Drug Ad Deception

The drug industry is using deceptive practices to circumvent the law and sell you more drugs. Action Alert!

We’ve all seen the drug TV ads: a couple walking together on a peaceful beach, or playing with the family dog in a sunny meadow—and then we get to the appalling list of side effects that, understandably, turn off many consumers. Drug companies have to include the side effects by law; otherwise, consumers could be duped into buying drugs based on deceptive ads. But the pharmaceutical industry is fighting back, deploying deceptive maneuvers to get around disclosing the dangers of their products. This intentional manipulation of consumers cannot be allowed to continue.

By law, if a specific FDA-approved product is being promoted, the agency requires that risks and side effects of the product be communicated alongside the benefits. These rules can be circumvented, however, if a more general awareness of a condition is being promoted, rather than a specific drug. For example, Mylan, the company that owns the EpiPen, created an ad campaign about the dangers of anaphylaxis; a voice at the end of the ad encourages consumers to ask their doctors about a prescription treatment for severe allergic reactions. This “unbranded” ad is clearly meant to sell more EpiPens (what else would a doctor prescribe for anaphylaxis?), but because the product isn’t mentioned by name, the risks and side effects of the EpiPen do not need to be disclosed.

Similarly, a commercial that aired during the 2016 Super Bowl “raised awareness” about opioid-induced constipation, encouraging consumers to ask their doctor for a prescription. The ad plugged a website that linked to information about Movantik, a drug made by the companies that paid for the ad, AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo.

The tone of unbranded ads tends to be fearful and ominous, suggesting that if consumers don’t seek a prescription from their doctor, terrible things will happen. Novartis paid for an unbranded drug ad for heart failure depicting a man sitting comfortably in a chair as the room filled with water. As this happens the narrator explains that half of people with heart failure die within five years of being diagnosed.

We can only expect to see more of these ads in the future. The drug industry spent about $171 million on unbranded ads in 2016, which was an increase of 15 percent from the previous year. According to one industry spokesperson, being legally allowed to skip risk disclosures means “you can get more mileage for your dollar in getting the word out.”

These same principles can be used in social media. Drug companies are increasingly looking to use “patient influencers”—people who have sizeable social media followings—to help increase their bottom line. Patient influencers are typically people who have a condition and have developed an online community around that condition—a valuable resource for a drug company. The same tactics used in unbranded drug ads can be deployed using social media influencers: a company can pay an influencer to post about a condition rather than a drug to skirt the rules about discussing side effects and link to a website with more information. After a few clicks around that site, you’re likely to stumble upon a link to a drug to treat the condition, sold by the company who paid the influencer. The drug industry works with patient influencers in a variety of ways to gain access to the patients in their social media following to sell them drugs without overt drug advertising.

The purpose of all this deceptive advertising is to trick consumers into thinking that they are reading a post from a person they trust, while in reality they are being exposed, either directly or indirectly, to drug industry propaganda.

Unbranded ads like this can be difficult for regulators to deal with: when no specific product is mentioned, it is hard to distinguish between an influencer exercising basic freedom of speech and when that influencer is being paid to indirectly help a company sell a drug through their posts. The Federal Trade Commission has attempted to crack down on undisclosed social media celebrity endorsements, but the practice is still rampant.

There is a clear danger here that consumers will be misled into buying products without knowing the dangers or risks of those products. The fix is simple. Congress should step in and ban unbranded drug ads and require that patient influencers disclose when they are being paid to post about a medical condition, just like pharmaceutical companies are required to disclose payments to doctors. When our health is on the line, transparency is key. We cannot let drug companies undermine this basic principle.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to force patient influencers to disclose when they are being paid to post by a drug company, and to stop drug companies from running deceptive, “unbranded” ads that manipulate consumers. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2P73KNK via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2Q4dcqC

This Loophole Allows Chemicals to Hide In Your Food

We often see “artificial” or “natural” flavors listed among the ingredients on foods we buy, but do consumers know what these terms mean? Action Alert!

Recently, the FDA announced that a group of six artificial flavors would no longer be permitted to be used as food additives. They are: synthetically-derived benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, methyl eugenol, myrcene, pulegone, and pyridine. If you’ve never heard of these, you’re not alone. Most Americans are completely unaware of the additives put into their food because the food industry does not need to list the chemicals they use in the ingredients. Instead, the federal government allows these chemicals to be obscured by being listed as “artificial flavors” or “natural flavors.” It’s time to stop letting Big Food and their crony capitalist friends get away with hiding the contents of their products and require them to list the chemicals they use in our food.

Artificial flavors are flavors that have been derived from sources other than plants or animals; they are synthetic compounds made in a lab from any of thousands of different chemicals used to make flavors. Companies often favor artificial flavors because they are cheaper to produce than “natural” flavors. It’s impossible to know, then, just how many chemicals are in a food that lists “artificial flavors” in its ingredients—it could be two, or it could be twenty.

Despite the vast number of chemicals used in food and labeled as artificial flavors, the government has done very little to ensure that they are safe. That’s because food companies can deem their own products to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) without a formal review by the FDA. The GRAS process has essentially turned into a loophole for food companies to declare all kinds of chemicals safe to add to our food with little oversight. The FDA seems fine with taking Big Food’s word for it. The above-mentioned chemicals that are now banned were found to cause cancer in animal studies, and the FDA needed to be sued by grassroots environmental advocacy groups to remove them from the food supply. Of the thousands of other chemicals being added to our food, how many more pose a risk to human health?

Allowing Big Food to only mention “artificial flavors” rather than list the chemical names of the additives they use only benefits food manufacturers because they know that consumers would be turned off if they knew their favorite iced tea had seven chemicals they couldn’t pronounce in the ingredients. The term “artificial flavors” is similar to the new GMO label in development that depicts a sun with a smiley face and says “BE” for “bioengineered” rather than GMO, a term more people are aware of. In both cases, the government is helping the food industry sanitize its products to make them more attractive to consumers. Once again, our crony capitalist government takes the side of industry rather than ordinary consumers.

