Thursday, July 27, 2017

Dr. Levin Legacy Fund

The staff and leadership at ANH-USA remember Dr. Warren Levin. We are so grateful for his groundbreaking work in Functional Medicine. We would not be where we are today without his invaluable contributions to the field.

ANH-USA has established a memorial fund in his name to honor and continue his work in Integrative Medicine. All money raised through this fund will go directly to the advancement of Integrative/Functional Medicine.

Donate Now!

Levin, Warren Mayer, MD., (August 1932 – July 21, 2017); Atlanta, GA.  Dr. Levin, a distinguished pioneer in Integrative/Functional Medicine, opened in 1974 the first alternative medical center in NYC. His landmark defense of his medical license in NY, culminated in a 1994 decision in his favor; paved the way for the continuation and advancement in the field throughout the country.  He touched countless lives with his vision for health and well being long before it was commonplace to think in those terms. He is survived by his loving wife, Susan; children Beth Galan, Julie Levin (Marc) and Erika Needleman (Matt); brother Joel Levin; grandchildren Dave & Chris Galan, Karina Rahardja & Emi Daigle; Binah, Mindy & Chaim Needleman. 

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2w3wKwG via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2uB5yaB

Dr. Levin Legacy Fund

The staff and leadership at ANH-USA remember Dr. Warren Levin. We are so grateful for his groundbreaking work in Functional Medicine. We would not be where we are today without his invaluable contributions to the field.

ANH-USA has established a memorial fund in his name to honor and continue his work in Integrative Medicine. All money raised through this fund will go directly to the advancement of Integrative/Functional Medicine.

Donate Now!

Levin, Warren Mayer, MD., (August 1932 – July 21, 2017); Atlanta, GA.  Dr. Levin, a distinguished pioneer in Integrative/Functional Medicine, opened in 1974 the first alternative medical center in NYC. His landmark defense of his medical license in NY, culminated in a 1994 decision in his favor; paved the way for the continuation and advancement in the field throughout the country.  He touched countless lives with his vision for health and well being long before it was commonplace to think in those terms. He is survived by his loving wife, Susan; children Beth Galan, Julie Levin (Marc) and Erika Needleman (Matt); brother Joel Levin; grandchildren Dave & Chris Galan, Karina Rahardja & Emi Daigle; Binah, Mindy & Chaim Needleman. 



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2w3wKwG via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2u25sW5

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Congressional Freedom Caucus Takes Wrong Turn

The Caucus’s new bill ironically misses what is most needed: consumer medical freedom of choice! Action Alert!

Last week, the House Freedom Caucus took steps to move forward on an Obamacare repeal bill. It is the same bill that passed both Congressional chambers in 2015 but vetoed by President Obama.

The bill repeals the individual mandate, most Obamacare taxes, the expansion of Medicaid, and the subsidies designed to help lower and middle-income Americans purchase health insurance.

But the most important part of the bill is what is absent. If passed, the Freedom Caucus repeal bill leaves in place Obamacare regulations that govern what kind of health insurance companies can offer in the Exchanges, such as the requirement for all plans to cover “essential health benefits.”

This is the crucial point. We’ve been arguing that the single most important reform that is needed is to allow a consumer-driven health insurance market to develop alongside government-run insurance. ANH-USA has fought in particular to legalize catastrophic-only insurance policies, which are key to allowing a consumer-driven system.

Legalizing catastrophic policies is essential because they offer consumers the freedom to choose a genuine insurance plan that covers real emergencies while using Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to cover day-to-day needs. Note that HSA’s, can be used to pay for some integrative services, and if not used, can be redirected to pay for retirement. It is the consumer’s money and the consumer tends to spend it carefully.

We suspect that in the long run the consumer run system would take over, because it would bring healthcare costs down. This cannot be done under Obamacare, because that bill helped reinforce all the medical monopolies that drive up health costs.

When the Senate unveiled its health care bill, we were optimistic that a proposal from Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) would have allowed catastrophic-only insurance policies. Unfortunately, the language in that bill would have put these catastrophic policies in the same risk pool as Obamacare plans, which would have meant that those purchasing the cheaper catastrophic plans would see their premiums balloon to subsidize the more expensive Obamacare plans.

Unfortunately, the Freedom Caucus bill gets us nowhere closer to a consumer-driven alternative to government-run insurance. This is discouraging. If the Freedom Caucus won’t endorse consumer freedom if medical choice, who will?

The bill faces slim chances of passing. Four GOP senators –Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Susan Collins (R-ME)—have said recently that they would oppose any bill that repealed Obamacare without including a replacement. Assuming those positions don’t change, the bill will not pass the Senate.

Action Alert! Write to your federal representatives and tell them that there cannot be any real health care reform unless a consumer-driven health care system is set up—which the Freedom Caucus repeal bill does not do. Please send your message immediately.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2utPg3A via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2uTkXnW

Congressional Freedom Caucus Takes Wrong Turn

The Caucus’s new bill ironically misses what is most needed: consumer medical freedom of choice! Action Alert!

Last week, the House Freedom Caucus took steps to move forward on an Obamacare repeal bill. It is the same bill that passed both Congressional chambers in 2015 but vetoed by President Obama.

The bill repeals the individual mandate, most Obamacare taxes, the expansion of Medicaid, and the subsidies designed to help lower and middle-income Americans purchase health insurance.

But the most important part of the bill is what is absent. If passed, the Freedom Caucus repeal bill leaves in place Obamacare regulations that govern what kind of health insurance companies can offer in the Exchanges, such as the requirement for all plans to cover “essential health benefits.”

This is the crucial point. We’ve been arguing that the single most important reform that is needed is to allow a consumer-driven health insurance market to develop alongside government-run insurance. ANH-USA has fought in particular to legalize catastrophic-only insurance policies, which are key to allowing a consumer-driven system.

Legalizing catastrophic policies is essential because they offer consumers the freedom to choose a genuine insurance plan that covers real emergencies while using Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to cover day-to-day needs. Note that HSA’s, can be used to pay for some integrative services, and if not used, can be redirected to pay for retirement. It is the consumer’s money and the consumer tends to spend it carefully.

We suspect that in the long run the consumer run system would take over, because it would bring healthcare costs down. This cannot be done under Obamacare, because that bill helped reinforce all the medical monopolies that drive up health costs.

When the Senate unveiled its health care bill, we were optimistic that a proposal from Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) would have allowed catastrophic-only insurance policies. Unfortunately, the language in that bill would have put these catastrophic policies in the same risk pool as Obamacare plans, which would have meant that those purchasing the cheaper catastrophic plans would see their premiums balloon to subsidize the more expensive Obamacare plans.

Unfortunately, the Freedom Caucus bill gets us nowhere closer to a consumer-driven alternative to government-run insurance. This is discouraging. If the Freedom Caucus won’t endorse consumer freedom if medical choice, who will?

The bill faces slim chances of passing. Four GOP senators –Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Susan Collins (R-ME)—have said recently that they would oppose any bill that repealed Obamacare without including a replacement. Assuming those positions don’t change, the bill will not pass the Senate.

Action Alert! Write to your federal representatives and tell them that there cannot be any real health care reform unless a consumer-driven health care system is set up—which the Freedom Caucus repeal bill does not do. Please send your message immediately.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2utPg3A via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2uVKKvl

Time to Face Facts About Drinking Laws

Raising the drinking age in the United States has been a total public policy failure.

It has been doing for 18-21 year olds what national prohibition did for the whole country in the 1920’s—promoting rather than restraining binge drinking.

