Supreme Court Decision Deals Blow to Monopolistic State Medical Boards

Bad news for trade-restraining state medical boards, good news for consumers in teeth-whitening case. Related Major Action Alert! On February 25, the US Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina’s dental board violated antitrust laws by shutting down hair salons and day spas that offered teeth whitening services. According to the Wall Street Journal , “The decision preserves the power of antitrust enforcers to scrutinize professional licensing organizations, even if they are designated as state-government entities.” The dental board had claimed they were exempt from antitrust law because they were a government body, but the court found that the board was acting without proper state supervision. Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy stated that antitrust law “does not authorize the states to abandon markets to the unsupervised control of active market participants, whether trade associations or hybrid agencies.” You can see our earlier coverage of this case for more background. This ruling is a clear message of caution to all state medical boards that use their power to protect their monopoly on the practice of medicine, typically to the detriment of CAM doctors. Take, for instance, the state of Washington’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC), a state board infamous for its malicious treatment of integrative physicians. We have recounted MQAC’s ongoing attacks against integrative medical practitioner Dr. Jonathan Wright. In the most recent case, Dr. Wright’s Tahoma Clinic had hired a medical doctor who had been licensed in another state, under the condition that he apply for a Washington medical license. He did so, and the doctor’s Washington license was listed as “pending” on MQAC’s website. During this period, Dr. Wright followed the legal advice he had received and monitored him closely as required by Washington law. Suddenly, MQAC charged Dr. Wright with “aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of medicine” because the doctor’s out-of-state license had been revoked! To add insult to injury, it soon became known that at least four MQAC staff members knew from the beginning that the doctor’s out-of-state license had been revoked and that he could therefore not be licensed in Washington, but they never put that information on the MQAC website or made any effort to inform Dr. Wright. It seems apparent that the intent was to entrap Dr. Wright by denying him any information. Sadly, this is just one example among many of MQAC harassing integrative doctors. Examples abound where infractions by conventional doctors are overlooked entirely or given a slap on the wrist by MQAC and other state medical boards. When integrative doctors engage in similar behavior, however, MQAC throws the book at them. This Supreme Court ruling offers hope to consumers, practitioners of integrative medicine, and all who oppose monopolies in healthcare—monopolies that usually have nothing to do with protecting public health and everything to do with protecting turf. That is why various nurses’ groups opposed the NC medical board. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) has also been at this game for a while in its efforts to pass “scope-of-practice” laws whereby only Registered Dieticians (RDs) can offer nutrition services. This, of course, explicitly excludes other nutrition professionals, who are often better educated, more experienced, and better qualified than RDs. We can only hope that this Supreme Court decision serves as a precedent— not only for monopolistic state medical boards across the country, but for state nutrition/dietetics boards as well. The recent victory of Steve Cooksey in North Carolina offers another glimmer of hope that governmental and legal bodies are starting to crack down on medical and nutritional monopolies, and we at ANH-USA applaud these actions. Related Major Action Alert! Last week, we wrote about the new model legislation let loose in over a dozen states by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). The legislation is an underhanded way for the FSMB, a private organization with no public funding, transparency, or accountability, to extend its power and supersede state rules governing medical licensure. Click here to see if your state is considering this legislation and tell your legislators to reject it! Please send your message immediately!



from The Alliance for Natural Health USA http://ift.tt/1Mq9dca via Aloe for Health

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1HuUGch

New Power Grab by Federation of State Medical Boards Threatens Integrative Medicine

Legislation that has been introduced in fourteen states must be stopped now. Major state-based Action Alerts!

Back in September 2014, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) released model legislation for the creation of an interstate medical licensing compact. The stated intent of the legislation is to streamline the licensing process for physicians who wish to apply for medical licenses in multiple states. According to Medscape , the model legislation would allow physicians to apply for an expedited license “in a state other than their own without filling out another formal application or providing another set of documents to the other state’s board. If they meet the eligibility requirements specified in the compact, the board in their ‘principal state’ of license can attest to their qualifications, and the second state can license them.”

The compact would take effect only after at least seven states approve the legislation. Once enacted, an Interstate Commission comprised of representatives of each member state would be created to administer the interstate medical licensing compact.

This may look like an innocuous or even useful move by FSMB, but a deeper analysis of this proposal reveals that the opposite is true.

