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

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

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

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

1. This isn’t new.

2. This isn’t research.

3. This isn’t meaningful.

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

5. Natural vitamins and minerals are lifesavers.

6. Over the top on synthetics!

7. Two bites at the cherry.

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

California Targeting Safe Supplements
Don’t Let Them Succeed

ACT NOW

March 24, 2008

CALIFORNIA‘S PROPOSITION 65 AFFECTS EVERYONE

California - ever known for its luscious beauty, endless energy, and general wackiness - is on the verge of stepping off the edge of the cliff yet again.  A trial balloon is being floated by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to limit the potency of vitamin-and-mineral supplements under California’s Proposition 65 as cancer-causing agents.

          Proposition 65’s history is well-known within the State.  In November 1986, voters in the State of California approved Proposition 65, in the belief that its passage would help protect them from toxic chemicals in the environment.  Officially known as the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,” almost everyone these days just calls it Prop 65.  Prop 65 requires the State to publish a list of those chemicals “known” to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.  This list is updated at least annually and has ballooned to include some 775 chemicals.  Although Prop 65 uses the term “known,” in the real world substances on the list are not necessarily known to cause cancer but are only those that could, under certain circumstances, pose a risk of cancer based upon the interpretation of existing scientific data, such as animal studies.

          Prop 65 also requires businesses with 10 or more employees to notify Californians about the presence of listed chemicals in their products, in consumers’ and employees’ homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment.  The law further prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into drinking-water sources.  OEHHA administers this program.

          Scott Tips, the President and General Counsel of the National Health Federation, notes that, “Without the warnings on listed products, private legal bounty hunters can sue those companies in violation of Prop 65, even though no harm from the products is ever demonstrated, and exact enormous legal and other costs.  While some (not much) good has resulted from Prop 65, like all government programs the good intentions quickly lead to enormously bad consequences that far outstrip any possible good.  One easy example of this is the Prop 65 listing of natural progesterone as a cancer-causing agent when in fact it helps counteract the carcinogenic effects of estrogen.  Natural, bioidentical progesterone is an important hormone-replacement therapy for women, many of whom have been unfortunately scared away from its health benefits by the Prop 65 warnings that are mandated on the product.”

           “Without such warnings,” Mr. Tips continues, “the products and their manufacturers and distributors are sitting ducks.  In fact, one growth industry spawned by Prop 65 consists of numerous private law firms dedicated to shooting first and asking questions later in a “no prisoners taken” attempt to earn huge legal fees while doing a bare-minimum of public good.  The State and County governments may also bring legal action, but often it is these vulture firms that are first out of the gate to win the jackpot.  After all, BMWs and exotic vacations must be paid for somehow.”

          OEHHA, it says, is proposing regulatory language - in concept only and not as a formal regulatory proposal, mind you - that would essentially classify all vitamin-and-mineral dietary supplements with above-RDA potencies (note they still use the old Recommended Daily Allowance term instead of the correct RDI, or Recommended Dietary Intake) as cancer-causing agents unless proven otherwise.  Because California’s Prop 65 has nationwide impact due to the size of the market, consumers can easily imagine the harm this will do with substances that have a long history of being incredibly safe and effective.

          ”Certain chemicals or compounds such as vitamins and minerals are necessary to promote human health or to ensure the healthy growth of food crops. Excessive exposures to these same chemicals or compounds can cause cancer or adverse reproductive effects.  OEHHA is seeking a way to balance the need for these nutrients with the necessity for providing Proposition 65 warnings for exposures to listed chemicals in foods. OEHHA has developed draft regulatory language that addresses this issue, which can be found below.” (emphasis added)

          OEHHA has then proposed the following regulatory “concept” (conveniently worded already by the Agency’s legal department):

          ”Section 1250X. Exposure to Beneficial Nutrients in a Food

(a) Human consumption of a food shall not constitute an “exposure” for purposes of Section 25249.6 of the Act to a listed chemical in a food if the person causing the exposure to the chemical can show that the chemical is a nutrient that is beneficial to human health and that the total amount of the chemical consumed in a food, whether naturally occurring, intentionally added to the food, or otherwise present, does not exceed the level established in subsection (c).
(b) For purposes of this section, a chemical is beneficial to human health if a daily value or allowance has been established for the chemical or compound by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National Academies.
(c) This section applies only to exposures that do not exceed the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) established in the Dietary Reference Intake Tables of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National Academies, current edition, if one is established. If no RDA is established, this section applies only to exposures that do not exceed 20 percent (20%) of the Tolerable Upper Intake Level established in the Dietary Reference Intake Tables of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National Academies, current edition.” (emphasis added)

