Home

Government Aims to Dictate Your Vitamin Dosages

3 Comments

Draconian limits on vitamin dosage amounts could be coming if the feds get their way. Action alert!

That bottle of 1000mg vitamin D capsules in your medicine cabinet could soon be contraband. Important entities are meeting to discuss how to restrict the kinds of supplements you can take under the guise of “harmonization” of supplement standards. If they’re allowed to move forward, it’s possible that the federal government could adopt restrictions on vitamin doses that can be legally sold, as Europe has already done.

At the request of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently convened a workshop to “assess methodological approaches that could be applied uniformly across countries in setting nutrient intake recommendations,” with particular attention on how standards could be set for population subgroups such as young children and women of reproductive age. “Nutrient intake recommendations” include upper levels of intake, which are used to restrict the vitamin dose that a supplement can contain.

This workshop is another in a series of meetings NAS is involved in with other entities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations, who are both sponsors of Codex, to discuss limits on vitamin doses. As we reported previously, Codex is an intergovernmental body whose goal is to establish international standards regarding food safety and food ingredients, with the goal of promoting “fair trade practices” and consumer protections. Codex standards on supplements, however, are widely expected to follow Europe’s draconian restrictions, where selenium, for example, is limited in supplement form to that found in one-third of a Brazil nut.

It is extremely concerning that NAS is working to establish upper limits for supplements on multiple fronts. To be clear, NAS cannot create standards—they merely make recommendations. But government bodies listen closely to NAS, and as we discussed in our previous article, it isn’t clear whether the FDA can ban therapeutic supplements doses on its own, without public involvement. If the agency decides, following recommendations from NAS, that vitamin D, for example, over a certain amount “presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury”—the legal definition of an adulterated supplement—the FDA may be able to ban it. The agency recently placed restrictions on certain bulk caffeine products along similar lines, so the path seems open for similar actions against other products.

Of additional concern is that NAS has proven that it does not understand the science of supplements. Recall that their “experts” recommended that adults ingest 600 IU of vitamin D each day, and they established an upper level (the level above which supposedly poses a danger to adults) of 4,000 IU. Any real experts will tell you this is nonsense; the Vitamin D Council recommends 5,000 IU of vitamin D for adults, and it’s not uncommon for an integrative physician to recommend higher levels when needed. For this reason, we don’t want NAS anywhere near a discussion that could lead to supplement restrictions.

What the NAS, Codex, and European authorities don’t seem to understand is that, to gain the beneficial effects of certain vitamins, they must at times be taken in therapeutic doses. Consider vitamin C. Research has indicated that therapeutic doses of vitamin C impart many benefits. Students who supplemented with hourly doses of 1000mg vitamin C for six hours and then three times daily afterwards exhibited an 85% decrease in cold and flu symptoms compared to those who took decongestants. Therapeutic vitamin C regimens also have heart protective benefits, including reducing damage caused by heart attacks and lowering coronary heart disease risk. For comparison, the “safe” upper limit set by the NAS for vitamin C is 2,000mg. (Note that the upper levels currently set by the NAS are meant to serve merely as a guide, that is, they are non-binding.)

In the past, NAS has studied and published upper limits for a handful of vitamins and minerals, mostly for educational purposes. Our concern is that now, NAS is increasingly meeting and consulting with governmental bodies from other countries who have been responsible for setting upper limits and then banning supplements above those limits, as the European Union has done. Will the US head down the same road? It’s unclear as of yet, but these recent developments are not encouraging.

Compared to other parts of the world, the US enjoys relative freedom in our choices regarding therapeutic doses of supplements. We must act now, in the initial stages of the multiple processes underway at NAS, to make sure it stays that way.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FDA, the agency that would be responsible for any future bans on supplements, and tell them not to limit therapeutic doses of supplements in the US. Please send your message immediately.

