

			Home \| Site map \| About \| Contact

NewsGrabs

Every day, I come across a number of interesting news items and stories related to the topics of this site but I cannot report on them all. This is a new kind of post that brings you the links to stories I find interesting, grabbing them as I go. Some of them are only links, others come with a short comment...

January 15, 2012

Despite safety of supplements, FDA insists on regulation - Health Supreme NewsGrabs 15 January 2012

Categories

NewsGrabs

America's Largest Database Confirms: No Deaths from Vitamins

The new 203-page annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, published online here, shows zero deaths from multiple vitamins; zero deaths from any of the B vitamins; zero deaths from vitamins A, C, D, or E; and zero deaths from any other vitamin.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from any amino acid or dietary mineral supplement.

Three people died from non-supplement mineral poisoning: two from medical use of sodium and one from non-supplemental iron. On page 131, the AAPCC report specifically indicates that the iron fatality was not from a nutritional supplement.

USA: The FDA is closing in on supplements

More telling about the FDA’s strategy for more heavy-handed regulation is the statement that “If you look at the numbers of NDI submissions versus the number of supplements introduced to the market since 1994, it would appear there is a significant lag in compliance.” On its face, the marketplace has changed over the last seventeen years. But who is responsible for this 17-year lag in compliance?

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) required manufacturers to submit pre-market notification applications for supplements and new ingredients when there is a history of use or other evidence establishing that an ingredient is safe when used as directed. The FDA has 75 days to accept or reject the application. A non-decision by the FDA means that the Agency accepts the evidence and that the product has complied, is approved, and can be marketed to the consuming public. Alternatively, a formal petition for a review and FDA issuance of an order prescribing the conditions under which a new dietary ingredient can be used and reasonably be expected to be safe, with the FDA having to respond within 180 days, can be filed. Again, shouldn’t a non-decision on a petition be considered as final Agency approval? If the Agency does not issue a decision either way, or if it cannot find a decision that was issued over the previous seventeen years, has it been the industry or the FDA itself who has not been in compliance with DSHEA?

Apparently, the FDA believes that manufacturers and suppliers have not met the FDA’s own self-interpreted DSHEA burden of proof standard to show to the FDA that there is reasonable evidence that supplements and new ingredients in supplements are safe.

I wish the FDA were that efficient on pharmaceuticals...
Some more details on this story and an action link

Continue reading "Despite safety of supplements, FDA insists on regulation - Health Supreme NewsGrabs 15 January 2012"

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Sunday January 15 2012

updated on Thursday January 26 2017

Permalink | No comments

December 27, 2011

Painkillers killing more than pain... Health Supreme NewsGrabs 27 December 2011

Categories

NewsGrabs

The Champion of Painkillers

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared the overdoses from opioid drugs like OxyContin an "epidemic." And a growing group of experts doubts that they work for long-term pain.

But the pills continue to have an influential champion in the American Pain Foundation, which describes itself as the nation's largest advocacy group for pain patients. Its message: The risk of addiction is overblown, and the drugs are underused.

What the nonprofit doesn't highlight is the money behind that message.

The foundation collected nearly 90 percent of its $5 million funding last year from the drug and medical-device industry -- and closely mirrors its positions, an examination by ProPublica found.

The disturbing reason why a growing number of parents are being falsely accused of shaking their babies to death

After the case, the Wrays’ lawyer Jenny Wiltshire said: ‘These parents have been through hell. They can now grieve for the son they loved and cherished.’

Yet theirs is a case which has profound implications for all families. For it serves to highlight a growing medical problem — one which is not only leading to false allegations of abuse against innocent parents, but which is endangering the health of children right across Britain.

As Jenny Wiltshire said: ‘The real criminality here is that if the money spent on bringing this case had been used to tell all breastfeeding mothers to take vitamin D supplements, Jayden’s death wouldn’t have occurred.

Continue reading "Painkillers killing more than pain... Health Supreme NewsGrabs 27 December 2011"

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Tuesday December 27 2011

updated on Thursday January 26 2017

Permalink | No comments

December 18, 2011

'Evidence based' medicine is a fraud - Health Supreme NewsGrabs 18 December 2011

Categories

NewsGrabs

Evidence Based Medicine Is a Fraud - Here’s Why

Evidence Based Medicine, EBM, is the current calling card of conventional medical treatment. Just the sound of it carries the cachet of high quality medicine. Who wouldn’t want health treatments to be based on evidence?

The reality, though, is that EBM is fraudulent. It gives the impression of proof for efficacy of medical treatment, but is largely a smokescreen designed to sell medical products.

We should first take a hard look at the reality behind so many of the studies evoked to support EBM treatments. It’s becoming a well-known scandal that much of what passes for science in medical journals is at best useless, and at worst is devastatingly harmful—as demonstrated in the mass drugging of women going through the natural process of menopause.

American Association of Physicians and Surgeons Says Influenza Vaccine for Health Care Workers Should be Voluntary

Fewer than half of American Health Care Workers choose to be immunized annually against influenza. We believe that the professional judgment of these workers should be respected.

The proposed Colorado policy requires that facilities inform workers of the benefits and risks of influenza immunization. It does not specify what these are. What is the purpose of this information if workers are not allowed to make a decision based upon it? What provisions are made for indemnifying workers who experience an adverse effect, some of which can lead to death, hospitalization, or long-term disability?

In the age of “evidence-based medicine,” it is shocking that there is so little evidence that the influenza vaccination program is effective. Indeed, there is evidence that it may be ineffective (http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/geier.pdf). Safety data are reported in very few studies: only five randomized studies with 2,963 observations extending only one week after the injection. In fact, the coordinator of the vaccines section of the Cochrane Collaboration called for an urgent reevaluation of the UK’s influenza vaccination program (Jefferson T, Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence. BMJ 2006;333:912-915). In particular, the safety of many repeated similar vaccinations is not addressed. Allergic, anaphylactic, hyperimmune, and dysimmune reactions are possible.

Continue reading "'Evidence based' medicine is a fraud - Health Supreme NewsGrabs 18 December 2011"

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Sunday December 18 2011

updated on Thursday January 26 2017

Permalink | No comments

December 11, 2011

Too Big to Prosecute? - Health Supreme NewsGrabs 11 December 2011

Categories

NewsGrabs

Merck—Too Big to Prosecute?

There is a surprising reason why the [US] government won’t go after drug companies for serious crimes.

It is because government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration would then be barred from doing business with them!

In 1999 the FDA approved Vioxx, a drug created by Merck and Co. to treat arthritis. Vioxx was pulled off the market in 2004 because evidence showed it greatly increased the risk of heart attack in the 25 million Americans who had taken the drug. Some 50,000 patients sued, and 27,000 of the plaintiffs received $4.85 billion in settlement of their claims.

Last week the Department of Justice announced that Merck has agreed to pay a $321 million criminal fine and plead guilty to one misdemeanor count of illegally introducing a drug into interstate commerce. Merck also is paying $426 million to the federal government and $202 million to state Medicaid agencies. Those payments will settle civil claims that its marketing caused doctors to prescribe and bill the government for Vioxx they otherwise would not have prescribed.

Please note that these settlements are for rather minor infractions—not for deliberately concealing the danger of a killing drug from patients, the medical community, and their investors. Despite the serious consequences of Merck’s actions, the government won’t prosecute them for any serious charges—because, if they did and won, it would mean they would have to stop doing business with Merck in the future! Federal law makes it illegal for Medicare and Medicaid to do business with “an excluded or debarred entity resulting from serious criminal charges.”

Well with banks too big to fail and pharmaceutical companies too big to prosecute, no wonder small is beautiful!

European Parliament Faces Major Test Over EU Health Claims

A European Commission standing committee agreed to pass a proposal for a regulation to the European Parliament that will, if approved, authorise European food suppliers to use 224 health claims linked to just 70 foods and ingredients, EU-wide. Additionally, around 2,500 other claims that did not receive positive opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), will be banned. The European Parliament will now have 90 days to scrutinise the proposal before making its decision.

Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl), a non-governmental organisation campaigning for the right to natural health and consumer freedom of choice, believes that the European Parliament should reject the European Commission’s proposal in its present form.

Explaining ANH-Intl’s position, Dr Robert Verkerk, its executive and scientific director, said, “Ensuring consumers are not given false and misleading claims, the key objective of the regulation, is laudable. But removing the majority of claims, some 92% of those evaluated, on the basis of scientific methods that are derived from a pharmaceutical rather than nutritional science model is simply madness.”

Continue reading "Too Big to Prosecute? - Health Supreme NewsGrabs 11 December 2011"

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Sunday December 11 2011

updated on Thursday January 26 2017

Permalink | No comments