Alternative
Health & Healing Newsletter
June
2003
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
Ø Study
Finds Over-Medication of U.S. Seniors
Ø The
New Hypertension Guidelines: Now We Are To Be Officially
Ill
Ø The
Dark Side Of Wireless Technology
Ø FTC
Stops Infomercial Claiming Cures
Ø Laziness
Increases Dangerous Organ Fat
Ø Children
Should Not Take Paxil
Ø Soy’s
Thyroid Dangers
Ø Mr.
Nesi’s Cry
Ø Health
Blurbs
Ø Big Brother Comes To Wal-Mart
Ø US Survey Reveals Most Americans Unaware of Antibiotics
in Meat
Study Finds Over-Medication of U.S. Seniors By
William Borden
NEW YORK
(Reuters) - Millions of U.S. senior citizens have been
subjected to potentially dangerous over-medication as
they get an increasing number of prescriptions filled
from different sources, the nation's leading pharmacy
benefits manager said on Wednesday.
"Seniors
are going to multiple physicians and getting multiple
prescriptions from different physicians and using multiple
pharmacies," said Dr. Robert Epstein, chief medical
officer of Medco Health Solutions Inc., which conducted
the study on drug trends.
This has
created a situation where one health care provider might
not know about other treatments, leading to problems with
drug interactions and confusion about how to properly
take prescriptions.
"There
are serious and systemic problems with poor continuity
of care in the United States," said Kasey Thompson,
director of the Center on Patient Safety at the American
Society of Health System Pharmacists. Thompson said the
Medco study showed "the tip of the iceberg" about
what could be a greater national problem.
The complexities
of new drugs, such as taking the drugs with food or without,
has also created confusion for patients, Epstein said. "Even
if you think you are doing the right thing, you could
still end up with problems," Epstein said.
Medco,
which oversees drug benefit plans for more than 60 million
Americans, covers 6.3 million senior citizens who received
more than 160 million prescriptions. The average senior
receives 25 prescriptions annually, according to the study.
The Medco
study found that 7.9 million medication alerts were triggered
under its senior drug utilization review system -- more
than twice the 3.4 million detected in 1999.
About
2.2 million of those alerts involved dosages that are
believed to be too high for senior citizens and about
2.4 million involved a drug that was deemed clinically
inappropriate for the elderly, said Medco, a unit of Merck & Co.
Inc.
Allen
Vaida, executive director of the Institute for Safe Medication
Practices, said the increased number of new drugs on the
market makes doctors and pharmacists more reliant on technology
to warn of potential problems. "It shows that the
safety net is working," Vaida said about the increased
number of alerts.
His group
supports efforts to enable physicians to see electronic
patient-prescription records and drug interaction information. "We
could move that safety net up and have it work earlier
in the system," Vaida said.
Other survey data showed that one in
four senior citizens sees four or more physicians, and one
in ten seniors were prescribed medications by six or more
different doctors in 2002.
THE NEW HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES: NOW
WE ARE ALL TO BE OFFICIALLY ILL By Malcolm Kendrick MbChB, MRCGP
I write
this before I have read all the details on the new Heart
Lung and Blood Institute guidelines on raised blood pressure.
But there has been enough information flying around to
know what they are saying. Frankly, I knew what these
guidelines were going to say before the committee met
for the first time. Before, in fact, the members of the
committee even knew they were going to be on the committee.
But I
claim no powers of clairvoyance or insider dealing. Nor
do I claim that the ability to predict the future of hypertension
guidelines represents any great intellectual feat. For
guidelines in all disease states are wearily predictable.
The level of anything that is considered to be abnormal
rapidly closes in on the average level, whilst simultaneously
the level considered average drops. A two-pronged attack
ensuring that more and more people slip from the category
of healthy into unhealthy.
For example,
twenty years ago, a cholesterol level of 7.5mmol/l was
considered high. This figure gradually moved down to 6.5mmol/l,
then 6.2mmol/l, then 5.2mmol/l. Researchers in the UK
are now claiming that, as the average cholesterol level
in rural China is something like 2.5mmol/l, that this
actually represents the ‘perfect’ level; therefore everyone
in the West should be aiming for 2.5mmol/l.
I think
that this must mean everyone in the whole Western world
other than James McSprokitt who lives alone in a hut in
the Western Isles of Scotland, and eats nothing other
than prawns and gruel. The Western World’s only healthy
man.