Natural flavors should also be listed on food packaging. According to the FDA, natural flavors are flavors isolated from plant or animal sources. Like artificial flavors, natural flavors are ubiquitous in our food supply; one report found that only water, salt, and sugar appear on food labels more often than “natural flavors.” You may think that natural flavors are better, since they are derived from natural sources, but experts say that the source of a flavor has no bearing on how healthy or safe it is. For example, traces of cyanide can be found in natural almond flavor; raw soybeans used to make soy sauce can also be toxic. Some natural vanilla flavor is synthesized from the anal glands of beavers. The point is that consumers have a right to know what chemicals are in the foods they buy so informed decisions can be made about what is OK and what should be avoided.

The solution is simple. Food companies should be required to list out all of the chemicals used to flavor a food. Because it can be difficult to distinguish the chemical names of natural and artificial flavors, food labels can simply list out natural flavors under that heading, and artificial flavors under their own heading. Consumers could then make their own informed decisions about what they are comfortable eating.

Action Alert! Tell Congress and the FDA to mandate that artificial and natural flavors be listed on food labels. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2zvLR6r via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2RnMXI2

Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic: Day and Night Different on Diet: Which to Believe?

The Mayo Clinic was once the most trusted name in American medicine. Today trusting them about diet could shorten your life by decades. State-based Action Alerts!

First, consider the Mayo Clinic’s version of the food pyramid. Fats are near the top of the pyramid, just below sweets. This is a low, indeed an anti-fat diet.

Next consider the Mayo Clinic’s overview of recent diets. For example, when they evaluate the ketogenic diet—a diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates—they argue the diet has proven benefits only for those with uncontrolled epilepsy and that the high fat content, “especially the high level of unhealthy saturated fat” combined with limits on grains, makes the diet a “concern for long-term health.” Well, yes, a very low-carb diet is very effective for seizures, but a moderately low-carb diet is good for everyone.

This bad advice from the Mayo Clinic echoes  the government’s 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which similarly recommended that Americans avoid fat and in particular  consume less saturated fat. The guidelines did not advise lowering carbohydrate intake, only added sugars; they recommend that half of carbs should be whole grains.

Now contrast all this with advice coming from the now equally famous Cleveland Clinic’s Functional Medicine unit, headed by Dr. Mark Hyman. Dr. Hyman points out that a diet high in sugary, starchy carbs raises insulin, spikes glucose, converts the excess carbs to fat, and leads to  obesity, type 2 diabetes, and many other chronic health conditions. At a time when 70% of Americans are overweight and half are prediabetic or have type 2 diabetes, there’s clearly a problem. What’s changed? According to Dr. Hyman, it’s the high load not just of sugar and corn syrup but also of starchy and especially refined carbs in our diet that is driving the obesity and diabetes epidemic—not the healthy fats that the government and professional organizations like the Mayo Clinic tell us to avoid. Even whole wheat bread, encouraged by the Mayo Clinic, can raise your blood sugar more than table sugar! The flour used to make it may also be rancid. So much for that health food.

The most up to date experts agree that a low carb diet is best. But what kind of low carb diet? The Cleveland Clinic points out that a high protein diet combined with carb restriction can lead to problems, including kidney failure, high cholesterol, cancer, and osteoporosis. So don’t just replace carbs with protein.

Also, be careful to avoid bad fats such as trans fats and high omega 6 vegetable oils. The latter can be pro-inflammatory and must be balanced by anti-inflammatory omega 3 fats such as fish oil.

The latest science makes clear that fat is not the enemy. Our bodies were engineered to run on it except in emergencies when carbs give us an extra energy boost.  Dr. Hyman discusses a European study that compared a low fat diet to a diet high in healthy fats—olive oil nuts, etc.— the study found that the high fat diet was associated with fewer heart attacks, less diabetes, and less obesity. He also reports that 17 meta analyses could find no link between heart disease, saturated fat, or total fat. This is just a small part of all the accumulating evidence in favor of a low carb, moderate protein, high healthy fat diet.  The Mayo Clinic’s food pyramid, with fat near the top where fewer calories should come from, has it completely backwards.

Ironically there is even a Mayo Clinic study supporting the opposite of their advice. Their study found that a diet high in saturated fat and low in starch did not have undesirable effects on cholesterol.

Dr. Hyman, along with other leading integrative doctors and our ANH Scientific Director,  Robert Verkerk, PhD, stress that food is the ultimate medicine, but most conventional doctors don’t understand this yet. The right food along with enough pure water, exercise, and sleep will greatly lengthen both your life and health span.

One of the reasons the once proud Mayo Clinic is doing so poorly here is that they seem to have turned over their diet advice to Registered Dieticians (RDs). Some RDs are honest and knowledgeable. But the RD’s national organization, AND, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, gets a substantial portion of its funding from junk food companies. The AND’s list of corporate sponsors lists giants like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, ConAgra, Kellogg, and Campbell Soup. The AND infamously partnered with Kraft Foods, the maker of single slice “cheese products,” for its “Kids Eat Right” campaign. Can we really expect RDs to give science-based advice when they’re on the take from junk food companies? When will the Mayo Clinic finally figure out that food is medicine and that it cannot be delegated to RDs?

The leading alternative to RDs includes nutrition experts such as those at the Board for Certification of Nutrition Specialists (BCNS). Whereas most RDs lack any graduate school training, BCNS requires a master’s degree and many of its nutrition advisors hold PhDs. BCNS also takes no money from the junk food industry.

It’s unfortunate that, in the face of strong evidence, the Mayo Clinic and others are continuing to confuse people about nutrition. Even more galling is the fact that the AND is attempting to keep other, often more qualified professionals from offering nutrition advice, as we’ve written about previously.

