Alternative Health & Healing Newsletter

July 2003

 

Table Of Contents

·        More Evidence That Sugar Increases Cancer

·        Toxic Fire Retardants Building Up in San Francisco Bay Fish

·        Tetanus Vaccine

·        Do Medications Really Expire?

·        Lawsuit Against Irradiated Ground Beef Sales

• Bioweapon Labs Will Bring Threat of Lethal Viruses to Urban America

·        Studies on DEET's Brain Effects Warrant Further Testing

• Drug Companies Step Up Lobbying Efforts
• For Quackbuster's NCAHF - It's All Over But The Shouting...
• Oakhurst Sued by Monsanto Over Milk Advertising
  
  

ANNOUNCING NEW WEBSITE…BE THE FIRST TO PREVIEW:

WWW.COLON-CLEANSE.INFO

OXY POWDER now has its own website!!  The work is almost completed on our brand new site and before we officially launch the site we invite you to take a peek and let us know what you think.  Also, be sure and take advantage of our Internet Special on Oxy Powder.  From now through August 1, 2003 not only will you receive 10% off when ordering from www.colon-cleanse.info but you will also receive a special free gift!!

More Evidence That Sugar Increases Cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity, were 17 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those without diabetes, according to a study.

Researchers have suggested that elevated levels of insulin in the blood of diabetics may promote breast cancer. Insulin, a hormone produced by the pancreas, allows blood sugar (glucose) to enter cells and be converted to energy. During insulin resistance, the process becomes impaired and the body becomes less sensitive to the effects of insulin. More insulin must then be released to compensate.

A healthy diet, regular exercise and weight control can help to prevent diabetes, according to researchers.  Reuters June 27, 2003

Toxic Fire Retardants Building Up in San Francisco Bay Fish

by Sonya Lunder and Renee Sharp

Levels of a little-known class of neurotoxic chemicals found in computers, TV sets, cars and furniture are building up rapidly in key indicator species of San Francisco Bay fish, according to tests by the Environmental Working Group (EWG.)

Analysis of six species of Bay fish, conducted for EWG by a California state toxics lab, detected polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in every fish sampled. The tests compared fish caught by local anglers with archived samples caught in 1997, and found that PBDE levels more than doubled in halibut and more than tripled in striped bass. Striped bass and halibut are the two most commonly eaten species of Bay fish, and as large, mobile, carnivorous species, are good indicators of overall toxic contamination in the Bay.

These are the first findings for PBDEs in Bay fish. They add to the evidence that the Bay Area is a hotspot for exposure to bromine-based chemicals, widely used in commercial flame retardants, that many scientists warn are “the next PCBs” — a notorious class of chemicals banned in 1977 after evidence that they cause cancer and build up in people and the environment. The European Union has banned two of the most commonly used PBDEs, effective next year, but in the United States they remain virtually unregulated by either state or federal authorities.

PBDEs and other brominated fire retardants (BFRs) are similar in chemical structure to PCBs, which are still found in the bodies of people and animals more than 20 years after they were removed from commercial products in the United States. Recent research on animals has shown that exposure to low levels of PBDEs can cause permanent neurological and developmental damage including deficits in learning, memory and hearing, changes in behavior, and delays in sensory-motor development. Most at risk are pregnant women, developing fetuses, infants and young children, and to a lesser extent, the 10 million Americans with hypothyroidism.

Every day, a typical American comes in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of consumer goods that contain PBDEs, including electronics, electrical cables, carpets, furniture, and textiles. Although the pathway by which PBDEs and other brominated fire retardants get into the environment is largely still a mystery, the chemicals are now found worldwide in house dust, indoor and outdoor air and the water and sediments of rivers, estuaries and oceans. PBDEs have been found in the tissues of whales, seals, birds and bird eggs, moose, reindeer, mussels, eels, and dozens of species of freshwater and marine fish.