With blood
pressure, there was a time when 160/90 was the cut-point
for the diagnosis of hypertension. It too has moved down
and down, and down. Now we have the following statement
from on of the authors of the guidelines:
‘Recent scientific studies show that
risk of heart disease actually begins rising once blood
pressure creeps above 115 over 75,’ said guideline co-author
Ed Roccella, a hypertension specialist.
I have
no idea what the exact figures are, but I suspect, for
example, that 95% of the adult male population of the
USA has a blood pressure that is above 115/75. So we are
now in the situation whereby everyone in the Western World
either has a high blood cholesterol level, or a high blood
pressure level, and the vast majority has both.
To quote
inaccurately from the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. ‘Everyone
has won, and all shall have prizes.’ Now we have reached
the point where ‘Everyone is ill, and all shall be treated.’ Of
course no one is suggesting that we treat a blood pressure
of 115/75 — yet. We should just be mildly uneasy and dissatisfied
with our health.
Where
does this all end? Well, I have never seen guidelines
go into reverse, by which I mean guidelines that widen
the accepted boundaries of normal. Guidelines only ever
tighten, like some huge inexorable ratchet. Whether you
like it or not, we are now closing in on the point whereby,
if your cholesterol level is above 2.5mmo/l, and your
blood pressure is above 115/75, you will be persuaded
by your doctor to lower them. And if exercise and diet
and weight loss don’t work — which they never do…Then
guess what? It’s time for drugs.
There
will always be mavericks who will refuse medication, but
for the vast majority of us…..I look into the future and
I see something very bleak. I remember reading something
in an updated version of disease classification where
all disease states were outlined, and when it came to
people who were healthy, the definition of this happy
state was…wait for it: ‘temporarily able.’
So remember
folks, however healthy you may feel, you probably have
a high blood pressure. You definitely also have a high
cholesterol level. And always bear in mind that you are
always, in reality, only temporarily able. A life of drug-taking
disability stretches before us all.
I shall
sign off with two quotes from my current favorite article
from the European Heart Journal Issue 20, October 2000.
‘No randomized trial has ever demonstrated
any reduction of the risk of either overall or cardiovascular
death by reducing systolic blood pressure from our thresholds
to below 140mmHg.’
‘Most
importantly, the current paradigm considerably over-estimates
the risk in the mid-range of pressure (roughly 125 — 180mmHg).
This has major consequences. The vast majority of the
population falls into that mid-range and the cut-point
of 140mmHg lies towards its lower end. Consequently,
a large proportion of the population considered at increased
risk with the current cut-point are in fact at no increased
risk.’
Is there anybody out there listening…… Helloooooo!
Ref: Winnie the Poo, ‘Poo’s really big adventure’ 1898,
Penguin books pp 63-64’
A
happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances,
but rather a person
with a certain set of attitudes.
Hugh Downs
The Dark Side Of Wireless Technology By Sheila Rogers
This account, obtained
by interviewing the mother of this family, has all the
makings of a documentary. The name of the cell phone company
and the source is withheld while the family looks for
a lawyer willing to take the case (see note).
Meredith and her husband were dairy farmers on over 150 acres of rolling
green land that had been passed down for generations. They had grown to love
the simple lifestyle that came with hard work, fresh air, and farming in
the Midwest. They and their four children enjoyed good health and happy days.
When the cell phone tower was erected twelve years ago they weren't too concerned,
though they were certainly not pleased that it was just over the property
line on the adjoining land and only 800 feet from their house. It was an
eyesore, but they were assured it was perfectly safe. "It's like a 100-watt
light bulb," the company often told people.
"We were naïve," says Meredith. "Over the next few months, we
watched as our herd that grazed near the tower became emaciated and agitated-a
change from their normally fat and contented state. The whole herd developed
rough coats. The vet was puzzled, but blood work produced no answers."
MEANWHILE, WITHIN SIX MONTHS the parents noticed changes in their
children. There were skin rashes-unusual, raised "hot spots." They
had recurrent kidney infections. The youngest two kids became dramatically
hyperactive, and the older ones complained of foggy thinking and concentration
problems. Then sleep disturbances crept in. Meredith, in her early thirties,
began to develop joint problems. "Everyone's symptoms were worse," she
explained, "on
foggy or rainy days. I since learned this was because the moisture increases
the electrical conductivity. There were times when my preschool child would
literally spin in circles." One day she discovered that their tower
had become the "hub" for the entire state. "We buried cows
that winter," she recalls.
Searching for solutions and options, they tracked down a researcher at the
Environmental Protection Agency, who gave her the first useful advice they'd
had. He told her that as a government official he should reassure her that
they were safe. But with his "citizen cap" on, he had to say that
they should move immediately.
