The natural-products community and nutritionally oriented practitioners are very familiar with media bias. For example, the press often reports that “dietary supplements are not regulated.”
The preparation for the weekly Pulse of Health Freedom requires hours of researching news-wire services, newspapers, Web sites and other publications. A review of the Associated Press health articles on one day, 10/26/09, led to two articles with attention-grabbing titles, “’Bioidenticals’ not FDA-approved, contain estrogen” and “Somers’ new target: conventional cancer treatment”. Both articles were preceded by the following editor’s note:
“Ten years and $2.5 billion in research have found no cures from alternative medicine. Yet these mostly unproven treatments are now mainstream and used by more than a third of all Americans. This is one in an occasional series examining their use and potential risks.”
Separating news from mere opinion is important for every American who seeks to make healthcare choices based upon objective information.
Friday, November 06, 2009
FDA to Standardize Labeling of Food.
Various labeling systems are currently being used by U.S. retailers and food makers to make nutritional claims. Barbara Schneeman, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, recently sent an open letter to the food industry stating the agency’s intent to develop a new regulation to define “the nutritional criteria that manufacturers will have to meet for front package ingredient claims regarding nutritional quality”. According to the FDA, the “non-standard labeling approach is likely confusing to consumers and does not help them to make healthy food choices”.
In related news, the “industry-funded” (code for “You can buy the Smart Choice seal”) labeling program was halted 10/23/09 after the FDA warned it was examining the program’s nutritional claims and would take action against false or misleading assertions. The American Heart Association was criticized when manufacturers paid a fee for the heart-check label, which was sometimes applied to foods less than rich in nutrients crucial for heart health.
The FDA hopes to use the approach tested in the United Kingdom, where the British government established criteria for food labeling that were then implemented voluntarily by grocery stores. However, in the United Kingdom there is a consistent public-health message that dietary choices can adversely affect health — as opposed to the United States, where the media bristle with ads pushing sponsors’ products.
In related news, the “industry-funded” (code for “You can buy the Smart Choice seal”) labeling program was halted 10/23/09 after the FDA warned it was examining the program’s nutritional claims and would take action against false or misleading assertions. The American Heart Association was criticized when manufacturers paid a fee for the heart-check label, which was sometimes applied to foods less than rich in nutrients crucial for heart health.
The FDA hopes to use the approach tested in the United Kingdom, where the British government established criteria for food labeling that were then implemented voluntarily by grocery stores. However, in the United Kingdom there is a consistent public-health message that dietary choices can adversely affect health — as opposed to the United States, where the media bristle with ads pushing sponsors’ products.
Are Federal “Expert Panels” Essential to Overhauling the Nation’s Healthcare System?
Are Federal “Expert Panels” Essential to Overhauling the Nation’s Healthcare System?
We have previously written about the ramifications of the economic stimulus bills that became law in February 2009. Putting aside the economic and security consequences of adding to the nation’s debt, let’s focus on the $1.1 billion for a Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) program, designed to determine which healthcare treatment options are most effective — and most cost-effective. According to CER supporters, an immediate benefit would be cost savings for government-funded insurance programs. By determining which treatments are most effective, the less effective — and often more expensive — options would (theoretically) no longer be covered by government insurance plans, saving taxpayers money. But as we all know, the devil will be in the details.
Norbert Gleicher, M.D., visiting professor at Yale University School of Medicine, and president and medical director of the Center for Human Reproduction in New York City, wrote in the 10/19/09 Wall Street Journal that “the idea of inserting a government panel between patients and physicians remains contentious and with good reason”. Relating a personal story, Dr. Gleicher said that he recommended HRT to his own mother, to address her risk of osteoporosis. After all, the medical literature of that time advocated HRT for reducing the risk of bone thinning. Happily, Gleicher’s mother’s long-standing doctor did not advise that she use HRT. This turned out to be lifesaving, as she was later diagnosed with breast cancer, a contraindication for HRT.
According to Gleicher, most published studies are written by academics with little practical experience, a policy that allows university-based doctors who have limited patient contact to determine “appropriate clinical care.” He also mentions the bias of medical journals’ policy of peer review, a system he believes is rarely free of conflicts and only rarely objective. Quoting Albert Einstein, Gleicher says: “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.”
After listening to an earnest young family practitioner, just three months out of residency, repeat the old saw “We need more studies before we recommend antioxidants,” it was refreshing to hear a wise, local general practitioner of many years standing remind me, “Speak with a doctor/medical student at the end of the first year in school. They have just completed their study of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. Nutritional medicine makes sense to them at that point. The following three years, and subsequent internship and residency schools, teach doctors to push prescriptions and procedures.” In a nation overburdened with chronic illness related to unwise lifestyle choices, prescriptions and procedures do little to address obesity, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and cancer.
Dr. Gleicher is right in saying, “Expert panels would only slow medical progress and delay rejection of false prophecies and dogmas.”
We have previously written about the ramifications of the economic stimulus bills that became law in February 2009. Putting aside the economic and security consequences of adding to the nation’s debt, let’s focus on the $1.1 billion for a Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) program, designed to determine which healthcare treatment options are most effective — and most cost-effective. According to CER supporters, an immediate benefit would be cost savings for government-funded insurance programs. By determining which treatments are most effective, the less effective — and often more expensive — options would (theoretically) no longer be covered by government insurance plans, saving taxpayers money. But as we all know, the devil will be in the details.
Norbert Gleicher, M.D., visiting professor at Yale University School of Medicine, and president and medical director of the Center for Human Reproduction in New York City, wrote in the 10/19/09 Wall Street Journal that “the idea of inserting a government panel between patients and physicians remains contentious and with good reason”. Relating a personal story, Dr. Gleicher said that he recommended HRT to his own mother, to address her risk of osteoporosis. After all, the medical literature of that time advocated HRT for reducing the risk of bone thinning. Happily, Gleicher’s mother’s long-standing doctor did not advise that she use HRT. This turned out to be lifesaving, as she was later diagnosed with breast cancer, a contraindication for HRT.
According to Gleicher, most published studies are written by academics with little practical experience, a policy that allows university-based doctors who have limited patient contact to determine “appropriate clinical care.” He also mentions the bias of medical journals’ policy of peer review, a system he believes is rarely free of conflicts and only rarely objective. Quoting Albert Einstein, Gleicher says: “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.”
After listening to an earnest young family practitioner, just three months out of residency, repeat the old saw “We need more studies before we recommend antioxidants,” it was refreshing to hear a wise, local general practitioner of many years standing remind me, “Speak with a doctor/medical student at the end of the first year in school. They have just completed their study of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. Nutritional medicine makes sense to them at that point. The following three years, and subsequent internship and residency schools, teach doctors to push prescriptions and procedures.” In a nation overburdened with chronic illness related to unwise lifestyle choices, prescriptions and procedures do little to address obesity, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and cancer.
Dr. Gleicher is right in saying, “Expert panels would only slow medical progress and delay rejection of false prophecies and dogmas.”
Hospital-acquired Infections Linked to nearly 100,000 Deaths Annually.
Those following the debate over healthcare reform often hear that eliminating waste from the current healthcare system would, in large measure, fund reform. Given the number of dollars wasted, the lives lost and the suffering associated with sloppy healthcare, why do we drag our feet in improving our current system and reducing waste?
A report released 10/26/09 by Thomson Reuters, parent company of the Reuters news service, stated that the current U.S. health system wastes between $505 billion and $800 billion a year, one-third of our current healthcare expenditure. The report cites the following as sources of wasteful spending:
Overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice lawsuits (Pennsylvania State University estimates that as much as 91 percent of our nation’s healthcare expenditures are related to defensive medicine);
Fraud, which may be as high as $200 billion annually in Medicare claims alone;
Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork;
Medical mistakes;
Preventable conditions, such as uncontrolled diabetes.
The report states that the average U.S. hospital spends one-fourth of its budget on billing and administration (twice what is spent in Canada). Eight hours per week and 1.66 clerical staff, on average, are needed for each doctor, again far more than is the case in Canada.
On 10/22/09 Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a $17-million initiative to address HAI or hospital-acquired infections. Thanks to concerned citizens, such as former Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey of New York, whose Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths was established in 2004, attention has been drawn to the fact that there are 2 million cases of HAI each year, resulting in 100,000 deaths and an additional $33 billion in healthcare costs (www.hospitalinfection.org). That is a true national emergency requiring immediate action, so why doesn’t every U.S. hospital adopt the proven techniques developed by the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths? President Bush’s administration took a huge step forward by stating Medicare would no longer pay for the costs of hospital-acquired infections. Let’s enforce this immediately.
Hannah Wunsch, M.D., of Columbia University Medical Center compared 493,054 patients in the United Kingdom with 704,028 patients from seven U.S. states, all of whom died in 2001. Roughly half of all U.S. hospital deaths involved ICU care, whereas only one in 10 of the British patients had received ICU care prior to dying. As Wunsch said, “What do we get with all the intensive care we’re giving people?” And Wunsch is an intensive-care doctor!
A report released 10/26/09 by Thomson Reuters, parent company of the Reuters news service, stated that the current U.S. health system wastes between $505 billion and $800 billion a year, one-third of our current healthcare expenditure. The report cites the following as sources of wasteful spending:
Overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice lawsuits (Pennsylvania State University estimates that as much as 91 percent of our nation’s healthcare expenditures are related to defensive medicine);
Fraud, which may be as high as $200 billion annually in Medicare claims alone;
Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork;
Medical mistakes;
Preventable conditions, such as uncontrolled diabetes.
