America is now experiencing the aftermath of one of the most devastating weeks in American history. The Virginia Tech massacre, in my opinion, is just another symptom added to an already long list of symptoms that is crying for us to Wake-Up. One of the most important aspects of natural medicine is that we do not treat symptoms, but instead, try to get to the root cause of these symptoms. This is exactly what needs to happen, quickly, in the US if we want to continue the access to the freedoms that most of us take for granted.
While I am not a huge conspiracy theorist, it is very difficult not to wonder why we are being bombarded, from within, by so many terrible happenings. Every time a crisis occurs we have freedoms that are taken away in the name of safety and we all nod our heads in agreement because, afterall, who doesn't want to be safe? But I submit to you that this is only dealing with symtoms, not the cause.
Dealing with health concerns on a daily basis, I understand the importance of good health and well being, possibly even more than most because I am also a cancer survivor. We are now in the midst of a huge bombardment against clean food, clean water, clean air, clean personal care products and clean supplements. Just as we are losing freedoms in the name of being safe, so are we losing health freedoms in the name of convenience. Let me explain my thoughts about this.
Clean Food
Right now, this very minute, Big Food, is trying very hard to make it to where we cannot know what is in our food or how it has been processed. Never mind that all pre-packaged food has only a small amount of useable nutrients and is filled with chemical preservatives, but now the FDA allows labelling foods as 75 percent organic knowing that the public will hone-in on the word organic. I would love to know exactly what 75 percent organic means--wouldn't the 25 percent that is NOT organic negate anything that is organic? Think about it. They also want to remove labeling requirements for irradiated foods and allow raw almonds to be pasteurized, which technically means they will no longer be raw but will still be labeled in that manner, while continuing to label them as raw. On top of this they have decided that we do not need to know if we are eating cloned meat or if the vegetables that are offered in grocery stores have been genetically modified. Why is there such a push to audulterize our food supply? Could it be to control a population by keeping them in bad health?
Big Food realizes that most consumers do not have the time or means to grow their own vegetables, another concern as now they are even messing with the seeds, chop their own vegetables, find local farms to buy dairy and meat from, etc. We do not even have time to daily sit down for one family meal. Why? Too much to do and too many places to go. Just so much easier to drive into the local fast food joint, pick up some burgers, fries and drinks and be on our way. We eat fast food or prepackaged foods for breakfast, lunch, dinner and late night snacks and never consider the ingredients. In doing this the average American consumes 160 pounds of sugar each year. Found in over 42,000 food products, the average American consumes close to five grams of Trans Fat a day, while evidence suggests even one gram is too much for a healthy diet.
Common sense tells most of us that messing with food and/or trying to improve on Gods creation may not be the smartest thing to do. And we would do well to listen to this common sense.
Clean Water
Who would have ever thought we would see the day when we would have to pay for clean, pure water? Well, we have arrived. We have polluted our water to where more and more chemicals must be added to make sure it is safe. Of course safe means different things to different people. Huge amounts of fish and frogs are being contaminated and dying because of chemicals and pharmaceuticals flowing into our waterways and ground water. Most fish are not even safe to eat because of mercury contamination. Even our bottled water, packaged in the ever convenient plastic bottle, is compromised by the plastic leeching into the water. Of course all the big plastic companies have promised that this should be of no real concern.
We now have bottled water companies that are conveniently adding fluoride to the water so that our childrens bodies will now have more of this carcinogenic chemical to ensure health concerns at some point in their life. Most city water municipalities fluoridate the water, conveniently, so that we will have strong and health teeth. If this were actually helping our teeth why is there still a need for dentists?
Clean Air
I have lived on the Gulf Coast of Texas all my life. I was diagnosed with cancer while living in one of the most air polluted counties in Texas. In the name of convenience we are now walking through a maze of polluted air that mostly affects the endocrine system. Asthma and allergies are at all time highs. We now must have home air purification in order to take care of all the out gasing from appliances, wood, paint, flooring, etc. and because homes are made so air tight that that the air becomes unhealthy. If we open the windows we are exposed to all the polluted air from industry. We have been told that ozone is hazardous, do your research about ozone, to our health and for our convenience we now have ozone alerts when actually they should be named chemical alerts. Supposedly industry must follow strict air quality standards but the fact is they ignore these standards and should they have a chemical or gas release they are fined a very minute amount compared to what their yearly profits amount to, basically just a slap on the hand.
Clean Personal Care Products
We must realize that the skin is the larges organ of the body and that whatever goes on the skin will usually go into the body in some form or fashion. I encourage you to, right now, get up and go get your shampoo, deodorant, make-up, toothpaste and perfume and cologne and magnifying glass and then begin to read the ingredients. How many can you pronounce? How many ingredients do you actually know what they are? Can you even read the ingredients? Most are in tiny fonts so that you will need a magnifying glass. These are products that you use on your skin and in your mouth on a daily basis, sometimes more than one time per day. Now add these chemicals to all the chemicals you ingest from your prepackaged foods. And we are constantly told that these chemicals will not harm the body. Please read my ebook Chemical Soup Your Health Under Siege
Clean Vitamins & Supplements
We are now to the point to where we must supplement our body with vitamins because our soils have been so compromised that we no longer get the vitamins and minerals that our body must have in order to maintain health and well being. We have companies that are marketing synthetic vitamins and doctors that are promoting them. They are inexpensive because they are synthetically derived and convenient since all the corner drug stores carry them. We even have some companies in the natural health industry that continue to put harmful excipients into their supplements along with misguiding customers as to how much product is really contained in each tablet or capsule.
So What are the Solutions?
At OAW we are all about answers and solutions. There is always hope and always answers. After reading all of the above it can make one want to throw up their hands in defeat. I am constantly asked What can we do to stop killing ourselves in the name of convenience?
My first recommendation is that we must realize that convenience does not equal no consequence especially when it comes to health and well being. We must take time for ourselve, time to nourish the mind, the body and the spirit. This cannot be done by driving up to a window and asking for a serving of each. It takes desire, discipline and determination and it is usually NOT convenient as it takes WORK.
The second thing is to continually research and educate yourself. I would suggest signing up for the FREE OAW monthly newsletter Advanced Health and Wellness where we offer up to date and cutting edge articles about natural medicine and getting healthy and staying healthy. There are other great natural health newsletters and information sites on the Internet.
The third recommendation would be to change your diet. I am convinced that IF people would change their diet to a healthy one, we would probably see at least three fourths of all disease diminish and or go away. Why do I say this? Because I have seen many clients get well by just changing their diet. A healthy diet does NOT include the following: white sugar, white flour, hydrogenated oils, grocery store dairy and meats, foods that are pre-packaged in cans, bags, etc., sugar drinks, tap water, GMO vegetables and fruit, baking powder with aluminum, table salt, irradiated or nitrate-containing meats and farmed seafood. If you want to get healthy, lose weight and stay healthy then I recommend our e-book Optimum Health Strategies Doing What Works at http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/products/optimum-ebook.html
If you are not healthy then, obviously, what you have been doing as far as life-style is concerned has not worked. The next recommendations would be exercising (walking) for 30 minutes every day, 30 minutes of sunshine on as much of the body as is legal, drinking half of your body weight in ounces of clean, pure water every day, making sure that your personal care products are all-natural and do not contain chemicals, organic excipient-free supplementation, alleviating stress and negative emotions and getting eight to ten hours of sleep every night.
The last recommendation I would make is to get off as many pharmaceutical drugs as you can. This is something that you will need the help of your doctor in accomplishing. However, the healthier that you get, the more likely you will not need pharmaceutical drugs. I am always amazed at the fact that when the body becomes healthy, the emotions also become healthy. When the body is not being controlled by chemical drugs, the emotions become healthy. The body does not get sick from a lack of pharmaceutical drugs which are toxic chemicals that only mask symptoms but NEVER get to the cause of the health concern.
Your mind and emotions are crucial to good health and well-being. If you are altering your mind with chemicals, of any kind, then the whole body suffers. Mind and mood altering drugs are not the answer for depression and anxiety. The answer lies in bringing the body into good health and well being and keeping it in this state. The answer lies in learning skills of how to address anger, depression, stress, anxiety and the issues of life.
We must learn to take responsibility for our own health and emotions. God has put within our body certain healing mechanisms; mechanisms that do not work well when chemicals are added. We must learn to be inconvenienced in order to put healing foods and water into our body. We must be willing to take the time necessary for ourselves; time to nourish our soul, time to physically nourish our body. Health matters! Just ask someone who has recently been diagnosed with a life threatening disease or illness.
We have witnessed a mass killing of innocent young people by a person who exhibited signs of needing help. Instead of being helped he was given a quick fix of mind-altering and personality altering drugs. This is also what happened at Columbine. This is almost always the case when a parent takes the lives of their children. Conventional medicine says the answer lies in a few pills, very convenient and no work involved. Just pop a pill and everything will be ok. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is NOT working. Until we decide to confront the REAL issues of getting harmful and addictive chemicals out of our lives, then we will continue to see the VA Tech episode repeated. It is time to take back our health from Big Pharma, Big Food and conventional medicine and to become responsible for our own health. We MUST do this if we are to continue to remember what good health and well-being consist of. The powers that be would love for us to forget. And many people have done just that.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
FDA Proposes Calling Irradiated Foods 'Pasteurized'
Frontier Natural Products Coop newsletter
April 6 2007
The Food and Drug Administration Tuesday suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of the rules on labeling of irradiated foods.
The proposed new rules would require irradiated food to be labeled only when the radiation treatment caused a material change to the product, such as changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life. In order to use the term "pasteurized" for irradiated products, companies would be required to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as effectively as conventional pasteurization. Companies would also be able to petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said, "This move by the FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation." The FDA seemed to acknowledge that allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation would confuse consumers in their proposal: "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," but were not available for further comment.
The FDA posted the proposed rule changes on its Web site and will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. To view and comment on the proposal, go to the Regulations.gov search engine, enter "FDA-2007-0189-0001" in the Keyword or ID field (the other fields can be left as they are) and click Submit. In the two right-hand columns of the search results, you can click on icons to download a pdf of the document, view it online and make comments.
