alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-04-08--Why are Health Food Stores Closing During this Pandemic?

One state governor is shutting down health food stores that sell vital supplements as “ nonessential ” businesses .
We must fight back and make sure others don ’ t follow suit .
Action Alert !
Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak has ordered all nonessential businesses in the state to close for 30 days .
In defiance of federal guidance , he has included health food stores in that order .
It is pure lunacy to limit people ’ s access to health products and foods that can boost immunity during a pandemic .
We must all send messages to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar moves don ’ t happen across the country .
The Department of Homeland Security has issued guidance on which businesses are “ essential ” and allowed to stay open during the pandemic .
It clearly states that “ workers supporting groceries , pharmacies , convenience stores , and other retail…that sells human food ” are considered “ essential.
” Recall that supplements are food and regulated as such .
Dietary supplements can provide critical immune support during this pandemic , and the last thing we should be doing is limiting our ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay healthy .
ANH-USA is currently developing a resource hub that will compile a list of useful nutrients for this pandemic ; in the meantime , here are some other great sources of information ( here , here , here , here , and here ) .
Action Alert !
Write to your governor and state legislators , telling them to keep health food stores open in your state !
Please send your message immediately .

One state governor is shutting down health food stores that sell vital supplements as “nonessential” businesses. We must fight back and make sure others don’t follow suit. Action Alert!
Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak has ordered all nonessential businesses in the state to close for 30 days. In defiance of federal guidance, he has included health food stores in that order. It is pure lunacy to limit people’s access to health products and foods that can boost immunity during a pandemic. We must all send messages to our state officials to push back and ensure similar moves don’t happen across the country.
The Department of Homeland Security has issued guidance on which businesses are “essential” and allowed to stay open during the pandemic. It clearly states that “workers supporting groceries, pharmacies, convenience stores, and other retail…that sells human food” are considered “essential.” Recall that supplements are food and regulated as such.
Dietary supplements can provide critical immune support during this pandemic, and the last thing we should be doing is limiting our ability to access products that can help us stay healthy. ANH-USA is currently developing a resource hub that will compile a list of useful nutrients for this pandemic; in the meantime, here are some other great sources of information (here, here, here, here, and here).
Action Alert! Write to your governor and state legislators, telling them to keep health food stores open in your state! Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-04-08--Mixed Message on Masks Highlights Federal Ineptitude in COVID Response

Inconsistency in government recommendations causes confusion .
Imagine that ?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) recently reversed their recommendations on mask-wearing .
Before April 3 , the agency ’ s guidelines told those of us outside of healthcare settings not to wear masks , which were only for people who were sick or caring for people who were sick .
Now , the CDC recommends that the general population wear non-medical masks—that is , fabric , like a cut-up shirt or a bandana , that covers the mouth and nose .
This follows multiple messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need masks .
US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams , said mask-wearing wouldn ’ t protect us from contracting the virus ; Dr. Anthony Fauci , the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said that recommendations not to wear a mask were based on a supply shortage .
The scientific evidence offers lukewarm support to the idea of wearing masks to prevent infection among the general public .
One review article concluded that there is “ some evidence ” to support mask-wearing during illness to protect others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.
” In another study , college students wore masks on campus during flu season but the practice did not reduce flu-like illness except with hand sanitization .
Recommending the use of homemade masks is even more problematic .
Masks made of cloth get very damp and moist , which is a breeding ground for pathogens .
If these masks aren ’ t washed well or often enough , they could increase the risk of infection .
A study of the SARS epidemic “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of infection because of moisture , liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.
” It is for these reasons that the World Health Organization recommends mask-wearing only for those who are sick or who are caring for sick people .
A WHO document from January 2020 states that “ cloth masks are not recommended under any circumstance.
” For those using surgical masks , it ’ s important to know about proper disposal .
Surgical masks are intended for single use only .
You can find guidelines for disposal here .
Not disposing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lack of a clear message regarding the use of masks demonstrates how unprepared the agencies we depend on to protect the health of our citizenry truly are .
Health and Human Services ( HHS ) is the department that oversees and coordinates the CDC and FDA .
As we ’ ve seen , the CDC has given conflicting recommendations on proper protocols during the pandemic .
FDA failures in approving tests for COVID-19 put the US behind in stemming the outbreak .
Additionally , the executive branch ’ s decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not replace them has led to a reactive , rather than proactive , response to this crisis .
Experts have long contended that a catastrophic global pandemic was unavoidable .
We knew this was coming yet were completely unprepared to deal with it , and for that the federal government must shoulder much of the blame .

Inconsistency in government recommendations causes confusion. Imagine that?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reversed their recommendations on mask-wearing. Before April 3, the agency’s guidelines told those of us outside of healthcare settings not to wear masks, which were only for people who were sick or caring for people who were sick. Now, the CDC recommends that the general population wear non-medical masks—that is, fabric, like a cut-up shirt or a bandana, that covers the mouth and nose.
This follows multiple messages about why the general public didn’t need masks. US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, said mask-wearing wouldn’t protect us from contracting the virus; Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that recommendations not to wear a mask were based on a supply shortage.
The scientific evidence offers lukewarm support to the idea of wearing masks to prevent infection among the general public. One review article concluded that there is “some evidence” to support mask-wearing during illness to protect others, but “fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.” In another study, college students wore masks on campus during flu season but the practice did not reduce flu-like illness except with hand sanitization.
Recommending the use of homemade masks is even more problematic. Masks made of cloth get very damp and moist, which is a breeding ground for pathogens. If these masks aren’t washed well or often enough, they could increase the risk of infection. A study of the SARS epidemic “suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.” It is for these reasons that the World Health Organization recommends mask-wearing only for those who are sick or who are caring for sick people. A WHO document from January 2020 states that “cloth masks are not recommended under any circumstance.”
For those using surgical masks, it’s important to know about proper disposal. Surgical masks are intended for single use only. You can find guidelines for disposal here. Not disposing of masks properly can lead to cross contamination.
The lack of a clear message regarding the use of masks demonstrates how unprepared the agencies we depend on to protect the health of our citizenry truly are. Health and Human Services (HHS) is the department that oversees and coordinates the CDC and FDA. As we’ve seen, the CDC has given conflicting recommendations on proper protocols during the pandemic. FDA failures in approving tests for COVID-19 put the US behind in stemming the outbreak.
Additionally, the executive branch’s decision to terminate the entire pandemic response team and not replace them has led to a reactive, rather than proactive, response to this crisis.
Experts have long contended that a catastrophic global pandemic was unavoidable. We knew this was coming yet were completely unprepared to deal with it, and for that the federal government must shoulder much of the blame.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-04-07--How FDA Red Tape Prevented Widespread Coronavirus Testing

The FDA needs to stop blocking progress on COVID-19 .
Action Alert !
Countries like South Korea and Singapore that have ( so far ) successfully hampered transmission of COVID-19 have tested widely for the virus .
South Korea had its first confirmed case on the same day as the US , on January 20 .
Health officials there relied on a test based on the World Health Organization ( WHO ) technical guidelines published at the beginning of the outbreak and immediately allowed the private sector to process samples .
They quickly mobilized to test 20,000 people a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effective and decisive response to a critical situation ; the FDA and CDC ’ s response demonstrate the effects of cumbersome bureaucracy .
The US , led by the CDC and the FDA , decided not to use the WHO test , but rather to develop their own test—a test that turned out to be flawed , wasting precious time in the first weeks of the outbreak .
This and FDA regulatory barriers delayed widescale testing , which is one of the main reasons the rate of infection in the US is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries in testing its population .
The FDA shares much of the blame for the lack of an effective US response to the pandemic .
Laboratory developed tests are generally not subject to FDA pre-approval .
But when Health and Human Resources Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency , new rules kicked in that made it harder for labs and hospitals to develop their own COVID-19 diagnostic tests .
Labs needed to receive an Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) —in essence , pre-approval—from the FDA to deploy COVID-19 tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in previous outbreaks EUAs could be obtained in a matter of days ; but during this outbreak , the application process reportedly became so complicated it took weeks to receive the authorization .
Initially , labs were not allowed to begin testing until they got approval from the FDA , even if the lab had confirmed internally that the test worked .
The FDA later relaxed this requirement , allowing certain accredited labs to begin testing as they awaited approval for an EUA—but not before weeks had passed when hospitals and labs were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some companies had developed at-home tests developed in accordance with accredited labs .
Just days after these tests became available and samples started coming in , the FDA announced that it had not approved any at-home COVID-19 tests .
This prompted companies marketing the tests to pause their distribution and , worse yet , to destroy the samples they had already collected to comply with FDA bureaucracy .
The at-home test kits used inner-cheek swabs , saliva , and throat swabs to collect samples , rather than the nasopharyngeal swabs of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used—though the companies stated that the labs they were working with met federal standards for demonstrating the accuracy of the tests .
The FDA insists , however , that its emergency guidelines for coronavirus testing do not apply to at-home tests , including self-collection of samples to be sent to a clinical laboratory .
The FDA is also holding up test kits from overseas : at least one South Korean firm , which is churning out 400,000 test kits a week , has been shipping the kits around the world , including to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labs .
The one remaining obstacle is FDA approval : according to one Korean CEO , “ The biggest hurdle when it comes to the United States is getting the FDA approval.
” When the FDA rightly caught flak for its commitment to onerous and superfluous regulations during a public health emergency , the agency released a statement touting its “ unprecedented flexibility ” in allowing labs to develop and offer COVID-19 tests .
The testing capacity in the US is starting to increase .
There are two kinds of tests available .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction test which uses a nasopharyngeal swab .
There are multiple versions of the same test that have been approved with slight variations—for example , different tests target different sets of genes withing the COVID-19 virus .
The other type of test is a serological test , which uses blood samples to detect antibodies the body produces to fight the virus .
Even with increased capacity to test , regulations are still preventing widescale testing on par with other countries .
If ever there was a time for flexibility , it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic that could infect 40-70 % of the world ’ s population this year .
While we certainly do not want to open the door for fraudulent tests that do not give reliable results , companies should be allowed to innovate and create solutions where the federal government has failed so miserably at nearly every turn to meet the demand for tests during this pandemic .
Action Alert !
Tell the FDA to stop blocking innovation in coronavirus testing .
Please send your message immediately .