The report states that the average U.S. hospital spends one-fourth of its budget on billing and administration (twice what is spent in Canada). Eight hours per week and 1.66 clerical staff, on average, are needed for each doctor, again far more than is the case in Canada.
On 10/22/09 Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a $17-million initiative to address HAI or hospital-acquired infections. Thanks to concerned citizens, such as former Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey of New York, whose Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths was established in 2004, attention has been drawn to the fact that there are 2 million cases of HAI each year, resulting in 100,000 deaths and an additional $33 billion in healthcare costs (www.hospitalinfection.org). That is a true national emergency requiring immediate action, so why doesn’t every U.S. hospital adopt the proven techniques developed by the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths? President Bush’s administration took a huge step forward by stating Medicare would no longer pay for the costs of hospital-acquired infections. Let’s enforce this immediately.
Hannah Wunsch, M.D., of Columbia University Medical Center compared 493,054 patients in the United Kingdom with 704,028 patients from seven U.S. states, all of whom died in 2001. Roughly half of all U.S. hospital deaths involved ICU care, whereas only one in 10 of the British patients had received ICU care prior to dying. As Wunsch said, “What do we get with all the intensive care we’re giving people?” And Wunsch is an intensive-care doctor!
Alert: Healthcare Legislation: last chance to get it right!
Now that the full U.S. House is set to begin debate this week on the merged healthcare bill, it is essential to understand the provisions of the nearly 2,000-page bill and register our opinions with our elected officials. This is the last chance to try to get it right in the house. Contact your Congressperson and let them know that you care about getting healthcare legislation right!
One of the key questions about the bill is its cost. According to the November 2, 2009, issue of the Wall Street Journal, the estimated gross cost of the Democratic House legislation is $1.055 trillion over 10 years. Such estimates in the past have been low—partly because they do not take into account the expansion of healthcare demand that follows an increase in government subsidies. When demand rises while supply stays the same or falls, prices increase, often dramatically.
Before we get to the main problems of the House bill, apart from cost, let’s take a moment to note some positive features. The main thing that is positive about it is a new regard for the concept of wellness and prevention. Even this is far from perfect. These terms are not defined as they should be. Without the right definitions, prevention can be turned into a program of more and more invasive tests and drugs for younger and younger people. Here is how prevention is specifically addressed in the bill:
Prevention: Wellness program grants for small employers (Section 112)
Grants may equal up to 50 percent of the amount of money an employer spends on qualified wellness programs. A program must include three of the following:
1) Education
2) Engagement (i.e., wellness-program components on site)
3) Behavioral change (supportive programs, self-help materials, etc.) linked to nutrition, physical fitness, obesity, etc.
4) Supportive on-site component (i.e., nutritious food available on site)
A program may not be mandated for employees, must be based on current science and approved by the secretaries of HHS and Labor. A program may provide financial incentives for employees and must ensure that personal information remains private.
National Prevention and Wellness Strategy (Section 3121)
A plan will be developed that includes national priorities and utilizes evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities.
There will be a transparent public comment period designed to give special interests less opportunity to completely dominate.
Composition will include the heads of appropriate health agencies, federal departments, nonprofits and the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (see below).
Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (Section 3131)
Under AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Review and Quality), the task force shall review and update preventive services as supported by science.
Composition will include experts in related fields, such as disease prevention.
A stakeholders’ board will provide consultation. This board shall include consumers, payers, federal agencies, and both public and private groups with an interest in clinical prevention.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Section 3132)
This task force will be similarly constructed and operated as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (see above). Its mission is to review community prevention services and disseminate evidence-based recommendations.
Research grants available to study prevention specifically (Section 3141)
Grant program to study whether subsidizing individual wellness choices is beneficial (Section 3143)
The program will focus on tobacco cessation and obesity. If incentives prove to be helpful, these shall be included in the Essential Benefits Healthcare Package (see below).
Grant program (to states) for delivery of community prevention and wellness programs (Section 3151)
Grants to promote healthy behaviors in medically underserved communities (Section 399V)
Areas of focus include poor nutrition, physical activity, tobacco use, mental-health problems and dangerous sexual behavior.
Community grant program specifically addressing obesity with nutrition and physical activity(Section 399w-1)
Nutrition labeling on menu items at chain restaurants and in vending machines (Section 2572)
Prevention: Essential Benefits (basic mandated healthcare package) includes preventive coverage (Section 222)
CDC-recommended vaccines and preventive measures rated A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services shall be covered. Note that although nutrition counseling, for example, is covered for those who have indications toward certain disease (a positive step), they are the only consumers covered. Truly preventive medicine, including a focus on maintaining optimal health with diet, supplements, and exercise, is not covered.
Prevention covered for Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP plans defined as above.
Money available for preventive training in medical school (Section 2234)
Note: There is no definition of prevention.
Cost-Sharing is prohibited for preventive services.
The intent seems to be to ensure that consumers are not burdened with co-pays and deductibles for covered preventive services. The term “cost sharing” includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges, but does not include premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers, or spending for non-covered services. (General Definitions) A strict reading of the definition of “cost-sharing” may prevent out-of-pocket payment for medical services otherwise covered by qualifying health insurance, as is already the case with Medicare. You may not be able to pay privately for your healthcare options of choice!
With regard to prevention, it is as if Congress has heard the music, but still can’t carry the tune. In other areas, Congress is not even hearing the music, for example in requiring but not protecting the privacy of personal electronic health records (EHR).
EHR – All qualified health-benefits plans are required to use electronic health records (Section 237)
Privacy is gutted and doctors’ use of integrative therapies may be jeopardized.
EHR – Study to determine how best to motivate small providers to use EHR (Section 263)
Concerns about the use of electronic medical/health records (as noted above).
If a practitioner participates in Medicare, they are automatically deemed to participate in public option unless they opt out. (Section 323)
This bill of course brings in a national insurance mandate. A mandate means that government must define health and healthcare and healthcare insurance policies. The problem is that government is not equipped to do these things. Healthcare is a discovery process and needs to keep changing based on new science and what people prefer. The bill specifically includes both:
Employer mandate (Section 413)
Employer must provide coverage or pay a tax equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer in lieu of coverage. Note that there is a sliding scale for the smallest employers, those with payrolls less than $750,000. Payrolls under $500,000 are exempted from taxes.
Consumer mandate
Individuals must purchase qualified health benefits through the state exchange system unless grandfathered in with existing coverage. There are three different levels from which to choose. Those who have difficulty paying can apply for credits. Note that employer-offered healthcare plans cannot be grandfathered, and that individual plans, although they can be grandfathered, must not be altered in any way. The public option will be offered through the state exchange system.
Individuals who do not have qualifying coverage will be taxed at 2.5 percent of their AGI divided by an amount specified by the IRS. (Section 59B)
Catastrophic and similar packages will no longer be available. These packages have enabled people to buy natural healthcare on their own while still being covered for major medical. This vital option will disappear.
Excise tax on the wealthy (Section 59c)
For those filing jointly, a modified AGI exceeding $1 million will be taxed at 5.4 percent. If filing separately, AGI exceeding $500,000 is taxed at 5.4 percent. The trouble with this plan is that money pulled into healthcare from outside healthcare will just drive up prices. As prices rise, the money will in effect disappear. And of course if new taxes are used for healthcare, they can’t be used for deficit reduction. Millionaires in the US control about 10% of the income. No amount of taxes on 10% of the income will pay for healthcare and reduce government deficits.
Comparative Effectiveness Research is supposed to ensure that healthcare money is not wasted. But how can government decide what is effective and what is not? Will government just listen to special interests?
Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is not a transparent process and doesn’t include representation of integrative medicine, subjecting the process to abuse by special interests
CER says that there must be a transparent process but does not specify public comment for all steps in the process. (This is required in the Senate finance bill.) Any entity can submit research, making it likely that companies with the most money will dominate.
Cap on Flex-Spending Account (FSA) contributions at $2,500 (Section 532)
Currently, the contribution level is unlimited. This is another way to make natural medicine more expensive for consumers.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Section 531)
Americans would no longer be able to purchase over-the-counter medicines with their FSA, Health Savings Account (HSA) or Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).
Increase in the non-qualified Health Savings Account (HSA) distribution penalty from 10 percent to 20 percent (Section 533)
This makes HSAs less attractive and paves the way for HSA pre-verification. In other words, “big brother” tells you how to use them.
School-based health clinics to include mental screening and mental-health treatment programs (Section 2511)
Prozac for those children deemed socially anxious is a likely outcome.
No child left unimmunized against influenza (Section 2524)
Grants to help ensure all young schoolchildren are immunized – through schools. Vaccine safety ignored.
Natural medicine along with the freedom for consumers to choose and practitioners to practice should not be a casualty of the current healthcare debate. Make sure your elected officials hear from you regarding this critical legislation. Let’s preserve healthcare freedom of choice at all costs.
Click here to take action NOW!
One of the key questions about the bill is its cost. According to the November 2, 2009, issue of the Wall Street Journal, the estimated gross cost of the Democratic House legislation is $1.055 trillion over 10 years. Such estimates in the past have been low—partly because they do not take into account the expansion of healthcare demand that follows an increase in government subsidies. When demand rises while supply stays the same or falls, prices increase, often dramatically.
Before we get to the main problems of the House bill, apart from cost, let’s take a moment to note some positive features. The main thing that is positive about it is a new regard for the concept of wellness and prevention. Even this is far from perfect. These terms are not defined as they should be. Without the right definitions, prevention can be turned into a program of more and more invasive tests and drugs for younger and younger people. Here is how prevention is specifically addressed in the bill:
Prevention: Wellness program grants for small employers (Section 112)
Grants may equal up to 50 percent of the amount of money an employer spends on qualified wellness programs. A program must include three of the following:
1) Education
2) Engagement (i.e., wellness-program components on site)
3) Behavioral change (supportive programs, self-help materials, etc.) linked to nutrition, physical fitness, obesity, etc.
4) Supportive on-site component (i.e., nutritious food available on site)
A program may not be mandated for employees, must be based on current science and approved by the secretaries of HHS and Labor. A program may provide financial incentives for employees and must ensure that personal information remains private.
National Prevention and Wellness Strategy (Section 3121)
A plan will be developed that includes national priorities and utilizes evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities.
There will be a transparent public comment period designed to give special interests less opportunity to completely dominate.
Composition will include the heads of appropriate health agencies, federal departments, nonprofits and the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (see below).
Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (Section 3131)
Under AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Review and Quality), the task force shall review and update preventive services as supported by science.
Composition will include experts in related fields, such as disease prevention.
A stakeholders’ board will provide consultation. This board shall include consumers, payers, federal agencies, and both public and private groups with an interest in clinical prevention.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Section 3132)
This task force will be similarly constructed and operated as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (see above). Its mission is to review community prevention services and disseminate evidence-based recommendations.
Research grants available to study prevention specifically (Section 3141)
Grant program to study whether subsidizing individual wellness choices is beneficial (Section 3143)
The program will focus on tobacco cessation and obesity. If incentives prove to be helpful, these shall be included in the Essential Benefits Healthcare Package (see below).
Grant program (to states) for delivery of community prevention and wellness programs (Section 3151)
Grants to promote healthy behaviors in medically underserved communities (Section 399V)
Areas of focus include poor nutrition, physical activity, tobacco use, mental-health problems and dangerous sexual behavior.
Community grant program specifically addressing obesity with nutrition and physical activity(Section 399w-1)
Nutrition labeling on menu items at chain restaurants and in vending machines (Section 2572)
Prevention: Essential Benefits (basic mandated healthcare package) includes preventive coverage (Section 222)
CDC-recommended vaccines and preventive measures rated A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services shall be covered. Note that although nutrition counseling, for example, is covered for those who have indications toward certain disease (a positive step), they are the only consumers covered. Truly preventive medicine, including a focus on maintaining optimal health with diet, supplements, and exercise, is not covered.
Prevention covered for Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP plans defined as above.
Money available for preventive training in medical school (Section 2234)
Note: There is no definition of prevention.
Cost-Sharing is prohibited for preventive services.
The intent seems to be to ensure that consumers are not burdened with co-pays and deductibles for covered preventive services. The term “cost sharing” includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges, but does not include premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers, or spending for non-covered services. (General Definitions) A strict reading of the definition of “cost-sharing” may prevent out-of-pocket payment for medical services otherwise covered by qualifying health insurance, as is already the case with Medicare. You may not be able to pay privately for your healthcare options of choice!
With regard to prevention, it is as if Congress has heard the music, but still can’t carry the tune. In other areas, Congress is not even hearing the music, for example in requiring but not protecting the privacy of personal electronic health records (EHR).
EHR – All qualified health-benefits plans are required to use electronic health records (Section 237)
Privacy is gutted and doctors’ use of integrative therapies may be jeopardized.
EHR – Study to determine how best to motivate small providers to use EHR (Section 263)
Concerns about the use of electronic medical/health records (as noted above).
If a practitioner participates in Medicare, they are automatically deemed to participate in public option unless they opt out. (Section 323)
This bill of course brings in a national insurance mandate. A mandate means that government must define health and healthcare and healthcare insurance policies. The problem is that government is not equipped to do these things. Healthcare is a discovery process and needs to keep changing based on new science and what people prefer. The bill specifically includes both:
Employer mandate (Section 413)
Employer must provide coverage or pay a tax equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer in lieu of coverage. Note that there is a sliding scale for the smallest employers, those with payrolls less than $750,000. Payrolls under $500,000 are exempted from taxes.
Consumer mandate
Individuals must purchase qualified health benefits through the state exchange system unless grandfathered in with existing coverage. There are three different levels from which to choose. Those who have difficulty paying can apply for credits. Note that employer-offered healthcare plans cannot be grandfathered, and that individual plans, although they can be grandfathered, must not be altered in any way. The public option will be offered through the state exchange system.
Individuals who do not have qualifying coverage will be taxed at 2.5 percent of their AGI divided by an amount specified by the IRS. (Section 59B)
Catastrophic and similar packages will no longer be available. These packages have enabled people to buy natural healthcare on their own while still being covered for major medical. This vital option will disappear.
Excise tax on the wealthy (Section 59c)
For those filing jointly, a modified AGI exceeding $1 million will be taxed at 5.4 percent. If filing separately, AGI exceeding $500,000 is taxed at 5.4 percent. The trouble with this plan is that money pulled into healthcare from outside healthcare will just drive up prices. As prices rise, the money will in effect disappear. And of course if new taxes are used for healthcare, they can’t be used for deficit reduction. Millionaires in the US control about 10% of the income. No amount of taxes on 10% of the income will pay for healthcare and reduce government deficits.
Comparative Effectiveness Research is supposed to ensure that healthcare money is not wasted. But how can government decide what is effective and what is not? Will government just listen to special interests?
Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is not a transparent process and doesn’t include representation of integrative medicine, subjecting the process to abuse by special interests
CER says that there must be a transparent process but does not specify public comment for all steps in the process. (This is required in the Senate finance bill.) Any entity can submit research, making it likely that companies with the most money will dominate.
Cap on Flex-Spending Account (FSA) contributions at $2,500 (Section 532)
Currently, the contribution level is unlimited. This is another way to make natural medicine more expensive for consumers.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Section 531)
Americans would no longer be able to purchase over-the-counter medicines with their FSA, Health Savings Account (HSA) or Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).
Increase in the non-qualified Health Savings Account (HSA) distribution penalty from 10 percent to 20 percent (Section 533)
This makes HSAs less attractive and paves the way for HSA pre-verification. In other words, “big brother” tells you how to use them.
School-based health clinics to include mental screening and mental-health treatment programs (Section 2511)
Prozac for those children deemed socially anxious is a likely outcome.
No child left unimmunized against influenza (Section 2524)
Grants to help ensure all young schoolchildren are immunized – through schools. Vaccine safety ignored.
Natural medicine along with the freedom for consumers to choose and practitioners to practice should not be a casualty of the current healthcare debate. Make sure your elected officials hear from you regarding this critical legislation. Let’s preserve healthcare freedom of choice at all costs.
Click here to take action NOW!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Risks vs. Benefits
Risks vs. Benefits
The public consciousness of risk vs. benefit was raised considerably with the media’s discussion of the benefits of taking a Cox II inhibitor (Celebrex and Vioxx) vs. the potential risks (Cox II inhibitors are linked to the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding as well to an increased risk of heart attack).
That consciousness raising continued in the days between October 13 and October 18, when the following were mentioned in the media:
60 percent of those with Alzheimer’s disease are prescribed antipsychotic medication. In the United Kingdom alone, the annual cost of these drugs is 80 million pounds. But in 2006, a 42-center U.S. trial found no significant differences between the placebo and the antipsychotic medications after 12 weeks.
French scientists analyzed 19,000 patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The patients who took immune-inhibiting drugs (thiopurines such as Imuran) were more than five times as likely to develop lymphoma than those who had never received the drugs.
Gardasil vaccine is suspected as the cause of ALS/Lou Gehrig’s disease in two young women. According to the 8/18/09 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, 23 million doses of the HPV vaccine have been administered to young women in the United States, resulting in 32 deaths, 12,424 reported adverse reactions and 772 reported severe reactions (blood clots, pancreatic failure, motor neuron disease and anaphylaxis).
An analysis by the National Trauma Databank has highlighted that the rate of warfarin/blood thinner use has increased significantly: from 7.3 percent in 2002 to nearly 13 percent in 2006. Warfarin use was associated with a 30 percent increase in risk of death among trauma patients and a 20 percent increased risk in those aged 65 and older. And according to the Canadian Medical Journal, the rate of heparin-induced lesions is four times what was officially reported.
An analysis of 1998-2005 Medicare data has shown that patients with new lower-back pain were more likely to have surgery if they were treated in an area that had a higher-than-average concentration of MRI machines — even though, according to previous research, increased back surgery has not produced improved outcomes for patients. The Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that Pittsburgh has more MRI scanners than all of Canada.
Research published in the October 2009 Chest reviewed the current guidelines for using an inhaled steroid along with a long-acting beta agonist for COPD. Researchers found the benefit of the two-drug approach was limited and accompanied by substantial risks of pneumonia and other infections.