Source: Government Aims to Dictate Your Vitamin Dosages

Advertisements

Alliance for Natural Health: CDC data shows that supplements are overwhelmingly safe

6 Comments

HHS Says Supplements Send 23,000 People to the Hospital ER! Each Year!

19

Balderdash. The agency’s own CDC data shows that supplements are overwhelmingly safe. Action Alert!

The mainstream media is using a new study funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), released last week, to renew the false charges that supplements are unregulated, unsafe, and require more federal oversight.

Even a cursory examination of the data provided in the study, however, demonstrates once again that the alarmist headlines and the calls for tighter regulations are completely unsupported by the evidence.

First, over 20% of the cases analyzed were the result of unsupervised children swallowing pills. 40% of cases among those 65 and older were caused by choking. Many other cases were heart palpitations from ingesting too many diet pills, sexual enhancement pills, and energy drinks. Undoubtedly some percentage of these so-called dietary supplements were simply illegal substances, but we aren’t told what the percentage is.

One of HHS’s agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reports that there were actually only 3,249 supplement-related adverse event reports submitted, either from doctors or hospitals, to the FDA in 2012—a far cry from the 23,000 being claimed in the study.

Part of the gross discrepancy in the numbers is likely due to the fact that eye drops, ear drops, and other over-the-counter products that are not dietary supplements were apparently included by the researchers. Why they chose to do this, they will have to explain.

The study also omits important details on the adverse events counted. For instance, it does not report which products caused the adverse events. This is important because many adverse reactions could be the result of a handful of “adulterated” (illegal) products. The FDA already has the authority to remove adulterated products from the market. Supplements are further regulated by the FTC and must also follow stringent good manufacturing practices to ensure that products are safe.

In fact, the study actually demonstrates something we have been saying for a long time: supplements have an exemplary track record of safety. Considering that about half of all Americans—about 150 million people—use dietary supplements, even the inflated 23,000 number represents only about 0.015% of dietary supplement users.

Pharmaceutical drugs, on the other hand, even when properly prescribed, cause an estimated 1.9 million hospitalizations and 128,000 hospital deaths each year. Deaths outside of hospitals would add considerably to this total if recorded. If public health were truly HHS’s concern, shouldn’t they be focusing on prescription drugs?

What explains the misleading focus on supplements? Not surprisingly, some of the authors of the study are FDA officials. For years the agency has been trying to increase its authority over supplements, attempting to institute a drug-like approval system for them. Because Big Pharma pays the FDA’s bills and provides cushy post-government jobs, we suspect that a lot of this is attempting to curry favor with drug companies.

A drug approval system for supplements, remember, would lead to the destruction of the industry. Unable to pay the exorbitant cost of the FDA approval process (because they sell unpatentable natural substances and could never charge enough to recoup their investment for even one of their products, never mind their entire product line), supplement producers would have to shutter their doors, eliminating thousands of products from the market. This removes competition for Big Pharma and allows them either to monopolize the supplement market or more often try to turn supplements into hugely expensive prescription drugs.

Don’t be fooled by the headlines. The overall strategy at play here has little to do with consumer safety and much, much more to do with bolstering the bottom line of the world’s major pharmaceutical companies. For more information on supplement safety, visit our SupplementFactCheck.org.

Action Alert! Send a message to HHS, urging them to stop their smear campaign against supplements and to fairly represent the facts. Please send your message immediately.

Take-Action

 

Medical Bureaucracy (and FDA Regulations) Also Stymie Efforts to Halt Ebola

1 Comment

logo-new

 

 

 
Ebola Test

The current dearth of treatment options for Ebola is not from a lack of options, but from a zealous protection of current medical monopolies together with an overabundance of red tape.

In a related article, we discussed government hostility to natural remedies that are both cheap, effective, and more readily available. In this article, we’ll look at the FDA roadblocks to more conventional treatments.

The FDA is paid by drug companies and is generally friendly to them. Even so, getting a new drug or device approved is a torturous and insanely expensive process. The minimum cost these days is several hundred million dollars spent over many years. The average cost is in the billions.