Action Alert! New York and New Jersey residents, oppose a bill that would exclude qualified nutrition professionals from practicing in your state. Please send your message immediately.

New Jersey

New York

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2P9tPvD via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2Q2AuwX

Drug Ad Deception

The drug industry is using deceptive practices to circumvent the law and sell you more drugs. Action Alert!

We’ve all seen the drug TV ads: a couple walking together on a peaceful beach, or playing with the family dog in a sunny meadow—and then we get to the appalling list of side effects that, understandably, turn off many consumers. Drug companies have to include the side effects by law; otherwise, consumers could be duped into buying drugs based on deceptive ads. But the pharmaceutical industry is fighting back, deploying deceptive maneuvers to get around disclosing the dangers of their products. This intentional manipulation of consumers cannot be allowed to continue.

By law, if a specific FDA-approved product is being promoted, the agency requires that risks and side effects of the product be communicated alongside the benefits. These rules can be circumvented, however, if a more general awareness of a condition is being promoted, rather than a specific drug. For example, Mylan, the company that owns the EpiPen, created an ad campaign about the dangers of anaphylaxis; a voice at the end of the ad encourages consumers to ask their doctors about a prescription treatment for severe allergic reactions. This “unbranded” ad is clearly meant to sell more EpiPens (what else would a doctor prescribe for anaphylaxis?), but because the product isn’t mentioned by name, the risks and side effects of the EpiPen do not need to be disclosed.

Similarly, a commercial that aired during the 2016 Super Bowl “raised awareness” about opioid-induced constipation, encouraging consumers to ask their doctor for a prescription. The ad plugged a website that linked to information about Movantik, a drug made by the companies that paid for the ad, AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo.

The tone of unbranded ads tends to be fearful and ominous, suggesting that if consumers don’t seek a prescription from their doctor, terrible things will happen. Novartis paid for an unbranded drug ad for heart failure depicting a man sitting comfortably in a chair as the room filled with water. As this happens the narrator explains that half of people with heart failure die within five years of being diagnosed.

We can only expect to see more of these ads in the future. The drug industry spent about $171 million on unbranded ads in 2016, which was an increase of 15 percent from the previous year. According to one industry spokesperson, being legally allowed to skip risk disclosures means “you can get more mileage for your dollar in getting the word out.”

These same principles can be used in social media. Drug companies are increasingly looking to use “patient influencers”—people who have sizeable social media followings—to help increase their bottom line. Patient influencers are typically people who have a condition and have developed an online community around that condition—a valuable resource for a drug company. The same tactics used in unbranded drug ads can be deployed using social media influencers: a company can pay an influencer to post about a condition rather than a drug to skirt the rules about discussing side effects and link to a website with more information. After a few clicks around that site, you’re likely to stumble upon a link to a drug to treat the condition, sold by the company who paid the influencer. The drug industry works with patient influencers in a variety of ways to gain access to the patients in their social media following to sell them drugs without overt drug advertising.

The purpose of all this deceptive advertising is to trick consumers into thinking that they are reading a post from a person they trust, while in reality they are being exposed, either directly or indirectly, to drug industry propaganda.

Unbranded ads like this can be difficult for regulators to deal with: when no specific product is mentioned, it is hard to distinguish between an influencer exercising basic freedom of speech and when that influencer is being paid to indirectly help a company sell a drug through their posts. The Federal Trade Commission has attempted to crack down on undisclosed social media celebrity endorsements, but the practice is still rampant.

There is a clear danger here that consumers will be misled into buying products without knowing the dangers or risks of those products. The fix is simple. Congress should step in and ban unbranded drug ads and require that patient influencers disclose when they are being paid to post about a medical condition, just like pharmaceutical companies are required to disclose payments to doctors. When our health is on the line, transparency is key. We cannot let drug companies undermine this basic principle.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to force patient influencers to disclose when they are being paid to post by a drug company, and to stop drug companies from running deceptive, “unbranded” ads that manipulate consumers. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2P73KNK via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2BFSnZL

This Loophole Allows Chemicals to Hide In Your Food

We often see “artificial” or “natural” flavors listed among the ingredients on foods we buy, but do consumers know what these terms mean? Action Alert!

Recently, the FDA announced that a group of six artificial flavors would no longer be permitted to be used as food additives. They are: synthetically-derived benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, methyl eugenol, myrcene, pulegone, and pyridine. If you’ve never heard of these, you’re not alone. Most Americans are completely unaware of the additives put into their food because the food industry does not need to list the chemicals they use in the ingredients. Instead, the federal government allows these chemicals to be obscured by being listed as “artificial flavors” or “natural flavors.” It’s time to stop letting Big Food and their crony capitalist friends get away with hiding the contents of their products and require them to list the chemicals they use in our food.

Artificial flavors are flavors that have been derived from sources other than plants or animals; they are synthetic compounds made in a lab from any of thousands of different chemicals used to make flavors. Companies often favor artificial flavors because they are cheaper to produce than “natural” flavors. It’s impossible to know, then, just how many chemicals are in a food that lists “artificial flavors” in its ingredients—it could be two, or it could be twenty.

Despite the vast number of chemicals used in food and labeled as artificial flavors, the government has done very little to ensure that they are safe. That’s because food companies can deem their own products to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) without a formal review by the FDA. The GRAS process has essentially turned into a loophole for food companies to declare all kinds of chemicals safe to add to our food with little oversight. The FDA seems fine with taking Big Food’s word for it. The above-mentioned chemicals that are now banned were found to cause cancer in animal studies, and the FDA needed to be sued by grassroots environmental advocacy groups to remove them from the food supply. Of the thousands of other chemicals being added to our food, how many more pose a risk to human health?

Allowing Big Food to only mention “artificial flavors” rather than list the chemical names of the additives they use only benefits food manufacturers because they know that consumers would be turned off if they knew their favorite iced tea had seven chemicals they couldn’t pronounce in the ingredients. The term “artificial flavors” is similar to the new GMO label in development that depicts a sun with a smiley face and says “BE” for “bioengineered” rather than GMO, a term more people are aware of. In both cases, the government is helping the food industry sanitize its products to make them more attractive to consumers. Once again, our crony capitalist government takes the side of industry rather than ordinary consumers.

Natural flavors should also be listed on food packaging. According to the FDA, natural flavors are flavors isolated from plant or animal sources. Like artificial flavors, natural flavors are ubiquitous in our food supply; one report found that only water, salt, and sugar appear on food labels more often than “natural flavors.” You may think that natural flavors are better, since they are derived from natural sources, but experts say that the source of a flavor has no bearing on how healthy or safe it is. For example, traces of cyanide can be found in natural almond flavor; raw soybeans used to make soy sauce can also be toxic. Some natural vanilla flavor is synthesized from the anal glands of beavers. The point is that consumers have a right to know what chemicals are in the foods they buy so informed decisions can be made about what is OK and what should be avoided.

The solution is simple. Food companies should be required to list out all of the chemicals used to flavor a food. Because it can be difficult to distinguish the chemical names of natural and artificial flavors, food labels can simply list out natural flavors under that heading, and artificial flavors under their own heading. Consumers could then make their own informed decisions about what they are comfortable eating.

Action Alert! Tell Congress and the FDA to mandate that artificial and natural flavors be listed on food labels. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2zvLR6r via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2KGZYKh

Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic: Day and Night Different on Diet: Which to Believe?

The Mayo Clinic was once the most trusted name in American medicine. Today trusting them about diet could shorten your life by decades. State-based Action Alerts!

First, consider the Mayo Clinic’s version of the food pyramid. Fats are near the top of the pyramid, just below sweets. This is a low, indeed an anti-fat diet.

Next consider the Mayo Clinic’s overview of recent diets. For example, when they evaluate the ketogenic diet—a diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates—they argue the diet has proven benefits only for those with uncontrolled epilepsy and that the high fat content, “especially the high level of unhealthy saturated fat” combined with limits on grains, makes the diet a “concern for long-term health.” Well, yes, a very low-carb diet is very effective for seizures, but a moderately low-carb diet is good for everyone.

This bad advice from the Mayo Clinic echoes  the government’s 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which similarly recommended that Americans avoid fat and in particular  consume less saturated fat. The guidelines did not advise lowering carbohydrate intake, only added sugars; they recommend that half of carbs should be whole grains.

Now contrast all this with advice coming from the now equally famous Cleveland Clinic’s Functional Medicine unit, headed by Dr. Mark Hyman. Dr. Hyman points out that a diet high in sugary, starchy carbs raises insulin, spikes glucose, converts the excess carbs to fat, and leads to  obesity, type 2 diabetes, and many other chronic health conditions. At a time when 70% of Americans are overweight and half are prediabetic or have type 2 diabetes, there’s clearly a problem. What’s changed? According to Dr. Hyman, it’s the high load not just of sugar and corn syrup but also of starchy and especially refined carbs in our diet that is driving the obesity and diabetes epidemic—not the healthy fats that the government and professional organizations like the Mayo Clinic tell us to avoid. Even whole wheat bread, encouraged by the Mayo Clinic, can raise your blood sugar more than table sugar! The flour used to make it may also be rancid. So much for that health food.

The most up to date experts agree that a low carb diet is best. But what kind of low carb diet? The Cleveland Clinic points out that a high protein diet combined with carb restriction can lead to problems, including kidney failure, high cholesterol, cancer, and osteoporosis. So don’t just replace carbs with protein.

Also, be careful to avoid bad fats such as trans fats and high omega 6 vegetable oils. The latter can be pro-inflammatory and must be balanced by anti-inflammatory omega 3 fats such as fish oil.

The latest science makes clear that fat is not the enemy. Our bodies were engineered to run on it except in emergencies when carbs give us an extra energy boost.  Dr. Hyman discusses a European study that compared a low fat diet to a diet high in healthy fats—olive oil nuts, etc.— the study found that the high fat diet was associated with fewer heart attacks, less diabetes, and less obesity. He also reports that 17 meta analyses could find no link between heart disease, saturated fat, or total fat. This is just a small part of all the accumulating evidence in favor of a low carb, moderate protein, high healthy fat diet.  The Mayo Clinic’s food pyramid, with fat near the top where fewer calories should come from, has it completely backwards.

Ironically there is even a Mayo Clinic study supporting the opposite of their advice. Their study found that a diet high in saturated fat and low in starch did not have undesirable effects on cholesterol.

Dr. Hyman, along with other leading integrative doctors and our ANH Scientific Director,  Robert Verkerk, PhD, stress that food is the ultimate medicine, but most conventional doctors don’t understand this yet. The right food along with enough pure water, exercise, and sleep will greatly lengthen both your life and health span.

One of the reasons the once proud Mayo Clinic is doing so poorly here is that they seem to have turned over their diet advice to Registered Dieticians (RDs). Some RDs are honest and knowledgeable. But the RD’s national organization, AND, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, gets a substantial portion of its funding from junk food companies. The AND’s list of corporate sponsors lists giants like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, ConAgra, Kellogg, and Campbell Soup. The AND infamously partnered with Kraft Foods, the maker of single slice “cheese products,” for its “Kids Eat Right” campaign. Can we really expect RDs to give science-based advice when they’re on the take from junk food companies? When will the Mayo Clinic finally figure out that food is medicine and that it cannot be delegated to RDs?