The FDA needs to stop blocking progress on COVID-19. Action Alert!
Countries like South Korea and Singapore that have (so far) successfully hampered transmission of COVID-19 have tested widely for the virus. South Korea had its first confirmed case on the same day as the US, on January 20. Health officials there relied on a test based on the World Health Organization (WHO) technical guidelines published at the beginning of the outbreak and immediately allowed the private sector to process samples. They quickly mobilized to test 20,000 people a day. South Korea is a model of an effective and decisive response to a critical situation; the FDA and CDC’s response demonstrate the effects of cumbersome bureaucracy.
The US, led by the CDC and the FDA, decided not to use the WHO test, but rather to develop their own test—a test that turned out to be flawed, wasting precious time in the first weeks of the outbreak. This and FDA regulatory barriers delayed widescale testing, which is one of the main reasons the rate of infection in the US is so high.
US lags behind many other countries in testing its population.
The FDA shares much of the blame for the lack of an effective US response to the pandemic. Laboratory developed tests are generally not subject to FDA pre-approval. But when Health and Human Resources Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency, new rules kicked in that made it harder for labs and hospitals to develop their own COVID-19 diagnostic tests. Labs needed to receive an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)—in essence, pre-approval—from the FDA to deploy COVID-19 tests.
According to former FDA officials, in previous outbreaks EUAs could be obtained in a matter of days; but during this outbreak, the application process reportedly became so complicated it took weeks to receive the authorization. Initially, labs were not allowed to begin testing until they got approval from the FDA, even if the lab had confirmed internally that the test worked. The FDA later relaxed this requirement, allowing certain accredited labs to begin testing as they awaited approval for an EUA—but not before weeks had passed when hospitals and labs were not able to use accessible COVID-19 tests.
Some companies had developed at-home tests developed in accordance with accredited labs. Just days after these tests became available and samples started coming in, the FDA announced that it had not approved any at-home COVID-19 tests. This prompted companies marketing the tests to pause their distribution and, worse yet, to destroy the samples they had already collected to comply with FDA bureaucracy. The at-home test kits used inner-cheek swabs, saliva, and throat swabs to collect samples, rather than the nasopharyngeal swabs of the back of the throat that are widely used—though the companies stated that the labs they were working with met federal standards for demonstrating the accuracy of the tests. The FDA insists, however, that its emergency guidelines for coronavirus testing do not apply to at-home tests, including self-collection of samples to be sent to a clinical laboratory.
The FDA is also holding up test kits from overseas: at least one South Korean firm, which is churning out 400,000 test kits a week, has been shipping the kits around the world, including to individual states in the US and private labs. The one remaining obstacle is FDA approval: according to one Korean CEO, “The biggest hurdle when it comes to the United States is getting the FDA approval.”
When the FDA rightly caught flak for its commitment to onerous and superfluous regulations during a public health emergency, the agency released a statement touting its “unprecedented flexibility” in allowing labs to develop and offer COVID-19 tests.
The testing capacity in the US is starting to increase. There are two kinds of tests available. The most common is the polymerase chain reaction test which uses a nasopharyngeal swab. There are multiple versions of the same test that have been approved with slight variations—for example, different tests target different sets of genes withing the COVID-19 virus. The other type of test is a serological test, which uses blood samples to detect antibodies the body produces to fight the virus.
Even with increased capacity to test, regulations are still preventing widescale testing on par with other countries.
If ever there was a time for flexibility, it would be now, in the midst of a pandemic that could infect 40-70% of the world’s population this year. While we certainly do not want to open the door for fraudulent tests that do not give reliable results, companies should be allowed to innovate and create solutions where the federal government has failed so miserably at nearly every turn to meet the demand for tests during this pandemic.
Action Alert! Tell the FDA to stop blocking innovation in coronavirus testing. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-04-07--Covid-19: When There Are No Drugs

Covid-19: When There Are No Drugs

Scientists are speaking out about the dangers of 5G , but government agencies are showing no signs of listening .
@ @ @ @ @ past months , we ’ ve been documenting the issues surrounding the launch of 5G @ @ @ @ @ closer and closer to a wider rollout of this technology , more i ...

https://youtu.be/CS8snUMqMMA
This is an original video produced by ANH International.
More resources available at ANH International’s Covid Zone.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-03-24--Last Chance to Protect Homeopathy

Last Chance to Protect Homeopathy

We must oppose the FDA ’ s actions against homeopathic medicines now .
Action Alert !
For many months now , we ’ ve been telling you about the FDA ’ s latest actions with regard to homeopathic medicines .
These actions upend decades of successful regulation of these important products that have been used safely for centuries .
The wording of the FDA ’ s draft guidance threatens all homeopathic medicines and gives the FDA the ability to go after any homeopathic drug it wants to .
The comment period for this guidance has been extended to May 23rd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave their own comment on the guidance .
As we ’ ve reported previously , the FDA ’ s guidance says : • Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “ generally recognized as safe and effective ” ( GRAS/E ) is considered a new drug ; • FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E ; • A new drug can not be marketed unless it goes through the FDA ’ s approval process ; • No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This means , according to the FDA , all homeopathic medicines are being marketed illegally .
The FDA explains that it will focus enforcement actions against specific categories of medicines with safety concerns : products with dangerous ingredients , products intended for vulnerable populations , etc .
However , the FDA does reserve the right to take action against any homeopathic product : “ This guidance is intended to provide notice that any homeopathic drug product that is being marketed illegally is subject to FDA enforcement action at any time.
” There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance .
The FDA does provide a definition of “ homeopathic drug , ” which was notably absent from the initial guidance , much to the confusion of the homeopathic industry and other stakeholders .
It is somewhat encouraging that the agency did not issue a final guidance , but rather another draft .
This is an indication that our voices are being heard and the FDA is worried about political push back from voters who are members of the natural health community .
There seems to be a lot of confusion about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is not any evidence that homeopathy works , several major meta-analyses have found homeopathic medicines to have an effect greater than placebo .
We address these and some other common misconceptions here .
Unfortunately , it ’ s likely that the FDA ’ s antipathy towards homeopathy is fueled more by a desire to protect drug industry profits than ignorance about the data .
The FDA continues to cite homeopathic teething tablets with belladonna as one of the concerns that prompted the agency to tighten control over homeopathic medicines .
Specifically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were “ possibly related ” to homeopathic teething products .
Yet , while the agency did find variable amounts of belladonna in some products , these amounts were well within safe limits , even if an infant swallowed an entire bottle .
The FDA will not stop this attack on homeopathy unless it is forced to do so by engaged citizens .
We must issue a strong response to the FDA and Congress , telling the government that these actions threaten the future of homeopathic medicine .
Action Alert !
Go to Regulations.gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect homeopathy !
You can also hit the button below to send a message to Congress and the FDA .
Please send your message immediately .