The FSMB—a private trade association that sets standards which are often followed by state medical boards—has historically been no friend to integrative medicine. Despite having no public funding, transparency, or accountability, FSMB wields a tremendous amount of power over the practice of medicine in all fifty states. The organization has demonstrated its antipathy toward natural health since the mid-1990s, when it discussed altering the definition of health fraud to include alternative medical care! It would appear that FSMB considers innovative approaches to healthcare to be nothing more than exercises in “quackery.”

Operating in the dark as it does, it is hard to say who is running the organization or setting its agenda. But we suspect, based on the available evidence, that it is funded and controlled by some combination of the American Medical Association and Big Pharma. If so, it is one of the chief forces behind the kind of corrupt crony medicine we see today. At the very least, states should be wary of following the FSMB’s lead, much less ceding their power to an organization with so little transparency and public accountability.

FSMB claims its proposal “reflects the effort of the state medical boards to develop a dynamic, self-regulatory system of expedited state medical licensure over which the participating states maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process,” and is therefore the “ultimate expression of state authority.” Such a claim, however, is frankly not credible—especially considering that the language of the compact clearly states that rules made by the Interstate Commission would have “the force and effect of statutory law in a member state.”

The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts echoed these concerns, noting that

the Compact [takes] away the state’s autonomy and authority to grant licenses.…If [an] applicant is deemed “compact eligible” by any other compact state, all member states must grant licensure based on that eligibility. There is no discretion to look at moral character, malpractice history, training irregularities, or other requirements. There is also no opportunity for a state to disagree with another state’s interpretation of the compact requirements or their determination that a particular applicant meets those requirements.

In other words, contrary to FSMB’s claim elsewhere, the interstate compact clearly takes power away from the states.

There is a stunning lack of accountability with the FSMB-created Interstate Commission. While we’ve been critical of the actions of some state medical boards, at least there is some degree of process by which the public can weigh in when rules are created. But when one bad rule can affect at least seven different states, how can the public have any input? Considering FSMB’s record of enmity toward integrative medicine, we should be extremely wary of its proposal.

Another worrisome aspect of FSMB’s interstate compact is its Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements. FSMB would require physicians seeking a license through the compact to participate in a credentialing process overseen by one of twenty-four approved medical specialty boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). While ABMS argues that its recertification process maintains high standards, many physicians see this as little more than a money-making endeavor for ABMS—in fact, the chair of ABMS makes $1,000 a day. Worse, these certifications are often used as a requirement for hospital employment. As with monopolistic nutrition licensure laws, FSMB’s interstate compact could be a similar attempt to exercise undue control over the practice of medicine.

As the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons notes, the compact “would be a giant leap towards entrenching MOC as mandatory for ALL physicians and [would put] in place a new bureaucracy that will most certainly only continue to increase its power over the ability of physicians to practice and the rights of patients to see the physician of their choice.”

In short, FSMB’s proposal is an underhanded attempt to increase its control over the practice of medicine—power that would likely be wielded against integrative doctors. Currently, fourteen states have introduced FSMB’s model legislation. We must vehemently oppose this legislation wherever it pops up.

You may be wondering if it’s even legal for a state to delegate authority to a private organization. It seems that the answer depends on the state. Some states are strict and permit delegation of authority only if the delegating statute provides definitive standards or procedures. Other states with looser standards find the delegation of legislative power okay if the recipient has adequate procedural safeguards.

Political philosopher John Locke argued centuries ago that no legislature can legitimately delegate its power of legislating to any other body. The founders of our country thought they were incorporating this principle in our Constitution. Alas, we have increasingly deviated from this basic English and American common-law principle.

Major Action Alert! Tell your state legislature to reject the FSMB’s legislation. It would cede state licensing power to an unaccountable Interstate Commission controlled behind the scenes by a private organization, and it would force many physicians to participate in a burdensome and costly recertification process. Please send your message immediately!

Idaho residents, click here.

Illinois residents, click here.

Iowa residents, click here.

Maryland residents, click here.

Minnesota residents, click here.

Montana residents, click here.

Nebraska residents, click here.

Oklahoma residents, click here.

Rhode Island residents, click here.

South Dakota residents, click here.

Texas residents, click here.

Utah residents, click here.

Vermont residents, click here.

West Virginia residents, click here.

For all other states, click here.