In 1984, President Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which gave states an ultimatum: raise the drinking age to 21, or lose 10% of federal highway construction funds. This was ironic since Reagan claimed to want less federal government and a larger role for the states. One by one states raised the drinking age, making the US one of only a dozen countries where those under 21 cannot purchase even beer or wine. For most other countries, the legal drinking age is 18.

The federal bill was pushed through by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). They pointed to the thousands of fatalities caused by underage drinking and driving. The goal was noble— to save lives, including young lives. But, it hasn’t worked that way.

Consider the following statistics:

  • In 2010, there were approximately 189,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol.
  • Excessive drinking is responsible for more than 4,300 deaths among underage youth each year, and cost the U.S. $24 billion in economic costs in 2010.
  • People aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinking (more than five drinks over a few hours for males, four for females).
  • On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.
  • The number of reported cases of alcohol poisoning rose from 779 to 2,290 between 1998 and 2005 for 18-24-year-olds in the US.

The reasons for rampant and spiraling binge drinking among young people are fairly obvious. It is the allure of the forbidden fruit. In addition, because of the age limit, teens are exposed to alcohol in settings without responsible oversight., and dealing illegally both sellers and buyers focus on the most potent products. This phenomenon, in which illegal substances become sold in deadlier and deadlier forms because of reduced risk of detection, is true of a wide range of drugs. For example, heroin is sold rather than the opium from which it was derived because it is much easier to transport and conceal it.

Lowering the drinking age again could help. Some researchers even suggest lowering the drinking age further than 18– to as young as age 7 or 8 so long as it takes place in the home supervised by parents. This emulates a successful European cultural model where young kids are served small amounts of alcohol at family meals. By doing so, parents educate their kids about alcohol and rob it of the taboo that leads kids to sneak off and binge away from adult supervision.

We should learn from history. It is well documented that Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 to 1933, failed to decrease overall alcohol consumption, and ultimately led to vastly more drinking. Students of the period estimate that a few years into Prohibition alcohol consumption was back up to 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels, as illegal sources became established, and then kept rising.

The five martini business lunches popular during the 1960s can be traced directly back to Prohibition. Before prohibition, nobody would have thought that normal or acceptable. And, far from reducing crime and corruption, Prohibition also led to a golden age of organized crime with the likes of Al Capone and other bootleggers.

The fact of the matter is that a legal drinking age of 21 is not preventing alcohol consumption and abuse for those under 21, and could, in fact ,be making it worse.

And it is making it worse at a time when irresponsible cell phone use, marijuana use, and especially prescription drug use, including opioids, are creating problems as bad or worse than alcohol. When golfer Tiger Woods was cited for driving while intoxicated, he had not been drinking,. Reports indicate that he had been using prescribed drugs.

For those who are addicted to alcohol and other substances, there are natural ways to treat it. One of the most promising, based on recent research, is vitamin C, especially intravenous vitamin C. If intravenous C is unavailable, liposomal C will provide some although not all of the benefits. Regular exercise can also help counteract the negative effects of chronic drinking.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Congressional Freedom Caucus Takes Wrong Turn

 Same Old Cronyism At CDC

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tW6nrc via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2uVNAQV

Time to Face Facts About Drinking Laws

Raising the drinking age in the United States has been a total public policy failure.

It has been doing for 18-21 year olds what national prohibition did for the whole country in the 1920’s—promoting rather than restraining binge drinking.

In 1984, President Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which gave states an ultimatum: raise the drinking age to 21, or lose 10% of federal highway construction funds. This was ironic since Reagan claimed to want less federal government and a larger role for the states. One by one states raised the drinking age, making the US one of only a dozen countries where those under 21 cannot purchase even beer or wine. For most other countries, the legal drinking age is 18.

The federal bill was pushed through by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). They pointed to the thousands of fatalities caused by underage drinking and driving. The goal was noble— to save lives, including young lives. But, it hasn’t worked that way.

Consider the following statistics:

  • In 2010, there were approximately 189,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol.
  • Excessive drinking is responsible for more than 4,300 deaths among underage youth each year, and cost the U.S. $24 billion in economic costs in 2010.
  • People aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinking (more than five drinks over a few hours for males, four for females).
  • On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.
  • The number of reported cases of alcohol poisoning rose from 779 to 2,290 between 1998 and 2005 for 18-24-year-olds in the US.

The reasons for rampant and spiraling binge drinking among young people are fairly obvious. It is the allure of the forbidden fruit. In addition, because of the age limit, teens are exposed to alcohol in settings without responsible oversight., and dealing illegally both sellers and buyers focus on the most potent products. This phenomenon, in which illegal substances become sold in deadlier and deadlier forms because of reduced risk of detection, is true of a wide range of drugs. For example, heroin is sold rather than the opium from which it was derived because it is much easier to transport and conceal it.

Lowering the drinking age again could help. Some researchers even suggest lowering the drinking age further than 18– to as young as age 7 or 8 so long as it takes place in the home supervised by parents. This emulates a successful European cultural model where young kids are served small amounts of alcohol at family meals. By doing so, parents educate their kids about alcohol and rob it of the taboo that leads kids to sneak off and binge away from adult supervision.

We should learn from history. It is well documented that Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 to 1933, failed to decrease overall alcohol consumption, and ultimately led to vastly more drinking. Students of the period estimate that a few years into Prohibition alcohol consumption was back up to 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels, as illegal sources became established, and then kept rising.

The five martini business lunches popular during the 1960s can be traced directly back to Prohibition. Before prohibition, nobody would have thought that normal or acceptable. And, far from reducing crime and corruption, Prohibition also led to a golden age of organized crime with the likes of Al Capone and other bootleggers.

The fact of the matter is that a legal drinking age of 21 is not preventing alcohol consumption and abuse for those under 21, and could, in fact ,be making it worse.

And it is making it worse at a time when irresponsible cell phone use, marijuana use, and especially prescription drug use, including opioids, are creating problems as bad or worse than alcohol. When golfer Tiger Woods was cited for driving while intoxicated, he had not been drinking,. Reports indicate that he had been using prescribed drugs.

For those who are addicted to alcohol and other substances, there are natural ways to treat it. One of the most promising, based on recent research, is vitamin C, especially intravenous vitamin C. If intravenous C is unavailable, liposomal C will provide some although not all of the benefits. Regular exercise can also help counteract the negative effects of chronic drinking.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Congressional Freedom Caucus Takes Wrong Turn

 Same Old Cronyism At CDC


from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tW6nrc via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2gZNqTf

Same Old Cronyism At CDC

Recently, President Trump announced his pick to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the government agency charged with monitoring and managing significant public health problems. That pick is Georgia physician Brenda Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald served most recently as Georgia’s Public Health Commissioner. One of her signature achievements in that role was a childhood obesity project called Georgia SHAPE—a project underwritten by, yes, Coca-Cola.

SHAPE sounds eerily familiar to other Coca-Cola funded front groups claiming to work to reduce childhood obesity. It focuses on increasing physical activity but is silent about the role sugary drinks play in obesity. Clearly, the program aligned closely with the agenda of its million dollar benefactor.

It wouldn’t be the first time that Coca-Cola has cultivated or even placed friends in high places at the CDC. Last year, Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, resigned after emails showed she was helping the beverage industry fight back against newly published guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) that recommended restricting sugary beverages in the diet.

After Dr. Bowman resigned, we found out that Coca-Cola had ties to another CDC official, Michael Pratt, senior advisor for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Pratt had worked closely with another beverage industry front group, the International Life Sciences Institute, which, you guessed it, promotes the idea of “energy balance” and exercise as the key to combatting obesity.