          In its Notice, OEHHA has set two key dates for public input: (1) A public meeting on April 18, 2008, to be held from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the Sierra Hearing Room at the California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building located at 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California, where OEHHA will hold a public workshop for the ostensible purpose of gathering input from interested parties concerning the issues raised by these regulatory “concepts”; and (2) Written submissions to be received from all interested parties no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 2008, directed to the attention of Fran Kammerer, Staff Counsel, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95812; or by e-mail to fkammerer@oehha.ca.gov.

          The National Health Federation has already consulted with outside legal counsel specialized in this area of law for the express purpose of stopping this idea from proceeding beyond its conceptual stage.  NHF will be in attendance at the April 18th meeting and will be submitting cogent written comments, assisted by scientific and legal experts, opposing this regulatory “concept.”  The Federation is also exploring legal action against the Agency should it proceed in any way with implementing its concept.  This is critical and will affect individuals, supplement manufacturers, and vitamin retailers.  This is not just a California issue.  Anyone who depends on supplements for their health or livelihood must voice their opposition.

          In the meantime, the NHF asks all interested parties to sign our on-line petition opposing this ridiculous concept, which the Federation will then personally submit to OEHHA.  (Go to http://thenhf.com/press_releases/prop65_petition.htm.)  The NHF also asks all interested parties to provide us with any scientific and legal data that they might have supporting our position that vitamins and minerals are not carcinogenic and therefore do not belong on the Proposition 65 list, so that all pertinent information may be included into the Federation’s comments and possible lawsuit.

March 21, 2008 OEHHA Notice http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/regs032108.html

(Click Here For The Online Petition)

Inform others to sign our on-line petition-send this link to the press release

April 18, 2008 Public Hearing
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Sierra Hearing Room
California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building located
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California
Please attend and voice your opposition.

Written opposition submissions:
Directed to the attention of Fran Kammerer, Staff Counsel
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California  95812
Comments due by May 2, 2008

E-mail Opposition:
fkammerer@oehha.ca.gov

1- Log on to: www.goodsearch.com

2- In the “Who do you GoodSearch for?” box, type in Citizens for Healthcare Freedom (Raleigh, NC) and click the “verify” button.

OR: to pre-select, simply type in your browser: http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=833735

3- Start searching the internet as you normally would.

Start using GoodSearch today — there’s no reason not to!

Also, if you leave us as your “GoodSearch” choice, you can also now use their new feature called “GoodShop.” Just click on this link:

http://www.goodsearch.com/goodshop.aspx

Remember to choose us [Citizens for Healthcare Freedom (Raleigh, NC)]

Thanks so much for helping us help North Carolina have natural health options available!

Is it possible for the young parent of today to understand the transformation that has taken place in this country and the world in the last fifty years regarding child nutrition? American children from birth to twelve are not receiving adequate nutrition for optimal growth in the aspects of cognitive, physical, and social development. Children are the future of America. Producing and developing undernourished children could only result in an inferior America.

The major causes of this decline are complex but some things are very clear. Every cell in the body is created by macronutrient and micronutrient intake. The more optimal the diet the more healthful the body. What are American children eating today and why?

At the beginning of the 20th century, if an American child wanted a snack, it consisted of a piece of fruit or some nuts or bread and cheese. There were very few commercial snacks available. Now, in 2007, we see children eating mostly processed food, sugary cereals, beverages, and snacks and very few unprocessed fruits and vegetables. Our soils in this country are almost completely devoid of nutrients. One of the reasons for this is that our chemical fertilizers replace only three nutrients as opposed to more than 50 natural nutrients that should be in our soils. Produce, grown in these soils, has little nutrient value. Eating organic foods exponentially augments the nutrient value, yet, parents frequently perceive organic food as too expensive. This is not so in the long run.

School lunches became available in the United States in the late 1800’s. These meals were healthy foods, served to assure that no child went without proper nutrition. The school lunches have, paradoxically, become foods of little nutritional value and foods to avoid. Vending machine junk foods and fast foods sold in cafeterias have made the availability of wholesome foods impossible during the school day. There is evidence that high incidence of ADHD has been traced to the chemicals and preservatives contained in these processed foods as well as nutrient deficiencies. Learning disabilities and behavioral disorders are often associated with toxicological insults on our children at a very young age. Our children are exposed to an enormous level of environmental toxins from food and water. Their bodies cannot process these toxins as efficiently as an adult can because their organs are still developing. The effect of toxic exposure on children can be six to ten times higher than on adults. Schools making moderate to major changes in the food fed to children have experienced positive results, such as minimizing behavior problems and improving test scores. Let your school officials hear your voice regarding school lunches and eliminating junk food and drinks in the school. Make sure the water available to your child is pure.

The problem begins with the government allowing the commercial food industry to influence American children strongly by unregulated advertising of processed and junk foods. Linn, a Harvard psychologist, calls it “brainwashing” and wants it to end. Many other countries, around the world, have outlawed this practice and have seen success, thereafter. Adults are “brainwashed” as well. Convincing commercial food advertising claims that their brands are good for our children and for us. Rest assured, their only motivation is a financial one. They are not in business to make us healthy but rather to make a profit at the expense of our health. Studies have shown that it takes only thirty seconds for a television commercial to influence a child age 2-6. Many researchers believe that television advertising is an attempt to take over children’s minds. How often do your children beg for a low nutrition food product they saw on TV? Television is undermining parent’s best intentions. Is it time to turn off the television? Maybe we need to pressure the federal government to subsidize commercials for whole foods; nutritious fruits and vegetables and whole grains.

Prenatal nutrition of the mother is also of immense importance. More and more women are miscarrying due to poor nutrition or toxic environments. If the mother-to-be has not developed a nutritionally sound diet and improved her body then how can she provide the embryo with the nutrients it needs? Breast feeding is of utmost importance to provide the neonate with the nutrients DHA and EPA which are imperative for optimal brain development. Formulas, no matter how prepared, cannot match the nutrients of breast milk. However, good breast milk is available only from healthy mothers.

One of the critical periods for the development of good nutrition values in children are from the last trimester of fetal life to three years of age. The other is around the age of nine years of age. All young children can learn the value of good nutrition if parents, schools, and health providers work together toward this goal. The most important influence is the modeling parents perform with their own nutritional choices. A double standard does not work. Children will eat what the rest of the family eats. Child obesity is epidemic in this country. However, adult obesity is epidemic as well. Parent’s would not intentionally harm their children but many are doing just that because of lack of knowledge. Children should be our highest priority.

There are many ways to change one’s nutritional paradigm and dietary lifestyle. This is not something that happens by “putting oneself on a diet” and it does not happen quickly. Remember, we are all brainwashed at this point. Joining a group program focusing on low glycemic eating and nutritional education can be a starting point. Slow and steady change is most effective. Whether you are a parent of a young child or a grandparent or relative, you want what is best for the young child in your life. Learn more about nutrition so you can be a good model for them.

Sally Nay, Ph.D., is a Holistic Health Consultant with Integrative Therapies. Her undergraduate studies include a dual major in Early Childhood and Elementary Education. Her Master’s Degree in Education includes an emphasis in Montessori Education. She received her Montessori Certification from the Association Montessori Internationale. She is the founder of Deer Path Montessori School. Dr. Nay earned her doctorate in Holistic Nutrition. Another area of her expertise is nutritious eating for weight management. (336) 294- 0910.

Lipitor Ads Spark Congressional Probe

Look at what Dr. Joseph Mercola writes about cholesterol in the above linked article, “Some 30 years ago, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) was an affliction of middle-aged men with cholesterol over 300 plus other risk factors, such as smoking and obesity. Since then, the massive fear about this non-disease has been created largely by the drug companies. They have done this while simultaneously manipulating the definition of high cholesterol by controlling the government panels that are responsible for the definitions. This combination has led to absolutely spectacular profits of tens of billions of dollars, as their reward for their effective market manipulation. By 1984 anyone (male or female) with cholesterol over 200 could receive the dreaded diagnosis and a prescription for pills. Then it was moved down to 180. Today, we’re down to recommended levels of less than 100 and drugs are prescribed to children as young as 10 years old.”

