so many natural health advocates depend on HSAs and FSAs—they can be used for integrative doctor visits and treatments not covered by conventional insurance. And of course nutritional supplements are an integral part of natural health. Despite the fact that over half of Americans take supplements, most healthcare plans do not cover them. How many more consumers would supplement their diet if they were made more affordable? Expanding HSAs to include supplements will increase consumer access and choice, not to mention overall consumer health.
When the Affordable Care Act became law, there was a concern that HSAs would be eliminated, since they depend on the presence of high-deductible (“catastrophic”) insurance plans. We weren’t sure if any of the plans that qualified under Obamacare would be considered high-deductible enough for HSAs since the original goal of Obamacare was virtually to eliminate deductibles. As we all know now, the reverse occurred: deductibles have soared, so much so that most policy holders are now responsible for thousands of dollars of cost. The silver lining in this is that HSAs survived.
HSA plans slow the growth in healthcare spending. A 2012 study from the Rand Corporation found that families with consumer-directed health coverage like HSAs and FSAs spent an average of 21% less in the first year after switching from traditional coverage. The study found that if even half of consumers who had employer-sponsored coverage were in such plans, healthcare costs would fall by $57 billion.
Employers may also be waking up to these cost savings. Fully 66% of large companies offered one HSA-based plan option this year; this is expected to increase to 80%. Smaller companies have been shifting to HSAs as well.
Action Alert! Write to your legislators and ask them to support the Hatch bill (in the Senate) and the Paulsen bill (in the House). Remind them that nutritional supplements are a cornerstone of an integrative approach to health, and can help reduce healthcare spending if consumers take a preventive approach to health using supplements. Please contact your legislators immediately!
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
Is Your State Being Targeted by a Medical Monopoly?
Tide Turning against Ag-Gag Laws?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1QTIWp8 via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/1QTQSGQ
Tide Turning against Ag-Gag Laws?
After last year’s landmark decision in Idaho, more ag-gag laws are being challenged in court. State-based Action Alert!
Last year, we reported that a federal district court found Idaho’s “ag-gag” law unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
Like similar ag-gag laws in seven other states, Idaho’s law made it a felony to document and expose illegal and cruel practices at concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and other agricultural facilities without the owner’s permission.
Similar lawsuits are now underway in North Carolina, Wyoming, and Utah (the Utah lawsuit began in 2013).
The North Carolina challenge is particularly important given the breadth of that state’s law. It punishes whistleblowers not just at CAFOs, but in all workplaces. The North Carolina legislature, no doubt heavily influenced by the powerful hog farming industry, was able to overcome Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto to make the bill become law in June 2015. Last month, a coalition of animal protection, consumer rights, and food safety groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law, which went into effect on January 1, 2016.
Similar legal action was taken against two Wyoming bills passed in 2015 that criminalized the discovery of harmful practices and conditions on federal, state, and private property, and then communicating that evidence to federal or state authorities. You read that right: bringing evidence of criminal wrongdoing to even federal authorities is now against the law.
In Utah, the first state in which an ag-gag law was challenged, the legal challenge has dragged on since 2013. Recent developments suggest that a settlement is unlikely, and news reports suggest a trial could finally take place in late 2016.
We hope these actions will achieve similar results as in Idaho and embolden those in the remaining four states to challenge their ag-gag laws.
Let’s keep in mind why laws protecting the deplorable conditions on many agricultural facilities are dangerous as well as unconstitutional. CAFOs are responsible for foodborne illnesses like salmonella and listeria; are notorious for their overuse and misuse of antibiotics, exacerbating the “superbug” problem that is rendering many antibiotics all but useless; and ruin rural economies in a variety of ways. In addition, there is the incredibly inhumane treatment of the animals themselves.
As with the GMO issue, Americans have a right to know where their food comes from.
Action Alerts!
For Tennessee Residents! The Tennessee legislature is considering an ag-gag bill, HB 1838. Write to your legislators and urge them to oppose it. Please send your message immediately.
If you live in one of the seven states listed below that currently has an ag-gag law on the books, click the “Take Action” button to ask your representatives to repeal the law in order to avoid a costly lawsuit like the one in Idaho.
- Iowa
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Missouri
- Montana
- Utah
- Wyoming
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
Is Your State Being Targeted by a Medical Monopoly?
HSAs Should Cover Supplements!
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q7wPrI via Aloe for Health
from http://ift.tt/20TPw3C
Is Your State Being Targeted by a Medical Monopoly?
It may be—if a secretive, private, and powerful organization called the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) gets its way. State-based Action Alerts!
For years now, we have been reporting on the machinations of the FSMB, especially their most recent efforts to pass their Interstate Medical Licensure Compact in as many states as possible.
Don’t be deceived. While this is supposedly a private federation of all seventy state and territorial medical and osteopathic boards, the real forces behind it are hidden—though our evidence suggests it’s the American Medical Association working together with Big Pharma.
As the 2016 legislative session gets underway, a number of states are considering bills that would enact the Interstate Compact. We’ve reposted our most recent article on the FSMB here to give you the full story behind this shadowy organization and its push to establish a medical monopoly. If you already know the story, hit this link to see if your state is considering a bill and take action.
New Power Grab by Federation of State Medical Boards Threatens Integrative Medicine
Back in September 2014, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) released model legislation for the creation of an interstate medical licensing compact. The stated intent of the legislation is to streamline the licensing process for physicians who wish to apply for medical licenses in multiple states. According to Medscape, the model legislation would allow physicians to apply for an expedited license “in a state other than their own without filling out another formal application or providing another set of documents to the other state’s board. If they meet the eligibility requirements specified in the compact, the board in their ‘principal state’ of license can attest to their qualifications, and the second state can license them.”
The compact would take effect only after at least seven states approve the legislation. Once enacted, an Interstate Commission comprised of representatives of each member state would be created to administer the interstate medical licensing compact.
This may look like an innocuous or even useful move by FSMB, but a deeper analysis of this proposal reveals that the opposite is true.
The FSMB—a private trade association that sets standards which are often followed by state medical boards—has historically been no friend to integrative medicine. Despite having no public funding, transparency, or accountability, FSMB wields a tremendous amount of power over the practice of medicine in all fifty states. The organization has demonstrated its antipathy toward natural health since the mid-1990s, when it discussed altering the definition of health fraud to include alternative medical care! It would appear that FSMB considers innovative approaches to healthcare to be nothing more than exercises in “quackery.”
Operating in the dark as it does, it is hard to say who is running the organization or setting its agenda. But we suspect, based on the available evidence, that it is funded and controlled by some combination of the American Medical Association and Big Pharma. If so, it is one of the chief forces behind the kind of corrupt crony medicine we see today. At the very least, states should be wary of following the FSMB’s lead, much less ceding their power to an organization with so little transparency and public accountability.
FSMB claims its proposal “reflects the effort of the state medical boards to develop a dynamic, self-regulatory system of expedited state medical licensure over which the participating states maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process,” and is therefore the “ultimate expression of state authority.” Such a claim, however, is frankly not credible—especially considering that the language of the compact clearly states that rules made by the Interstate Commission would have “the force and effect of statutory law in a member state.”
The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts echoed these concerns, noting that
the Compact [takes] away the state’s autonomy and authority to grant licenses.…If [an] applicant is deemed “compact eligible” by any other compact state, all member states must grant licensure based on that eligibility. There is no discretion to look at moral character, malpractice history, training irregularities, or other requirements. There is also no opportunity for a state to disagree with another state’s interpretation of the compact requirements or their determination that a particular applicant meets those requirements.
In other words, contrary to FSMB’s claim elsewhere, the interstate compact clearly takes power away from the states.
There is a stunning lack of accountability with the FSMB-created Interstate Commission. While we’ve been critical of the actions of some state medical boards, at least there is some degree of process by which the public can weigh in when rules are created. But when one bad rule can affect at least seven different states, how can the public have any input? Considering FSMB’s record of enmity toward integrative medicine, we should be extremely wary of its proposal.
Another worrisome aspect of FSMB’s interstate compact is its Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements. FSMB would require physicians seeking a license through the compact to participate in a credentialing process overseen by one of twenty-four approved medical specialty boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). While ABMS argues that its recertification process maintains high standards, many physicians see this as little more than a money-making endeavor for ABMS—in fact, the chair of ABMS makes $1,000 a day. Worse, these certifications are often used as a requirement for hospital employment. As with monopolistic nutrition licensure laws, FSMB’s interstate compact could be a similar attempt to exercise undue control over the practice of medicine.
As the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons notes, the compact “would be a giant leap towards entrenching MOC as mandatory for ALL physicians and [would put]in place a new bureaucracy that will most certainly only continue to increase its power over the ability of physicians to practice and the rights of patients to see the physician of their choice.”
In short, FSMB’s proposal is an underhanded attempt to increase its control over the practice of medicine—power that would likely be wielded against integrative doctors. Currently, fourteen states have introduced FSMB’s model legislation. We must vehemently oppose this legislation wherever it pops up.
You may be wondering if it’s even legal for a state to delegate authority to a private organization. It seems that the answer depends on the state. Some states are strict and permit delegation of authority only if the delegating statute provides definitive standards or procedures. Other states with looser standards find the delegation of legislative power okay if the recipient has adequate procedural safeguards.
Political philosopher John Locke argued centuries ago that no legislature can legitimately delegate its power of legislating to any other body. The founders of our country thought they were incorporating this principle in our Constitution. Alas, we have increasingly deviated from this basic English and American common-law principle.
State-based Action Alerts! Check below to see if your state is considering, or has already passed, the FSMB’s Compact, and urge your legislators to oppose or repeal it. Please send your message immediately.
States where legislation is pending:
States where the compact is enacted:
Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:
HSAs Should Cover Supplements!
Tide Turning against Ag-Gag Laws?
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1Q7wPrG via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1TQIbQy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)