These cases are far from unusual. Previously, investigative reporting revealed that Coca-Cola was bankrolling the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), a nonprofit that claimed to fund research into the causes of childhood obesity, but, in reality, pushed a program that claimed lack of exercise, rather than poor diet, was primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic. The bad publicity caused GEBN to close down in late 2015. After all, what use is a front group if its real backers and objectives are exposed.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Congressional Freedom Caucus Takes Wrong Turn

Time to Face Facts About Drinking Laws

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tzKkqM via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2gZPGdk

Same Old Cronyism At CDC

Recently, President Trump announced his pick to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the government agency charged with monitoring and managing significant public health problems. That pick is Georgia physician Brenda Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald served most recently as Georgia’s Public Health Commissioner. One of her signature achievements in that role was a childhood obesity project called Georgia SHAPE—a project underwritten by, yes, Coca-Cola.

SHAPE sounds eerily familiar to other Coca-Cola funded front groups claiming to work to reduce childhood obesity. It focuses on increasing physical activity but is silent about the role sugary drinks play in obesity. Clearly, the program aligned closely with the agenda of its million dollar benefactor.

It wouldn’t be the first time that Coca-Cola has cultivated or even placed friends in high places at the CDC. Last year, Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, resigned after emails showed she was helping the beverage industry fight back against newly published guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) that recommended restricting sugary beverages in the diet.

After Dr. Bowman resigned, we found out that Coca-Cola had ties to another CDC official, Michael Pratt, senior advisor for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Pratt had worked closely with another beverage industry front group, the International Life Sciences Institute, which, you guessed it, promotes the idea of “energy balance” and exercise as the key to combatting obesity.

These cases are far from unusual. Previously, investigative reporting revealed that Coca-Cola was bankrolling the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), a nonprofit that claimed to fund research into the causes of childhood obesity, but, in reality, pushed a program that claimed lack of exercise, rather than poor diet, was primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic. The bad publicity caused GEBN to close down in late 2015. After all, what use is a front group if its real backers and objectives are exposed.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Congressional Freedom Caucus Takes Wrong Turn

Time to Face Facts About Drinking Laws


from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tzKkqM via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2tWzJFL

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Senate Health Bill Action Alert

Please write your senators and urge them to allow a parallel healthcare system run by consumers in the next attempt to replace Obamacare. Action Alert!

As of Monday night, the Senate health bill is dead. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) joined Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in their opposition to the current draft, meaning Sen. McConnell (R-KY) does not have the votes to bring the bill to the floor.

ANH-USA has fought in particular to legalize catastrophic-only insurance policies, which are key to allowing a consumer run system. Under Obamacare, such catastrophic policies were theoretically legal for under thirty year olds, but in practice were unaffordable, costing just as much, sometimes more, than Obamacare bronze policies.

Legalizing catastrophic policies is essential because they offer consumers the freedom to choose a genuine insurance plan that covers real emergencies while using Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to cover day-to-day needs. Note that HSA’s, can be used to pay for some integrative services, and if not used, can be redirected to pay for retirement. It is the consumer’s money and the consumer tends to spend it carefully.

Given the polarized politics of healthcare, a sensible compromise is to allow two different systems. As we’ve written previously, a parallel, free-market medical system could exist side by side with a government run system like Obamacare. Those who want what Obamacare offers could stay with it; those who want different coverage could buy their own healthcare with the catastrophic policy as a back up.

We suspect that in the long run the consumer run system would take over, because it would bring healthcare costs down. This cannot be done under Obamacare, because that bill helped reinforce all the medical monopolies that drive up health costs.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Lee drafted an earlier amendment to the healthcare bill that would have allowed catastrophic plans and plans that do not need to follow certain Obamacare rules (like the requirement to provide “essential health benefits”), but Senator McConnell’s revised version of their amendment will not work. Here’s why.

The revised language lumps all non-Obamacare compliant policies in the same risk pool with Obamacare-compliant plans. This means that when older, sicker people buy the more expensive Obamacare policies, costs for insuring these individuals will be passed on to those on the cheaper catastrophic plans, resulting in higher premiums (although taxpayers will also subsidize, as the bill provides for $70 billion to help insurance companies cover high-risk individuals). This is just the same old, same old.

Under Obamacare regulations, in fact, insurers would be required to increase premiums for both catastrophic and Obamacare plans by the same percentage because they’re in a single risk pool. The end result would be catastrophic plans that are just not affordable.

Keep in mind also that, as is the case currently under Obamacare, it is the young and healthy who will largely be burdened with paying for the old and sick. This is true even though in today’s America it is the young who are poorest and the old who are best off.

There are other problems with this bill. Sen. Paul wrote eloquently how it is rife with crony capitalism. This legislation would deliver billions more taxpayer dollars to the private insurance industry. Is it really the government’s job to subsidize the profits of private insurers that are already making billions?

Before the new bill was released, we were cautiously optimistic that the Cruz/Lee proposal would create what this country sorely needs: a free-market alternative to Obamacare. We hope that future attempts to reform our broken healthcare system will include such an alternative.

Action Alert! Write to your senators and urge them to legalize catastrophic policies in their own risk pool in order to allow a REAL consumer run alternative to Obamacare. Please send your message immediately.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

New Danger for Small, Organic Farmers?

More Mainstream Media Censorship

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uvKIKR via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2u67dVK

Senate Health Bill Action Alert

Please write your senators and urge them to allow a parallel healthcare system run by consumers in the next attempt to replace Obamacare. Action Alert!

As of Monday night, the Senate health bill is dead. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) joined Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in their opposition to the current draft, meaning Sen. McConnell (R-KY) does not have the votes to bring the bill to the floor.

ANH-USA has fought in particular to legalize catastrophic-only insurance policies, which are key to allowing a consumer run system. Under Obamacare, such catastrophic policies were theoretically legal for under thirty year olds, but in practice were unaffordable, costing just as much, sometimes more, than Obamacare bronze policies.

Legalizing catastrophic policies is essential because they offer consumers the freedom to choose a genuine insurance plan that covers real emergencies while using Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to cover day-to-day needs. Note that HSA’s, can be used to pay for some integrative services, and if not used, can be redirected to pay for retirement. It is the consumer’s money and the consumer tends to spend it carefully.

Given the polarized politics of healthcare, a sensible compromise is to allow two different systems. As we’ve written previously, a parallel, free-market medical system could exist side by side with a government run system like Obamacare. Those who want what Obamacare offers could stay with it; those who want different coverage could buy their own healthcare with the catastrophic policy as a back up.

We suspect that in the long run the consumer run system would take over, because it would bring healthcare costs down. This cannot be done under Obamacare, because that bill helped reinforce all the medical monopolies that drive up health costs.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Lee drafted an earlier amendment to the healthcare bill that would have allowed catastrophic plans and plans that do not need to follow certain Obamacare rules (like the requirement to provide “essential health benefits”), but Senator McConnell’s revised version of their amendment will not work. Here’s why.

The revised language lumps all non-Obamacare compliant policies in the same risk pool with Obamacare-compliant plans. This means that when older, sicker people buy the more expensive Obamacare policies, costs for insuring these individuals will be passed on to those on the cheaper catastrophic plans, resulting in higher premiums (although taxpayers will also subsidize, as the bill provides for $70 billion to help insurance companies cover high-risk individuals). This is just the same old, same old.

Under Obamacare regulations, in fact, insurers would be required to increase premiums for both catastrophic and Obamacare plans by the same percentage because they’re in a single risk pool. The end result would be catastrophic plans that are just not affordable.