WITH HOPES OF RETURNING ONE day, they sold the herd but had someone
keep the heifers for them. Within two to three months of moving to an
electrically clean area in upper Michigan, health problems began to subside.
After a year, they all were feeling strong once more. The only problem
was that their farm was unattended, they were out of money, and they
desperately needed to farm again.
About this time, they spoke with new owners of the cell phone company. The
staff expressed disdain for flagrant safety lapses of the previous tower
owners. The family was assured that if they returned, everything would now
be fine. Excited at the news, they went back to their farm.
It was not long before symptoms returned. The children lost weight and the
girls began to lose hair. Meredith was pregnant but not gaining weight. That
son was unfortunately born with anomalies-birth defects that fit no particular
syndrome.
Neighbors also had complaints; the suicide rate increased in town, and unusual
seizures were reported.
Now, some calves were born with front legs shorter than the back and with
deformed hooves; some had large tumors-one tumor was three feet in diameter
and the calf could not be delivered alive, even with a C-section. And the
tumors were not typical to the species.
THEY HAD BEEN BACK FOR THREE years when a pediatrician saw the
son's birth defects, heard the story, and told them to leave town. Why
had they stayed so long? "We had to make a living. And somehow,
when it's gradually happening, you're in denial-you don't see it for
what it is," Meredith said.
They managed to buy a farm in a safe area and start anew. "My husband
insisted we take the cows with us, and within three days they were chewing
their cuds-something they hadn't done for years." The young boy, though,
remains electrically sensitive and hyperactive. Meredith says that if he
is within two and a half miles of a tower he develops flushed skin. Computer
terminals and fluorescent lights in stores increase symptoms. He has food
sensitivities, and damp weather continues to affect him.
And the land-what happened to the farm? Meredith sighs. "It just sits
there. Empty. Selling the farm has not been considered. Should we let this
happen to someone else?"
More info on EMF’s: http://www.ghchealth.com/details.asp?ItemID=18
FTC Stops Infomercial Claiming Cures – Coral Calcium
FTC Gets
Restraining Order to Stop Infomercial That Claims Supplement
Cures Various Diseases The
Associated Press CHICAGO
June 13 —
A federal
judge Friday ordered a marketing company to stop airing
an infomercial that claims a calcium supplement can cure
diseases including heart disease and cancer, an attorney
for the Federal Trade Commission said. The FTC is also
seeking restitution for customers.
Shop America
was ordered to stop airing infomercials promoting a supplement
made from dead marine coral. The order also bars Kevin
Trudeau, ShopAmerica's owner, from access to the company's
funds until a trial determines potential restitution,
said Heather Hippsley, assistant director of the FTC's
advertising division.
Attorneys
for the agency reached a similar agreement with the promoter
of Coral Calcium Supreme, Deonna Enterprises Inc., Hippsley
said.
The ad,
aired widely on cable networks, says the supplement comes
from Japanese marine coral and costs about $20 for a monthly
supply. The FTC has accused the companies of falsely claiming
the product cures cancer and diseases including multiple
sclerosis, lupus, heart disease and chronic blood pressure.
"It
appears that the sales were in the tens of millions of
dollars," Hippsley said.
Trudeau's
attorney, David Bradford, said the infomercials are protected
speech because they discuss claims made in articles and
studies.
"Whether
right or wrong, people have a right to discuss publications
on the air."
A spokeswoman for Wickenburg, Ariz.-based
Deonna Enterprises did not immediately return phone calls
Friday.
For Info on the Best Calcium: http://www.ghchealth.com/details.asp?ItemID=48
Laziness Increases Dangerous Organ Fat
People
who don’t exercise build dangerous fat among their organs
more quickly than previously thought, according to a study.
Researchers
looked at visceral fat, fat among the organs that is often
invisible but is linked with insulin resistance (pre-diabetes),
heart disease and other metabolic syndromes.
The study
involved 170 volunteers who were grouped according to
exercise. One group got no exercise, another got small
amounts of moderate exercise (equivalent to walking 11
miles a week), a third group got low amounts of vigorous
exercise (equivalent to jogging 11 miles a week), and
a final group got lots of vigorous exercise (equivalent
to jogging 17 miles a week).
It was
found that volunteers who did not exercise had an 8.6
percent increase in visceral fat after eight months, while
those who exercised the most lost 8.1 percent of their
visceral fat during that time.
Women
volunteers gained visceral fat twice as quickly as men,
according to researchers.
