alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-05-21--Will States Let Natural Health Practitioners Battle COVID-19?

States have untapped resources that can help residents stay healthy .
They should not be ignored .
Action Alert !
New York State has expanded the scope of practice of nurse practitioners and physician ’ s assistants during the COVID-19 pandemic by relaxing the requirement that these practitioners work under the supervision of a physician .
These orders should be expanded to natural health practitioners such as naturopathic doctors ( NDs ) , who in many cases must work under a limited scope of practice that can involve supervision by a physician .
Loosening these restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the practitioner of their choice , particularly naturopaths and NDs who specialize in prevention .
We ’ ve been writing about the many promising natural substances for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and how most of these medicines are completely ignored by the government and the medical establishment .
Media outlets have summed up the views of conventional medicine : supplements are useless , and there ’ s no such thing as “ boosting ” immunity to ward off infection .
Instead , conventional medicine and government cronies wait for a vaccine or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 , going so far as to push dangerous drugs that have no statistically significant effect on mortality .
Never has there been more of a need to incorporate the precepts of integrative medicine into the standard of care .
Practitioners of natural medicine understand that many Americans are deficient in many micronutrients which can have dramatic impacts on long-term health and immunity .
They understand the dangers that come with taking multiple prescription drugs , especially for chronic illnesses that are amenable to dietary and lifestyle changes .
Practitioners of natural medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ optimal health , rather than simply treating sick patients with pharmaceutical drugs .
NDs are educated at accredited , four-year medical schools .
Unfortunately , many states do not allow NDs to practice to the level of their skill and training , or they don ’ t allow them to communicate their skill and training to consumers .
This prevents consumers from making informed choices about the practitioner they want , and in many cases prevents consumers from accessing practitioners other than doctors who practice a conventional approach to medicine .
States can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scope of practice , allowing them to practice according to their skills and training .
For example , in many states NDs can not order diagnostic tests ; many states require NDs to go through a number of administrative hurdles to be able to give IVs .
This is undermining Americans ’ ability to meet the challenges of this pandemic .
At the federal level , Congress passed the CARES Act to , among other things , provide direct financial assistance to healthcare workers .
NDs , however , are excluded from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providers by Medicare .
ANH-USA has developed a tool to help Americans around the country find natural health practitioners in their area .
Our integrative practitioner finder can help you connect with a healthcare practitioner , rate the service you receive from these providers and see how other patients rate a practitioner ’ s service .
Action Alert !
Write to your state legislature , urging them to expand the scope of practice of NDs during the COVID-19 pandemic .
Please send your message immediately .

States have untapped resources that can help residents stay healthy. They should not be ignored. Action Alert!
New York State has expanded the scope of practice of nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants during the COVID-19 pandemic by relaxing the requirement that these practitioners work under the supervision of a physician. These orders should be expanded to natural health practitioners such as naturopathic doctors (NDs), who in many cases must work under a limited scope of practice that can involve supervision by a physician. Loosening these restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic would give patients more options to see the practitioner of their choice, particularly naturopaths and NDs who specialize in prevention.
We’ve been writing about the many promising natural substances for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and how most of these medicines are completely ignored by the government and the medical establishment. Media outlets have summed up the views of conventional medicine: supplements are useless, and there’s no such thing as “boosting” immunity to ward off infection. Instead, conventional medicine and government cronies wait for a vaccine or a drug that will save us from COVID-19, going so far as to push dangerous drugs that have no statistically significant effect on mortality.
Never has there been more of a need to incorporate the precepts of integrative medicine into the standard of care. Practitioners of natural medicine understand that many Americans are deficient in many micronutrients which can have dramatic impacts on long-term health and immunity. They understand the dangers that come with taking multiple prescription drugs, especially for chronic illnesses that are amenable to dietary and lifestyle changes. Practitioners of natural medicine understand the importance of prevention and maintaining optimal health, rather than simply treating sick patients with pharmaceutical drugs.
NDs are educated at accredited, four-year medical schools. Unfortunately, many states do not allow NDs to practice to the level of their skill and training, or they don’t allow them to communicate their skill and training to consumers. This prevents consumers from making informed choices about the practitioner they want, and in many cases prevents consumers from accessing practitioners other than doctors who practice a conventional approach to medicine.
States can act now to eliminate restrictions on ND scope of practice, allowing them to practice according to their skills and training. For example, in many states NDs cannot order diagnostic tests; many states require NDs to go through a number of administrative hurdles to be able to give IVs. This is undermining Americans’ ability to meet the challenges of this pandemic.
At the federal level, Congress passed the CARES Act to, among other things, provide direct financial assistance to healthcare workers. NDs, however, are excluded from the bill because they are not considered eligible providers by Medicare.
ANH-USA has developed a tool to help Americans around the country find natural health practitioners in their area. Our integrative practitioner finder can help you connect with a healthcare practitioner, rate the service you receive from these providers and see how other patients rate a practitioner’s service.
Action Alert! Write to your state legislature, urging them to expand the scope of practice of NDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-06-25--Report Release: Estriol’s Status in Serious Danger

We need to let the FDA know that we ’ re watching .
Action Alert !
On July 1 , the National Academy of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine ( NASEM ) is holding a webinar to release their report on the “ clinical utility ” of compounded bioidentical hormone replacement therapy .
We expect the FDA will use this report as ammunition to ban estriol and other bioidentical hormones from pharmacy compounding .
It is critical that consumers attend this webinar to let the FDA know that we ’ re watching them .
As you ’ ll recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been nominated to the FDA ’ s Demonstrably Difficult to Compound List ; items that appear on the list when it is final will no longer be able to be made at compounding pharmacies .
The FDA convened a NASEM committee to study the clinical utility of treating patients with compounded bioidentical hormones ; the findings of this committee will be used by the FDA to make a final decision on the fate of estriol and other compounded hormones .
NASEM has conducted several public meetings to date on compounded bioidentical hormones .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts to present to the NASEM panel , and to us it seemed that the FDA stacked the deck against compounded bioidenticals .
ANH and others had to fight to get bioidentical experts longer than five minutes to present their case .
What ’ s also clear is that the NASEM committee members lack a fundamental understanding of how compounded BHRT is used to treat menopause , meaning that committee members are susceptible to the FDA ’ s bias .
A bad NASEM report would be disastrous , as the FDA will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bioidentical hormones can be banned .
We can not let this happen .
Estriol is particularly threatened , as there is no FDA-approved version of this critical hormone ; if a ban goes through , estriol access will disappear .
Patient health and safety is at stake .
A review of the clinical literature concluded that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks , including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease , and are more effective than synthetic or animal-derived hormones .
On the other hand , studies have consistently demonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased risk of breast cancer .
Synthetic and animal-derived hormones have also been shown to produce negative cardiovascular effects and to negate the cardio-protective effects of estrogen .
ANH-USA is working with the natural health community to get as many concerned citizens registered for this webinar as possible to demonstrate to the FDA that we ’ re watching them and that this issue is critical to the health of millions of women across the United States .
Left to its own , the FDA will surely finish what they started in 2008 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We beat them back then , and we can do so again , but only with your help .
Go here to register for this ( free ) webinar .
( Note that it asks for your organization , but you are not required to list one to join and can leave this space blank . )
More background and coverage of this issue can be found on our campaign page here .
Action Alert !
Sign our petition to reform our healthcare system that bars or undermines natural options like estriol @ @ @ @ @ @ @