Keep in mind also that, as is the case currently under Obamacare, it is the young and healthy who will largely be burdened with paying for the old and sick. This is true even though in today’s America it is the young who are poorest and the old who are best off.

There are other problems with this bill. Sen. Paul wrote eloquently how it is rife with crony capitalism. This legislation would deliver billions more taxpayer dollars to the private insurance industry. Is it really the government’s job to subsidize the profits of private insurers that are already making billions?

Before the new bill was released, we were cautiously optimistic that the Cruz/Lee proposal would create what this country sorely needs: a free-market alternative to Obamacare. We hope that future attempts to reform our broken healthcare system will include such an alternative.

Action Alert! Write to your senators and urge them to legalize catastrophic policies in their own risk pool in order to allow a REAL consumer run alternative to Obamacare. Please send your message immediately.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

New Danger for Small, Organic Farmers?

More Mainstream Media Censorship



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uvKIKR via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2u4ChDk

New Danger for Small, Organic Farmers?

Fake organics aren’t the only threat to farmers growing real food.

Next year, the FDA’s new produce safety rule will go into effect. This rule is part of the suite of new regulations that came about as a result of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that was signed into law in 2011.

The produce safety rule sets standards that farms must follow to minimize the risk of microbiological contamination that could occur in the course of growing, harvesting, packing, or holding fresh produce.

The problem is that the government does not seem to have a clue about how much this rule will cost small farms.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) conducted a report analyzing the costs of complying with California’s Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (LGMA), a food safety program with specific safety requirements for producers of leafy greens. ERS used the LGMA as a proxy to understand what the potential costs of complying with the produce rule will be.

The report analyzed seven large farms that averaged close to $200 million in annual sales and found that compliance costs ranged from about $30,000 to $300,000. This isn’t a perfect comparison to the produce rule, as the LGMA includes some standards that are not in the produce rule. The produce rule, however, also covers other areas of production, though, so costs for compliance for the produce safety rule could in some cases be even higher.

The other problem is that ERS only looked at data from relatively large farms. What will the impact be on smaller businesses? The outlook isn’t good. The FDA’s preliminary economic analysis of the produce rule estimated that costs would be disproportionately higher for small farms. Small and very small farms, defined as operations with sales of $500,000 and $250,000 a year respectively, make up 80% of the farms that must comply with the produce rule.

This is not very encouraging, and shows that we were right all along: the FDA’s rules were written by and for the largest producers. Everyone else faces steep compliance costs that could very well put them out of business.

Some farms are exempt under the produce rule. (For an excellent explanation of the various exemptions, check out this explainer from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.) For the most part, farms that gross less than $25,000 in sales of produce do not need to comply. There is also the Tester-Hagan amendment exempting farms that 1) make less than $500,000 a year in total sales and 2) sell more than half of their products to local area consumers. ANH-USA worked with the natural health community to include this amendment in the final FSMA bill. The FDA of course undermined these exemptions where they could, but the amendment was an important inclusion.

Part of the problem is that regulation writers at the FDA have no knowledge of or experience on farms. They just sit in air conditioned DC offices and write rules that make no sense. For example, a new rule states that produce must be shipped in plastic containers, not the slatted wooden crates used for centuries. The reg writers no doubt think that this will better protect the food while being shipped. But it will also rot the food. No doubt this will eventually be recognized and changed, but only after the cost of buying so much plastic (which will no doubt end up in landfills) and replacing rotten produce has put the smallest producers out of business.

It could have been worse. ANH-USA was able, with the help of our dedicated activists, to stop Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Food Safety Accountability Act, which established draconian fines and prison terms of up to ten years for “misbranding” or “adulterating” foods. Unfortunately what a normal person thinks these words mean is not what the agencies think they mean. For the agencies, they could include a minor and inadvertent record keeping error. Ten years in jail for that?—or only if you get on the wrong side of regulators or fail to give money to politicians?

 



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tBVACp via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2tmnmaw

New Danger for Small, Organic Farmers?

Fake organics aren’t the only threat to farmers growing real food.

Next year, the FDA’s new produce safety rule will go into effect. This rule is part of the suite of new regulations that came about as a result of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that was signed into law in 2011.

The produce safety rule sets standards that farms must follow to minimize the risk of microbiological contamination that could occur in the course of growing, harvesting, packing, or holding fresh produce.

The problem is that the government does not seem to have a clue about how much this rule will cost small farms.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) conducted a report analyzing the costs of complying with California’s Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (LGMA), a food safety program with specific safety requirements for producers of leafy greens. ERS used the LGMA as a proxy to understand what the potential costs of complying with the produce rule will be.

The report analyzed seven large farms that averaged close to $200 million in annual sales and found that compliance costs ranged from about $30,000 to $300,000. This isn’t a perfect comparison to the produce rule, as the LGMA includes some standards that are not in the produce rule. The produce rule, however, also covers other areas of production, though, so costs for compliance for the produce safety rule could in some cases be even higher.

The other problem is that ERS only looked at data from relatively large farms. What will the impact be on smaller businesses? The outlook isn’t good. The FDA’s preliminary economic analysis of the produce rule estimated that costs would be disproportionately higher for small farms. Small and very small farms, defined as operations with sales of $500,000 and $250,000 a year respectively, make up 80% of the farms that must comply with the produce rule.

This is not very encouraging, and shows that we were right all along: the FDA’s rules were written by and for the largest producers. Everyone else faces steep compliance costs that could very well put them out of business.

Some farms are exempt under the produce rule. (For an excellent explanation of the various exemptions, check out this explainer from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.) For the most part, farms that gross less than $25,000 in sales of produce do not need to comply. There is also the Tester-Hagan amendment exempting farms that 1) make less than $500,000 a year in total sales and 2) sell more than half of their products to local area consumers. ANH-USA worked with the natural health community to include this amendment in the final FSMA bill. The FDA of course undermined these exemptions where they could, but the amendment was an important inclusion.

Part of the problem is that regulation writers at the FDA have no knowledge of or experience on farms. They just sit in air conditioned DC offices and write rules that make no sense. For example, a new rule states that produce must be shipped in plastic containers, not the slatted wooden crates used for centuries. The reg writers no doubt think that this will better protect the food while being shipped. But it will also rot the food. No doubt this will eventually be recognized and changed, but only after the cost of buying so much plastic (which will no doubt end up in landfills) and replacing rotten produce has put the smallest producers out of business.

It could have been worse. ANH-USA was able, with the help of our dedicated activists, to stop Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Food Safety Accountability Act, which established draconian fines and prison terms of up to ten years for “misbranding” or “adulterating” foods. Unfortunately what a normal person thinks these words mean is not what the agencies think they mean. For the agencies, they could include a minor and inadvertent record keeping error. Ten years in jail for that?—or only if you get on the wrong side of regulators or fail to give money to politicians?

 

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tBVACp via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2u4okFv

Action Alert: Tell Congress We Need a Parallel Medical System

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tbK6G2 via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2u4AtKy

Action Alert: Tell Congress We Need a Parallel Medical System



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tbK6G2 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2veb55g

More Mainstream Media Censorship

This time directed at Joseph Mercola, MD.

Mercola.com is a key natural health resource on line. We couldn’t recommend it more strongly for advice on every imaginable topic. And it is free.