Editors note: Finding the pages for readers to view and comment on this proposal provided some interesting insights. I first went to fda.gov, where I couldn't find any mention of the proposed changes or how to comment on them. The search term "irradiation" returned 5440 results, the top three ("sorted by relevance") being 1)"Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure" (subheaded "Food Irradiation is a safe measure."), 2) "FDA/CFSAN Is food irradiation safe?" an excerpt from "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure") and 3) "Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food." The A-Z index has one item under irradiation: "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure." Through a series of less-than-intuitive links, I eventually found my way to www.regulations.gov and was able to track down the proposal and page for commenting.
###
Original story can be found here.
April 6 2007
The Food and Drug Administration Tuesday suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of the rules on labeling of irradiated foods.
The proposed new rules would require irradiated food to be labeled only when the radiation treatment caused a material change to the product, such as changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life. In order to use the term "pasteurized" for irradiated products, companies would be required to show the FDA that the radiation kills germs as effectively as conventional pasteurization. Companies would also be able to petition the agency to use additional alternate terms other than "irradiated."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said, "This move by the FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation." The FDA seemed to acknowledge that allowing alternative ways of describing irradiation would confuse consumers in their proposal: "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," but were not available for further comment.
The FDA posted the proposed rule changes on its Web site and will accept public comments on the proposal for 90 days. To view and comment on the proposal, go to the Regulations.gov search engine, enter "FDA-2007-0189-0001" in the Keyword or ID field (the other fields can be left as they are) and click Submit. In the two right-hand columns of the search results, you can click on icons to download a pdf of the document, view it online and make comments.
Editors note: Finding the pages for readers to view and comment on this proposal provided some interesting insights. I first went to fda.gov, where I couldn't find any mention of the proposed changes or how to comment on them. The search term "irradiation" returned 5440 results, the top three ("sorted by relevance") being 1)"Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure" (subheaded "Food Irradiation is a safe measure."), 2) "FDA/CFSAN Is food irradiation safe?" an excerpt from "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure") and 3) "Irradiation: A Safe Measure For Safer Food." The A-Z index has one item under irradiation: "Food Irradiation--A Safe Measure." Through a series of less-than-intuitive links, I eventually found my way to www.regulations.gov and was able to track down the proposal and page for commenting.
###
Original story can be found here.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
A Measure of Vindication for Wyeth
Unfortunately I just don't trust studies that seem to back a pharmaceutical company who has been trying to get the FDA to remove natural (bio-identical) hormones from being purchased without a prescription. These pharmaceutical giants have a lot of pull and it wouldn't be the first time that a study was skewed in their favor. While, seemingly, the WHI study now says that using synthetic hormones after menopause will not cause heart concerns, the biggest concern, like is said below, is the breast cancer issue. Our body does not get sick from a lack of pharmaceutical drugs.
It is concerning that the sales of synthetic hormones seem to be on the incline, if we can believe the figures. Most women are already on toxic over-load from all the chemicals in our food and water, not to mention the estrogenic effects from plastics and the environment. I suspect that since Wyeth was slapped in the face with the first results of the WHI, they have talked doctors into carrying on their mantra of "all you need is some estrogen and you will feel fine" by one-on-one contact with their patients.
Somehow, I just don't think that God intended that horse urine would help women with hormonal imbalance without causing other health concerns. But then Big Pharma usually thinks they know more than God.
by Jacob Goldstein - Wall Street Journal
All along, drug maker Wyeth has been the Big Pharma face of hormone replacement therapy. The companys drug Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, was used in one arm of the large study known as WHI that was halted because the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. The findings, published in 2002, rang a loud alarm over use of the drugs to ease the symptoms of menopause.
The WHI report crushed what had been the cornerstone of Wyeths pharmaceutical franchise. Even with a recent rebound, sales of Premarin, an estrogen-only pill, and Prempro are a far cry from their peak before the first results of the WHI study came out. In 2001, sales of the drugs topped $2.07 billion. By 2003, sales had fallen to $1.28 billion and declined in later years to less than $1 billion annually.
Still, Wyeth stood by the medicines. And demand has begun to creep up. World-wide sales of Premarin and Prempro medicines were $1.05 billion last year, a 16% increase from $909 million in 2005. Sales of Prempro alone were $239 million in 2006, down 1% from $242 million the year before.
Today, Wyeth said in a statement that the results should be reassuring about heart-attack risks for newly menopausal women.
So what does the new finding that HRT does not appear to raise the risk of heart disease for women in their 50s mean for the company? We asked Tara Parker-Pope, the Journals HRT maven, and author of the recently published book The Hormone Decision.
Here Is what she told us:
What is tricky here for Wyeth is that even if the pendulum is starting to swing back in favor of hormones, there remains a bit of a backlash against Premarin and Prempro. Both are made from horse urine, and a lot of women just do not want that. And Suzanne Somers crusade in favor of bioidentical hormones, custom-mixed hormones made from plants, has really had an effect on womens thinking.
In general, this latest finding is good news for Wyeth. It may be that finally the company does not have to hide from the Womens Health Initiative anymore; it can proudly declare that its products are the most-studied hormone drugs in history and now the government is saying that for most women who use them they are safe. After all, this latest data showed that 50 to 59 year old women had a 30% lower risk of dying if they used Premarin or Prempro and that finding was statistically significant. Wyeth has stayed the course amidst all its hormone troubles, but now I think the question is whether they can leverage this into better sales.
The biggest stumbling block may be the breast cancer issue. Most of the litigation over Prempro does not have to do with heart health, but instead relates to breast cancer. That is a harder battle to fight, because the data do show a link between combination hormone use and a slightly higher risk for breast cancer.
It is concerning that the sales of synthetic hormones seem to be on the incline, if we can believe the figures. Most women are already on toxic over-load from all the chemicals in our food and water, not to mention the estrogenic effects from plastics and the environment. I suspect that since Wyeth was slapped in the face with the first results of the WHI, they have talked doctors into carrying on their mantra of "all you need is some estrogen and you will feel fine" by one-on-one contact with their patients.
Somehow, I just don't think that God intended that horse urine would help women with hormonal imbalance without causing other health concerns. But then Big Pharma usually thinks they know more than God.
by Jacob Goldstein - Wall Street Journal
All along, drug maker Wyeth has been the Big Pharma face of hormone replacement therapy. The companys drug Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, was used in one arm of the large study known as WHI that was halted because the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. The findings, published in 2002, rang a loud alarm over use of the drugs to ease the symptoms of menopause.
The WHI report crushed what had been the cornerstone of Wyeths pharmaceutical franchise. Even with a recent rebound, sales of Premarin, an estrogen-only pill, and Prempro are a far cry from their peak before the first results of the WHI study came out. In 2001, sales of the drugs topped $2.07 billion. By 2003, sales had fallen to $1.28 billion and declined in later years to less than $1 billion annually.
Still, Wyeth stood by the medicines. And demand has begun to creep up. World-wide sales of Premarin and Prempro medicines were $1.05 billion last year, a 16% increase from $909 million in 2005. Sales of Prempro alone were $239 million in 2006, down 1% from $242 million the year before.
Today, Wyeth said in a statement that the results should be reassuring about heart-attack risks for newly menopausal women.
So what does the new finding that HRT does not appear to raise the risk of heart disease for women in their 50s mean for the company? We asked Tara Parker-Pope, the Journals HRT maven, and author of the recently published book The Hormone Decision.
Here Is what she told us:
What is tricky here for Wyeth is that even if the pendulum is starting to swing back in favor of hormones, there remains a bit of a backlash against Premarin and Prempro. Both are made from horse urine, and a lot of women just do not want that. And Suzanne Somers crusade in favor of bioidentical hormones, custom-mixed hormones made from plants, has really had an effect on womens thinking.
In general, this latest finding is good news for Wyeth. It may be that finally the company does not have to hide from the Womens Health Initiative anymore; it can proudly declare that its products are the most-studied hormone drugs in history and now the government is saying that for most women who use them they are safe. After all, this latest data showed that 50 to 59 year old women had a 30% lower risk of dying if they used Premarin or Prempro and that finding was statistically significant. Wyeth has stayed the course amidst all its hormone troubles, but now I think the question is whether they can leverage this into better sales.
The biggest stumbling block may be the breast cancer issue. Most of the litigation over Prempro does not have to do with heart health, but instead relates to breast cancer. That is a harder battle to fight, because the data do show a link between combination hormone use and a slightly higher risk for breast cancer.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Organic Consumers Association's Ronnie Cummins Tells The Truth About Organic Milk That Isn't
For those of us who were concerned when Wal-Mart announced their dive into the organic food industry, the situation has now played out to warrant that concern. The equation of Wal-Mart + organics just doesn't set right with me. What Wal-Mart didn't prepare for is that people who buy organic have usually done their homework. It is very difficult to pull-the-wool-over-the-eyes of organic consumers by cutting corners in order to make a profit. This very week Wal-Mart has decided to get out of the organic business. To that, I say Hooray! The big food conglomerates are trying very hard to smudge the meaning of organic. Why? Because they realize that they cannot make the money they are used to making by offering healthy food. And they realize that Americans are beginning to wake up to the toxic chemicals and junk that is being included in processed food--we are not consuming food, we are consuming chemicals. As the article states below more and more Americans prefer unadulterated food and why shouldn't we? Organic milk is just the beginning--
By: Mike Adams
http://www.newstarget.com/021763.html
Monday, April 02, 2007
With consumer demand for organic products continuing to grow, more large corporations are entering the organic market. To maximize profits, some of these companies don't follow organic standards but still label products as organic.
For example, Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic, sold by Wal-Mart and other retailers, continue to produce "organic" milk under factory-farm conditions that few reasonable people would consider truly organic.
According to the Organic Consumers Association, half of Horizon's "organic" milk today comes from what can only be considered "factory" dairy feedlots -- and much of Aurora's organic milk does as well. Rather than buy organic calves that have been raised from birth on organic farms, these companies seemed to have discovered it's cheaper to buy conventional calves that have been raised on conventional farms, install them in factory feedlots, then milk them and call it organic.
The situation has become so alarming that the Organic Consumers Association ultimately called for a boycott, and many knowledgeable consumers are now avoiding the Horizon brand entirely.
The organic milk controversy extends to organic soy milk as well. Horizon Organic's parent company, Dean Foods, also bought out Silk, the leading organic soy milk brand in the United States. Dean Foods has pushed for lower organic standards in the United States and to allow industrial-style production to be called "organic."
Meanwhile, major grocery chains import cheap, so-called "organic" soybeans from China, where the workers are treated much like slaves and organic standards are dubious. They are also imported from Brazil where the Amazon rainforest is being bulldozed in order to create more acreage for growing soybeans.
To gain more insight on the details of this emerging battle over organic standards, NewsTarget editor Mike Adams sat down with Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association for some straight talk on organic milk. What follows is the full interview.
Mike:
I am here today talking with Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. That is at www.OrganicConsumers.org. What's the overview of the situation on organic milk, Ronnie?
Ronnie:
Well, the good news is, there is such a huge demand for organic products across the United States and North America that there is a serious shortage of supply. One of the types of products that are in serious short supply is organic milk. This is already more than a $1-billion-a-year industry in the United States, out of the $15 billion in organic food sales last year.
The problem is that our government - specifically the U. S. Department of Agriculture - takes about $90 billion of our tax money every year, and they give subsidies to all of these factory farms to go organic, but they give no subsidies to help family-scale dairies make the transition to organic. We literally do not have enough family farmers with the wherewithal to achieve organic certification and make the product.
At the same time, we have these giant retail giants like Wal-Mart who have noticed that the public wants organic food and they are willing to pay a premium price for it, so they and the other retail chain stores have moved with a vengeance to dominate the organic market. Wal-Mart is now the number-one seller of organic milk in the country. The problem is that the milk they are selling - Horizon Organic - is not really organic. It is coming from the factory-style dairy farms where the animals are kept in intensive confinement and have been imported from conventional farms as calves. They simply label it organic, and the USDA lets them get away with it.
Mike:
Let us get into more detail on that, because I want people to understand how they do an end-run around this organic label. First, do you agree that there is some degree of success in the fact that consumer demand for organic products is now so strong? Is that not a success by itself?
Ronnie:
It is a tremendous success. It is attributed to the fact that a lot of us spent the last 30 years building up an alternative food and farming system in the United States. This alternative system has proved to be much better than industrial agriculture, and so now the latest polls show 75 percent of Americans say they are shopping for healthier food. If you look at the statistics, about 12 cents of every grocery store dollar are going for foods that are labeled as either natural or organic.
Mike:
Well, that is a substantial sum. That is growing at, what, about 20 percent a year or something?
Ronnie:
Growing at 20 percent a year, whereas conventional food sales tend to grow about 2 percent a year. This 20 percent-a-year growth has been steady ever since 1991. It appears that it will continue through the end of this decade, so by then most food sold in grocery stores will have a label that says 'natural' or 'organic'.
The question is: If we let these gigantic corporations like Horizon and Wal-Mart take over the industry, will it really be organic?
How the USDA enables big business to corrupt organic standards for profit
Mike:
Let's talk about the definition of organic, then. What should organic really mean in terms of, not only the treatment of the cows, but also what chemicals are not in the milk, for example? What is the real definition?
Ronnie:
There are organic farmers all over the world - in about 100 countries - who are certified organic nowadays. Traditionally, organic has always meant that you raise crops without chemical pesticides or chemical fertilizers and that you raise animals without drugging them up with hormones or antibiotics. You cannot take sewage sludge and put it on farmlands. You cannot feed animals things like blood, slaughterhouse waste, manure and municipal garbage, and you cannot use untested and hazardous technologies like genetic engineering or fruit irradiation. The animals have to be raised on pasture - which is their natural behavior - where every day of the growing season, weather permitting, they are out on pasture eating grass and foraging as they have evolved to do.
What has happened recently is that Wal-Mart was buying their organic milk from genuine organic dairy farmers that pastured their animals, and then they turned around to that company - Organic Valley - and they said, "Hey, we want a lower price," just as Wal-Mart always does. Organic Valley said no, so Wal-Mart then turned to Dean Foods, the largest dairy conglomerate in the world - which had bought out Horizon Organic - and said, "Would you sell to us?" To which Horizon said, "We will sell you the cheapest organic milk you have ever seen."
Horizon conveniently took advantage of the fact that Federal Organic standards say the cows must have access to pasture, and they said, "Oh well, I guess theoretical access to pasture is good enough. We are going to chain up our cows and milk them three times a day, and they will never get out pasturing unless there is a news organization coming to the farm that day. We will still call it organic." They have been doing this for four years, and there have been complaints from the Organic Consumers Association and organic farmers all over the country.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has completely ignored these complaints for four years. However, now this controversy has reached such a state, with the mass media covering it and retail stores across the country starting to drop Horizon and Aurora Organic, that the USDA is finally making noises that they will clear up this situation and promulgate federal regulations that actually require the animals to be pastured.
They will make sure that the animals were not imported from some conventional dairy farm where they were weaned on blood, fed antibiotics, slaughterhouse waste and chicken manure and then called "organic." The animals must be raised from birth as organic, and they must be pastured every day during the growing season - a minimum of 120 days a year. This is what organic has always meant in terms of raising cows, and it is what it should mean now.
Mike:
Now, these are pretty serious accusations of Horizon Milk or Dean Foods' behavior. How are you able to support this? Do you have an insider taking pictures, or how did you become aware of this behavior on their part?
Ronnie:
It was called to our attention by a watchdog organization called The Cornucopia Institute, which actually visited some of these factory-style dairy farms that Horizon and Aurora call organic. They witnessed first-hand things like a farm where there are 4,000 animals, but only a few hundred acres of pasture. You cannot possibly pasture animals on that little pasture, especially when they are in semi-arid parts of Idaho, Colorado and West Texas.
Then beyond that, workers on these farms started coming forth as whistleblowers. There was a story in the Chicago Tribune about one of these whistleblowers who pointed out that these cows are not put out to pasture. The only time they are put out to pasture is when there is a media organization or an important person coming out.
Yes, it is first-hand information. It is a look at the terrain that these factory-style dairy feedlots are set on. Look at the size of their pasture, and then the fact that there was a national survey of organic dairy farms that came out March 22 - which the unethical dairies did not respond to or they got really low ranks - whereas, the ethical producers were happy to be transparent about their practices.
The good news is, almost all the organic farmers in the country are actually practicing real organic standards. The bad news is that the market leader, Horizon Organic, and their junior partner, Aurora Organic, are flagrantly violating organic standards to the point where we, the Organic Consumers Association, had to call for a boycott. We have never called for a boycott against an organic product before. This was going too far, so starting in early April, we called on consumers across the country to start boycotting the products of Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic, and to boycott the brand names that the leading retailers are selling from Horizon and Aurora at Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, Giant, Publix and Wild Oats.
Mike:
Well, this seems like a clear case in which big business is now seeing dollar signs whenever the word "organic" appears, so they are doing the minimum necessary or even just blatantly violating the rules in order to put that word on their products, regardless of the spirit of the law or the original intent of organics. Is this just corporate greed?
Ronnie:
This is, and the sad thing is, how easy it would be to help 5,000 or 10,000 conventional family farmers make the transition in their dairies to organic. It would not be that hard. It would not cost that much money, and this way we could still have organic standards that were real, animals treated humanely and not damage the environment.
Of course, we have not even mentioned that one of the reasons you want organic animals to be outdoors and pastured is because the quality of the meat and milk is much higher if the animals are raised naturally on grass. The other organic requirements mean that the end product is going to be healthier as well.
They are not going to have antibiotic residues or genetically engineered hormones. They are not going to be spreading mad cow disease and so on. We, right now in the United States, have an excess of milk being produced by family-scale dairy farmers who are not yet organic. It would be very simple to help those who want to make the transition do so if we were to force the government to give us a fair share of our subsidies to help these farmers do that.
Lax standards of corporate manufacturers and retailers affect both organic milk and soymilk products
Mike:
Now, you mentioned that pasture-fed cows are healthier cows. This gets back to something you mentioned earlier that needs to be emphasized, because most people simply do not believe this is happening. Conventional cows, in fact, are being fed chicken litter and other animals.
Ronnie:
Yes, they take it from birth. Cows were traditionally weaned on their mother's milk, but industrial agriculture figured out that it's pretty expensive to wean the calves on milk, so they decided to wean them on blood. That is common practice nowadays on a conventional dairy farm. Then, you feed them primarily grains that are genetically engineered, but mixed in with those grains are things that make the animals grow faster and put on weight, like slaughterhouse waste - basically ground up pigs, chickens, dogs, cats and everything else are
fed to them.
They found out all these factory poultry farms around the country were producing billions of pounds of manure that pollute the environment. What can we do with all this manure? Presto, they feed it back to cows. They sweep up the manure, the feathers and the dropped bits of cattle that are fed to chickens in their feed. They sweep that all up, turn around and feed it back to cows.
Most people in the United States are shocked when they hear that 80 percent of the drugs and antibiotics made in this country are not fed to humans to cure them of some illness, but fed to animals in their feed every day to make them grow faster. Scientists do not totally understand why, but they do know that if you cram thousands of animals together in unsanitary or unhygienic - not to mention inhumane - conditions, they all get sick and die.
The only way to keep them alive is to constantly feed them antibiotics. Of course, what that means is you turn around and drink a glass of dairy milk from a conventional farm, and you are getting residues of antibiotics in every drink. They also figured out, "We could use our genetically engineered hormone to shoot up these cows with this hormone produced by Monsanto, even though it is banned in just about every industrialized country in the world except for the United States." If you shoot up dairy cows with this hormone, you can force them to give more milk, and you can keep milking them even past their lactation period. You can actually milk a cow not for a year, but for up to a thousand days. Of course, the cow will drop dead after that, but they do not care.
For all these reasons, there is a huge movement on the part of American consumers and especially concerned parents and concerned grandparents - if they drink milk and if their kids and grandparents drink - to switch to organic.
Mike:
Is it fair to say, Ronnie, that the organic-labeled Horizon Milk on the shelves in Wal-Mart right now comes, at least in part, from cows that were at one point in their lives fed blood, manure, chicken litter and some other things you mentioned? Is that accurate?
Ronnie:
Yes, half of Horizon Organic's milk today comes from these factory dairy feedlots. One hundred percent of Aurora Organic's milk comes from these factory dairy feedlots. It is cheaper to not buy organic calves that have been raised from birth on an organic farm, but to buy conventional calves that have been raised as cheaply as possible on a conventional farm. The routine practice today on a conventional farm is feeding the animals blood plasma as a milk replacer.
You feed them genetically engineered grains, slaughterhouse waste and chicken manure. That is industry standard. Why? You can make more money doing it that way.
Mike:
Okay, so for those reading this, take a closer look at that bowl of cereal next time. If you are pouring cow's milk in there, you might want to buy genuine organic and not the cheap stuff.
Ronnie:
Here is another point that you might think about: for those people who do not drink dairy milk, but who buy organic soy milk, the leading organic soy milk brand in the United States is Silk. Many consumers have no idea that Silk - just like Horizon Organic Milk - was bought out by this giant conglomerate, Dean Foods.
Silk used to buy their organic soybeans from U.S. and Canadian organic soybean farmers, and they paid them a decent price - $16 to $21 a bushel - for these organic soybeans. Well, now that Dean Foods has bought out Silk, they are starting to import cheap, so-called organic soybeans from China, where the workers are treated like slaves and organic standards are dubious. Or, they are importing soybeans from Brazil where there is a huge uproar over the fact that
people are whacking down the Amazon - the lungs of the planet - in order to plant export crops, specifically soybeans, to export.
Even if we think this does not affect us, because we do not eat meat or we do not eat dairy, we have to see the effect of these big corporations like Dean Foods coming into organic. Wal-Mart wants to sell you stuff that is cheaper than their competitors, and the only way they can do that is to outsource it from overseas - places like China and Brazil - where worker rights and
environmental standards are routinely violated, or else lower standards in the United States and allow industrial-style production to call itself organic.
Mike:
Now, this is obviously a very important story for consumers to follow. How can they continue to get updates from you on this story?
Ronnie:
Every day on our news site, www.OrganicConsumers.org you will find updates. We have a whole section of our website called "Safeguard Organic Standards," where you can take action and send a message to what we are calling the "Shameless Seven." These are the large corporations trying to defraud consumers and put ethical organic farmers out of business by labeling factory farm production - and slave labor production, in the case of China - as organic.
Mike:
I want to thank you, Ronnie, for taking the time to give us all of this shocking information today.
Ronnie:
Thank you.
Related Resources
Organic Consumers Association ( www.organicconsumers.org )
The Cornucopia Institute ( www.cornucopia.org )
USDA's National Organic Program ( http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP )
By: Mike Adams
http://www.newstarget.com/021763.html
Monday, April 02, 2007
With consumer demand for organic products continuing to grow, more large corporations are entering the organic market. To maximize profits, some of these companies don't follow organic standards but still label products as organic.
For example, Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic, sold by Wal-Mart and other retailers, continue to produce "organic" milk under factory-farm conditions that few reasonable people would consider truly organic.
According to the Organic Consumers Association, half of Horizon's "organic" milk today comes from what can only be considered "factory" dairy feedlots -- and much of Aurora's organic milk does as well. Rather than buy organic calves that have been raised from birth on organic farms, these companies seemed to have discovered it's cheaper to buy conventional calves that have been raised on conventional farms, install them in factory feedlots, then milk them and call it organic.
The situation has become so alarming that the Organic Consumers Association ultimately called for a boycott, and many knowledgeable consumers are now avoiding the Horizon brand entirely.
The organic milk controversy extends to organic soy milk as well. Horizon Organic's parent company, Dean Foods, also bought out Silk, the leading organic soy milk brand in the United States. Dean Foods has pushed for lower organic standards in the United States and to allow industrial-style production to be called "organic."
Meanwhile, major grocery chains import cheap, so-called "organic" soybeans from China, where the workers are treated much like slaves and organic standards are dubious. They are also imported from Brazil where the Amazon rainforest is being bulldozed in order to create more acreage for growing soybeans.
To gain more insight on the details of this emerging battle over organic standards, NewsTarget editor Mike Adams sat down with Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association for some straight talk on organic milk. What follows is the full interview.
Mike:
I am here today talking with Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. That is at www.OrganicConsumers.org. What's the overview of the situation on organic milk, Ronnie?
Ronnie:
Well, the good news is, there is such a huge demand for organic products across the United States and North America that there is a serious shortage of supply. One of the types of products that are in serious short supply is organic milk. This is already more than a $1-billion-a-year industry in the United States, out of the $15 billion in organic food sales last year.
The problem is that our government - specifically the U. S. Department of Agriculture - takes about $90 billion of our tax money every year, and they give subsidies to all of these factory farms to go organic, but they give no subsidies to help family-scale dairies make the transition to organic. We literally do not have enough family farmers with the wherewithal to achieve organic certification and make the product.
At the same time, we have these giant retail giants like Wal-Mart who have noticed that the public wants organic food and they are willing to pay a premium price for it, so they and the other retail chain stores have moved with a vengeance to dominate the organic market. Wal-Mart is now the number-one seller of organic milk in the country. The problem is that the milk they are selling - Horizon Organic - is not really organic. It is coming from the factory-style dairy farms where the animals are kept in intensive confinement and have been imported from conventional farms as calves. They simply label it organic, and the USDA lets them get away with it.
Mike:
Let us get into more detail on that, because I want people to understand how they do an end-run around this organic label. First, do you agree that there is some degree of success in the fact that consumer demand for organic products is now so strong? Is that not a success by itself?
Ronnie:
It is a tremendous success. It is attributed to the fact that a lot of us spent the last 30 years building up an alternative food and farming system in the United States. This alternative system has proved to be much better than industrial agriculture, and so now the latest polls show 75 percent of Americans say they are shopping for healthier food. If you look at the statistics, about 12 cents of every grocery store dollar are going for foods that are labeled as either natural or organic.
Mike:
Well, that is a substantial sum. That is growing at, what, about 20 percent a year or something?
Ronnie:
Growing at 20 percent a year, whereas conventional food sales tend to grow about 2 percent a year. This 20 percent-a-year growth has been steady ever since 1991. It appears that it will continue through the end of this decade, so by then most food sold in grocery stores will have a label that says 'natural' or 'organic'.
The question is: If we let these gigantic corporations like Horizon and Wal-Mart take over the industry, will it really be organic?
How the USDA enables big business to corrupt organic standards for profit
Mike:
Let's talk about the definition of organic, then. What should organic really mean in terms of, not only the treatment of the cows, but also what chemicals are not in the milk, for example? What is the real definition?
Ronnie:
There are organic farmers all over the world - in about 100 countries - who are certified organic nowadays. Traditionally, organic has always meant that you raise crops without chemical pesticides or chemical fertilizers and that you raise animals without drugging them up with hormones or antibiotics. You cannot take sewage sludge and put it on farmlands. You cannot feed animals things like blood, slaughterhouse waste, manure and municipal garbage, and you cannot use untested and hazardous technologies like genetic engineering or fruit irradiation. The animals have to be raised on pasture - which is their natural behavior - where every day of the growing season, weather permitting, they are out on pasture eating grass and foraging as they have evolved to do.
What has happened recently is that Wal-Mart was buying their organic milk from genuine organic dairy farmers that pastured their animals, and then they turned around to that company - Organic Valley - and they said, "Hey, we want a lower price," just as Wal-Mart always does. Organic Valley said no, so Wal-Mart then turned to Dean Foods, the largest dairy conglomerate in the world - which had bought out Horizon Organic - and said, "Would you sell to us?" To which Horizon said, "We will sell you the cheapest organic milk you have ever seen."
Horizon conveniently took advantage of the fact that Federal Organic standards say the cows must have access to pasture, and they said, "Oh well, I guess theoretical access to pasture is good enough. We are going to chain up our cows and milk them three times a day, and they will never get out pasturing unless there is a news organization coming to the farm that day. We will still call it organic." They have been doing this for four years, and there have been complaints from the Organic Consumers Association and organic farmers all over the country.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has completely ignored these complaints for four years. However, now this controversy has reached such a state, with the mass media covering it and retail stores across the country starting to drop Horizon and Aurora Organic, that the USDA is finally making noises that they will clear up this situation and promulgate federal regulations that actually require the animals to be pastured.
They will make sure that the animals were not imported from some conventional dairy farm where they were weaned on blood, fed antibiotics, slaughterhouse waste and chicken manure and then called "organic." The animals must be raised from birth as organic, and they must be pastured every day during the growing season - a minimum of 120 days a year. This is what organic has always meant in terms of raising cows, and it is what it should mean now.
Mike:
Now, these are pretty serious accusations of Horizon Milk or Dean Foods' behavior. How are you able to support this? Do you have an insider taking pictures, or how did you become aware of this behavior on their part?
Ronnie:
It was called to our attention by a watchdog organization called The Cornucopia Institute, which actually visited some of these factory-style dairy farms that Horizon and Aurora call organic. They witnessed first-hand things like a farm where there are 4,000 animals, but only a few hundred acres of pasture. You cannot possibly pasture animals on that little pasture, especially when they are in semi-arid parts of Idaho, Colorado and West Texas.
Then beyond that, workers on these farms started coming forth as whistleblowers. There was a story in the Chicago Tribune about one of these whistleblowers who pointed out that these cows are not put out to pasture. The only time they are put out to pasture is when there is a media organization or an important person coming out.
Yes, it is first-hand information. It is a look at the terrain that these factory-style dairy feedlots are set on. Look at the size of their pasture, and then the fact that there was a national survey of organic dairy farms that came out March 22 - which the unethical dairies did not respond to or they got really low ranks - whereas, the ethical producers were happy to be transparent about their practices.
The good news is, almost all the organic farmers in the country are actually practicing real organic standards. The bad news is that the market leader, Horizon Organic, and their junior partner, Aurora Organic, are flagrantly violating organic standards to the point where we, the Organic Consumers Association, had to call for a boycott. We have never called for a boycott against an organic product before. This was going too far, so starting in early April, we called on consumers across the country to start boycotting the products of Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic, and to boycott the brand names that the leading retailers are selling from Horizon and Aurora at Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, Giant, Publix and Wild Oats.
Mike:
Well, this seems like a clear case in which big business is now seeing dollar signs whenever the word "organic" appears, so they are doing the minimum necessary or even just blatantly violating the rules in order to put that word on their products, regardless of the spirit of the law or the original intent of organics. Is this just corporate greed?
Ronnie:
This is, and the sad thing is, how easy it would be to help 5,000 or 10,000 conventional family farmers make the transition in their dairies to organic. It would not be that hard. It would not cost that much money, and this way we could still have organic standards that were real, animals treated humanely and not damage the environment.
Of course, we have not even mentioned that one of the reasons you want organic animals to be outdoors and pastured is because the quality of the meat and milk is much higher if the animals are raised naturally on grass. The other organic requirements mean that the end product is going to be healthier as well.
They are not going to have antibiotic residues or genetically engineered hormones. They are not going to be spreading mad cow disease and so on. We, right now in the United States, have an excess of milk being produced by family-scale dairy farmers who are not yet organic. It would be very simple to help those who want to make the transition do so if we were to force the government to give us a fair share of our subsidies to help these farmers do that.
Lax standards of corporate manufacturers and retailers affect both organic milk and soymilk products
Mike:
Now, you mentioned that pasture-fed cows are healthier cows. This gets back to something you mentioned earlier that needs to be emphasized, because most people simply do not believe this is happening. Conventional cows, in fact, are being fed chicken litter and other animals.
Ronnie:
Yes, they take it from birth. Cows were traditionally weaned on their mother's milk, but industrial agriculture figured out that it's pretty expensive to wean the calves on milk, so they decided to wean them on blood. That is common practice nowadays on a conventional dairy farm. Then, you feed them primarily grains that are genetically engineered, but mixed in with those grains are things that make the animals grow faster and put on weight, like slaughterhouse waste - basically ground up pigs, chickens, dogs, cats and everything else are
fed to them.
They found out all these factory poultry farms around the country were producing billions of pounds of manure that pollute the environment. What can we do with all this manure? Presto, they feed it back to cows. They sweep up the manure, the feathers and the dropped bits of cattle that are fed to chickens in their feed. They sweep that all up, turn around and feed it back to cows.
Most people in the United States are shocked when they hear that 80 percent of the drugs and antibiotics made in this country are not fed to humans to cure them of some illness, but fed to animals in their feed every day to make them grow faster. Scientists do not totally understand why, but they do know that if you cram thousands of animals together in unsanitary or unhygienic - not to mention inhumane - conditions, they all get sick and die.
The only way to keep them alive is to constantly feed them antibiotics. Of course, what that means is you turn around and drink a glass of dairy milk from a conventional farm, and you are getting residues of antibiotics in every drink. They also figured out, "We could use our genetically engineered hormone to shoot up these cows with this hormone produced by Monsanto, even though it is banned in just about every industrialized country in the world except for the United States." If you shoot up dairy cows with this hormone, you can force them to give more milk, and you can keep milking them even past their lactation period. You can actually milk a cow not for a year, but for up to a thousand days. Of course, the cow will drop dead after that, but they do not care.
For all these reasons, there is a huge movement on the part of American consumers and especially concerned parents and concerned grandparents - if they drink milk and if their kids and grandparents drink - to switch to organic.
Mike:
Is it fair to say, Ronnie, that the organic-labeled Horizon Milk on the shelves in Wal-Mart right now comes, at least in part, from cows that were at one point in their lives fed blood, manure, chicken litter and some other things you mentioned? Is that accurate?
Ronnie:
Yes, half of Horizon Organic's milk today comes from these factory dairy feedlots. One hundred percent of Aurora Organic's milk comes from these factory dairy feedlots. It is cheaper to not buy organic calves that have been raised from birth on an organic farm, but to buy conventional calves that have been raised as cheaply as possible on a conventional farm. The routine practice today on a conventional farm is feeding the animals blood plasma as a milk replacer.
You feed them genetically engineered grains, slaughterhouse waste and chicken manure. That is industry standard. Why? You can make more money doing it that way.
Mike:
Okay, so for those reading this, take a closer look at that bowl of cereal next time. If you are pouring cow's milk in there, you might want to buy genuine organic and not the cheap stuff.
Ronnie:
Here is another point that you might think about: for those people who do not drink dairy milk, but who buy organic soy milk, the leading organic soy milk brand in the United States is Silk. Many consumers have no idea that Silk - just like Horizon Organic Milk - was bought out by this giant conglomerate, Dean Foods.
Silk used to buy their organic soybeans from U.S. and Canadian organic soybean farmers, and they paid them a decent price - $16 to $21 a bushel - for these organic soybeans. Well, now that Dean Foods has bought out Silk, they are starting to import cheap, so-called organic soybeans from China, where the workers are treated like slaves and organic standards are dubious. Or, they are importing soybeans from Brazil where there is a huge uproar over the fact that
people are whacking down the Amazon - the lungs of the planet - in order to plant export crops, specifically soybeans, to export.
Even if we think this does not affect us, because we do not eat meat or we do not eat dairy, we have to see the effect of these big corporations like Dean Foods coming into organic. Wal-Mart wants to sell you stuff that is cheaper than their competitors, and the only way they can do that is to outsource it from overseas - places like China and Brazil - where worker rights and
environmental standards are routinely violated, or else lower standards in the United States and allow industrial-style production to call itself organic.
Mike:
Now, this is obviously a very important story for consumers to follow. How can they continue to get updates from you on this story?
Ronnie:
Every day on our news site, www.OrganicConsumers.org you will find updates. We have a whole section of our website called "Safeguard Organic Standards," where you can take action and send a message to what we are calling the "Shameless Seven." These are the large corporations trying to defraud consumers and put ethical organic farmers out of business by labeling factory farm production - and slave labor production, in the case of China - as organic.
Mike:
I want to thank you, Ronnie, for taking the time to give us all of this shocking information today.
Ronnie:
Thank you.
Related Resources
Organic Consumers Association ( www.organicconsumers.org )
The Cornucopia Institute ( www.cornucopia.org )
USDA's National Organic Program ( http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP )
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Chiropractic Cuts Blood Pressure
Chiropractic has long been undermined by conventional medicine. However, many are finding the full and unexpected benefits in keeping the spine aligned. For many, their chiropractor has become their primary care physician providing not only chiropractic care but wellness care for the whole family. Read on...
Study Finds Special 'Atlas Adjustment' Lowers Blood Pressure
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Medical NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MD
March 16, 2007 -- A special chiropractic adjustment can significantly lower high blood pressure, a placebo-controlled study suggests.
"This procedure has the effect of not one, but two blood-pressure medications given in combination," study leader George Bakris, MD, tells WebMD. "And it seems to be adverse-event free. We saw no side effects and no problems," adds Bakris, director of the University of Chicago hypertension center.
Eight weeks after undergoing the procedure, 25 patients with early-stage high blood pressure had significantly lower blood pressure than 25 similar patients who underwent a sham chiropractic adjustment. Because patients can't feel the technique, they were unable to tell which group they were in.
X-rays showed that the procedure realigned the Atlas vertebra -- the doughnut-like bone at the very top of the spine -- with the spine in the treated patients, but not in the sham-treated patients.
Compared to the sham-treated patients, those who got the real procedure saw an average 14 mm Hg greater drop in systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure count), and an average 8 mm Hg greater drop in diastolic blood pressure (the bottom blood pressure number).
None of the patients took blood pressure medicine during the eight-week study.
"When the statistician brought me the data, I actually didn't believe it. It was way too good to be true," Bakris says. "The statistician said, 'I don't even believe it.' But we checked for everything, and there it was."
Bakris and colleagues report their findings in the advance online issue of the Journal of Human Hypertension.
Atlas Adjustment and Hypertension
The procedure calls for adjustment of the C-1 vertebra. It's called the Atlas vertebra because it holds up the head, just as the titan Atlas holds up the world in Greek mythology.
Marshall Dickholtz Sr., DC, of the Chiropractic Health Center, in Chicago, is the 84-year-old chiropractor who performed all the procedures in the study. He calls the Atlas vertebra "the fuse box to the body."
"At the base of the brain are two centers that control all the muscles of the body. If you pinch the base of the brain -- if the Atlas gets locked in a position as little as a half a millimeter out of line -- it doesn't cause any pain but it upsets these centers," Dickholtz tells WebMD.
The subtle adjustment is practiced by the very small subgroup of chiropractors certified in National Upper Cervical Chiropractic (NUCCA) techniques. The procedure employs precise measurements to determine a patient's Atlas vertebra alignment. If realignment is deemed necessary, the chiropractor uses his or her hands to gently manipulate the vertebra.
"We are not doctors. We are spinal engineers," Dickholtz says. "We use mathematics, geometry, and physics to learn how to slide everything back into place."
What does this have to do with high blood pressure?
Bakris notes that some researchers have suggested that injury to the Atlas vertebra can affect blood flow in the arteries at the base of the skull. Dickholtz thinks the misaligned Atlas triggers release of signals that make the arteries contract. Whether the procedure actually fixes such injuries is unknown, Bakris says.
Bakris began the study after a fellow doctor told him that something strange was happening in his family practice. The doctor had been sending some of his patients to a chiropractor. Some of these patients had high blood pressure.
Yet after seeing the chiropractor, the patients' blood pressure had normalized -- and a few of them were able to stop taking their blood pressure medications.
So Bakris, then at Rush University, designed the pilot study with 50 patients. He's now organizing a much bigger clinical trial.
"Is it going to be for everybody with high blood pressure? No," Bakris says. "We clearly need to identify those who can benefit. It is pretty clear that some kind of head or neck trauma early in life is related to this. This is really a work in progress. It is certainly in the early stages of research."
Dickholtz has been teaching, practicing, and studying the NUCCA technique for 50 years. He says high blood pressure is far from the only thing an Atlas misalignment causes.
"On the other hand, if people have high blood pressure, there is a tremendous possibility they need an Atlas adjustment," he says.
SOURCES:
Bakris, G. Journal of Human Hypertension, advance online publication, March 2, 2007.
Grassi, G. Journal of Human Hypertension, advance online publication, January 25, 2007.
George Bakris, MD, director, hypertension center, University of Chicago.
Marshall Dickholtz Sr., DC, Chiropractic Health Center, Chicago.
Study Finds Special 'Atlas Adjustment' Lowers Blood Pressure
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Medical NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MD
March 16, 2007 -- A special chiropractic adjustment can significantly lower high blood pressure, a placebo-controlled study suggests.
"This procedure has the effect of not one, but two blood-pressure medications given in combination," study leader George Bakris, MD, tells WebMD. "And it seems to be adverse-event free. We saw no side effects and no problems," adds Bakris, director of the University of Chicago hypertension center.
Eight weeks after undergoing the procedure, 25 patients with early-stage high blood pressure had significantly lower blood pressure than 25 similar patients who underwent a sham chiropractic adjustment. Because patients can't feel the technique, they were unable to tell which group they were in.
X-rays showed that the procedure realigned the Atlas vertebra -- the doughnut-like bone at the very top of the spine -- with the spine in the treated patients, but not in the sham-treated patients.
Compared to the sham-treated patients, those who got the real procedure saw an average 14 mm Hg greater drop in systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure count), and an average 8 mm Hg greater drop in diastolic blood pressure (the bottom blood pressure number).
None of the patients took blood pressure medicine during the eight-week study.
"When the statistician brought me the data, I actually didn't believe it. It was way too good to be true," Bakris says. "The statistician said, 'I don't even believe it.' But we checked for everything, and there it was."
Bakris and colleagues report their findings in the advance online issue of the Journal of Human Hypertension.
Atlas Adjustment and Hypertension
The procedure calls for adjustment of the C-1 vertebra. It's called the Atlas vertebra because it holds up the head, just as the titan Atlas holds up the world in Greek mythology.
Marshall Dickholtz Sr., DC, of the Chiropractic Health Center, in Chicago, is the 84-year-old chiropractor who performed all the procedures in the study. He calls the Atlas vertebra "the fuse box to the body."
"At the base of the brain are two centers that control all the muscles of the body. If you pinch the base of the brain -- if the Atlas gets locked in a position as little as a half a millimeter out of line -- it doesn't cause any pain but it upsets these centers," Dickholtz tells WebMD.
The subtle adjustment is practiced by the very small subgroup of chiropractors certified in National Upper Cervical Chiropractic (NUCCA) techniques. The procedure employs precise measurements to determine a patient's Atlas vertebra alignment. If realignment is deemed necessary, the chiropractor uses his or her hands to gently manipulate the vertebra.
"We are not doctors. We are spinal engineers," Dickholtz says. "We use mathematics, geometry, and physics to learn how to slide everything back into place."
What does this have to do with high blood pressure?
Bakris notes that some researchers have suggested that injury to the Atlas vertebra can affect blood flow in the arteries at the base of the skull. Dickholtz thinks the misaligned Atlas triggers release of signals that make the arteries contract. Whether the procedure actually fixes such injuries is unknown, Bakris says.
Bakris began the study after a fellow doctor told him that something strange was happening in his family practice. The doctor had been sending some of his patients to a chiropractor. Some of these patients had high blood pressure.
Yet after seeing the chiropractor, the patients' blood pressure had normalized -- and a few of them were able to stop taking their blood pressure medications.
So Bakris, then at Rush University, designed the pilot study with 50 patients. He's now organizing a much bigger clinical trial.
"Is it going to be for everybody with high blood pressure? No," Bakris says. "We clearly need to identify those who can benefit. It is pretty clear that some kind of head or neck trauma early in life is related to this. This is really a work in progress. It is certainly in the early stages of research."
Dickholtz has been teaching, practicing, and studying the NUCCA technique for 50 years. He says high blood pressure is far from the only thing an Atlas misalignment causes.
"On the other hand, if people have high blood pressure, there is a tremendous possibility they need an Atlas adjustment," he says.
SOURCES:
Bakris, G. Journal of Human Hypertension, advance online publication, March 2, 2007.
Grassi, G. Journal of Human Hypertension, advance online publication, January 25, 2007.
George Bakris, MD, director, hypertension center, University of Chicago.
Marshall Dickholtz Sr., DC, Chiropractic Health Center, Chicago.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Rogue Chemist Blows Whistle on Big Pharma
June 16, 2006
Shane Ellison's new book, Health Myths Exposed, is a timely and scathing exposé about the war on deadly FDA approved drugs. Ellison felt it was his responsibility to reveal the truth about the sordid tactics of the pharmaceutical industry after he witnessed first-hand, how they deceive the public. In revealing these myths, he also promises to deliver information that will bring you closer to good health and longevity.
Ellison is boldly blazing a trail as he divulges the ten most devastating health myths. During this hard-hitting interview, Ellison discusses several examples of the unethical relationship between BigPharma and the FDA. Ellison is amongst many scientists who are coming forward warning consumers about the inadequacies of the FDA and the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. This interview is a summary of Ellison's new book in which he reveals many examples of the conflicts of interest, propaganda and poor science surrounding the pharmaceutical drug racket.
This groundbreaking interview serves as a key weapon against the relentless promulgation of deadly health myths by those who stand to profit from them. Rather than giving blind loyalty to FDA approved drugs and medical doctors, the wisdom you gain from reading this interview will motivate you to take your health into your own hands. Applying the knowledge from this interview could directly affect the quality of your life, or the life of a loved one.
Get ready to be shocked. Get ready to become angry. But most importantly, get ready to learn some amazing things about yourself and how to live naturally healthy, despite medical doctors and pharmaceutical drugs. Shane Ellison is part of the growing number of whistleblowers in the scientific community who are warning consumers about prescription drugs. At the same time, he brings forth information about safe and effective natural alternatives. Ellison is a menace to those medical doctors who have staked their careers on asserting that FDA approved drugs are safe and effective.
Greg: Shane, can you give our readers a brief background of your history? I understand you used to work for a large pharmaceutical company. Apparently your disgust over what was going on led you to leave and eventually expose some of what you saw.
Shane: I am a drug chemist. I studied biology and chemistry at Fort Lewis College. I continued my education at Northern Arizona University where I earned a Masters Degree in organic chemistry. My research focused on medicinal chemistry, the making of drugs.
After graduation, I worked for Array Biopharma designing Tamoxifen™ derivatives for Eli Lilly. Because Tamoxifen™ was shown to ignite higher cancer rates among women, Eli Lilly hoped to replace it by developing a new "chemical cousin." We were unsuccessful in our attempts. Despite its known danger, Tamoxifen™ remained on the market. I noticed that ads from Eli Lilly for Tamoxifen™ insisted that it might decrease cancer risk. This was the exact opposite of what biochemists found in the lab and reported. This paradox was the catalyst for my investigation into health myths. Ultimately, it resulted in my resignation from corporate drug making.
Greg: Do you know any other colleagues in your field who feel the same way you do?
Shane: Yes, other colleagues felt the same and shared their thoughts with me. However, most scientists find it difficult to "escape" from the pharmaceutical wrath because they are locked into home loans and/or wrapped up in the stigma attached to being associated with this industry. Therefore, most choose to keep their thoughts to themselves. Also, going against the status quo in the drug industry can make life difficult. Committing such an act can risk a scientist's professional career forever. This is best shown by FDA whistleblower Dr. Graham. After warning of the dangers associated with Vioxx™ he described his work environment as one of hostility, threats, and intimidation. This same hostility applies to the environment at a drug company when, as a chemist, you disagree with a given drug's safety and efficacy.
Greg: Are you prohibited from speaking out about anything that went on where you worked?
Shane: No. I am beholden to no one. I have no more ties to the corporate world and can speak freely. This is what makes my book so hard-hitting in relation to other health-related books.
Greg: What kind of collusion did you discover between the FDA and the big drug companies?
Shane: I discovered that top scientists at the FDA have financial conflicts of interest with respect to the drugs that come under their scrutiny. These ties are often in the form of stock options. Such conflicts are commonly waived and hidden from the general public. Allowing these conflicts of interest is a result of lobbying by drug companies. Additionally, as reported in the Washington Times, many scientists are pressured to design and recommend approval of a new drug despite reservations about its safety, effectiveness or quality. This has been going on for years. The results have been, and will continue to be, disastrous.
Greg: Do you think the top executives of the drug companies have any interest whatsoever in curing disease?
Shane: No. Drug design is based on identifying symptoms of a disease and synthesizing a molecule to offset those symptoms. Typically, these molecules are derived from plants or other natural sources. They are simply "copy-cats" of Mother Nature. Unfortunately, because they are slightly altered, they carry large amounts of risk due to fast absorption into the bloodstream. These copycats are also very toxic because the body does not recognize them as being natural.
To reiterate, drug companies do not look for "cause." The drug company business model is based on "sustainability." Rather than find a cause and cure, patients are simply sustained. There is not a single prescription drug that offers a "cure" to any ailment.
Curing a disease versus treating its symptoms does not make "business sense" to drug companies. Just like government can only profit from criminals, the drug industry only makes money from sick people - sick people with insurance.
This business model enables drug companies to make huge profits and guarantees dependency among users. This dependency allows drug companies to pay for Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising, drug trials, university research, government lobbying, and "ghost writers." Combined, these strategies are used to deceive the general public as well as medical doctors.
To further increase profit, drug companies invent disease and subsequently, offer a solution. Herein lies the origin of deadly health myths. Such myths include, but are surely not limited to, that of high cholesterol being the culprit of heart disease, insulin being the only treatment for diabetics and that AIDS, rather than starvation, is killing Africans. Through "junk science" and "ghost writing," the general public and some of the world's most respected health experts have fallen victim to these myths.
Inventing disease is not a "far out" conspiracy theory. It is a simple matter of finding ailments that naturally occur due to poor lifestyle habits and labeling them as a disease. Once "big-pharma" steals jurisdiction over the general public's common sense, they convince them of the necessity of their drugs.
In reality, most so-called diseases can be remedied with lifestyle changes. That is why I stress that habits create and eradicate disease, not drugs. One such habit might be to stop taking FDA approved drugs, which are known to cause a myriad of afflictions. This fact is copiously documented in my book. The biggest health threat to Americans are FDA approved drugs and medical doctors who mandate prescription drug addiction for both adults and children.
As a side note, some would argue that antibiotics cure infection. This is almost true. Antibiotics make us feel better. Inevitably though, their use leads to other infections. And in the long run, man-made antibiotics act as a growth medium for producing stronger and deadlier bacteria. This is hardly a cure, especially when Chinese medicine has successfully and inexpensively cured bacterial and viral infections for thousands of years (see the shrub andrographis).
Greg: Currently the word “CURE” can only be used by medical doctors. Do you think this interferes with other forms of healing?
Shane: Yes. Unfortunately the word "cure" is the sole property of the drug companies. If a nutritional supplement company uses this term they are attacked judiciously. This often leads to bankruptcy. As a result, many natural cures are buried.
Greg: Let's touch briefly on each of the 10 myths that you've outlined in your new book. The first myth you expose is the lack of safety and effectiveness amongst FDA approved drugs. Is the FDA really allowing dangerous drugs on the market that they know will harm people?
The FDA is compromised of well-meaning and dedicated scientists. Unfortunately, this has not stopped the release of drugs that were known to be dangerous prior to their approval. Vioxx™ is the most recent example.
In my book, before the news headlines, I called Vioxx™ the "silent killer". After 100,000 injuries, the dangers of this pain reliever became public. The FDA and Vioxx™ drug maker, Merck, knew of these dangers for at least 4 years prior to its removal. Instead of removing the drug immediately, they kept it on the drug market for matters of wealth not health.
In this chapter, I document a myriad of drugs that were proven dangerous prior to their approval. These drugs are still on the market today. Reading the book will enable millions of people to avoid becoming a victim to the next Vioxx™.
Another good example of this is the FDA approved drug known as Posicor™. Posicor™ was approved in 1997 for the treatment of high blood pressure (hypertension). Prior to approval, the data from the congestive heart failure trials presented at an FDA Advisory Committee meeting on Posicor™ showed that more patients treated with Posicor died than those taking a placebo. This did not stop the FDA's approval of this drug. These injustices to our health and many others are a simple matter of good people, bad politics.
Pharmaceutically compliant politicians have democratized the drug industry. This means that drug approval is a matter of 51% telling the other 49% that deadly drugs are safe and necessary. Science and choice no longer prevail at the FDA or at pharmaceutical companies. To go against the 51% means losing your career. Therefore, the majority of scientists choose to please drug companies, not the general public.
To better substantiate this, we can look to Dr. Curt Furberg. A member of the FDA’s drug safety advisory committee and a well-known authority on drug safety, Dr. Furberg, recently came forward to announce that Bextra ™ (valdecoxib), a chemical cousin of Vioxx™, also causes heart attack and stroke. Published by the British Medical Journal, Dr. Furberg insists that his studies "showed that Bextra is no different than Vioxx, and Pfizer is trying to suppress that information." Immediately thereafter, Dr. Furberg was barred from serving on the panel that is responsible for considering the safety of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors. The end result being more votes in favor of COX 2 inhibitors, the drug company wins by votes – not science.
Dr. David Graham, an FDA employee, has described this type of democracy as a "culture of the FDA". As a result of this culture, the FDA cannot protect Americans from dangerous drugs made by pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Graham told CNN, "The FDA, as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx™. We are virtually defenseless." This is not a revelation that has been discovered by Dr. Graham, it is simply a reminder from a hero in the drug community. As early as 1833, the New York Star wrote that prescriptions serve "as a cloak to ignorance and legalized murder."
The true definition of the FDA must be known. The FDA is an organization that is only qualified to dictate what is legal and illegal with respect to the business of prescription drugs. Despite what most people erroneously believe, this does not mean that the FDA properly defines what is right and wrong with respect to health. This is an import distinction. Drug laws do not dictate what is right and wrong.
Greg: Is there anything that can be done to change what the FDA is doing or do you believe the drug companies hold too much power that will never allow things to change?
Shane: Yes, something can be done to change the deception and fraud committed by the FDA and drug companies. While both organizations hold enormous power, it could be drained overnight if the general public and professionals stopped taking part in prescription drug worship and relied more on common sense.
The power held by drug companies is derived from FDA approved drug addiction amongst the people. People need to stop begging their doctors for drugs. Medical doctors need to rely on their own knowledge and stop taking orders from unqualified drug company sales reps. That these reps assert the safety and effectiveness of drugs to medical doctors is absurd. Rarely, if at all, does a drug rep have any formal training in biochemistry, physiology or medicine. They lack the intelligence needed to make informed decisions on prescription drugs. When making a sales pitch, they simply regurgitate what they have been trained to do by their employer. They are actors, filling the role of real scientists. Drug companies prefer this. They seek out those people with non-science backgrounds. This ensures that their fraud goes unquestioned. Most fail to recognize this.
America's effort to break the FDA approved drug addiction must be distilled in order to have an impact. This means that people must seek natural alternatives to prescription drugs. Natural alternatives to prescription drugs are abundant. Unfortunately, the education of using natural products as medicine was taken out of the medical school curriculum 80 years ago! This was another motivator in writing my book – to expose some amazing natural alternatives.
Adding to this, patients MUST question doctor's orders. Admittedly, questioning doctor's orders will be difficult. Doctors insist that medicine can only be understood by licensed professionals. To maintain this, medicine is littered with intentional obscurity and complexity (such as using cryptic, unpronounceable terminology to name a disease or a drug). Doing this has created a gap between the knowledge of medical doctors and that of the general public. Health knowledge has been removed from the reach of the general public.
As shown by Pulitzer Prize winner Paul Starr, the job security of medical doctors rests in the disparity between doctors and patients. In reality though, medicine can be reduced to the principles of common sense. Once done, patients can hold their doctors accountable for FDA approved drug deaths as well as do away with them all together, outside of emergency medicine of course. The people will then be able to take their health back. This pulls power away from the FDA and drug companies. Sadly, the idea of relying on one's self for health is revolutionary in America, yet logical in most other countries.
To date, the gap or ignorance of FDA approved drugs has created hypochondriacs. This can be seen by the fact that people now pay exorbitant amounts of money on health insurance their entire lives to ensure they have access to prescription drugs. Or, careers with paltry wages are rationalized by having health insurance as a benefit. In this case, health insurance acts as a "Velcro package" sticking people to a false sense of security at the same time stripping them of their free will. Having health insurance to obtain prescription drugs is not a benefit, it is a liability. Simply because a poison is inexpensive via health insurance doesn't mean it is good for you.
Health insurance is an illusion. In reality, it is a means by which medical doctors and drug companies monopolize their power. It dictates the use of prescription drugs and nothing else. When a person has "health insurance" they must, by default, choose prescription drugs. This is the only way their investment can be returned. Therefore, most will never question doctor's orders or seek alternatives; they will simply swallow the pill that makes them ill. Having health insurance eliminates choice in health care.
Consumer choice is the solution to a flawed health care system fueled by health insurance. Having insurance based on choice would enable policyholders to use nutritional supplements, acupuncture, personal trainers, and/or massage therapy in place of prescription drugs. If done, drug companies would crumble and people would begin to see the benefits of alternatives.
Such a plan could be as simple as a "health fund". A fund could earn interest while at the same time provide money toward individualized health care when needed. If it was not used over a lifetime, it could be passed on to a person's heirs. This is a novel approach that would allow for both economic and health freedom. Drug companies, insurance companies and politicians would be forced to take huge pay cuts! At the same time, Americans would become the healthiest industrialized nation on the planet, rather than one of the sickest.
Greg: The 2nd myth you expose in your book is that drug advertising promotes health awareness for consumers. Are these drug companies lying about their products and if so, how are they getting away with it?
Shane: Drug companies take part in what is known as Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising. This advertising is relatively new and was previously illegal. It was thought by the FDA that DTC advertising would promote health awareness amongst consumers. Therefore, in an outrageous conflict of interest, the FDA granted this responsibility to the drug companies.
Supporters of DTC advertising say that it bridges the gap between doctors and patients. This is only true if DTC advertising were honest. Sadly, we find drug companies are in clear violation of the law due to making false and exaggerated claims about effectiveness and safety.
To better illustrate this, we can look to Pfizer. Pfizer falsely advertised that a condition known as rhabdomyolysis (muscle pain) occurred at a much lower rate among Lipitor™ users relative to their competitor's drug. Consequently, millions of patients were prescribed Lipitor™ at dosages higher than recommended in an effort to plummet cholesterol levels faster. The result was disastrous, thousands suffered unnecessarily from rhabdomyolysis.
The pain killer, OxyContin™, is another example of false advertising. Makers of the drug, Purdue Pharma L.P., falsely advertised that the addiction rate among the opium-based drug was a mere 1%. Approved only as a "last resort" drug for cancer patients, naïve medical doctors began to prescribe the drug as a "first resort". Prescriptions for Oxycontin rose from 300,000 to nearly 6 million. At the same time, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reported that deaths from OxyContin™ rose 400%.
Instead of bridging the gap, DTC advertising has increased the number of people who have fallen victim to FDA approved drugs. It is hard to decipher which is more dangerous, the ads or the drugs? To date, no drug company has EVER been prosecuted for false advertising. The FDA simply ignores these violations. To avoid the prescription drug trap, it is important to understand how drug ads are designed to deceive us.
Greg: The 3rd myth is that pharmaceutical drugs improve the quality of human life. You actually open the chapter up with this fact: "When used as prescribed, pharmaceutical drugs kill more people than terrorism, car crashes, AIDS, and street drugs combined." Can you expound on this subject further for our readers?
Shane: Many health professionals have come forward in the Journal of the American Medical Association to highlight the fact that prescription drugs are one of the biggest killers in the U.S. Despite this coverage, the general public is largely unaware of the death toll brought about by prescription drug use - this can be seen by their ravenous appetite for prescription drugs.
Apparently, most people do not see the link between prescription drugs and early death. The link is not strikingly noticeable to medical doctors either as most write these deaths off as worsening health. Never will you read a death certificate that says, "Death by FDA approved drug". Instead, it is, "Death by cancer" or, in the case of Vioxx™, it was, "Death by heart disease".
If death is not an outcome, then many prescription drug users are forced into drug servitude simply to offset negative side effects from the initial drug they were prescribed. After reading this chapter, anyone can clearly see the link between FDA approved drugs and early death. The magnitude of this is highlighted in detail.
Greg: The 4th myth is that professional medicine reporting is honest and trustworthy. Are you saying this is all just one big huge scam?
Shane: Professional medicine reporting has no doubt tainted the once respected scientific method. Today, drug companies utilize a large majority of their profits to pay for and design their own studies. Additionally, "ghost writers" are hired to write favorable reviews of drugs despite their known dangers. These reviews are published in peer reviewed medical journals, which are used by medical doctors to get information on FDA approved drugs. Ultimately, doctors are hoodwinked into thinking that a given drug is safe and effective when, in reality, it poses great risk without benefit.
In this chapter, I outline the exact mechanism by which medical doctors are falsely convinced that a given FDA approved drug is safe and effective. I hope medical doctors are listening.
Greg: The 5th myth is that nutritional supplements are dangerous and ineffective. That seems to be the standard line often parroted by the media, FDA, and the drug companies. If nutritional supplements really were dangerous, we would be seeing thousands of deaths a year, which in comparison to drugs is miniscule. But the truth is there's hardly any deaths ever reported with supplements, if any at all. What do you get into in this chapter of your book?
Shane: I highlight the importance and history of some of the most beneficial nutritional supplements available and compare their efficacy and safety to current FDA approved drugs. I also discuss strategies that are used to convince Americans that nutritional supplements are dangerous and ineffective. These strategies are known as "controlled opposition" and are used to ban nutritional alternatives that tread on pharmaceutical turf.
This chapter is a blessing for those looking for nutritional supplements to aid in longevity, childhood development, prevention and reversal of heart disease, as well as cancer.
Greg: The 6th myth is that high cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease. I'm sure this chapter will be a serious eye opener for many people because high cholesterol is used to scare millions into a lifetime of drug use. What's the real truth about cholesterol and what should people really be looking for?
Shane: Myth 6 is dedicated to disproving the myth that high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease. If low cholesterol levels prevent heart disease, then victims of heart attacks should have high cholesterol. This is not so. Over half of all heart attack victims (those who suffer from heart disease) have low cholesterol. This logic is too simple. Highly educated folks totally miss this one. Therefore, the entire chapter reveals evidence, which disproves this myth. It also highlights how to avoid early death from heart disease using scientifically proven, natural approaches.
To further implement an attack on the cholesterol myth, I dedicated a separate chapter to stress the importance of cholesterol. This is chapter 7. According to studies over the last hundred years, the higher our cholesterol, the longer we live. This might be a revelation for most. As such, it will be hard to comprehend. Yet, science has consistently shown this to be true.
The most widely respected medical journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, published a study entitled: Cholesterol and Mortality. 30 Years of Follow-up from the Framingham study. Shocking to most, this in-depth study showed that after the age of 50, there is no increased overall death associated with high cholesterol! There was, however, a direct association between low levels (or dropping levels) of cholesterol and increased death. Specifically, medical researchers reported that death rates increased by 14% for every 1mg/dl drop in total cholesterol levels per year. These results, and many others, have not stopped medical doctors from making blanket prescriptions for cholesterol lowering drugs to anyone with a heart beat…This must be why medical doctors carry a stethoscope around their neck (laughs).
Greg: Myth 8 is that cholesterol-lowering drugs are effective at preventing heart disease. Tell us why this isn't true and tell us how dangerous these statin drugs really are?
Shane: Millions of people insist that because their new statin drug (i.e. Lipitor, Pravachol, Crestor) or nutritional supplement (i.e. red yeast rice, policosanol) plummeted their total cholesterol level from 225 to 180 mg/dL, they are safe from the pandemic killer heart disease. Despite the statin drug addiction, the death rate from heart disease has not changed over the last 75 years and mortality from heart failure is more than double what it was in 1996. Most shocking is that the cholesterol lowering drug trials even failed to show a correlation between low cholesterol and heart disease!
If low cholesterol prevented heart disease, then studies would show a correlation between drug-induced low cholesterol and prevention of heart disease. The earlier cholesterol lowering drugs, known as "fibrates," failed to show such a correlation. The U.S. General Accounting Office recognized this and intervened. In their report to Congress, entitled Cholesterol Treatment - A Review of the Clinical Trials Evidence, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) stated: "With respect to total fatalities-that is, deaths from CHD [heart disease] and all other causes-most meta-analyses show no significant difference and thus no improvement in overall survival rates in the trials [using fibrates] that included either persons with known CHD or persons without it."
The "fibrate" drugs have been replaced by new cholesterol lowering drugs known as "statins". These drugs ALSO show no correlation between drug-induced low cholesterol and the prevention of heart disease! Looking at 5 major statin drug trials, these being PROSPER, ALLHAT-LLT, ASCOT-LLA, AFCAPS and WOSCOPS, statin drugs provided an Absolute Risk Reduction in total mortality of 0.3%.
These facts go ignored. Medical doctors and drug companies hide the truth with complexity and obscurity via statistical contortionists. Don’t be fooled. It is the "spin" created by the media that has convinced the masses that these drugs prevent heart disease, not the science.
In reality, the only thing that cholesterol-lowering drugs do is lower cholesterol. Users will have to face the negative side effects of both the drug and of having low cholesterol. This is a crucial point! Combined, these side effects include, but are not limited to, lack of energy and sex drive, cancer, heart disease, and loss of short-term memory. That people have relinquished their health to cholesterol lowering drugs is a great reminder that advertising hype often supercedes common sense.
Greg: Myth 9 is that ephedra causes heart attacks, strokes and seizures. What's the real reason for the FDA's ban of ephedra?
Shane: Interestingly, most of the negative side effects attributed to the plant ephedra were caused by the commonly used FDA approved drug ephedrine. This was well documented by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Ephedra posed huge competition for drug companies in the areas of obesity, asthma and bronchitis. Drug companies were losing millions of dollars, literally. Like all natural medicines that step on pharmaceutical turf, ephedra was banned. To date, there is not a single study which proves ephedra to be dangerous or that can document a single death from the use of ephedra. The same cannot be said for ephedrine. The ban of ephedra is a great example of how people are falsely convinced of dangers associated with natural medicine.
Greg: Myth 10 is that dieting is the cure for obesity. Given that we're getting into diet season, what do you feel is the real cause of obesity and what do you find to be most effective for losing fat?
Shane: Contrary to popular belief, the cure to obesity is not the antiquated model of working off more calories than you consume via exercise. This model is still heavily promoted despite its inability to conquer obesity. Don't we all know somebody who eats whatever they want yet remains rail-thin despite their lack of exercise? To know the cure, one must understand the cause.
There are definitive causes of obesity. They may include, but are not limited to, FDA approved drugs such as anti-depressants, blood pressure medications or Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drugs. Or it could be a sedentary lifestyle, caloric restriction from dieting, excess sugar intake or genetics – factors that can compromise thermogenesis.
Thermogenesis could be considered a person's God-given right to be thin. It regulates excess calories consumed via heat production. Instead of storing calories as fat, thermogenesis rids them from our body by converting them to heat. It is our innate ability to get rid of food that our body does not need. Activating thermogenesis is the most effective way to lose fat, regardless of the cause. Doing so, allows a person to burn fat without exercise. Activating thermogenesis can be done by consuming certain foods or nutritional supplements.
The most important way to activate thermogenesis is by abstaining from sugar (sucrose and fructose), artificial flavors (aspartame and sucralose) and high glycemic index (GI) foods. To further simplify, a person could simply stop drinking soda, this includes diet soda. All of the aforementioned factors block your body's ability to burn fat. As a result, your body only burns carbohydrates while storing fat. I call it a biochemical nightmare. Over time, the nightmare is irreversible and results in what is known as insulin resistance.
To digress, the glycemic index (GI) is an important concept to comprehend. It is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the rate at which they spike blood sugar (glucose) levels after eating. Foods that have a low glycemic index have GI ratings of 1-55. High glycemic index foods spike insulin and therefore block a person's ability to burn fat.
Meal planning among those wanting to lose fat should be based on quality protein and fats from healthy sources (nuts, seeds, grass fed animals, eggs and wild fish) as well as low glycemic index carbohydrates (with the emphasis on vegetables and careful amounts of whole, unprocessed grains). The relative ratio of each should be determined by age, gender, lifestyle, and health condition.
Greg: When someone has a "sick" car and they take it to a mechanic, the mechanic is accountable. The car owner shows some accountability by bringing the car in to the mechanic. If the mechanic doesn't do his job by repairing the car, he/she is not paid. If the mechanic replaces a faulty part, he makes the supplier accountable; in the same manner, a doctor should make the drug companies accountable for selling faulty drugs. Ideally, doctors should not be paid when people are sick; they should only be paid when people are well. If drugs don't work (and side effects are created), refunds and compensation should be given. In the analogy of the car, the patient must also be accountable by proving to the doctor that they are taking initiatives in their health (by eating more fruits and vegetables, exercising, drinking more water etc….). We have surrendered to a system that causes people to be complacent. Patients are looking for "duct tape" rather than being proactive in taking control of their health. With all that being said, how would you recommend that the FDA be changed so that honesty, integrity and trust can be restored to what has become one of the most corrupt institutions in our government?
Shane: The FDA should be banned all together. It is an example of an organization that has failed in its regulatory process. Like any government agency that fails to fulfill its mission statement, it must be done away with. Otherwise, more people will die. Those not in agreement with this do not see the full devastation of their actions or, perhaps, do not understand them. Regulation doesn't work with illicit drugs and it does not work with prescription drugs. If the FDA were independent, I doubt that this would solve any problems. It would be a minority of people trying to decide what is right for the majority. This is tyranny. Political tyranny results in angry people. Health tyranny results in sick people.
The FDA is accountable to the people yet they have failed in their sole objective of being the custodian of our health. We are the ones who have voted for their existence and they have failed to protect us. Therefore, it is up to the people to decide upon their fate. As we all start taking more initiatives towards our wellness, we can also express our concerns over their competency by saying "no" to the drugs that they approve. As a reminder, their drugs kill over 100,000 people every year. This would be akin to the entire population of Buffalo, New York being wiped out every year. If a car company like Chevrolet were responsible for this death toll there would be blood in the streets.
In a perfect world, people would take responsibility for their own health. Also, medical doctors would be left to practice emergency medicine, not health care.
Greg: How can people contact you if they'd like to learn more about your work or set up an interview?
Shane: Their best bet would be to go to my website at www.healthmyths.net. All my contact information is there. They can also order my book from my site but I would strongly encourage people reading this interview to order my book through CRUSADOR in order to help support the fine work you're doing Greg.
Greg: Well Shane, it's been a pleasure hearing your thoughts. You have an urgent message to deliver to the world and I hope this interview helps alert more people to these deadly deceptions.
Shane: Thanks for interviewing me Greg. I wish your fine organization nothing but the best. You're one of the few media sources left that isn't afraid to proclaim the truth.
Shane could be considered a renegade by many mainstream, formally trained nutritionists and dietitians because of his "politically incorrect" use of various safe and effective nutritional supplements. Shane is amongst a small minority of scientists who are genuinely committed to improving the health of consumers. His passion for educating consumers about the dangers of ineffective drugs is, indeed, a large part of the solution. Those who are looking for true health will appreciate the content of Shane's book.
Shane holds a Master’s degree in organic chemistry and has first hand experience in drug design. Abandoning synthetic medicine, he is an independent researcher, a consultant to the nutritional supplement industry and developer of the SafeTaste Certification ™ seal. Shane is responsible for designing numerous safe and effective nutritional supplements for longevity, fat loss and sports performance. He is a member of The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics as well as a proud husband and father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