Researchers
noted that the rapid increase in visceral fat among sedentary
overweight adults mirrors the increasingly rapid rise
in obesity in the United States. Currently, two out of
three adults are obese or overweight.
On a positive
note, exercise was found to take the fat away quickly.
Volunteers who jogged for 17 miles each week had significant
decreases in visceral fat, subcutaneous abdominal fat,
which lies under the skin, and total abdominal fat.
50th Annual American
College Of Sports Medicine May 28, 2003
Children
'should not take Seroxat' (Paxil)
Young people under
the age of 18 should not be prescribed the controversial
drug Seroxat, government advisors have ruled.
It follows
a review which found children taking the anti-depressant
may be more likely to self-harm or partake in suicidal
behavior.
The Medicines
and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has also
warned that adults who are on the drug should not suddenly
stop taking it.
Authorities
in Europe and the United States are expected to review
their advice on Seroxat in light of the agency's findings.
Side-effect claims
The Department of Health
launched the review of Seroxat and similar drugs, known
as SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors) in
January.
It followed
claims from patient groups that the drug has serious side
effects and is addictive.
A recent
investigation by the BBC's Panorama program also raised
concerns about the drug.
Young people under 18
years currently taking Seroxat for depression should
consult their doctor. Professor Gordon Duff
Seroxat
has been available in the UK for the past 13 years. Approximately
four million prescriptions for the drug were issued in
the past year. An estimated 8,000 patients under the age
of 18 have been treated with the drug over the last 12
months.
This is
despite the fact that the drug is not licensed for use
in under 18s. However, doctors can prescribe Seroxat to
people in this age group if they believe it is in the
patient's best interest.
But the
review, by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM),
has concluded the drug should no longer be prescribed
to children.
Its experts
said the risks outweighed the potential benefits. Their
decision was based on new research provided by GlaxoSmithKline,
the makers of Seroxat. It showed that the drug was not
effective at treating depression in under 18s.
Its studies
on more than 1,000 children also suggested those on Seroxat
were at least twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts
or self-harm compared to children with similar mental
health problems who are not taking the drug.
Glaxo
submitted the information to the agency in May.
Professor
Gordon Duff, chairman of the CSM, said Seroxat should
no longer be prescribed to under 18s. "Seroxat is
not licensed for use in children but we know it is used
in this age group outside its licensed indications where
prescribers make a judgment on their own responsibility
that it is the right treatment for a particular patient. "It
is therefore important that doctors, patients and parents
are aware of the new advice. "Young people under
18 years currently taking Seroxat
for depression should consult their doctor."
Soy's Thyroid
Dangers
A Look at the
Dangers of Soy to the Health of Your Thyroid by Mary J. Shomon
Health and nutrition magazines tout
the benefits of soy as a cure-all for women's health, hormonal problems,
cancer prevention, weight loss, and many other problems. The reality,
however, is that promotion of soy may be more a matter of business
and marketing, rather than recommendations based on sound scientific
evidence.
Isoflavones, the key components of soy that make them so potent as a possible
substitute for hormone replacement, mean that soy products, while touted
as foods and nutritional products -- often are used and act as like a hormonal
drug.
If you have a diagnosed or undiagnosed thyroid problem, or a history of autoimmune
disease, over consumption of soy isoflavones can potentially trigger a thyroid
condition. Soy foods can worsen an existing diagnosed thyroid problem in
many people. In both cases the symptoms such as fatigue, weight gain, and
depression or moodiness are often overlooked and hard to diagnose.
A recent study found that as millions of Americans -- perhaps as many as
more than 10 million -- have an undiagnosed thyroid condition. The vast majority
of thyroid patients are women over 40. This is the same group that, responding
to marketing claims that promote soy as helping to prevent breast cancer,
reducing the risk of high cholesterol or heart disease, or as a treatment
for symptoms of menopause, are turning to soy foods and isoflavone supplements
in vast numbers.
Here is more information regarding soy and its relationship to the thyroid.
FDA's Soy
Experts Speak Out Against Soy
"there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones
found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolize
of daidzen, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive
tissues and in the thyroid. This is true for a number
of species, including humans.
Additionally, isoflavones are inhibitors of the thyroid peroxidase which
makes T3 and T4. Inhibition can be expected to generate thyroid abnormalities,
including goiter and autoimmune thyroiditis. There exists a significant body
of animal data that demonstrates goitrogenic and even carcinogenic effects
of soy products. Moreover, there are significant reports of goitrogenic effects
from soy consumption in human infants and adults."
Official
Letter of Protest to the FDA Letter of protest from researchers Daniel Doerge and
Daniel Sheehan, two of the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) key experts on soy, to the FDA, protesting the
health claims approved by the FDA on soy products
America's Foremost Alternative
Doctor Warns Re: Soy
America's leading alternative doctor, Dr. Andrew Weil, has said about soy,
at his Ask Dr. Weil website
"…you're unlikely to get too many isoflavones as
a result of adding soy foods to your diet -- but you probably
will take in too much if you take soy supplements in pill
form. At this point, I can only recommend that you avoid
soy supplements entirely."
Study
Shows That Too Much Tofu Induces Brain Aging
From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin
"A Hawaii study shows a significant statistical
relationship between two or more servings of tofu a week
and 'accelerated brain aging' and even an association
with Alzheimer's disease, says Dr. Lon White." "...these
are not nutrients. They are drugs. They will have some
benefits and some negative things."
Don't
Go Overboard With the Soy Foods!
David Zava, Ph.D., a biochemist and an experienced breast cancer researcher
stated in an interview:
"In studying the literature on soy I found there
are about five types of plant chemicals [antinutrients]
in the soybean that can be toxic to humans if they are
not removed by special processing… the fifth antinutrient
in soybeans is called a goitrogen. This is a chemical
that latches on to iodine, preventing it from absorbing
into the body from the gastrointestinal tract. Iodine
is needed to make thyroid hormone. Low thyroid function
has been associated with poor brain development. Anyone
who has been deficient in thyroid hormone understands
quite well what impact this can have on normal brain function,
especially at a time in life as we grow older and "fuzzy
thinking" creeps into our vocabulary."
North
American Menopause Society Won't Endorse Soy Products
In a press statement, the North American Menopause Society has said:
"Our review found that scientific data are inconclusive
regarding whether the observed health effects in humans
are attributable to isoflavones alone or to isoflavones
plus other components in whole foods… women may wish to
consume whole foods that contain isoflavones, especially
for potential cardiovascular benefits. However, scientific
data supporting the use of isoflavones for hot flashes
are conflicting, and inadequate data exist to evaluate
their effect on breast and other female cancers, bone
mass and vaginal dryness… Our evaluation also pointed
out that a level of caution needs to be observed, especially
in the use of isoflavone supplements, powders and pills…More
studies documenting benefits and safety need to be conducted.''
Research Shows Soy's Effects
- American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Vol 68, 1431S-1435S, "Effects of soy-protein
supplementation on epithelial proliferation in the histologically
normal human breast" -- Study showed that short-term
use of dietary soy stimulated breast cell proliferation,
which can increase the risk of breast cancer.
- Anti-thyroid isoflavones
from soybean -- November 1997 article from Biochem
Pharmacol in which "it was observed that an … extract
of soybeans contains compounds that inhibit thyroid
peroxidase- (TPO) catalyzed reactions essential to thyroid
hormone synthesis."
- Breast and soy-formula
feedings in early infancy and the prevalence of autoimmune
thyroid disease in children. -- April 1998 article from
the J Am Coll Nutr. that documents the association
of soy formula feedings in infancy and autoimmune thyroid
disease.
Leading
Expert Warns of Soy-Thyroid Connection in Bestselling
Book
In the best-selling book Living Well
With Hypothyroidism: What Your Doctor Doesn't Tell You . . . That You Need
to Know, leading soy expert Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick was profiled.
"Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick is an environmental scientist
and phytoestrogen researcher who has extensively researched
the issue of soy formulas, and the impact of soy consumption
on thyroid function. Dr. Fitzpatrick introduced me to
a little-known fact that can have substantial impact on
people with hypothyroidism and the population in general
-- over consumption of soy products has the potential
to impair thyroid function. Dr. Fitzpatrick is so concerned
that he is calling for soy formula manufacturers to remove
the isoflavones -- the agents that are most active against
the thyroid -- from their products. .. There are also
concerns for adult consumption of soy products. One UK
study involving premenopausal women gave 60 grams of soy
protein per day for one month. This was found to disrupt
the menstrual cycle, with the effects of the isoflavones
continuing for a full three months after stopping the
soy in the diet. Another study found that intake of soy
over a long period causes enlargement of the thyroid and
suppresses thyroid function. Isoflavones are also known
to modify fertility and change sex hormone status, and
to have serious health effects -- including infertility,
thyroid disease or liver disease -- on a number of mammals… Dr.
Fitzpatrick believes that people with hypothyroidism should
seriously consider avoiding soy products, and predicts
the current promotion of soy as a health food will result
in an increase in thyroid disorders."