Technology like Nanobiosym’s “iPhone-sized device,” which can be used to detect Ebola and other diseases in less than an hour, is being delayed by needless FDA red tape. The Dallas hospital that treated three patients with Ebola had a similar device, one that could detect Ebola with high degree of confidence within a few minutes, but were prevented from using it because of FDA regulations. More

Autism-Vaccine Cover-up Snowballs as Whistleblower’s Identity is Revealed—LATEST UPDATES

4 Comments

strip bannerlogo-new
August 26, 2014

Vaccine-Autism link whistleblower revealed

Rumors are swirling as the world learns of the government’s deception. Here’s what we know for sure.

William W. Thompson, PhD—an epidemiologist at the CDC’s National Center of Birth Defects and Development Disabilities who received his doctorate in biochemical engineering—has been revealed as the CDC whistleblower. Thompson broke a decade of silence over the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a dramatically increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys.

Thompson is alleging criminal wrongdoing on the part of his supervisors, and has expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data: “It’s the lowest point in checking vaccine 25my career, that I went along with that paper.”

Here is a quick timeline of the scandal:
•In February 2004, a study of the MMR vaccine was published in the journal Pediatrics by three CDC scientists working in the National Immunization Program; one of them was Dr. Thompson. The study, in which vaccine data was gathered on 2,583 children in metropolitan Atlanta born between 1986 and 1993, concluded that there were “no significant associations” between the age at which the vaccine is administered and the incidence of “developmental regression” such as autism. This study has been used for the past decade by the those seeking to say there is no link between autism and vaccines. It should be noted that Pediatrics receives financial support from vaccine makers through advertising and direct donations, according to a CBS News report.
•That same month, Dr. Thompson wrote to Dr. Julie Gerberding (then director of the CDC, now director of Merck’s vaccine division). In this letter he discusses his intention to present, at an Institute of Medicine meeting on vaccines and autism the following week, “several problematic results” that the Atlanta study had produced. More

Mumps Vaccine Proves Ineffective

Leave a comment

strip banner

logo-new

mumps-195x300Natural Health:

But instead of acknowledging the vaccine’s problems, the CDC and mainstream media blame people who don’t vaccinate. Action Alert!­­

Mumps is a nasty virus—it can cause fever, headache, and painfully swollen glands. In serious cases, it can cause meningitis, deafness, and even testicular inflammation. Mumps is also easily spread through mucus: if an infected person sneezes, coughs, or even talks, they can pass it on.

For these and other reasons, most Americans are vaccinated against mumps through the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) shot, which is also one of the more dangerous vaccinations. But in the early 2000s, researchers began to notice an alarming pattern: those vaccinated against mumps were still becoming ill with it—at alarming rates.

This worrisome trend is accelerating: in April 2014, the New Jersey Department of Health warned of an outbreak of mumps at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Eight cases of mumps were confirmed—yet all of those infected had been fully vaccinated with two documented doses of the MMR shot.

What’s going on here? Is the vaccine losing its efficacy—or was it never effective in the first place? There are a number of explanations:

More

Over 10,000 American Toddlers Are Being Given ADHD Drugs

Leave a comment

strip bannerlogo-new

June 3, 2014

Girl looks very upset at the thought of taking her medicine

And once again, our country’s disadvantaged kids are being unnecessarily medicated nearly three times more often.

According to CDC officials, more than 10,000 American toddlers—children who are just 2 or 3 years old—are being medicated for alleged attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

There are few studies on the impact of psychostimulant ADHD drugs like methylphenidate (Ritalin) or amphetamines (like Adderall) in children this young. However, we do know that the side effects of ADHD drugs include stunted growth, insomnia, hallucinations, high blood pressure, involuntary movements, aggressive behavior, heart attack, brain hemorrhage, stroke, migraines, and seizures. Emerging evidence also suggests that Ritalin can cause long-term damage to developing prefrontal cortexes, resulting in “rigid behavior, difficulties with multitasking, or problems with short-term memory” later in life.

example, while anti-psychotics are intended to treat disorders like schizophrenia, autism, and bipolar disorder, poorer kids are more likely to be prescribed these dangerous meds for ADHD and simple misbehavior. This is called “off label” prescribing: it’s perfectly legal, though there are no long-term studies on the effect of these very dangerous drugs on children when prescribed for less severe conditions.