We must oppose the FDA’s actions against homeopathic medicines now. Action Alert!
For many months now, we’ve been telling you about the FDA’s latest actions with regard to homeopathic medicines. These actions upend decades of successful regulation of these important products that have been used safely for centuries. The wording of the FDA’s draft guidance threatens all homeopathic medicines and gives the FDA the ability to go after any homeopathic drug it wants to. The comment period for this guidance has been extended to May 23rd. Concerned citizens can go here to leave their own comment on the guidance.
As we’ve reported previously, the FDA’s guidance says:
Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug; FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E; A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process; No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford to take them through the approval process.
This means, according to the FDA, all homeopathic medicines are being marketed illegally. The FDA explains that it will focus enforcement actions against specific categories of medicines with safety concerns: products with dangerous ingredients, products intended for vulnerable populations, etc. However, the FDA does reserve the right to take action against any homeopathic product: “This guidance is intended to provide notice that any homeopathic drug product that is being marketed illegally is subject to FDA enforcement action at any time.”
There is not much new in the revised guidance. The FDA does provide a definition of “homeopathic drug,” which was notably absent from the initial guidance, much to the confusion of the homeopathic industry and other stakeholders.
It is somewhat encouraging that the agency did not issue a final guidance, but rather another draft. This is an indication that our voices are being heard and the FDA is worried about political push back from voters who are members of the natural health community.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about homeopathy. While opponents often say that there is not any evidence that homeopathy works, several major meta-analyses have found homeopathic medicines to have an effect greater than placebo. We address these and some other common misconceptions here.
Unfortunately, it’s likely that the FDA’s antipathy towards homeopathy is fueled more by a desire to protect drug industry profits than ignorance about the data. The FDA continues to cite homeopathic teething tablets with belladonna as one of the concerns that prompted the agency to tighten control over homeopathic medicines. Specifically, the agency states that 99 adverse events were “possibly related” to homeopathic teething products. Yet, while the agency did find variable amounts of belladonna in some products, these amounts were well within safe limits, even if an infant swallowed an entire bottle.
The FDA will not stop this attack on homeopathy unless it is forced to do so by engaged citizens. We must issue a strong response to the FDA and Congress, telling the government that these actions threaten the future of homeopathic medicine.
Action Alert! Go to Regulations.gov and leave a comment telling the FDA to protect homeopathy! You can also hit the button below to send a message to Congress and the FDA. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-03-24--A Bill We Helped Write Might Hold Key For COVID-19

A bill ANH helped write and pass may help get experimental treatments to COVID-19 patients .
The COVID-19 pandemic has medical professionals scrambling to see what treatments they can offer patients .
The latest estimates are that a vaccine is at least a year away .
The World Health Organization has identified one drug that may offer some hope : an experimental drug called Remdesivir .
The drug was effective against viral infections in the laboratory and in animal experiments but failed in an Ebola trial .
It is currently being tested on the coronavirus in China and the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has approved the use of Remdesivir for 250 seriously ill patients under the “ compassionate use ” program .
During a news conference , President Trump suggested utilizing another pathway to get experimental drugs , Right to Try , which was created by the passage of legislation ANH members supported in 2018 .
In fact , ANH-USA helped write the original form of this bill a number of years ago .
Right to Try allows patients diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses who have exhausted all other treatment options and who are unable to participate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bill removed a lot of FDA bureaucracy that previously stood in patients ’ way .
We hope patients utilize this improved program to get treatments that can give them some hope in difficult times .

A bill ANH helped write and pass may help get experimental treatments to COVID-19 patients.
The COVID-19 pandemic has medical professionals scrambling to see what treatments they can offer patients. The latest estimates are that a vaccine is at least a year away. The World Health Organization has identified one drug that may offer some hope: an experimental drug called Remdesivir. The drug was effective against viral infections in the laboratory and in animal experiments but failed in an Ebola trial. It is currently being tested on the coronavirus in China and the US, among other places.
The FDA has approved the use of Remdesivir for 250 seriously ill patients under the “compassionate use” program. During a news conference, President Trump suggested utilizing another pathway to get experimental drugs, Right to Try, which was created by the passage of legislation ANH members supported in 2018. In fact, ANH-USA helped write the original form of this bill a number of years ago. Right to Try allows patients diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses who have exhausted all other treatment options and who are unable to participate in clinical trials to access unapproved treatments. The bill removed a lot of FDA bureaucracy that previously stood in patients’ way.
We hope patients utilize this improved program to get treatments that can give them some hope in difficult times.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-03-17--Keep Health Food Stores Open!

Keep Health Food Stores Open!

State and local governments are starting to force many stores to close—let ’ s make sure those that protect our health stay open .
Action Alert !
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic , local governments are putting restrictions on businesses in order to prevent the virus ’ spread .
In many cases this is appropriate , but it is equally important that essential businesses , such as health food stores , stay open .
These stores carry products such as dietary supplements , healthy food options , products to replenish electrolytes , and many other such products that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune systems during the pandemic .
This is especially true since major online retailers , like Amazon , are running out of items and experiencing substantial delays .
We need health food stores to stay open .
Click the button at the bottom of the page to send a message to your state legislators emphasizing the importance of health food stores in providing consumers with essential products to keep healthy during this difficult time .
Our friends at ANH-International put together a list of immune boosting nutrients as part of their coverage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called “ Build your immune resilience—as nature intended , ” and we encourage all of our readers to read the full article .
Their list includes : • Nucleotides ( can be found in organ meats and fermented foods ) • Andrographis paniculata ( an herb with a long history of use in both Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine ) • Beta-glucans ( found in brewer ’ s yeast as well as shiitake and maitake mushrooms ) A recent systematic review on alternate COVID-19 treatment strategies in China has found that the immune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are proposing that the nutritional status of patients should be assessed before any drug treatment begins .
All of this underscores the necessity of keeping health food products available to consumers during this pandemic .
Action Alert !
Write to your state legislators and tell them to keep health food stores open during the pandemic .
Please send your message immediately .

State and local governments are starting to force many stores to close—let’s make sure those that protect our health stay open. Action Alert!
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments are putting restrictions on businesses in order to prevent the virus’ spread. In many cases this is appropriate, but it is equally important that essential businesses, such as health food stores, stay open. These stores carry products such as dietary supplements, healthy food options, products to replenish electrolytes, and many other such products that can help us stay healthy and boost our immune systems during the pandemic. This is especially true since major online retailers, like Amazon, are running out of items and experiencing substantial delays. We need health food stores to stay open.
Click the button at the bottom of the page to send a message to your state legislators emphasizing the importance of health food stores in providing consumers with essential products to keep healthy during this difficult time.
Our friends at ANH-International put together a list of immune boosting nutrients as part of their coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak. The piece is called “Build your immune resilience—as nature intended,” and we encourage all of our readers to read the full article. Their list includes:
Fresh, preferably whole, unprocessed or minimally processed plant foods
Zinc
Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Vitamin D
Nucleotides (can be found in organ meats and fermented foods)
Andrographis paniculata(an herb with a long history of use in both Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine)
Beta-glucans (found in brewer’s yeast as well as shiitake and maitake mushrooms)
Echinacea
Curcumin from turmeric
Our international counterparts also note:
A recent systematic review on alternate COVID-19 treatment strategies in China has found that the immune response is weakened by inadequate nutrition and they are proposing that the nutritional status of patients should be assessed before any drug treatment begins.
All of this underscores the necessity of keeping health food products available to consumers during this pandemic.
Action Alert! Write to your state legislators and tell them to keep health food stores open during the pandemic. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-03-17--Special Report: COVID-19—Fearmongering Born Out of Uncertainty

Our friends at ANH-International go in depth to provide some context on the pandemic .
We ’ re just settling in to a new normal around the US : social distancing , empty grocery stores , and major events are being cancelled or postponed .
It is an anxious time , but our international counterparts put out an excellent piece that lays out the facts and puts this pandemic in context .
Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 , that causes COVID-19 or just plain old ‘ coronavirus ’ – call it what you like – has taken the world by storm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe are coming together to ostensibly minimise human tragedy , suffering and hardship linked to the severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by the new circulating virus .
Unwittingly , some of these efforts might actually cause harms they ’ re intending to prevent .
Governments , corporations , transportation companies , schools , the entertainment and sporting sectors – mostly everyone – have accepted that in the absence of a silver , pharmaceutical bullet against this novel viral infective agent , we must accept the cost of the economic impacts caused by our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission… Click here to read the full article .

Our friends at ANH-International go in depth to provide some context on the pandemic.
We’re just settling in to a new normal around the US: social distancing, empty grocery stores, and major events are being cancelled or postponed. It is an anxious time, but our international counterparts put out an excellent piece that lays out the facts and puts this pandemic in context.
ANH-Intl Special Report: COVID-19 – fearmongering born out of uncertainty
by Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, executive and scientific director, ANH-Intl
Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2, that causes COVID-19 or just plain old ‘coronavirus’ – call it what you like – has taken the world by storm. Humans in every corner of the globe are coming together to ostensibly minimise human tragedy, suffering and hardship linked to the severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by the new circulating virus. Unwittingly, some of these efforts might actually cause harms they’re intending to prevent. Governments, corporations, transportation companies, schools, the entertainment and sporting sectors – mostly everyone – have accepted that in the absence of a silver, pharmaceutical bullet against this novel viral infective agent, we must accept the cost of the economic impacts caused by our efforts in trying to contain and control transmission…
Click here to read the full article.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-03-12--What’s the Score on Censorship?

What’s the Score on Censorship?

A closer look at how search engines like Google are picking winners and losers .
Action Alert !
We at ANH have been deeply concerned about the growing trend of censorship on the part of major Internet gatekeepers .
We decided to see how deep the censorship goes by comparing the results of natural health searches on four different search engines : Google , Bing , DuckDuckGo , and Startpage .
We found significant differences among these companies , but the biggest takeaway is that search engines seem to be picking winners and losers in the sites they prioritize , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free flow of information .
Our search terms included the following : The most striking takeaway was the degree to which WebMD and the Mayo Clinic dominated these searches : for the eight search terms listed above , either one , the other , or both of WebMD and the Mayo Clinic showed up in the top five hits for six out of the eight terms .
In two cases ( “ GMO safety ” and “ fluoride safety ” ) , DuckDuckGo and Bing turned up a WebMD article in the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clearly these gatekeepers rate information from these sources very highly , but can they be trusted ?
The Mayo Clinic receives $ 336.7 million in funding per year from federal and state governments , and $ 114.6 million from industry .
It is no surprise , then , that much of the content is skeptical , at best , of natural medicine .
As we reported previously , WebMD is reliable—in that they can be relied upon to sell drugs .
WebMD was caught in 2010 providing users with a fake quiz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 % of respondents ended up having a “ high likelihood of major depression ” and were directed to talk to their physician about treatment .
The quiz was sponsored by Eli Lilly , which makes the depression drug Cymbalta .
A search through WebMD ’ s pages on depression shows that they contain ads for antidepressant drugs .
The results for the “ natural cold remedies ” search are instructive .
The top result in Google was the Mayo Clinic , and another top result was WebMD .
The Mayo Clinic ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold doesn ’ t recommend any supplements ; it does , however , recommend Tylenol , Advil , or other pain killers , and other over-the-counter drugs .
This is natural medicine ?
WebMD was much the same in that it didn ’ t recommend any supplements , though it did recommend some foods to eat with a cold .
Bing and DuckDuckGo also had WebMD and Mayo Clinic in their top five searches , but Bing displayed an article from Dr. Mercola , a trusted source of natural health information .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Bing and DuckDuckGo resulted in a Mercola article and an article from Dr. Andrew Weil , another important voice in the natural health sphere , in the top 5 .
Neither Dr. Weil nor Dr. Mercola showed up in Google or Startpage ’ s top five .
For searches on “ fluoride safety , ” “ GMO safety , ” and “ 5G safety , ” the overwhelming majority of the top five results were articles defending the safety of fluoride , GMOs , and 5G .
All top five results defended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google and Startpage , for example .
These results have the fingerprints of Google ’ s “ quality raters ” all over them .
Recall that Google is now manually lowering the rankings of undesirable content with the help of third party “ quality raters.
” These quality raters visit websites and , as their name suggests , evaluate the quality of a website .
Raters then send this information to Google engineers who update their algorithm to throttle content that is deemed of low quality .
Sites that question conventional wisdom seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than others .
This helps explain why a search for “ natural cold remedies ” gives us websites that recommend anything but real natural health advice .
Consider that , of these searches , Dr. Mercola came up only three times out of 24 searches ( eight search terms on three search engines ) : in Bing ’ s results for natural cold remedies , and Bing and DuckDuckGo ’ s results for vitamin D and the flu .
This is by no means the only measure , but it is an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are taking trusted , credible natural health sites .
Gatekeepers like Google might like us to think that using their search engine puts the information of the Internet at our fingertips , but this is an empty promise .
With the use of “ quality raters ” —quite an Orwellian term—Google is curating content and undermining the democratic nature of the Internet .
It means that those who challenge established medical orthodoxies can effectively be silenced .
It will be much , much harder to educate the public about important scientific information relating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monopolistic organizations like Google have a stranglehold on what information can reach the public and what gets buried .
It is far too much power for a handful of executives at Google , Facebook , Pinterest , and other sites to wield .
We must oppose this censorship .
Action Alert !
Write to Congress and tell them to tackle Internet censorship !
Please send your message immediately .

A closer look at how search engines like Google are picking winners and losers. Action Alert!
We at ANH have been deeply concerned about the growing trend of censorship on the part of major Internet gatekeepers. We decided to see how deep the censorship goes by comparing the results of natural health searches on four different search engines: Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Startpage. We found significant differences among these companies, but the biggest takeaway is that search engines seem to be picking winners and losers in the sites they prioritize, which is a big problem for the free flow of information.
Our search terms included the following:
vitamin D flu
bioidentical hormones
homeopathy
fluoride safety
5G safety
GMO safety
natural cold remedies
natural menopause treatment
The most striking takeaway was the degree to which WebMD and the Mayo Clinic dominated these searches: for the eight search terms listed above, either one, the other, or both of WebMD and the Mayo Clinic showed up in the top five hits for six out of the eight terms. In two cases (“GMO safety” and “fluoride safety”), DuckDuckGo and Bing turned up a WebMD article in the top five when Google and Startpage did not.
Clearly these gatekeepers rate information from these sources very highly, but can they be trusted? The Mayo Clinic receives $336.7 million in funding per year from federal and state governments, and $114.6 million from industry. It is no surprise, then, that much of the content is skeptical, at best, of natural medicine.
As we reported previously, WebMD is reliable—in that they can be relied upon to sell drugs. WebMD was caught in 2010 providing users with a fake quiz meant to screen for depression in which 100% of respondents ended up having a “high likelihood of major depression” and were directed to talk to their physician about treatment. The quiz was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which makes the depression drug Cymbalta. A search through WebMD’s pages on depression shows that they contain ads for antidepressant drugs.
The results for the “natural cold remedies” search are instructive. The top result in Google was the Mayo Clinic, and another top result was WebMD. The Mayo Clinic’s page on home remedies for the cold doesn’t recommend any supplements; it does, however, recommend Tylenol, Advil, or other pain killers, and other over-the-counter drugs. This is natural medicine? WebMD was much the same in that it didn’t recommend any supplements, though it did recommend some foods to eat with a cold. Bing and DuckDuckGo also had WebMD and Mayo Clinic in their top five searches, but Bing displayed an article from Dr. Mercola, a trusted source of natural health information.
The search for “vitamin D flu” on Bing and DuckDuckGo resulted in a Mercola article and an article from Dr. Andrew Weil, another important voice in the natural health sphere, in the top 5. Neither Dr. Weil nor Dr. Mercola showed up in Google or Startpage’s top five.
For searches on “fluoride safety,” “GMO safety,” and “5G safety,” the overwhelming majority of the top five results were articles defending the safety of fluoride, GMOs, and 5G. All top five results defended the safety of fluoride and GMOs for Google and Startpage, for example.
These results have the fingerprints of Google’s “quality raters” all over them. Recall that Google is now manually lowering the rankings of undesirable content with the help of third party “quality raters.” These quality raters visit websites and, as their name suggests, evaluate the quality of a website. Raters then send this information to Google engineers who update their algorithm to throttle content that is deemed of low quality. Sites that question conventional wisdom seem to be relegated in Google searches more than others. This helps explain why a search for “natural cold remedies” gives us websites that recommend anything but real natural health advice.
Consider that, of these searches, Dr. Mercola came up only three times out of 24 searches (eight search terms on three search engines): in Bing’s results for natural cold remedies, and Bing and DuckDuckGo’s results for vitamin D and the flu. This is by no means the only measure, but it is an important measure as to how seriously search engines are taking trusted, credible natural health sites.
Gatekeepers like Google might like us to think that using their search engine puts the information of the Internet at our fingertips, but this is an empty promise. With the use of “quality raters”—quite an Orwellian term—Google is curating content and undermining the democratic nature of the Internet. It means that those who challenge established medical orthodoxies can effectively be silenced. It will be much, much harder to educate the public about important scientific information relating to our health. It means that monopolistic organizations like Google have a stranglehold on what information can reach the public and what gets buried. It is far too much power for a handful of executives at Google, Facebook, Pinterest, and other sites to wield.
We must oppose this censorship.
Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to tackle Internet censorship! Please send your message immediately.


PPIs: New Danger

Now we can add fractures to the list of side effects for these dangerous drugs .
Action Alert !
A new study has found that proton pump inhibitors ( PPIs ) are associated with an increase in fracture risk among kidney transplant recipients .
Unfortunately this is just one more item among the many dangers that have been associated with these drugs .
In fact , there are lawsuits currently alleging that PPIs cause kidney damage .
You can help us get these and other dangerous drugs off the market by visiting our Legal Center .
It gets even worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transplant recipients are prescribed PPIs with no indication—that is , for no stated reason—and PPI use in these patients can persist after transplant for up to three years .
This finding was confirmed by other researchers , who further found that transplant patients taking PPIs were at a higher risk of contracting clostridium difficile ( C. diff ) , a debilitating bacterial infection that hits 500,000 Americans a year and kills 30,000 .
Then there are the side effects , which we ’ ve written about extensively .
Acid blockers : • Increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pneumonia , and bone fracture .
• Shut down lysosomes ( the cell ’ s garbage disposal ) in every cell in the body , inhibiting energy production and detoxification .
• Cause both acute and chronic kidney disease .
• Increase the risk of dementia by as much as 52 % .
• Raise the risk of heart attack by as much as 20 % .
• Increase the risk of babies developing asthma by 30 % , with some acid blockers ( like Pepcid and Tagamet ) increasing the risk by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address the root cause of stomach trouble , which is often too little stomach acid , not too much .
This means that in many cases , taking acid blockers simply makes your stomach problems even worse .
Public health experts say between 60 and 70 % of people who take these drugs don ’ t need them .
There are also natural ways to address acid reflux and too much stomach acid .
Lifestyle changes can help , which include avoiding certain foods such as coffee , chocolate , alcohol , spicy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoking ; losing weight ; avoiding eating close to bedtime ; elevating the head while sleeping ; and limiting use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs ) .
Nutrients that can be helpful include calcium , magnesium , calcium , melatonin , and raft-forming agents—combinations of a gel-forming fiber ( e.g.
, alginate or pectin ) with an antacid buffer ( commonly sodium or potassium bicarbonate ) .
With the long list of negative side effects , it should come as no surprise that there are pending legal cases against PPIs .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a Multi-District Litigation ( MDL ) , which centralizes pretrial activities for multiple cases to save time , court costs , and attorney ’ s fees .
Visit our Legal Center and help us remove dangerous drugs like PPIs from the market .
You can also take action below to support important reforms to the drug approval process and the post-approval safety monitoring of drugs .

Now we can add fractures to the list of side effects for these dangerous drugs. Action Alert!
A new study has found that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with an increase in fracture risk among kidney transplant recipients. Unfortunately this is just one more item among the many dangers that have been associated with these drugs. In fact, there are lawsuits currently alleging that PPIs cause kidney damage. You can help us get these and other dangerous drugs off the market by visiting our Legal Center.
It gets even worse. One recent study found that kidney transplant recipients are prescribed PPIs with no indication—that is, for no stated reason—and PPI use in these patients can persist after transplant for up to three years. This finding was confirmed by other researchers, who further found that transplant patients taking PPIs were at a higher risk of contracting clostridium difficile (C. diff), a debilitating bacterial infection that hits 500,000 Americans a year and kills 30,000.
Then there are the side effects, which we’ve written about extensively. Acid blockers:
Increase the risk of bacterial infection, including pneumonia , and bone fracture.
, and bone fracture. Shut down lysosomes (the cell’s garbage disposal) in every cell in the body , inhibiting energy production and detoxification.
, inhibiting energy production and detoxification. Cause both acute and chronic kidney disease.
both acute and chronic kidney disease. Increase the risk of dementia by as much as 52%.
of dementia by as much as 52%. Raise the risk of heart attack by as much as 20%.
of heart attack by as much as 20%. Increase the risk of babies developing asthma by 30%, with some acid blockers (like Pepcid and Tagamet) increasing the risk by 46%.
Acid blockers do not address the root cause of stomach trouble, which is often too little stomach acid, not too much. This means that in many cases, taking acid blockers simply makes your stomach problems even worse. Public health experts say between 60 and 70% of people who take these drugs don’t need them.
There are also natural ways to address acid reflux and too much stomach acid. Lifestyle changes can help, which include avoiding certain foods such as coffee, chocolate, alcohol, spicy foods, and carbonated beverages; quitting smoking; losing weight; avoiding eating close to bedtime; elevating the head while sleeping; and limiting use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Nutrients that can be helpful include calcium, magnesium, calcium, melatonin, and raft-forming agents—combinations of a gel-forming fiber (e.g., alginate or pectin) with an antacid buffer (commonly sodium or potassium bicarbonate).
With the long list of negative side effects, it should come as no surprise that there are pending legal cases against PPIs. These cases have been slated to be consolidated into a Multi-District Litigation (MDL), which centralizes pretrial activities for multiple cases to save time, court costs, and attorney’s fees.
PPI brands include:
Aciphex (rabeprazole)
Dexilent/Kapidex (dexlansoprazole)
Nexium (esomeprazole)
PrevAcid (lansoprazole)
Prilosec (omeprazole)
Protonix (pantoprazole)
Vimovo (esomeprazole and naproxen)
Zegerid (omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate)
Visit our Legal Center and help us remove dangerous drugs like PPIs from the market. You can also take action below to support important reforms to the drug approval process and the post-approval safety monitoring of drugs.


Medicine by Algorithm?

This is the direction the federal government is taking us .
We must oppose it .
Action Alert !
Late last year , the FDA released a draft guidance document that will loosen the reigns on some types of medical software .
This development is part of a larger trend in which artificial intelligence ( AI ) and other technologies take on a more central role in the doctor/patient relationship .
It is “ evidence-based ” medicine , as determined by government regulators .
The FDA ’ s guidance deals with “ clinical decision support ” software ( CDS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data within electronic health records to provide prompts and reminders to assist health care providers in implementing evidence-based clinical guidelines at the point of care.
” The 21st Century Cures Act excluded certain CDS from the definition of medical devices , meaning CDS that meet the criteria are not subject to certain FDA regulations .
Further , the FDA laid out a policy of risk-based enforcement discretion for CDS that do not meet all four criteria , but that the agency considers low-risk .
The issue is less the types of software FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , but rather the trend of medicine by algorithm .
Make no mistake : CDS is the future of medicine .
The AI health market is projected to hit $ 6.6 billion by 2021 ; in 2014 it was $ 600 million .
AI supported by machine learning algorithms is already being integrated in the practice of oncology .
The most common application of this technology is the recognition of potentially cancerous lesions in radiology images .
But we are rapidly moving beyond this to where AI is used to make clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oncology , a program that uses patient data and national treatment guidelines to guide cancer management .
As we ’ ve seen , Google and other tech giants are greedy for our health data so they can develop more of these tools .
Technology should absolutely be harnessed to improve medicine and clinical outcomes , but AI can not replace the doctor/patient relationship .
There are obvious ethical questions .
First is the lack of transparency .
The algorithms , particularly the “ deep learning ” algorithms currently being used to analyze medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain .
As patients , we have a right to know why or how a decision about our health is made ; when that decision is made by an algorithm , we are deprived of that right .
Further , when a mistake is made , who is accountable ?
The algorithm , or the doctor ?
How do we hold an algorithm accountable ?
There are other problems when using AI machine learning in medicine .
It can lead to bias , for example , by predicting greater likelihood of a disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when those are not causal factors .
AI also does not account for the assumptions clinicians routinely make .
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center evaluated the risk of death from pneumonia of patients arriving in their emergency department .
The AI model told them that mortality decreased when patients were 100 years old or had a diagnosis of pneumonia .
Sound ridiculous ?
Rather than these patients actually being at low risk of death , their risk was so high that they were immediately given antibiotics before they were registered in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s analysis and producing a ridiculous conclusion .
There is also a danger that medicine becomes even more monolithic than it is today .
One commentator put it this way : AI that is programmed to incorporate current disease guidelines and best practices into their analysis will suffer from the same shortcomings that we see in conventional medicine today .
In other words , if American Medical Association guidelines are the standard for achieving the “ evidence-based medicine ” that AI can help with , we begin an analysis with the biases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get us anywhere if we ’ re asking the wrong questions in the first place .
Action Alert !
Write to the FDA , the American Hospital Association , and the Federation of State Medical Boards , telling them you oppose the use of AI to make clinical decisions .
Please send your message immediately .

