Health Freedom Issues

New Bill (HR2749) Gives FDA Unheard-of Power over Small Farmers, Food and Supplement Producers

2009-07-13T09:36:00.005-05:00

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...

An Update on our Social Media Sites!

2009-06-15T14:32:00.001-05:00

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.

AAHF is harnessing the networking power of social media sites, organizing and recruiting members to help gain momentum for our cause. We hope that you will add us as your friend on Facebook and MySpace and follow our tweets and posts on Twitter and Blogspot. As always, we are working for the right of the consumer to choose and the practitioner to practice- and we need your help in spreading the word!

Is Health Care Reform Moving Too Fast?

2009-06-11T19:23:00.010-05:00

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 11^th hour that will be forced through Congress without time for public comment or perhaps even a thorough review by Congress?

Press Release: NEW SCIENCE POINTS TO IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-DOSE SUPPLEMENTS

2009-03-04T11:21:00.001-05:00

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.

Letter to the Editor: Vitamins are Harmful?

2009-02-18T09:58:00.001-05:00

February 17, 2009

To the Editor:

Your February 16 article, “Vitamin Pills: A False Hope?” made reference to “high-quality” studies that supported the researchers’ conclusions. Unfortunately, these “high-quality” studies not only have inherent flaws in the methods they utilized, but are creating unwarranted confusion as well.

As noted in the article, “vitamins are essential nutrients that people ingest in their daily diets.” This, however, is actually the most significant flaw in these vitamin studies: in contrast to drug studies, which employ a placebo group, there is no way to isolate the exact cause-and-effect of vitamin supplements without knowing the precise vitamin content of the food the subjects are eating. In fact, most vitamin studies do not monitor the participants’ diets before or during the research period. Without accurate and sound testing methods, the findings are practically meaningless.

There are other flaws in vitamin studies in general: the subject population typically represents a fragment of the general population (such as an older population that is already diagnosed with some type of disease), or the control group is gender-based, or the allotted vitamin dosage is simply too low to yield any type of effect. Ethnic backgrounds are typically ignored, and most of the studies have failed to ensure that the supplements were taken consistently, since most reporting from study participants tends to be anecdotal. These lapses totally undermine the conclusions reached.

Pharmaceutical industry-funded studies inject hysteria and doubt into the discussion of natural health. We believe in a common-sense approach to optimal health: a program of exercise and a balanced diet—one that includes nutritional supplements to correct what is missing because of food processing, soil depletion, and less-than-ideal lifestyle choices.

Very truly yours,

Gretchen DuBeau
Executive Director
American Association for Health Freedom

2009-02-18T09:51:00.004-05:00

For Immediate Release:
February 17, 2009

Contact:
Tami L. Wahl, Legislative Liaison
800.230.2762

FDA RULING PUTS WOMEN’S HEALTH AT RISK
Health Freedom Organization Urges Action to Lift Estriol Ban

The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) is requesting Congressional support to have the FDA-imposed ban on estriol lifted. Estriol is a hormone naturally produced by the body that has been prescribed for decades to address menopausal symptoms.

Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to a petition filed by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals asking FDA to change its policy on estriol—claiming, in part, that estriol posed “a serious threat to public health.” FDA ruled that physicians must now obtain an approved investigational new drug (IND) application before pharmacists can fill a prescription with the hormone estriol in compounded medications. According to AAHF, due to the complexity in completing an IND, the FDA has in effect banned the use of estriol.

Today, AAHF hand delivered letters and a White Paper to key political figures in an attempt to force FDA to reverse its policy change on estriol. FDA has already admitted they could not identify a single adverse event from the use of estriol in the decades it has been prescribed to women in the US, and have not yet disclosed any research that would back up its reasoning for designating estriol as a “new investigational drug.”

According to AAHF, the FDA is ignoring the realistic implications of its ruling. Gretchen DuBeau, AAHF’s executive director, stated, “The IND process could cost more than $50,000 and take a minimum of six months to complete. Doctors simply do not have the time, resources, or research expertise to complete this unnecessary, burdensome, and costly procedure to prescribe a natural hormone.”

The public outcry over FDA’s action has been significant. FDA received over 70,000 comments from patients, doctors, and pharmacists in response to Wyeth’s petition, and over 10,000 comments since the ruling.

AAHF Legislative Liaison Tami Wahl said, “Not only has the ruling deprived thousands of women from access to estriol, but two bigger concerns now loom. The first is the impact on the physician-patient relationship. Physicians have the right—and the ethical duty—to practice medicine in a manner that meets a patient’s particular needs. And the right of millions of women to choose their method of healthcare has been significantly compromised. The second concern is that this may be the first of many policies by the FDA to restrict a physician’s ability to prescribe compounded bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT).

”Senator John Cornyn (R–TX) and Representative Mike Ross (D–AR), along with the support of sixty other members of Congress, introduced a concurrent resolution last session for the FDA to “reverse its policy that aims to eliminate patients’ access to compounded medications containing estriol,” citing physicians as being in the best position to determine which medications are most appropriate for their patients.

Executive Director DuBeau continued, “Pharmacy compounding is a legal, long-standing practice that allows for customized medication to treat a patient’s specific needs. Thousands of women benefit from physician-prescribed bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. For the FDA to issue this ruling without any evidence of adverse effects is a clear indication of abuse and mishandling of the IND process.”

Additional side effects of the ruling include insurers now denying reimbursement for compounded medications containing estriol, and extensive litigation between pharmacies and the FDA questioning FDA’s jurisdiction to issue such a ruling. The 5th and 9th Circuit Courts are now split—frustrating the application of the law—which leaves the legality of compounding in a very precarious situation. The FDA is not the regulatory authority for this traditional pharmacy practice, yet this ruling has the same effect.