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

from http://ift.tt/1DHyBnh

Will We Allow Big Pharma to Patent and Control Natural Products?

Behind the scenes, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries are trying to change the law—to benefit no one but themselves. Major Action Alert!

Big Pharma in general—and biotech in particular—are having trouble coming up with new-to-nature molecules they can successfully patent and turn into blockbuster medicines. They know the healing power of natural substances. But natural substances are not supposed to be patentable. Or if they are patentable because a new process is involved, the patent protection may be weaker. As we have noted many times, drug companies are not interested in medicines that cannot be patented or that hold weak patent protections, because they don’t earn enough money for the substances to be taken through the multi-billion-dollar FDA approval process and thereby gain a complete government-enforced monopoly, which brings with it the power to charge huge sums for the product.

Now they’re trying to get the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to change patent law about natural substances.

Pharma and biotech companies were dealt a blow in their efforts to “patent nature,” as it were, when the US Supreme Court struck down patents on human genes in 2013. In its decision, the court wrote that Myriad Genetics, the private company seeking a patent on two genes which account for most inherited forms of breast and ovarian cancer, “did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

ANH-USA strongly supported this decision. If Myriad’s patent claims were upheld, it would have meant that they had ownership over particular genes in the human body. Patents on these genes would keep competitors from offering similar genetic tests, which restricts market competition—which in turn decreases prices, increases access, and improves the tests themselves. It would also cut off scientific research: scientists outside Myriad couldn’t study these genes without Myriad’s permission.

The Supreme Court’s decision led USPTO to tighten its restrictions somewhat on patenting natural products. According to an article in Science Magazine , this infuriated biotech firms, which contended that the new restrictive approach would discourage investment and innovation. Now, apparently in response to industry pressure, USPTO has promised to rethink its approach.

In its reappraisal, USPTO is considering a different framework to determine the patentability of products of nature. If a patent claim describes “a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea,” it must amount to “significantly more” than what is found in nature to be eligible for a patent. In the same Science Magazine article, one expert noted that this framework gives examiners “multiple criteria for deciding whether a product is sufficiently different from its natural counterpart: ‘structure, function, and/or other properties.’ [He] suspects that this vague language could lead to fewer eligibility-based rejections” (emphasis added).

While there is still a great deal of uncertainty about which guidelines will finally be adopted and how USPTO will interpret and apply them, the change in rules would clearly open up new pathways for Big Pharma and biotech firms to patent natural substances.

This is just the latest of many efforts to patent nutrients and natural substances. We’ve seen numerous attempts by drug companies, for instance, to monopolize previously affordable substances (like bioidentical estriol and 17P) and then jack up the price. In the case of 17P, a substance that helps prevent premature births, the price skyrocketed from $10 a dose to $1,500 once KV Pharmaceutical was granted exclusive rights by the FDA through the Orphan Drug Act.

And it doesn’t stop there: Big Pharma has also tried to steal natural supplements. Pyridoxamine—one of only three natural and bioavailable forms of vitamin B6—inhibits aging and disease progression. In fact, B6 is necessary for life itself—we die without it. FDA banned pyridoxamine in 2008 in response to a petition from a drug company that wanted to use it in their own drug formulation. Another drug company is looking to snatch up P5P (pyridoxal-5’-phosphate), another natural form of vitamin B6. Their attempt has been unsuccessful—so far. If patent laws are weakened, we can expect an increase in efforts by Big Pharma to gain exclusive rights over natural supplements.

USPTO is accepting comments on its proposals until March 16.

Major Action Alert! Tell USPTO to keep restrictions in place that prevent natural substances from being patented. Please send your message immediately—the time is short!

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

from http://ift.tt/1DHyAQ1

“Gardasil [Vaccine] Will Become Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time”—Former Merck Physician

Help us amend the newly released National Adult Immunization Plan. Action Alert!

Here is whatformer Merck physician Dr. Bernard Dalbergue actually said about Gardasil, Merck’s HPV vaccine:

I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS, and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.

Meanwhile, the federal government’s National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) is more concerned that “adult vaccination rates remain low in the United States,” and is planning to ramp up efforts to hit goals set in Healthy People 2020, a US Health and Human Services (HHS) initiative. The NVPO has just released a draft of its National Adult Immunization Plan.