We need to let the FDA know that we’re watching. Action Alert!
**UPDATE- Due to the overwhelming response of our members, the webinar is SOLD OUT. Thank you for making this grassroots effort a success! We will post an update of the committee’s findings in our next newsletter for all those unable to attend.**– posted 6/26/2020
On July 1, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is holding a webinar to release their report on the “clinical utility” of compounded bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. We expect the FDA will use this report as ammunition to ban estriol and other bioidentical hormones from pharmacy compounding. It is critical that consumers attend this webinar to let the FDA know that we’re watching them.
As you’ll recall, estriol and other bioidentical hormones have been nominated to the FDA’s Demonstrably Difficult to Compound List; items that appear on the list when it is final will no longer be able to be made at compounding pharmacies. The FDA convened a NASEM committee to study the clinical utility of treating patients with compounded bioidentical hormones; the findings of this committee will be used by the FDA to make a final decision on the fate of estriol and other compounded hormones.
NASEM has conducted several public meetings to date on compounded bioidentical hormones. During these meetings, the FDA invited experts to present to the NASEM panel, and to us it seemed that the FDA stacked the deck against compounded bioidenticals. ANH and others had to fight to get bioidentical experts longer than five minutes to present their case. What’s also clear is that the NASEM committee members lack a fundamental understanding of how compounded BHRT is used to treat menopause, meaning that committee members are susceptible to the FDA’s bias.
A bad NASEM report would be disastrous, as the FDA will have all they need to conclude that compounded bioidentical hormones can be banned. We cannot let this happen. Estriol is particularly threatened, as there is no FDA-approved version of this critical hormone; if a ban goes through, estriol access will disappear.
Patient health and safety is at stake. A review of the clinical literature concluded that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more effective than synthetic or animal-derived hormones. On the other hand, studies have consistently demonstrated that synthetic hormones are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Synthetic and animal-derived hormones have also been shown to produce negative cardiovascular effects and to negate the cardio-protective effects of estrogen.
ANH-USA is working with the natural health community to get as many concerned citizens registered for this webinar as possible to demonstrate to the FDA that we’re watching them and that this issue is critical to the health of millions of women across the United States. Left to its own, the FDA will surely finish what they started in 2008, when the agency first went after estriol. We beat them back then, and we can do so again, but only with your help. Go here to register for this (free) webinar. (Note that it asks for your organization, but you are not required to list one to join and can leave this space blank.)
More background and coverage of this issue can be found on our campaign page here.
Action Alert! Sign our petition to reform our healthcare system that bars or undermines natural options like estriol. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-06-25--FDA: A Case Study in Cronyism

FDA: A Case Study in Cronyism

Crony ties between the drug industry and FDA put Americans at risk .
Action Alert !
Pharmaceutical executives getting high-ranking jobs in the FDA ; former FDA employees going to work for Big Pharma .
This revolving door between regulator and industry is the very definition of the “ fox guarding the henhouse.
” This cronyism is putting Americans lives at risk and it needs to stop .
Many FDA officials use their time at the agency as a steppingstone to more lucrative employment in the drug industry .
A 2016 BMJ study found that 15 of 26 FDA employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency later worked or consulted for the pharmaceutical industry .
In 2018 , Science found that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated .
It ’ s not difficult to see how this could cause massive conflicts of interest .
In 2009 the FDA was reviewing the AstraZeneca ’ s drug Seroquel .
The drug review panel heard from a researcher who had linked the drug to sudden cardiac death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was , according to Science , “ instrumental in shepherding Seroquel and similar drugs through the review process and personally signed their FDA approvals.
” Seroquel was approved without any warning , but the evidence mounted and in 2011 the FDA finally updated Seroquel ’ s label with a warning on cardiac death .
Thomas Laughren later formed a consultancy to help drug makers , including AstraZeneca , navigate FDA approval .
According to the FDA ’ s adverse event report database , 220 deaths resulted from cardiac disorders from Seroquel between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 “ serious events ” related to cardiac disorders .
This is one example among many : • Wellington Sun , former FDA director of the Division of Vaccines and Related Product Applications , went on to be the head of vaccine strategy and regulatory affairs at Moderna .
• Patrick Frey , a chief of staff at the FDA ’ s Office of New Drugs , left to join Amgen as director of global regulatory policy .
• John Jenkins , an Office of New Drugs director , was appointed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Elaine Morefield , another FDA director , was appointed director of product quality at Aclaris Pharmaceuticals .
• Gerlad Masoudi , an FDA chief of counsel , was appointed chief legal officer at Juul Labs .
• Badrul Chowdhury , director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ’ s ( CDER ) Division of Pulmonary , Allergy and Rheumatology Products , left to become senior vice president of AstraZeneca .
All of these examples are just from 2018 .
Additionally , former head of the CDC , Julie Gerberding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( it had been developed by government researchers ) and personally pushed and fast-tracked it–then left the CDC to become president of Merck ’ s vaccine division .
There are rules in place to try to discourage certain kinds of activities .
Former high-level employees at the agency can not appear before the FDA on the precise issues they formerly regulated—in some cases permanently , in other cases for couple of years ( called a “ cooling off ” period ) .
Clearly these rules are not sufficient to stop the revolving door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list of former FDA Commissioners and their drug industry ties ( from Ralph Moss ’ s Cancer , Incorporated ) : • 1999-2001 : Jane E. Henney , MD .
After leaving the FDA , Henney joined the board of directors of AstraZeneca , as well as Cigna Corporation , AmerisourceBergen and the China Medical Board .
• 2002-2004 : Mark McClellan , MD , PhD , now a professor of Business , Medicine and Health Policy at Duke University , is a director of Johnson & Johnson , Cigna , Alignment Healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lester M. Crawford , MD , who pleaded guilty to “ lying and conflict-of- interest charges in connection with stock he and his wife owned in companies regulated by the FDA.
” • 2006-2009 : Andrew von Eschenbach , MD , who serves as a director of BioTime , a biotechnology company , and on the advisory boards of Johnson & Johnson , Chugai Pharmaceuticals , Arrowhead Research Corporation , and other drug companies .
We can also add Scott Gottlieb to the list .
He served as FDA Commissioner from 2017-2019 before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s largest drug producer .
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar used to be an executive at Eli Lilly .
Again , the potential for abuse is clear .
As one researcher asked , If you know in the back of your mind that your career goal may be to someday work on the other side of the table , I wonder whether that changes the way you regulate ?
Are you more likely to give [ Big Pharma ] the benefit of the doubt ?
Are you less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad data in drug studies ] ?
One simple measure that can help slow the revolving door is to increase the interval of time former agency officials must wait before they can take a job in industry .
A lifetime ban on FDA employees taking industry jobs would be the best option to secure some semblance of trust in the FDA ’ s actions , but such a measure may be unconstitutional .
The FDA is already compromised by its financial ties to Big Pharma through the user fee system .
The revolving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulatory agency .
Action Alert !
Sign our petition for lawmakers to address the many ways that federal cronyism undermines our health .
Please send your message immediately .

Crony ties between the drug industry and FDA put Americans at risk. Action Alert!
Pharmaceutical executives getting high-ranking jobs in the FDA; former FDA employees going to work for Big Pharma. This revolving door between regulator and industry is the very definition of the “fox guarding the henhouse.” This cronyism is putting Americans lives at risk and it needs to stop.
Many FDA officials use their time at the agency as a steppingstone to more lucrative employment in the drug industry. A 2016 BMJ study found that 15 of 26 FDA employees in the hematologyoncology field who left the agency later worked or consulted for the pharmaceutical industry. In 2018, Science found that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated.
It’s not difficult to see how this could cause massive conflicts of interest. In 2009 the FDA was reviewing the AstraZeneca’s drug Seroquel. The drug review panel heard from a researcher who had linked the drug to sudden cardiac death. Then-Director of Psychiatric Products, Thomas Laughren, was, according to Science, “instrumental in shepherding Seroquel and similar drugs through the review process and personally signed their FDA approvals.” Seroquel was approved without any warning, but the evidence mounted and in 2011 the FDA finally updated Seroquel’s label with a warning on cardiac death. Thomas Laughren later formed a consultancy to help drug makers, including AstraZeneca, navigate FDA approval.
According to the FDA’s adverse event report database, 220 deaths resulted from cardiac disorders from Seroquel between 2009 and 2011, with more than 1,000 “serious events” related to cardiac disorders.
This is one example among many:
Wellington Sun, former FDA director of the Division of Vaccines and Related Product Applications, went on to be the head of vaccine strategy and regulatory affairs at Moderna.
Patrick Frey, a chief of staff at the FDA’s Office of New Drugs, left to join Amgen as director of global regulatory policy.
John Jenkins, an Office of New Drugs director, was appointed to the board of directors of Corbus Pharmaceuticals.
Elaine Morefield, another FDA director, was appointed director of product quality at Aclaris Pharmaceuticals.
Gerlad Masoudi, an FDA chief of counsel, was appointed chief legal officer at Juul Labs.
Badrul Chowdhury, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s (CDER) Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Rheumatology Products, left to become senior vice president of AstraZeneca.
All of these examples are just from 2018. Additionally, former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, actually handed this vaccine over to Merck (it had been developed by government researchers) and personally pushed and fast-tracked it–then left the CDC to become president of Merck’s vaccine division.
There are rules in place to try to discourage certain kinds of activities. Former high-level employees at the agency cannot appear before the FDA on the precise issues they formerly regulated—in some cases permanently, in other cases for couple of years (called a “cooling off” period). Clearly these rules are not sufficient to stop the revolving door from continuing to spin.
Consider this list of former FDA Commissioners and their drug industry ties (from Ralph Moss’s Cancer, Incorporated):
1999-2001: Jane E. Henney, MD. After leaving the FDA, Henney joined the board of directors of AstraZeneca, as well as Cigna Corporation, AmerisourceBergen and the China Medical Board.
2002-2004: Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, now a professor of Business, Medicine and Health Policy at Duke University, is a director of Johnson & Johnson, Cigna, Alignment Healthcare, and Seer.
2006: Lester M. Crawford, MD, who pleaded guilty to “lying and conflict-of- interest charges in connection with stock he and his wife owned in companies regulated by the FDA.”
2006-2009: Andrew von Eschenbach, MD, who serves as a director of BioTime, a biotechnology company, and on the advisory boards of Johnson & Johnson, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Arrowhead Research Corporation, and other drug companies.
We can also add Scott Gottlieb to the list. He served as FDA Commissioner from 2017-2019 before leaving to join Pfizer, the nation’s largest drug producer. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar used to be an executive at Eli Lilly.
Again, the potential for abuse is clear. As one researcher asked,
If you know in the back of your mind that your career goal may be to someday work on the other side of the table, I wonder whether that changes the way you regulate? Are you more likely to give [Big Pharma] the benefit of the doubt? Are you less likely to beat them up hard over [using bad data in drug studies]?
One simple measure that can help slow the revolving door is to increase the interval of time former agency officials must wait before they can take a job in industry. A lifetime ban on FDA employees taking industry jobs would be the best option to secure some semblance of trust in the FDA’s actions, but such a measure may be unconstitutional.
The FDA is already compromised by its financial ties to Big Pharma through the user fee system. The revolving door further undermines the credibility of this regulatory agency.
Action Alert! Sign our petition for lawmakers to address the many ways that federal cronyism undermines our health. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-06-25--Think You Are Safe From 5G? Think Again!

The feds want to extend 5G expansion into small , rural communities .
Action Alert !
The federal government is working on multiple fronts to make it easier for 5G towers to be installed in rural communities .
We must push back against these and other efforts to expand 5G deployment .
First , there is a bill in Congress , the Rural Broadband Acceleration Act , which would direct the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) to accelerate an FCC program designed to bring broadband to rural communities and small businesses .
Separately , the FCC passed an order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ install 5G in rural communities by streamlining the process to upgrade existing towers to 5G .
5G networks are being rolled out across the country , so far mainly in more urban areas .
This map shows where each carrier has begun 5G implementation .
Now it looks like those living in rural areas can expect this technology sooner than they expected .
Astoundingly , there are no independent safety studies about the safety of 5G .
During a Senate Commerce , Science , and Transportation Committee hearing , Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and FTC if any studies were being conducted on the safety of 5G .
At the end of the exchange , Blumenthal concluded , “ So there really is no research ongoing .
We ’ re kind of flying blind here , as far as health and safety is concerned.
” We ’ ve been sounding the alarm about the dangers of 5G technology for some months now .
A group of hundreds of scientists from around the world recently sent a letter to the United Nations and the World Health Organization warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.
” The scientists explain that EMF “ affects living organisms at levels well below most international guidelines , ” causing increased cancer risk , cellular stress , increase in free radicals , genetic damage , changes to the reproductive system , learning and memory deficits , and neurological disorders .
Others have pointed to 10,000 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating an array of negative health effects from EMF exposure , including : altered metabolism , cancer , cardiovascular disease , DNA damage , impaired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage , and many more .
We ’ ve also pointed out that Israeli researchers found that our sweat ducts act as antennas for millimeter waves , meaning we would absorb more of this energy into our bodies .
Millimeter wavelengths are also used in crowd control systems , making people caught in the high-powered millimeter wave feel like their skin is on fire .
It is deeply concerning that the federal government is ignoring the warnings from scientists and researchers across the world and is in fact making it easier for cable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology .
So what can we do to protect ourselves ?
As much as possible , keeping your distance from the source of radiation will dramatically reduce your exposure .
Using speakerphone rather than holding the phone against your head is an example , as well as keeping your phone away from where you sleep at night .
Our friends at ANH International presented takeaways from an expert conference on the subject of 5G .
Christian Blank , an indoor environment analyst , had the following advice : You can also buy EMF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in your surroundings .
This will allow you to spend the most time in areas least bathed in radiation .
Some sources suggest turning your house into a Farraday cage , or a full metal enclosure that repels radiation .
If that isn ’ t possible , individual rooms where the most time is spent can be individually protected with EMF paint and other products for the windows and doors .
These resources have some more information and examples of products that are available .
We shouldn ’ t have to contemplate ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that is the reality in a crony capitalist system like ours where industry calls the shots and the government does nothing .
We must call on our elected officials to the right thing and call for a moratorium on 5G expansion and implementation until its safety can be confirmed .
Action Alert !
Write to Congress and tell them to halt 5G until it is proven safe .
Please send your message immediately .

The feds want to extend 5G expansion into small, rural communities. Action Alert!
The federal government is working on multiple fronts to make it easier for 5G towers to be installed in rural communities. We must push back against these and other efforts to expand 5G deployment.
First, there is a bill in Congress, the Rural Broadband Acceleration Act, which would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to accelerate an FCC program designed to bring broadband to rural communities and small businesses. Separately, the FCC passed an order to make it easier for companies to install 5G in rural communities by streamlining the process to upgrade existing towers to 5G.
5G networks are being rolled out across the country, so far mainly in more urban areas. This map shows where each carrier has begun 5G implementation. Now it looks like those living in rural areas can expect this technology sooner than they expected.
Astoundingly, there are no independent safety studies about the safety of 5G. During a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) asked members of the FDA and FTC if any studies were being conducted on the safety of 5G. At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”
We’ve been sounding the alarm about the dangers of 5G technology for some months now. A group of hundreds of scientists from around the world recently sent a letter to the United Nations and the World Health Organization warning of “serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.” The scientists explain that EMF “affects living organisms at levels well below most international guidelines,” causing increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in free radicals, genetic damage, changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, and neurological disorders.
Others have pointed to 10,000 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating an array of negative health effects from EMF exposure, including: altered metabolism, cancer, cardiovascular disease, DNA damage, impaired sperm function, cognitive impairment, neurological damage, and many more.
We’ve also pointed out that Israeli researchers found that our sweat ducts act as antennas for millimeter waves, meaning we would absorb more of this energy into our bodies. Millimeter wavelengths are also used in crowd control systems, making people caught in the high-powered millimeter wave feel like their skin is on fire.
It is deeply concerning that the federal government is ignoring the warnings from scientists and researchers across the world and is in fact making it easier for cable companies to install this dangerous, untested technology.
So what can we do to protect ourselves? As much as possible, keeping your distance from the source of radiation will dramatically reduce your exposure. Using speakerphone rather than holding the phone against your head is an example, as well as keeping your phone away from where you sleep at night. Our friends at ANH International presented takeaways from an expert conference on the subject of 5G. Christian Blank, an indoor environment analyst, had the following advice:
There are a couple of smartphone settings that can reduce our exposure a great deal because the smartphone is the number one source of RF radiation in our day-to-day life. It’s very important to turn off mobile data, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth whenever possible, and make these active only when you want to check for messages. Do not leave them on during the night, ideally, switch on airplane mode [otherwise] your cell phone is emitting RF radiation 24/7 non-stop.
You can also buy EMF readers that measure the amount of radiation in your surroundings. This will allow you to spend the most time in areas least bathed in radiation.
Some sources suggest turning your house into a Farraday cage, or a full metal enclosure that repels radiation. If that isn’t possible, individual rooms where the most time is spent can be individually protected with EMF paint and other products for the windows and doors. These resources have some more information and examples of products that are available.
We shouldn’t have to contemplate ways to protect ourselves from this radiation, but that is the reality in a crony capitalist system like ours where industry calls the shots and the government does nothing. We must call on our elected officials to the right thing and call for a moratorium on 5G expansion and implementation until its safety can be confirmed.
Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to halt 5G until it is proven safe. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-07-09--FDA: Bioidenticals are “Public Health Concern;” Ban Likely

The agency has latched onto this conclusion from a report it commissioned , and it is another direct threat to estriol and compounded bioidentical hormones ’ future .
Action Alert !
The FDA ’ s announcement regarding bioidentical hormones came just hours after the National Academy of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine ( NASEM ) released their report reviewing the “ clinical utility ” of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy ( cBHT ) .
Because the report views the widespread use of cBHT as a public health concern , the FDA will likely move fast to ban these critical medicines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong grassroot response to meet this threat and save access to estriol and other compounded hormones .
To quote the FDA ’ s announcement on the report release : “ Given the lack of high-quality clinical evidence and minimal oversight of cBHT , NASEM concluded that their wide-spread use poses a public health concern.
” This has no factual basis at all .
A review of the clinical literature concluded that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks , including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease , and are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What seems to be underway is an attempt to create drug company monopolies .
The result may be that women may not be able to obtain estriol at all , even though estriol protects against cancer .
The report ’ s conclusion deals a real blow to the future of patient access to cBHT , but it is hardly a surprise .
We said before that the FDA stacked the deck against cBHT as the NASEM committee was gathering information .
It ’ s no surprise that the recommendations and conclusions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Restricting cBHT use to patients with a documented allergy to an ingredient in FDA approved BHT products or a documented requirement for different dosage form .
• Patient preference alone is not enough to justify cBHT use .
• The FDA ’ s Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee ( PCAC ) should review select hormones for the Difficult to Compound list , including estradiol , estrone , estradiol , progesterone , estriol , testosterone , and the pellet dosage form .
• The federal government and State Boards of Pharmacy should expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” pharmacies to ensure quality standards for every cBHT preparation dispensed .
Again and again in the report , members of the NASEM committee acknowledged that many women express a distinct preference for cBHT , but that this wasn ’ t enough to justify its use .
We can only expect the FDA to parrot this message .
It ’ s a clear signal : we know better than women and their doctors .
This is government paternalism at its worst , and it can not be allowed to stand .
To briefly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other bioidentical hormones have been nominated to the FDA ’ s Demonstrably Difficult to Compound List ; items that appear on the list when it is final will no longer be able to be made at compounding pharmacies .
ANH-USA and other stakeholders pushed back forcefully against the nomination of estriol and other compounded hormones , so the FDA convened a NASEM committee to study cBHT and aid in the agency ’ s final determination .
Our interpretation : the FDA wants to ban hormones but knew they couldn ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response , so they commissioned NASEM to study the matter and give them cover to ban these hormones .
The FDA still has hurdles to overcome before a ban can be issued : the agency has to issue a proposed rulemaking to add these hormones to the Difficult to Compound List .
It ’ s also possible that the FDA issues draft guidance that restricts the use of cBHT as outlined by NASEM ’ s recommendations .
The time to send a clear message to Congress and the FDA is now .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban estriol in 2008 , and we can beat them again , but only if the entire community rises up and holds the agency ’ s feet to the fire .
We can not let the federal government interfere with women ’ s health .
Attacking estriol and compounded hormones is just one of the ways the FDA and the federal government bolster drug monopolies and undermine natural health options .
The FDA is trying to create insurmountable barriers to access homeopathic medicines .
The FDA and FTC and some state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can ’ t advise both their patients and the public about natural prevention and treatment for COVID-19 .
This is unacceptable .
We must demand that Congress reform a healthcare system that not only bars the use , but even the mention , of natural remedies like compounded bioidentical hormones that have not been , and never can be , put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process .
Action Alert !
Write to Congress and the FDA , telling them that patients have a right to choose the medicines right for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your message immediately .

The agency has latched onto this false conclusion from a report it commissioned, and it is another direct threat to estriol and compounded bioidentical hormones’ future. Action Alert!
The FDA’s announcement regarding bioidentical hormones came just hours after the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released their report reviewing the “clinical utility” of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT). Because the report views the widespread use of cBHT as a public health concern, the FDA will likely move fast to ban these critical medicines. It is imperative that we mobilize a strong grassroot response to meet this threat and save access to estriol and other compounded hormones.
To quote the FDA’s announcement on the report release: “Given the lack of high-quality clinical evidence and minimal oversight of cBHT, NASEM concluded that their wide-spread use poses a public health concern.”
This has no factual basis at all. A review of the clinical literature concluded that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more effective than synthetic or animal-derived hormones. What seems to be underway is an attempt to create drug company monopolies. The result may be that women may not be able to obtain estriol at all, even though estriol protects against cancer.
The report’s conclusion deals a real blow to the future of patient access to cBHT, but it is hardly a surprise. We said before that the FDA stacked the deck against cBHT as the NASEM committee was gathering information. It’s no surprise that the recommendations and conclusions of the report mirror the FDA’s interests.
Specifically, the committee’s recommendations include:
Restricting cBHT use to patients with a documented allergy to an ingredient in FDA approved BHT products or a documented requirement for different dosage form.
Patient preference alone is not enough to justify cBHT use.
cBHT doses should not exceed FDA-approved product dosages.
The FDA’s Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) should review select hormones for the Difficult to Compound list, including estradiol, estrone, estradiol, progesterone, estriol, testosterone, and the pellet dosage form.
The federal government and State Boards of Pharmacy should expand and improve oversight of 503A “traditional” pharmacies to ensure quality standards for every cBHT preparation dispensed.
Again and again in the report, members of the NASEM committee acknowledged that many women express a distinct preference for cBHT, but that this wasn’t enough to justify its use. We can only expect the FDA to parrot this message. It’s a clear signal: we know better than women and their doctors. This is government paternalism at its worst, and it cannot be allowed to stand.
To briefly recap how we got here: estriol and other bioidentical hormones have been nominated to the FDA’s Demonstrably Difficult to Compound List; items that appear on the list when it is final will no longer be able to be made at compounding pharmacies. ANH-USA and other stakeholders pushed back forcefully against the nomination of estriol and other compounded hormones, so the FDA convened a NASEM committee to study cBHT and aid in the agency’s final determination. Our interpretation: the FDA wants to ban hormones but knew they couldn’t do it quietly due to the large consumer response, so they commissioned NASEM to study the matter and give them cover to ban these hormones.
The FDA still has hurdles to overcome before a ban can be issued: the agency has to issue a proposed rulemaking to add these hormones to the Difficult to Compound List. It’s also possible that the FDA issues draft guidance that restricts the use of cBHT as outlined by NASEM’s recommendations.
The time to send a clear message to Congress and the FDA is now. We beat the FDA when they tried to ban estriol in 2008, and we can beat them again, but only if the entire community rises up and holds the agency’s feet to the fire. We cannot let the federal government interfere with women’s health.
Attacking estriol and compounded hormones is just one of the ways the FDA and the federal government bolster drug monopolies and undermine natural health options. The FDA is trying to create insurmountable barriers to access homeopathic medicines. The FDA and FTC and some state’s attorneys general have also recently told doctors they can’t advise both their patients and the public about natural prevention and treatment for COVID-19. This is unacceptable.
We must demand that Congress reform a healthcare system that not only bars the use, but even the mention, of natural remedies like compounded bioidentical hormones that have not been, and never can be, put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process.
Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FDA, telling them that patients have a right to choose the medicines right for them, including cBHT. Please send your message immediately.


Are Probiotics Useless?

The mainstream media bungles another story , this time telling us that probiotics are not only useless , but that they can hurt us .
Action Alert !
Another day , another story attacking the idea that supplements can help us stay healthy .
This time the target is probiotics , with 60 Minutes running the hit piece .
The story misrepresents the science on probiotics , and this misinformation could lead people to avoid taking products that can promote gut health .
Two points in particular are made to discredit probiotics .
One is that these bacteria don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person taking the supplement , and the other is that probiotics may actually do harm by delaying healing from antibiotic-associated diarrhea .
The evidence from the first claim comes from Israeli researchers who found that feeding probiotics to mice and humans often doesn ’ t result in colonization of the intestines by the bacteria in the probiotics .
This leads to the conclusion that “ probiotics don ’ t work.
” What is conveniently left out of the media narratives is that these researchers did find evidence that probiotics exert effects on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when all probiotics-consumers were considered together , probiotics consumption led to transcriptional changes in the ileum , with 19 downregulated and 194 upregulated genes noted , many of which related to the immune system including B cells.
” As Dr. Ron Hoffman points out , the fact that probiotic bacteria taken in supplement form don ’ t colonize the gut doesn ’ t mean that probiotics are not efficacious .
There are many different ways probiotics could help even if the bacteria don ’ t establish detectable colonies : • Good bacteria prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trigger inflammation and autoimmunity .
• Good bacteria degrade fiber into short chain fatty acids that nourish the cells lining the intestines , which can help prevent inflammation in the brain .
• Beneficial bacteria generate natural antibiotics and signaling molecules that keep harmful pathogens in check .
In fact , rather than arriving at the conclusion probiotics “ don ’ t work ” like the media did , the Israeli researchers conclude : “ Our study is not aimed or powered to delineate effects , or lack thereof , of probiotics on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also found that probiotics delayed healing from antibiotic-associated diarrhea .
This flies in the face of other studies supporting the idea that probiotics offer protection to those taking antibiotics .
A 2012 article recommended that “ patients taking antibiotics also take probiotics , which have been found to be effective both for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea ( AAD ) .
” Another trial found a 66 % reduction in C.difficile-associated diarrhea in patients taking probiotics with their antibiotics .
Dr. Hoffman , who is an ANH board member , synthesizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reconcile these results with the finding in the present study that implies probiotics interfere with recovery from antibiotics ?
My guess is that probiotics act as a benign placeholder—like a temporary Band-Aid—minimizing symptoms even as they delay recolonization by a patient ’ s native flora .
Is this even a problem ?
Naturally , these other studies vindicating probiotics are not discussed in the 60 Minutes piece .
What was also left out is promising research on probiotics suggesting these supplements help with a variety of health conditions .
Animal studies as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown that both Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria probiotics improve insulin resistance and lead to significant reductions in blood sugar concentrations .
Another study found that patients with type 2 diabetes who consumed a probiotic yogurt experienced significant improvements in fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c .
Other research has shown that probiotic supplementation led to a significant reduction in body weight and body mass index .
There is also evidence that probiotics help inhibit cancer by suppressing bacteria that convert pro-carcinogen molecules into carcinogens , binding to potential carcinogens and promoting their excretion , upregulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early stages , and more .
In light of all of this information , it is irresponsible to tell people that probiotics can ’ t help .
Of course , the false narrative against supplements and natural products will continue , since pharmaceutical advertising is such an important revenue stream for TV networks .
Even when the benefits of health products are well established for supplements like probiotics and others , the government blocks you from learning about them because they aren ’ t FDA-approved drugs .
This is the real problem : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use , but even the mention , of natural remedies that have not been , and never can be , put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process .
The FDA and FTC and some state ’ s attorneys general have recently told doctors they can ’ t advise both their patients and the public about natural prevention and treatment for COVID-19 .
The FDA has threatened cherry and walnut growers with fines and jail for credible studies on the health benefits of those simple foods .
These agencies have gotten out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until they are reigned in .
Action Alert !
Help us fight back against these false narratives by signing our petition to reform our healthcare system that bars or undermines natural options .
Please send your message immediately .

The mainstream media bungles another story, this time telling us that probiotics are not only useless, but that they can hurt us. Action Alert!
Another day, another story attacking the idea that supplements can help us stay healthy. This time the target is probiotics, with 60 Minutes running the hit piece. The story misrepresents the science on probiotics, and this misinformation could lead people to avoid taking products that can promote gut health.
Two points in particular are made to discredit probiotics. One is that these bacteria don’t actually colonize the gut of the person taking the supplement, and the other is that probiotics may actually do harm by delaying healing from antibiotic-associated diarrhea.
The evidence from the first claim comes from Israeli researchers who found that feeding probiotics to mice and humans often doesn’t result in colonization of the intestines by the bacteria in the probiotics. This leads to the conclusion that “probiotics don’t work.”
What is conveniently left out of the media narratives is that these researchers did find evidence that probiotics exert effects on the intestinal immune system: “Nonetheless, when all probiotics-consumers were considered together, probiotics consumption led to transcriptional changes in the ileum, with 19 downregulated and 194 upregulated genes noted, many of which related to the immune system including B cells.”
As Dr. Ron Hoffman points out, the fact that probiotic bacteria taken in supplement form don’t colonize the gut doesn’t mean that probiotics are not efficacious. There are many different ways probiotics could help even if the bacteria don’t establish detectable colonies:
Good bacteria prime the immune response, while bad bacteria trigger inflammation and autoimmunity.
Good bacteria degrade fiber into short chain fatty acids that nourish the cells lining the intestines, which can help prevent inflammation in the brain.
Certain bacteria manufacture critical nutrients including biotin, vitamin K, and folate.
Beneficial bacteria generate natural antibiotics and signaling molecules that keep harmful pathogens in check.
In fact, rather than arriving at the conclusion probiotics “don’t work” like the media did, the Israeli researchers conclude: “Our study is not aimed or powered to delineate effects, or lack thereof, of probiotics on mammalian clinical features.”
The same researchers also found that probiotics delayed healing from antibiotic-associated diarrhea. This flies in the face of other studies supporting the idea that probiotics offer protection to those taking antibiotics. A 2012 article recommended that “patients taking antibiotics also take probiotics, which have been found to be effective both for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD).” Another trial found a 66% reduction in C.difficile-associated diarrhea in patients taking probiotics with their antibiotics.
Dr. Hoffman, who is an ANH board member, synthesizes these findings:
So how are we to reconcile these results with the finding in the present study that implies probiotics interfere with recovery from antibiotics? My guess is that probiotics act as a benign placeholder—like a temporary Band-Aid—minimizing symptoms even as they delay recolonization by a patient’s native flora. Is this even a problem?
Naturally, these other studies vindicating probiotics are not discussed in the 60 Minutes piece.
What was also left out is promising research on probiotics suggesting these supplements help with a variety of health conditions. Animal studies as well as human diabetes clinical trials have shown that both Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria probiotics improve insulin resistance and lead to significant reductions in blood sugar concentrations. Another study found that patients with type 2 diabetes who consumed a probiotic yogurt experienced significant improvements in fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c. Other research has shown that probiotic supplementation led to a significant reduction in body weight and body mass index. There is also evidence that probiotics help inhibit cancer by suppressing bacteria that convert pro-carcinogen molecules into carcinogens, binding to potential carcinogens and promoting their excretion, upregulating immune cytokines to battle cancer in its early stages, and more.
In light of all of this information, it is irresponsible to tell people that probiotics can’t help. Of course, the false narrative against supplements and natural products will continue, since pharmaceutical advertising is such an important revenue stream for TV networks.
Even when the benefits of health products are well established for supplements like probiotics and others, the government blocks you from learning about them because they aren’t FDA-approved drugs. This is the real problem: a health system that not only bars the use, but even the mention, of natural remedies that have not been, and never can be, put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process. The FDA and FTC and some state’s attorneys general have recently told doctors they can’t advise both their patients and the public about natural prevention and treatment for COVID-19. The FDA has threatened cherry and walnut growers with fines and jail for credible studies on the health benefits of those simple foods. These agencies have gotten out of control, and nothing can change until they are reigned in.
Action Alert! Help us fight back against these false narratives by signing our petition to reform our healthcare system that bars or undermines natural options. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-07-16--Feds Fire Another Shot at Homeopathy

Feds Fire Another Shot at Homeopathy

The FDA has issued its first warnings against homeopathic medicines , and this is only the beginning .
Action Alert !
The FDA has sent warning letters to four companies that sell injectable homeopathic medicine because , in the agency ’ s view , injectable homeopathic medicines “ can pose a serious risk to patient health.
” This is following a bad guidance the agency is in the process of completing that upends decades of safe regulation of homeopathic medicines .
The FDA ’ s position on homeopathic injectables puts safe pain and cancer therapies in jeopardy .
In our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial attack as an entry point to eliminate homeopathic medicine entirely , and we can not let it proceed unchecked .
The letters lay out two main reasons for FDA enforcement : the injectable route of administration and the presence of certain ingredients with the “ potential for toxicity , ” such as nux vomica , belladonna , mercurius solubilis ( mercury ) , plumbum aceticum ( lead ) , and snake venom .
This is in line with the approach outlined in the FDA ’ s draft guidance which stipulates certain categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA enforcement actions .
Recall , though , that the approach taken in this guidance gives the FDA free reign to go after all homeopathic drugs , which in our view is the agency ’ s endgame .
The FDA ’ s warning letters make clear that all injectable homeopathic medicines are in their crosshairs .
This means that homeopathic mistletoe for injection is at risk , a safe cancer therapy that has been used for years .
Studies show that mistletoe can improve symptoms and quality of life , and reduce chemotherapy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pancreatic , lung , colorectal , and breast cancers .
Is there really a safety issue with injectable homeopathic medicines that demands immediate FDA action ?
One of the products the FDA has targeted is Traumeel , a prescription-only homeopathic medicine for pain .
According to the manufacturer , out of more than 200 million ampules sold , there have been 154 adverse reactions , including 7 serious adverse events .
Traumeel is an alternative to opioids , which in 2017 alone killed 47,000 Americans .
A randomized controlled trial found Traumeel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the mouth and lips ) .
Other products show a similarly low rate of adverse events , especially compared with pharmaceutical drugs the FDA approves .
A review of the evidence of adverse events related to homeopathy , which included data from 12 European countries , the US , Mexico , India , Israel and Brazil published between 1978 and 2010 , found a total of just 1,159 adverse events .
This equates to an average of just over 50 cases per annum across all 17 countries from which studies were conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to on average of 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths annually in the US alone .
Worldwide , an estimated 200 million people use homeopathy regularly , including 6 million in the United States .
These data show that adverse events from homeopathic medicines occur at a very , very low rate .
Contrast this record of safety for homeopathic medicines with adverse events from FDA-approved drugs .
From 1978 to 2010 , there were more than 3.5 million serious adverse events and 571,398 deaths , according to the FDA ’ s database .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were two ingredients the FDA claims are “ potentially toxic ” : a search of the FDA ’ s adverse event database shows 82 adverse events from belladonna between 1986 and 2019 .
That averages to less than 3 adverse events a year .
Nux vomica has one adverse event listed in the FDA ’ s database .
Note that any homeopathic substance is diluted , often extremely diluted .
It would seem the FDA ’ s concern about toxicity is more theoretical than based in fact .
This is only the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As we ’ ve reported previously , the FDA considers all homeopathic medicines on the market to be “ unapproved drugs.
” The agency is trying to assert the legal right to go after any homeopathic treatment it chooses .
Injectables are only the beginning .
In our opinion , homeopathic drugs were intended to be grandfathered when the Food , Drug , and Cosmetic Act came into being , and this is being ignored by the agency .
The FTC has also targeted homeopathy , declaring that an over-the-counter homeopathic drug claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reliable ” scientific evidence ( read : hugely expensive drug trials ) is considered deceptive if it doesn ’ t include the following disclaimer : 1 ) there is no scientific evidence that the product works ; and 2 ) the product ’ s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts .
The FDA has very serious questions to answer .
Why are safer alternatives to dangerous opioids , like Traumeel and CBD , being systematically attacked by this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on homeopathic medicines that are far safer than the pharmaceutical drugs they approve—or even foods ?
We can infer some answers .
The FDA gets a large part of its funding from drug company user fees , and for this reason sees Big Pharma as its client .
Homeopathic medicines , like supplements and other natural products , compete with pharmaceutical drugs , so the FDA uses its enormous power to tilt the scales in favor of the drug companies .
And because natural products and homeopathic medicines generally can not be patent-protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t afford FDA-approval and so can not make disease claims .
It is one among many ways cronyism is undermining healthcare in this country .
Action Alert !
Sign our petition to reform our healthcare system that bars and undermines natural options like homeopathic medicine .
Please sign our petition immediately .