AAHF is also investigating the possibility of improper influence in issuing the policy change. A Freedom of Information Act request was submitted to track communication and financial ties between Wyeth and FDA. As Legislative Liaison Tami Wahl pointed out, “Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is a giant drug manufacturer and was the only entity to request that estriol be removed from the market. Wyeth alleged that estriol posed ‘a serious threat to public health’ despite the fact that Wyeth itself markets estriol products in Europe. Perhaps Wyeth’s bottom line from the sale of synthetic hormones was being affected by women’s use of estriol, the natural hormone?”

— 30 —

NOTES TO THE EDITOR:

About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF): www.healthfreedom.net. The American Association for Health Freedom (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.

2009-02-13T11:52:00.000-05:00

WOMEN’S MULTIVITAMIN STUDY DANGEROUSLY FLAWED

For Immediate Release:
February 12, 2009

US Contact:
Tami L. Wahl, 800.230.2762
International Contact:
Dr. Robert Verkerk, 44.1306.646.600

Studied Not Representative of General Population;
Study Excluded Dosages Above RDA Guidelines

Today the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) criticized a study published by the American Medical Association in the Archives of Internal Medicine (Feb. 9, 2009), which concluded that multivitamin use has little or no influence on the risk of common cancers, cardiovascular disease, or total mortality in postmenopausal women. “This is very, very weak science—if it can be called science at all,” said Gretchen DuBeau, executive director of AAHF.

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) also decried the research. Dr. Robert Verkerk, executive and scientific director of ANH, said, “We were astonished to find that, with no reasons given, the study specifically excluded multivitamin and mineral supplements that exceeded the US Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA), which are known to be far too low to yield useful heart disease and cancer protective effects. Also, any multivitamin with fewer than ten nutrients was excluded from the ‘stress supplements’ group, and this would have included some of the highest-dose, limited-combination products that would have been most effective.”

The observational study, led by Dr. Marian Neuhouser of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, monitored a group of 161,808 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79 over an eight-year period. The study concluded that there was no difference in disease outcome, whether from cancer or heart disease, for the 42% of women who used multivitamin supplements as for those who did not.

ANH’s medical director, Damien Downing, a medical doctor who has practiced nutritional medicine for twenty-five years, called the research “childish naïveté.” He continued, “The findings could not be applied to the general public because the study involved only less-than-healthy, overweight, postmenopausal women taking trivial amounts of multivitamins and minerals, with no data on their earlier lives when disease causation would have been initiated.”

ANH’s published critique of the study centered on the lack of relevance of the study group to the general population, the doses of supplements used, the frequency of intake, the forms of nutrients taken, and the course of the diseases studied in relation to the time and duration of supplementation.

Gretchen DuBeau pointed out that the vitamin study’s evidence was entirely anecdotal. “The women in the study were not even given identical supplements to take.” And all reporting was left up to the subjects themselves, which is never done in a proper scientific study.”

In response to the sweeping headlines that multivitamin supplements are a waste of time, DuBeau added, “A research project based on such questionable methods—which did not even monitor whether the supplements were natural or synthetic—casts doubt on the entire study and its findings.”

— 30 —

NOTES TO THE EDITOR:
About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF): www.healthfreedom.net.The American Association for Health Freedom (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

Children’s Dental Devices Contaminated with BPA

2009-02-06T15:39:00.002-05:00

For Immediate Release:
February 6, 2009
Contact:
Gretchen DuBeau, 800-230-2762

American Association for Health Freedom Petitions FDA

Today the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) petitioned the FDA about Bisphenol-A (BPA), an organic compound found in polycarbonate plastics. They have asked the FDA to issue a statement encouraging Americans to request BPA-free dental sealants and devices for their children until studies prove conclusively that BPA presents no health risks.
The petition also asks the BPA Task Force to study the risks to children from exposure to BPA not only through dental applications specifically, but also through food, food containers, water, the environment, or any other means cumulatively. The BPA Task Force is an agency-wide task force created by the FDA last year to facilitate cross-agency review of all FDA-regulated products containing BPA.

There have been a significant number of reports about potential health risks from exposure to BPA—diabetes and cardiovascular disease in particular. This exposure can come though many different sources—food, the environment, food containers, baby bottles, dental applications, and medical devices, to name a few.

Canada is moving forward with legislation that bans the importation, sale, and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles, and has issued a health warning to its citizens not to use any product containing BPA if it is to be heated or warmed. Health Canada proposed classifying the chemical as “toxic to human health and the environment.” Here in the U.S., a panel convened by the National Institutes of Health determined that there is clear evidence for concern about BPA’s effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior. In addition, there are concerns that BPA could interfere with the sexual development of children.

In her statement released today, Gretchen DuBeau, AAHF’s executive director, said, “BPA is a known toxic substance. With safe alternatives on the market, parents need to be aware that BPA-free dental applications are available for their children.”

Despite the actions of other world governments in banning BPA, the FDA is standing by their position that “FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects” (FDA, Alderson Statement to US Senate, 5-14-08). According to AAHF, however, the FDA’s findings are to a large extent based on the chemical industry’s own studies, and ignores numerous independent scientific research findings.

The BPA Task Force is currently reviewing additional research studies to determine what level of exposure to BPA creates a health risk; however, a public release date for any new findings has not been set.

“At this juncture,” DuBeau added, “with known links between exposure to BPA and adverse health effects, common sense dictates that we should proceed cautiously and request BPA-free dental applications. These products exist and are readily available on the market.”
The FDA Petition is available at:

— 30 —

NOTES TO THE EDITOR:

About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF): www.healthfreedom.net
The American Association for Health Freedom (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.

2009-01-12T13:20:00.002-05:00

For immediate release: January 12, 2009

U.S. Contact:
Gretchen DuBeau, ph 800-230-2762
European/International Contact:
Dr Robert Verkerk, ph +44-1306-646-600

VITAMIN EXPERTS CONDEMN HARVARD STUDY

Doctors and scientists say study was flawed

Today the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) and the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) have together sharply criticized defective and misleading research published on January 7 in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which claims that vitamins don’t prevent cancer.

The ANH has released its critique on the study by Dr Jennifer Lin and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School, which concludes that the lack of effects demonstrated could have been predicted before the start of the 8-year study involving over 7,600 women with heart disease or high risk of it who averaged 60 years of age.

