- A Flap Over Foie Gras
From Newsweek --Foie gras has been a delicacy for centuries, but its production method now has some surprising critics. Production and sale in the U.S. may soon be illegal.
“Seared and doused with a port-wine reduction, or baked with truffles into a terrine, it is the key to the restaurant industry's holy grail: the $20 appetizer. But to animal-rights activists, it's fur on a plate, an outrageous flaunting of humanity's dominion over other species, and at the same time a wedge issue that can usefully be wielded against the entire meat industry ”Full Article
- The Prison Overcrowding Fix
From New York Times -- In February, 2009, it was decided by a federal court in San Francisco that the California prison system will reduce the number of its prisoners by one-third. This decision will bring the state's prisoner level down to approximately 101,000 inmates, improving the health care in California prisons.
“ Federal judges tentatively ruled Monday that packed facilities were the chief impediment to adequate health care in prisons — a system so flawed it was tantamount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. ”Full Article
- Secrets in Your Food
From ABC News --Although there is little agreement over the safety of geneticaly modified foods, chances are it's already in your meal.
“ Here are the facts: The majority of corn and soy products we eat are genetically modified. There is also some biotech papaya. ”Full Article
- Encountering Peace: The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow - or Maybe Not
From The Jerusalem Post --Israel has no systematic long-term strategy for dealing with Palestine, seeming to operate only in crisis mode. Equally as important as cultivating an exit strategy is the need to have a plan for Gaza after the conflict is over. As it stands, there is no leading school of thought for either.
“ This may have really been a "war of no choice," however I am completely convinced that the policies implemented over the past years have led us directly to the point where we perhaps had no choice. ”Full Article
- Egg Farm Video
Wegmans Egg farm proudly marks its egg cartons with the Animal Care Certified logo. Yet undercover footage at a Wegman's egg farm reveals extreme overcrowding, trampled birds, overly trimmed beaks, and excrement falling on birds from the cages above them.
- California Sues Navy Over Sonar, Whale Deaths
From MSNBC -- The U.S. Navy was sued in 2007 because of its decision to continue sonar training exercises off the coast of California, despite regulations and protests from environmental groups. The Navy broke an agreement with the California Coastal Commission to perform the exercises while avoiding coastal waters with a large whale and dolphin population and reducing sonar levels when it's difficult for ship personnel to spot sea life.
“ Critics contend sonar has harmful effects on whales, possibly by damaging their hearing, and other marine mammals worldwide. A congressional report last year found the Navy's sonar exercises have been blamed for at least six cases of mass death and stranding among whales in the past decade. ”Full Article
- Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America
From the Pew National Commission on Industrial Farm Production-- Though it has reduced costs and increased the speed of production, the industrialization of food animal production has created a number of problems that must be addressed for the sake of public health, animal welfare, the environment, and the social structure and economy of rural communities.
“ Despite the dramatic decline in family farms over the past 50 years, many Americans, until very recently, continued to think that their food still came from these small farms. ”Full Article
- Prescription for Trouble: Using Antibiotics to Fatten Livestock
From the Union of Concerned Scientists-- The use of antibiotics and other antimicrobials to promote weight gain in chickens, cows, and pigs is a standard practice at most large factory farms. Health experts now link this practice to drug-resistant strains of bacteria and a recent rise in the reported incidence of foodborne illness.
“ If you get food poisoning, will the antibiotic prescribed by your doctor be able to fight the infection? This seems like an age of miracle drugs. Few weeks go by without a news story heralding a promising new drug or drug therapy. Ironically, concealed in the din of information about new drugs looms a health crisis growing out of the loss of old drugs. ”Full Article
- Facts: Factory FarmingSponsored Content
From the In Defense of Animals website-- A brief history of factory farming, and little-known facts about the living conditions and common practices in the overcrowded livestock facilities that give factory farming its name.
“ Our society is showered with images of happy animals living on farms where the cows graze in lush green fields and the chickens have the run of the barnyard. This vision of free-roaming animals living out their days in sunny fields is very far from the reality. A majority of the animals that are raised for food live miserable lives in intensive confinement in dark, overcrowded facilities, commonly called 'factory farms.' ”Full Article
- Mabale Growers' Tea Factory Ltd.
From Fairtrade Foundation -- Here is profile of a fair trade producer working with the FairTrade Foundation. Located in the Western hilly slopes of the Kyenjojo District of Western Uganda, exist the Mabale Grower's Tea Factory. The factory was initially abandoned during the Amin regime.
“ ‘Thanks to Fairtrade, we have changed our agricultural techniques which have improved the quality and quantity of our teas. We have opened new access roads to benefit all in the community, assisted in providing primary health care through construction of health units and added a new block to a local secondary school. Fairtrade is significantly contributing towards the social improvement of our community and providing a better future for our youngsters.’ ”
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
TakePart Social Action Network: Controversial Issues, Activism, Environmental, Human Rights, Political News |
Bi Pharma Scams
As little as ten years ago, conventional medicine touted HRT as THE answer to women’s post-menopausal health.
Interestingly, shortly after I completed my residency training program in 1985, I was actually a paid lecturer for the drug company that sold Premarin, the horse-based estrogen that was sold to women in menopause.
I promoted it because after carefully reviewing the “scientific” literature for over a year, it certainly seemed that it had far more benefits than downsides. However, this was my introduction in the mind-bending manipulation that the drug companies had been using for many decades.
They had meticulously bought off the leading physicians in this area of research with huge speaking engagements and grants, and were able to facilitate their articles being published in the most respected medical journals.
By using this strategy, they were able to completely pervert the scientific process and as a result, convince nearly the entire medical community, generating billions of dollars in profits from the sale of these unnatural hormones for humans.
It took me several years to recognize how these companies manipulated the system but eventually I learned the truth and stopped prescribing and recommending HRT as conventionally recommended.
