HealthBeat News

Category: Health Freedom

  • Wyeth Drugs Takes A Hit – And So Will You!

    Will Big Pharma Be Forced To Offer Less Toxic Drugs?

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    Here is an interesting piece of news that is just out this morning, found in Reuters Business News: (why is this kind of thing Business News and not Medical News or general interest news?)

    U.S. top court rules against Wyeth in liability case: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090304/bs_nm/us_drugs_wyeth_court

    It seems that The Drug Companies will no longer be able to hide behind the skirts of the mighty FDA by claiming immunity from responsibility for the ill effects of their patented poisons because they have complied with the rules and printed the FDA mandated "Black Box" warnings on their toxic offerings. Up to now these "fine-print" warnings about the potential harm of a drug have kept the drug companies safe: "We informed consumers, with the FDA-Approved warning, of the danger – so we’re not responsible!" has been their defense.

    Well, according to the Supreme Court, this cop-out won’t cut it any longer – Big Pharma is now to be held responsible for the ill effects of it’s offerings, no matter what "warnings" are printed on the package.

    So, this is  a good thing, right?

    I don’t know… I foresee some unintended consequences here folks…

    This will certainly be a good thing for those individuals who are harmed by these toxins – the person involved in this case, a guitarist, lost her arm and presumably her income and musical career to the toxic effect of a drug, and was awarded a multi-million dollar settlement – that is nevertheless just a tiny drop in the billion-dollar profit bucket of Big Pharma.

    But I predict it will not be a good thing for anyone who must buy the offerings of Big Pharma, because they will not take this lightly – there are profits and bonuses and stockholders to consider. No, this will simply be factored into the obscenely inflated prices already demanded for these patented poisons, and you, the consumer, will pay for this settlement and all others like it in the end. You really didn’t think that the Wyeth executives would pay for this out of their annual bonus and profit-sharing did you?

    On the other hand, maybe, just maybe Big Pharma will begin looking for some less-toxic, safer formulas to patent and profit from, since they know that killing and maiming people can now cost them regardless of "FDA Approval" and "Black Box Warnings".

    Dare we hope?

    Nah…

  • Ionizing Radiation – For Fun And Profit!

    Why Are Americans Being Exposed To So Much Radiation?

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    There are a couple of things that have happened to conventional medicine over the past few decades that are not so very good at all.

    One of those things, the dependence upon patented pharmaceutical prescription drugs for virtually every ill by most conventional doctors is somewhat related to the other which is a total dependence upon lab tests and radiology rather than "clinical skills" to lead to the formulation of a diagnosis and treatment plan.

    You see, the average office visit of 8 to 12 minutes (and I’m being generous here) that’s allowed by the busy physician’s schedule simply does not permit much hands-on clinical diagnosis – nosiree – in that brief visit the poor harried clinic doc has about enough time to listen to the complaint, nod knowingly, and say something sage like "Hmmm… I think we’d better get some tests…" and then "While we’re doing that, let’s get you started on some of this…" at which point he (or she) will whip out the trusty prescription pad, scribble out the name of the "Drug-du-Jour" and order up what is known in medical circles as ATKTM (All Tests Known To Man).

    ATKTM is ordered in the hope that one of the reports will come back with something that will justify the drug that was just ordered, or maybe even suggest a diagnosis.

    Radiology reports are particularly good for this, and can save the busy doc a lot of time and trouble – here is the trick: Requision a radiologic survey or procedure, list some vague symptoms or complaints on the req. (short for requisition) and then let the radiology department figure out what is really needed and makes sense – they will call the doc with an alternate suggestion if they think he is on the wrong track – and then let the radiologist who reads the x-rays or scans provide the doc with a nice dictated report which will strongly suggest a diagnosis of some sort (or a "rule-out" of some condition) that the doc can then use during the inevitable 8 to 12 minute follow-up visit: "Well Mrs. Smith, the lab tests and x-rays show that your symptoms definitely do / do not relate to your gallbladder/heart/lungs/you-name-it."

    If the answer was "do relate" then the doc can say "keep taking that medicine I gave you" and be done with the visit for now.