The leading alternative to RDs includes nutrition experts such as those at the Board for Certification of Nutrition Specialists (BCNS). Whereas most RDs lack any graduate school training, BCNS requires a master’s degree and many of its nutrition advisors hold PhDs. BCNS also takes no money from the junk food industry.

It’s unfortunate that, in the face of strong evidence, the Mayo Clinic and others are continuing to confuse people about nutrition. Even more galling is the fact that the AND is attempting to keep other, often more qualified professionals from offering nutrition advice, as we’ve written about previously.

Action Alert! New York and New Jersey residents, oppose a bill that would exclude qualified nutrition professionals from practicing in your state. Please send your message immediately.

New Jersey

New York

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2P9tPvD via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2BGn8xO

Dr. Einsteinberger: Artificial Is Not A 4-Letter Word

Take Action

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2P6b4Jt via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2E2XCoC

Drug Companies Are Manipulating You Through Social Media

Read Full Article
Take Action!

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2zuCPXo via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2SjZyfM

Dr. Einsteinberger: Artificial Is Not A 4-Letter Word

Take Action

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2P6b4Jt via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2KEnVSr

Drug Companies Are Manipulating You Through Social Media

Read Full Article
Take Action!

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2zuCPXo via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2BFiL5X

Action Alert: Support the PRIME Act

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2FcNlYk via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2ASQUPo

Action Alert: Support the PRIME Act

https://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/e4e6d083-11c4-4ad0-8bc3-de9922a7a010/?tId=1cff87a5-3dd5-49df-b962-a6a10e201f48

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2FcNlYk via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2PjUr1K

Action Alert: Vitamin D vs. Flu Shots

https://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/0c045215-660f-4542-8ba6-5898123a8616/?tId=e3f242d6-32d7-435e-8d21-e3bb9630ba27

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2QtV0Tx via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2QrG1t1

Action Alert: Vitamin D vs. Flu Shots

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2QtV0Tx via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2zGKKQG

Vitamin D vs. Flu Shots

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2SUARHL via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2yWRYQY

The Hidden Costs of Local Meat

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2zCmGOB via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2OrSzip

Vitamin D vs. Flu Shots

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2SUARHL via Aloe for Health

from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2z0HwaU

The Hidden Costs of Local Meat

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2zCmGOB via Aloe for Health

from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2Oygeh7

Can a Vitamin Protect You From the Flu?

Read Full Article

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2Pi2qg2 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2RFyZkQ

Can a Vitamin Protect You From the Flu?

Read Full Article

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2Pi2qg2 via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2qzMNlq

High Powered Cell Towers are Coming…To Your Street

New wireless technologies are coming—whether you like it or not. Action Alert!

Telecom companies are preparing to unleash the next wave of wireless technology in neighborhoods across the nation, deployed block by block. The telecoms industry, with an assist by the federal government, is barring the ability of local governments to manage how the new technologies get installed. We must speak out to prevent telecom giants and their government cronies from taking away our rights and threatening our health.

Telecom companies are installing the infrastructure needed for “5G” networks, which are up to 1,000 times faster than the current 4G networks. Setting up 5G networks requires “small cells” to be placed on streetlights and utility poles throughout neighborhoods and cities. These “small cells” include antennas, power supplies, electric meters, switches, bundles of cables, and boxes—all strapped to the poles. Some have refrigerator-sized containers on the ground. These cells are supposed to be placed every 500 feet along residential streets and through commercial districts.

Homeowners worry that the small cells are unattractive and will affect property values. Even more disturbing are the health concerns. Small cells emit microwave radiation and essentially function as cell towers. Placing these units every 500 feet means that communities will be bathed in radiation. We’ve written before about the health implications of over-exposure to microwaves. Microwave radiation can negatively affect mitochondrial function, cause cell damage and DNA breaks, accelerates aging, and puts us at a higher risk for chronic disease. A recent study from the National Toxicology Program showed rats exposed to cell phone radiation at the federally allowable level had an increased risk for brain and heart tumors. Animal studies have demonstrated the health dangers of the radio frequencies used by 5G, including: arrhythmias in frogs, immune system effects in healthy mice, lens opacity (linked with cataracts) in rats, and more.

Traditional cell towers are bad enough—which, by the way, the federal government has prevented the public from opposing based on environmental or health concerns. Now telecom companies want to put a small cell tower right in your front yard, and your neighbor’s yard, and all over the town or city. It will be impossible to escape exposure to the radiation emitted by small cells. Any health concerns there are now about exposure to microwave radiation will only intensify with 5G.

It’s no surprise, then, that many communities are fighting back, but the telecom giants and the feds continue to threaten local autonomy.

Telecom companies are working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to steamroll local governments into kowtowing to whatever industry says it needs. The FCC recently approved rules that limit the fees local governments can charge telecom companies for use of public utilities and property. Other rules already on the books have “streamlined” small cell deployment by reducing the time cities and counties have to review applications. The agency is studying how they could limit cities’ requirements on the look and design of small cells. Ajit Pai, the FCC commissioner and a former attorney for Verizon, also created a committee (mostly of wireless industry representatives) to develop model codes that cities can adopt to speed the approval of small cells and reduce costs to industry.

It will be an even harder uphill battle if local governments want to reject 5G tech altogether. Municipalities in many states are preempted by state laws that limit local regulation of wireless facilities. More often, though, people simply are not aware of the dangers of widespread exposure to microwave radiation, and see the advent of 5G networks as a good thing.

Congress is also getting in on the action—on the side of telecom firms. A number of bills in the House and Senate would make it easier and less costly for small cells to be installed on federal land, exempting the technology from environmental reviews. The sponsors of these bills are among the top lawmakers who have received the most money from the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

This is unacceptable. Special interests are using the power of the federal government to ignore local laws and endanger our health. We must not let them get away with it.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FCC, telling them to stop throttling the ability of local governments to control whether and how 5G networks fit into their communities and that the federal government should study the health effects of 5G networks. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2PBU9mi via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2PykCBb

Two-Thirds of Americans Drink Industrial Waste Daily

New evidence reveals additional dangers of adding fluoride to drinking water. Action Alert!