Rapid Increases in Humans

PBDEs are also building up rapidly in the bodies of people. Levels in Swedish breast milk samples were 55 times higher in 1997 than in 1972. The few breast milk samples collected from U.S. women indicate even higher levels of PBDEs in the bodies of first-time mothers than found in Europe and Canada. Already, scientists say, most Americans may carry in their bodies levels of PBDEs that have been found to cause serious, permanent neurological damage in laboratory animals.

Tetanus vaccine by Bronwyn Hancock

The tetanus vaccine is no more effective than any of the others. It also is counterproductive. It will INCREASE, NOT decrease the risk of tetanus, and many people actually get tetanus from the vaccine.

The annual REPORTED cases of tetanus in Australia don't reach double figures (despite the fact that most people exposed probably would have not had a booster for a long time and therefore would be considered susceptible), and yet in my relatively small circle of
contact (compared to the country's population) I have come across a couple of cases where immediately after the vaccine the recipient got the classic symptoms of tetanus and it was not reported, or even diagnosed as a possibility.

All vaccine injections are DOCUMENTED to SENSITISE the recipient. Sensitization is the OPPOSITE of immunization. The way they get their figures of 98-99%, etc "effectiveness" of the vaccine is by checking for the presence of IgG antibodies. The presence of these antibodies, however, does NOT mean immunity - this is a totally false assumption. In fact they cannot even get the body to produce any significant numbers of these WITHOUT including those toxic,
SENSITISING chemicals in the vaccine, called adjuvants ("Dirty Secrets", New Scientist, Nov 1996). So the presence of these antibodies is probably actually showing the OPPOSITE of
immunization, i.e. that the person has been sensitized by the vaccine. What a wonderful achievement.

So really, giving a child a tetanus vaccine is like getting them to stand on a busy road in the hope of minimizing their chances of getting run over. Of course this is not to mention all the other problems the vaccine can cause, all reflecting the derailing effect on the immune system. Only some, of course, are listed on the product insert (included already in a recent email to this list). There is a man I interviewed and have on the video, called Ron Lyons, who got chronic fatigue syndrome from a tetanus vaccine, as had his father, and then his own son (when his ex-wife vaccinated him without Ron's consent).

Viera has come across an article in NEJM (either 1983 or 1984) where they found the ratio of T4 to T8 cells after tetanus vaccination to be similar to the ratio that is found in AIDS patients. The best safeguard against illness from tetanus, apart from general overall health, is to ensure the wound is open and clean. The tetanus toxoid is anaerobic, so it can only proliferate in the absence of oxygen.

Addition:

However what I also like to talk about these days in relation to tetanus I don't seem to have included here. It is that tetanus is an illustration of one reason that vaccines do not work.

Normally once you contract a disease and fully recover from it, you are then immune to that specific disease for the rest of your life. However you may have heard that this is not the case with tetanus - on the contrary, people are actually sensitized to it, so are in fact MORE likely to get it again in the future.

The reason for this is that since tetanus is an anaerobic bacteria, it is hard, well I expect impossible, to contract it through a form of exposure where it comes in through the normal portals of entry - the mouth, the nose, the mucous membranes, the tonsils, etc., because that would require the bacteria surviving exposure to oxygen.

Consequently, you can only get it through some kind of injury such as a splinter or similar where it has been able to get straight into the body via a deep puncture wound bypassing exposure to oxygen. However this also means that you are bypassing the natural portals of entry, which are the outer levels of defense.

Unfortunately, the outer levels of defense have important roles in the immune system, including crucial involvement in the process of.... DEVELOPING IMMUNITY.

So the upshot of all that is that if the antigen is injected via a deep puncture wound, you cannot bring immunity. On the contrary, the effect is sensitization. And what are vaccine injections? Why, deep puncture wounds. Further, the sensitization effect of vaccines is well documented, even to the extent of being in standard medical dictionaries.

The oral polio vaccine is not a deep puncture wound, but the magnitude of the assault of the vaccine strain of virus (ironically more virulent than the wild virus) with the accompanying toxins and the interference with the gut flora, i.e. still harming the outer levels of defense, still appears to have a sensitization effect. Further, when you realize that we needed vaccination to provoke polio in the first place, with the first known outbreak not occurring until mass smallpox vaccination 100 years ago, well then you realize that avoiding the administration of the other vaccines almost entirely removes any threat of polio anyway.