The FDA has announced plans to work with the National Eye Institute and the Department of Defense to review LASIK eye surgery. Of the approximately 6 million Americans who have undergone the surgery, which permanently reshapes the cornea, 5 percent are dissatisfied with the results. The long-term safety of the surgery is unknown. There have been reports of permanent damages to the eyes following surgery, including double vision, dry eye and halos around objects at night. Letters citing inadequate reporting of adverse events were sent to 17 LASIK eye surgery centers.
It is staggering to think these seven examples are drawn from only one week of media coverage. When we consider the number of prescription drugs used daily in American medicine, as well as the number of surgical and scanning procedures, it becomes clear we have little appreciation for the risks of prescription drugs and medical procedures. To address America’s healthcare costs in a meaningful fashion, the risks as well as the benefits of a therapy must be considered.
The public consciousness of risk vs. benefit was raised considerably with the media’s discussion of the benefits of taking a Cox II inhibitor (Celebrex and Vioxx) vs. the potential risks (Cox II inhibitors are linked to the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding as well to an increased risk of heart attack).
That consciousness raising continued in the days between October 13 and October 18, when the following were mentioned in the media:
60 percent of those with Alzheimer’s disease are prescribed antipsychotic medication. In the United Kingdom alone, the annual cost of these drugs is 80 million pounds. But in 2006, a 42-center U.S. trial found no significant differences between the placebo and the antipsychotic medications after 12 weeks.
French scientists analyzed 19,000 patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The patients who took immune-inhibiting drugs (thiopurines such as Imuran) were more than five times as likely to develop lymphoma than those who had never received the drugs.
Gardasil vaccine is suspected as the cause of ALS/Lou Gehrig’s disease in two young women. According to the 8/18/09 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, 23 million doses of the HPV vaccine have been administered to young women in the United States, resulting in 32 deaths, 12,424 reported adverse reactions and 772 reported severe reactions (blood clots, pancreatic failure, motor neuron disease and anaphylaxis).
An analysis by the National Trauma Databank has highlighted that the rate of warfarin/blood thinner use has increased significantly: from 7.3 percent in 2002 to nearly 13 percent in 2006. Warfarin use was associated with a 30 percent increase in risk of death among trauma patients and a 20 percent increased risk in those aged 65 and older. And according to the Canadian Medical Journal, the rate of heparin-induced lesions is four times what was officially reported.
An analysis of 1998-2005 Medicare data has shown that patients with new lower-back pain were more likely to have surgery if they were treated in an area that had a higher-than-average concentration of MRI machines — even though, according to previous research, increased back surgery has not produced improved outcomes for patients. The Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that Pittsburgh has more MRI scanners than all of Canada.
Research published in the October 2009 Chest reviewed the current guidelines for using an inhaled steroid along with a long-acting beta agonist for COPD. Researchers found the benefit of the two-drug approach was limited and accompanied by substantial risks of pneumonia and other infections.
The FDA has announced plans to work with the National Eye Institute and the Department of Defense to review LASIK eye surgery. Of the approximately 6 million Americans who have undergone the surgery, which permanently reshapes the cornea, 5 percent are dissatisfied with the results. The long-term safety of the surgery is unknown. There have been reports of permanent damages to the eyes following surgery, including double vision, dry eye and halos around objects at night. Letters citing inadequate reporting of adverse events were sent to 17 LASIK eye surgery centers.
It is staggering to think these seven examples are drawn from only one week of media coverage. When we consider the number of prescription drugs used daily in American medicine, as well as the number of surgical and scanning procedures, it becomes clear we have little appreciation for the risks of prescription drugs and medical procedures. To address America’s healthcare costs in a meaningful fashion, the risks as well as the benefits of a therapy must be considered.
47 Members of Congress Support Consumers’ Right to Choose Their Health Practitioners
47 Members of Congress Support Consumers’ Right to Choose Their Health Practitioners
The legislators have sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a letter proposing a ban on discrimination against integrative MDs, DOs, chiropractors and other well-trained and credentialed healthcare providers who have not previously been discriminated against under federal law. If discrimination is not forbidden, conventional licensed practitioners will try to use federal law, as they have used state law, to restrict competition from alternative and integrative sources.
The letter, dated September 14, 2009, urged that any healthcare reform legislation passed include "a provider non-discrimination provision at the federal level, and make it applicable to all plans." Although the letter does not mention any particular healthcare disciplines, it was supported by the American Chiropractic Association. The association notes that "while ACA remains focused on many chiropractic-specific legislative initiatives, there are certainly some areas where the profession shares concerns with a larger body of health care providers.” Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, and Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., led the drafting of the letter, which focuses on the importance of patients’ being able to choose the type of healthcare provider who will treat them. It also stresses the need to prevent insurance plans from discriminating against entire classes of healthcare providers. A third focus is on maintaining any hard-won rights providers have gained at the state level.
The legislators have sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a letter proposing a ban on discrimination against integrative MDs, DOs, chiropractors and other well-trained and credentialed healthcare providers who have not previously been discriminated against under federal law. If discrimination is not forbidden, conventional licensed practitioners will try to use federal law, as they have used state law, to restrict competition from alternative and integrative sources.
The letter, dated September 14, 2009, urged that any healthcare reform legislation passed include "a provider non-discrimination provision at the federal level, and make it applicable to all plans." Although the letter does not mention any particular healthcare disciplines, it was supported by the American Chiropractic Association. The association notes that "while ACA remains focused on many chiropractic-specific legislative initiatives, there are certainly some areas where the profession shares concerns with a larger body of health care providers.” Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, and Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., led the drafting of the letter, which focuses on the importance of patients’ being able to choose the type of healthcare provider who will treat them. It also stresses the need to prevent insurance plans from discriminating against entire classes of healthcare providers. A third focus is on maintaining any hard-won rights providers have gained at the state level.
Do mandatory vaccinations achieve higher rates of immunization?
Tami Wahl, ANH-USA’s legislative director, attended the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, held in Reston, Va., October 2-4, 2009. The conference was hosted by the National Vaccine Information Center, a nonprofit educational organization founded in 1982. The oldest and largest consumer organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and the protection of informed consent in the mass-vaccination system, NVIC is an independent clearinghouse for information. Consequently, it does not promote the use of vaccines; nor does it advise against their use. Rather, it supports the availability of all preventive healthcare options, including vaccination, and the right of consumers to make educated, voluntary healthcare choices. NVIC’s work aims to ensure that public-health policies are based in science and not influenced by industry.
At the conference, hundreds of parents, grandparents, health practitioners, medical doctors, former pharmaceutical sales representatives, concerned citizens, community activists and members of the media heard a variety of noted speakers. The topics covered included the history of vaccination, the status of the H1N1 and HPV/Gardasil vaccines, legal matters (including manufacturer liability), constitutional law (including protections against mandatory vaccination), informed consent, pet vaccination, homeopathy and immunization. There were also sessions that allowed for interaction with the speakers.
An especially compelling presentation compared how Japan and the United States handle vaccinations. For example, Japan completes vaccinations for infants over an extended period of time (as opposed to the tight “schedule” implemented in the United States) and does not vaccinate infants under 3 months of age. Since 1994, Japan has utilized a “voluntary vaccination” plan and found it to be highly effective. In short, mandatory vaccinations don’t always mean higher rates of true immunization. The Japanese government has pulled certain vaccines from the schedule when these were deemed unnecessary or not completely safe. As a result, the Japanese have a high degree of trust in their vaccine schedule.
The conference also addressed the problem of studies that fail to compare a tested vaccine with a true placebo control-group. Often, the placebo contains mercury or some other toxic substance. Sometimes another vaccine is used in the control group in lieu of a true placebo.
Several speakers gave pointers for individuals who want to get involved at the local level: 1) Become informed about the side effects of vaccines; 2) be familiar with your state’s laws (e.g., is a religious exemption available?); 3) educate others, such as legislators and family members (www.nvic.org).
On a related note, a New York state Supreme Court judge has granted a temporary restraining order against the requirement that all healthcare workers get the H1N1 vaccine. The restraining order, granted October 19, 2009, will be in effect until New York’s Supreme Court reviews the case in a hearing scheduled for October 30. The original order indicated that workers not vaccinated against seasonal flu and the H1N1 virus would be subject to disciplinary action after November 30. A 1990 court ruling rejected healthcare workers’ opposition to mandatory rubella vaccination.
At the conference, hundreds of parents, grandparents, health practitioners, medical doctors, former pharmaceutical sales representatives, concerned citizens, community activists and members of the media heard a variety of noted speakers. The topics covered included the history of vaccination, the status of the H1N1 and HPV/Gardasil vaccines, legal matters (including manufacturer liability), constitutional law (including protections against mandatory vaccination), informed consent, pet vaccination, homeopathy and immunization. There were also sessions that allowed for interaction with the speakers.
An especially compelling presentation compared how Japan and the United States handle vaccinations. For example, Japan completes vaccinations for infants over an extended period of time (as opposed to the tight “schedule” implemented in the United States) and does not vaccinate infants under 3 months of age. Since 1994, Japan has utilized a “voluntary vaccination” plan and found it to be highly effective. In short, mandatory vaccinations don’t always mean higher rates of true immunization. The Japanese government has pulled certain vaccines from the schedule when these were deemed unnecessary or not completely safe. As a result, the Japanese have a high degree of trust in their vaccine schedule.
The conference also addressed the problem of studies that fail to compare a tested vaccine with a true placebo control-group. Often, the placebo contains mercury or some other toxic substance. Sometimes another vaccine is used in the control group in lieu of a true placebo.
Several speakers gave pointers for individuals who want to get involved at the local level: 1) Become informed about the side effects of vaccines; 2) be familiar with your state’s laws (e.g., is a religious exemption available?); 3) educate others, such as legislators and family members (www.nvic.org).
On a related note, a New York state Supreme Court judge has granted a temporary restraining order against the requirement that all healthcare workers get the H1N1 vaccine. The restraining order, granted October 19, 2009, will be in effect until New York’s Supreme Court reviews the case in a hearing scheduled for October 30. The original order indicated that workers not vaccinated against seasonal flu and the H1N1 virus would be subject to disciplinary action after November 30. A 1990 court ruling rejected healthcare workers’ opposition to mandatory rubella vaccination.
Does the Safeway Amendment address workplace wellness in a financially responsible manner?
As the debate for healthcare reform continues inside the beltway, on the airwaves, and around many a dinner table and water cooler, how can we — a nation known for ingenuity and entrepreneurship — deliver quality care for a reasonable price? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in his book Saving Lives, Saving Money, is but one voice suggesting that America could do much better. Princeton economist Professor Ute Reinhardt has also condemned our current system for wasting money, doing little to create wellness and all-too-frequently serving vested interests rather than patients’ health.
Business journals and newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, have charted the impact of America’s rising healthcare costs on the nation’s industrial competitiveness. In his 1986 book America’s Health Care Revolution: Who Lives? Who Dies? former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joseph Califano Jr., revealed that Chrysler was spending more on healthcare (Califano called it “sick care”) than on steel for its automobiles. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and Safeway CEO Steve Burd have published editorials in The Wall Street Journal about their commitment to a financially responsible approach to employees’ health. Given the $1.7 trillion deficit, many of us wonder if the concept of financially responsible healthcare reform resonates with our elected officials.
The fall 2009 issue of The American Acupuncturist included an article, “Evaluation in Acupuncture: Past and Future,” by a team of authors led by New York acupuncturist Michael Jabbour, LAc, MS. Jabbour had examined the literature for all studies of acupuncture that focus on costs. A key thrust of his article was to give a monetary value to "quality of life years" gained by the use of acupuncture. The authors, who noted the importance of including "indirect costs and intangible costs" in economic studies, concluded that "acupuncture has the capacity to offer cost-effective treatment, even when compared to conventional medicine”.
Economist and researcher Patricia Herman, ND, MS, Ph.D., published “Herman's Systematic Review Yields Top 9 Therapies/21 Conditions with High Quality Evidence of Cost Savings from CAM” in the August 27, 2009, issue of The Integrator. Herman noted that the most intriguing finding by the studies she has so far been able to evaluate is that "over 50% show cost savings." She underscores that "this is beyond cost-effectiveness to cost-savings," adding that "this is not likely just an artifact of publication bias because there is no disincentive for publishing something as cost-effective vs. cost saving." Herman notes that this is particularly interesting given "the typical conventional point of view that CAM increases cost."
Both the Safeway amendment from the Senate Finance Committee and HR 3200 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act) address workplace wellness, including incentives for participation in voluntary wellness programs. Existing HIPAA legislation permits insurance premium discounts of up to 20 percent when an individual meets wellness program criteria. For example, the current Safeway wellness program requires employees to meet healthy weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol benchmarks and requires that they not smoke. If the individual fails to meet these criteria, premiums may be raised by 20 percent. The Safeway amendment increases the discount limits to between 30 percent and 50 percent. A group of 65 industry organizations have recently written a letter to Congress stating, “We believe that allowing employers to vary premiums by up to 50 percent of the total cost of employee coverage could lead to discriminatory practices and make health coverage unaffordable for those who need it the most.” However, the current model, which leads to a mentality of “Bill my insurance,” has done little to encourage individuals covered by employer-paid plans to control their own healthcare costs. It is true that the insurance discount must be carefully managed to avoid employer violation of employee privacy. Employers should not have access to an employee’s blood pressure numbers. But rewarding healthy lifestyle choices can be done without invading privacy. And of course in the long run people shouldn’t have to look to their employer as the only source of tax favored health insurance.
According to economist Dr. Ute Reinhardt, the wage controls during World War II, which inspired the current system of employer-paid health insurance, with its tax benefits solely for businesses, is unsustainable. Individual responsibility and freedom of choice have driven America’s use of integrative medicine. More importantly, integrative medicine is effective and costs less than disease care. This approach also protects the privacy of medical records.
Business journals and newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, have charted the impact of America’s rising healthcare costs on the nation’s industrial competitiveness. In his 1986 book America’s Health Care Revolution: Who Lives? Who Dies? former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joseph Califano Jr., revealed that Chrysler was spending more on healthcare (Califano called it “sick care”) than on steel for its automobiles. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and Safeway CEO Steve Burd have published editorials in The Wall Street Journal about their commitment to a financially responsible approach to employees’ health. Given the $1.7 trillion deficit, many of us wonder if the concept of financially responsible healthcare reform resonates with our elected officials.
The fall 2009 issue of The American Acupuncturist included an article, “Evaluation in Acupuncture: Past and Future,” by a team of authors led by New York acupuncturist Michael Jabbour, LAc, MS. Jabbour had examined the literature for all studies of acupuncture that focus on costs. A key thrust of his article was to give a monetary value to "quality of life years" gained by the use of acupuncture. The authors, who noted the importance of including "indirect costs and intangible costs" in economic studies, concluded that "acupuncture has the capacity to offer cost-effective treatment, even when compared to conventional medicine”.
Economist and researcher Patricia Herman, ND, MS, Ph.D., published “Herman's Systematic Review Yields Top 9 Therapies/21 Conditions with High Quality Evidence of Cost Savings from CAM” in the August 27, 2009, issue of The Integrator. Herman noted that the most intriguing finding by the studies she has so far been able to evaluate is that "over 50% show cost savings." She underscores that "this is beyond cost-effectiveness to cost-savings," adding that "this is not likely just an artifact of publication bias because there is no disincentive for publishing something as cost-effective vs. cost saving." Herman notes that this is particularly interesting given "the typical conventional point of view that CAM increases cost."
Both the Safeway amendment from the Senate Finance Committee and HR 3200 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act) address workplace wellness, including incentives for participation in voluntary wellness programs. Existing HIPAA legislation permits insurance premium discounts of up to 20 percent when an individual meets wellness program criteria. For example, the current Safeway wellness program requires employees to meet healthy weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol benchmarks and requires that they not smoke. If the individual fails to meet these criteria, premiums may be raised by 20 percent. The Safeway amendment increases the discount limits to between 30 percent and 50 percent. A group of 65 industry organizations have recently written a letter to Congress stating, “We believe that allowing employers to vary premiums by up to 50 percent of the total cost of employee coverage could lead to discriminatory practices and make health coverage unaffordable for those who need it the most.” However, the current model, which leads to a mentality of “Bill my insurance,” has done little to encourage individuals covered by employer-paid plans to control their own healthcare costs. It is true that the insurance discount must be carefully managed to avoid employer violation of employee privacy. Employers should not have access to an employee’s blood pressure numbers. But rewarding healthy lifestyle choices can be done without invading privacy. And of course in the long run people shouldn’t have to look to their employer as the only source of tax favored health insurance.
According to economist Dr. Ute Reinhardt, the wage controls during World War II, which inspired the current system of employer-paid health insurance, with its tax benefits solely for businesses, is unsustainable. Individual responsibility and freedom of choice have driven America’s use of integrative medicine. More importantly, integrative medicine is effective and costs less than disease care. This approach also protects the privacy of medical records.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
New studies find that most men aren’t told about the benefits and risks of PSA screening.
Two new studies published in the Sept. 25, 2009, online edition of BMJ —one by Benny Holmstrom, a urologist with Gavle Hospital in Gavle, Sweden; the other by Jennifer Stark, a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston — highlight once again the lack of patient education regarding the risks associated with prostate cancer screening using the PSA blood test. According to Dr. Michael Pignone of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the chance of dying from prostate cancer for American men is 1 in 1,000. The chance of dying from heart disease, cancer or other causes is 113 in 1,000.
The British National Health Service first sounded the alarm two decades ago, declaring that routine PSA screening was costly, did not help men live longer or live better, and also subjected men to the risks of over-diagnosis and treatment for false-positive test results. Stanford University followed suit in 1987, calling PSA screening clinically useless. This year Harvard weighed in as well. In his 2004 book Should I Be Tested for Cancer, Maybe Not and Here’s Why, Gilbert Welch, M.D., professor of medicine at Dartmouth University, alerted readers to the lack of science validating routine PSA screening. Mass screening wastes money while endangering men’s quality of life. Targeted screening for men at high genetic risk, or for those with lifestyle risks, was suggested as a much more sound choice both medically and economically.
The two new studies point out that when a positive PSA test leads to a prostate biopsy, 75 percent of the time there is no cancer present. While men screened for prostate cancer are 2 to 4 times more likely to be diagnosed, the death rate from prostate cancer is the same for those screened as for those not screened. For men treated aggressively, the risks of consequent impotence and incontinence threaten quality of life.
Healthcare Reform as it presently exists won’t change the fact that the medical profession takes decades to abandon its harmful and wasteful practices. It’s long been medicine’s inside joke that it takes a generation of physicians to be trained, practice and die before meaningful change occurs. The American Cancer Society says it expects to alter its PSA recommendations next year. But why wait? When is the U.S. system of healthcare going to wake up?
The British National Health Service first sounded the alarm two decades ago, declaring that routine PSA screening was costly, did not help men live longer or live better, and also subjected men to the risks of over-diagnosis and treatment for false-positive test results. Stanford University followed suit in 1987, calling PSA screening clinically useless. This year Harvard weighed in as well. In his 2004 book Should I Be Tested for Cancer, Maybe Not and Here’s Why, Gilbert Welch, M.D., professor of medicine at Dartmouth University, alerted readers to the lack of science validating routine PSA screening. Mass screening wastes money while endangering men’s quality of life. Targeted screening for men at high genetic risk, or for those with lifestyle risks, was suggested as a much more sound choice both medically and economically.
The two new studies point out that when a positive PSA test leads to a prostate biopsy, 75 percent of the time there is no cancer present. While men screened for prostate cancer are 2 to 4 times more likely to be diagnosed, the death rate from prostate cancer is the same for those screened as for those not screened. For men treated aggressively, the risks of consequent impotence and incontinence threaten quality of life.
Healthcare Reform as it presently exists won’t change the fact that the medical profession takes decades to abandon its harmful and wasteful practices. It’s long been medicine’s inside joke that it takes a generation of physicians to be trained, practice and die before meaningful change occurs. The American Cancer Society says it expects to alter its PSA recommendations next year. But why wait? When is the U.S. system of healthcare going to wake up?
EPA unveils plan to analyze and regulate six high-profile chemicals.
A number of recent studies point to the increased incidence of neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, in the United States. And the October issue of the journal Pediatrics publishes a new government study suggesting that autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder, is more prevalent than previously thought, affecting 1 in every 91 U.S. children.
A search of the literature points to exposure to manganese while self-pumping gasoline, to chronic mercury exposure, to pesticide exposure and to a myriad of unknown factors that may affect genetic expression. A research team from the California-based Parkinson’s Institute recently found that the most common pesticides used in gardening tripled the incidence of Parkinson’s disease. The NIH Website www.medlineplus.gov lists 29 published studies linking Parkinson’s disease with pesticide exposure.
The causes of neurodevelopmental disorders — including autism, ADHD and Asperger’s syndrome — remain elusive. But clearly, to quote Walter Willett, M.D, M.P.H., of Harvard’s Department of Nutrition, the fact that we’ve changed the fat in our diet has a role to play. Changes in diet and activity, the increased use of vaccines, toxins in the environment (including mercury, lead and phthalates) and genetic susceptibility to the multitude of environmental changes could affect our children, whether as individuals or collectively. The combination of factors could impact each child differently.
In an announcement September 29, 2009, the EPA noted that U.S. consumers are “understandably anxious and confused” about chemicals in the environment and in their bodies. Quoted as saying the 1976 toxics law was “inordinately cumbersome and time-consuming”, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that in the coming months the Obama administration will promote a new law placing responsibility on the chemical industry to prove that its compounds are safe.
In the interim, Jackson said, the EPA would begin to analyze and regulate six chemicals that have raised high-profile health concerns. These include bisphenol/BPA, found in hard, clear polycarbonate bottles and in dentistry materials; phthalates, found in vinyl and cosmetics; brominated flame retardants; perfluorinated compounds used in nonstick coatings; paraffins found in lubricants; and benzidine dyes and pigments. It is feared that these six chemicals mimic hormones. They have already been linked to reproductive problems, the obstruction of fetal development, cancer and other health disorders.
Using its authority under existing law, EPA may restrict the use of these six chemicals or require that product labels warn consumers of the risks associated with their use.
October 13, 2009
A search of the literature points to exposure to manganese while self-pumping gasoline, to chronic mercury exposure, to pesticide exposure and to a myriad of unknown factors that may affect genetic expression. A research team from the California-based Parkinson’s Institute recently found that the most common pesticides used in gardening tripled the incidence of Parkinson’s disease. The NIH Website www.medlineplus.gov lists 29 published studies linking Parkinson’s disease with pesticide exposure.
The causes of neurodevelopmental disorders — including autism, ADHD and Asperger’s syndrome — remain elusive. But clearly, to quote Walter Willett, M.D, M.P.H., of Harvard’s Department of Nutrition, the fact that we’ve changed the fat in our diet has a role to play. Changes in diet and activity, the increased use of vaccines, toxins in the environment (including mercury, lead and phthalates) and genetic susceptibility to the multitude of environmental changes could affect our children, whether as individuals or collectively. The combination of factors could impact each child differently.
In an announcement September 29, 2009, the EPA noted that U.S. consumers are “understandably anxious and confused” about chemicals in the environment and in their bodies. Quoted as saying the 1976 toxics law was “inordinately cumbersome and time-consuming”, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that in the coming months the Obama administration will promote a new law placing responsibility on the chemical industry to prove that its compounds are safe.
In the interim, Jackson said, the EPA would begin to analyze and regulate six chemicals that have raised high-profile health concerns. These include bisphenol/BPA, found in hard, clear polycarbonate bottles and in dentistry materials; phthalates, found in vinyl and cosmetics; brominated flame retardants; perfluorinated compounds used in nonstick coatings; paraffins found in lubricants; and benzidine dyes and pigments. It is feared that these six chemicals mimic hormones. They have already been linked to reproductive problems, the obstruction of fetal development, cancer and other health disorders.
Using its authority under existing law, EPA may restrict the use of these six chemicals or require that product labels warn consumers of the risks associated with their use.
October 13, 2009
Citing steroids in supplements, Congress considers tweaking dietary regulations.
According to the New York Times, federal agents have recently raided several companies suspected of making bodybuilding products that illegally contain steroids and selling them as over-the-counter dietary supplements. On September 29, 2009, Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., chair of the Senate sub-committee on Judiciary, Crime and Drugs, convened a hearing on the topic. The forum was entitled “Body Building Products and Hidden Steroids: Enforcement Barriers”.
The FDA has warned consumers not to use bodybuilding products that contain steroids or steroid-like substances advertised as enhancing testosterone levels. Among the witnesses at the hearing was former college baseball player Jareem Gunter, who suffered acute liver failure after taking a bodybuilding product adulterated with steroids. Steroid-adulterated products are linked to liver failure, kidney damage and other serious health consequences. According to Travis Tygart, chief executive of the US Anti-Doping Agency: “These companies are exploiting the lack of premarket regulation to sell magic powders and pills in a bottle while using the reputation of the health food and vitamin industry to cloak themselves with the appearance of safety and respectability.”
Michael Levy, director of the FDA’s division of new drugs and labeling compliance, stated that the “FDA has to undertake painstaking investigation and analysis to prove they are illegal.” But Richard Kingham, an attorney specializing in food and drug law, stressed that the agency already has enforcement tools sufficient to address these misbranded products.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking member at the hearing, disagreed with Sen. Specter’s contention that the premarket review of dietary supplements should be reexamined. Instead, Hatch said he continues to push for increased resources at the FDA and DEA in order to enforce more actively existing laws designed to prevent the marketing of illegal steroids masquerading as dietary supplements.
There’s a misconception, continually repeated in the mainstream press, that dietary supplements are unregulated. In fact, since 1994 the FDA has had the authority and responsibility to address misbranded dietary supplements. The dietary supplement industry, in implementing GMP/Good Manufacturing Practice certification and USP certification to police its own, has demonstrated an enviable safety record, according to government statistics. As Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association, stated: “Companies that are willing to ignore current laws would also ignore any new law. Enforcement is a better answer.”
The FDA has warned consumers not to use bodybuilding products that contain steroids or steroid-like substances advertised as enhancing testosterone levels. Among the witnesses at the hearing was former college baseball player Jareem Gunter, who suffered acute liver failure after taking a bodybuilding product adulterated with steroids. Steroid-adulterated products are linked to liver failure, kidney damage and other serious health consequences. According to Travis Tygart, chief executive of the US Anti-Doping Agency: “These companies are exploiting the lack of premarket regulation to sell magic powders and pills in a bottle while using the reputation of the health food and vitamin industry to cloak themselves with the appearance of safety and respectability.”
Michael Levy, director of the FDA’s division of new drugs and labeling compliance, stated that the “FDA has to undertake painstaking investigation and analysis to prove they are illegal.” But Richard Kingham, an attorney specializing in food and drug law, stressed that the agency already has enforcement tools sufficient to address these misbranded products.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking member at the hearing, disagreed with Sen. Specter’s contention that the premarket review of dietary supplements should be reexamined. Instead, Hatch said he continues to push for increased resources at the FDA and DEA in order to enforce more actively existing laws designed to prevent the marketing of illegal steroids masquerading as dietary supplements.
There’s a misconception, continually repeated in the mainstream press, that dietary supplements are unregulated. In fact, since 1994 the FDA has had the authority and responsibility to address misbranded dietary supplements. The dietary supplement industry, in implementing GMP/Good Manufacturing Practice certification and USP certification to police its own, has demonstrated an enviable safety record, according to government statistics. As Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association, stated: “Companies that are willing to ignore current laws would also ignore any new law. Enforcement is a better answer.”
It's Time to Put "Health" Back into Healthcare! Tell Your Senator to Support True Healthcare Reform
How can we, as a country, reduce exploding healthcare costs? By changing the way we do medicine. Too often we rely on treating symptoms and addressing health problems after they have reached the crisis state. Under the old way of thinking, this usually means hospital stays, vastly expensive surgery, expensive drugs with undesirable side effects, and other procedures common to conventional chronic care.
Preventive medicine should be, by definition, the prevention of disease before it takes hold. Diagnostic tests may be useful for early detection, but they often involve little understood risks such as radiation. Moreover, the screen may be used to redefine normal conditions as pre-diseases requiring expensive and often dangerous lifelong drug treatment. And whether the screen is used to diagnose a pre-disease condition or a disease, the opportunity for true prevention has already passed.
Although both the Senate HELP and Finance Committee healthcare bills incorporate prevention, they do not define what it means in key provisions. Without a clear definition of which preventive measures will be covered by insurance, for example, we could end up with nothing more than a long list of approved screening measures and drugs to be used on all ages, including the very young.
We are concerned that the current healthcare discussion doesn’t go far enough and would actually further constrain your access to a truly integrative and preventive medical model.
Equally alarming are the following provisions in the Senate healthcare bills:
A one-size-fits-all health insurance mandate would impede your right to choose and receive the healthcare that works best for you. It’s not exactly clear which services would be provided by a mandate, but it is apparent that we would have only one option! Those who currently pay out of pocket for healthcare services and opt to work outside of the insurance system or choose to purchase minimal coverage for catastrophic events will have the burden of additional insurance expenses without receiving additional benefits. We may ultimately be unable to afford our healthcare options of choice. Even if we can afford them, the natural healthcare option may be simply regulated away in a one-size-fits-all medical world.
Flexible Spending and Health Savings Accounts will be capped at $2,500. They may also be subject to taxes applied to high-end plans. These types of accounts are frequently used to pay for integrative medicine options, including preventive services. The net impact could be less access to healthy options! Since the house bill is more restrictive of deductibles and thus more destructive of HSA’s, a combined bill could yet eliminate HSA’s entirely.
The Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) program is structured to reinforce and strengthen the current medical paradigm, which is stacked against integrative medicine. A newly created commission will be charged with identifying and recommending the most effective and appropriate healthcare services and procedures. That commission is required (required!) to include representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, but no one is included from the integrative health community. It’s crucial that less invasive, less expensive and more natural integrative medical treatments be examined and compared in head-to-head studies.
Electronic Medical Records (EMR) are an invasion of privacy and, in the worst case, may be used to target practitioners who are using alternative therapies. The government and potentially many others will have access to all of your EMRs. Do you trust them to keep your records secure? It is also likely that state medical boards, attorneys general and the FDA will access and use these data to target practitioners who offer integrative approaches. Any EMR system should have an option for individuals to opt out!
The Senate Finance Committee voted to pass America’s Healthy Future Act out of committee on Tuesday October 13 and the Senate will now merge the HELP and Finance bills together. Without further amendments, the resulting bill will commit us to one-size-fits-all options, stifling creative innovation, and giving special interests free rein to reinforce the status quo — pushing integrative medicine and true prevention further outside of the medical system.
We need your help! Let’s put “health” back in the healthcare bill! Please write your senators to let them know that you want to see true healthcare reform. If you are a practitioner, please identify your area of practice and highlight the need to ensure equal footing for natural and integrative medicine. Take Action Here
Preventive medicine should be, by definition, the prevention of disease before it takes hold. Diagnostic tests may be useful for early detection, but they often involve little understood risks such as radiation. Moreover, the screen may be used to redefine normal conditions as pre-diseases requiring expensive and often dangerous lifelong drug treatment. And whether the screen is used to diagnose a pre-disease condition or a disease, the opportunity for true prevention has already passed.
Although both the Senate HELP and Finance Committee healthcare bills incorporate prevention, they do not define what it means in key provisions. Without a clear definition of which preventive measures will be covered by insurance, for example, we could end up with nothing more than a long list of approved screening measures and drugs to be used on all ages, including the very young.
We are concerned that the current healthcare discussion doesn’t go far enough and would actually further constrain your access to a truly integrative and preventive medical model.
Equally alarming are the following provisions in the Senate healthcare bills:
A one-size-fits-all health insurance mandate would impede your right to choose and receive the healthcare that works best for you. It’s not exactly clear which services would be provided by a mandate, but it is apparent that we would have only one option! Those who currently pay out of pocket for healthcare services and opt to work outside of the insurance system or choose to purchase minimal coverage for catastrophic events will have the burden of additional insurance expenses without receiving additional benefits. We may ultimately be unable to afford our healthcare options of choice. Even if we can afford them, the natural healthcare option may be simply regulated away in a one-size-fits-all medical world.
Flexible Spending and Health Savings Accounts will be capped at $2,500. They may also be subject to taxes applied to high-end plans. These types of accounts are frequently used to pay for integrative medicine options, including preventive services. The net impact could be less access to healthy options! Since the house bill is more restrictive of deductibles and thus more destructive of HSA’s, a combined bill could yet eliminate HSA’s entirely.
The Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) program is structured to reinforce and strengthen the current medical paradigm, which is stacked against integrative medicine. A newly created commission will be charged with identifying and recommending the most effective and appropriate healthcare services and procedures. That commission is required (required!) to include representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, but no one is included from the integrative health community. It’s crucial that less invasive, less expensive and more natural integrative medical treatments be examined and compared in head-to-head studies.
Electronic Medical Records (EMR) are an invasion of privacy and, in the worst case, may be used to target practitioners who are using alternative therapies. The government and potentially many others will have access to all of your EMRs. Do you trust them to keep your records secure? It is also likely that state medical boards, attorneys general and the FDA will access and use these data to target practitioners who offer integrative approaches. Any EMR system should have an option for individuals to opt out!
The Senate Finance Committee voted to pass America’s Healthy Future Act out of committee on Tuesday October 13 and the Senate will now merge the HELP and Finance bills together. Without further amendments, the resulting bill will commit us to one-size-fits-all options, stifling creative innovation, and giving special interests free rein to reinforce the status quo — pushing integrative medicine and true prevention further outside of the medical system.
We need your help! Let’s put “health” back in the healthcare bill! Please write your senators to let them know that you want to see true healthcare reform. If you are a practitioner, please identify your area of practice and highlight the need to ensure equal footing for natural and integrative medicine. Take Action Here
Monday, July 13, 2009
New Bill (HR2749) Gives FDA Unheard-of Power over Small Farmers, Food and Supplement Producers
A new, long-awaited food safety bill is now before the US House of Representatives. It is the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, or FSEA. Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D–CA) and John Dingell (D–MI), the FSEA is meant to address food safety concerns. But as you will see, much of it is not about food safety at all. Food safety issues have arisen from large agricultural operations. But this bill places its harshest burdens on small food producers and supplement producers.
Take Action and let your Representative know you DO NOT support this bill
The Food Safety Enhancement Act:
- gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unprecedented scope, authority, and power over small farmers, food producers, and supplement producers, including the power to use vague language to intimidate and threaten;
- imposes unjustifiably harsh criminal and civil penalties for even administrative violations; and
- places undue economic hardship on small and mid-sized farms and food facilities (both organic and conventional), which could easily drive many of them out of business, and lead to monopoly control of food by large corporations.
Also known as the Waxman–Dingell bill, the Food Safety Enhancement Act has a number of provisions that would directly affect many of AAHF’s members. Although much of the bill’s language is vague—and, some worry, deliberately deceptive—it is clear that the FSEA provides for the following:
Click Here to Continue Reading...
Monday, June 15, 2009
An Update on our Social Media Sites!
Social Media Sites are taking the world by storm. They are transforming the way we access and receive news and information and connect and communicate with each other on a daily basis. AAHF has joined many of these new and fast-growing networks in an effort to spread awareness about our organization and to help keep members in the loop on the latest news from the alternative medicine field.
It all started with three simple words, “You’ve got Mail.” We all remember that adorable romantic comedy, where a couple fell in love, *gasp* over the internet! What was thought of as a new and revolutionary way to meet people has now become the norm. Relationships are now being established and built through connections made on social networking sites. Organizations are no longer sending letters and gaining membership through face-to-face interaction, but through “Tweeting with Tweeples.” And although this new way of communication may seem complicated and confusing, these sites are surprisingly simple and are gaining membership at an extremely rapid pace.
The basic concept behind these sites is networking. Sure, Facebook may have started out as a way for college students to express themselves and socialize with their friends online. However, organizations soon realized that those friend networks could be used to spread the word about their campaigns, creating new networks of people working to spread the word about their issues.
AAHF has created accounts for Facebook, Blogspot, Twitter and MySpace and we actively update each site and recruit new friends and followers every day. Our Facebook account, which can be found by searching for friends through E-Mail at office@healthfreedom.org --- has 563 friends and counting. On our profile, we post information about our organization, links to our campaigns, articles and photos and live-streaming updates from our Twitter. We can also send private messages to members and comment on others’ walls.
Our MySpace is another online community that helps us stay connected. MySpace provides users with an extensive profile, allowing us to share everything from what our organization’s goals are to what books and movies we would like to endorse. The site also automatically streams and links to our blog posts, Facebook activity and Twitter “Tweets,” connecting all of our Social Networking Sites easily and accessibly. You can add us by simply searching MySpace for “American Association for Health Freedom.”
Although we have had our blog for quite some time, we are now beginning to post articles twice weekly on the latest alternative health issues. We hope that the topics we choose will spark comments and start conversations and we encourage everyone to subscribe to our blog and voice your opinions there. Our blog site is http://thehealthfreedom.blogspot.com. You can chose to “Follow” our blog by clicking on the Follow button in the top left corner. This will allow you to receive updates whenever we have a new post or someone replies to one of your comments.
Finally, Twitter is currently the newest and most talked about social networking site that we have become involved with. We post server “tweets,” which are short comments that give our followers current information and news. These Tweets include updates on what’s going on in our organization and the alternative medicine community, links to relevant articles and websites, and Q and A between our twitter and another. If you don’t already “Tweet”, we strongly encourage you to join! Twitter is a great way to get information on what you are interested in, straight to your phone and computer. Twitter.com provides you with a short, simple video detailing everything you need to know to get started. To find us on Twitter, go to http://twitter.com/healthfreedom and join our 89 plus followers.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Is Health Care Reform Moving Too Fast?
All this talk about health care reform ... has there been adequate time and transparency to develop a comprehensive workable plan? A matter of this importance which affects every single American needs to be discussed in the public domain. Open the closed-door dealings. Deals are being struck and discussions are being had that the general public is not privy to.
Senator Enzi (R-Wyo) expressed concern over the 'focus that some Democrats have placed on meeting arbitrary deadlines over getting the legislation done right.' The deadline to meet some random politically inspired timeline could cause a glossing over of the details. Are we going to be presented a bill in the 11th hour that will be forced through Congress without time for public comment or perhaps even a thorough review by Congress?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Press Release: NEW SCIENCE POINTS TO IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-DOSE SUPPLEMENTS
For Immediate Release:
March 3, 2009
US Contact:
Tami L. Wahl, 800.230.2762
International Contact:
Dr. Robert Verkerk, 44.1306.646.600
NEW SCIENCE POINTS TO IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-DOSE SUPPLEMENTS
Calcium, B Vitamins, and Vitamin D Play Important Roles
Three new pieces of research reveal the importance of higher supplement doses. The February 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, a highly respected, peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association, includes three studies that demonstrate the benefits of high-dose nutritional supplements, which suggests that the methods being used to determine “maximum safe dosages” in the US and Europe are greatly flawed.
The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) and its European counterpart, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), have long argued that the methodology used to determine dosage greatly overestimates the risks—and completely ignores the benefits—of higher dosages. Dr. Robert Verkerk, Executive and Scientific Director of ANH, commented, “These latest studies, all published in single edition of Archives of Internal Medicine, provide important information about the roles of B vitamins in age-related macular degeneration, calcium in cancer prevention, and vitamin D in reducing the risk of upper respiratory tract infections.”
Dr. Verkerk continued, “In all cases the levels that delivered the best results were the highest doses tested, and these levels are well over those that the European Commission (EC) wants to see banned.” The EC is pushing for very low MPLs, or Maximum Permitted Levels, for supplements sold in Europe, creating concerns that the high-dose supplements commonly consumed in Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, and Sweden may be stripped from shelves.
AAHF Legislative Director Tami Wahl agreed: “Vitamins and supplements, combined with other healthy habits, play an integral role in the prevention of many medical conditions and diseases. Our concern is that the dosage amounts currently recommended are simply not adequate to yield protective effects.”
Dr. Verkerk added, “There is an increasing body of science, which these new papers in Archives of Internal Medicine support, that shows high doses of supplements are both safe and effective. To get some perspective on it, the levels found to be most beneficial in preventing macular degeneration were over twelve times the US’s Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of folate, twenty-five times the RDA of vitamin B6, and 1000 times the RDA of vitamin B12.”
In a recent presentation at a public meeting of the Food Safety Consultative Council of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dr. Verkerk demonstrated that the amounts of vitamins and minerals commonly consumed in a single healthy meal are often well in excess of those that are considered to be “maximum safe levels,” and may even be exceeded in a single unhealthy meal!
AAHF Executive Director Gretchen DuBeau adds, “Recent studies—which were funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers - that questioned the benefits from supplement use have not been based on good science and create unfounded confusion for consumers who are simply trying to make the best and most informed healthcare decision. Ironically, most of the recent studies questioning the efficacy of vitamins have used minimal doses, not the potentially helpful doses tested in the three recent studies that found vitamins to be useful.”
AAHF believes that any type of noninvasive and inexpensive treatment that assists in the prevention of life-threatening or life-changing diseases like age-related macular degeneration should be strongly encouraged and endorsed by the medical community as a whole. AAHF continues to push US regulators to accept a more rational scientific and legal framework in creating food supplement maximum doses.
— 30 —
NOTES TO THE EDITOR:
About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF): www.healthfreedom.net.
AAHF is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization that protects Americans’ rights to access integrative medicine and dietary supplements. AAHF protects the right of the consumer to choose and the practitioner to practice by lobbying Congress and state legislatures; educating the public, press, and decision-makers on integrative medicine; initiating legal activities; and joining and forming significant coalitions.
About the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH):www.anhcampaign.org
ANH is an international, non-governmental organization, based in the UK. It was founded in 2002, and works on behalf of consumers, medical doctors, complementary health practitioners and health-product suppliers worldwide, to promote natural and sustainable health, using the principles of good science and good law.
March 3, 2009
US Contact:
Tami L. Wahl, 800.230.2762
International Contact:
Dr. Robert Verkerk, 44.1306.646.600
NEW SCIENCE POINTS TO IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-DOSE SUPPLEMENTS
Calcium, B Vitamins, and Vitamin D Play Important Roles
Three new pieces of research reveal the importance of higher supplement doses. The February 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, a highly respected, peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association, includes three studies that demonstrate the benefits of high-dose nutritional supplements, which suggests that the methods being used to determine “maximum safe dosages” in the US and Europe are greatly flawed.
The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) and its European counterpart, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), have long argued that the methodology used to determine dosage greatly overestimates the risks—and completely ignores the benefits—of higher dosages. Dr. Robert Verkerk, Executive and Scientific Director of ANH, commented, “These latest studies, all published in single edition of Archives of Internal Medicine, provide important information about the roles of B vitamins in age-related macular degeneration, calcium in cancer prevention, and vitamin D in reducing the risk of upper respiratory tract infections.”
Dr. Verkerk continued, “In all cases the levels that delivered the best results were the highest doses tested, and these levels are well over those that the European Commission (EC) wants to see banned.” The EC is pushing for very low MPLs, or Maximum Permitted Levels, for supplements sold in Europe, creating concerns that the high-dose supplements commonly consumed in Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, and Sweden may be stripped from shelves.
AAHF Legislative Director Tami Wahl agreed: “Vitamins and supplements, combined with other healthy habits, play an integral role in the prevention of many medical conditions and diseases. Our concern is that the dosage amounts currently recommended are simply not adequate to yield protective effects.”
Dr. Verkerk added, “There is an increasing body of science, which these new papers in Archives of Internal Medicine support, that shows high doses of supplements are both safe and effective. To get some perspective on it, the levels found to be most beneficial in preventing macular degeneration were over twelve times the US’s Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of folate, twenty-five times the RDA of vitamin B6, and 1000 times the RDA of vitamin B12.”
In a recent presentation at a public meeting of the Food Safety Consultative Council of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dr. Verkerk demonstrated that the amounts of vitamins and minerals commonly consumed in a single healthy meal are often well in excess of those that are considered to be “maximum safe levels,” and may even be exceeded in a single unhealthy meal!
AAHF Executive Director Gretchen DuBeau adds, “Recent studies—which were funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers - that questioned the benefits from supplement use have not been based on good science and create unfounded confusion for consumers who are simply trying to make the best and most informed healthcare decision. Ironically, most of the recent studies questioning the efficacy of vitamins have used minimal doses, not the potentially helpful doses tested in the three recent studies that found vitamins to be useful.”
AAHF believes that any type of noninvasive and inexpensive treatment that assists in the prevention of life-threatening or life-changing diseases like age-related macular degeneration should be strongly encouraged and endorsed by the medical community as a whole. AAHF continues to push US regulators to accept a more rational scientific and legal framework in creating food supplement maximum doses.
— 30 —
NOTES TO THE EDITOR:
About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF): www.healthfreedom.net.
AAHF is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization that protects Americans’ rights to access integrative medicine and dietary supplements. AAHF protects the right of the consumer to choose and the practitioner to practice by lobbying Congress and state legislatures; educating the public, press, and decision-makers on integrative medicine; initiating legal activities; and joining and forming significant coalitions.
About the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH):www.anhcampaign.org
ANH is an international, non-governmental organization, based in the UK. It was founded in 2002, and works on behalf of consumers, medical doctors, complementary health practitioners and health-product suppliers worldwide, to promote natural and sustainable health, using the principles of good science and good law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