Soy
Researcher is Even 'Very Concerned'
"'There's a tendency in our culture
to think if a little is good, then a lot's better,' says
Mary Anthony, a soy researcher at Wake Forest University
School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C. 'But I personally
am very concerned about isoflavone pills and soy protein
supplemented with extra isoflavones.' Isoflavones, after
all, seem to act like hormones or drugs in our body--even
if for regulatory purposes they are classified as nutritional
supplements."
(From "In Light
of Troubling Study on Soy, Moderation Seen as Key," LA Times , Monday, March 27, 2000)
MR. NESI'S CRY
Ralph W. Moss
Recently, the New York Times ran one of the most devastating Op-Ed pieces
on cancer I have ever read. It was called "False Hope in a Bottle," and
was written by Tom Nesi. It is a powerful critique of the way that advanced
cancer is treated in academic medicine. It is particularly critical of the
new class of "targeted" anti-cancer drugs being developed by such
companies as AstraZeneca, ImClone and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
The article concerns the treatment Mr. Nesi's wife, Susan, received for her
brain cancer. In the later stages of her illness, she received the
recently approved drug Iressa. Nesi notes that similar drugs such as Erbitux
and Avastin are now speeding through the FDA approval process.
It is hard to argue against making new cancer drugs available to the desperately
ill," he writes.
"Certainly, these drugs are a step in the right direction in the fight against
the disease." He
believes that these drugs do extend life by a few months. But he continues: "I
think we need to ask ourselves whether offering terminal patients limited
hope of a few more months is really beneficial. The question is not
whether days are extended, but in what condition the patient lives and at
what emotional and financial cost."
Oncologists often talk in dry-as-dust terms about "tumor shrinkages," "responses" and
the other arcane indicators of benefit. But Nesi notes, ironically,
that "according to the medical profession, the experimental treatment
had worked." Susan lived almost three months longer than the average
patient with glioblastoma.
"Somewhere in some computer database," he adds, "Susan's experimental
regimen will be counted a success. She was a 'responder.' And therein
lies the terrible truth behind the approval of 'miracle drugs' on the basis of
'tumor shrinkage' or 'extended days.' Susan's life was extended. But at what
cost?" he asks.
It is easy to calculate the financial cost. In Susan Nesi's case it
added up to at least $200,000 for a year-and-a-half of treatment. "During
those final months, Nesi wrote, "we incurred expenses for four ambulance
trips, two weeks in a critical care center, a full-time home health-care
aide, a feeding tube and electronic monitor, home hospital equipment, occupational
therapists, social workers and medication." He had to hire someone
just to handle all the bills.
"I still hear the words of my wife's surgeon after her disastrous third
surgery," said Nesi: " 'We have saved your wife's life. . . . We have
given you the ability to spend more quality time with your loved one.' And
the words she scribbled on a notepad two weeks later: 'depressed . . .
no more . . . please.' "
The article is a cry from the heart for cancer doctors to pause in their
headlong pursuit of largely
meaningless goals, such as transient and partial tumor shrinkages. One
hopes that the executives of the companies that produce these drugs will
open their minds and hearts, along with their morning papers, and pay special
attention to Mr. Nesi's appeal. In this case, they might. For Tom Nesi,
ironically, is the former director of public affairs at Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Ask me for the moon, and I will try to get
it for you...order it, and you can wait for snow in Texas
in July.
Health Blurbs
Canker Sores and SLS
If you suffer from painful
canker sores you might want to check your toothpaste for
sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS).
Yes, canker sores can be caused by stress or allergies, but you may also
be able to blame them on the detergent SLS that is put in just about every
personal product on
the market including toothpaste.
SLS may dry out the protective mucus in your mouth, making it more vulnerable
to canker sores, according to the March 2001 issue of Muscle and Fitness.
In my house, we just use baking soda with some peppermint essential oil mixed
in. It does a good job of removing the food particles and leaves the
breath minty fresh.
Misleading
Labels:
The New York
Poison Control Center reports that 85% of product warning
labels were either inadequate or incorrect for identifying
a poison, and for first aid instructions.
Immune
System targeted:
Formaldehyde,
phenol, benzene, toluene, xylene are found in common household
cleaners, cosmetics, beverages, fabrics and cigarette
smoke. These chemicals are cancer causing and toxic to
the immune system.
Bleach?
There has been a call from the U.S./
Canadian Commission to ban bleach in North America. Bleach
is being linked to the rising rates of breast cancer in
women, reproductive problems in men and learning and behavioral
problems in children.