This is the direction the federal government is taking us. We must oppose it. Action Alert!
Late last year, the FDA released a draft guidance document that will loosen the reigns on some types of medical software. This development is part of a larger trend in which artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies take on a more central role in the doctor/patient relationship. It is “evidence-based” medicine, as determined by government regulators.
The FDA’s guidance deals with “clinical decision support” software (CDS). These are programs that “analyze data within electronic health records to provide prompts and reminders to assist health care providers in implementing evidence-based clinical guidelines at the point of care.” The 21st Century Cures Act excluded certain CDS from the definition of medical devices, meaning CDS that meet the criteria are not subject to certain FDA regulations. Further, the FDA laid out a policy of risk-based enforcement discretion for CDS that do not meet all four criteria, but that the agency considers low-risk.
The issue is less the types of software FDA considers medical devices and which it does not, but rather the trend of medicine by algorithm. Make no mistake: CDS is the future of medicine. The AI health market is projected to hit $6.6 billion by 2021; in 2014 it was $600 million.
AI supported by machine learning algorithms is already being integrated in the practice of oncology. The most common application of this technology is the recognition of potentially cancerous lesions in radiology images. But we are rapidly moving beyond this to where AI is used to make clinical decisions. IBM has developed Watson for Oncology, a program that uses patient data and national treatment guidelines to guide cancer management. As we’ve seen, Google and other tech giants are greedy for our health data so they can develop more of these tools.
Technology should absolutely be harnessed to improve medicine and clinical outcomes, but AI cannot replace the doctor/patient relationship. There are obvious ethical questions. First is the lack of transparency. The algorithms, particularly the “deep learning” algorithms currently being used to analyze medical images, are impossible to interpret or explain. As patients, we have a right to know why or how a decision about our health is made; when that decision is made by an algorithm, we are deprived of that right. Further, when a mistake is made, who is accountable? The algorithm, or the doctor? How do we hold an algorithm accountable?
There are other problems when using AI machine learning in medicine. It can lead to bias, for example, by predicting greater likelihood of a disease on the basis of race or gender when those are not causal factors. AI also does not account for the assumptions clinicians routinely make. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center evaluated the risk of death from pneumonia of patients arriving in their emergency department. The AI model told them that mortality decreased when patients were 100 years old or had a diagnosis of pneumonia. Sound ridiculous? Rather than these patients actually being at low risk of death, their risk was so high that they were immediately given antibiotics before they were registered in the electronic medical record—throwing off the AI’s analysis and producing a ridiculous conclusion.
There is also a danger that medicine becomes even more monolithic than it is today. One commentator put it this way:
The machines do not and cannot verify the accuracy of the underlying data they are given. Rather, they assume the data are perfectly accurate, reflect high quality, and are representative of optimal care and outcomes. Hence, the models generated will be optimized to approximate the outcomes that we are generating today.
AI that is programmed to incorporate current disease guidelines and best practices into their analysis will suffer from the same shortcomings that we see in conventional medicine today. In other words, if American Medical Association guidelines are the standard for achieving the “evidence-based medicine” that AI can help with, we begin an analysis with the biases of conventional medicine. Sophisticated data analysis doesn’t get us anywhere if we’re asking the wrong questions in the first place.
Action Alert! Write to the FDA, the American Hospital Association, and the Federation of State Medical Boards, telling them you oppose the use of AI to make clinical decisions. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-02-27--Does CBD Hold Key to Antibiotic Resistance?

More evidence of CBD ’ s benefits—but will the FDA make it available to us at reasonable prices ?
Action Alert !
Researchers have reported that CBD , one of the compounds found in hemp , has shown promise against antibiotic resistant infections such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus ( MRSA ) .
This is in addition to the other benefits of CBD for pain , anxiety , and a number of other conditions .
We must ensure that the FDA does not make CBD a monopoly drug and allows CBD to be sold in supplements at therapeutic levels .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective ” at killing a wide range of Gram-positive bacteria , including bacteria that have become resistant to other antibiotics , and did not lose effectiveness after extended treatment .
Gram-positive bacteria , as opposed to Gram-negative bacteria , refers to bacteria that give a positive result in the Gram strain test , which is used to classify bacteria into two categories according to their cell wall .
Additionally , CBD was effective at disrupting biofilms , a form of bacteria growth that leads to difficult-to-treat infections .
Public health experts have spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibiotic resistance : while resistant infections currently kill about 700,000 people a year , it is estimated that by 2050 they will kill 10 million a year .
MRSA alone infects 90,000 Americans a year and kills 20,000 .
We ’ ve written many times before about the natural medicines that are effective against infections but ignored by conventional medicine ; now it seems we might add CBD to the natural health arsenal .
The FDA problem remains , however .
Recall that the agency has approved a CBD drug to treat a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost a reported $ 32,500 a year .
It seems to be the FDA ’ s position that , because of the approved drug , CBD in supplements is now illegal , although the agency has only gone after companies making illegal health claims about CBD ( so far ) .
As we wrote previously , the FDA may even go after hemp oil .
The more we learn about CBD , the more we see the incredible health benefits of this natural compound .
But the FDA is poised to make this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBD is both a natural , safe , and non-addictive alternative to opioid drugs , which kill more people every year than car accidents ; it is also proving effective against drug-resistant bacteria , which kill hundreds of thousands of people across the world every year .
But what does the government agency charged with protecting public health do ?
It turns this compound into a monopoly drug costing tens of thousands of dollars a year .
This is crony medicine , through and through .
There is a bill that legalizes CBD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide an exemption for hemp-derived CBD and any “ hemp-derived CBD-containing substance ” from rules that apply to dietary supplements when there is an approved drug with that ingredient or if that ingredient is being investigated as a new drug .
If approved as is , this bill would allow hemp-derived CBD supplements and hemp oils containing CBD to be sold .
This important measure needs our support .
Action Alert !
Write to Congress , and tell them to support legislation to legalize CBD supplements !
Please send your message immediately .

More evidence of CBD’s benefits—but will the FDA make it available to us at reasonable prices? Action Alert!
Researchers have reported that CBD, one of the compounds found in hemp, has shown promise against antibiotic resistant infections such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This is in addition to the other benefits of CBD for pain, anxiety, and a number of other conditions. We must ensure that the FDA does not make CBD a monopoly drug and allows CBD to be sold in supplements at therapeutic levels.
The researchers found that CBD was “remarkably effective” at killing a wide range of Gram-positive bacteria, including bacteria that have become resistant to other antibiotics, and did not lose effectiveness after extended treatment. Gram-positive bacteria, as opposed to Gram-negative bacteria, refers to bacteria that give a positive result in the Gram strain test, which is used to classify bacteria into two categories according to their cell wall. Additionally, CBD was effective at disrupting biofilms, a form of bacteria growth that leads to difficult-to-treat infections.
Public health experts have spoken in near-apocalyptic terms about the scourge of antibiotic resistance: while resistant infections currently kill about 700,000 people a year, it is estimated that by 2050 they will kill 10 million a year. MRSA alone infects 90,000 Americans a year and kills 20,000. We’ve written many times before about the natural medicines that are effective against infections but ignored by conventional medicine; now it seems we might add CBD to the natural health arsenal.
The FDA problem remains, however. Recall that the agency has approved a CBD drug to treat a rare form of epilepsy—a drug that will cost a reported $32,500 a year. It seems to be the FDA’s position that, because of the approved drug, CBD in supplements is now illegal, although the agency has only gone after companies making illegal health claims about CBD (so far). As we wrote previously, the FDA may even go after hemp oil.
The more we learn about CBD, the more we see the incredible health benefits of this natural compound. But the FDA is poised to make this a monopoly drug. Just think: CBD is both a natural, safe, and non-addictive alternative to opioid drugs, which kill more people every year than car accidents; it is also proving effective against drug-resistant bacteria, which kill hundreds of thousands of people across the world every year. But what does the government agency charged with protecting public health do? It turns this compound into a monopoly drug costing tens of thousands of dollars a year. This is crony medicine, through and through.
There is a bill that legalizes CBD supplements. It amends the law to provide an exemption for hemp-derived CBD and any “hemp-derived CBD-containing substance” from rules that apply to dietary supplements when there is an approved drug with that ingredient or if that ingredient is being investigated as a new drug. If approved as is, this bill would allow hemp-derived CBD supplements and hemp oils containing CBD to be sold. This important measure needs our support.
Action Alert! Write to Congress, and tell them to support legislation to legalize CBD supplements! Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-02-27--Glyphosate: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

A member of Big Food has committed to phasing out this dangerous chemical .
But the fight is far from over .
Action Alert !
In late 2019 , Kellogg ’ s committed to phasing out by 2025 wheat and oats on which farmers have used glyphosate as a drying agent .
This is an important step towards a complete phase out of the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide on the planet , but what is really needed is for the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) to ban this chemical , an action the agency seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ANH-USA first drew attention to this issue in 2018 , when we published the results of testing we did to see how much glyphosate was present in common breakfast foods , including cereals .
The EPA has also taken action on glyphosate—to keep it on the market .
The law requires the EPA to continuously review pesticide products used in the US , which is why the agency conducted an interim registration review for glyphosate .
Contradicting piles of scientific evidence , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , and juries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed by glyphosate with damages , the EPA maintains that there is “ insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases.
” It seems likely that cronyism is at the heart of the EPA ’ s otherwise baffling decision .
We reported previously willfully ignored evidence of glyphosate ’ s danger .
An analysis found that that , compared with the WHO review finding glyphosate to be a “ probable carcinogen , ” the EPA did not review the pertinent science when evaluating glyphosate .
The EPA disregarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , the ability of glyphosate to damage cells ’ genetic material , which can cause mutations that lead to cancer .
There ’ s more .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorable to Monsanto .
The letter also argued that the research on glyphosate supports categorizing it as a probable human carcinogen .
Keep in mind , too , that previous research we ’ ve reported on found that pesticides and herbicides can be up to 1,000 times more toxic to humans than just the active ingredients themselves due to the various adjuvants that are added to the active ingredient to make a complete herbicide .
The EPA seems to have taken great care to avoid any research that might suggest glyphosate and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Roundup , the name of the herbicide in which glyphosate is the active ingredient , is the most widely used herbicide in the US .
Human exposure to glyphosate has increased by 500 % since the introduction of genetically modified crops .
Glyphosate is traditionally sprayed on genetically modified soy , corn , canola , sorghum , alfalfa , sugar beets , and cotton but it is also sprayed—sometimes right before harvest—on a substantial portion of wheat and oats grown in the US .
Glyphosate is also sprayed on a wide variety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rice , cherries , avocados , and apples .
The EPA ’ s decision will disproportionately hurt disadvantaged populations who can not afford to buy organic food that isn ’ t sprayed with glyphosate .
It will also hurt the health of those living , working , and going to school in agricultural areas where pesticide drift occurs .
Groundskeepers working on lawns and golf courses are also exposed to glyphosate at higher levels .
We ’ ve seen a deluge of court cases of those stricken with non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma suing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Johnson , a groundskeeper in Northern California , recently won $ 298 million from a jury who decided that glyphosate caused his non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma ( the judge knocked the award down to $ 78 million ) .
It is time for the EPA to listen to the multitude of experts pointing to the dangers of glyphosate and issue a ban on this chemical .
Action Alert !
Write to the EPA and Congress , telling them to ban glyphosate .
Please send your message immediately .