“This study was destined from the outset to obtain a negative result” said Dr Damien Downing, medical director of ANH, a practicing medical doctor who has practiced nutritional and environmental medicine for over 25 years. Dr Downing also criticized the journal editor for publishing the study “in the knowledge that the data do not support the conclusions."

Dr Robert Verkerk, scientific director of ANH, said: “Diet is the single biggest factor contributing to cancer, and there is a rapidly growing body of both research and clinical evidence to show that concentrated forms of nutrients including vitamins, minerals and botanicals are invaluable in cancer prevention.”

ANH’s critique shows that the study has no bearing on the effects of the three vitamins used, vitamins C and E and beta-carotene, on cancer prevention in healthy people. “Many of the risk factors associated with heart disease and cancer are shared, and nearly 80% of the women in the study were overweight or obese, therefore likely to have been much more susceptible to cancer than a non-diseased, healthy population. Some may even have been presymptomatic”, adds Dr Verkerk.

The ANH expert group also emphasized that the dosages and forms selected for the study did not equate with those that would be most likely to yield a positive result. Synthetic vitamin C ( synthetic form) was only 500mg, vitamin E (alpha- tocopherol only) was 600IU every other day, and synthetic beta carotene was 50 mg every other day, all very low doses, and compliance among study participants in actually taking the vitamins was poor, especially poor in taking all three vitamins. As few as half the participants appear to have done so. In addition, “Most people who are keen to prevent cancer don’t just take these three vitamins”, Dr Verkerk pointed out, “they take a whole range of vitamin, minerals and phytonutrients most of which have been independently verified to have powerful anti-cancer effects”.

Dr Steve Hickey, another member of ANH’s expert group, referred to the approach used by the Harvard team as “cookbook science”. He said: “Certain researchers have hit on a cookbook recipe for performing studies, purporting to show that antioxidant vitamins ( generally at low doses) are ineffective. In the most recent case, Jennifer Lin and colleagues use this approach to make the unfounded claim that antioxidant vitamins do not prevent cancer”.

Gretchen DuBeau, Executive Director of the ANH’s US affiliate, added: “It’s unfortunate that the media has compounded this misinformation by incorrectly reporting the erroneous results as applicable to the general population.”

ENDS.

NOTES TO THE EDITOR

Journal of the National Cancer Institute Study

Full scientific reference: Jennifer Lin, Nancy R. Cook, Christine Albert, Elaine Zaharris, J. Michael Gaziano, Martin Van Denburgh, Julie E. Buring, and JoAnn E. Manson. Vitamins C and E and Beta Carotene Supplementation and Cancer Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 14-23.

Abstract available at: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djn438

Alliance for Natural Health rebuttal

ANH website feature on rebuttal: http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/cancer-prevention-study-or-study-designed-to-prevent-vitamin-sales

“Cookbook science” critique by Drs Steve Hickey and Robert Verkerk: www.anhcampaign.org/files/090108_Cookbook-science_final_0.pdf

ANH’s full rebuttal: www.anhcampaign.org/files/090108_ANH_rebuttal_Lin_JNCI_final.pdf

About the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH)
www.anhcampaign.org

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) is an international, non-governmental organisation, 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 protect and promote natural healthcare, using the principles of good science and good law.

The ANH’s overriding goal is to help develop appropriate legal and scientific frameworks for the development of sustainable approaches to healthcare. As in the fields of energy and agriculture, sustainable healthcare invariably requires use of natural products which are inherently compatible with human biochemistry and physiology. Within this setting, consumers and health professionals should be able to make informed choices about a wide range of health options, and in particular those that relate to diet, lifestyle, traditional medicinal and non-drug-based or natural therapies, so that they may experience their benefits to the full while avoiding unnecessary risks.

About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF)
www.healthfreedom.net

The American Association for Health Freedom (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 and crafting legislation; acting as a government watchdog and filing comments on proposed rulings; educating the public, press, and decision-makers on integrative medicine; initiating legal actions and joining and forming significant coalitions.

Important Update about Reforming the FDA

2008-12-09T16:52:00.002-05:00

The FDA is a broken agency that censors medical science, obstructs innovation, and protects the medical monopolies that pay for much of its budget. The FDA needs reform, and we need your help to do it. Elected officials and government agencies know that numbers matter. When the public is aroused and demands action, Congressional action usually follows.

Even while the FDA is approving faulty and dangerous drugs and medical devices by the thousands, it continues what can only be described as a harassment campaign against those who want to rely on wholesome foods, dietary supplements, and lifestyle changes to achieve natural good health.

Here are just a few recent examples:

□ FDA employees recently protested in a letter to Congress that they have been forced to approve medical devices against their better judgment. The letter stated that FDA managers “ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.” The devices that FDA regulates impact more than 500 million adult and pediatric procedures performed every year in the U.S.

□ The FDA’s current efforts to reinterpret and thus amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act threaten continued access to dietary supplements. If the FDA got its way, a food constituent studied for medical use (and published) could thereafter not be used as a new supplement. To illustrate how this might work, one company's fish oil is now an approved drug, and by this definition any new supplement with fish oil added might be prohibited. AAHF provided formal comments in response to the FDA’s deliberation process and explained why current law prohibits the FDA from adopting these anti-supplement regulations.

The FDA approves toxic chemicals for use in baby formula, baby bottles, and prescription drugs.

□ The FDA stated that no amount of melamine was safe in infant formula. Then melamine was found in formula at levels below 1 ppm. Suddenly the agency reversed itself and stated that melamine was safe provided that (coincidentally) there was no more than 1ppm. Was there a new study or other science to justify this claim? No. It appears to have been made up out of thin air in order to protect commercial interests. Melamine is a toxic chemical that has been linked to kidney damage and children are especially vulnerable.

□ The FDA recently declared Bisphenol – a (BPA) exposure to be safe for infants, even though Canada has banned the chemical from baby bottles. Thirty-six scientific advisers on an independent government panel concluded that the draft decision of the FDA on BPA used “unacceptable criteria for selecting data and depend(ed) heavily upon a key paper that is fatally flawed.” These experts concluded that the FDA chose industry-funded research studies and appeared to ignore hundreds of studies that have been funded by NIH (National Institute for Health) and its counterpart in other countries. BPA is linked to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver enzyme abnormalities. In addition to being used in baby bottles, it is also used in water bottles, canned goods, dental fillings, children’s teeth sealants, and orthodontic sealants.

□ The FDA has approved the use of phthalates in prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications despite the fact that Congress banned phthalates in toys and other children’s products. Widely used as plasticizers, phthalates have been linked to abnormal reproductive organs, sperm damage, and reduced testosterone in animal tests as well as some human studies.

The epidemics currently plaguing this country-- cancer, obesity, diabetes, asthma and allergies, and many other debilitating disorders-- are linked to manmade products and processes that the FDA has approved and promoted. These failures have resulted in the sickest generation in the history of this country. The agency seems to have lost sight of its mandate to protect the public and has instead come to see itself as the guardian of corporate interests. It is time to end the many conflicts of interest linking the FDA to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, conflicts of interest that betray the public and harm so many American consumers. It is time to reform the FDA!

Spread the word. Together, we can make a difference. We can turn the FDA around and help restore our national health. Please sign AAHF’s petition to reform the FDA at www.reformFDA.org.

FDA's Latest Threat to Dietary Supplements Defies DSHEA

2008-11-25T12:14:00.005-05:00

For Immediate Release:

U.S. Contact: Gretchen DuBeau,
ph 800-230-2762
International Contact: Dr Robert Verkerk,
ph +44-1306-646-600

November 25, 2008

FDA’S LATEST THREAT TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS DEFIES THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENT HEALTH AND EDUCATION ACT ACCORDING TO TWO LEADING HEALTH FREEDOM GROUPS

Today, the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) and its international affiliate, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), jointly submitted comments to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in response to its request for comments from industry and consumers to help them interpret recent changes to Section 912 of the Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). The submission was accompanied by comments from 700 concerned citizens and practitioners exasperated over the latest threat to supplements from the FDA. The FDA’s unprecedented, controversial, and ambiguous changes to Section 912, specifically the addition of Section 301 (ll), may mean that all food products, including dietary supplements, could be barred from being marketed if they have been the subject of published clinical studies. AAHF and ANH point out that this provision is so far-reaching that a very large number of commonly consumed foods could be impacted by the new regulation and hence barred from interstate trade.

“If the FDA determines that Section 301 applies to dietary supplements, this would strangle innovation. It would create a ‘Catch 22’ situation in which supplement producers who undertake scientific research on new supplements will find that their very research will lead to a ban on the proposed supplement. This is totally senseless. This is too senseless even for the FDA,” said Gretchen DuBeau, AAHF Executive Director.

At the crux of the issue is whether the new Section 301 applies to dietary supplements, which are already covered by Section 201 (ff) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This means that Section 301 is in direct conflict with Section 201 of the FDCA that already governs dietary supplements through the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DuBeau added:

“This conflict—which is supported by influential case law— gives Section 301 of the FDAAA no legal basis. Congressional language has already made clear and unambiguous that the FDAAA, currently under consideration, shall not affect the regulation of supplements under DSHEA.”

Section 201 currently also prevents the marketing of dietary supplements which have been subject to published clinical studies—but only when they have also been the subject of a Investigational New Drug (IND) application.

Dr Robert Verkerk, executive and scientific director of the ANH emphasized:

“Unlike Section 201 of the FDCA, the proposed new Section 301 of the FDA Amendments Act doesn’t just limit the ban to supplements that have been subject to drug applications, it applies a ban to some of the best researched and most useful supplements and ingredients on the market today. This is clearly nonsensical and if enforced, would represent one of the most severe restrictions seen in any country at any time.”

“There will be no shortage of big corporations that will exploit this situation to their benefit unless the scope of Section 301 is both clarified and narrowed”, commented Gretchen DuBeau, “one such company is already trying to use it to ban the natural zero-caloric sweetener stevia, given that stevia has been subject to scientific research and has been a thorn in the side of the sugar and artificial sweetener giants for years.”

Since the FDA’s call for comments issued on July 28, 2008, the AAHF sent an alert to its members, including professional, integrative medicine organizations, apprising them of the threat posed by the FDAAA’s Section 912. More than 700 concerned doctors and citizens emailed comments to AAHF, which accompanied the AAHF’s joint submission with ANH. Among the prestigious groups opposing the FDA’s erroneous interpretation are the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM), the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), The American Holistic Medical Association (AHMA), the Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists (CBNS), and the American College of Nutrition (ACN).

ENDS.

FAULTY STUDY TARGETS VITAMINS C AND E

2008-11-21T08:38:00.001-05:00

U.S. Contact:
Gretchen DuBeau,
ph 800-230-2762

International Contact:
Dr Robert Verkerk,
ph +44-1306-646-600

November 18, 2008

FAULTY STUDY TARGETS VITAMINS C AND E
Finding of No Cardiovascular Protection Was Predictable

Today, the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) and its international affiliate, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), have together sharply criticized defective and misleading research published earlier this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The research triggered headlines around the world suggesting that neither vitamin E nor vitamin C supplements protect against cardiovascular disease in older men.

The study by Howard Sesso and colleagues from Harvard, entitled the “Physicians’ Health Study II”, included over 14,600 male physicians over a ten year period, used the least potent form of vitamin E and incorrect dosages of both vitamins C and E , according to an analysis conducted by ANH experts, Dr Steve Hickey, Dr. Damien Downing, and Dr. Robert Verkerk.

The ANH analysis, “Designed to Fail: A Trial Without Meaning”, criticized the Sesso et al. study for using synthetic dl-alpha-tocopherol, which is less effective than the natural and more complete forms of vitamin E and is thus more likely to not reveal any benefit. Additionally, the vitamin E dose in the study (400 IU every other day) is far below the dose taken by many who supplement making the findings irrelevant to older supplement consumers who are aware of extensive research and clinical evidence on higher dose vitamin therapy.

The JAMA paper included a 500 mg daily dosage of vitamin C, which is only half of a typical one-gram tablet of the type popular with supplement users. Evidence suggests that dynamic flow levels of vitamin C, which may prevent heart disease, begin at daily intakes above about 3g per day, best delivered in divided doses.

Additional complaints about the JAMA study include the use of an unidentified placebo, which may have included beneficial nutrients such as magnesium, failure to control diet for synergistic nutrient interactions that may have skewed test results, and the relevance, or otherwise, of applying these findings among physicians (the study group) to all men across the population.

“Considering that the methodologies were significantly biased against finding a positive result from vitamins C and E as determined from both available research and clinical evidence, one has to ask who stands to benefit from these findings? How, for example, would the pharmaceutical industry be impacted from diminished sales of their vitamins if people, under the belief that vitamins provided no benefit in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease, instead chose pricey prescription drugs,” asked Gretchen DuBeau, AAHF Executive Director.

Dr Damien Downing, ANH Medical Director, President of the British Society of Ecological Medicine and Editor-in-Chief of the peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, on reading the Sesso et al. paper independently responded, saying it was “an intervention designed to fail”!

ANH Scientific & Executive Director, Dr Robert Verkerk added, “With three of the world’s largest drug companies, namely BASF, Wyeth and DSM—formerly Roche—supplying the low dose synthetic vitamins for the study, it’s perhaps not surprising that the outcome is made to look bad for vitamins. A trial like this costs a huge amount of money and is a waste of much needed research funds. Why don’t they ask the people who work with nutrients on a daily basis—integrative medicine doctors—what nutrient forms, combinations and dosages are most likely to work?”

The ANH analysis, “Designed to Fail: A Trial Without Meaning”, is available at: http://www.anhcampaign.org/files/081117_Sesso_PHSII_ANHrebuttal.pdf.

ENDS.

NOTES TO THE EDITOR

About the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF)
http://www.healthfreedom.net/

The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) is a 501©4 nonprofit organization serving as the politically active voice at federal and state levels to protect 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 legislature and crafting legislation; acting as a government watchdog and filing comments on proposed rulings; 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)
http://www.anhcampaign.org/
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) is an international, non-governmental organisation, 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 protect and promote natural healthcare, using the principles of good science and good law.
The ANH’s overriding goal is to help develop appropriate legal and scientific frameworks for the development of sustainable approaches to healthcare. As in the fields of energy and agriculture, sustainable healthcare invariably requires use of natural products which are inherently compatible with human biochemistry and physiology. Within this setting, consumers and health professionals should be able to make informed choices about a wide range of health options, and in particular those that relate to diet, lifestyle, traditional medicinal and non-drug-based or natural therapies, so that they may experience their benefits to the full while avoiding unnecessary risks.

Access To Healthcare Counseling In Jeopardy

2008-09-30T18:23:00.004-05:00

New Jersey Legislators Consider Restrictive Legislation to Limit Nutritional Advice

Contact: Gretchen DuBeau, 800-230-2762
For Immediate Release: September 24, 2008

Today, the American Association for Health Freedom (AAFH) urged New Jersey legislators to vote against Assembly Bill A2933/Senate Bill S1941, the Dietician/Nutrition Licensing Act currently under consideration by New Jersey State Senators and Members of the Assembly.

The companion bills would prevent any practitioner other than a dietitian registered by the American Dietetics Association from teaching, consulting, or advising about health, nutrition, supplements, diet, food, or food materials.
The vote, scheduled for early October in both the Senate and the General Assembly, would give unprecedented authority to registered dieticians. Traditional experts on healthcare, including Ph.D. nutritionists from Rutgers University's prestigious Department of Nutritional Sciences, would be barred from offering nutritional advice in New Jersey.

“Nutritionists and doctors holding the American College of Nutrition's CBNS certificate have a Master's degree at a minimum, usually a Ph.D., yet are excluded by this bill. In comparison, most dieticians registered by the American Dietetics Association, the sponsor of this bill, do not hold advanced degrees. Their training is mostly in food management and only partly in nutrition. This makes no sense,” said American Association for Health Freedom’s Executive Director, Gretchen DuBeau.

AAHF highlighted research from Harvard's Department of Nutrition published in the October 2001 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine which documented that 90% of all type II diabetes can be eliminated by avoiding bad fats and eating good fats, eating lots of fruits and vegetables and modest amounts of whole grains, supplementing wisely, and exercising daily.

“It is vital with a record 78% of our nation’s healthcare dollars going to the treatment of chronic disease that other qualified practitioners be allowed to offer nutritional counseling. Chronic conditions are directly related to lifestyle choices, and nutritional counseling is a critical part of patient care by any practitioner,” added DuBeau.

If you would like more information, please contact
Gretchen DuBeau at 1-800-230-2762.

Drug Lobbying Still Number One

2008-08-02T19:52:00.000-05:00

American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) is lobbying on your behalf EVERY DAY right here in our nation’s capitol. And because your voice is so crucial to our efforts, we are constantly looking for ways for decision makers to hear your concerns.

A new report from Center for Public Integrity (CPI) shows what we’re up against on Capitol Hill. In 2007, industries and special interests spent $17 million for every day Congress was in session (the drug industry spent the most of all).

The CPI analysis of federal lobbying data details that pharmaceutical industry spent $168 million in their lobbying efforts in 2007.

The spending represents a 32 percent jump over 2006. Driven in part by a busy legislative calendar dominated by issues critical to the industry, the effort raised the amount spent by drug interests on federal lobbying in the past decade to more than $1 billion.