BIG BROTHER
COMES TO WAL-MART By
Mary Starrett June 11, 2003
Starting this week, the nation's largest discount retailer will quietly begin
selling tracking-chipped products to clueless shoppers. The first volley
in their war against our privacy is set to start at their Brockton, Massachusetts
store.
Wal-Mart will put Radio Frequency I.D. sensors on shelves stocked with RFID-tagged
Gillette products, but they'd rather you didn't know about it, because, hey,
you might not like it, and then you might make noise and then they'd have
a big PR mess on their hands.
You might even stop buying Gillette products or, say, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart.
These chips, researched at M.I.T.'s Auto-ID Center are about the size of
a grain of sand. Chipsters say the technology will only be used to help retailers
keep track of inventory - like bar codes. But privacy-loving consumers question
the very concept of a device that sends out radio waves to "readers" that
not only identify the article, but where and with whom it's going.
The Big Brother implications of this thing need little hyping to get your
skin crawling.
Wal-Mart's putting the pressure on its top 100 suppliers to make sure their
inventory is all chipped by the end of next year.
But why start this in Brockton, Mass?
Could it be because the store's customers are typically lower income minorities
who'd be less likely to be aware of the tracking devices, and even less likely
to make a fuss about them?
Their thinking? Let's foist it on folks who're too concerned about paying
the electric bill to be aware of these types of issues.
Retailers are SUPPOSED to alert their customers to the tracking chips and
offer to "kill" the tags at the checkout counter.
Don't count on it, because what you don't know won't hurt you, right? And
to PROVE those RFID tags won't be "killed" at the cash register
one of the ways they're planning on convincing you, the shopper that these
tags are A-OK is by touting how "hassle-free" returns will be.
Huh? If the tags are supposedly turned off at purchase, how can they be read
after the item's brought back to the store? Just one of the myriad lies you'll
be told about this technology.
Are we to expect that in addition to being asked the "paper or plastic" question
we'll get an option on whether the RFID tags are left on or turned off? Not
only will consumers be witnessing the death throes of privacy, but it's going
to cost them. Currently, the chips cost about 60 cents each. Add that to
the cost of each and every item that uses this Orwellian technology. Gillette
and Wal-Mart are only the pioneers here, the stated plan is to affix each
item produced on the planet with RFID tags. Each pack of gum, each roll of
film, each bottle of Merlot.
So what's a freedom-loving shopper to do?
Fortunately for us, there's a really smart lady finishing up a Ph.D. at Harvard.
She started a group that's bellowing out the urgency of fighting this technology;
her name is Katherine Albrecht and she's founder of CASPIAN (Consumers Against
Supermarket Privacy Invasion And Numbering). Albrecht's CASPIAN has proposed
a piece of federal legislation called "RFID RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 2003".
It's a law that would let consumers know which products had tracking chips
attached to them. In short, the proposed bill would amend the Fair Packaging
and
Labeling Program by adding language that requires manufacturers to state
(in a conspicuous location) that the package contains a radio frequency identification
tag that can transmit unique identification information to a "reader" device
both before and AFTER it's purchased(!).
This is where you come in. The bill needs a sponsor.
Maybe YOUR Congressional Representative would like to go on record as having
helped stop this assault on our privacy. Forward this article to him/her
and tell them the entire text of the bill can been seen at nocards.org.
Will you make it a point to email, call or fax your representative today,
before our Big Brother gets any bigger? Do it NOW before the lobbyists and
big money special interests get to them and convince Congress these RFID
chips are consumer-friendly!
And while you're at it, why not tell the suits at Wal-Mart and Gillette (and
Home Depot, Proctor and Gamble and Johnson & Johnson, too, by the way)
that from here on out you wouldn't go near their stores or their products
with a ten foot pole.
It works. Remember back a few months when I told you how Italian clothing
company Benetton had chipped their Sisely line of clothes and was all set
to roll out the garments with RFID tracking devices? Well your outrage and
feedback caused them to put the scheme on hold.
Let's make sure the behemoth Wal-Mart is similarly put on notice. (By the
way, IBM's planning to add RFID to it's products; so if Wal-Mart manages
to sneak this past us, all bets are off and then every corporate giant will
be able to inflict this chilling, tracking/monitoring horror on us.)
If RFID gets off the ground as planned, that would make George Orwells' predictions
off by just 20 years. It's up to us.