DO MEDICATIONS REALLY EXPIRE?

Try An Experiment With Your Mother-In-Law

By Richard Altschuler

Does the expiration date on a bottle of a medication mean anything? If a bottle of Tylenol, for example, says something like "Do not use after June 1998," and it is August 2002, should you take the Tylenol? Should you discard it? Can you get hurt if you take it? Will it simply have lost its potency and do you no good?

In other words, are drug manufacturers being honest with us when they put an expiration date on their medications, or is the practice of dating just another drug industry scam, to get us to buy new medications when the old ones that purportedly have "expired" are still perfectly good?

These are the pressing questions I investigated after my mother-in-law recently said to me, "It doesn’t mean anything," when I pointed out that the Tylenol she was about to take had "expired" four years and a few months ago. I was a bit mocking in my pronouncement - feeling superior that I had noticed the chemical corpse in her cabinet - but she was equally adamant in her reply, and is generally very sage about medical issues.

So I gave her a glass of water with the purportedly "dead" drug, of which she took two capsules for a pain in the upper back. About a half hour later she reported the pain seemed to have eased up a bit. I said "You could be having a placebo effect," not wanting to simply concede she was right about the drug, and also not actually knowing what I was talking about. I was just happy to hear that her pain had eased, even before we had our evening cocktails and hot tub dip (we were in "Leisure World," near Laguna Beach, CA, where the hot tub is bigger than most Manhattan apartments, and "Heaven" as generally portrayed, would be raucous by comparison).

Upon my return to NYC and high-speed connection, I immediately scoured the medical databases and general literature for the answer to my question about drug expiration labeling. And voila, no sooner than I could say "Screwed again by the pharmaceutical industry," I had my answer. Here are the simple facts:

1. First, the expiration date, required by law in the United States, beginning in 1979, specifies only the date the manufacturer guarantees the full potency and safety of the drug - it does not mean how long the drug is actually "good" or safe to use.

2. Second, medical authorities uniformly say it is safe to take drugs past their expiration date - no matter how "expired" the drugs purportedly are. Except for possibly the rarest of exceptions, you won’t get hurt and you certainly won’t get killed. A contested example of a rare exception is a case of renal tubular damage purportedly caused by expired tetracycline (reported by G. W. Frimpter et al., in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, 184:111, 1963). This outcome (disputed by other scientists) was supposedly caused by a chemical transformation of the active ingredient.

3. Third, studies show that expired drugs may lose some of their potency over time, from as little as 5% or less to 50% or more (though usually much less than the latter). Even 10 years after the "expiration date," most drugs have a good deal of their original potency. So wisdom dictates that if your life does depend on an expired drug, and you must have 100% or so of its original strength, you should probably toss it and get a refill, in accordance with the cliché, "better safe than sorry." If your life does not depend on an expired drug - such as that for headache, hay fever, or menstrual cramps - take it and see what happens.

One of the largest studies ever conducted that supports the above points about "expired drug" labeling was done by the U.S. military 15 years ago, according to a feature story in the Wall Street Journal (March 29, 2000), reported by Laurie P. Cohen. The military was sitting on a $1 billion stockpile of drugs and facing the daunting process of destroying and replacing its supply every two to three years, so it began a testing program to see if it could extend the life of its inventory. The testing, conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ultimately covered more than 100 drugs, prescription and over-the-counter. The results showed that about 90% of them were safe and effective as far as 15 years past their original expiration date.

In light of these results, a former director of the testing program, Francis Flaherty, said he concluded that expiration dates put on by manufacturers typically have no bearing on whether a drug is usable for longer. Mr. Flaherty noted that a drug maker is required to prove only that a drug is still good on whatever expiration date the company chooses to set. The expiration date doesn’t mean, or even suggest, that the drug will stop being effective after that, nor that it will become harmful. "Manufacturers put expiration dates on for marketing, rather than scientific, reasons," said Mr. Flaherty, a pharmacist at the FDA until his retirement in 1999. "It’s not profitable for them to have products on a shelf for 10 years. They want turnover."