The FDA has issued its first warnings against homeopathic medicines, and this is only the beginning. Action Alert!
The FDA has sent warning letters to four companies that sell injectable homeopathic medicine because, in the agency’s view, injectable homeopathic medicines “can pose a serious risk to patient health.” This is following a bad guidance the agency is in the process of completing that upends decades of safe regulation of homeopathic medicines. The FDA’s position on homeopathic injectables puts safe pain and cancer therapies in jeopardy. In our view, the FDA is using this initial attack as an entry point to eliminate homeopathic medicine entirely, and we cannot let it proceed unchecked.
The letters lay out two main reasons for FDA enforcement: the injectable route of administration and the presence of certain ingredients with the “potential for toxicity,” such as nux vomica, belladonna, mercurius solubilis (mercury), plumbum aceticum (lead), and snake venom. This is in line with the approach outlined in the FDA’s draft guidance which stipulates certain categories of homeopathic medicines that are targets for FDA enforcement actions. Recall, though, that the approach taken in this guidance gives the FDA free reign to go after all homeopathic drugs, which in our view is the agency’s endgame.
The FDA’s warning letters make clear that all injectable homeopathic medicines are in their crosshairs. This means that homeopathic mistletoe for injection is at risk, a safe cancer therapy that has been used for years. Studies show that mistletoe can improve symptoms and quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and radiotherapy side effects, including in pancreatic, lung, colorectal, and breast cancers.
Is there really a safety issue with injectable homeopathic medicines that demands immediate FDA action? One of the products the FDA has targeted is Traumeel, a prescription-only homeopathic medicine for pain. According to the manufacturer, out of more than 200 million ampules sold, there have been 154 adverse reactions, including 7 serious adverse events. Traumeel is an alternative to opioids, which in 2017 alone killed 47,000 Americans. A randomized controlled trial found Traumeel to be effective in post-chemotherapy stomatitis (inflammation of the mouth and lips).
Other products show a similarly low rate of adverse events, especially compared with pharmaceutical drugs the FDA approves. A review of the evidence of adverse events related to homeopathy, which included data from 12 European countries, the US, Mexico, India, Israel and Brazil published between 1978 and 2010, found a total of just 1,159 adverse events. This equates to an average of just over 50 cases per annum across all 17 countries from which studies were conducted. By comparison, foodborne illness contributes to on average of 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths annually in the US alone. Worldwide, an estimated 200 million people use homeopathy regularly, including 6 million in the United States. These data show that adverse events from homeopathic medicines occur at a very, very low rate.
Contrast this record of safety for homeopathic medicines with adverse events from FDA-approved drugs. From 1978 to 2010, there were more than 3.5 million serious adverse events and 571,398 deaths, according to the FDA’s database.
Regarding belladonna and nux vomica, which were two ingredients the FDA claims are “potentially toxic”: a search of the FDA’s adverse event database shows 82 adverse events from belladonna between 1986 and 2019. That averages to less than 3 adverse events a year. Nux vomica has one adverse event listed in the FDA’s database. Note that any homeopathic substance is diluted, often extremely diluted. It would seem the FDA’s concern about toxicity is more theoretical than based in fact.
This is only the beginning of the FDA’s onslaught. As we’ve reported previously, the FDA considers all homeopathic medicines on the market to be “unapproved drugs.” The agency is trying to assert the legal right to go after any homeopathic treatment it chooses. Injectables are only the beginning. In our opinion, homeopathic drugs were intended to be grandfathered when the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act came into being, and this is being ignored by the agency. The FTC has also targeted homeopathy, declaring that an over-the-counter homeopathic drug claim that is not substantiated by “competent and reliable” scientific evidence (read: hugely expensive drug trials) is considered deceptive if it doesn’t include the following disclaimer: 1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works; and 2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts.
The FDA has very serious questions to answer. Why are safer alternatives to dangerous opioids, like Traumeel and CBD, being systematically attacked by this agency? Why is the FDA focusing on homeopathic medicines that are far safer than the pharmaceutical drugs they approve—or even foods?
We can infer some answers. The FDA gets a large part of its funding from drug company user fees, and for this reason sees Big Pharma as its client. Homeopathic medicines, like supplements and other natural products, compete with pharmaceutical drugs, so the FDA uses its enormous power to tilt the scales in favor of the drug companies. And because natural products and homeopathic medicines generally cannot be patent-protected like drugs can, they can’t afford FDA-approval and so cannot make disease claims. It is one among many ways cronyism is undermining healthcare in this country.
Action Alert! Sign our petition to reform our healthcare system that bars and undermines natural options like homeopathic medicine. Please sign our petition immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-07-16--IV-C for COVID: What the Feds Don’t Want You to Know

There are many promising studies recommending high-dose intravenous vitamin C ( IVC ) for COVID-19 , but the federal government is gagging doctors and clinics trying to spread this information .
Action Alert !
A group of frontline doctors have culled the available research and come up with a treatment protocol for COVID-19 that includes high-dose IVC .
Yet the federal government is not only ignoring this evidence and its successful use by doctors , they are actively suppressing the dissemination of information about natural methods of treating COVID-19 .
This violates the right of the public to learn about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by solid scientific research but are also potentially lifesaving .
The medical team provides many studies , including randomized controlled trials , to support the use of IVC in COVID-19 treatment .
This includes COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome ( ARDS ) which characterizes many serious cases of the virus .
The cited studies demonstrate : • The antiviral properties of vitamin C ; • That vitamin C and quercetin act synergistically to fight viral infections ; • and IVC was used successfully in China to treat moderate to severe cases of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients with natural medicines like IVC , iodine , ozone , hydrogen peroxide , and other oral supplements—and all of them recovered .
Vitamin D also has a lot of evidence supporting its use for COVID-19 : • In a retrospective study of patients tested for COVID-19 , researchers at the University of Chicago Medicine found an association between vitamin D deficiency and the likelihood of becoming infected with coronavirus disease .
• A new study has found an association between low average levels of vitamin D and high numbers of COVID-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Other evidence shows that vitamin D could reduce risk of influenza and COVID-19 infection and death .
Now consider that the FDA and the FTC are mounting a wide-ranging censorship campaign against medical doctors and clinics discussing the benefits of natural treatments like IVC , vitamin D , and others for COVID-19 !
Because IVC , vitamin D , quercetin , and other natural treatments are not FDA-approved for the treatment of COVID-19 , it ’ s illegal to make claims that they can help with the virus—even with the robust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , that support their use .
Doctors are perfectly welcome to talk about remdesivir , though , a new drug which is now considered the “ standard of care ” based on a trial showing an 8 % mortality rate on the drug versus an 11.6 % mortality rate for the placebo group .
One course of remdesivir costs more than $ 3,100 .
By gagging information about natural COVID treatment and prevention , federal agencies are endangering the lives of millions of Americans .
We believe these kinds of actions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monopoly on medicine .
The FDA approval required to make COVID-19 or any other disease-related claim means conducting RCTs , which for natural products are prohibitively expensive .
Drug companies can afford this massive investment because drugs are patentable and enjoy a period of market exclusivity , so companies can recoup the cost of RCTs .
Natural products are generally not patentable , so requiring RCTs to make any specific disease claim—no matter how many studies support the claim—is a backhanded way of preventing all disease claims for natural products and thus preserving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness .
The healthcare system in this country is rigged against inexpensive , safe , and effective natural remedies in favor of expensive pharmaceutical drugs .
We need to reform this system that not only bars the use , but even the mention , of natural remedies that have not been , and never can be , put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process .
Action Alert !
Sign our petition to that seeks to reform a healthcare system that blocks access to natural treatments that generally can not go through FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

There are many promising studies recommending high-dose intravenous vitamin C (IVC) for COVID-19, but the federal government is gagging doctors and clinics trying to spread this information. Action Alert!
A group of frontline doctors have culled the available research and come up with a treatment protocol for COVID-19 that includes high-dose IVC. Yet the federal government is not only ignoring this evidence and its successful use by doctors, they are actively suppressing the dissemination of information about natural methods of treating COVID-19. This violates the right of the public to learn about nutritionally-based therapies that are not only supported by solid scientific research but are also potentially lifesaving.
The medical team provides many studies, including randomized controlled trials, to support the use of IVC in COVID-19 treatment. This includes COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) which characterizes many serious cases of the virus. The cited studies demonstrate:
The antiviral properties of vitamin C;
of vitamin C; That IVC reduces mortality in ARDS cases;
in ARDS cases; That vitamin C and quercetin act synergistically to fight viral infections;
to fight viral infections; and IVC was used successfully in China to treat moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
Dr. David Brownstein treated 107 COVID-19 patients with natural medicines like IVC, iodine, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and other oral supplements—and all of them recovered.
Vitamin D also has a lot of evidence supporting its use for COVID-19:
In a retrospective study of patients tested for COVID-19, researchers at the University of Chicago Medicine found an association between vitamin D deficiency and the likelihood of becoming infected with coronavirus disease.
of patients tested for COVID-19, researchers at the University of Chicago Medicine found an association between vitamin D deficiency and the likelihood of becoming infected with coronavirus disease. A new study has found an association between low average levels of vitamin D and high numbers of COVID-19 cases and mortality rates across 20 European countries.
has found an association between low average levels of vitamin D and high numbers of COVID-19 cases and mortality rates across 20 European countries. Other evidence shows that vitamin D could reduce risk of influenza and COVID-19 infection and death.
Now consider that the FDA and the FTC are mounting a wide-ranging censorship campaign against medical doctors and clinics discussing the benefits of natural treatments like IVC, vitamin D, and others for COVID-19! Because IVC, vitamin D, quercetin, and other natural treatments are not FDA-approved for the treatment of COVID-19, it’s illegal to make claims that they can help with the virus—even with the robust scientific evidence, not to mention clinical experience, that support their use.
Doctors are perfectly welcome to talk about remdesivir, though, a new drug which is now considered the “standard of care” based on a trial showing an 8% mortality rate on the drug versus an 11.6% mortality rate for the placebo group. One course of remdesivir costs more than $3,100.
By gagging information about natural COVID treatment and prevention, federal agencies are endangering the lives of millions of Americans.
We believe these kinds of actions are really meant to preserve the drug industry monopoly on medicine. The FDA approval required to make COVID-19 or any other disease-related claim means conducting RCTs, which for natural products are prohibitively expensive. Drug companies can afford this massive investment because drugs are patentable and enjoy a period of market exclusivity, so companies can recoup the cost of RCTs. Natural products are generally not patentable, so requiring RCTs to make any specific disease claim—no matter how many studies support the claim—is a backhanded way of preventing all disease claims for natural products and thus preserving the monopoly of pharmaceutical drugs to treat illness.
The healthcare system in this country is rigged against inexpensive, safe, and effective natural remedies in favor of expensive pharmaceutical drugs. We need to reform this system that not only bars the use, but even the mention, of natural remedies that have not been, and never can be, put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process.
Action Alert! Sign our petition to that seeks to reform a healthcare system that blocks access to natural treatments that generally cannot go through FDA approval. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealth--2020-07-16--Bayer/Monsanto Using Courts to Limit Transparency

We all know glyphosate causes cancer : how is Bayer/Monsanto avoiding saying so on their label ?
Action Alert !
Bayer/Monsanto has agreed to pay $ 10 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits alleging that glyphosate , the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Roundup , causes cancer .
At the same time , Bayer has used the courts to prevent California from requiring a cancer warning label on Roundup .
It ’ s time for this nonsense to stop and for glyphosate to be banned once and for all .
In agreeing to the $ 10 billion settlement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The company must have seen the writing on the wall : in 2019 , Dewayne Johnson was awarded $ 78 million after a jury found that Bayer/Monsanto failed to warn consumers of cancer risk from use of Roundup ; a year later in a separate case , a husband and wife were awarded $ 87 million after a jury found that Roundup caused their illness .
Bayer ’ s annual revenue is nearly $ 50 billion .
With the settlement , Bayer will pay $ 8.8 billion to settle existing lawsuits and another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It may be a relatively small price to pay to keep their poison on the market .
The company also managed to secure £600 million in COVID relief bailouts from the UK government ; weeks before , shareholders agreed to distribute £2.75 billion in dividends .
That glyphosate can avoid a warning in California demonstrates how dishonest and broken this system is .
Under Prop 65 , chemicals identified by the state as having even a one-in-100,000 chance of causing cancer , birth defects , or other reproductive harm are required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bayer/Monsanto was granted a permanent injunction preventing the state of California from requiring a Prop 65 cancer warning on Roundup .
To be clear , there are many problems with Prop 65 that we detailed in a white paper a few years ago .
Leaving the problems with Prop 65 aside for the moment , the real issue here is that , despite all of the evidence linking glyphosate to cancer , and the court victories for those injured by glyphosate , Roundup is still allowed on store shelves— without accurate warnings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest problem with Roundup .
The “ inert ” ingredients in pesticides can be up to 1,000 times more toxic than the active ingredient .
There are many other health problems that we ’ ve detailed in previous coverage of this issue .
For example , the work of Dr. Stephanie Seneff , an MIT researcher , showed a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops ( and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds ) with rising rates of autism .
Government cronyism has been instrumental in keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents show that a top EPA official , Jess Rowland , promised Monsanto he would quash an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services Department ( HHS ) to conduct its own review of glyphosate .
He was successful—the HHS review never happened .
A letter from a former EPA employee dying of cancer accused Rowland of having intimidated staff , compelling them to change reports to make them favorable to Monsanto .
The letter also argued that the research on glyphosate supports categorizing it as a probable human carcinogen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep dangerous , cancer-causing products like Roundup on the market , but spring into action when doctors discuss the proven benefits of natural medicines .
We need to reform a healthcare system that not only bars the use , but even the mention , of natural remedies that have not been , and never can be , put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process .
Action Alert !
Sign our petition to remove glyphosate from the market and to reform government agencies to stop the blatant cronyism that threatens the health of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign our petition immediately .

We all know glyphosate causes cancer: how is Bayer/Monsanto avoiding saying so on their label? Action Alert!
Bayer/Monsanto has agreed to pay $10 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Roundup, causes cancer. At the same time, Bayer has used the courts to prevent California from requiring a cancer warning label on Roundup. It’s time for this nonsense to stop and for glyphosate to be banned once and for all.
In agreeing to the $10 billion settlement, Bayer admits no wrongdoing or liability. The company must have seen the writing on the wall: in 2019, Dewayne Johnson was awarded $78 million after a jury found that Bayer/Monsanto failed to warn consumers of cancer risk from use of Roundup; a year later in a separate case, a husband and wife were awarded $87 million after a jury found that Roundup caused their illness.
Bayer’s annual revenue is nearly $50 billion. With the settlement, Bayer will pay $8.8 billion to settle existing lawsuits and another $1.25 billion that covers future litigation. It may be a relatively small price to pay to keep their poison on the market. The company also managed to secure £600 million in COVID relief bailouts from the UK government; weeks before, shareholders agreed to distribute £2.75 billion in dividends.
That glyphosate can avoid a warning in California demonstrates how dishonest and broken this system is. Under Prop 65, chemicals identified by the state as having even a one-in-100,000 chance of causing cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are required to carry a corresponding warning. Recently, Bayer/Monsanto was granted a permanent injunction preventing the state of California from requiring a Prop 65 cancer warning on Roundup.
To be clear, there are many problems with Prop 65 that we detailed in a white paper a few years ago. Leaving the problems with Prop 65 aside for the moment, the real issue here is that, despite all of the evidence linking glyphosate to cancer, and the court victories for those injured by glyphosate, Roundup is still allowed on store shelves— without accurate warnings.
Recall that glyphosate isn’t even the biggest problem with Roundup. The “inert” ingredients in pesticides can be up to 1,000 times more toxic than the active ingredient. There are many other health problems that we’ve detailed in previous coverage of this issue. For example, the work of Dr. Stephanie Seneff, an MIT researcher, showed a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism.
Government cronyism has been instrumental in keeping glyphosate on the market. Recently unsealed documents show that a top EPA official, Jess Rowland, promised Monsanto he would quash an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to conduct its own review of glyphosate. He was successful—the HHS review never happened. A letter from a former EPA employee dying of cancer accused Rowland of having intimidated staff, compelling them to change reports to make them favorable to Monsanto. The letter also argued that the research on glyphosate supports categorizing it as a probable human carcinogen.
Federal agencies are more than happy to keep dangerous, cancer-causing products like Roundup on the market, but spring into action when doctors discuss the proven benefits of natural medicines. We need to reform a healthcare system that not only bars the use, but even the mention, of natural remedies that have not been, and never can be, put through the multi-billion dollar FDA approval process.
Action Alert! Sign our petition to remove glyphosate from the market and to reform government agencies to stop the blatant cronyism that threatens the health of Americans in so many ways. Please sign our petition immediately.


Cancer Drug Swindle

Under the guise of speedier drug approvals , Big Pharma profits get a boost while public health is endangered .
Action Alert !
Many cancer drugs that are approved by the FDA do not have much benefit to patients .
This is because approval can be based on dubious measurements of secondary benefits , referred to as “ surrogate endpoints.
” The FDA , with the help of Congress , has all but relinquished its role as a watchdog agency and instead treats Big Pharma as its partner .
Changes that expedite drug approval are a gift to the pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that often deliver no benefit .
Approval for cancer drugs is not contingent on a drug improving survival or extending life .
Rather , approval can be won by a drug company if clinical trials demonstrate a secondary benefit , such as reducing tumor size .
The problem is that reduced tumor size , and other such surrogate endpoints , can have little relevance to patient outcomes .
A review in JAMA Internal Medicine came to the conclusion that , “ Most studies of surrogate endpoints in oncology find low correlations with survival… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrogate endpoints in oncology is limited.
” In his book Cancer , Incorporated , Ralph Moss , PhD , convincingly critiques the use of surrogate endpoints to approve cancer therapies : An analysis of oncology drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints showed that less than 6 % of them use endpoints that are highly correlated with survival .
More and more drugs are being approved using these kinds of measures .
Between 2010 and 2012 , 45 % of new drugs were approved on the basis of a surrogate endpoint .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 67 % of approvals over a five year period were based on surrogates .
Surrogate endpoints do have benefits—for the pharmaceutical industry .
According to a review article , “ Compared with clinical outcome trials , studies with surrogate endpoints can be conducted rapidly and with much less resource use and expense than endpoint studies , ” [ emphasis added ] .
Drug companies that win accelerated approval are required to complete post-market studies to provide more data on the drug ’ s safety and effectiveness .
Predictably , Big Pharma drags its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FDA does very little to hold their feet to the fire .
According to ProPublica reporting , While the FDA expedited drug approvals , it ’ s content to wait a decade or more for the post-marketing studies that manufacturers agree to do .
Plus , since the drug is already on the market , the manufacturer no longer has a financial incentive to study its impact—and stands to lose money if the results are negative .
Of post-marketing studies agreed to by manufacturers in 2009 and 2010 , 20 % had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another 25 % were still ongoing [ emphasis added ] .
This confirms what ANH and others have been saying for years : there is strong evidence that the FDA is securely in the pocket of the industry they are meant to regulate .
It ’ s gotten worse over the years : In 2017 , Big Pharma paid 75 % of the agency ’ s scientific review budgets for branded and generic drugs , compared to 27 % in 1993 .
This echoes the words of Dr. David Graham , a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said the FDA is “ not able to adequately protect the American public .
It ’ s more interested in protecting the interests of industry .
It views industry as its client… ” The use of surrogate endpoints in drug approval began in 1992 , after the FDA instituted the accelerated approval program .
This allowed drugs for serious conditions that “ filled an unmet medical need to be approved based on a surrogate endpoint.
” The 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 expanded the use of surrogate endpoints in drug approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get useless drugs approved that expose patients to dangerous side effects and cost tens of thousands of dollars is exactly the opposite of what the FDA should be doing .
We must put a stop to this .
Action Alert !
Write to the FDA and Congress , urging them to stop allowing the use of surrogate endpoints for drug approval .
Please send your message immediately .

Under the guise of speedier drug approvals, Big Pharma profits get a boost while public health is endangered. Action Alert!
Many cancer drugs that are approved by the FDA do not have much benefit to patients. This is because approval can be based on dubious measurements of secondary benefits, referred to as “surrogate endpoints.” The FDA, with the help of Congress, has all but relinquished its role as a watchdog agency and instead treats Big Pharma as its partner. Changes that expedite drug approval are a gift to the pharmaceutical industry but expose patients to dangerous treatments that often deliver no benefit.
Approval for cancer drugs is not contingent on a drug improving survival or extending life. Rather, approval can be won by a drug company if clinical trials demonstrate a secondary benefit, such as reducing tumor size. The problem is that reduced tumor size, and other such surrogate endpoints, can have little relevance to patient outcomes. A review in JAMA Internal Medicine came to the conclusion that, “Most studies of surrogate endpoints in oncology find low correlations with survival…. The evidence supporting the use of surrogate endpoints in oncology is limited.”
In his book Cancer, Incorporated, Ralph Moss, PhD, convincingly critiques the use of surrogate endpoints to approve cancer therapies:
Surrogate endpoints are thus not a sufficient basis for the FDA to approve a new drug. They are not true indicators of how well a treatment works, but are in fact unreliable substitutes that allow drug companies to gain rapid approval of unproven remedies…In other words, surrogates do not generally measure things that bring real benefit to cancer patients—increased overall survival with a reasonable quality of life.
An analysis of oncology drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints showed that less than 6% of them use endpoints that are highly correlated with survival.
More and more drugs are being approved using these kinds of measures. Between 2010 and 2012, 45% of new drugs were approved on the basis of a surrogate endpoint. It is especially true with cancer drugs, where 67% of approvals over a five year period were based on surrogates.
Surrogate endpoints do have benefits—for the pharmaceutical industry. According to a review article, “Compared with clinical outcome trials, studies with surrogate endpoints can be conducted rapidly and with much less resource use and expense than endpoint studies,” [emphasis added].
Drug companies that win accelerated approval are required to complete post-market studies to provide more data on the drug’s safety and effectiveness. Predictably, Big Pharma drags its feet in completing these studies, and the FDA does very little to hold their feet to the fire. According to ProPublica reporting,
While the FDA expedited drug approvals, it’s content to wait a decade or more for the post-marketing studies that manufacturers agree to do. Plus, since the drug is already on the market, the manufacturer no longer has a financial incentive to study its impact—and stands to lose money if the results are negative. Of post-marketing studies agreed to by manufacturers in 2009 and 2010, 20% had not started five years later, and another 25% were still ongoing [emphasis added].
This confirms what ANH and others have been saying for years: there is strong evidence that the FDA is securely in the pocket of the industry they are meant to regulate. It’s gotten worse over the years: In 2017, Big Pharma paid 75% of the agency’s scientific review budgets for branded and generic drugs, compared to 27% in 1993. This echoes the words of Dr. David Graham, a senior drug safety reviewer at the FDA, who said the FDA is “not able to adequately protect the American public. It’s more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client…”
The use of surrogate endpoints in drug approval began in 1992, after the FDA instituted the accelerated approval program. This allowed drugs for serious conditions that “filled an unmet medical need to be approved based on a surrogate endpoint.” The 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 expanded the use of surrogate endpoints in drug approval.
Allowing shortcuts for Big Pharma to get useless drugs approved that expose patients to dangerous side effects and cost tens of thousands of dollars is exactly the opposite of what the FDA should be doing. We must put a stop to this.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA and Congress, urging them to stop allowing the use of surrogate endpoints for drug approval. Please send your message immediately.