Most of the plan has to do with increasing awareness of and access to adult vaccinations. However, given the dangers that have been associated with vaccination, ANH-USA is concerned about the project. Here are a couple of things we would like to see added to NVPO’s plan:

• Eliminate dangerous ingredients from vaccines: If government health policy is to push for mass vaccination, dangerous ingredients like mercury and aluminum should be removed from all vaccines. While mercury has been phased out of most vaccines, some flu vaccines still include this dangerous ingredient, which studies have linked to severe neurological effects. Increasingly, mercury is being replaced by aluminum, which has also been shown to pose serious health risks. These and any other potentially dangerous ingredients should be removed from vaccines.


• Include vaccine AERs in safety assessments: Post-approval, government health officials refuse to study vaccines’ long-term safety record. If mass vaccination is the government’s goal, then all vaccine adverse event reports (AERs) should be carefully studied and considered when making vaccine recommendations.It’s vital that the short- and long-term impact of vaccines be carefully studied by an independent, nongovernmental body. Utilizing AERs to inform vaccine recommendations will help avoid dangerous vaccines like Gardasil and keep the public safe and healthy.


• Listen to questions and concerns about vaccines and make an effort to address them, rather than arrogantly dismissing them as quackery, ignorance, and anti-science. What is scientific about attacking critics or trying to force them to comply with the full powers of government instead of dispassionately discussing the facts? If the science behind vaccines is good, let the facts speak for themselves. If there are problems, admit them, don’t sweep them under the rug, and fix them.


• Above all, get some distance between government and industry, so that decisions are not based on (or appear to be based on) money.

Action Alert! Tell NVPO that vaccine policy in this country should take into account the well-documented safety concerns posed by dangerous ingredients, and that adverse event reports should be used to inform government policy on mass vaccinations. Please send your message immediately!

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

from http://ift.tt/1NdGQPT

New Power Grab by Federation of State Medical Boards Threatens Integrative Medicine

Legislation that has been introduced in fourteen states must be stopped now. Major state-based Action Alerts! Back in September 2014, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) released model legislation for the creation of an interstate medical licensing compact. The stated intent of the legislation is to streamline the licensing process for physicians who wish to apply for medical licenses in multiple states. According to Medscape , the model legislation would allow physicians to apply for an expedited license “in a state other than their own without filling out another formal application or providing another set of documents to the other state’s board. If they meet the eligibility requirements specified in the compact, the board in their ‘principal state’ of license can attest to their qualifications, and the second state can license them.” The compact would take effect only after at least seven states approve the legislation. Once enacted, an Interstate Commission comprised of representatives of each member state would be created to administer the interstate medical licensing compact. This may look like an innocuous or even useful move by FSMB, but a deeper analysis of this proposal reveals that the opposite is true. The FSMB—a private trade association that sets standards which are often followed by state medical boards—has historically been no friend to integrative medicine. Despite having no public funding, transparency, or accountability, FSMB wields a tremendous amount of power over the practice of medicine in all fifty states. The organization has demonstrated its antipathy toward natural health since the mid-1990s, when it discussed altering the definition of health fraud to include alternative medical care! It would appear that FSMB considers innovative approaches to healthcare to be nothing more than exercises in “quackery.” Operating in the dark as it does, it is hard to say who is running the organization or setting its agenda. But we suspect, based on the available evidence, that it is funded and controlled by some combination of the American Medical Association and Big Pharma. If so, it is one of the chief forces behind the kind of corrupt crony medicine we see today. At the very least, states should be wary of following the FSMB’s lead, much less ceding their power to an organization with so little transparency and public accountability. FSMB claims its proposal “reflects the effort of the state medical boards to develop a dynamic, self-regulatory system of expedited state medical licensure over which the participating states maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process,” and is therefore the “ultimate expression of state authority.” Such a claim, however, is frankly not credible—especially considering that the language of the compact clearly states that rules made by the Interstate Commission would have “the force and effect of statutory law in a member state.” The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts echoed these concerns, noting that the Compact [takes] away the state’s autonomy and authority to grant licenses.…If [an] applicant is deemed “compact eligible” by any other compact state, all member states must grant licensure based on that eligibility. There is no discretion to look at moral character, malpractice history, training irregularities, or other requirements. There is also no opportunity for a state to disagree with another state’s interpretation of the compact requirements or their determination that a particular applicant meets those requirements. In other words, contrary to FSMB’s claim elsewhere, the interstate compact clearly takes power away from the states. There is a stunning lack of accountability with the FSMB-created Interstate Commission. While we’ve been critical of the actions of some state medical boards, at least there is some degree of process by which the public can weigh in when rules are created. But when one bad rule can affect at least seven different states, how can the public have any input? Considering FSMB’s record of enmity toward integrative medicine, we should be extremely wary of its proposal. Another worrisome aspect of FSMB’s interstate compact is its Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirements. FSMB would require physicians seeking a license through the compact to participate in a credentialing process overseen by one of twenty-four approved medical specialty boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). While ABMS argues that its recertification process maintains high standards, many physicians see this as little more than a money-making endeavor for ABMS—in fact, the chair of ABMS makes $1,000 a day. Worse, these certifications are often used as a requirement for hospital employment. As with monopolistic nutrition licensure laws, FSMB’s interstate compact could be a similar attempt to exercise undue control over the practice of medicine. As the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons notes, the compact “would be a giant leap towards entrenching MOC as mandatory for ALL physicians and [would put] in place a new bureaucracy that will most certainly only continue to increase its power over the ability of physicians to practice and the rights of patients to see the physician of their choice.” In short, FSMB’s proposal is an underhanded attempt to increase its control over the practice of medicine—power that would likely be wielded against integrative doctors. Currently, fourteen states have introduced FSMB’s model legislation. We must vehemently oppose this legislation wherever it pops up. You may be wondering if it’s even legal for a state to delegate authority to a private organization. It seems that the answer depends on the state. Some states are strict and permit delegation of authority only if the delegating statute provides definitive standards or procedures. Other states with looser standards find the delegation of legislative power okay if the recipient has adequate procedural safeguards. Political philosopher John Locke argued centuries ago that no legislature can legitimately delegate its power of legislating to any other body. The founders of our country thought they were incorporating this principle in our Constitution. Alas, we have increasingly deviated from this basic English and American common-law principle. Major Action Alert! Tell your state legislature to reject the FSMB’s legislation. It would cede state licensing power to an unaccountable Interstate Commission controlled behind the scenes by a private organization, and it would force many physicians to participate in a burdensome and costly recertification process. Please send your message immediately! Idaho residents, click here. Illinois residents, click here. Iowa residents, click here. Maryland residents, click here. Minnesota residents, click here. Montana residents, click here. Nebraska residents, click here. Oklahoma residents, click here. Rhode Island residents, click here. South Dakota residents, click here. Texas residents, click here. Utah residents, click here. Vermont residents, click here. West Virginia residents, click here. For all other states, click here.



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

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/18iBpyc

Will We Allow Big Pharma to Patent and Control Natural Products?

Behind the scenes, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries are trying to change the law—to benefit no one but themselves. Major Action Alert! Big Pharma in general—and biotech in particular—are having trouble coming up with new-to-nature molecules they can successfully patent and turn into blockbuster medicines. They know the healing power of natural substances. But natural substances are not supposed to be patentable. Or if they are patentable because a new process is involved, the patent protection may be weaker. As we have noted many times, drug companies are not interested in medicines that cannot be patented or that hold weak patent protections, because they don’t earn enough money for the substances to be taken through the multi-billion-dollar FDA approval process and thereby gain a complete government-enforced monopoly, which brings with it the power to charge huge sums for the product. Now they’re trying to get the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to change patent law about natural substances. Pharma and biotech companies were dealt a blow in their efforts to “patent nature,” as it were, when the US Supreme Court struck down patents on human genes in 2013. In its decision, the court wrote that Myriad Genetics, the private company seeking a patent on two genes which account for most inherited forms of breast and ovarian cancer, “did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.” ANH-USA strongly supported this decision. If Myriad’s patent claims were upheld, it would have meant that they had ownership over particular genes in the human body. Patents on these genes would keep competitors from offering similar genetic tests, which restricts market competition—which in turn decreases prices, increases access, and improves the tests themselves. It would also cut off scientific research: scientists outside Myriad couldn’t study these genes without Myriad’s permission. The Supreme Court’s decision led USPTO to tighten its restrictions somewhat on patenting natural products. According to an article in Science Magazine , this infuriated biotech firms, which contended that the new restrictive approach would discourage investment and innovation. Now, apparently in response to industry pressure, USPTO has promised to rethink its approach. In its reappraisal, USPTO is considering a different framework to determine the patentability of products of nature. If a patent claim describes “a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea,” it must amount to “significantly more” than what is found in nature to be eligible for a patent. In the same Science Magazine article, one expert noted that this framework gives examiners “multiple criteria for deciding whether a product is sufficiently different from its natural counterpart: ‘structure, function, and/or other properties.’ [He] suspects that this vague language could lead to fewer eligibility-based rejections” (emphasis added). While there is still a great deal of uncertainty about which guidelines will finally be adopted and how USPTO will interpret and apply them, the change in rules would clearly open up new pathways for Big Pharma and biotech firms to patent natural substances. This is just the latest of many efforts to patent nutrients and natural substances. We’ve seen numerous attempts by drug companies, for instance, to monopolize previously affordable substances (like bioidentical estriol and 17P) and then jack up the price. In the case of 17P, a substance that helps prevent premature births, the price skyrocketed from $10 a dose to $1,500 once KV Pharmaceutical was granted exclusive rights by the FDA through the Orphan Drug Act. And it doesn’t stop there: Big Pharma has also tried to steal natural supplements. Pyridoxamine—one of only three natural and bioavailable forms of vitamin B6—inhibits aging and disease progression. In fact, B6 is necessary for life itself—we die without it. FDA banned pyridoxamine in 2008 in response to a petition from a drug company that wanted to use it in their own drug formulation. Another drug company is looking to snatch up P5P (pyridoxal-5’-phosphate), another natural form of vitamin B6. Their attempt has been unsuccessful—so far. If patent laws are weakened, we can expect an increase in efforts by Big Pharma to gain exclusive rights over natural supplements. USPTO is accepting comments on its proposals until March 16. Major Action Alert! Tell USPTO to keep restrictions in place that prevent natural substances from being patented. Please send your message immediately—the time is short!

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

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/18iBphU

“Gardasil [Vaccine] Will Become Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time”—Former Merck Physician

Help us amend the newly released National Adult Immunization Plan. Action Alert! Here is whatformer Merck physician Dr. Bernard Dalbergue actually said about Gardasil, Merck’s HPV vaccine:

I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS, and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.

Meanwhile, the federal government’s National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) is more concerned that “adult vaccination rates remain low in the United States,” and is planning to ramp up efforts to hit goals set in Healthy People 2020, a US Health and Human Services (HHS) initiative. The NVPO has just released a draft of its National Adult Immunization Plan. Most of the plan has to do with increasing awareness of and access to adult vaccinations. However, given the dangers that have been associated with vaccination, ANH-USA is concerned about the project. Here are a couple of things we would like to see added to NVPO’s plan:

• Eliminate dangerous ingredients from vaccines: If government health policy is to push for mass vaccination, dangerous ingredients like mercury and aluminum should be removed from all vaccines. While mercury has been phased out of most vaccines, some flu vaccines still include this dangerous ingredient, which studies have linked to severe neurological effects. Increasingly, mercury is being replaced by aluminum, which has also been shown to pose serious health risks. These and any other potentially dangerous ingredients should be removed from vaccines.


• Include vaccine AERs in safety assessments: Post-approval, government health officials refuse to study vaccines’ long-term safety record. If mass vaccination is the government’s goal, then all vaccine adverse event reports (AERs) should be carefully studied and considered when making vaccine recommendations.It’s vital that the short- and long-term impact of vaccines be carefully studied by an independent, nongovernmental body. Utilizing AERs to inform vaccine recommendations will help avoid dangerous vaccines like Gardasil and keep the public safe and healthy.


• Listen to questions and concerns about vaccines and make an effort to address them, rather than arrogantly dismissing them as quackery, ignorance, and anti-science. What is scientific about attacking critics or trying to force them to comply with the full powers of government instead of dispassionately discussing the facts? If the science behind vaccines is good, let the facts speak for themselves. If there are problems, admit them, don’t sweep them under the rug, and fix them.


• Above all, get some distance between government and industry, so that decisions are not based on (or appear to be based on) money.

Action Alert! Tell NVPO that vaccine policy in this country should take into account the well-documented safety concerns posed by dangerous ingredients, and that adverse event reports should be used to inform government policy on mass vaccinations. Please send your message immediately!

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

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1BRx7vL