Our national government's attempts at issuing dietary guidelines are usually inappropriate and ludicrous. Unfortunately, those guidelines dictate what the average certified dietitian offers as sound dietary advice. If you've ever had to eat hospital food, you were the recipient of a dietitian's control over the hospital's kitchen. Today there are virtual food fights over different dietary approaches. It seems the advocates of each diet want to create a following and promote how their particular approach to eating assures longevity and good health. But there is no one size fits all diet. This isn't about therapeutic diets for overcoming specific diseases, especially cancer. Rather, this commentary is about assigned bureaucrats effort to decree a day to day dietary intake for maintaining one's health. A recent article decrying current national efforts at dictating dietary advice by journalist Nina Teicholz was recently published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal). Nina authored The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. Her book received accolades from literally hundreds of Amazon reviewers and some New York based magazines. Those responses struck this author as a carnivores' chorus of affirmation with a prolonged amen.
Now it appears that Barack Obama’s FDA is going after our best domestic artisanal cheeses, also often made from raw milk. What is the stated rationale for this? The FDA and Health Canada issued a joint assessment claiming a higher incidence of listeriosis—the disease caused by the food-borne pathogen listeria—in cheese made from raw milk as compared to cheese made from pasteurized milk. Consider these facts about listeria. Recent evidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that, between 2009 and 2011, cheese made from raw milk accounted for one listeria outbreak and fifteen illnesses, whereas cheese from pasteurized milk caused five outbreaks and thirty-six illnesses. Let’s put this in further perspective. The CDC determined that between 1993 and 2006, all raw milk products combined caused 202 hospitalizations and two deaths. If the FDA is truly motivated by food-safety concerns, why not take a more aggressive stance towards Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), since contaminated meat and poultry sicken an estimated one million people and kill at least one thousand each year? If the FDA receives enough messages protesting the path they are clearly on to ban raw milk cheese, they will likely back off for fear of offending Congress, which has to listen to the voters—so please take action on this issue!
A recent news report revealed an FDA proposal from 2011 that would have told dentists to avoid using mercury fillings in pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, and people with mercury allergies, kidney diseases, and neurological problems. It also contained a more general alert to dentists asking them to consider alternatives to mercury fillings on all patients. Unfortunately, the FDA’s proposal was rejected by senior officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after a so-called cost-benefit analysis was performed. It was then hushed up. Mercury is a deadly neurotoxin. When mercury gets into the central nervous system, it has a half-life of between fifteen and thirty years. Once it’s inhaled into the lungs, it enters the bloodstream and can accumulate in the kidneys, liver, and brain. The effects of exposure to mercury are devastating. Studies have shown mercury fillings to be associated with Alzheimer’s disease, autoimmunity, kidney dysfunction, infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome, neurotransmitter imbalances, food allergies, multiple sclerosis, thyroid problems, and an impaired immune system. Mercury in the nervous system is especially harmful, causing all sorts of problems: tremors, insomnia, polyneuropathy, headaches, weakness, blurred vision, and more. That the proposed FDA warning, half-hearted as it was, remained secret for so long is especially worrisome. How much other information is being withheld from the public at the behest of special interests—or for other political reasons? This story is also a reminder that even the FDA has overseers who exercise control over it. In this case, the agency tried to move in the right direction and was overruled by its political masters. Action Alert! Write to the Department of Health and Human Services and tell them how disappointed you are to learn that this warning from the FDA was rejected and then kept secret. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin and should be removed from all fillings to protect the health and safety of all Americans. Please send your message immediately.
FDA’s two-day public hearing to gather information about the current use of products labeled as homeopathic took place in late April. The hearing focused specifically on FDA regulations of and labeling requirements for OTC homeopathic medicines. This hearing was not held to discuss the efficacy of homeopathy, the ability of individuals to practice homeopathy, or to consider the removal of homeopathic remedies from the retail market. The public hearing was the first phase of information gathering for FDA. The next phase of information gathering is a public comment period – which is now open and will remain open through June 22, 2015. YOUR assistance at this time will be invaluable!
People who are trying to do good for their families and the planet by living a simple life based on traditional skills are facing yet another assault. Artisanal soap makers say new regulations, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), will put them out of business.
The FDA wrapped up a two-day hearing recently on whether or not homeopathic remedies should be regulated like drugs. Listening to critics of homeopathy try to justify why they don't think the American public should have free access to homeopathic remedies leaves one wondering just what the real motivation is behind these criticisms. The two dominant criticisms made against homeopathic remedies are antithetical to each other. Critics complain that due to a lack of regulation homeopathic remedies are dangerous, but then they turn around and say that homeopathic remedies are simply useless sugar pills with no therapeutic effect whatsoever, and no better than a placebo. Both cannot be true. Is this the new standard of scientific scrutiny that federal agencies are using to supposedly protect the public? The FDA is clearly not concerned about homeopathic remedies because they are a danger to the public. There are no deaths associated with homeopathic remedies, and very few side effects. By contrast, FDA-approved drugs have millions of adverse side effects, including over 100,000 deaths each year. Homeopathic remedies are a danger to the FDA's monopoly on drugs, and so they clearly want to either eliminate the competition, or get in on the action and take over the market.
Homeopathy was one of the most common medical practices in the United States in the 1800s. In 1892, homeopaths in the United Stated controlled about 110 hospitals, 145 dispensaries, 62 orphan asylums and old peoples homes, over 30 nursing homes and sanitaria and 16 insane asylums. However, the pharmaceutical industry did everything it could to stomp out homeopathy, and it is not as widespread in the U.S. today as it once was. (See: American Medical Revolutions: How the AMA Took Over America.) Worldwide, homeopathy is the second largest system of health care used behind conventional pharmaceutical-based medicine. The number of homeopaths worldwide doubled between 1999 and 2009, and the number of homeopathic hospitals grew from under 2,000 to over 7,000. Currently, there are no homeopathic hospitals in the United States. There are still homeopaths practicing in the U.S., however, and we have highlighted some of their work here at Health Impact News. Their ability to help heal vaccine injuries, for example, is quite impressive. Soon, however, the FDA may take steps to further reduce or even eliminate homeopathy in the U.S., as the Alliance for Natural Health reports here.
A recent report shows how the FDA hides important safety information when it uncovers scientific misconduct in clinical trials of pharmaceutical drugs. The names of the drugs and the company responsible for the misconduct are concealed, journal citations are left uncorrected, and claims made on drugs’ labels are left unchanged even after it’s known that they were based on bad science.
It is hard to defend an agency that continually acts against the best interests of the public they’re entrusted to defend. Due to the efforts of a professor and his students at the Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism at New York University, we have proof that the FDA is failing to warn Americans about grave concerns due to falsifications in published data. They found 60 clinical trials that had violations found by the FDA, and these trials were used for data in 78 published articles. And we’re not talking about small, innocent mistakes. The violations included fraud, incompetence, and misconduct. This means that anyone browsing a medical journal might be making decisions based on fraudulent published studies.