Notice how the “target number” keeps dropping? The ONLY way a normal person can achieve such drastically LOW (un-natural) numbers is with an artificial, pharmaceutical drug! The drug companies have well known personalities and actors, and some “manufactured” personalities, pushing their drugs to us via commercials. Again, Dr. Mercola points this out in this statement, “Lipitor has been running a series of ads in which a kindly ‘doctor,’ Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart, tells viewers about the benefits of the cholesterol-lowering medication Lipitor. These ads, and their use of celebrity endorsers such as Jarvik, are now being investigated by Congress for potentially misleading viewers. In the ads, Dr. Jarvik appears to be giving medical advice, but he has never obtained a license to practice or prescribe medicine. Critics of the drug industry claim that such ads emotionally manipulate viewers and under-emphasize the potential side effects of drugs. The congressional probe focuses on the Lipitor ads, but will likely examine others, such as actress Sally Field’s endorsement of the osteoporosis drug Boniva.”

Statins, like Lipitor, which the kindly Dr. Jarvik is pushing on the air, is actually BAD for those concerned with their heart… again, Dr. Mercola says, “Statins such as Lipitor are a particularly bad choice for diabetics, but they are a poor treatment even if your only worry is your heart health. Now, statins do lower LDL (bad) cholesterol very well. The problem is they lower it too well, because cholesterol is still a necessary and natural chemical that your body needs. Cholesterol:

* Waterproofs your cell walls
* Helps repair cells
* Is vital for digesting fats, regulating hormone levels, and neurological function

Despite cholesterol’s infamous reputation, having too little of it in your body is as dangerous, if not more so, than too much. Therefore, the result of taking statin drugs can be numerous dangerous side effects, including:

* Muscle pain and weakness (most likely due to the depletion of Co-Q10)
* Dizziness and cognitive impairment,
* Depression
* Pancreatitis
* Increased cancer risk
* Heart failure

The last one is rather counter to the whole supposed point of cholesterol-lowering drugs, don’t you think? And there is this additional evidence that it more than doubles your risk of stroke if you are diabetic, in return for no benefits whatsoever — unless you enjoy anything on this list; these are the possible consequences of taking statins in strong doses or for a lengthy period of time:

* Depression of mental acuity
* Anemia
* Acidosis
* Frequent fevers
* Cataracts”

So, this points out that more than ever we need to maintain a critical eye toward the claims of drug pushing doctors, organizations, and commercials. THINK FOR YOURSELF! Even President Bush said in his last State of the Union message, “We must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options.”

If you ARE concerned about your cholesterol, what would be a good approach to heading off problems? Dr. Mercola gives this advice, “Make no mistake, Lipitor completely fails to treat the underlying problems causing your high levels of cholesterol. Statins are non-specific inhibitors of a number of very important liver enzymes, including the enzyme that causes your liver to make cholesterol when it is stimulated by high insulin levels. A far more sensible treatment therefore, is to simply shut down the enzyme that makes cholesterol by reducing your insulin and leptin levels, which is the underlying cause of your high cholesterol. By eliminating sugar and most grains, you won’t cause this important enzyme to be blocked, and you also will not block other vital coenzymes such as CoQ10. This is also exactly what you should be doing if you are diabetic. To normalize your cholesterol level naturally, and keep your diabetes under control at the same time, these three primary strategies work well 99 percent of the time if properly implemented:

* Exercise daily
* Eat a low grain, low sugar diet
* Take a high quality omega-3 supplement

The omega-3 fats in krill oil or fish oil will influence your HDL cholesterol levels far more safely and effectively than taking a pill — and for a small fraction of the cost.”

Amen, Brother!

A New Understanding of The Effect Of Vitamin C on Cancer Cells

“More than thirty years ago Linus Pauling and coworkers pioneered the therapeutic use of high doses of vitamin C (ascorbate) on terminal cancer patients, with promising results. Attempts by mainstream medicine to confirm Pauling’s results failed, largely because patients were given vitamin C orally, whereas Pauling’s group had gone the intravenous route. Intravenous administration achieves ascorbate concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher. Neglected by mainstream medicine, intravenous vitamin C cancer treatment continued as an alternative medical practice, although the establishment of the U.S. National Cancer Institute Best Case Series prompted a recent report of three well-documented case studies of successful vitamin C cancer therapy(1). There was another reason for the mainstream’s skepticism - the proposed mechanism of action of ascorbate appeared questionable. It was assumed that the antioxidant simply protected DNA from free radical damage, but this should protect the genetic material of healthy and cancerous tissues alike. The idea that ensuring DNA integrity should selectively favor healthy tissue over tumors seemed implausible. Indeed, this interpretation turned out to be wrong. A group at Johns Hopkins Medical School reported recently that antioxidants inhibited three tumorigenic models in vivo, but that ‘[inhibition of a human B lymphoma model was] unassociated with genomic instability but was linked to diminished hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) levels…’(2). What the researchers found was that the differential effect of ascorbate on healthy tissue and cancer cells had nothing to do with the protection of DNA. Instead, ascorbate influenced the HIF-promoted transcription of selected genes. It was the suppression of the transcription of these genes by ascorbate that affected tumors and healthy tissues differently.

What is hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)?

Hypoxia-inducible factor regulates the transcription of genes involved in angiogenesis, glucose uptake and metabolism, as well as other cellular functions. HIF is a protein that occurs in all mammalian cell types and that is activated when oxygen levels fall(3). Normal oxygen levels deactivate HIF by hydroxylating key proline and asparagine residues. These hydroxylation reactions are catalyzed by enzymes containing divalent iron at the active site, and require molecular oxygen. Ascorbate is needed to keep iron in the ferrous (divalent) state for these HIF-deactivating enzymes to function properly. HIF deactivation in turn prevents or slows gene transcription of proteins promoting angiogenesis and glucose metabolism(3) A growing tumor, unlike healthy tissue, needs new blood vessels (angiogenesis) to ensure a continuous supply of nutrients. And it had been known that HIF is often activated in solid tumors(3). Suppression of angiogenesis by deactivating hypoxia-inducible factor therefore selectively disadvantages tumor cells.”

Organic foods, vitamins, homeopathy, herbal supplements, etc. are abundantly available to us now through various health food stores, the Internet, retail stores, and healthcare practitioners in our state. We also are free to choose among our many licensed and unlicensed healing arts professionals for our healthcare preferences. Let’s keep it that way.

The first step to guarantee these choices will continue to be accessible is to pass “The NC Consumer Health Freedom Act” House Bill 1358 in 2008. HB 1358 is an amendment to the medical licensing law that allows the practice of complementary and alternative forms of health care. This is an important piece of legislation.

A special committee was recently appointed to study and investigate the need for this legislation and report back to the Speaker of the House. Their findings stated as many as 3,300,000 North Carolinians presently receive a substantial volume of health care services from complementary and alternative health care providers. Passing HB 1358 will allow professional alternative health care providers to offer their valuable services legally and safely, creating a safer environment for the practice of alternative healthcare and ensuring that you are free to select the broadest possible range of health care modalities.

Become a part of the statewide-network advocating for your healthcare freedom. Here’s what YOU can do for YOUR HEALTH FREEDOM

• Get involved! Become a member of NCCHF!
• Volunteer – every one counts and is needed!
• Spread the Word!
• Sign our Petition - Support our goal of 10,000 signatures by May 2008
• Support our goal to raise $100,000 to:
  • Lobby the NC Legislature
  • Educate consumers
  • Protect our Rights
• Join our mailing list to stay informed!
• Check out our website at www.ncchf.org for the latest news, projects and how you can help.

Click HERE to become a member of CHF and help us work to maintain your Natural Health Freedoms!

Working together, we can improve and maintain our right to make our own healthcare choices.

Your interest, involvement and financial support in Citizens for Healthcare Freedom in North Carolina are critical to moving forward with HB 1358.

May good health be yours,
Dr. Claiborne R. Holtzman, ND

The primary reason we have not been able to move this bill forward is because we haven’t had the financial resources or the “large numbers” of people involved at the grassroots level to make this issue a “priority issue” with our NC legislators. In order to achieve our goal of passing a North Carolina Health Freedom Act - or simply put, to ensure access to alternative healthcare practitioners, we need to get more people involved in CHF and raise the funds to carry out our legislative and association efforts over the coming months and years.

Without CHF working in support of alternative healthcare in NC, the opponents of alternative would no doubt put the entire scope of anything related to “natural health,” “alternative healthcare” or “complementary healthcare” totally under the jurisdiction of the NC Medical Society. Stated in dollar terms, it takes $25,000 to $30,000 per year to fund a minimal lobbying effort. A major lobbying effort can cost well in excess of $100,000 per year. Some groups, such as the Medical Society (MD’s) spend millions on lobbying efforts. We can’t even think about what is spent by some groups opposed to natural health access, but we can achieve great success if we can raise enough money to cover our legislative lobbying expenses. This has to be a priority for us!

Also, we need to get as many signatures on our petition for HB 1358 as we can as soon as we can to demonstrate a grassroots interest in allowing for healthcare freedoms for all our citizens.