The FDA cautioned there isn’t enough evidence from the program, which is weighted toward drugs used during combat, to conclude most drugs in consumers’ medicine cabinets are potent beyond the expiration date. Joel Davis, however, a former FDA expiration-date compliance chief, said that with a handful of exceptions - notably nitroglycerin, insulin and some liquid antibiotics - most drugs are probably as durable as those the agency has tested for the military. "Most drugs degrade very slowly," he said. "In all likelihood, you can take a product you have at home and keep it for many years, especially if it’s in the refrigerator." Consider aspirin. Bayer AG puts two-year or three-year dates on aspirin and says that it should be discarded after that. However, Chris Allen, a vice president at the Bayer unit that makes aspirin, said the dating is "pretty conservative;" when Bayer has tested four-year-old aspirin, it remained 100% effective, he said. So why doesn't Bayer set a four-year expiration date? Because the company often changes packaging, and it undertakes "continuous improvement programs," Mr. Allen said. Each change triggers a need for more expiration-date testing, and testing each time for a four-year life would be impractical. Bayer has never tested aspirin beyond four years, Mr. Allen said. But Jens Carstensen has. Dr. Carstensen, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin’s pharmacy school, who wrote what is considered the main text on drug stability, said, "I did a study of different aspirins, and after five years, Bayer was still excellent. Aspirin, if made correctly, is very stable.

Okay, I concede. My mother-in-law was right, once again. And I was wrong, once again, and with a wiseacre attitude to boot. Sorry mom. Now I think I’ll take a swig of the 10-year dead package of Alka Seltzer in my medicine chest - to ease the nausea I’m feeling from calculating how many billions of dollars the pharmaceutical industry bilks out of unknowing consumers every year who discard perfectly good drugs and buy new ones because they trust the industry’s "expiration date labeling."

"The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage."---Mark Russell

Lawsuit Against Irradiated Ground Beef Sales

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been called on to investigate false advertising by Giant Foods for its irradiated ground beef.

Reportedly, Giant made misleading endorsements in a pamphlet near the irradiated meat case. The pamphlet claims, falsely, that food irradiation is endorsed by the Mayo clinic and that the process is “like milk pasteurization.”

It already been determined that calling irradiation “pasteurization” is misleading. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, irradiated food must be labeled as “treated by irradiation” or “treated by radiation.”

Giant stores were also allegedly selling regular ground beef from a case labeled “irradiated ground beef,” which was confusing shoppers.

Studies have found that irradiation, which results in the formation of chemicals known or suspected to promote cancer and birth defects, may not be safe. Further, irradiated ground beef may increase the amount of heart-clogging trans fatty acids, and the process does not remove feces, urine, vomit or pus, which can contaminate meat in slaughterhouses and processing plants.    Public Citizen June 18, 2003 (PDF)

COMMENT:  According to Dr. Joseph Mercola many may not be aware that school districts will soon have the option of purchasing irradiated beef for their lunch programs, and parental notification is not required. If you are a parent you can work with your school district to discourage the use of irradiated foods, or at the very least contact them to find out whether irradiated beef is being served in your child’s school cafeteria.

Bioweapon Labs Will Bring Threat of Lethal Viruses to Urban America

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

29 June 2003

A network of high-security laboratories for storing and investigating some of the most lethal viruses known to mankind is being built across the US, leaving communities in uproar. They not only fear the risk of the viruses escaping, but also contend that the programme, part of the $6bn (£3.5bn) Project BioShield, is a stunning case of overkill. For none of the germs to be studied is related to bioweaponry.

In the tiny town of Hamilton, Montana, campaigners worry that they will become a terrorist target if the proposed laboratory goes ahead. In New York State, congressmen have already blocked a proposal to house a laboratory on Plum Island, off Long Island. In Davis, California, home to a major branch of the state university system, activists have sued the university for failing to abide by state environmental regulations in making its application to house nasties ranging from Ebola to hanta virus and tick-borne encephalitis.

This is not just a matter of nimbyism. The protesters cannot understand why they should risk exposure to the tiny clutch of diseases requiring the construction of maximum-security "level 4" biosafety facilities - there are just five of them - when none has any known practical utility as a guerrilla weapon. The diseases the national security people are most worried about - anthrax, smallpox and plague - are either level 2 or level 3, and plenty of laboratories at those levels exist already.

"There is no benefit to our community. Not a single one," said Samantha McCarthy, who is leading efforts against the Davis biolab.

In Davis, in particular, there are serious security concerns. This is a university that managed to spread major contamination in a 1950s experiment to irradiate beavers. The clean-up is still going on. In February, a rhesus monkey used in disease experiments mysteriously disappeared from campus and has never been found. Now, the university is proposing to contract out security for the new biolab to Los Alamos, the nuclear laboratory in New Mexico embroiled in numerous security lapses - most recently when it lost what it called a "small" amount of low-grade plutonium.

According to Ms McCarthy, the biolab plan would entail the transport of highly dangerous materials in and out of town in ordinary lorries - a system that recently brought a Hazmat team out on to a road in Ohio after an explosion involving a lower-grade biological agent.

Most experts agree that the level 4 facilities would probably be pretty safe, since they are made of numerous isolation chambers that researchers would enter in moon-style protective gear. Whether they are suitable for urban areas such as Davis is a matter of debate, however. One biolab designer, Jim Orzechowski of the Canadian firm of Smith Carter Architects and Engineers, told the Los Angeles Times less than reassuringly last week: "We're getting as close to fail safe as possible. As fail safe as the space shuttle." The space shuttle has had two catastrophic failures in 17 years.

The broader question, however, is why these laboratories are being built at all. According to Richard Ebright, professor of chemistry at Rutgers University, it is a matter of crazy bureaucratic logic. Congress flooded the National Institutes of Health with so much money that the NIH simply could not work out how to spend it all on biodefence. Even if the NIH accepted every single research proposal without vetting - something it would never do - and built as many level 2 and level 3 labs as it possibly could, it still would not get through the $6bn. Only super-expensive level 4 labs can do the trick - even though they are of negligible scientific or medical value and do not cover bioweapon agents.

"Not only is this a monumental waste of money," Professor Ebright said, "but the new labs raise their own security issues. And it can't be a good idea to increase the number of people trained in handling these agents given the damage that a rogue scientist could do."

Holding on to anger, resentment and hurt only gives you tense muscles, a headache and a sore jaw from clenching your teeth. Forgiveness gives you back the laughter and the lightness in your life.-- Joan Lunden

Duke Pharmacologist Says Animal Studies on DEET's Brain Effects Warrant Further Testing and Caution in Human Use

DURHAM, N.C. -- A Duke University Medical Center pharmacologist is recommending caution when using the insecticide DEET, after his animal studies last year found the chemical causes diffuse brain cell death and behavioral changes in rats after frequent and prolonged use.

Mohamed Abou-Donia, Ph.D. has also called for further government testing of the chemical's safety in short-term and occasional use, especially in view of Health Canada's recent decision to ban products with more than 30 percent of the chemical. Every year, approximately one-third of the U.S. population uses insect repellents containing DEET, available in more than 230 products with concentrations up to 100 percent.

While the chemical's risks to humans are still being intensely debated, Abou-Donia says his 30 years of research on pesticides' brain effects clearly indicate the need for caution among the general public.

His numerous studies in rats, two of them published last year, clearly demonstrate that frequent and prolonged applications of DEET cause neurons to die in regions of the brain that control muscle movement, learning, memory and concentration. Moreover, rats treated with an average human dose of DEET (40 mg/kg body weight) performed far worse than control rats when challenged with physical tasks requiring muscle control, strength and coordination. Such effects are consistent with physical symptoms in humans reported in the medical literature, especially by Persian Gulf War veterans, said Abou-Donia.

"If used sparingly, infrequently and by itself, DEET may not have negative effects -- the literature here isn't clear," he said. "But frequent and heavy use of DEET, especially in combination with other chemicals or medications, could cause brain deficits in vulnerable populations."

Children in particular are at risk for subtle brain changes caused by chemicals in the environment, because their skin more readily absorbs them, and chemicals more potently affect their developing nervous systems, said Abou-Donia. Commonly used preparations like insecticide-based lice-killing shampoos and insect repellents are assumed to be safe because severe consequences are rare in the medical literature. Yet subtle symptoms -- such as muscle weakness, fatigue or memory lapses -- might be attributed erroneously to other causes, he said.

With heavy exposure to DEET and other insecticides, humans may experience memory loss, headache, weakness, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, tremors and shortness of breath, said Abou-Donia. His earlier research, examining the brain effects of three chemicals used during the Persian Gulf War, clearly demonstrated that chickens exhibited similar signs that the Gulf War veterans complained of upon returning from service. (Journal of Toxicology and Experimental Health, May, 1996, Volume 48, p. 35 - 56).

Such overt symptoms are not seen immediately after use but may manifest themselves months or years after exposure, making a cause-and-effect relationship difficult to establish, said Abou-Donia. By studying animals such as chickens and rats, however, researchers are able to compress the time between exposure and the onset of symptoms: 10 months of a rat's life is several years in a human's life. Moreover, researchers can study layers of the rats' brains at various stages after exposure to measure the chemical's effects on the brain.

Indeed, Abou-Donia's two most recent studies demonstrate the severe brain and behavioral deficits that rats experience after two months of daily skin applications with DEET and permethrin, another common insecticide, (Experimental Neurology, 2001, volume 172 , p.153- 171); and following 60 days of exposure to DEET and permethrin, and 15 days of pyridostigmine bromide, an anti-nerve gas agent (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 2001, volume 64, p. 373-384). Both studies examined the effects of each drug alone and in combination.

In each study, the treated animals initially appeared to be normal, just like the control group, said Abou-Donia. But when challenged with neurobehavioral tasks that required muscle control, strength and coordination, the rats demonstrated serious impairments. Moreover, a detailed analysis of their brains clearly showed that large numbers of brain cells were dying within three critical brain structures: the cerebral cortex, which controls muscles and movement; the hippocampal formation, which controls memory, learning and concentration; and the cerebellum, which synchronizes body movements.

In addition, many of the surviving brain cells showed signs of degeneration and damage consistent with the presence of harmful byproducts called oxygen free radicals (also known as reactive oxygen species), which can damage DNA and cell membranes in the brain and the nervous system.

The most severe brain cell changes and sensorimotor deficits were seen among rats exposed to combinations of DEET, permethrin and the anti-nerve gas agent pyridostigmine bromide, which reduces the body's normal ability to inactivate pesticides. Such findings confirmed Abou-Donia's 1996 and 2001 animal studies demonstrating that harmless doses of these three chemicals proved highly toxic to the brain and nervous system when used in combination.

"The take home message is to be safe and cautious when using insecticides," said Abou-Donia.

"Never use insect repellents on infants, and be wary of using them on children in general. Never combine insecticides with each other or use them with other medications. Even so simple a drug as an antihistamine could interact with DEET to cause toxic side effects. Don't spray your yard for bugs and then take medications. Until we have more data on potential interactions in humans, safe is better than sorry."

DRUG COMPANIES STEP UP LOBBYING EFFORTS   By:  Ralph Moss

In a related development, the drug industry has stepped up its lobbying of Congress, US states, and even foreign governments in order to further its economic interests.  The industry is worried that price controls over the rising cost of drugs will cut into its profits. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) will spend $150 million on these efforts in the coming year, a 23 percent increase over last year.  The industry has put together an "intellectual echo chamber" of "thought leaders" to speak out on their behalf, says an internal document published by the New York Times (6/1/03).

This year alone, PhRMA will spend $12.3 million to develop coalitions and alliances with doctors, patients, universities and minority groups.  The industry has earmarked between $2 and $2.5 million to pay research and policy organizations "to build intellectual capital and generate a higher volume of messages from credible sources"  that are sympathetic to the industry.  It has also allocated $555,000 "for placement of op-eds and articles by third parties" and $680,000 for "media relations consultants."

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) has said that PhRMA "has a death grip on Congress."  And Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) has said that the drug industry is becoming "despised and hated" because of its aggressive efforts to keep prices and profits high.

For Quackbuster's NCAHF - It's All Over But The Shouting...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen - July 9th, 2003

The Quackbuster Flagship sank today.  A Three Judge California Appeals Court broad-sided it.  Let's all go watch it slide under the waves.  Bring a bottle of wine and some paper cups.

We already know that the quackbusters have ZERO credibility with the American court system.   So it's not going to be a surprise to anyone that the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), today, lost the decision they appealed over the case called "NCAHF v. Botanical laboratories, et al." 

Here are the Three Judge Panel's words...

"Conclusion - Appellant (NCAHF) believes that no one should be allowed to market homeopathic remedies.  Congress has decided otherwise, and officially recognizes the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia.  Appellant's broad-brush approach of sweeping all homeopathic remedies into a single bag marked "undesirable" simply does not work in the courts, where each claimed instance of unfair advertising and unfair business practice must be closely scrutinized.  Appellant failed to present any admissible evidence in this case that respondents are guilty of false advertising and unfair business practices with respect to any of their products."

The NCAHF lost on a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Motion.  Which means they owe the Defendants Attorney Fees. Al Lohrman, chief counsel on this case, said to me, today, in an e-mail  "By the way, the trial court also awarded us attorneys' fees on our anti-SLAPP motion, as provided by law."

And, there's the rub.

The NCAHF is operating out of a cardboard box in the back room of Bobbie Baratz's Braintree, MA hair removal salon, and has so little money, that Baratz begged members for cash, offering a picture of me (Tim Bolen) as an incentive for contribution.

According to court documents, NCAHF Board members, it turns out, were COMPLETELY UNAWARE that Baratz and Barrett had made the NCAHF the Plaintiff in these cases.  Court documents show that Baratz and Barrett had set up this case to generate  "expert witness" fees for themselves.  Baratz is the current President of the NCAHF.  Barrett is a failed MD who operates the dubious website quackwatch.com out of his basement in Allentown. PA.

Legal fees, by my estimate, will run around $500,000 to $700,000.  It looks to me, like the individual NCAHF BOARD MEMBERS, and the MEMBERS, may be legally liable for the attorney fees...

The court, in its decision, quoted the earlier Health Freedom Appeals Court Victory in NCAHF v. King Bio like this:

"In the context of a lawsuit against homeopathic manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, 'there is nothing in the nature of a false advertising action that makes it difficult for a plaintiff to prove allegations of the complaint.  The homeopathic remedies are marketed and readily available for testing by the plaintiff.  The falsity of the advertising claims may be established by testing, scientific literature, or anecdotal evidence.' (NCAHF v King Bio).  Appellant provided no admissible, prima facie evidence that the respondents' advertising is, in fact, false....In addition, appellant presented no evidence at all that respondents' advertising is likely to deceive consumers."

I've put the whole case decision on my website.  Click here...For the Quackbuster's NCAHF - it's all over but the shouting.

Oakhurst Sued by Monsanto Over Milk Advertising
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Portland Press Herald Writer, July 8, 2003

Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has sued Oakhurst Dairy of Portland, saying Oakhurst's claim that its milk doesn't contain any artificial growth hormones is essentially misleading.

Monsanto, based in Missouri, claims there is no scientific proof that the milk is any different from that produced by cows that have been treated with the hormones.

"We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk," said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business. "Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that's unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc., are all the same."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn't use milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels reading "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" on its milk jugs.

This is the first such suit in a decade filed by Monsanto. But it's related to the global debate about genetically engineered foods. Most of Europe has banned the import or production of what opponents call "Frankenfoods." Biotechnology re- searchers and corporations say that scientific advances boost productivity to levels that could help ease global hunger.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved the bovine growth hormone, or BGH, Canada and the European Union have banned it. Some organizations and consumers who oppose use of artificial growth hormones claim they are linked to breast cancer and premature puberty in children.