The trade association for pharmaceutical manufacturers (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) was the largest spender at $22.7 million. Biomedical firm Amgen ($16.2 million) and pharmaceutical company Pfizer ($13.8 million) rounded out the top 3. Other big spenders last year included Roche Holding AG ($9 million), Sanofi-Aventis ($8.4 million), GlaxoSmithKline ($8.2 million), Johnson & Johnson Inc. ($7.7 million) and the trade group Biotechnology Industry Organization ($7.2 million).

In 1992, the pharmaceutical industry employed 675 lobbyists, now there are currently 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. lobbying for Big Pharma.

Too often, the health freedom community finds itself up against Big Pharma and though we’re out spent in lobbying, advertising, and in other resources; we’re not outnumbered! Your involvement is crucial to us truly achieving health freedom. Each time you take action on an alert, share our news and alerts with friends and family, or financially support AAHF, you are promoting health freedom.

Click here for the full CPI article.

Abuse of FDA Citizen Petitions

2008-07-09T15:32:00.001-05:00

Did you know that:

A drug company petitioned the FDA to ban a B vitamin in order to protect its own drug product?
Or that the second largest drug company in the world is using the FDA’s citizen petition process in order to try to prevent any dietary supplement product from making weight loss claims. The company wants weight loss claims to be re-classified as disease claims!

If you’ve been reading our efforts to stop Wyeth from working with the FDA to ban bio-identical estriol, then you’re probably not surprised that the FDA is being used to try to ban natural products.

But did you also know that you can help keep natural, safe products on the market by simply writing Congress and the FDA and telling them you’re supportive of Vitamin B6 and that you don’t want the FDA restricting free speech?Act now!

It is important that as many messages as possible be sent to the FDA opposing these petitions. Since the FDA has made it more difficult for citizens to contact them, we will be personally hand-delivering the messages. It is also important that members of Congress hear from their constituents on this important issue as well. In order to send the message to the FDA and your congressional representatives, click here. Don’t forget to personalize your letter.

THE DETAILS

Medicure Pharma’s attempt to ban the natural, bioactive form of vitamin B6

On November 30, 2007, Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen’s petition to the FDA asserting that that all dietary supplements containing pyridoxal 5’-phosphate (“P5P supplements”) should be banned. Despite the fact that P5P most important, bioactive, natural form of vitamin B6, Medicure wants to see the product banned from sale by the US dietary supplement industry because its marketing of P5P-containing supplements undermines the company’s incentive to continue developing its drug product (MC-1).

Dr. Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of our affiliate, the Alliance for Natural Health says, “This is an astonishing development that shows just how easily pharma companies are willing to show their hand. Well I’m sorry, natural got there first! You can’t just decide to have a natural form of a product banned because it interferes with your drug patents. We’ve found two patents secured by Medicure for P5P to be used in cases of heart disease. It seems they’ve come to the same realization as millions around the world—vitamins and other natural products can be used to help protect you from chronic diseases, including heart disease.”

A recent, large scale Japanese study, for instance, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition (2008 Feb;27(1): 127-36), concluded "Dietary intake of vitamin B6 was associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease among middle-aged non-multivitamin supplement users. Dietary folate and vitamin B12 were also suggested to be protective factors for coronary heart disease."Glaxosmithkline’s attempt to shut down competition from the natural products industry in the weight loss field

On April 17, 2008, the world’s second largest drug company, GSK, along with the American Dietetic Association and the Obesity Society—both regarded by many as fronts for some drug companies — petitioned the FDA to try to prevent any dietary supplement product from making weight loss claims. The company wants weight loss claims to be re-classified as disease claims, therefore making them the sole domain of treatments with licensed pharmaceuticals. GSK’s Alli product directly competes with the wide range of dietary supplements that help support weight loss—and Alli has become the third top-selling obesity drug less than a year after its launch, despite serious side effects.

Commenting on the GSK petition, Verkerk added, “Obesity control is a growth area for Big Food which contributes so greatly to the problem. GSK —which works in cahoots with Big Food—now wants a slice of the action and it wants to eliminate the main source of competition—the natural products industry. Consumers must engage with these petitions and have their say. The time for sitting on the sidelines is over.”These Latest FDA Petitions Follow the Recent Ban on Bio-Identical Estriol

Wyeth pharmaceuticals petitioned the FDA to ban bio-identical estriol, even though bio-identical estriol is a critical ingredient in bio-identical hormone therapies, and no adverse event had ever been associated with its use. AAHF, along with our congressional allies, are currently attempting to reverse this ban. (Read more about this attack and our efforts.) Please do not let these new petitions to the FDA succeed.

Take action today!

Estriol Resolution Update

2008-06-23T13:24:00.002-05:00

It’s not too late to help us make a difference. In the past few weeks we have hit Congress hard. Thousands of our members have written their House representative in support of a resolution that calls upon the FDA to stop their new policy of restricting women’s access to prescriptions containing estriol. The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) ran a full-page ad in Roll Call supporting H. Con. Res. 342 and highlighting the hypocrisy of Wyeth. The same day, hundreds of compounding pharmacists were on the Hill meeting with members of Congress. We also hand delivered letters of support for the resolution from various medical and consumers groups, representing millions of consumers and practitioners.

We’re pleased to announce that the Senate has now introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 88 – a companion resolution to H. Con. Res. 342. Slightly different than the House resolution, the Senate resolution adds the language “unless the FDA holds a public comment period on the issue and can document evidence of adverse events and other safety issues to justify such policy.” Additionally there are now about 30 cosponsors of the House resolution, many which were added last week in response to the efforts above.

We ran the ad “ Shame on you, Wyeth” on June 3 in Roll Call, the most widely read daily paper on Capitol Hill and hand delivered letters to all 435 House of Representative’s offices on that same day. We ran another Roll Call ad, “ Shame on you, Wyeth, Part Two” on June 17 in support of the just introduced Senate companion resolution and then hand delivered letters to each of the 100 Senate offices. (Read more about our efforts.)

Help us build on this momentum and TAKE ACTION by contacting your representatives today.

Don’t forget to tell your friends and ask them to write to Congress!

Clicking raises money for health freedom!

2008-05-11T19:24:00.002-05:00

Thanks to the Health Freedom Foundation’s 2-year partnership with Goodsearch.com, raising money to help support our efforts is literally a mouse click away. Log onto www.goodsearch.com -- a search engine powered by Yahoo! --and type "Health Freedom Foundation” into the "I support" box. The Foundation will then receive a donation each time you search the Web using GoodSearch.

What's great is that you use GoodSearch just as you would any search engine. Again, it's powered by Yahoo!, so you get proven, high-quality results.

If you allow cookies, after the first time, each time you return to the home page, Health Freedom Foundation will appear as your designated charity. There is even a button you can click to see the number of searches and the amount raised.

Add GoodSearch to your bookmarks or make it your homepage to make it easier to use. Also, spread the word to your family and friends to help generate more contributions. GoodSearch estimates each search will raise $0.01 for your designated charity. 100 supporters searching twice a day could generate $730 a year, 1000 supporters - $7,300, and 10,000 supporters searching twice a day could generate $73,000!

With your help, GoodSearch can generate donations, at no cost to you that will help with pressing health freedom issues.

Last year, search engines generated close to $6 billion in revenue from advertisers. With GoodSearch part of this advertising revenue will now be directed to The Health Freedom Foundation.

We hope that not only will you use GoodSearch as your main search engine from here on out, but will also pass this message on to your friends and family. The more people who use this, the more money will go to The Health Freedom Foundation.

We appreciate you checking out GoodSearch and using it as your Internet search tool. Remember, every search you make will raise money for health freedom.

Best,

Brenna Hill
Executive Director
Health Freedom Foundation and American Association for Health Freedom4620 Lee Highway, Suite 210Arlington, VA 222071.800.230.2762Fax: 703.294.6380http://www.healthfreedom.net/

Integrative Medicine Practitioners Are Targeted More Often Than Their Colleagues

2008-04-28T13:49:00.000-05:00

Advocacy group publishes A Practitioner's Guide to Protecting Your License and Your Practice from Medical Board and Government Action.

(PRWEB) April 25, 2008 -- According to the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF), integrative medicine practitioners' licenses are typically more vulnerable than their colleagues for two main reasons: their modality of practice and procedures methods are often viewed as not being science based, and they often are solo practitioners that have fewer resources to counteract aggressive state medical boards and their investigators.

Through phone calls and requests for help that AAHF receives each year, they believe that a majority of investigations of integrative medicine practitioners occur not because of patient harm or patient complaint but because a disgruntled employee, competitor, insurance company, or someone who doesn't believe in integrative medicine complained to the state medical board.

"We receive numerous requests for help each year because state medical boards are over-zealously pursuing integrative medical doctors," Brenna Hill, the AAHF Executive Director said. "Unfortunately by the time they call us they've already signed their rights away. At that point there's not much we can do to help." Often these charges may make the practitioner a felon.

Inspired by their numerous members who have gone through exhausting state medical board investigations and legal battles to retain their licenses, AAHF has published A Practitioner's Guide to Protecting Your License and Your Practice from Medical Board and Government Action. The well-respected law firm, Augustine, Kern and Levens, Ltd, wrote the Practitioner's Guide. AAHF hopes that this guide will help practitioners think ahead and create a plan.

"It is always a good policy to plan ahead," Hill said, "The decisions you make at the beginning of a state medical board investigation could mean the difference between saving or losing your license and your freedom to practice the type of medicine you believe is most beneficial to your patients."

Although the Practitioner's Guide does not provide legal advice and is not tailored to any specific situation, it will provide physicians with general guidelines and information in dealing with medical boards. The guide includes best practices to help a practitioner institute an office policy and plan if there's a knock on the door and how to respond to investigators as well as what to do if presented with a subpoena and how to handle a settlement offer. AAHF is providing the guide free to their Professional members.

AAHF is a non-profit association based in the Washington DC area that promotes health freedom legislation in all 50 states and in Congress. As the politically active voice at the federal and state level for integrative medicine, AAHF is involved in crafting, monitoring, and supporting legislation that allows the right of the consumer to choose and the practitioner to practice. For more information, please visit www.healthfreedom.net.

Latest Attack on Dietary Supplements

2008-04-17T21:17:00.000-05:00

By now, you have probably read the headlines such as “Vitamins May Shorten Users' Lives,” “Vitamins may increase risk of death," or “Vitamins A, C and E are 'a waste of time and may even shorten your life.”

These biased articles are based on the latest Cochrane review which more or less copies the JAMA paper from February 2007.

Unfortunately, bad science and misleading media stories are confusing consumers. As dietary supplements become more popular and threaten the bottom line of traditional medicine and Big Pharma, we see more and more studies and articles that try to convince the public that dietary supplements are useless, unregulated, or even deadly.

Often these studies are superficial and if you scratch the surface you can see the bad science and inaccurate reporting. AAHF’s international affiliate, Alliance for Natural Health details some of the reasons why this latest round of headlines are based on bad science.

The article highlights are below describing why it's bad science:

1. This isn’t new.

2. This isn’t research.

3. This isn’t meaningful.

4. This applies only to synthetic forms of vitamins (as produced by the pharmaceutical industry).

5. Natural vitamins and minerals are lifesavers.

6. Over the top on synthetics!

7. Two bites at the cherry.

To read the full article, click here. Don’t forget to join the American Association for Health Freedom to support our lobbying efforts at the federal and state level or make a tax-deductible donation to the Health Freedom Foundation to help support education and international efforts.

FDA Doesn't Want Your Voice Heard

2008-04-02T17:57:00.001-05:00

We’ve heard from several sources that the FDA is whispering into Congressional ears to ignore letters from their constituents about bio-identical hormones. The FDA is spreading the rumor that the health freedom community is “unfairly” upset about their recent ban on estriol and bio-identical hormones. Furthermore, the FDA continues to insist that they are not “restricting” estriol and that physicians wishing to treat their patients with drugs containing estriol may submit an investigational new drug application.

On January 9, 2008, the FDA essentially BANNED estriol (which is used in 80% of bio-identical hormones). They stated that estriol is an unapproved drug and unless they have a valid investigational new drug application, pharmacy operators may not compound drugs containing estriol. The same day at a press conference, the FDA admitted that they knew of no serious adverse events reported in conjuncture with estriol (even though doctors and hospitals are required to report ALL adverse events.

On Thursday (April 3), we’re meeting with members of Congress to discuss this issue and others related to health freedom. We’ll be sure to tell you how the meetings went!

If you’re a practitioner, a patient, or someone who wants the FDA to stop practicing medicine, please continue to read.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Read the timeline and Draw Your Own Conclusion – is the FDA doing Wyeth’s bidding?

Contact Congress and the President of the US and let them know that you want the FDA to stop attacking bio-identical hormones.

Personalize your letter. Tell your story, edit to reflect your points of interest (this is VERY important, please take the extra time!)

Spread the word! We need the loudest voice possible – let your friends and family know of this threat, send an email. Tell people to visit www.healthfreedom.net. Download, print, and distribute our flyer ( click here) and if you don’t have a printer, let us know how many you need.

Join AAHF so we can continue to make a difference on this and other important issues.

Make a tax-deductible donation to the Health Freedom Foundation so we can continue educational efforts and pursue opportunities to block the FDA’s assault on bio-identical hormones.

Brenna Hill
Executive Director
American Association for Health Freedom/Health Freedom Foundation
4620 Lee Highway, Suite 210
Arlington, VA 22207
1.800.230.2762
www.healthfreedom.net

AER Bill Introduced in the House

2006-09-27T17:53:00.000-05:00

On Monday, HR 6168, was introduced in the House. The lead sponsor is Chris Cannon, (R-UT), along with 8 other Republicans and 2 Democrats. The bill has been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, with little chance for consideration this year. Legislatively, this prevents a Senate passed bill from being held at the desk in the House, at the request of Pelosi, et al.

AER Bill Update

2006-09-19T09:39:00.000-05:00

Tuesday morning - we've just heard that the AER bill is ready to be dropped on the floor. Please contact your representatives ASAP and help spread the word.

The latest about the AER Bill

2006-09-11T11:16:00.000-05:00

S.3546 the Dietary Supplement and Non-Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (the AER bill) is the latest bill impacting dietary supplements.

If S. 3546 becomes law, it will amend the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to require the reporting of “serious” adverse events for both over the counter (OTC) drugs and dietary supplements to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

We have just heard that the AER bill has been added to the Senate calendar, and staff expect it to be considered this week. What is unknown is whether it will be a roll call vote (recorded) or under unanimous consent*. Recorded is preferable and is expected.

*unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

There is still time to halt this bill if we make our voice heard today and encourage others to contact Congress as well. Contact Congress through our online action center.

We are reading the bill report now and will post more shortly. At first glance it appears that importation will be affected, private labeling will most likely disappear, and third-party vendors will be created to handle the AER process for the manufacturers.

von Eschenbach Confirmation On Hold

2006-08-03T12:23:00.000-05:00

Due to the negative response from thousands of people, and the backfiring on the FDA's tentative Plan B over-the-counter emergency oral contraceptive proposal, the Senate HELP Committee has delayed a vote on the nomination of Andrew von Eschenbach, MD to be the next FDA Commissioner.

HELP committee Chairman Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) is planning to seek a vote in committee in September, when Congress returns from its August recess period. Two HELP Committee members have said that they will put a "hold" on a full Senate vote, even if approved by the HELP committee, until the Plan B issue is resolved. This means that until these "holds" are released, even if voted out of the HELP committee, the full Senate cannot vote on the nomination.

Please continue to urge your Senators to ask important health freedom questions of von Eschenbach - just click here: http://ga4.org//campaign/FDA_questions.

Breaking News: Ruling for Cherrix family

2006-07-25T14:12:00.000-05:00

Abraham Cherrix DOES NOT have to report to a Norfolk hospital for forced chemotherapy.

That's the ruling Tuesday afternoon by an Accomack County Circuit Court judge, after lawyers for 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix appealed a ruling by a juvenile court judge.

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell filed a brief to the Circuit Court Tuesday supporting a stay, arguing that Abraham deserves the right to appeal the order to the Circuit Court before undergoing medical treatment.

Judge Glen Tyler said Abraham and his parents will get a new trial in Circuit Court as soon as possible. (NEW: Trial is set for August 16 & 17.)

The judge also returned full custody of Abraham to his parents. That ruling suspends an order by the juvenile court judge that required Abraham's parents to share custody with the Accomack County Department of Social Services.

This is a new territory for the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) and Health Freedom Foundation (HFF). We were contacted last week by Sharon Smith (the Cherrix family representative) and since then we have been hearing about other cases where the parents and authorities clashed over a minor’s treatment. This is not about choosing an "alternative" treatment but about what is the legal (and constitutional) rights of parents and the state system in regards to children's health. We are gathering information and will be developing a national solution to this critical and heartbreaking issue. We are assisting the family as best as we can with legislative, legal, and PR efforts. Please share your stories and ideas (send to healthfreedom2000@yahoo.com).

You might also be interested in reading a recent article by our Vice-President, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, titled “WHO OWNS YOUR CHILD?”

Your financial support is greatly needed and here are two ways you can help.

1) If you would like to support the Health Freedom Foundation efforts in addressing this issue, please make a tax-deductible donation today, click here.

2) If you would like to support the family directly with a financial contribution, please send your check to:
Abraham Cherrix Fund
c/o RBC Centura Bank
2422 Princess Anne Rd.
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

If you have any questions about the Cherrix fund you can email: abrahamsfund@abrahamsjourney.com

Brenna Hill
Executive Director
Health Freedom Foundation and American Association for Health Freedom
4620 Lee Highway, Suite 210
Arlington, VA 22207
1.800.230.2762
Fax: 703.294.6380
www.healthfreedom.net