In fact the leading proponent of using estrogen in the 1960’s, Dr. Robert A. Wilson, established a sham research foundation and wrote his seminal book, “Feminine Forever”, all with secret pharmaceutical company funds. His research institute and treatment recommendations were later found to be fraudulent, but by the time this was discovered the theory of using estrogen had been well established and carried on with it’s own momentum even in the face of research to the contrary. Every medical doctor in the United States fell into this trap of misinformation and mistruth and these dangerous prescribing practices continued for almost forty years
Big Pharma and the FDA: Suppress the Science and Ban the Natural
In 2005, the pharmaceutical company Biostratum, Inc. made a mistake -- they invested millions of dollars into developing a drug, only to discover that the active ingredient, pyridoxamine, was a common, naturally occurring substance that has been sold for decades at low cost.Biostratum responded by asking the U.S. FDA to declare supplements containing pyridoxamine “adulterated,” and effectively ban anyone but Biostratum from selling pyridoxamine. Earlier this year the FDA agreed to ban companies from selling pyridoxamine as a dietary supplement.
The FDA’s comment on the decision specifically says, “To allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”
Apparently, they were not as concerned about fairness to consumers.
This is hardly the first time the FDA has attacked naturally occurring substances. The FDA has banned information about scientifically proven health benefits of cherries from appearing on Web sites. And for years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of omega-3 fats for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process.
In the case of pyridoxamine, the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of corruption in what is supposed to be a public health organization.
Sources:
| Dr. Mercola's Comments: |
Pyridoxamine is one form of the vitamin B6. It is an important nutrient for helping your body process carbohydrates, support your nervous system activity and prevent homocysteine, which has been linked to increased risk of heart disease, from building up in your blood.This Type of Injustice Has Happened Many Times Before
This substance has long been sold over-the-counter as a dietary supplement, but the FDA abruptly put a stop to that in January 2009. Their reasoning has nothing to do with safety, but rather is firmly based on protecting a drug company’s investment.
As stated above, the FDA actually said:“To allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”What is happening here is a blatant example of the FDA protecting the hand that feeds it. It is now essentially banning vitamin B6 in the form of pyridoxamine, and reserving it to be exclusively distributed by the drugmaker Biostratum, Inc.
If the FDA really wants to speak about being fair, why are they not worried about being fair to the supplement makers who already distribute this product … or the people who will have their inexpensive supply of this vitamin taken away?
Why?
Because the FDA and U.S. government are loaded with people trying to eliminate all competition for the drug companies, who financially support the FDA in the form of user fees for drug approval.
To get a feeling of who the FDA is really looking out for, you need look no further than the recent estriol debacle.Is The FDA Your Protector -- or a Threat to Your Health Freedom?
Estriol is a bioidentical hormone that is sometimes used in hormone replacement therapy drugs, available through compounding pharmacies. However, estriol is not an FDA-approved drug, and according to the FDA estriol “has not been shown to be safe and effective for the uses for which it is being prescribed.”
Therefore, the FDA has proposed to allow estriol-containing prescriptions to be filled only if accompanied by an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, stating that the use of INDs is “routine,” and therefore shouldn’t cause any major inconvenience or limitation on estriol’s use, if and when a physician believes it’s in his patient’s best interest.
However, the IND places a significant financial burden on physicians, most notably by requiring them to submit applications to an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Submitting necessary documentation and contracting for a private IRB can easily cost between $10,000 and $25,000 and can take months.
So the process will effectively ban most physicians from prescribing estriol, which is a much safer, natural alternative to synthetic hormones.
This news is frustrating in and of itself, and certainly highlights the need for less government involvement in health care. But what happened next is nothing short of infuriating.
Pipex Therapeutics is now seeking approval for Trimesta, a knock-off of natural estriol, and the FDA is in the process of considering the approval!
Clearly, the FDA was never concerned with estriol being used in an unsafe manner -- they were concerned that their drug-company buddies were not getting their fair share of the profits.
Examples like this one and the latest pyridoxamine scandal are red flags that the U.S. FDA is not there to protect you, or your health freedom.You Can Sign a Petition to Help
You may not be aware, but in June 2007 the FDA announced new standards for dietary supplements that were intended to improve consumer safety.
In reality, the 800-page rule surrounds the dietary supplement industry with regulations and requirements in excess of those imposed on the drug industry, and up to 50 percent of small companies will simply not be able to afford to comply.
Even before this ruling, supplement makers were (and still are) limited from making health claims (this is reserved only for drugs).
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
But consider that it’s still illegal even in cases where the claims have been clearly proven -- so cherry growers cannot legally say that tart cherries may do more good than aspirin or other anti-inflammatory drugs when it comes to pain relief, even though studies back them up.
This is why the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) states that the FDA “ignores first amendment protections and censors the communication of valid scientific information.” They continue:“The agency seems to have lost sight of its mandate to protect the public and has instead come to see itself as the guardian of corporate interests.”The FDA is clearly censoring your right to know about, and purchase, foods and supplements that can help you stay healthy and prevent disease. At the same time, they are allowing dangerous drugs and consumer products to remain on the market and be sold and aggressively advertised as safe.
Even the FDA has admitted to its shortcomings and in a report said:• “The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base... is weak...."
• "The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability."
• "FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of food for the nation."
• “The development of medical products based on 'new science' cannot adequately be regulated by the FDA.”
The AAHF is leading a campaign to reform the FDA, and your help is urgently needed, as a large number of signatures are required to compel Congressional Action.
So if you believe reforming the FDA is a worthy cause, please sign the petition now, and encourage your friends and family to do so also.
Congress already knows the FDA represents a serious problem. This petition will help move them to take the urgent action required to invoke much-needed positive change.
Related Links:
The FDA is Running an Extortion Racket
Friday, June 19, 2009
Media Blasts Oprah for Supporting Alternative Medicine
In January of this year, Oprah Winfrey invited Suzanne Somers on her show to talk about health tips. The 62-year-old actress uses bio-identical estrogen cream and progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month.
According to Somers, the bio-identical hormones are identical to the ones created by the human body, unlike conventional hormones, which are made from mare’s urine.
The result has been a media firestorm condemning both Somers and Oprah, including the hit piece in Newsweek linked below. The authors of the piece, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert, argue that bio-identical hormones are just as synthetic as conventional hormones -- although they don’t much discuss the fact that conventional hormones are actually different from the 17-beta-estradiol made by your body, while the bio-identical hormones are 17-beta-estradiol itself.
The real reason for the attacks on bio-identical hormones?
As Somers points out, many doctors, scientists and media figures make a good deal of money off of the pharmaceutical industry.
And one thing you won’t see mentioned in the Newsweek article is the fact that Pat Wingert is the co-author of a pharmaceutically biased book on hormones and menopause, and that Newsweek is heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies.
This resembles an incident a few years ago when the cattle industry actually sued Oprah Winfrey just for talking about Mad Cow Disease.
Sources:
 | Dr. Mercola's Comments: |
The authors of this Newsweek article clearly had a bone to pick with alternative medicine of all kinds. Newsweek does not just ridicule Suzanne Somers for her endorsement of bioidentical hormones, they blast Jenny McCarthy’s stance on vaccine adjuvants being a culprit in causing autism, and even criticize Dr. Christiane Northrup for warning Oprah’s audience of the HPV vaccine and recommending dietary and lifestyle changes to enhance their natural immunity instead. In their article they counter this advice with the statement,
“It is true that of the millions of women who have received the vaccine, 32 have died in the days or weeks afterward. But in each case, the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration investigated the deaths and found that they were coincidental and were not related to the shot.”
This is the kind of blanket dismissal one could only expect from those who have not bothered to do any serious investigations of their own on a topic.
And as for the idea that your thoughts and beliefs may have the slightest to do with your physical health? Ridiculous, according to these two authors.
Apparently they’ve never heard of epigenetics.
Dr. Bruce Lipton, a forerunner in the field of epigenetics and The New Biology, has carefully documented how emotions are one of the most important factors in your health. According to his research, the controlling factor in deciding what your genes express -- in deciding how your future health will play out -- is not your genes, your family history or even the strength of your immune system. It is YOUR MIND.
These are the kind of myopic viewpoints you have to contend with when dealing with conventional medicine, big pharma, and their mouthpieces. But that doesn’t mean they’re any more right, or any less ridiculous, than the people and alternative strategies they try to dismiss with little more than parroted catch-phrases.
Is an Organized Smear Campaign Underway?
Now, Oprah has been targeted by big industries before, such as when she dared talk about Mad Cow disease on her show – a topic that brought her a lawsuit by the meat industry.
But Oprah is not the only one in the crosshairs of what can only be described as an organized smear campaign against alternative medicine.
There’s a disturbing trend taking shape, with a recent onslaught of media articles seeking to put a bad spin on various complementary, alternative medicine and natural medicine options. The misinformation campaign is shifting into higher gear. Is it a very deliberate and concerted media strategy?
Could there be any coincidence that this is all occurring just as the government is preparing health care reform? What would happen If much of alternative medicine was determined illegal?
Robert Zieve, MD, who gave me many of these links, believes that it smells like a witch hunt.Recent headlines include:
Contaminants lurk in many ‘natural’ products. Tests find some herbal supplements may be doing more harm than good.
Cancer patients turning to alternative remedies. 60 percent seek natural ‘cures’ despite warnings from doctors.
Doctors eager to try ‘mystical mumbo jumbo’. Alternative remedies gain acceptance despite lack of evidence.
Many ‘natural’ products make dubious claims. A product with "natural" ingredients may be no better for you than one with artificial ingredients, but a lot of us still trust advertisements that suggest as much.
Reality check on supplements, remedies. Americans increasingly turn to alternative medicine. But does it really help?
$2.5 Billion spent, no alternative cures found. Big government-funded studies show most work no better than placebos.
Alternative heart disease treatment probed. Government investigating whether patients were told enough about risks.
Dr. Deepak Chopra responded to the Oprah bashing with this Alternet article, where he states,
"The criticism the medical establishment is directing at Oprah through this article only exposes their own frustration in having squandered their credibility with the public. They hope that if they can successfully attack Oprah's immense credibility, then they can magically get some of that credibility back for themselves. However, if people still trusted the health care industry to act in their best interest the way they did decades ago, then it would be unnecessary to brand Oprah for "crazy talk" simply because she occasionally provides a forum for ideas outside of mainstream medicine.
The medical profession is burdened with a host of problems that Oprah addresses with more candor and force than the AMA. She promotes wellness and prevention, two areas that drastically need improvement. She brings up creative solutions to problems that medical science is baffled by, such as the healing response itself and the role of subjectivity in patient response. These are issues that few M.D.s are willing to explore, yet she has done so for decades.
... What this tells me is that medicine needs Oprah and other patient advocates who are demanding that official medicine heal itself. To accuse them of lacking medical credibility is a red herring. Patients aren't supposed to know more than their physicians. The fact that they often do, at least insofar as alternative treatment goes, is both a sign of hope and cause for distress."
Is Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Dangerous?
It has been overwhelmingly proven that conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which science, as little as ten years ago, massively touted, has now been shown to be very dangerous. So there’s no argument there.
Studies looking at the long-term usage of synthetic estrogen have revealed many negative side effects, including heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, high blood pressure and vaginal bleeding. But perhaps most strikingly, just one year after millions of women quit taking hormone replacement therapy, incidents of breast cancer fell dramatically—by 7 percent!
The following prescriptions now carry black box warnings and need to be avoided:
Premarin. Premarin is an estrogen extracted from Pregnant Mare’s Urine. We now know it is associated with an increased risk of heart disease.
Estrogen Therapy. Estrogen, which is extracted from Premarin, was effective in combating some menopausal symptoms but proved to have serious, negative side effects, such as the increased risk of breast cancer and an increase in insulin levels.
Provera. This drug is a progestin or a synthetic form of progesterone, which probably makes it even more toxic than Premarin. Its well-documented, negative side effects include blood clotting.
But to lump bioidentical hormones in with the rest, and attributing the same dangers to them as their synthetic versions is likely unjustified.
The Truth About Bioidentical Hormones
Bioidenticals, unlike synthetic hormones or natural ones from animals, are natural hormones that are bioidentical to your own.
The bioidentical hormone that is prescribed 80 percent of the time is estriol. It’s natural -- not a drug -- and you get it at compounding pharmacies.
And, although the article above states there are no conclusive clinical studies showing that bioidenticals are any less risky than synthetic hormones, the FDA also admits it’s unaware of any adverse effects of bioidentical hormones.
The fact is that estriol has been used safely for decades, and I believe it’s particularly useful when your ovaries have been removed or you’ve had a hysterectomy. Dr. Johathan Wright, who I’ve interviewed for my Expert Inner Circle program, is a pioneer in bioidenticals, and you can see what he has to say about their value in this short video.
The crux is that natural estriol can’t be patented, so there are no major profits to be made, and hence it gets little attention.
The FDA Effectively “Banned” Estriol, But May Approve an Unsafe Prescription Instead
Although not an FDA-approved drug, the FDA has proposed to allow estriol-containing prescriptions to be filled if they’re accompanied by an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, if and when a physician believes it’s in his patient’s best interest.
However, the IND places a significant financial burden on physicians, most notably by requiring them to submit applications to an Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
This process effectively bans most prescriptions for estriol.Meanwhile, the FDA is in the process of considering the approval of Trimesta, a knock-off of natural estriol. Clearly, the FDA has never been concerned with estriol being used in an unsafe manner -- they were concerned that their drug-company buddies were not getting their fair share of the profits.
Aside from the obvious bias, this is even more troubling because Trimesta may not be a safe version of natural estriol.
According to Dr. Jonathan Wright, the problem with Trimesta is that it’s taken in pill form. Taking this hormone orally is known to be a greater risk factor for endometrial cancer than taking the hormone transdermally (through your skin).
As Dr. Wright said:"...When the inevitable findings of excessive endometrial cancer are ultimately disclosed, you can bet the blame will fall on the bio-identical hormone itself -- and not on the oral route of administration, which is known to be more risky."
Do You Need Hormone Replacement?
The issue of hormone replacement generally does not come up until the classic symptoms of menopause strike. Menopause occurs when you stop producing estrogen and progesterone, and your periods cease. This can occur naturally, or be induced by a hysterectomy or by having your ovaries removed.
Typical menopausal symptoms include:
Hot Flashes
Vaginal Dryness
Menstrual Irregularities
Depression
Mood Swings
Weight Gain
Short- and long-term strategies can help you control these symptoms. The best approaches are preventive and involve diet and exercise. But in some cases where diet and lifestyle changes are not enough to counteract the more troublesome symptoms of menopause, bioidentical hormones may be able to help.
However, you’ll want to make sure you get your hormonal levels checked properly before embarking on any kind of hormone supplementation program.
I recommend you review Michael Borkin’s article, Women’s Hormones, for more in-depth information about the many variables involved in your sexual and overall health.
Oftentimes the cumulative physiological effects of stress can cause disruption of the natural rhythms and balancing mechanisms of your hormones, which can compromise your overall health as well as your sexual and reproductive health.
Both estrogen and progesterone are necessary in the female cycle, and their balance is key for optimal health. Many women have an imbalance of these hormones, regardless of their age. And if you have insufficient levels of progesterone to counter excessive estrogen, this imbalance can be further exacerbated by chronic stress.
So your answer might not necessarily lie in using hormones, but rather addressing your stress levels so that your body can normalize your hormone levels naturally.
Alternatives to Hormone Replacement
Prevention is always the best cure, and diet and exercise are as powerful in the prevention of future menopausal symptoms as for most other health concerns. Eating right for your nutritional type and exercising regularly can go a long way to keeping your hormones balanced as you age.
Consuming plenty of phytoestrogens (plant-estrogens) such as licorice and alfalfa before menopause can also help moderate your day-to-day estrogen levels so that when menopause comes, the drop won’t be so dramatic.
Beware, however, that soy is not a good option. In fact, non-fermented soy products are likely to damage your health even further.
You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D levels are optimized. Vitamin D has gotten the short shrift, thanks to fears about tanning and skin cancer, but Vitamin D is a must for gene regulation and optimal health. For more information, I recommend you watch my one-hour video lecture on this essential nutrient.
As for supplements, these have been shown to be beneficial in tempering symptoms of menopause:
Polyphenols. Certain polyphenols have been shown to have some HRT-like benefits without the drawbacks, and are associated with a lowered risk of heart disease. Royal Macha seems to be an amazing adaptogenic herbal solution for menopause that has helped many women. Be sure to avoid the inexpensive ones, as they typically don’t work. Get the real deal from Peru.
Omega 3 fats. You’ll also want to get plenty of omega-3 fats. A high quality animal-based omega-3 supplement, such as krill oil, can be far more effective and beneficial than fish oil.
Black Cohosh may help regulate body temperature and hot flashes.
Implementing these lifestyle changes will help control symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes, without resorting to hormone replacement.
Related Links:
Monday, June 15, 2009
Fw: Check out Chow Down: Robert Kenner's 'Food, Inc.' - indieWIRE
Chow Down: Robert Kenner's "Food, Inc." by Michael Rowin (June 8, 2009)  A scene from Robert Kenner's "Food, Inc." Image courtesy of Magnolia Pictures. If we are what we eat, we're in big trouble according to Robert Kenner's enlightening if not groundbreaking documentary "Food, Inc." Following contemporary mainstream documentary filmmaking's popular recipe of equal parts talking head interviews and field reporting, "Food, Inc." engages in investigations and studies that have been around for a while now about the steroidal industrialization of American food production: it's no surprise that authors Eric Schlosser ("Fast Food Nation") and Michael Pollan ("The Omnivore's Dilemma") are the film's two major presences. But "Food Inc." is important in scope if not discovery, and the large territory it surveys allows it to make crucial connections between the act of buying groceries and illegal immigration, corporate patented seed, and tainted food. Kenner begins by disabusing viewers of both the myth of the average supermarket's plethora of choices and the false image of agrarian American (resplendent sunsets over heartland farms, et al) sold by what the film calls the "industrial food system." A little more than half a century ago fast food restaurants, and in particular the juggernaut known as McDonald's, brought about an assembly line-like organization to food producers in which uniformity and cheapness of product trumped sound method and quality. Now three or four giant corporations control the meat industry, and the "Your way, right away" demand for more and faster food has resulted in drastic changes in the way animals are raised and slaughtered. A Southern chicken farmer who grows birds for Tyson can't let Kenner's crew venture into his coops—his employers won't allow him. Why? When another farmer, Carole, fed up with the silence she's been pressured to keep, lets Kenner in, we find out: the instituted conditions are deplorable, with sick chickens unable to move, dead carcasses piled high, and so on. This is nothing revelatory: we've seen similar exposes for years now. "Food, Inc." goes a step further, however, by showing the consequences. We no longer live in the age of "The Jungle" when muckraking could more directly lead to regulation, and Kenner points out how the regulators are now comfortably in bed with the companies they should be regulating. This makes all the more tragic the death of someone like Barbara Kowalcyk's young son Kevin, who earlier this decade died of e coli from a seemingly innocuous fast food burger—the eradication of its replication looks exceedingly dim, and even Kowalcyk won't say on camera what food she eats for fear of corporate reprisal.
|
Sunday, June 14, 2009
WorstPills.org - your expert, independent second opinion for prescription drug information
| Worst Pills, Best Pills Articles - June 2009 - For Subscribers |
| A Review of Lubiprostone (AMITIZA) Hypothyroidism: A Consumer’s Guide The BOTOX Label Gets Ready for its Close-up Alpha-Blockers for Prostate Enlargement: Drug Interactions |
|
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Healthy Legacy: Safer Products, Made Safely | Clean Water Action
Healthy Legacy: Safer Products, Made Safely
Toxic Products: Threats to Water & Health
Majority of Chemicals not Tested
Awareness is growing about the presence of toxic chemicals in our consumer products and the risks these chemicals pose to our health and the health of the environment. Over 80,000 chemicals are in production in the U.S. Very few have regulations governing their release to the environment or are subject to monitoring. In addition, less than ten percent of these chemicals have been tested for their effect on human health.
Toxins in Consumer Products
Due to improved detection methods, we are discovering new chemicals in our air, water, sediment and biota. Examples include: flame retardants, plasticizers, pesticides, fluorinated surfactants and others. These chemicals are used in our electronic equipment, baby bottles, personal care products, non-stick pans, plastic children's toys and many other products. As science has improved we're finding toxic contaminants in common products we use everyday. And they are making their way from products into our environment and our bodies.
Impacts on Water & Health
Water Contamination
Just as mercury containing products contributed to mercury pollution in the Great Lakes and other waterways, consumer product chemicals provide an equal threat to the health of our waters. While contamination from products containing mercury has decreased in the Great Lakes by 96% due to mercury product bans, concentrations of flame retardants increased exponentially between 1980 and 2000, doubling every three years.
Municipal sewage treatment facilities are a major source of water contamination from many types of chemicals. Chemicals from personal care products for example, are rinsed down the drain or excreted as waste and end up at sewage treatment facilities. These facilities are not designed to specifically remove these chemical compounds and as a result, many are released into the environment. Other sources of environmental contamination are industrial manufacturing releases and the release of chemicals from consumer products.
Hormone Disruption in Fish & People
Certain chemicals disrupt the hormone system and examples of this disruption have been observed in fish below municipal sewage treatment outflows. Effects included reduced reproductive ability and intersex gonads (female ovary tissue was found distributed throughout the male testes). Hormone disrupting chemicals include phthalates (found in vinyl children's toys) and bisphenol A (used in may baby bottles and reusable water bottle.
These hormone disrupting chemicals also impact humans. Bisphenol A and phthalates harm reproductive and developmental health and they do so at low levels. Children and fetuses are at greatest risk because exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals during critical times in development can result in life long adverse health impacts.
Additive Effects of Multiple Chemical Exposure
Other chemicals promote cancer development in fish. A recent study by Oregon State University found juvenile rainbow trout exposed to a known carcinogen and then exposed to PFOA (a chemical commonly used in non-stick cookware) developed liver cancer in 60 to 70 percent of the trout sampled. In contrast, only 10 to 30 percent of trout exposed only to the carcinogen developed cancer. This demonstrates how exposure to multiple chemicals can have an additive effect, in this case doubling the trout's incidence of cancer. People are similarly exposed to thousands of different chemicals and their combined impact on our health is unknown.
Healthy Legacy Coalition
Clean Water Action Alliance is determined to help Minnesotans achieve a healthy legacy. Working with 29 organizations from across the state in the Healthy Legacy Coalition, we promote healthy lives by supporting the production and use of everyday products without toxic chemicals. We advocate for consumer education, business leadership, and protective policies to advance safe alternatives in Minnesota.
Solutions
Current policies and practices are failing us. To leave a healthy legacy for our children, we need safe products and safe ways to make them. We have to stop using some toxic substances, develop new processes and substances that prevent harm, and protect future generations by making a transition to safe products and production.
Many companies are already beginning to use safer substances to make products. Many cities and states are beginning to require them. Minnesota can take action too with laws phasing out toxic chemicals and investment in initiatives that pave the way to safer products and a thriving economy.
Take Action: Create a Healthy Legacy for Minnesota
South St. Paul ECFE parents attend Healthy Home Party
Educate your community: Host a free Healthy Home Party in your home, church, school or other organization. At Healthy Home Parties you learn about products that contain chemicals of concern, their safer alternative and steps you can take in your home and community to create a healthy environment. Contact Kim LaBo to schedule a party in your community.
Use your purchasing power: Research products before you go to the store and buy non-toxic products. By purchasing safe products you can influence what products stores sell.
Tell your legislator to support protective policies: Contact your state legislators and let them know you want people and products to be free of toxic chemicals. Support Healthy Legacy's efforts to phase out toxic chemicals here in Minnesota.
Support the creation of safe chemicals: Encourage businesses to develop and use safer chemicals. Learn how green chemistry can help us transition to safer chemicals.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Cancer - 650,000 Lives Miscalculated: Alternative Health Newsletter
Cancer - 650,000 Lives Miscalculated
Date: 6/8/2009
Posted By: Jon Barron
On May 27th, the American Cancer Society announced that 650,400 U.S. cancer deaths were avoided from the early 1990s through 2005. The headline on their release was Cancer Death Rates Steadily Declining. As might be expected, the media promptly picked up the story, and ran it over and over again with virtually identical headlines:
If you read the stories, you learned tidbits of information such as:
- The decline in cancer death rates has been greater for some groups than for others
- People with more education generally had bigger declines in their cancer death rates
- Access to cancer screening and medical care is part of the reason for that discrepancy
But overall, what you learned from reading the story or listening to it on the news is that 650,000 lives have been saved over the last 15 years and that the drop is driven in large part by better prevention, increased use of early detection practices, and improved treatments for cancer.
This is thrilling, exciting, and, oh yes, absolutely unsupported by the evidence at hand. With that in mind, let's take a look at the results presented in the actual study.
Cancer mortality trends
Let's begin by looking at the trend lines presented in the study.
The first thing we notice is that the lines track the time between diagnosis and death. The more time that elapses between the two events, the more favorable the curve. But, and this is something the medical community brags about, if you are detecting cancer early in its development through more frequent screening, then by definition you will have a longer time between diagnosis and death even if your treatment makes not a whit of difference in the final outcome. Thus earlier detection will create a more favorable graph even if you aren't living longer. Add to that the fact that some drugs such as Avastin are now extending survival by several months with some cancers (even if it does cause perforations in the colon), and the graph looks even better. So off the top, the claims that 650,000 deaths have been prevented represents, at least to some degree, a distortion of reality.
The next thing we notice is that mortality rates in the US really did peak in the early 90's and have dropped every year since. In fact, since 2000, the incidence and mortality rates for cancer in men have dropped about 1.8% a year -- in women, about .5% a year. Incidentally, this brings up a major red flag in the study: the disparity between men and women. But we'll talk more about that later. For now, though, let's focus on the overall trend line. I'm sure you're all familiar with the expression, "You can't see the forest for the trees." Unfortunately, this is an example, where the researchers decided not to show you the whole forest, but instead focus your attention on the prettiest trees. When you look at the bigger picture, it's nowhere near as pretty.
Source: US Mortality Data, 1930-2006, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2009.
Taking a longer term, whole forest perspective, we can now see that mortality rates for cancer have actually increased geometrically over the last 75 years, with only the smallest of dips in the last 15. In fact, cancer rates have climbed between 800 and 1700% during this timeframe, depending on whose statistics you use. This is a number that far transcends any increase that might be accounted for by population increase, the aging of the population, or even better detection. But most important of all, this huge increase in mortality rates happened during a timeframe in which the medical establishment prevented anyone outside their fraternity from providing care for cancer patients -- under fear of imprisonment. In fact, even today, it is still illegal in half the states in this country for even a medical doctor to use any form of treatment not sanctioned by the medical community. The bottom line is that if the medical community wants to take ownership of the downturn in cancer deaths since the early 90's, they must also take ownership of the half century before then when mortality rates climbed through the roof. If you do that, you're no longer talking about 650,000 lives saved; you're talking about millions of lives lost. But that's a much less sexy news headline.
Mortality trends by types of cancer
As we delve deeper into the study's data, we can see that overall cancer death rates decreased in men by 19.2% between 1990 and 2005, with decreases in lung (37%), prostate (24%), and colorectal (17%) cancer rates accounting for nearly 80% of the total decrease. Among women, overall cancer death rates between 1991 and 2005 decreased by 11.4%, with decreases in breast (37%) and colorectal (24%) cancer rates accounting for 60% of the total decrease. An interesting anomaly is that the percentage of deaths from lung cancer in women (the single largest killer of women at 27%) did not decrease during that timeframe. In fact, it increased. This too is an important red flag that we will discuss further in a moment.
But first we need to challenge one of the study's underlying assumptions. Is the drop in cancer mortality (such as it is) actually driven in large part by better prevention, increased use of early detection practices, and improved treatments for cancer? Or are there other possible explanations for the drop that are just as likely…if not more so? Let's take a look at the key cancers and see.
Lung cancer and smoking
Every year the Gallup Organization takes a survey of the smoking habits of the adult American public. They have been doing this for 60 years. The first ever Gallup poll on this question, back in 1944, showed that 41% of Americans reported smoking. Today, that figure is about 21%. This is great news with five caveats.
- Most of that drop has been among men. At one time, smoking was almost exclusively a male dominated sport. Today it is a coed activity. This fact alone accounts for the fact that cancer mortality rates have dropped so much less in women than men -- particularly as can be seen in lung cancer. And that, of course, explains why lung cancer mortality rates have not dropped equally in women for men and women as we discussed above.
The negative health effects of smoking usually take several decades to hit -- as do the benefits of quitting smoking.- The prevalence of smoking is no longer dropping and seems to have leveled off at about 21% in the US. But with many more movie stars and rock musicians taking up the habit and serving as role models for young people around the world, it may be poised to begin moving upward once again.
- Smoking rates are increasing significantly around the world -- particularly in developing countries such as China, where as many as 70% of all adult men now smoke heavily. This means another huge spike in cancer rates worldwide will be coming over the next 20-30 years, starting now.
- Medical treatments for lung cancer are pretty much futile. In fact, even using all medical treatments available, average five year survival rates for lung cancer patients is only about 15%. Any drop in deaths from lung cancer has to come from reductions in smoking, not treatment.
Incidentally, according to the CDC, smoking is responsible for about 157,000 deaths from lung cancer annually in the United States -- but is actually responsible for 443,000 deaths of all kinds each year. Now it's true that most of those deaths are related to cardiovascular issues and non-cancerous lung diseases such as emphysema and COPD. On the other hand, a noticeable number of cancers such as lip, tongue, and throat cancer are closely connected to smoking. But these aren't major statistical killers. What about colon cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer? Death from these cancers has dropped noticeably too. Does the decline in smoking affect those mortality rates too?
Colon cancer
Surprise, surprise, surprise! A study from the American Cancer Society found that indeed there is a substantial connection between smoking and colon cancer. Male smokers were found to have a 34% higher risk of dying from colon cancer. Female smokers in the study had a 43% higher risk of death. That means that a 50% reduction in smoking rates in the US would have a substantial impact on colorectal cancer rates, the second leading cause of deaths from cancer in men and women combined.
This would substantially explain why the mortality rates from colorectal cancer have dropped so significantly over the last few years -- but not completely. Is improved medical care the only explanation for the rest of the drop? Not at all! As it turns out, as smoking has declined in the US, there has been a concomitant rise in the popularity of dietary supplements. In fact, during the last decade the use of alternative medicines, particularly herbal products, has increased considerably. In 2001, Americans spent $4.2 billion on herbs and other botanical remedies -- rising to an estimated $6 billion in 2008. In fact, a conservative 50% of Americans now use supplements of some kind on a daily basis. Perhaps this too has some impact on the reduced mortality rates from cancer. I realize the medical community would disagree, and in fact, it was not even mentioned in the American Cancer Society Study cited at the top of the newsletter. But a reasonable person might ask if a sea change in the nutritional habits of 50% of the country might have some impact on health and mortality rates? It's certainly a possibility.
In any case, we can explain the biggest part of the improvement in mortality rates in the two leading cancer killers (lung and colon) as having nothing to do with medical care at all. Does that mean that improved medical care has had no impact? Not at all! There's no question that discovering colon cancer at a very early stage and removing it can pretty much end that manifestation of the cancer. And thus you remain cancer free until such time as your body chooses to manifest the cancer again -- either as colon cancer or some other form. The problem is that simply removing the cancer, or poisoning your body with chemotherapy drugs does not change the underlying conditions in your body that caused the cancer to manifest in the first place.
Think about this for a moment since your doctor won't -- if you don't change the underlying conditions that caused your body to manifest cancer in the first place, the odds that it will manifest cancer again sometime down the road are high. Surgery, radiation, and chemo do not change underlying conditions. They merely work on the immediate manifestation.
Let's continue.
Prostate cancer
For years, it was thought there was no connection between prostate cancer and smoking, but in fact there appears to be one. It's not necessarily that large, and it's certainly not enough to account for the entire drop in prostate cancer deaths seen in men. So we need to look elsewhere.
And it would seem that the primary factor in the increased incidence of prostate cancer is the tremendous increase in chemical estrogens released into the environment. In addition, as testosterone levels drop with age, there is, in many cases, a concomitant rise in estradiol levels -- the major reason that many older men develop breasts. What makes estradiol so insidious is that it has a particular affinity for prostate tissue. And just as with women and breast tissue, estradiol stimulates cell growth in men too (in their prostates) and is potentially cancerous. This, then, is one of the main factors involved in the dramatically increased incidence of prostate cancer. Estradiol stimulates the BCL2 gene, which is the gene responsible for stopping cell death. What at first glance sounds like a positive is, upon closer inspection, not. When cell death in prostate tissue is blocked, cell growth continues unabated, becoming a major contributing factor in the enlargement of the prostate and the development of prostate cancer.
And that's why exposure to xenoestrogens (petroleum based chemical estrogens, potent in amounts as small as a billionth of a gram) offers a likely explanation as to why the incidence of prostate cancer has increased so dramatically over the last few decades; but what explains why the mortality rates have dropped? Is there any explanation other than improved medical care that can explain it? And the answer, once again, is yes. We've already mentioned the huge increase in the sale of herbal and dietary supplements. And in fact, men's prostate formulas containing ingredients such as Saw palmetto, Nettles, Pygeum Africanum, and pollen extract account for a large chunk of those sales. So once again, a reasonable person must ask if millions of men suddenly using such formulas might have some impact on the incidence and mortality rates vis-a-vis prostate cancer. And again, one must answer, "It's certainly a possibility." And once again, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation get to pick up the pieces -- thus accounting for a small part of the improvement.
Breast Cancer
As with prostate cancer, the primary factor in the huge increase in breast cancer we've seen over the last few decades is exposure to chemical estrogens in the environment. And once again, improved medical treatment is not the only viable explanation for the drop in mortality rates. Sales of all-natural progesterone crèmes have literally exploded since Dr. John R. Lee published his first book on the subject over a decade ago. A reasonable person must once again assume that this has had in impact.
You trust your doctor, don't you?
Before I conclude this newsletter, there's one other thing I should mention. When it comes to doctors being on the right side of supplements and lifestyle impacting your health, it's worth noting that they are, at best, late comers to the game -- and at worst, frequently on the wrong side of the issue. Let me give you an example immediately at hand. As we've explained in some detail in this issue, smoking is one of the primary factors determining both the incidence and mortality rates from cancer. So what's the problem? Doctors are opposed to cigarettes, are they not?
And the answer is yes, they are "now." But back just a few decades ago, when the alternative health community was screaming about the dangers of smoking, the medical community…not so much. In fact, for a time, many medical doctors were actually promoting cigarette smoking as an aid to weight loss. Let me repeat that. For a time, many medical doctors were actually promoting cigarette smoking as an aid to weight loss. And it wasn't just doctors. The American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society refused to take an anti-smoking position until it was literally forced upon them. For those of you who are old enough think back. Remember?
Quite simply, doctors are experts when it comes to doctoring. They are not experts when it comes to diet, nutrition, supplements, and alternative therapies. Asking a doctor for advice or impartiality when it comes to these issues is like asking an National Football League owner what he thinks of professional soccer. The bottom line is that there are many things that doctors do well. If you're in an automobile accident, you want a medical doctor to put you back together, not an herbalist. But when it comes to issues of diet, environment, and supplements as they relate to health, the medical community is at best woefully ignorant, and at worst highly biased against giving you the information you need to optimize your health.
650,000 deaths avoided -- not necessarily
When it comes to cancer, we live in very barbaric times what with doctors choosing to cut, burn, and poison it out of your body. A hundred years from now, people will be appalled when they read how we treated cancer in 2009. And in fact, some very interesting therapies such as vaccinations that stimulate your immune system to fight cancer are in testing and right around the corner. The future may be closer than we think. But for now, the medical community is doing so badly. As the study itself points out, cancer still accounts for more deaths than heart disease in persons younger than 85 years of age. It is only by distorting the numbers, as we have seen, that the medical community gets to claim 650,000 lives saved. When dealing with medical statistics, I am always reminded of Benjamin Disraeli, the former Prime Minister of England, who was reportedly fond of saying, "There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Unfortunately, when dealing with cancer, playing games with statistics can lead to death -- as it often does in the US and throughout the world. If you don't want to be just another statistic, you might want to look at alternatives. If you have not already done so, you might want to listen to my talk on the issue, Cancer, the Big Lie.
FYI - homework 4
The Six dimensions of health care performance, do not apply for websites. A website has different elements of functionality and usefulness other than overall "health care performance." All the performance elements would be based on the proper enacting and using the information on the website. If I miss-read or skip steps in any health recommendations the performance measures of safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity will be dismal regardless of what the website says or provides. The elements of quality are different for websites to be more than purely subjective. Website impact on my health would regard the monitor radiation effects on my eyes, the keyboard and mouse effects on my hands for example regarding carpal tunnel syndrome. Each individual experience will bring a different quality of Health Care Performance. If I viewed the website in the library or on a big flat plasma screen the quality of the experience will be substantially different. However, another class conducted a "survey" of 30 students with the question "What is a Quality Website?" This resulted in the attached Pareto Diagram where 1) Functionality, 2) Aesthetics, 3) Truth and 4) Simplicity were the top four rated elements of Quality. I returned to the original article "What's New (Or Improved) In Health Sites" published at the Wall Street Journal website: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128697040459161.html where I selected from their additional health websites listed: QualityHealth.com—Offers health-risk assessments, symptom checker, and personalized lists of questions to ask your doctor based on conditions and symptoms. Allows users to create blogs and join online communities. 1) Functionality - is great. Each click works, I can find and use things easily. They have a "Symptom Checker" where you can click on the part of the body that is hurting where a list of symptoms comes up to read and review. It's very simple and easy to use, where I can get detailed information about symptoms, causes and solutions with references. There is also an alphabetical drug database which includes important topics such as Foods to Avoid, Storage & Disposal, Warnings and Side- effects. This data does NOT have a list of references so I tend to wonder if it is promoted or supported by drug sales. 2) Aesthetics - this website is easy to read. The colors are pleasing to my eye and I was able to make the text size larger very easily. They have some ads in the normal places on the top and right-side down the margins, but nothing too annoying or excessive. The videos did include intro-commercials I've seen before, somewhat annoying, but not excessive. The allergy video came with all sorts of ads for assorted allergy drugs. But the Video included homeopathic techniques so it's not only one perspective. I did click on a few other sites listed in this article and closed it after the ads got too annoying. This site does have a membership option where I can get newsletter and coupons for my needs, but I did not see if I can also adjust the colors and format to my taste as well. Often members can shut-off ads for a fee. 3) Truth – As mentioned easier there are references posted with information given. The website is a registered member of the Health On the Net Foundation designed to "promote the effective and reliable use of the new technologies for telemedicine in healthcare around the world." www.hon.ch was created to protect citizens from misleading health information. I was impressed to see so many different perspectives, and even surprised by many homeopathic videos. 4) Simplicity – accessing the information was easy. I could find data easily, and most the tools and menus were self-explanatory. It was easy to navigate and the site map, about and other features are within website standards. Equally addressing the "health care performance" terms as well:
Weakness – I was not able to find several drugs that were advertised on their website. You think they would be careful only to advertise things that they provided detailed information about. It's not clear where the drug data comes from and when advertised drugs are not listed I tend to feel there is something deceptive here which makes me more skeptical on everything else I found. Though talking about Green Tea and Yoga for Allergies was inspiring. |