Monsanto is the nation's largest producer of the synthetically produced hormone, which enhances milk production. Five years ago, Oakhurst began to make sure all of its milk comes from farms that pledge in writing every six months with a notarized affidavit that they won't use the hormones on their herds, said Stanley T. Bennett II, president of the dairy.

"Consumers have let us know since the advent of these artificial growth hormones that they don't want to have to worry about (them). If consumers tell us they don't want anything added to the milk, or if they have a concern about something, we're going to respond to them as a company," said Bennett.

"We have said from the beginning that we make no claims to understand the science involved with artificial growth hormones," he said. "We're in the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto's drugs."

The labeling is a market distinguisher for Oakhurst, said Bennett, and is so important to the dairy that it pays a premium of 20 cents on every 100 pounds of milk for the notarized guarantee. That would amount to $500,000 in 2002, when Oakhurst processed 250 million pounds of milk.

Lee Quarles, a spokesman for the Missouri company, said the suit was filed because Monsanto believes Oakhurst's ads and labels are deceptive and also disparaged Monsanto's products with the inference that milk from untreated cows was better than milk from hormone-treated cows. Oakhurst was also stepping up its advertising and marketing efforts in recent months, leading to the lawsuit, said Quarles.

"If in fact they are attempting to stop us from using our labeling, I think it strikes me as very odd that somebody could conceivably prohibit a company from telling people what's not in their product," said Bennett. "On principle, it's also a question of free speech. The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing."

According to Monsanto's Garrett, an independent market study conducted in Massachusetts shopping malls showed that more than two-thirds of the 300 people surveyed thought that milk with the Oakhurst labels was healthier to drink than milk without such labels. Sixty percent of those surveyed thought Oakhurst milk was safer to drink, Garrett said.

Bennett said his small dairy, which employs 240 and had $85 million in sales last year, has been ignored by Monsanto until recently. He speculated that the attention may come because other, larger milk producers are considering taking similar anti-hormone steps in their marketing campaigns.

In 2002, Monsanto had net sales of $4.7 billion, net losses of $1.7 billion and working assets of $8.9 billion.

Quarles said Monsanto has not filed similar lawsuits against other dairies, but wouldn't say whether more were planned. Monsanto filed similar suits against two dairies in Illinois about 10 years ago, said Quarles, and both were settled out of court under confidential terms.

The suit against Oakhurst claims unfair competition, unfair business practices and interference with advantageous business relationships. According to the suit, the business relationships between Monsanto and dairy producers who use the artificial growth hormone have suffered because the farmers will stop using the treatments. Garrett wouldn't say whether any of Monsanto's customers have stopped the treatments because of Oakhurst's marketing practices.

This isn't the first time Monsanto has had issues with dairy product labeling in Maine. Earlier this year, Attorney General Steven Rowe rejected a request by the company that Maine abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program that indicates when milk is free of artificial growth hormones.

Monsanto argued that the seal, adopted in 1994, misleads consumers into thinking that hormone-free milk is superior to milk using an artificial growth hormone. Both Oakhurst and H.P. Hood dairies use the seal to promote their products.

Industry experts suggested that although the seal has been used for nearly 10 years by Oakhurst, Monsanto objected now because other dairies are joining the program.

Attorneys arguing that the seal program be stopped said Maine lacks an adequate system to monitor affidavits it accepts from farmers who pledge not to use the artificial hormone.

In addition, they said, the FDA has recommended that any label that says the product is free of artificial hormones should appear in the proper context with accompanying information, such as "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from (hormone)-treated and non-(hormone)-treated cows."

 DISCLAIMER:  It is your constitutional right to educate yourself in health and medical knowledge, to seek helpful information and make use of it for your own benefit, and for that of your family.  You are the one responsible for your health.  In order to make decisions in all health matters, you must educate yourself. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition, see your physician of choice. We do not claim to "cure" disease, but simply help you make physical and mental changes in your own body in order to help your body heal itself.

PLEASE PASS THIS NEWSLETTER ON TO OTHER POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS