This is a parody of an actual commercial from a vaccine manufacturer that appears to use parental guilt to sell their product. Here is the original commercial.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2x5E4Mi via Aloe for Health
This is a parody of an actual commercial from a vaccine manufacturer that appears to use parental guilt to sell their product. Here is the original commercial.
A novel legislative concept may be gaining some traction. Action Alert!
Here’s the gist of it. Rather than develop an alternative federal system, just turn health insurance over to the states. If California wants to create a single-payer system, allow it to do so. If another state likes Obamacare, let it keep it. If another wishes to create a consumer-driven system, then allow that.
In a recent interview with Breitbart News, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum outlined the plan, which seems to have originated with him. It involves diverting Obamacare block grants to the states based on the number of citizens who are low income but not covered by Medicaid. This would allow individual states to customize their health plans to the needs of their constituents. States that wish to do so could create the kind of consumer-driven system, free of Obamacare mandates, that ANH believes is the best way to increase individual choice while driving down overall health care costs. Or they could offer both this and the present system to consumers.
Santorum expects at least some Democratic governors and members of Congress to get on board. This may be optimistic. But they could have an incentive to do so inasmuch as Obamacare subsidies disproportionately go to states such as New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Lawmakers from other states could see this as a way to get more federal money. These four states will of course completely oppose it.
Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are crafting legislative language and working to gain support. Under this approach, Congress would give states guidelines to ensure adequate coverage; for instance, requirements covering preexisting conditions would stay in place. If this forces everyone into the same risk pool, it won’t work. But states would supposedly be free to craft their own system to best address the needs of their citizens.
ANH would much prefer just keeping Obamacare and at the same time offering a consumer led system that would be available to residents of all states. But this new approach would be better than the existing system, which is at risk of collapse. Allowing states to do their own thing would also provide many experiments that would be useful in establishing what works and what does not. States would have to take this seriously because they compete with each other. Those who make the wrong choices would see their economic prospects fade while other states add employers and jobs.
Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to support the new plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2wiUCj7 via Aloe for Health
These are from John Goodman, a top healthcare analyst now at Goodman Institute.
Goodman has proposed a number of reforms that we think should be considered in any effort to improve or replace Obamacare.
If you’d like to read more about these ideas for a consumer-driven health care system, take a look at this article written by Goodman for Forbes. Or check out his website.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2xyajRX via Aloe for Health
The European Union has restricted the use of MRI contrasting agents. Why hasn’t the FDA? Action Alert!
European health authorities have suspended the use of gadolinium contrasting agents in MRI scans due to concern that these acids can accumulate in the brain. A European review committee found convincing evidence of gadolinium accumulating in brain tissue months after an MRI was performed.
Unfortunately, America’s FDA has chosen to ignore this issue, no doubt under pressure from radiologists. Last year, the FDA completed its own review of gadolinium contrasting agents but decided to take no further action.
Our article last summer first broached this topic; here are the key points. To improve the image provided by an MRI, doctors usually prescribe a shot of gadolinium contrasting agent. Gadolinium is a rare earth element – and, because it is toxic, comes with a black box warning. Patients with impaired kidney function who receive gadolinium contrasting agents are at risk for developing a potentially fatal disease called nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). There is also evidence that a broader range of patients could be affected by gadolinium contrasting agents after at least one study showed that gadolinium can persist in the body, even in the brain.
We often disagree with European health authorities, who often seem to be taking their orders from corporate interests. But in this case, the facts seem to be on their side.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and tell them to respond to the European action by undertaking a real review of the use of gadolinium contrasting agents. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2xxTiaB via Aloe for Health
A novel legislative concept may be gaining some traction. Action Alert!
Here’s the gist of it. Rather than develop an alternative federal system, just turn health insurance over to the states. If California wants to create a single-payer system, allow it to do so. If another state likes Obamacare, let it keep it. If another wishes to create a consumer-driven system, then allow that.
In a recent interview with Breitbart News, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum outlined the plan, which seems to have originated with him. It involves diverting Obamacare block grants to the states based on the number of citizens who are low income but not covered by Medicaid. This would allow individual states to customize their health plans to the needs of their constituents. States that wish to do so could create the kind of consumer-driven system, free of Obamacare mandates, that ANH believes is the best way to increase individual choice while driving down overall health care costs. Or they could offer both this and the present system to consumers.
Santorum expects at least some Democratic governors and members of Congress to get on board. This may be optimistic. But they could have an incentive to do so inasmuch as Obamacare subsidies disproportionately go to states such as New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Lawmakers from other states could see this as a way to get more federal money. These four states will of course completely oppose it.
Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are crafting legislative language and working to gain support. Under this approach, Congress would give states guidelines to ensure adequate coverage; for instance, requirements covering preexisting conditions would stay in place. If this forces everyone into the same risk pool, it won’t work. But states would supposedly be free to craft their own system to best address the needs of their citizens.
ANH would much prefer just keeping Obamacare and at the same time offering a consumer led system that would be available to residents of all states. But this new approach would be better than the existing system, which is at risk of collapse. Allowing states to do their own thing would also provide many experiments that would be useful in establishing what works and what does not. States would have to take this seriously because they compete with each other. Those who make the wrong choices would see their economic prospects fade while other states add employers and jobs.
Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to support the new plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Please send your message immediately.
These are from John Goodman, a top healthcare analyst now at Goodman Institute.
Goodman has proposed a number of reforms that we think should be considered in any effort to improve or replace Obamacare.
If you’d like to read more about these ideas for a consumer-driven health care system, take a look at this article written by Goodman for Forbes. Or check out his website.
The European Union has restricted the use of MRI contrasting agents. Why hasn’t the FDA? Action Alert!
European health authorities have suspended the use of gadolinium contrasting agents in MRI scans due to concern that these acids can accumulate in the brain. A European review committee found convincing evidence of gadolinium accumulating in brain tissue months after an MRI was performed.
Unfortunately, America’s FDA has chosen to ignore this issue, no doubt under pressure from radiologists. Last year, the FDA completed its own review of gadolinium contrasting agents but decided to take no further action.
Our article last summer first broached this topic; here are the key points. To improve the image provided by an MRI, doctors usually prescribe a shot of gadolinium contrasting agent. Gadolinium is a rare earth element – and, because it is toxic, comes with a black box warning. Patients with impaired kidney function who receive gadolinium contrasting agents are at risk for developing a potentially fatal disease called nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). There is also evidence that a broader range of patients could be affected by gadolinium contrasting agents after at least one study showed that gadolinium can persist in the body, even in the brain.
We often disagree with European health authorities, who often seem to be taking their orders from corporate interests. But in this case, the facts seem to be on their side.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and tell them to respond to the European action by undertaking a real review of the use of gadolinium contrasting agents. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2vswRpW via Aloe for Health
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2xMCufm via Aloe for Health
this is a test post about the FDA and vaccines.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2iFz8YI via Aloe for Health
this is a test post about the FDA and vaccines.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2vVDxv7 via Aloe for Health
The horror stories are legion.
A 64-year-old woman had chest pains and was taken by ambulance to a non-profit hospital. After three hours of tests, she was told she had indigestion and sent home. She did not have insurance. Her bill was $21,000.
Another patient was told he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He went to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The total cost for an examination, an initial dose of chemotherapy and a treatment plan (fee due in advance) was $83,900.
This patient was charged $1.50 for a single, generic Tylenol tablet, when an entire bottle can be purchased for that price elsewhere. A chest X-ray cost him $283, though the hospital typically charges Medicare patients $20 for the same test.
The son of an ANH-USA board member was throwing up and was taken to an emergency room by concerned friends. The initial bill was $8,000. The insurance company reduced the price to just under $2,000, which didn’t even include the doctor’s bill. An uninsured patient would have been charged the full $8,000.
Different hospitals charge vastly different prices – even from other facilities in the same area. One hospital in New Jersey, for example, charges nearly $100,000 for a procedure to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; thirty miles away a different hospital charges $7,000.
For consumers, this is a bewildering, Kafkaesque system that is often impossible to navigate. How did we get here?
The vehicle behind these absurd prices is the Chargemaster, a hospital-specific compendium of all the items that a hospital can bill a patient for (or a third-party payer like an insurance company or Medicare). The prices are not determined by supply and demand but are purely administrative decisions. Hospitals are not required to make their Chargemaster public.
Here’s how it works, or rather doesn’t work. Insurance companies work out deals each year with hospitals to determine what insurance will pay for hospital services, on the premise that insurers have a lot of patients that will be needing hospitalization. So Blue Cross/Blue Shield can negotiate a reduced rate for its members that is significantly lower than the price listed in the Chargemaster.
Medicare works a bit differently. By law, Medicare payments are supposed to approximate a hospital’s cost of providing a service, including overhead, salaries, and equipment. But nobody really knows or cares what these costs are.
This system works brilliantly—for hospitals. According to one journalist, “In hundreds of small and midsize cities across the country…the American health care market has transformed tax-exempt ‘nonprofit’ hospitals into the towns’ most profitable businesses and largest employers, often presided over by the regions’ most richly compensated executives.”
Indeed, earlier this year we reported on ballooning medical bureaucracies that are increasingly taking control over medicine. We have also reported on how Medicare pays much more to hospital affiliated physicians, which has resulted in hospitals taking over formerly private practices and creating local monopolies.
Washington supports all of this because campaign contributions make this a paying business. Lobbying by the pharmaceutical and health care industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health services, totals $5.36 billion since 1998, far exceeding the totals spent by the defense industry ($1.53 billion) and the oil and gas industry ($1.3 billion) over the same timeframe.
ANH-USA has argued for a consumer driven health care system that enables people to buy insurance meeting their particular needs, and that incentivizes behaviors that help people stay well. Such a system would free the health insurance market of Obamacare regulations that are driving up premiums, while allowing those who wish to do so to keep their Obamacare plans.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2x96dQ7 via Aloe for Health
The horror stories are legion.
A 64-year-old woman had chest pains and was taken by ambulance to a non-profit hospital. After three hours of tests, she was told she had indigestion and sent home. She did not have insurance. Her bill was $21,000.
Another patient was told he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He went to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The total cost for an examination, an initial dose of chemotherapy and a treatment plan (fee due in advance) was $83,900.
This patient was charged $1.50 for a single, generic Tylenol tablet, when an entire bottle can be purchased for that price elsewhere. A chest X-ray cost him $283, though the hospital typically charges Medicare patients $20 for the same test.
The son of an ANH-USA board member was throwing up and was taken to an emergency room by concerned friends. The initial bill was $8,000. The insurance company reduced the price to just under $2,000, which didn’t even include the doctor’s bill. An uninsured patient would have been charged the full $8,000.
Different hospitals charge vastly different prices – even from other facilities in the same area. One hospital in New Jersey, for example, charges nearly $100,000 for a procedure to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; thirty miles away a different hospital charges $7,000.
For consumers, this is a bewildering, Kafkaesque system that is often impossible to navigate. How did we get here?
The vehicle behind these absurd prices is the Chargemaster, a hospital-specific compendium of all the items that a hospital can bill a patient for (or a third-party payer like an insurance company or Medicare). The prices are not determined by supply and demand but are purely administrative decisions. Hospitals are not required to make their Chargemaster public.
Here’s how it works, or rather doesn’t work. Insurance companies work out deals each year with hospitals to determine what insurance will pay for hospital services, on the premise that insurers have a lot of patients that will be needing hospitalization. So Blue Cross/Blue Shield can negotiate a reduced rate for its members that is significantly lower than the price listed in the Chargemaster.
Medicare works a bit differently. By law, Medicare payments are supposed to approximate a hospital’s cost of providing a service, including overhead, salaries, and equipment. But nobody really knows or cares what these costs are.
This system works brilliantly—for hospitals. According to one journalist, “In hundreds of small and midsize cities across the country…the American health care market has transformed tax-exempt ‘nonprofit’ hospitals into the towns’ most profitable businesses and largest employers, often presided over by the regions’ most richly compensated executives.”
Indeed, earlier this year we reported on ballooning medical bureaucracies that are increasingly taking control over medicine. We have also reported on how Medicare pays much more to hospital affiliated physicians, which has resulted in hospitals taking over formerly private practices and creating local monopolies.
Washington supports all of this because campaign contributions make this a paying business. Lobbying by the pharmaceutical and health care industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health services, totals $5.36 billion since 1998, far exceeding the totals spent by the defense industry ($1.53 billion) and the oil and gas industry ($1.3 billion) over the same timeframe.
ANH-USA has argued for a consumer driven health care system that enables people to buy insurance meeting their particular needs, and that incentivizes behaviors that help people stay well. Such a system would free the health insurance market of Obamacare regulations that are driving up premiums, while allowing those who wish to do so to keep their Obamacare plans.
If sperm counts continue declining at the current rate, humans could become extinct.
Analyzing nearly 200 studies, researchers have found that the sperm counts in men across North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have halved in less than forty years. The study found that the decline in men’s sperm counts may also be accelerating.
Although the study didn’t investigate the potential causes of this sharp decline, prior research has implicated exposures to man-made chemicals, especially endocrine disruptors that are plentiful in many consumer products and the pesticides sprayed on our food.
We’ve previously reported the evidence that GMOs could also be culprits in declining sperm counts. In a Russian study on hamsters, scientists observed that consumption of GM soybeans tended to slow their sexual maturation, and completely eliminating their ability to reproduce. This can take several generations to unfold. Another study uncovered similar infertility in third-generation mice that consumed GM corn.
There are natural ways to improve male fertility in addition to protecting oneself from exposure to endocrine disruptors, which can be found in unexpected places, such as dental offices or checkout receipts. Natural medicine specialists can also help with more sophisticated tests as well as the right food, supplements, and exercise. Something as simple as enough Vitamin D can make all the difference in restoring fertility.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2iodY1c via Aloe for Health
An important bill has passed the Senate. It needs our support in the House. Action alert!
Earlier this month, the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017 passed the Senate and now moves to the House.
The bill expands access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other treatment options. It also frees drug companies from liability where trial medications are provided.
This is a much-needed reform that ANH-USA has supported for a number of years. As we’ve pointed out, FDA bureaucrats have thrown roadblocks into the path of patients who desire access to experimental and potentially life-saving drugs. The agency’s “compassionate use” program is marred by a cumbersome application and documentation process, and the agency often delays or blocks approval. It can even revoke permission after it has been granted—and does.
Patients and their families who desire access to experimental drugs are faced with incredibly difficult life and death decisions. Such decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor, not with the FDA standing in the way. This legislation deserves our support.
Action Alert! Write to your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the federal Right to Try bill. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2ilUcmW via Aloe for Health
If sperm counts continue declining at the current rate, humans could become extinct.
Analyzing nearly 200 studies, researchers have found that the sperm counts in men across North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have halved in less than forty years. The study found that the decline in men’s sperm counts may also be accelerating.
Although the study didn’t investigate the potential causes of this sharp decline, prior research has implicated exposures to man-made chemicals, especially endocrine disruptors that are plentiful in many consumer products and the pesticides sprayed on our food.
We’ve previously reported the evidence that GMOs could also be culprits in declining sperm counts. In a Russian study on hamsters, scientists observed that consumption of GM soybeans tended to slow their sexual maturation, and completely eliminating their ability to reproduce. This can take several generations to unfold. Another study uncovered similar infertility in third-generation mice that consumed GM corn.
There are natural ways to improve male fertility in addition to protecting oneself from exposure to endocrine disruptors, which can be found in unexpected places, such as dental offices or checkout receipts. Natural medicine specialists can also help with more sophisticated tests as well as the right food, supplements, and exercise. Something as simple as enough Vitamin D can make all the difference in restoring fertility.
An important bill has passed the Senate. It needs our support in the House. Action alert!
Earlier this month, the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017 passed the Senate and now moves to the House.
The bill expands access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other treatment options. It also frees drug companies from liability where trial medications are provided.
This is a much-needed reform that ANH-USA has supported for a number of years. As we’ve pointed out, FDA bureaucrats have thrown roadblocks into the path of patients who desire access to experimental and potentially life-saving drugs. The agency’s “compassionate use” program is marred by a cumbersome application and documentation process, and the agency often delays or blocks approval. It can even revoke permission after it has been granted—and does.
Patients and their families who desire access to experimental drugs are faced with incredibly difficult life and death decisions. Such decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor, not with the FDA standing in the way. This legislation deserves our support.
Action Alert! Write to your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the federal Right to Try bill. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2xp8Ooc via Aloe for Health
An important new bill requires our support. Action Alert!
Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) has introduced a bill that would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study comparing health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
This is an incredibly important bill. The number of immunizations given to young children has increased dramatically over the years. By the age of two, children in 1950 received five shots; today, children receive as many as twenty-seven shots before their second birthday, with multiple shots often given in the same visit.
Public health officials insist that all of this is safe. You would think that such confidence would be underpinned by rigorous tests confirming the safety of vaccines, their ingredients, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) schedule in general. The astounding truth is that in many cases this safety testing has simply not been done. The National Academy of Medicine, which advises the government on issues relating to medicine and health, concluded in 2013 that “Key elements of the [CDC] schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.” Our coverage of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines also found safety testing conspicuously lacking.
Doctors and public health officials tell parents with kids injured by vaccines that there is no proof of causality between the injury and the administration of a vaccine. Clearly, determining causality can be complicated, especially since vaccinations tend to be given at the same ages as neurological and developmental disorders can first emerge in children.
The obvious solution would be to study the matter thoroughly to get to the bottom of it—yet no comprehensive studies comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids have been done. The studies that have been undertaken – such as the two papers led by Professor Anthony Mawson that we reported on earlier this year, suggest that vaccinated kids are, on the whole, sicker than unvaccinated kids.
Another reason for the lack of evidence is that attempts to publish this kind of work are usually met with vitriol and calls for retraction, as we’ve seen with Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 Lancet paper.
There is a growing movement to force vaccinations on the US public, either through eliminating exemptions to vaccination or by mandating certain vaccines for children to attend school. If those who wish to force vaccinations on families are so confident that vaccines are safe, why not do the science? What are they afraid of?
Action Alert! Write to your Member of Congress and tell him or her to support HR 3615. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2fHhC5r via Aloe for Health
Or government profiteering crisis? Action Alert!
Last week, President Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis issued a preliminary report recommending several steps to address opioid addiction. The situation is truly a crisis – 142 Americans die every day from a drug overdose, a toll equal to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks taking place every three weeks.
The report convinced President Trump to declare a national emergency, allowing the administration to waive some federal rules, such as one that restricts where Medicaid recipients can receive addiction treatment. The Commission called for increased education for medical professionals who can prescribe opioids, expanded access to drug treatment for those on Medicaid, and the increased use of medication-assisted treatments.
Any strategy to address a public health scourge such as this must be wide-ranging, but what is barely mentioned in the report is the need for safe, cost-effective, non-addictive alternatives to opioids to be made more accessible for those in chronic pain who need them. Ironically, the government has actually threatened to curtail consumer access to one such alternative.
That alternative is cannabidiol oil, or CBD. As we’ve reported before, CBD oil is an extract of the hemp and marijuana plants that does not have any psychoactive properties but has been shown to have beneficial effects on pain, inflammation, seizures, arthritis, and other inflammatory conditions. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recently classified CBD oil as a Schedule I controlled substance, a category that includes heroin, mescaline, and MDMA. Since this ruling, there have been reports that PayPal and other credit card processors are no longer taking payments for CBD oil.
Importantly, CBD oil is safe and non-addictive, which cannot be said for other approved pain relievers. Aspirin can cause internal bleeding; the now-banned Vioxx caused heart disease; fentanyl, which is up to 100 times more potent than morphine, can kill you, and opioids, as we know, can lead to addiction and death.
In a sane health system, cheap, safe, non-addictive, natural alternatives to dangerous FDA-approved drugs would be welcomed with open arms. The DEA, however, says that CBD oil is in the same class as heroin and the FDA says that CBD oil isn’t a supplement, meaning that the axe could drop on CBD oil products whenever the FDA feels like it.
Even as America experiences a 9/11 sized death toll every three weeks, the government doesn’t just ignore a safe and natural alternative—it sets the stage to hand this treatment over to a drug company to form a monopoly and deny consumers easy access.
Action Alert! If you haven’t already, click below to send a message to your senators and representative in Congress to support bills that help maintain consumer access to CBD oil, with a copy to President Trump to include CBD oil as part of his response to the opioid crisis. Please send your message immediately.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2fHXu32 via Aloe for Health
Courts reprimand agency for giving big companies a pass on animal waste.
Following a recent court case, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) – more commonly known as factory farms or animal feeding lots – will have to report their air pollution emissions.
Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declared illegal a 2008 EPA rule exempting most CAFOs from reporting releases of certain levels of hazardous substances into the air to be illegal. Judge Stephen Williams wrote in the decision that the EPA does not have “carte blanche to ignore the statute whenever it decides the reporting requirements aren’t worth the trouble.”
Before that EPA rule was put in place, federal law required CAFOs, like all other industries, to notify the government when toxic pollution levels exceeded public safety thresholds.
The EPA’s rationale for letting CAFOs off the hook was that because a federal response to the reports would be “impractical and unlikely,” the pollution reports themselves would serve no purpose. That’s a telling statement from an agency whose mandate is to protect our environment!
Quick background: most of the air pollution from animal feeding operations comes from manure. And there’s a lot of it – the amount of urine and feces produced by the smallest CAFOs is equivalent to that produced by 16,000 humans. As it breaks down, manure produces many substances that are regulated under the Clean Air Act: such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, nitrous oxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These pollutants can be dangerous. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Methane is generally non-toxic but can become toxic if mixed with other substances (and it is a greenhouse gas). In the words of the Court, “people have become seriously ill and even died” from CAFO emissions.
The CAFO industry does not want transparency. We reported recently that the EPA, National Pork Producers Council, and the American Farm Bureau reached a settlement that allowed EPA to release only the most limited information about the location of CAFOs. Moreover, after intense lobbying from the meat industry in 2012, the agency decided to not even count how many CAFOs are operating in the US.
We hope that a spotlight can now be placed on these factory farms that have for so long operated in the shadows with the help of government collusion. Environmental groups have now filed a petition with the EPA to overhaul its regulations for how CAFOs are treated under the Clean Water Act, but if this leads anywhere it will likely have to be through the courts.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2fIJaqO via Aloe for Health
An important new bill requires our support. Action Alert!
Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) has introduced a bill that would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study comparing health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
This is an incredibly important bill. The number of immunizations given to young children has increased dramatically over the years. By the age of two, children in 1950 received five shots; today, children receive as many as twenty-seven shots before their second birthday, with multiple shots often given in the same visit.
Public health officials insist that all of this is safe. You would think that such confidence would be underpinned by rigorous tests confirming the safety of vaccines, their ingredients, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) schedule in general. The astounding truth is that in many cases this safety testing has simply not been done. The National Academy of Medicine, which advises the government on issues relating to medicine and health, concluded in 2013 that “Key elements of the [CDC] schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.” Our coverage of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines also found safety testing conspicuously lacking.
Doctors and public health officials tell parents with kids injured by vaccines that there is no proof of causality between the injury and the administration of a vaccine. Clearly, determining causality can be complicated, especially since vaccinations tend to be given at the same ages as neurological and developmental disorders can first emerge in children.
The obvious solution would be to study the matter thoroughly to get to the bottom of it—yet no comprehensive studies comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids have been done. The studies that have been undertaken – such as the two papers led by Professor Anthony Mawson that we reported on earlier this year, suggest that vaccinated kids are, on the whole, sicker than unvaccinated kids.
Another reason for the lack of evidence is that attempts to publish this kind of work are usually met with vitriol and calls for retraction, as we’ve seen with Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 Lancet paper.
There is a growing movement to force vaccinations on the US public, either through eliminating exemptions to vaccination or by mandating certain vaccines for children to attend school. If those who wish to force vaccinations on families are so confident that vaccines are safe, why not do the science? What are they afraid of?
Action Alert! Write to your Member of Congress and tell him or her to support HR 3615. Please send your message immediately.
Or government profiteering crisis? Action Alert!
Last week, President Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis issued a preliminary report recommending several steps to address opioid addiction. The situation is truly a crisis – 142 Americans die every day from a drug overdose, a toll equal to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks taking place every three weeks.
The report convinced President Trump to declare a national emergency, allowing the administration to waive some federal rules, such as one that restricts where Medicaid recipients can receive addiction treatment. The Commission called for increased education for medical professionals who can prescribe opioids, expanded access to drug treatment for those on Medicaid, and the increased use of medication-assisted treatments.
Any strategy to address a public health scourge such as this must be wide-ranging, but what is barely mentioned in the report is the need for safe, cost-effective, non-addictive alternatives to opioids to be made more accessible for those in chronic pain who need them. Ironically, the government has actually threatened to curtail consumer access to one such alternative.
That alternative is cannabidiol oil, or CBD. As we’ve reported before, CBD oil is an extract of the hemp and marijuana plants that does not have any psychoactive properties but has been shown to have beneficial effects on pain, inflammation, seizures, arthritis, and other inflammatory conditions. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recently classified CBD oil as a Schedule I controlled substance, a category that includes heroin, mescaline, and MDMA. Since this ruling, there have been reports that PayPal and other credit card processors are no longer taking payments for CBD oil.
Importantly, CBD oil is safe and non-addictive, which cannot be said for other approved pain relievers. Aspirin can cause internal bleeding; the now-banned Vioxx caused heart disease; fentanyl, which is up to 100 times more potent than morphine, can kill you, and opioids, as we know, can lead to addiction and death.
In a sane health system, cheap, safe, non-addictive, natural alternatives to dangerous FDA-approved drugs would be welcomed with open arms. The DEA, however, says that CBD oil is in the same class as heroin and the FDA says that CBD oil isn’t a supplement, meaning that the axe could drop on CBD oil products whenever the FDA feels like it.
Even as America experiences a 9/11 sized death toll every three weeks, the government doesn’t just ignore a safe and natural alternative—it sets the stage to hand this treatment over to a drug company to form a monopoly and deny consumers easy access.
Action Alert! If you haven’t already, click below to send a message to your senators and representative in Congress to support bills that help maintain consumer access to CBD oil, with a copy to President Trump to include CBD oil as part of his response to the opioid crisis. Please send your message immediately.
Courts reprimand agency for giving big companies a pass on animal waste.
Following a recent court case, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) – more commonly known as factory farms or animal feeding lots – will have to report their air pollution emissions.
Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declared illegal a 2008 EPA rule exempting most CAFOs from reporting releases of certain levels of hazardous substances into the air to be illegal. Judge Stephen Williams wrote in the decision that the EPA does not have “carte blanche to ignore the statute whenever it decides the reporting requirements aren’t worth the trouble.”
Before that EPA rule was put in place, federal law required CAFOs, like all other industries, to notify the government when toxic pollution levels exceeded public safety thresholds.
The EPA’s rationale for letting CAFOs off the hook was that because a federal response to the reports would be “impractical and unlikely,” the pollution reports themselves would serve no purpose. That’s a telling statement from an agency whose mandate is to protect our environment!
Quick background: most of the air pollution from animal feeding operations comes from manure. And there’s a lot of it – the amount of urine and feces produced by the smallest CAFOs is equivalent to that produced by 16,000 humans. As it breaks down, manure produces many substances that are regulated under the Clean Air Act: such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, nitrous oxide, and volatile organic compounds.
These pollutants can be dangerous. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Methane is generally non-toxic but can become toxic if mixed with other substances (and it is a greenhouse gas). In the words of the Court, “people have become seriously ill and even died” from CAFO emissions.
The CAFO industry does not want transparency. We reported recently that the EPA, National Pork Producers Council, and the American Farm Bureau reached a settlement that allowed EPA to release only the most limited information about the location of CAFOs. Moreover, after intense lobbying from the meat industry in 2012, the agency decided to not even count how many CAFOs are operating in the US.
We hope that a spotlight can now be placed on these factory farms that have for so long operated in the shadows with the help of government collusion. Environmental groups have now filed a petition with the EPA to overhaul its regulations for how CAFOs are treated under the Clean Water Act, but if this leads anywhere it will likely have to be through the courts.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uFNs9f via Aloe for Health
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2uLpDZN via Aloe for Health
Are we vastly undercounting the girls?
A government study carried out in 2015 claims the rate of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) may be as high as 1 in 45 children between the ages of 3 and 17. Rates of autism and other developmental disabilities have ballooned as much as 78% in recent years, with no signs of abating. Stephenie Seneff, PhD, an MIT research scientist, has predicted that half of all children will be autistic by 2025.
This sounds bad enough, but it gets worse.
Autism is predominantly associated with boys. Some estimate the boy/girl ratio to be 16:1. Other estimates put the ratio at 3:1. A growing body of evidence, however, is suggesting that girls have ASD at higher rates than previously thought and are being significantly under-diagnosed.
There is no medical test to diagnose ASD. Rather, doctors observe a child’s behavior and development to make a diagnosis. Researchers are beginning to think that girls are better at “social camouflaging”—they have ASD but don’t exhibit the same behaviors as boys.
One study looked at how autistic boys and girls acted on the school playground. The boys clearly stood out as different, isolated from their peers, off by themselves. Girls with autism behaved differently, making it look like they were playing when in fact they were not socially connecting.
If this finding holds up, the overall rate of autism could be far higher than what we’ve been told—a scary prospect given the already alarming rates of childhood developmental disorders.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2viyVNX via Aloe for Health
Even mainstream science is realizing the importance of the gut microbiome to autism and healthy child development.
Dr. Stephenie Seneff’s autism research has focused on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, the most ubiquitous herbicide in the world. The side effects of autism, she found, closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity. The steadily rising use of Roundup on American lawns and farms closely correlates to the rising tide of autism.
But the problem probably goes beyond glyphosate. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Kids who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism as are children whose mothers smoked. And the research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury may alter brain functioning even before a child is born. (For tips on avoiding environmental exposures, take a look at this checklist.)
Many children with ASD also experience gastrointestinal problems. They have significantly different gut flora compared to those that do not have ASD. Researchers suspect that the ASD child’s gut microbiome—and its trillions of bacteria that are integral to human health—becomes compromised early in life. This disruption, combined with environmental exposures and genetic factors, creates the “perfect storm” for ASD to develop. It is also worth remembering that children delivered by surgery do not pick up their mother’s friendly vaginal bacteria which can also have significant negative consequences.
Research is also increasingly demonstrating the connection between the gut and the brain. One particular gut bacterium has been found in smaller quantities in children with ASD. When fed to mice with symptoms similar to autism in humans, their behavior improved. The mice became less anxious, communicated more with other mice, and showed less repetitive behavior.
In addition, Dr. Mercola reports that a diet high in good-quality fats that also restricts things like sugar, gluten, and grains may bring about tremendous improvement in kids with ASD.
Much more research must be done to confirm the gut-brain connection, and turn it into treatments, but early results are encouraging. Even mainstream medicine is gradually and reluctantly starting to embrace the importance of the gut microbiome to human health after decades of ignoring it or undermining it with antibiotics and other drugs such as acid blockers among many others.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2vihuNm via Aloe for Health
That way appears to be deception, obfuscation, and cronyism.
We’ve been telling you about a court case against Monsanto in which the plaintiffs allege that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup herbicide, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Documents in the case, including email messages, are now being made public, demonstrating how far Monsanto will go make sure glyphosate stays on the market. The indications include ghost writing, with Monsanto allegedly drafting scientific reports that were then published under someone else’s name. For example, a Monsanto employee may have written an article, under the guise of an academic, that appeared in Forbes in 2015 attacking the World Health Organization’s determination that glyphosate is probably a carcinogen.
Some of the emails even show Monsanto’s own scientists expressing concern over glyphosate’s safety. In a message from 2001, one Monsanto scientist wrote, “If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern.”
There are other revelations in the court documents that show Monsanto executives knew that Roundup was dangerous:
The revealed documents also showed that Monsanto has relationships with peer-reviewed journals. The former editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology had a contractual relationship with Monsanto and retracted a study from famed GMO researcher Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini that found that Roundup and GMO corn could cause cancer and early death in rats.
Let’s not forget that documents unsealed earlier indicated that a top EPA official promised Monsanto he would quash an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review of glyphosate.
All of this – and doubtless more evidence as yet unreleased – shows that Monsanto executives likely knew what Professor Séralini demonstrated last year, that the “inert” ingredients in Roundup may were up to 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate, the active ingredient. Even though it’s less toxic than the inert ingredients in Roundup, the evidence is accumulating that glyphosate itself is toxic. So, too, the evidence that Monsanto has been pulling out all the stops to get its desired outcome.
from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/2vAHC8U via Aloe for Health