    If the answer was "do not relate" then the doc can say "Keep taking that medicine I gave you and let’s do some more scans and tests" or "I’m going to refer you on to a specialist – I’ll have my friend Dr. Jones’ office contact you…" This is known in medical terms as the "Buff and Turf" – the doc has done some tests to "Buff" the patient’s chart and make it look good, and can now "Turf" the patient along to someone else, thus ending his responsibility. Neat, huh?

    No wonder so many clinics and doctor groups have installed expensive medical imaging machines in their clinics – they make a huge profit and provide a great cover for a doc that is too busy to do a real, hands-on workup. And if there is not a C.T. Scanner right there in the clinic, there is probably one just down the road – maybe even in the local mall – that the patient can be sent to… (Dare I suggest that there might be a finders fee or small commission for the doctor? Nah… that couldn’t happen…)

    I’m guessing that there is probably now a required class in medical school, and it is called something like "Ionizing Radiation – For Fun And Profit 101"

    In The News:

    Here is a report just issued by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) at its annual meeting in Bethesda, Maryland – I will reprint their press release in full here, since I’m guessing that a report this critical of conventional medicine might be hard to find in the near future.

    For immediate release:

    March 3, 2009 (12:00 PM)

    Medical Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population Greatly Increased Since the Early 1980s

    In 2006, Americans were exposed to more than seven times as much ionizing radiation from medical procedures as was the case in the early 1980s, according to a new report on population exposure released March 3rd by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) at its annual meeting in Bethesda, Maryland.

    In 2006, medical exposure constituted nearly half of the total radiation exposure of the U.S. population from all sources.

    The increase was primarily a result of the growth in the use of medical imaging procedures, explained Dr. Kenneth R. Kase, senior vice president of NCRP and chairman of the scientific committee that produced the report. “The increase was due mostly to the higher utilization of computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine. These two imaging modalities alone contributed 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.”

    The number of CT scans and nuclear medicine procedures performed in the United States during 2006 was estimated to be 67 million and 18 million, respectively.

    The NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, provides a complete review of all radiation exposures for 2006.

    Background radiation, which in 2006 contributed fully half of the total exposure, comes from natural radiation in soil and rocks, radon gas which seeps into homes and other buildings, plus radiation from space and radiation sources that are found naturally within the human body.

    Other small contributors of exposure to the U.S. population included consumer products and activities, industrial and research uses and occupational tasks.

    NCRP is working with some of its partners like the American College of Radiology (ACR), World Health Organization and others to address radiation exposure resulting from the significant growth in medical imaging and to ensure that referrals for procedures like CT and nuclear medicine are based on objective, medically relevant criteria (e.g., ACR appropriateness criteria).

    This year marks the 80th anniversary of NCRP’s founding and the 45th anniversary of its charter from the U.S. Congress under Public Law 88-376.

  • Stevia – "We Told You So!"

    Deborah from Oklahoma wrote recently to ask:

    Do you have a take on this Truvia sweetener?

    Well, as a matter of fact we do have a take on it!

    I wrote about the future of stevia a little while ago in Another Chance For Stevia – where I predicted that this natural sweetener was getting ready to have a new lease on life as far as the FDA is concerned.

    You see, I had noticed the rumblings in the financial news – certain stocks were going up, based on the work of the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico who were preparing to market their own patented versions of the age-old natural sweetener.

    I predicted that as soon as these industrial giants made it known to the FDA that they wanted no regulatory resistance to their new products then the "natural" forms of stevia would also have to be "recognized" to be safe since the new, patented sweeteners Truvia and PureVia are nothing more than isolates of natural stevia. My understanding is that the substances are not patented, the process for obtaining the substance is patented.

    So, what’s my take? I think it is great news that Coca Cola and Pepsico have listened to consumer demand and that the FDA is finally forced to listen to good sense – perhaps now Americans can begin to turn away from the toxic synthetic sweeteners marketed by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and enjoy some nice, sweet, natural stevia.

    Are the new, patented sweeteners Truvia and PureVia going to prove to be safe over the long haul? My first reaction is to say "yes" – though with any substance that is isolated from the natural substance there is a risk that by isolating one small part of it we may be discarding another important part that somehow serves to prevent harm. The natural "sweet leaf" stevia has a history of safe use that spans thousands of years – Truvia and PureVia can’t say the same thing though there should be no reason for them not to be just as safe.

    Here at the Wellness Club we’ll continue to use natural stevia – but it sure is a pleasure to be able to find stevia in it’s natural form and it’s new patented forms on the shelves of our local grocery store! Coca Cola and Pepsico have given stevia it’s freedom and respect back.

    Thank you Coca Cola and Pepsico – did you ever think you would hear us say that here?

  • Are GMO Foods Safe To Eat?

    Are GMO Foods Safe To Eat?

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

    Many people don’t even know what a "GMO food" is, much less whether or not such food is safe to eat. GMO stand for "Genetically Modified Organism," and the truth is that you are almost certainly already eating GMO foods without knowing it because there are no label requirements for manufacturers and growers to list GMO’s in food. Since these foods are already in our daily food supply, shouldn’t we understand something about the "pros" and "cons" of their use?

    Let’s take a look at what "GMO" is all about.

    Genetically Modified Organisms are plants or animals that have been "genetically engineered" to contain genes from an entirely different plant or animal. The resulting organism is called transgenic or GMO (genetically modified organism).

    Genetic engineering is different than traditional cross breeding, where genes can only be exchanged between two closely-related species. In genetic engineering, genes from completely different species are inserted into each other. For example, scientists in Taiwan have inserted jellyfish genes into pigs in order to make them glow in the dark.(1) My pondering: why do we need "glow in the dark" pigs?

    The Extent of GMO Foods in the U.S. Food Supply

    It is legal for farmers in the U.S. and a very few other countries such as Argentina to produce and sell GMO foods for human and animal consumption without making mention of this on the label. In other places including Europe and Japan, GMO foods are banned until adequate testing confirms that they are safe for human consumption and for the environment. Currently, approximately 70% of all processed foods in American supermarkets contain GMO ingredients.(2) Genetically engineered foods that have been approved for consumption and are already in current use include alfalfa, cherry tomatoes, chicory, corn, cotton, flax, papaya, potato, rapeseed (canola), rice, soybeans, squash, sugar beets, and tomatoes.(3)

    Why Manufacturers Favor GMO Foods

    On the "pro" side of the GMO question, manufacturers argue that genetically modified crops can be bred to resist disease or damage from chemicals, thus making harvests more stable. Most genetically engineered crops grown today are bred to be resistant to herbicides and /or pesticides so they can withstand the rigors of weed killer without being killed. Proponents claim that genetically engineered crops use fewer pesticides, but in reality GE plants often require more chemicals than non-GE crops.(4) The reason this occurs is because weeds grow resistant to pesticides, requiring higher levels of weed killer to subdue them. Because the GMO food-crops are resistant to higher doses of herbicides, the higher doses can safely be used without killing the food plants. Naturally, this exposes the food crops to higher levels of chemicals, but because the GMO crops are resistant, they are not killed. Instead, they wind up in the grocery store, often containing significantly higher levels of the chemical toxins they have been bred to withstand.(5)

    This resistance of GMO plants to chemical toxins works so well that some GMO crops are actually classified as pesticides. For example, the New Leaf Potato was genetically engineered to produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxin in order to kill any pests that attempted to eat it. This potato was designated as a pesticide and as such was regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates food. Safety testing for these potatoes was not as strict as with food because EPA regulations had never anticipated that people would intentionally consume pesticides as food. These GMO "not intended as food" potatoes did in fact make it into grocery stores (they have since been taken off grocery store shelves), but this case underscores how GMO foods whose safety is unknown can make it into our "protected" food supply. (6)

    Most of the GMO produce is approved for human consumption, even without your knowledge of what it is or that you are eating it.

    Potential Dangers of GMO Foods

    One of the biggest concerns over GMO foods is simply that their safety has not been tested. The science of genetic engineering is relatively new, and we simply do not know what effects can result from putting DNA of one species into another species. The practice might prove to be safe. On the other hand, we may be creating incredibly dangerous "Franken Foods" and "Franken animals," the long-range effects of which are entirely unknown and little-studied at this point. Opponents to genetic engineering state that GE foods must be proven safe before they are sold to the public and I must agree.

    Potential problems that could arise with genetic engineering include:

    • Allergic reactions. There are two main concerns regarding allergic reactions.
      The first is with known allergens. For example, if genes from peanuts were inserted into another commonly consumed food such as tomatoes, and considering that these GMO modifications are not required to be labeled, a person with a known peanut allergy could no longer deliberately avoid peanut-containing foods. Some people have such severe reactions to particular foods that the allergy can be life-threatening.
      The second concern is the possibility of creating new allergies. The new combinations of genes and traits have the potential to create allergic reactions that have never existed before.
    • Antibiotic resistance. Most GMO food contains antibiotic resistant "marker genes" that help producers track the transfer of genetic material to the host plant or animal. We already know that many GMO foods can be bred to be resistant to toxic chemicals, bacteria and viruses. Will genetically engineered foods which are bacteria-resistant increase human resistance to antibiotics when consumed? We don’t know, but having seen the rise of "Super Bugs" (bacteria which are resistant to all known antibiotics because of the overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics) gives us serious cause for concern.
    • Nutritional degradation. Genetic engineering can change the nutritional value of food, and this has not been studied as to whether such changes may improve nutrition or seriously degrade the nutritional composition of foods.(7)
    • Environmental damage. Insects, birds and wind can carry genetically altered pollen to far away locations, pollinating plants and randomly creating new species that would carry on the genetic modifications. Until more is known, we could be creating a "Pandora’s box" of genetic mutations. (I’m feeling the plot of a seriously scary movie in here somewhere).
    • Super-weeds. GE crops can cross-pollinate with weeds, potentially creating super weeds that could become difficult if not impossible to control.
    • Irreversible Gene mutations. Scientists don’t yet know if the forced insertion of one gene into another gene could destabilize the entire organism, and encourage mutations and abnormalities. Likewise, no one knows if or how eating mutated food could affect people’s own DNA.
      Genetic pollution cannot simply be "cleaned up." Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination that can be removed from the environment, genetically engineered organisms cannot simply be "recalled" or "cleaned" by a SuperFund.

    How to Avoid GMO Foods

    Until more is known — or until ANYTHING is known — about the safety of GMO foods, those who want to steer clear of GMO-containing foods can do so by following these steps:

    • Look for foods labeled GMO-free. Today, almost all
      major brands have GMO ingredients. Foods that are GMO-free go out of their way to say so on the label. www.truefoodnow.org features a shoppers guide to brands that are GMO-free.
    • Buy organic foods. USDA regulations governing organic food do not permit genetically-modified fruits and vegetables, and organic meats cannot come from animals that were fed GMO crops. Eating organic is a much surer way to avoid GMO foods. Better yet, buying local organic foods further reduces the likelihood of GMO contamination.
    • Grow your own! Raise a portion of your vegetables at home. You can grow 10 vegetables in a 4’x4′ plot using the easy micro garden system that I have talked about before. Sprouts are easy to grow indoors. Consider raising a few chickens (a simple "chicken tractor" allows even city-folk to harvest their own eggs, and chickens make a great "bio-organic composting machine." "Pigs with wings" is what we call ours).

    GMO "Factoids"

    • 4 countries have 99% of the world’s GE acreage, they include: US (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%), China (3%) (8)
    • Over 75% of US-grown soybeans in 2003 were bioengineered.(9)
    • Herbicide tolerant GE crops have created weed resistance, causing pesticide use to increase by 70 million pounds between 1996 and 2003.(10)

    My Ten Cents Worth on GMO Foods

    The unsuspecting public (that’s you and I, folks!) are continually acting as guinea pigs for everything from foods and drugs to environmental chemicals and cosmetics. AND SO FAR, THE TRACK RECORDS OF THE SAFETY OF THESE ITEMS DOES NOT FAVOR THE PUBLIC. Personally, I don’t like being forced to "test" the safety of every new chemical, drug and "technique" that Big Industry dreams up without my consent. Isn’t this what, ostensibly, the FDA, the USDA, the EPA and other government-acronymed groups (GAG’s) are supposed to be protecting us from? Yet you and I are still exposed to hazardous chemicals and techniques that are "approved" before their safety is truly verified. I don’t know about you, but I’m not happy about this.

    I take good care of myself. Why should I let the government use me as a test subject for so many potentially dangerous chemicals and now (perhaps even worse), gene-splicing experiments? Until I have proof that me, the honeybees (11) and the environment are safe from GMO crops, I’m going to stay as far away from them as I can. I believe we should be more circumspect about what we are creating, and the safety of same, before we unleash genetically modified organisms on an unsuspecting public.

    References
    1.) Hogg, Chris, “Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs.” BBC News, January 12, 2006.
    2.) California Department of Food and Agriculture. “A Food Foresight Analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Report to the Legislature,” January 1, 2003.
    3.) Center for Food Safety, “The Hidden Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Food Safety Review, Spring 2000.
    4.) Benbrook, Charles M., “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years,” BioTech InfoNet, November 2003.
    5.) Ibid.
    6.) U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Biotechnology Consultation, Note to the File, BNF No. 000033, March 25th, 1996.
    7.) Center for Food Safety, “The Hidden Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Food Safety Review, Spring 2000.
    8.) Union of Concerned Scientists. “Genetically Engineered Foods Allowed on the Market” February 16, 2006 (accessed August 1, 2006).
    9.) California Department of Food and Agriculture. A Food Foresight Analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Report to the Legislature. January 1, 2003.
    10.) Ibid.
    11.)     Where the H#!l are The HoneyBees? HealthBeat News, 03/29/07.

  • Another Chance For Stevia?

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    Stevia, a naturally sweet herb used safely and effectively for thousands of years by South American indigenous peoples for thousands of years, has gotten a rough ride from the FDA. Jackbooted FDA "swat teams" have raided warehouses and health food stores, confiscated products, even confiscated books that contained recipes that included stevia as a sweetener.

    Since stevia is a naturally-occurring plant it cannot be patented, and it is widely felt that the FDA’s persecution of this innocuous, sweet herb has been carried out at the direction of the artificial sweetener industry in order to protect their toxic but patentable (and profitable) offerings.

    Yes, the future has looked grim for stevia, but there may be a ray of hope on the horizon…

    You may have noticed the headline recently:

    Coke to unveil natural diet drink in U.S.: report – Yahoo! News

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/us_nm/us_cocacola

    It seems that the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico are listening to the demands of consumers for less toxic soft drinks (or perhaps heeding the advice of their corporate lawyers, who must be warning them about the possibility of class-action lawsuits – Vioxx-style), and they have begun investigating stevia as a natural alternative to toxic artificial sweeteners. But it appears that even these giants know what they are up against: they appear to realize that it will not be a simple matter of just adding a bit of herbal stevia to sweeten their offerings – oh, no!

    You see, it is highly unlikely that the FDA will ever admit that it has been wrong about stevia, or back down from their current position on the herb. Certainly not so long as it is a natural and therefore non-patentable substance!

    So, what’s a company to do? Do what the drug companies do – take a natural, harmless substance into the lab and figure out how to modify, concentrate, purify, synthesize or otherwise alter this poor harmless herb until it is un-natural, and therefore patentable!

    Once it has been transformed into a patented compound, Voila! It can be "submitted" to the FDA along with all the necessary bribes – er, fees – that will be required to obtain protection – er, approval – for this new high-tech patented sweetener.

    What will this mean for stevia? My guess is that this new sweetener, some synthesized form or modification of natural stevia, will give the FDA heartburn – because as natural Red Rice Yeast is to synthetic statin drugs, so will stevia be to Truvia or PureVia, or whatever other name some MegaCorporation decides to give their patented version of this natural substance.

    It will be obvious that the natural form of this substance is, as has been maintained all along by proponents of stevia, safe.

    If the FDA continues to declare stevia to be unsafe, then the new, modified sweetener must also be unsafe. If the new modified stevia-based substance is safe, then isn’t the natural stevia also safe? Could this be an uncomfortable "Catch-22" for the mighty FDA?

    It will be fun to watch this one unfold, and to watch the FDA wriggle and squirm as they try to satisfy Big Business’ demands for an ingredient that will satisfy their customers, while they simultaneously try to avoid admitting that they have been wrong about stevia…