Fluoride has been added to drinking water in towns across the United States since 1945 for the purpose of improving dental health. Now, 66% of people in the US receive drinking water with added fluoride. Evidence pointing to the dangers of this fluoride exposure for human health has accumulated, along with evidence that water fluoridation is no longer even necessary. Recently, two new studies have added to this body of work; it is time for the EPA to stop the artificial fluoridation of drinking water.

The two studies showed that 1) adults who are iodine deficient and have high levels of fluoride in their system have a greater risk of an underactive thyroid, and 2) mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy were more likely to have children with symptoms of ADHD. (Note that this wasn’t the first study to link water fluoridation with ADHD.)

These are just the newest studies demonstrating the risks of water fluoridation. There is substantial evidence, including more than fifty human population studies, that links elevated fluoride levels with neurological effects, especially lower IQ. Fluoride also accumulates in the body, including the blood vessels, where it can contribute to calcification. A National Research Council report concluded that the EPA’s standard for fluoride in drinking water is unsafe and should be lowered. The report highlighted damage that can be done to the teeth, bones, brain, endocrine system, thyroid, and pineal gland—all from drinking fluoride.

If it’s so dangerous, why add fluoride to water in the first place? The history starts in the early 20^th century when scientists noticed a correlation between stained teeth in certain areas and lower rates of dental decay. In the 1930’s a chemist working for ALCOA, an aluminum company, was concerned the dental staining was connected with their bauxite mining operation. The chemist’s research showed the presence of elevated levels of fluoride in the water. This led to research on the effect of fluoride on dental health, and researchers found that children in cities with fluoride in the water had fewer cavities. In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first town to purposely add fluoride to their drinking water, and comparisons with the next town over (Muskegon) that did not fluoridate its water showed that children in Grand Rapids had better dental health. In 1951, Muskegon fluoridated its water.

A story that isn’t often told, however, is the gift that water fluoridation is to special interests. Since sodium fluoride is a waste product of the aluminum production process, water fluoridation meant that the aluminum industry could profit from their industrial waste. The government also called for initial studies on fluoride under the authority of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon—who was a founder of the ALCOA aluminum company.

Today it’s even worse. Fluorosilicic acid (FSA), an inorganic fluoride compound, is a waste product of synthetic fertilizer production. Breathing FSA’s fumes causes severe lung damage or death; an accidental splash on skin leads to burning and extreme pain. Yet FSA is put into barrels and shipped across the US to be drip-fed into drinking water.

Even if there weren’t any safety concerns with drinking fluoride, there would still be the question of whether we need to do it in the first place. The world is different than it was 100 years ago, especially when it comes to dental health. Most of us use toothpaste, and many people use fluoridated toothpaste, making fluoride in water unnecessary. Other parts of the world that do not fluoridate their water, like Western Europe, have seen dental decay rates decline just as much as they have in the US.

Water fluoridation is unsafe, unnecessary, and only benefits industries who can turn their toxic waste into cash. Some groups have sued the EPA after the agency denied a petition to ban the practice of fluoridating water. The case is currently in federal court.

Science and good sense demand that we stop this practice, but decades of inertia and special interest lobbying stand in the way.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the EPA, telling them to stop water fluoridation. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2Rusbq6 via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2RtTdO5

FDA Feeling the Heat on Bioidentical Hormones

Thanks to your activism, the FDA has agreed to study bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. But the threat to hormones still looms. Action Alert!

For months now, we’ve been telling you about the FDA’s attack on estriol, progesterone, and other bioidentical hormones that are made for individual patients at specialized pharmacies. Now, thanks to the activism of ANH members and other stakeholders, the agency has recently announced that they have asked the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to conduct a study on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT). This is a qualified victory: it shows that the FDA feels enough pressure from the public that they can’t ban bioidentical hormones outright. But the fight is far from over, and we must remain vigilant to ensure the future of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT).

According to the announcement, “NASEM will provide a report evaluating the available scientific evidence relating to the safety and effectiveness of compounded bioidentical hormone replacement therapy.” No details are provided about the timeline of the study. The FDA states that it will use the conclusions of the study to determine whether bioidentical hormones can be compounded at larger “outsourcing” pharmacies, but the results will almost certainly also be used to determine whether hormones will be banned at “traditional” pharmacies as well. For traditional pharmacies, bioidentical hormones have been nominated to the FDA’s “Difficult to Compound” list; items that appear on the completed list will not be able to be compounded. The FDA is currently in the process of reviewing nominations and proposing what should and should not be included on the final list.

Given the FDA’s demonstrated hostility towards compounded bioidentical hormones, it’s been our contention that the agency wants to ban BHRT to protect the profits of Big Pharma. In its communications the FDA never tires of pointing out that compounded medicine—medicines made for individual patients at specialized “compounding” pharmacies—is not FDA approved—meaning they haven’t paid millions to the agency like the drug companies have.

Due to the public backlash from ANH members, the FDA may think that they need more cover to eliminate access to these hormones, which is likely what drove them to ask for the NASEM study. But make no mistake: the FDA wants to use the study to bury BHRT. If the study committee is independent, objective, and fairly reviews the evidence, however, this will be a victory for BHRT. As we’ve said numerous times, BHRT done properly is safer and often more effective than conventional hormone replacement therapy. If the committee is stacked with opponents of BHRT, however, it could be the nail in the coffin for compounded bioidentical estriol, estradiol, and progesterone. ANH-USA is closely monitoring this process and putting together potential candidates to nominate to the study committee to ensure the needs of the natural health community are represented.