US Survey Reveals
Most Americans Unaware of Antibiotics in Meat
30/5/2003
A US survey, sponsored by
a leading organic produce supermarket, has revealed that
almost three quarters (74 per cent) of Americans are concerned
about the presence of antibiotics in meat production,
yet less than half (48 per cent) are aware that the meat
they buy is commonly raised on feed that contains antibiotics.
The survey
report went on to highlight that only 27 per cent of those
surveyed are aware of the scientific dialogue documenting
problems caused by overuse of antibiotics in animals raised
for food. Once they learn of the reports showing a connection
between the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed and
its effect on humans, the majority (59 per cent) has a
high desire to avoid these products and want meat and
poultry raised without such antibiotics, the report reveals.
The survey
of 1,000 Americans was conducted by Synovate (formerly
Market Facts) in spring 2003, and was commissioned by
Whole Foods Market, the largest natural and organic foods
supermarket in the US. The market research was said to
be representative of the general United States adult population
and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 per cent. The results
of the survey were further discussed among industry experts
gathered in New York City at the Natural Meat - Raised
to Taste Better roundtable to address the current state
of natural beef and poultry, consumer concerns, antibiotic
use and humane treatment of animals.
"Antibiotic
medicines are losing effectiveness on humans due to
their increased use in animal feed," said
Margaret Mellon, Ph.D, JD, director of the food and
environment programme for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Animals
raised in natural environments rarely require the use
of antibiotics. Americans who choose meat produced this
way are making conscious decisions to ensure that antibiotics
will still be working when they or their family need
them."
The Union
of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 per cent of
all antibiotics in the United States are now fed to animals
raised for human consumption in order to hasten the animals'
growth or prevent illness amid crowded, unsanitary conditions
on factory farms.
"The
survey released today indicates Americans' strong desire
to buy 'natural' meat. Yet, only one per cent of the
total beef and poultry sales in the United States is
considered 'natural,' meaning it comes from animals
raised without antibiotics throughout their lifecycle," said David Smith, vice president of marketing, Whole Foods
Market. "The major concern about antibiotic
usage and the low awareness of its prevalence in meat
production indicates a significant demand for antibiotic-free,
natural meat once consumers become educated about the
issue."
In the
US the use of antibiotics in food animals has attracted
the attention of Congress. Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative
Sherrod Brown (OH) plan to re-introduce bills soon to
phase out the routine use of medically important antibiotics
in poultry and livestock. Similar legislation introduced
in the last Congress was endorsed by over 170 groups,
including the American Medical Association.
Current
EC legislation in Europe largely outlaws the use of antibiotics
in animal feed as a growth stimulant. In Denmark a complete
ban on antibiotics, except for the treatment of medical
conditions, is said to have been successfully implemented
and could well prove to have a strong influence on future
EC legislation. At the end of last year the EC voted to
approve the adoption of the Keppelhoff-Wiechert report
on additives for use in animal nutrition. Commissioner
David Byrne said at the time that he saw the move as a
step towards the abolition of the European Union's drive
to phase out antibiotics and other potentially harmful
substances in animal feed. Legislation is now expected
to phase out antibiotics as growth promoters in Europe
by 2005.
Defining "Natural Meat"
In the US legislation is
more liberal. There beef and poultry are not currently
required to bear labels that clearly explain the presence
of or use of antibiotics in feed - even the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) rules for meat labeled natural do
not require all antibiotics be eliminated. According to
the USDA, natural may be used on the label when
products contain "no artificial ingredients and
are no more than minimally processed.
"Our
definition of natural meat means that it was raised
without any antibiotics, added growth hormones, or animal
byproducts in its feed," said Margaret Wittenberg, vice president,
governmental and public affairs, Whole Foods Market. "We
want to educate consumers that alternative meat products
that have been raised without antibiotics or added growth
hormones are available. Whole Foods Market believes
truly natural meats taste better, and they help avoid
the health risk of developing antibiotic resistance.
Our standards also include provisions for the humane
rearing and slaughter of animals."
According
to the Whole Foods Market survey, nearly eight in ten
(78 per cent) Americans believe it is important for standards
to be in place to more clearly define natural meat
that include: meat and poultry raised without antibiotics;
meat raised without added growth hormones; and animals
raised and processed using humane methods. In addition,
almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of Americans believe
all meat and poultry products should conform to a regulated
standard reflecting this definition.
Overall, four out of five Americans (81
per cent) have either bought beef and chicken that was not
raised on feed with antibiotics or would like to buy it.
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.
“He who
does not use his endeavors to heal himself
is a brother to him
who commits suicide.”
Proverbs 18:9 (Amplified)