Dr. Mercola recently released a new book, Fat for Fuel. This cutting-edge book focuses in particular on how to optimize mitochondrial function, but is a general guide to the healthiest diet

Unfortunately, it seems the same media outlets that amplify bad nutrition advice, perhaps because of their Pharma and Big Food advertisers, are determined to censor those giving good advice. Fat for Fuel became an instant best seller when it was released in May, selling more copies than any other adult non-fiction book according to Nielsen ratings. Curiously, though, Fat for Fuel didn’t reach even the top fifteen in the New York Times best sellers list. Why? The Times said Fat for Fuel was disqualified because too many sales went through Amazon.

This rationale doesn’t pass the laugh test.

The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the New York Times does not approve of the content of the book, and so does not want to promote it on its list. By doing so, they are denying their readers crucial information for their health.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uvk1Wz via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2u5xwv3

More Mainstream Media Censorship

This time directed at Joseph Mercola, MD.

Mercola.com is a key natural health resource on line. We couldn’t recommend it more strongly for advice on every imaginable topic. And it is free.

Dr. Mercola recently released a new book, Fat for Fuel. This cutting-edge book focuses in particular on how to optimize mitochondrial function, but is a general guide to the healthiest diet

Unfortunately, it seems the same media outlets that amplify bad nutrition advice, perhaps because of their Pharma and Big Food advertisers, are determined to censor those giving good advice. Fat for Fuel became an instant best seller when it was released in May, selling more copies than any other adult non-fiction book according to Nielsen ratings. Curiously, though, Fat for Fuel didn’t reach even the top fifteen in the New York Times best sellers list. Why? The Times said Fat for Fuel was disqualified because too many sales went through Amazon.

This rationale doesn’t pass the laugh test.

The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the New York Times does not approve of the content of the book, and so does not want to promote it on its list. By doing so, they are denying their readers crucial information for their health.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uvk1Wz via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2tBNklW

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Save CBD Oil

We need to save this powerful pain reliever now. Action Alert!

Without urgent grassroots support, hurting Americans could lose pivotal access to CBD oil, a key natural pain medication. Momentum is building on Capitol Hill, but our voices must be heard.

In recent weeks we’ve been telling you about recent federal actions that threaten to restrict consumer access to affordable CBD oil—a derivative of the hemp plant that has no psychoactive properties. Nevertheless, this natural supplement has come into the crosshairs of federal regulatory agencies, and we expect their continued pushback against the movement to maintain access to this vital treatment.

Legislation has recently been introduced that will take some important steps towards preserving CBD products. The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act, introduced by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Corey Booker (D-NJ), would allow the possession, production, and distribution of medical marijuana and CBD in the 29 states (not including the District of Columbia) with established marijuana laws.

Importantly, the bill would also exclude CBD from the definition of marijuana. This helps clear up uncertainty and confusion in states where it is legal to possess and use CBD oil but illegal to produce it.

The bill also helps undo the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) recent action to classify CBD (short for cannabidiol) as a Schedule 1 controlled substance like heroin and LSD that has no medicinal benefit. This is an absurd classification, particularly considering the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a patent on CBD oil that covers its use to protect the brain from degeneration and the treatment of diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. There are also thousands of published scientific studies on CBD and its beneficial health effects on pain, inflammation, seizures, rheumatoid arthritis, and other inflammatory conditions.

Beyond the efforts in the Senate, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) has introduced the Legitimate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (HR 714) and the Compassionate Access Act (HR 715), both aimed at removing federal obstacles that prevent patient access to CBD as well as medical marijuana. You can see our previous coverage for more details.

This legislation being discussed is a great first step, and we need to mobilize to provide our grassroots support. However, these bills do not address another threat to consumer access to CBD: FDA overreach.

Currently, CBD oil is available as a dietary supplement. But, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that CBD oil is not a dietary supplement because a drug company is investigating it for use in a new drug to treat a rare form of epilepsy. The FDA has already sent out warning letters to companies marketing CBD oil supplements in anticipation of the new drug (currently in Phase III trials) coming to market.

If and when the drug is finally approved, the FDA will then likely become more aggressive against CBD oil supplements, and it will be game over for the hundreds of thousands of Americans that depend on the treatment. Quite simply, CBD oil will become hard to obtain and unaffordable. The company that owns the drug will have a monopoly on CBD which it can use to jack up the price, and a safe, natural medicine that was once widely available will be out of reach to those who can’t afford to visit a doctor and pay monopoly drug prices.

The FDA claims to be concerned about the prescription opioid epidemic that is claiming so many lives, but the move to ban CBD shows where the agency’s loyalties lie: with big drug companies, not with the public.

Action Alert! Write to Congress to support these bills, and ask them to direct the FDA to maintain CBD as a dietary supplement. Please send your message immediately.

 

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Got Meat? Due to USDA, it Might be Rotten

African Colonialism All Over Again

 

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2t9ExqX via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2u9j1Xn

Save CBD Oil

We need to save this powerful pain reliever now. Action Alert!

Without urgent grassroots support, hurting Americans could lose pivotal access to CBD oil, a key natural pain medication. Momentum is building on Capitol Hill, but our voices must be heard.

In recent weeks we’ve been telling you about recent federal actions that threaten to restrict consumer access to affordable CBD oil—a derivative of the hemp plant that has no psychoactive properties. Nevertheless, this natural supplement has come into the crosshairs of federal regulatory agencies, and we expect their continued pushback against the movement to maintain access to this vital treatment.

Legislation has recently been introduced that will take some important steps towards preserving CBD products. The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act, introduced by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Corey Booker (D-NJ), would allow the possession, production, and distribution of medical marijuana and CBD in the 29 states (not including the District of Columbia) with established marijuana laws.

Importantly, the bill would also exclude CBD from the definition of marijuana. This helps clear up uncertainty and confusion in states where it is legal to possess and use CBD oil but illegal to produce it.

The bill also helps undo the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) recent action to classify CBD (short for cannabidiol) as a Schedule 1 controlled substance like heroin and LSD that has no medicinal benefit. This is an absurd classification, particularly considering the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a patent on CBD oil that covers its use to protect the brain from degeneration and the treatment of diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. There are also thousands of published scientific studies on CBD and its beneficial health effects on pain, inflammation, seizures, rheumatoid arthritis, and other inflammatory conditions.

Beyond the efforts in the Senate, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) has introduced the Legitimate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (HR 714) and the Compassionate Access Act (HR 715), both aimed at removing federal obstacles that prevent patient access to CBD as well as medical marijuana. You can see our previous coverage for more details.

This legislation being discussed is a great first step, and we need to mobilize to provide our grassroots support. However, these bills do not address another threat to consumer access to CBD: FDA overreach.

Currently, CBD oil is available as a dietary supplement. But, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that CBD oil is not a dietary supplement because a drug company is investigating it for use in a new drug to treat a rare form of epilepsy. The FDA has already sent out warning letters to companies marketing CBD oil supplements in anticipation of the new drug (currently in Phase III trials) coming to market.

If and when the drug is finally approved, the FDA will then likely become more aggressive against CBD oil supplements, and it will be game over for the hundreds of thousands of Americans that depend on the treatment. Quite simply, CBD oil will become hard to obtain and unaffordable. The company that owns the drug will have a monopoly on CBD which it can use to jack up the price, and a safe, natural medicine that was once widely available will be out of reach to those who can’t afford to visit a doctor and pay monopoly drug prices.

The FDA claims to be concerned about the prescription opioid epidemic that is claiming so many lives, but the move to ban CBD shows where the agency’s loyalties lie: with big drug companies, not with the public.

Action Alert! Write to Congress to support these bills, and ask them to direct the FDA to maintain CBD as a dietary supplement. Please send your message immediately.

 

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Got Meat? Due to USDA, it Might be Rotten

African Colonialism All Over Again

 



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2t9ExqX via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2uMlPrx

Monday, July 10, 2017

Why Big Pharma’s days are numbered

Making way for a parallel medical system based on the principles of natural health

By Robert Verkerk PhD
Founder, executive and scientific director, Alliance for Natural Health International
Scientific director, Alliance for Natural Health USA

Has Big Pharma had its heyday? We think so. It’s an industry borne out of a business model that’s more or less dependent on patented, new-to-nature compounds. The pipeline’s drying up and the dire consequences of taking products required to be different in form and function from those to which our bodies’ have adapted over millions of years are increasingly recognised by the public. The public’s also waking up to the fact that these side effects aren’t a necessity of healthcare per se – they’re a by-product of Big Pharma’s business model.

It’s broken, fix it

A glance at Big Pharma’s top selling drugs, such as oncologics (anti-cancer), antidiabetics, pain, autoimmune diseases, anti-hypertensives, mental health and lipid regulators (for heart disease), shows most drugs don’t do ‘what they say on the tin’.[1] Back in 2003, the late Dr Allen Roses, then vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) told a shocked London meeting of health experts, researchers and journalists that, “The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people.”[2] The journal BMJ Clinical Evidence has since evaluated around 3000 medical treatments and currently finds that only 11% have been proven to be of benefit to patients.[3] And that’s before you consider that properly prescribed drugs are one of the leading causes of preventable death.[4]

Tentacles and revolving doors

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, given the well-exposed revolving door between the drug companies and government regulators.[5] Contrary to the public’s expectations and medical establishment fanfares over drugs having been confirmed as efficacious through elaborate and costly randomised controlled trials – or RCTs – this is far from always the case.[6]

The drug companies, over the last half century or so, have influenced medical training and continue to regard family physicians and general practitioners (GPs), the first line of contact with the public, as sales reps for their businesses. These docs are skilled at drug prescribing, but they’re less skilled at knowing which of the multitude of factors in a patient’s life need changing to help them manage or recover from their chronic disease ‘of choice’. Those who have the required knowledge often lack the time to do justice to such multi-factorial, non-pharmaceutical approaches that are the domain of naturopathic, functional, lifestyle and traditional systems of medicine practitioners that have been squeezed out to the margins of mainstream healthcare.

Big spenders
In 2016, the International Trade Administration of the US Department of Commerce quoted pharmaceutical sales of US$333 billion. That amounts to an average spend of $1036 for every single US citizen. Of this, 70% of sales are for patented drugs, just 21% for generics and a mere 6% for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. It’s evidence that our society is still totally invested in the patented model for drugs. The majority of the pharma industry i.e. that which relies on patents, is firmly convinced, as suggested by Bruce Lehman, president of the International Intellectual Property Institute, that “patent exclusivity is the only effective way to protect and receive a return on that investment.”[7]

Getting with the science

Evolutionary biology tells us that the things our bodies really need for health have always been around us. Clean air, water and whole foods, herbs and other natural products resplendent in a hugely diverse array of natural compounds, help make us resilient and responsive to a constantly changing environment. Our bodies host over 135 discrete metabolic pathways each one of which needs to be modulated according to our specific needs at any given time. These interacting pathways need information from enzymes and signalling compounds that we make internally or we consume as plant nutrients, vitamins, minerals, amino acids and other nutrients. Every year we’re learning more about the way naturally-occurring substances influence metabolic pathways and gene expression, as well as how these compounds interact with the huge number of microbes in our guts on which we depend for long-term health.

Complex diseases don’t need silver bullets

In terms of our knowledge of how to best manage or prevent complex, chronic diseases, we’re still in kindergarten. Big Pharma-funded medical research has spent over half a century chasing down ways of managing symptoms rather than treating the underlying causes of disease.  That’s why a drug that’s in favour one year is likely to be out of favour once its patent has expired. That can’t be said of vitamins, amino acids or botanicals in fruits, vegetables or herbs that, as far as our bodies are concerned, will always remain in vogue.


It’s only natural…

We passionately believe that the answers to our current healthcare crisis lie in better harnessing the power of nature. This approach has already been applied successfully to other sectors like energy and agriculture. Why should healthcare be different? Lip service is currently being paid to sustainable healthcare, but so far, it’s either about throwing good money after bad into a broken system, or lessening the healthcare system’s negative impact on the environment.

As our populations age and the pressure of chronic diseases places ever greater burdens on our pockets, our quality of life and society at large, there’s never been a more important time to co-create a health- and self-care system that is both effective and can be maintained without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability isn’t about going backwards and junking technology. It’s about moving forwards, understanding and respecting our historic relationship with our natural environment, and using all available and new technologies wisely.

Let’s stop politicians believing that rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic will fix a system that’s been controlled too long by Big Pharma. Instead, let’s light the touch papers of a parallel system that’s been building steam in the wings, one that actually works for us, that can initially reside alongside the incumbent system. Let’s build from the bottom-up – applying to the best of our abilities the most relevant science, that meets our physical, physiological and psychological needs, and that’s compatible with our lives in the 21st century.

ANH is working for you and our future

That’s the main thrust of the work we do at the Alliance for Natural Health.[8] We argue that contemporary healthcare systems would be a whole lot less broken if they weren’t so burdened by a range of chronic and degenerative conditions that could be dealt with outside the existing hospital/medical/pharma-controlled system.

That means building a system for effective, non-pharma-based self-care. To do that, you need freedom in health choice, therapeutic foods and supplements widely available, and a liberal regime of health claims so people can know what’s good for them. Some people will also need guidance on their health journey, not by a doctor who simply prescribes drugs, but by a suitably qualified and experienced doctor or health professional conversant in personalised lifestyle medicine.

The main features of this parallel system already exist. The new system is akin to the latest breed of electric or hydrogen-powered cars, that most of us already accept will, in the not-too-distant-future, replace vehicles powered by the outdated, inefficient and unsustainable internal combustion engine.

The current industrial players, be they oil or pharma companies, are desperately trying to cling to the status quo from which they’ve profited hugely over the last few decades. But they now need to either adapt or move aside because the business model they’ve relied on has become redundant.

We propose that it’s just a matter of time before the current model of Big Pharma becomes extinct.  This process, we submit, is assured by nature’s immense power, its tendency for self-preservation and its insatiable desire to maintain equilibrium.

References

  1. IMS Health, Top Global Therapy Areas 2015: http://ift.tt/1tjkNRS [last accessed June 27, 2017].
  2. Connor S. Demolished: the myth that allows drugs giants to sell more. The Independent newspaper, December 8, 2003. [http://ift.tt/2sEoIbE]
  3. BMJ Clinical Evidence, Evidence Categorisations: http://ift.tt/1kBUVad [last accessed June 27, 2017]
  4. Lazarou J et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998 Apr 15; 279(15): 1200-5. [http://ift.tt/2gtbBFt].
  5. Gotzsche P. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. 2013. Radcliffe, London and New York.
  6. Hatswell AJ et al. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014. BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 30; 6(6): e011666. [http://ift.tt/2t9cL1b]
  7. Bruce Lehman, President, International Intellectual Property Institute, The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System. 2003: http://ift.tt/2sEKT17
  8. Alliance for Natural Health International and USA [www.org and www.anh-usa.org]

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tFItS9 via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2v3k6xo

Why Big Pharma’s days are numbered

Making way for a parallel medical system based on the principles of natural health

By Robert Verkerk PhD
Founder, executive and scientific director, Alliance for Natural Health International
Scientific director, Alliance for Natural Health USA

Has Big Pharma had its heyday? We think so. It’s an industry borne out of a business model that’s more or less dependent on patented, new-to-nature compounds. The pipeline’s drying up and the dire consequences of taking products required to be different in form and function from those to which our bodies’ have adapted over millions of years are increasingly recognised by the public. The public’s also waking up to the fact that these side effects aren’t a necessity of healthcare per se – they’re a by-product of Big Pharma’s business model.

It’s broken, fix it

A glance at Big Pharma’s top selling drugs, such as oncologics (anti-cancer), antidiabetics, pain, autoimmune diseases, anti-hypertensives, mental health and lipid regulators (for heart disease), shows most drugs don’t do ‘what they say on the tin’.[1] Back in 2003, the late Dr Allen Roses, then vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) told a shocked London meeting of health experts, researchers and journalists that, “The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people.”[2] The journal BMJ Clinical Evidence has since evaluated around 3000 medical treatments and currently finds that only 11% have been proven to be of benefit to patients.[3] And that’s before you consider that properly prescribed drugs are one of the leading causes of preventable death.[4]

Tentacles and revolving doors

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, given the well-exposed revolving door between the drug companies and government regulators.[5] Contrary to the public’s expectations and medical establishment fanfares over drugs having been confirmed as efficacious through elaborate and costly randomised controlled trials – or RCTs – this is far from always the case.[6]

The drug companies, over the last half century or so, have influenced medical training and continue to regard family physicians and general practitioners (GPs), the first line of contact with the public, as sales reps for their businesses. These docs are skilled at drug prescribing, but they’re less skilled at knowing which of the multitude of factors in a patient’s life need changing to help them manage or recover from their chronic disease ‘of choice’. Those who have the required knowledge often lack the time to do justice to such multi-factorial, non-pharmaceutical approaches that are the domain of naturopathic, functional, lifestyle and traditional systems of medicine practitioners that have been squeezed out to the margins of mainstream healthcare.

Big spenders
In 2016, the International Trade Administration of the US Department of Commerce quoted pharmaceutical sales of US$333 billion. That amounts to an average spend of $1036 for every single US citizen. Of this, 70% of sales are for patented drugs, just 21% for generics and a mere 6% for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. It’s evidence that our society is still totally invested in the patented model for drugs. The majority of the pharma industry i.e. that which relies on patents, is firmly convinced, as suggested by Bruce Lehman, president of the International Intellectual Property Institute, that “patent exclusivity is the only effective way to protect and receive a return on that investment.”[7]

Getting with the science

Evolutionary biology tells us that the things our bodies really need for health have always been around us. Clean air, water and whole foods, herbs and other natural products resplendent in a hugely diverse array of natural compounds, help make us resilient and responsive to a constantly changing environment. Our bodies host over 135 discrete metabolic pathways each one of which needs to be modulated according to our specific needs at any given time. These interacting pathways need information from enzymes and signalling compounds that we make internally or we consume as plant nutrients, vitamins, minerals, amino acids and other nutrients. Every year we’re learning more about the way naturally-occurring substances influence metabolic pathways and gene expression, as well as how these compounds interact with the huge number of microbes in our guts on which we depend for long-term health.

Complex diseases don’t need silver bullets

In terms of our knowledge of how to best manage or prevent complex, chronic diseases, we’re still in kindergarten. Big Pharma-funded medical research has spent over half a century chasing down ways of managing symptoms rather than treating the underlying causes of disease.  That’s why a drug that’s in favour one year is likely to be out of favour once its patent has expired. That can’t be said of vitamins, amino acids or botanicals in fruits, vegetables or herbs that, as far as our bodies are concerned, will always remain in vogue.


It’s only natural…

We passionately believe that the answers to our current healthcare crisis lie in better harnessing the power of nature. This approach has already been applied successfully to other sectors like energy and agriculture. Why should healthcare be different? Lip service is currently being paid to sustainable healthcare, but so far, it’s either about throwing good money after bad into a broken system, or lessening the healthcare system’s negative impact on the environment.

As our populations age and the pressure of chronic diseases places ever greater burdens on our pockets, our quality of life and society at large, there’s never been a more important time to co-create a health- and self-care system that is both effective and can be maintained without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability isn’t about going backwards and junking technology. It’s about moving forwards, understanding and respecting our historic relationship with our natural environment, and using all available and new technologies wisely.

Let’s stop politicians believing that rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic will fix a system that’s been controlled too long by Big Pharma. Instead, let’s light the touch papers of a parallel system that’s been building steam in the wings, one that actually works for us, that can initially reside alongside the incumbent system. Let’s build from the bottom-up – applying to the best of our abilities the most relevant science, that meets our physical, physiological and psychological needs, and that’s compatible with our lives in the 21st century.

ANH is working for you and our future

That’s the main thrust of the work we do at the Alliance for Natural Health.[8] We argue that contemporary healthcare systems would be a whole lot less broken if they weren’t so burdened by a range of chronic and degenerative conditions that could be dealt with outside the existing hospital/medical/pharma-controlled system.

That means building a system for effective, non-pharma-based self-care. To do that, you need freedom in health choice, therapeutic foods and supplements widely available, and a liberal regime of health claims so people can know what’s good for them. Some people will also need guidance on their health journey, not by a doctor who simply prescribes drugs, but by a suitably qualified and experienced doctor or health professional conversant in personalised lifestyle medicine.

The main features of this parallel system already exist. The new system is akin to the latest breed of electric or hydrogen-powered cars, that most of us already accept will, in the not-too-distant-future, replace vehicles powered by the outdated, inefficient and unsustainable internal combustion engine.

The current industrial players, be they oil or pharma companies, are desperately trying to cling to the status quo from which they’ve profited hugely over the last few decades. But they now need to either adapt or move aside because the business model they’ve relied on has become redundant.

We propose that it’s just a matter of time before the current model of Big Pharma becomes extinct.  This process, we submit, is assured by nature’s immense power, its tendency for self-preservation and its insatiable desire to maintain equilibrium.

References

  1. IMS Health, Top Global Therapy Areas 2015: http://ift.tt/1tjkNRS [last accessed June 27, 2017].
  2. Connor S. Demolished: the myth that allows drugs giants to sell more. The Independent newspaper, December 8, 2003. [http://ift.tt/2sEoIbE]
  3. BMJ Clinical Evidence, Evidence Categorisations: http://ift.tt/1kBUVad [last accessed June 27, 2017]
  4. Lazarou J et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998 Apr 15; 279(15): 1200-5. [http://ift.tt/2gtbBFt].
  5. Gotzsche P. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. 2013. Radcliffe, London and New York.
  6. Hatswell AJ et al. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014. BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 30; 6(6): e011666. [http://ift.tt/2t9cL1b]
  7. Bruce Lehman, President, International Intellectual Property Institute, The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System. 2003: http://ift.tt/2sEKT17
  8. Alliance for Natural Health International and USA [www.org and www.anh-usa.org]


from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tFItS9 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2u9ycks

Friday, July 7, 2017

A Genetic Defect We All Share—The Human Need for Vitamin C

This content is for members only

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tUCGu5 via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2tQsiDY

Frederick R. Klenner M.D., The Originator of Successful High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C Therapy

This content is for members only

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uSCKrC via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2tQupYw

A Genetic Defect We All Share—The Human Need for Vitamin C

This content is for members only

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tUCGu5 via Aloe for Health


from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2tUwHp1

Frederick R. Klenner M.D., The Originator of Successful High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C Therapy

This content is for members only

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uSCKrC via Aloe for Health


from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2uSEMbe

Thursday, July 6, 2017

African Colonialism All Over Again

An aid program is serving up African nations on a silver platter—to Monsanto.

The deal threatens to rob and imprison farmers needing aid, while growing profits for the Ag giant.

Tanzania recently enacted a law that criminalized seed sharing, an ancient agricultural practice that is widespread in many parts of the world and critical to local farming. Under the new legislation, if a farmer buys seeds from Monsanto or Syngenta, those companies retain the intellectual property rights. For instance, if a farmer saves some seeds from the first harvest, those seeds can only be used on that farmer’s land for non-commercial purposes. This new law threatens an essential practice for many of these farmers.

The penalty for sharing seeds is twelve years in prison or a fine of over 200,000 euros. The average wage of a farmer in Tanzania is two dollars a day.

According to news reports, about 90% of African farmers depend on their seeds for survival. The informal sale or exchange of seeds allows farmers to be independent from the commercial seed business, while allowing poor farmers to have resilient crops at affordable prices. Eliminating seed-sharing closes off a fundamental source of revenue for poor farmers.

Tanzania did not enact this law out of thin air. An aid program launched by the G8 (the US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, the European Union, and Russia) in 2012, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN), promises aid in the form of agricultural investment to the ten African member countries, but only on the condition that countries receiving aid enact political reforms that help Big Ag at the expense of small farmers who produce 70% of the world’s food.

This excerpt from The Guardian says it all:

[NAFSN] will lock poor farmers into buying increasingly expensive seeds – including genetically modified seeds – allow corporate monopolies in seed selling, and escalate the loss of precious genetic diversity in seeds – absolutely key in the fight against hunger. It will also open the door to genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa by stopping farmers’ access to traditional local varieties and forcing them to buy private seeds.

NAFSN also calls for countries to help foreign investors take over agricultural lands. This “aid,” in short, is the wedge that Big Ag and biotech companies are using to get a stronger foothold in Africa, leading many critics to call the schemes a “new wave of colonialism.” We tend to agree. Depriving farmers of their livelihood is hardly a way to battle poverty and hunger.

Unsurprisingly, there are already reports that NAFSN is failing. Canadian authorities conducted a review of NAFSN’s progress in Senegal. The Canadian government concluded that there was no evidence that NAFSN “was effective in reducing poverty, improving food security and nutrition, or addressing the challenges faced by women in the Senegalese context.”

This story underscores the depths to which biotech companies like Monsanto and Syngenta will sink to, and why they must be vigorously opposed at every opportunity. Not only have they proven to be reckless with our health, they are intentional about attacking the livelihoods of some of our planet’s neediest.

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tlkLMG via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2sQTn5z

African Colonialism All Over Again

An aid program is serving up African nations on a silver platter—to Monsanto.

The deal threatens to rob and imprison farmers needing aid, while growing profits for the Ag giant.

Tanzania recently enacted a law that criminalized seed sharing, an ancient agricultural practice that is widespread in many parts of the world and critical to local farming. Under the new legislation, if a farmer buys seeds from Monsanto or Syngenta, those companies retain the intellectual property rights. For instance, if a farmer saves some seeds from the first harvest, those seeds can only be used on that farmer’s land for non-commercial purposes. This new law threatens an essential practice for many of these farmers.

The penalty for sharing seeds is twelve years in prison or a fine of over 200,000 euros. The average wage of a farmer in Tanzania is two dollars a day.

According to news reports, about 90% of African farmers depend on their seeds for survival. The informal sale or exchange of seeds allows farmers to be independent from the commercial seed business, while allowing poor farmers to have resilient crops at affordable prices. Eliminating seed-sharing closes off a fundamental source of revenue for poor farmers.

Tanzania did not enact this law out of thin air. An aid program launched by the G8 (the US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, the European Union, and Russia) in 2012, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN), promises aid in the form of agricultural investment to the ten African member countries, but only on the condition that countries receiving aid enact political reforms that help Big Ag at the expense of small farmers who produce 70% of the world’s food.

This excerpt from The Guardian says it all:

[NAFSN] will lock poor farmers into buying increasingly expensive seeds – including genetically modified seeds – allow corporate monopolies in seed selling, and escalate the loss of precious genetic diversity in seeds – absolutely key in the fight against hunger. It will also open the door to genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa by stopping farmers’ access to traditional local varieties and forcing them to buy private seeds.

NAFSN also calls for countries to help foreign investors take over agricultural lands. This “aid,” in short, is the wedge that Big Ag and biotech companies are using to get a stronger foothold in Africa, leading many critics to call the schemes a “new wave of colonialism.” We tend to agree. Depriving farmers of their livelihood is hardly a way to battle poverty and hunger.

Unsurprisingly, there are already reports that NAFSN is failing. Canadian authorities conducted a review of NAFSN’s progress in Senegal. The Canadian government concluded that there was no evidence that NAFSN “was effective in reducing poverty, improving food security and nutrition, or addressing the challenges faced by women in the Senegalese context.”

This story underscores the depths to which biotech companies like Monsanto and Syngenta will sink to, and why they must be vigorously opposed at every opportunity. Not only have they proven to be reckless with our health, they are intentional about attacking the livelihoods of some of our planet’s neediest.



from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2tlkLMG via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2tQA3cQ

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Got Meat? Due to USDA, it Might be Rotten

Ranchers are suing the USDA in hopes of reinstating country of origin labeling for meat. Keep rotten meat off our plate by calling on Congress to act. Action Alert!

Earlier this month, cattlemen and rancher groups sued the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) over last year’s repeal of country of origin labeling (COOL) for meat. The lawsuit alleges that the USDA’s regulations are in violation of the Meat Inspection Act, which requires slaughtered meat from other countries to be clearly marked. The plaintiffs allege that current USDA rules allow meat from other countries to be sold with a “Product of USA” label alongside real domestic products.

Previously, Congress caved and repealed COOL when the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the law unfairly discriminated against meat from Canada and Mexico. The “logic” was that COOL infringed upon international trade obligations, entitling those countries to take retaliatory measures against US exports that amounted to billions of dollars.

Repealing COOL has undercut domestic meat production. Multinational meat companies can import meat and present it as domestic, rather than paying domestic producers for their products. As a result, domestic farmers and ranchers get lower prices for their meat, and it is driving many out of business..

This matters a great deal. We reported recently on the massive scandal in Brazil’s meat packing industry in which some of the world’s largest meat producers have allegedly been selling rotten meat and poultry for years. Acid and carcinogenic chemicals were reportedly used to make the meat look fresh, while cardboard, potato, and water were mixed in with poultry products to increase profits.

The USDA’s Food Inspection Safety Service recently found [paywall]abscesses, ingesta (the contents of the animal’s stomach), and unidentified foreign material in meat imported from Brazil. As a result, the USDA has put a halt to Brazilian meat imports to the US.

Without COOL, tainted, rotten meat could be sold alongside US-produced meat that must meet US standards, and consumers would be none the wiser. How many other foreign producers are engaged in the same unsanitary practices as the Brazilian companies?

Consumers should have access to health and safety information about their food so they can make informed choices about what to feed their families. Moreover, American ranchers are under assault, which could produce devastating results both for them and our options at the grocery store. For the health, safety, and prosperity of our citizens, Congress must reinstate COOL and not allow the WTO eliminate laws made in the public interest.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell your representatives to reinstate COOL for meat. Please send your message immediately.

 

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2spICb5 via Aloe for Health




from http://ift.tt/2tptOKF