This study is also important in light of where bioidentical hormones are in the FDA’s process right now. Over the last couple of years, the FDA and their advisory committee have been slowly evaluating substances nominated to the Difficult to Compound List. Part of the problem with trying to mount an effective defense of bioidentical hormones is that the FDA provides little notice for when the advisory committee will discuss certain substances. Estriol could come up a month from now, or six years from now. This makes it difficult—likely by design—for the natural health community to respond with expert testimony and rigorous scientific data. The silver lining, then, is that it seems unlikely the FDA will make a move on BHRT until the study is complete, giving the community at least some indication of the FDA’s timing.

We’re not waiting around for the agency to eliminate compounded BHRT. We will continue to hold the agency’s feet to the fire and demand that they preserve consumer access to compounded BHRT.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FDA, telling them to preserve consumer access to compounded BHRT. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2PwMl5w via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2PykyBr

Action Alert: Tell EPA to Stop Water Fluoridation

https://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/6ec5d10b-b83b-4b7f-8d5f-eda4486a87ce/?tId=319ba70e-a2f0-45e1-a9a7-7308fd62dbe9

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2RznQlB via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2RshzrG

Action Alert: 5G Technology

https://default.salsalabs.org/api/widget/template/c5484a4b-0eaa-49ae-b7f5-9d6bd69fa856/?tId=37eb7a29-8c0a-4f09-bade-0a0512481526

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2CWdQyH via Aloe for Health

from https://ift.tt/2yG2vQc

High Powered Cell Towers are Coming…To Your Street

New wireless technologies are coming—whether you like it or not. Action Alert!

Telecom companies are preparing to unleash the next wave of wireless technology in neighborhoods across the nation, deployed block by block. The telecoms industry, with an assist by the federal government, is barring the ability of local governments to manage how the new technologies get installed. We must speak out to prevent telecom giants and their government cronies from taking away our rights and threatening our health.

Telecom companies are installing the infrastructure needed for “5G” networks, which are up to 1,000 times faster than the current 4G networks. Setting up 5G networks requires “small cells” to be placed on streetlights and utility poles throughout neighborhoods and cities. These “small cells” include antennas, power supplies, electric meters, switches, bundles of cables, and boxes—all strapped to the poles. Some have refrigerator-sized containers on the ground. These cells are supposed to be placed every 500 feet along residential streets and through commercial districts.

Homeowners worry that the small cells are unattractive and will affect property values. Even more disturbing are the health concerns. Small cells emit microwave radiation and essentially function as cell towers. Placing these units every 500 feet means that communities will be bathed in radiation. We’ve written before about the health implications of over-exposure to microwaves. Microwave radiation can negatively affect mitochondrial function, cause cell damage and DNA breaks, accelerates aging, and puts us at a higher risk for chronic disease. A recent study from the National Toxicology Program showed rats exposed to cell phone radiation at the federally allowable level had an increased risk for brain and heart tumors. Animal studies have demonstrated the health dangers of the radio frequencies used by 5G, including: arrhythmias in frogs, immune system effects in healthy mice, lens opacity (linked with cataracts) in rats, and more.

Traditional cell towers are bad enough—which, by the way, the federal government has prevented the public from opposing based on environmental or health concerns. Now telecom companies want to put a small cell tower right in your front yard, and your neighbor’s yard, and all over the town or city. It will be impossible to escape exposure to the radiation emitted by small cells. Any health concerns there are now about exposure to microwave radiation will only intensify with 5G.

It’s no surprise, then, that many communities are fighting back, but the telecom giants and the feds continue to threaten local autonomy.

Telecom companies are working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to steamroll local governments into kowtowing to whatever industry says it needs. The FCC recently approved rules that limit the fees local governments can charge telecom companies for use of public utilities and property. Other rules already on the books have “streamlined” small cell deployment by reducing the time cities and counties have to review applications. The agency is studying how they could limit cities’ requirements on the look and design of small cells. Ajit Pai, the FCC commissioner and a former attorney for Verizon, also created a committee (mostly of wireless industry representatives) to develop model codes that cities can adopt to speed the approval of small cells and reduce costs to industry.

It will be an even harder uphill battle if local governments want to reject 5G tech altogether. Municipalities in many states are preempted by state laws that limit local regulation of wireless facilities. More often, though, people simply are not aware of the dangers of widespread exposure to microwave radiation, and see the advent of 5G networks as a good thing.

Congress is also getting in on the action—on the side of telecom firms. A number of bills in the House and Senate would make it easier and less costly for small cells to be installed on federal land, exempting the technology from environmental reviews. The sponsors of these bills are among the top lawmakers who have received the most money from the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

This is unacceptable. Special interests are using the power of the federal government to ignore local laws and endanger our health. We must not let them get away with it.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FCC, telling them to stop throttling the ability of local governments to control whether and how 5G networks fit into their communities and that the federal government should study the health effects of 5G networks. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2PBU9mi via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2Q6Lrtk

Two-Thirds of Americans Drink Industrial Waste Daily

New evidence reveals additional dangers of adding fluoride to drinking water. Action Alert!

Fluoride has been added to drinking water in towns across the United States since 1945 for the purpose of improving dental health. Now, 66% of people in the US receive drinking water with added fluoride. Evidence pointing to the dangers of this fluoride exposure for human health has accumulated, along with evidence that water fluoridation is no longer even necessary. Recently, two new studies have added to this body of work; it is time for the EPA to stop the artificial fluoridation of drinking water.

The two studies showed that 1) adults who are iodine deficient and have high levels of fluoride in their system have a greater risk of an underactive thyroid, and 2) mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy were more likely to have children with symptoms of ADHD. (Note that this wasn’t the first study to link water fluoridation with ADHD.)

These are just the newest studies demonstrating the risks of water fluoridation. There is substantial evidence, including more than fifty human population studies, that links elevated fluoride levels with neurological effects, especially lower IQ. Fluoride also accumulates in the body, including the blood vessels, where it can contribute to calcification. A National Research Council report concluded that the EPA’s standard for fluoride in drinking water is unsafe and should be lowered. The report highlighted damage that can be done to the teeth, bones, brain, endocrine system, thyroid, and pineal gland—all from drinking fluoride.

If it’s so dangerous, why add fluoride to water in the first place? The history starts in the early 20^th century when scientists noticed a correlation between stained teeth in certain areas and lower rates of dental decay. In the 1930’s a chemist working for ALCOA, an aluminum company, was concerned the dental staining was connected with their bauxite mining operation. The chemist’s research showed the presence of elevated levels of fluoride in the water. This led to research on the effect of fluoride on dental health, and researchers found that children in cities with fluoride in the water had fewer cavities. In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first town to purposely add fluoride to their drinking water, and comparisons with the next town over (Muskegon) that did not fluoridate its water showed that children in Grand Rapids had better dental health. In 1951, Muskegon fluoridated its water.

A story that isn’t often told, however, is the gift that water fluoridation is to special interests. Since sodium fluoride is a waste product of the aluminum production process, water fluoridation meant that the aluminum industry could profit from their industrial waste. The government also called for initial studies on fluoride under the authority of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon—who was a founder of the ALCOA aluminum company.

Today it’s even worse. Fluorosilicic acid (FSA), an inorganic fluoride compound, is a waste product of synthetic fertilizer production. Breathing FSA’s fumes causes severe lung damage or death; an accidental splash on skin leads to burning and extreme pain. Yet FSA is put into barrels and shipped across the US to be drip-fed into drinking water.

Even if there weren’t any safety concerns with drinking fluoride, there would still be the question of whether we need to do it in the first place. The world is different than it was 100 years ago, especially when it comes to dental health. Most of us use toothpaste, and many people use fluoridated toothpaste, making fluoride in water unnecessary. Other parts of the world that do not fluoridate their water, like Western Europe, have seen dental decay rates decline just as much as they have in the US.

Water fluoridation is unsafe, unnecessary, and only benefits industries who can turn their toxic waste into cash. Some groups have sued the EPA after the agency denied a petition to ban the practice of fluoridating water. The case is currently in federal court.

Science and good sense demand that we stop this practice, but decades of inertia and special interest lobbying stand in the way.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the EPA, telling them to stop water fluoridation. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2Rusbq6 via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2qpSWAt

FDA Feeling the Heat on Bioidentical Hormones

Thanks to your activism, the FDA has agreed to study bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. But the threat to hormones still looms. Action Alert!

For months now, we’ve been telling you about the FDA’s attack on estriol, progesterone, and other bioidentical hormones that are made for individual patients at specialized pharmacies. Now, thanks to the activism of ANH members and other stakeholders, the agency has recently announced that they have asked the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to conduct a study on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT). This is a qualified victory: it shows that the FDA feels enough pressure from the public that they can’t ban bioidentical hormones outright. But the fight is far from over, and we must remain vigilant to ensure the future of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT).

According to the announcement, “NASEM will provide a report evaluating the available scientific evidence relating to the safety and effectiveness of compounded bioidentical hormone replacement therapy.” No details are provided about the timeline of the study. The FDA states that it will use the conclusions of the study to determine whether bioidentical hormones can be compounded at larger “outsourcing” pharmacies, but the results will almost certainly also be used to determine whether hormones will be banned at “traditional” pharmacies as well. For traditional pharmacies, bioidentical hormones have been nominated to the FDA’s “Difficult to Compound” list; items that appear on the completed list will not be able to be compounded. The FDA is currently in the process of reviewing nominations and proposing what should and should not be included on the final list.

Given the FDA’s demonstrated hostility towards compounded bioidentical hormones, it’s been our contention that the agency wants to ban BHRT to protect the profits of Big Pharma. In its communications the FDA never tires of pointing out that compounded medicine—medicines made for individual patients at specialized “compounding” pharmacies—is not FDA approved—meaning they haven’t paid millions to the agency like the drug companies have.

Due to the public backlash from ANH members, the FDA may think that they need more cover to eliminate access to these hormones, which is likely what drove them to ask for the NASEM study. But make no mistake: the FDA wants to use the study to bury BHRT. If the study committee is independent, objective, and fairly reviews the evidence, however, this will be a victory for BHRT. As we’ve said numerous times, BHRT done properly is safer and often more effective than conventional hormone replacement therapy. If the committee is stacked with opponents of BHRT, however, it could be the nail in the coffin for compounded bioidentical estriol, estradiol, and progesterone. ANH-USA is closely monitoring this process and putting together potential candidates to nominate to the study committee to ensure the needs of the natural health community are represented.

This study is also important in light of where bioidentical hormones are in the FDA’s process right now. Over the last couple of years, the FDA and their advisory committee have been slowly evaluating substances nominated to the Difficult to Compound List. Part of the problem with trying to mount an effective defense of bioidentical hormones is that the FDA provides little notice for when the advisory committee will discuss certain substances. Estriol could come up a month from now, or six years from now. This makes it difficult—likely by design—for the natural health community to respond with expert testimony and rigorous scientific data. The silver lining, then, is that it seems unlikely the FDA will make a move on BHRT until the study is complete, giving the community at least some indication of the FDA’s timing.

We’re not waiting around for the agency to eliminate compounded BHRT. We will continue to hold the agency’s feet to the fire and demand that they preserve consumer access to compounded BHRT.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FDA, telling them to preserve consumer access to compounded BHRT. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2PwMl5w via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2QctnOo

Action Alert: Tell EPA to Stop Water Fluoridation

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2RznQlB via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2qo1zLJ

Action Alert: 5G Technology

from The Alliance for Natural Health https://ift.tt/2CWdQyH via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr https://ift.tt/2zfMvDS