A member of Big Food has committed to phasing out this dangerous chemical. But the fight is far from over. Action Alert!
In late 2019, Kellogg’s committed to phasing out by 2025 wheat and oats on which farmers have used glyphosate as a drying agent. This is an important step towards a complete phase out of the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide on the planet, but what is really needed is for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban this chemical, an action the agency seems unwilling to take without significant public pressure.
ANH-USA first drew attention to this issue in 2018, when we published the results of testing we did to see how much glyphosate was present in common breakfast foods, including cereals.
The EPA has also taken action on glyphosate—to keep it on the market. The law requires the EPA to continuously review pesticide products used in the US, which is why the agency conducted an interim registration review for glyphosate. Contradicting piles of scientific evidence, the World Health Organization (WHO), and juries across the country who have awarded plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate with damages, the EPA maintains that there is “insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases.”
It seems likely that cronyism is at the heart of the EPA’s otherwise baffling decision. We reported previously willfully ignored evidence of glyphosate’s danger. An analysis found that that, compared with the WHO review finding glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen,” the EPA did not review the pertinent science when evaluating glyphosate. The EPA disregarded scientific evidence of genotoxicity associated with glyphosate—that is, the ability of glyphosate to damage cells’ genetic material, which can cause mutations that lead to cancer.
There’s more. 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.
Keep in mind, too, that previous research we’ve reported on found that pesticides and herbicides can be up to 1,000 times more toxic to humans than just the active ingredients themselves due to the various adjuvants that are added to the active ingredient to make a complete herbicide. The EPA seems to have taken great care to avoid any research that might suggest glyphosate and the herbicides that contain it could be dangerous.
Roundup, the name of the herbicide in which glyphosate is the active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the US. Human exposure to glyphosate has increased by 500% since the introduction of genetically modified crops. Glyphosate is traditionally sprayed on genetically modified soy, corn, canola, sorghum, alfalfa, sugar beets, and cotton but it is also sprayed—sometimes right before harvest—on a substantial portion of wheat and oats grown in the US. Glyphosate is also sprayed on a wide variety of non-GMO crops such as almonds, rice, cherries, avocados, and apples.
The EPA’s decision will disproportionately hurt disadvantaged populations who cannot afford to buy organic food that isn’t sprayed with glyphosate. It will also hurt the health of those living, working, and going to school in agricultural areas where pesticide drift occurs. Groundskeepers working on lawns and golf courses are also exposed to glyphosate at higher levels. We’ve seen a deluge of court cases of those stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma suing Monsanto with success. Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a groundskeeper in Northern California, recently won $298 million from a jury who decided that glyphosate caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (the judge knocked the award down to $78 million).
It is time for the EPA to listen to the multitude of experts pointing to the dangers of glyphosate and issue a ban on this chemical.
Action Alert! Write to the EPA and Congress, telling them to ban glyphosate. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-02-20--Dr. Google’s Prescription: Censorship

Dr. Google’s Prescription: Censorship

This search engine monopolist is preventing you from learning about natural health , and instead promoting prescription drugs .
Action Alert !
Last year , we told you about the aggressive censorship campaign that Google and other Internet gatekeepers have embarked upon .
This censorship is preventing Americans from learning about the benefits of natural health from some of the most reliable and trustworthy voices , such as Dr. Joseph Mercola .
In a stunning article , Dr. Mercola shows objective evidence of the shameful censorship that his site has been subjected to by Google .
Lawmakers are starting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it remains unclear how these efforts will shake out .
The evidence at this point is incontrovertible .
Dr. Mercola explains that much of his success as a physician was due to his ability to treat arthritis , and a popular article describing his arthritis protocol was consistently high on the list of search items for “ arthritis.
” Do that search today , however , and you won ’ t find that article .
The top result , even when you search “ Mercola arthritis , ” is a Croatian website that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s arthritis article in its entirety .
Dr. Mercola ’ s site ranks 9,002 in global internet engagement ; the Croatian site ranks 9,401,920 .
Simply put , Google gives precedence to a site with a relevance ranking that is 1,000 times lower than Dr. Mercola ’ s site .
This clearly runs contrary to the guidelines that Google claims to use in ranking internet content .
The censorship goes even further than that .
Restricted searches ( such as ‘ mercola.com arthritis ’ ) should allow you to search for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But performing such a search on Google gives you results mainly from Dr. Mercola ’ s veterinary site , which obviously has very little relevance to the initial search .
WebMD and Healthline are two sites that currently seem to dominate health-related Google searches .
But the only thing “ trustworthy ” about these sites is that they can be relied upon to try to sell us drugs .
WebMD was caught in 2010 providing users with a fake quiz meant to screen for depression in which 100 % of respondents ended up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depression ” and were directed to talk to their physician about treatment .
The quiz was sponsored by Eli Lilly , which makes the depression drug Cymbalta .
A search through WebMD ’ s pages on depression shows that they contain ads for antidepressant drugs .
These kinds of sites are where Google is directing people who search for health topics online—places where pharmaceutical companies buy ads to peddle their dangerous drugs .
Google used to rank pages primarily by popularity ; for the most part , the more clicks your site got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to your content , the higher your Google ranking—that is , the higher your site showed up on a relevant Google search .
But in this age of censorship , all that has changed .
Google is now manually lowering the rankings of undesirable content with the help of third party “ quality raters.
” These quality raters visit websites and , as their name suggests , evaluate the quality of a website .
Raters then send this information to Google engineers who update their algorithm to throttle content that is deemed of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s core algorithm are having dramatic results .
Google traffic to Mercola.com , the site of famed natural health advocate Joseph Mercola , MD , fell an astonishing 99 % over the span of a few weeks after the algorithm changed .
There is activity on Capitol Hill regarding internet censorship , but few actual pieces of legislation yet .
Antidiscrimination efforts seek to modify a section of law that protects platforms from being sued over third party content that they publish or share .
This may have the undesirable effect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since companies would be liable for the content , sites may simply shut down comment sections altogether , for example .
We will closely monitor developments and update readers on actionable legislation or initiatives .
Action Alert !
Write to Congress , and tell them to do more to address Internet censorship by monopolies .
Please send your message immediately .

This search engine monopolist is preventing you from learning about natural health, and instead promoting prescription drugs. Action Alert!
Last year, we told you about the aggressive censorship campaign that Google and other Internet gatekeepers have embarked upon. This censorship is preventing Americans from learning about the benefits of natural health from some of the most reliable and trustworthy voices, such as Dr. Joseph Mercola. In a stunning article, Dr. Mercola shows objective evidence of the shameful censorship that his site has been subjected to by Google. Lawmakers are starting to take notice of this trend, but it remains unclear how these efforts will shake out.
The evidence at this point is incontrovertible. Dr. Mercola explains that much of his success as a physician was due to his ability to treat arthritis, and a popular article describing his arthritis protocol was consistently high on the list of search items for “arthritis.” Do that search today, however, and you won’t find that article. The top result, even when you search “Mercola arthritis,” is a Croatian website that copied, without permission, Dr. Mercola’s arthritis article in its entirety. Dr. Mercola’s site ranks 9,002 in global internet engagement; the Croatian site ranks 9,401,920.
Simply put, Google gives precedence to a site with a relevance ranking that is 1,000 times lower than Dr. Mercola’s site. This clearly runs contrary to the guidelines that Google claims to use in ranking internet content.
The censorship goes even further than that. Restricted searches (such as ‘mercola.com arthritis’) should allow you to search for the most popular pages within a site. But performing such a search on Google gives you results mainly from Dr. Mercola’s veterinary site, which obviously has very little relevance to the initial search.
WebMD and Healthline are two sites that currently seem to dominate health-related Google searches. But the only thing “trustworthy” about these sites is that they can be relied upon to try to sell us drugs. WebMD was caught in 2010 providing users with a fake quiz meant to screen for depression in which 100% of respondents ended up having a “high likelihood of major depression” and were directed to talk to their physician about treatment. The quiz was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which makes the depression drug Cymbalta. A search through WebMD’s pages on depression shows that they contain ads for antidepressant drugs.
These kinds of sites are where Google is directing people who search for health topics online—places where pharmaceutical companies buy ads to peddle their dangerous drugs.
Google used to rank pages primarily by popularity; for the most part, the more clicks your site got, or the more sites that linked to your content, the higher your Google ranking—that is, the higher your site showed up on a relevant Google search. But in this age of censorship, all that has changed. Google is now manually lowering the rankings of undesirable content with the help of third party “quality raters.” These quality raters visit websites and, as their name suggests, evaluate the quality of a website. Raters then send this information to Google engineers who update their algorithm to throttle content that is deemed of low quality.
The changes to Google’s core algorithm are having dramatic results. Google traffic to Mercola.com, the site of famed natural health advocate Joseph Mercola, MD, fell an astonishing 99% over the span of a few weeks after the algorithm changed.
There is activity on Capitol Hill regarding internet censorship, but few actual pieces of legislation yet. Antidiscrimination efforts seek to modify a section of law that protects platforms from being sued over third party content that they publish or share. This may have the undesirable effect of ending public engagement on many platforms: since companies would be liable for the content, sites may simply shut down comment sections altogether, for example. We will closely monitor developments and update readers on actionable legislation or initiatives.
Action Alert! Write to Congress, and tell them to do more to address Internet censorship by monopolies. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-02-20--Drinking Water Contaminated With Deadly “Forever” Chemicals?

A new analysis shows US water systems are widely contaminated with “ forever chemicals , ” but the EPA isn ’ t doing anything about it .
Action Alert !
A recent analysis from the Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) found that America ’ s drinking water is extensively contaminated with toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS .
Despite the extent of the contamination and the danger to health posed by these chemicals , the Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate or require testing for PFAS .
We must pressure the EPA to ban these dangerous chemicals .
EWG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 31 states .
Only one location had no detectable level of PFAS ; only two locations had levels below that which independent studies consider safe .
Some of the highest levels of PFAS were found in major metropolitan areas like Miami , Philadelphia , New Orleans , and northern New Jersey .
These highly urban areas contain large populations who lack the financial resources to remediate dangerous drinking water .
Once again , the least affluent members of society are most vulnerable to this devastating environmental danger .
PFAS are known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not break down in the environment and accumulate in human blood and organs .
These compounds are used to make products water and stain resistant and are found in Teflon , dental floss , eyeliner , food packaging , carpeting , and textiles .
Because these chemicals are water soluble as well as resistant to heat , oils , and grease , they can easily move through the environment .
They are linked to a wide range of health concerns such as cancer , thyroid disorders , kidney disease , autoimmune problems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems in fetuses , Parkinson ’ s disease , bone disease , and more .
Despite these dangers , EPA actions to address the prevalence of PFAS in drinking water have been , in essence , to observe and report .
And they aren ’ t even doing a good job of that .
The agency conducted a limited sampling program that ended in 2015 , testing for only a few of the 600 PFAS chemicals in use , and only required utilities to report PFAS levels much higher than what independent studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the chemical industry to phase out “ long-chain ” PFAS starting in 2006 , but the “ short chain ” PFAS that are replacing them could be even more dangerous .
A recent study found that short chain PFAS are “ more widely detected , more persistent and mobile in aquatic systems , and thus may pose more risks on the human and ecosystem health ” than long-chain PFAS .
Current methods for treating water to remove long chain PFAS are also less effective at removing short chain PFAS .
The EPA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control Act to prohibit or restrict new chemicals or new uses of chemicals , but it has declined to take these strong actions against short chain PFAS .
Cronyism is likely at the root of this inaction .
Nancy Beck , a top deputy of the EPA toxic chemical unit , had been an executive at the American Chemistry Council , the main trade association for the chemical industry , for the previous five years .
Upon her appointment , she took action to make it harder to track the health consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memo , these actions could result in an “ underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment ” caused by PFAS .
The EWG study demonstrates that we are all at risk from exposure to PFAS , but certain communities seem to be even more at risk .
In 2012 the EPA conducted an epidemiological study in West Virginia .
The study found a link between high levels of exposure to PFAS ( the residents lived near a DuPont chemical plant ) and six diseases prevalent in the community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many communities of color , who live in areas near refineries and chemical plants , the EPA ’ s negligence is hurting these populations even more .
Like other contaminants , reverse osmosis water filtration has been shown to eliminate most , if not all , PFAS .
But reverse osmosis filtration systems are expensive and out of reach for many Americans .
( Keep in mind that it ’ s important to remineralize water when using reverse osmosis filtration .
While reverse osmosis removes many toxins from water , it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
It is inexcusable that cronyism and inaction prevent the EPA from banning these dangerous chemicals , or at the very least setting reasonable safety levels for drinking water and holding companies accountable .
Action Alert !
Write to Congress and the EPA , telling them to ban PFAS chemicals .
Please send your message immediately .

A new analysis shows US water systems are widely contaminated with “forever chemicals,” but the EPA isn’t doing anything about it. Action Alert!
A recent analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that America’s drinking water is extensively contaminated with toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS. Despite the extent of the contamination and the danger to health posed by these chemicals, the Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate or require testing for PFAS. We must pressure the EPA to ban these dangerous chemicals.
EWG tested water from 44 drinking water sources in 31 states. Only one location had no detectable level of PFAS; only two locations had levels below that which independent studies consider safe. Some of the highest levels of PFAS were found in major metropolitan areas like Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and northern New Jersey. These highly urban areas contain large populations who lack the financial resources to remediate dangerous drinking water. Once again, the least affluent members of society are most vulnerable to this devastating environmental danger.
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment and accumulate in human blood and organs. These compounds are used to make products water and stain resistant and are found in Teflon, dental floss, eyeliner, food packaging, carpeting, and textiles. Because these chemicals are water soluble as well as resistant to heat, oils, and grease, they can easily move through the environment. They are linked to a wide range of health concerns such as cancer, thyroid disorders, kidney disease, autoimmune problems, liver disease, high cholesterol, developmental problems in fetuses, Parkinson’s disease, bone disease, and more.
Despite these dangers, EPA actions to address the prevalence of PFAS in drinking water have been, in essence, to observe and report. And they aren’t even doing a good job of that. The agency conducted a limited sampling program that ended in 2015, testing for only a few of the 600 PFAS chemicals in use, and only required utilities to report PFAS levels much higher than what independent studies consider safe.
The EPA has worked with the chemical industry to phase out “long-chain” PFAS starting in 2006, but the “short chain” PFAS that are replacing them could be even more dangerous. A recent study found that short chain PFAS are “more widely detected, more persistent and mobile in aquatic systems, and thus may pose more risks on the human and ecosystem health” than long-chain PFAS. Current methods for treating water to remove long chain PFAS are also less effective at removing short chain PFAS.
The EPA has the authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit or restrict new chemicals or new uses of chemicals, but it has declined to take these strong actions against short chain PFAS. Cronyism is likely at the root of this inaction. Nancy Beck, a top deputy of the EPA toxic chemical unit, had been an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the main trade association for the chemical industry, for the previous five years. Upon her appointment, she took action to make it harder to track the health consequences of PFAS. According to an internal EPA memo, these actions could result in an “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment” caused by PFAS.
The EWG study demonstrates that we are all at risk from exposure to PFAS, but certain communities seem to be even more at risk. In 2012 the EPA conducted an epidemiological study in West Virginia. The study found a link between high levels of exposure to PFAS (the residents lived near a DuPont chemical plant) and six diseases prevalent in the community. Since it is often poor residents, and many communities of color, who live in areas near refineries and chemical plants, the EPA’s negligence is hurting these populations even more.
Like other contaminants, reverse osmosis water filtration has been shown to eliminate most, if not all, PFAS. But reverse osmosis filtration systems are expensive and out of reach for many Americans. (Keep in mind that it’s important to remineralize water when using reverse osmosis filtration. While reverse osmosis removes many toxins from water, it also removes helpful minerals like calcium and magnesium.)
It is inexcusable that cronyism and inaction prevent the EPA from banning these dangerous chemicals, or at the very least setting reasonable safety levels for drinking water and holding companies accountable.
Action Alert! Write to Congress and the EPA, telling them to ban PFAS chemicals. Please send your message immediately.


alliancefornaturalhealthbiasjunkscience--2020-03-17--Bolster  Immune Function During Pandemics

The US Food and Drug Administration has issued three more final rules ( with two more to come next year @ @ @ @ @ the Food Safety Modernization Act ( FSMA ) .
And it ’ s pretty good @ @ @ @ @ was originally proposed in 2010 , we and many other organizations were troubled .
Small @

Suggestions courtesy of ANH-INT. Click HERE for a more complete list of nutrients that can help bolster immunity.
Join ANH
[wpforms id=”74677″ title=”false” description=”false”]