Antibiotics—for colds. More than half of adult Medicaid patients with colds or respiratory track infections were prescribed antibiotics in 2007—although antibiotics are not recommended in these cases and such inappropriate prescribing directly contributes to the global antibiotics resistance crisis.

Addictive opioids. As we recently reported, one in five pregnant women now take opioid painkillers. What’s worse, women on Medicaid are being prescribed painkillers during pregnancy at much higher rates: 23% of women on Medicaid, compared to 14% of women with private insurance, are being prescribed opioids (Medicaid covers the medical expenses for 45% of American births).

Additionally, a CDC report that analyzed opioid overdose deaths in Washington State from 2004 to 2007 found that 45.4% percent of overdose deaths were among persons enrolled in Medicaid. The overdose death rate was 30.8 per 100,000 people in the Medicaid-enrolled population, and just 4 per 100,000 in the non-Medicaid population.

What’s going on here? Why are our country’s poor so much more likely to be prescribed dangerous drugs?

More

Senator Durbin attacks supplements…AGAIN!

2 Comments

strip banner

Note:  Where was Senator Durbin when Vioxx killed an estimated 500,000 people?  Where is he when the FDA approves as safe and effective, medications and vaccines that kill or permanently harm individuals?  He is nowhere to be found!  Supplement manufacturers are already restrained from making unfounded claims.  And, supplements are not protected by the FDA so-called “rates of acceptable deaths” associated with big pharma .  Personally, I think we should demand that government officials be labeled… toxic and dangerous!

Durbin’s bill, S 1310  The proposed law trusts the FDA and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to decide what levels and combinations of dietary ingredients are considered safe and what aren’t. Given the FDA’s profound bias against supplements, and the skewed, anti-science recommendations of the IOM’s recent vitamin D report, these are hardly trustworthy sources of guidance!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

logo

You won’t believe this, but Senator Durbin has actually reintroduced his disastrous anti-supplement bill!

Today, just as Congress is preparing to recess until the second week in September, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) reintroduced legislation that would deal a deadly blow to nutritional supplements.

This bill is a naked new FDA power grab—an attempt to move us one step closer to a full FDA pre-approval system for supplements. That, of course, would just make supplements insanely expensive, like drugs—if you could get them at all.

URGENT! Please write to your senators immediately and tell them to stop Sen. Durbin’s frontal attack on your right to use supplements dead in its tracks! We don’t need this new legislation—all we need is for existing laws to be fully enforced. We do need our access to nutritional supplements to be protected.

Tell Your Senators to Oppose Sen. Durbin’s Dietary Supplement Labeling Act

The Dietary Supplement Labeling Act has been introduced in the in the Senate by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).  The bill targets nutritional supplements and supplement manufacturers in an effort to pass unnecessary new regulations and give the FDA vast new powers.

This bill requires that the FDA, together with the Institute of Medicine, compile a list of dietary ingredients (supplements) that could lead to adverse events or are otherwise deemed risky in some way. But creating lists of “bad” ingredients or “bad” doses based on completely arbitrary or non-existent standards is a slippery slope. Please do not be misled. This is not a minor change to DSHEA. It will give the FDA major new powers to curtail supplement sales. It will lead inexorably to pre-approval for supplements—and that will cost so much that most supplements will disappear.

Moreover, almost all of the bill’s other provisions are already covered by existing law. There is no need for any new legislation, especially with the vague language in this bill; the only need is for existing laws to be fully enforced.  Sign petition HERE!

%d bloggers like this: