The Health Freedom Movement is under a state of literal SIEGE right now. In addition to being under full scale ATTACK by the pharma dominated vitamin trade associations, we've ALSO come under direct ATTACK by the US TRADE REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE (USTR), which along with the FDA, is another massively corrupt branch of the Federal Branch of the US Government that is in league with I.A.D.S.A (International Alliance of Dietary Supplement Associations)

IAHF exposed IADSA years ago for the corrupt, conniving controlled opposition group that they are at this website IADSA EXPOSED: WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING http://www.iahf.com/iadsa/index.html

While pretending to DEFEND the Dietary Supplement Industry, IADSA has plunged a KNIFE deeply into the backs of CONSUMERS, (along with CRN, NNFA, and AHPA). No health food store with any integrity will continue to belong to NNFA once they learn the truth about how we're being set up.

If you go to a health food store, and show them a copy of Kevin Miller's documentary film on the CODEX/CAFTA issue: "WE BECOME SILENT" which you can get at http://www.welltv.com and they

A) REFUSE TO WATCH IT or

B) REFUSE TO QUIT NNFA

My advice is that you literally PICKET the store. Set up a card table in front of it and encourage people to NOT shop there, because this industry is being led to the cliff from WITHIN, and unless we CONSUMERS stick up for OURSELVES, using EVERY TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL, we will eventually have to kiss our health freedom GOOD BYE.

UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE ATTACKS HEALTH FREEDOM MOVEMENT COALITION FOR HEALTH FREEDOM RESPONDS

USTR's SPIN CAN BE SEEN AT
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/Briefing_Book/asset_upload_file192_7854.pdf

COALITION FOR HEALTH FREEDOM'S RESPONSE CAN BE SEEN AT http://www.coalitionforhealthfreedom.org/issues.html

WILL HEALTH FREEDOM BE CUT DOWN VIA CAFTA IN VOTE THIS COMING FRIDAY, SAT, or SUN?

Not if The Coalition for Health Freedom & American Consumers put in enough ELBOW GREASE between now and the end of THIS WEEK to STOP IT!!!

CAN WE ACTUALLY WIN?--------------------YES!!-----------------IF--------------------ENOUGH PEOPLE DO WHAT MUST BE DONE, RIGHT NOW, & GRASP THAT OURS IS A TRUE GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT!!

WHAT YOU CAN AND MUST DO IF YOU WISH TO SAVE HEALTH FREEDOM:

1. Watch Kevin Miller's documentary WE BECOME SILENT http://www.welltv.com

2. Order multiple copies to get out to more people, and organize showings of it to friends, family, health food store owners, CEO's of vitamin companies

3. Get this alert out to more people so they will listen to today's EMERGENCY BROADCASTS

4. Utilize the ALERT I SENT OUT A FEW DAYS AGO & THE FORM LETTER/PHONE SCRIPT to EMAIL & CALL the TARGETTED CONGRESSMEN discussed in it at http://www.ymlp.com/pubarchive_show_message.php?jham+374

5. Have a CARD TABLE or SMALL FOLDING TABLE? No? GET ONE- WHY? You need to take a table, and set it up in front of the BIGGEST, BUSIEST HEALTH FOOD STORE IN YOUR AREA So You Can Hand Out Info Sheets to get more people INVOLVED in this EMERGENCY Fight Back.

We MUST Do THIS to Compensate for People Being on Vacation.

If You need assistance, call me at 800-333-2553 & I Can Help You Fully Understand What to Say and Do, and Why.

Congress ALWAYS tries to shove the most ONEROUS JUNK down our throats during the SUMMER, realizing that many people are distracted by being on vacation and by spending a lot more time outdoors, away from their computers. The New World Odor is a huge JUGGERNAUT, folks. They have planned this TAKEOVER of the natural products industry to the nth degree.

They have convened high level THINK TANKS with the best and brightest PR and Legal Minds in the World to create FLOW CHARTS of just how to methodically SUBVERT the will of the American people who voted with their FEET against FDA Tyranny in 1994 via the biggest outpouring of letters and phone calls EVER SENT to the US Congress in the HISTORY of Congress, but we CAN STOP THIS JUGGERNAUT, and we CAN DO SO BY KILLING CAFTA!!

Analysts such as the Washington Post are calling CAFTA too close to call. They're saying it could come down to ONE SINGLE VOTE (!!!)

Can the movement which generated the largest flood of mail to Congress in the HISTORY of Congress actually make a DIFFERENCE here?

YES WE CAN! WE CAN, IF YOU TAKE ACTION!!!!!

I have faith in you people. Many of you have been calling here in the past several days to tell me of all that you're doing to help snowball these alerts and to take action and to urge friends and family to do the same. Remember the ALAMO people. Remember the ALAMO!!

We're working closely with several members of Congress who ARE HEEDING OUR CALL. We're going to have a press conference, a staff briefing and people making FLOOR STATEMENTS on the House Floor in no small part due to the LAST DITCH, DO OR DIE effort by IAHF and by the Coalition for Health Freedom http://www.coalitionforhealthfreedom of which we are a part.

CAFTA will go to the House Floor either next Friday, Saturday, or Sunday as Congress will be in session next weekend due to wanting to complete business before adjourning for AUGUST RECESS, but we'll be there to MUG CAFTA, and thanks to all YOUR HARD WORK it IS MUGGABLE FOLKS, so keep on calling the congressmen mentioned in the alert above via TOLL FREE 866-340-9281 CAPITAL SWITCHBOARD!

APPRECIATE THAT?

Donations to help pay for IAHF's bandwidth would be greatly appreciated. I just received a charge of over $1000. for exceeding my customary bandwidth due to the huge traffic to the IAHF site over the past month and without help, its gonna have to come out of my less than deep pockets:

IAHF
556 Boundary Bay Rd.
Point Roberts, WA 98281 or via paypal on the IAHF Website at http://www.iahf.com and please

SNOWBALL THIS ALERT!!

For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
556 Boundary Bay Road
Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA
http://www.iahf.com
jham@iahf.com
800-333-2553 N.America
360-945-0352 World

Find out where your representatives stand on CAFTA:      

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/caftavotecount.htm

Now that you know who they are, contact them by clicking below. 

Contact Congress by Name

Contact Congress by State

Every letter, every phone call and every e-mail counts! Let's flood the offices this week and let our representatives know that we are watching and that we mean business. It could go either way...the vote is that close...don't assume that your opinion doesn't count. Every voice needs to be heard!

---

His Seminars are conducted in 3 Parts.  Part 1 will explain why there is so much disease in America today.  Part 2 will explain how to return your own body to a healthy condition by defeating common degenerative ailments such as heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc.  Part 3 will explain the deadly things that are  happening in the medical community in America today.   A Question & Answer period will follow.   The whole Seminar will take around 3 hours.

Dr. Walker is a humorous speaker who is noted for telling-it-like-it-is without being intimidated by what the Medical Cartel, FDA, or Congress will think.

To be scheduled for a Free Seminar, please call Dr. Walker directly at his office in Wetumpka, Alabama (part of Montgomery) 334-514-6950 and work out the details.

---

The Stress Test

Dr. Edward F. Group III , DC , PHD, ND, DACBN

Stress happens. It's a normal part of our daily lives. But it is how we react to and manage stress that affects the toll that stress will take on our lives. Overwhelming amounts of stress can lead to back pain, headaches, raised blood pressure, indigestion, sweating, palpitations, irritability, and anxiety. It can also contribute to the development of such diseases as cold sores, ulcers, and heart disease. Are you feeling stressed out? Take the following stress test to see if stress is causing you problems and if so, read on to learn how to manage the stress in your life.

The Stress Test

1. Do you try to do everything yourself and feel overwhelmed when you can't accomplish this?
2. Are you exhausted?
3. Do you avoid exercise?
4. Are you often irritated at yourself and others?
5. Do your friends, co-workers, and loved ones often tell you that you often make a “big deal” of things?
6. Do you tend to “bottle up” your emotions, keeping everything inside?
7. Do you have difficulty falling and staying asleep at night?
8. Do you feel unable to handle all of the tasks that you have to accomplish on a daily basis?
9. Do you feel like your way is the only right way to accomplish something?
10. Do you spend a lot of time complaining about yourself, others, or events that happened in the past?
11. Do you set unrealistic goals for yourself and for others?
12. Do you frequently procrastinate big projects or decisions?
13. Do you eat an unhealthy diet and frequently neglect good nutrition?
14. Do you have difficulty making decisions?
15. Do you lose control of your emotions or “blow up” easily?
16. Do you often fail to see humor in situations that most other people find funny?
17. Do you frequently feel disorganized and harried?
18. Do you avoid making positive connections with friends, family members, and coworkers?
19. Do you frequently get angry when you are kept waiting?
20. Are you depressed or anxious?

If you answered yes to one or more of the above questions, you may be having trouble handling the amount of stress that occurs in your life. Stress is an inevitable and normal part of life. You can't prevent it completely, but you can learn ways to manage and alleviate stress so that it does not take over your life. Here are a few techniques that you can use to relieve stress.

Stress Management Techniques

Physical Exercises : Yoga, relaxation techniques, pilates, dance therapy, and general exercise help to relive the buildup of stress hormones in the body and help to promote a general relaxation of the nervous system. Physical exercises also help to integrate the mind and body, relieve muscle tension, and improve physical function.

Mental Exercises : Meditation, guided imagery, art, music, and other mental exercises are a useful way to reduce stress and promote relaxation in your life.

Relaxation Techniques : Slow, diaphragmatic breathing and conscious muscle relaxation can help to manage stress by calming the body and clearing the mind of stressors.

Social Supports : Sometimes, all it takes to relieve stress in your life is to talk about the stressor with a close friend or family member. Pet therapy has also been reported to relieve stress

Dietary Changes : Stress suppresses the immune system and can cause or aggravate such conditions as heart disease and ulcers. Dietary changes, such as reducing coffee and other caffeinated beverages can reduce the jitteriness, restlessness, anxiety, and insomnia that might magnify the effects of stress. Also whole grains promote production of the brain neurotransmitter serotonin for a greater sense of well being.

Herbs : There are many natural supplements that can be used to elevate the mood and help you relax. St. John's Wort, SAM-E, Lithium Orotate and marijuana are all popular herbs that are useful in relieving stress. Herbs known as adaptogens, such as include Siberian ginseng ( Eleutherococcus senticosus ), ginseng ( Panax ginseng ), wild yam ( Dioscorea villosa ), borage ( Borago officinalis ), licorice ( Glycyrrhiza glabra ), chamomile ( Chamaemelum nobile ), milk thistle ( Silybum marianum ), and nettle ( Urtica dioica ) may also help to alleviate stress.

Aromatherapy : Essential oils of lavender, chamomile, geranium, rose, neroli, sweet marjoram, and ylang-ylang are commonly recommended for stress relief. They help to reduce anxiety and tension and can be used in massage, added to a bath, or inhaled through a vaporizer.

Treating Stress

Acupuncture : Stress causes tension that disrupts the flow of the qi . Acupuncture can help to restore harmony and induce a state of deep relaxation.

Massage: A regular massage in which the practitioner uses such techniques as rubbing, kneading, and pummeling, can be very beneficial in the management of stress. It can help to increase blood circulation, reduce pain, and relieve muscle tension. Massage also helps to release endorphins, substances that have a mood-enhancing effect. Have your massage therapist use a product called “NOPAINE” to massage the tender points.

“NOPAINE” is available through www.ghchealth.com .

Natural Medication: If stress is affecting your health, you may wish to see your natural health care provider to determine whether or not a specific herb may be helpful in relieving stress.

Therapy : Cognitive therapy helps people lessen the amount of stress they feel in their lives by teaching them how to reframe or mentally reinterpret the stressors that are causing problems.

For more information on Dr. Group or coping with stress, anxiety or depression naturally go to www.stress-anxiety-depression.org

STATISTICS

The N.I.H. is investigating 103 government scientists 44 have violated ethics rules on collaborating with pharmaceutical companies.

9 of the scientists may have violated criminal laws.

Allegations of fake research reached record highs in the U.S. last year - 50 percent higher than 2003.

In a survey published June 9 in the journal Nature, 1 in 3 of respondents admitted to some type of professional misbehavior.

QUOTES

"The ethical problems are more systemic and severe than previously known" (item 1)

"Some government researchers were paid thousands of dollars by drug makers" (item 1)

"I think it's not at all surprising that a drug company would hire somebody who is very comfortable with hiding the effects of very dangerous
drugs" (item 2)

"I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private
interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it all." (item 3)
------

1.Review Finds Scientists With Ties to Companies
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.


Forty-four government scientists have violated ethics rules on collaborating with pharmaceutical companies, a preliminary review by the National Institutes of Health shows.

Nine of the scientists may have violated criminal laws, the report said.

The review was outlined in a July 8 letter the agency's director, Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating conflicts of interest by government researchers.

Because the N.I.H. is investigating 103 people who have been accused of ethics violations, Dr. Zerhouni had asked the committee to keep his letter confidential. But its leaders - Representatives Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas and John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan - said in a statement yesterday that they were releasing it because of "the compelling public interest."

"The ethical problems are more systemic and severe than previously known," Mr. Barton said.

The institutes' review found that the 44 scientists had either failed to disclose income from outside work, had failed to get permission to consult or had done the work on government time rather than their own.

Eight of the scientists no longer work for the institutes and are not subject to administrative punishment, the review said. It did not describe what criminal laws might have been violated in the nine cases that were turned over to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Of the 103 people being investigated, 37 have been cleared, Dr. Zerhouni said in his letter, which did not name any researcher.

In February, Dr. Zerhouni banned all consulting deals between agency researchers and drug or biotechnology companies. For the top scientists, he also forbade owning shares in such companies, accepting gifts worth more than $200 and accepting many research prizes.

The rules are not final, and Dr. Zerhouni has said he could lose talented scientists to agencies that are less strict. Committee leaders are
urging him to make the rules final.

The investigations Dr. Zerhouni's letter cited concern deals made before the ban, which followed disclosures that some government researchers
were paid thousands of dollars by drug makers.
------

2.Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High
U.S. Fielded Record 274 Scientific Misconduct Complaints Last Year, 50 Percent More Than in 2003
By MARTHA MENDOZA

Jul 10, 2005 - Allegations of misconduct by U.S. researchers reached record highs last year as the Department of Health and Human Services received 274 complaints 50 percent higher than 2003 and the most since 1989 when the federal government established a program to deal with scientific misconduct.

Chris Pascal, director of the federal Office of Research Integrity, said its 28 staffers and $7 million annual budget haven't kept pace with the allegations. The result: Only 23 cases were closed last year. Of those, eight individuals were found guilty of research misconduct. In the past 15 years, the office has confirmed about 185 cases of scientific misconduct.

Research suggests this is but a small fraction of all the incidents of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. In a survey published June 9 in the journal Nature, about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who responded admitted to falsification or plagiarism. (One in three admitted to some type of professional misbehavior.)

On the night of his 12th wedding anniversary, Dr. Andrew Friedman was terrified.

This brilliant surgeon and researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School feared that he was about to lose everything his career, his family, the life he'd built because his boss was coming closer and closer to the truth:

For the past three years, Friedman had been faking actually making up data in some of the respected, peer-reviewed studies he had published in top medical journals.

"It is difficult for me to describe the degree of panic and irrational thought that I was going through," he would later tell an inquiry panel at Harvard.

On this night, March 13, 1995, he had been ordered in writing by his department chair to clear up what appeared to be suspicious data.

But Friedman didn't clear things up.

"I did something which was the worst possible thing I could have done," he testified.

He went to the medical record room, and for the next three or four hours he pulled out permanent medical files of a handful of patients. Then, covered up his lies, scribbling in the information he needed to support his study.

"I created data. I made it up. I also made up patients that were fictitious," he testified.

Friedman's wife met him at the door when he came home that night. He wept uncontrollably. The next morning he had an emergency appointment
with his psychiatrist.

But he didn't tell the therapist the truth, and his lies continued for 10 more days, during which time he delivered a letter, and copies of the doctored files, to his boss. Eventually he broke down, admitting first to his wife and psychiatrist, and later to his colleagues and managers, what he had been doing.

Friedman formally confessed, retracted his articles, apologized to colleagues and was punished. Today he has resurrected his career, as senior
director of clinical research at Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company.

He refused to speak with the Associated Press. But his case, recorded in a seven-foot-high stack of documents at the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, tells a story of one man's struggle with power, lies and the crushing pressure of academia.

Some other cases have made headlines:

On July 18, Eric Poehlman, once a prominent nutrition researcher, will be sentenced in federal court in Vermont for fabricating research data to obtain a $542,000 federal grant while working as a professor at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. He faces up to five years in prison. Poehlman, 49, made up research between 1992 and 2000 on issues like menopause, aging and hormone supplements to win millions of dollars in grant money from the federal government. He is the first researcher to be permanently barred from ever receiving federal research grants again.

In 2001, while he was being investigated, Poehlman left the medical school and was awarded a $1 million chair in nutrition and metabolism at the University of Montreal, where officials say they were unaware of his problems. He resigned in January when his contract expired.

In March, Dr. Gary Kammer, a Wake Forest University rheumatology professor and leading lupus expert, was found to have made up two families
and their medical conditions in grant applications to the National Institutes of Health. He has resigned from the university and has been suspended from receiving federal grants for three years.

In November, 2004, federal officials found that Dr. Ali Sultan, an award-winning malaria researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, had plagiarized text and figures, and falsified his data substituting results from one type of malaria for another on a grant application for federal funds to study malaria drugs. When brought before an inquiry committee, Sultan tried to pin the blame on a postdoctoral student. Sultan resigned and is now a faculty member at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, according to a spokeswoman there.

While the cases are high-profile, scientists have been cheating for decades.

In 1974, Dr. William Summerlin, a top-ranking Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute researcher, used a marker to make black patches of fur on white mice in an attempt to prove his new skin graft technique was working.

His case prompted Al Gore, then a young Democratic congressman from Tennessee, to hold the first congressional hearings on the issue.

"At the base of our involvement in research lies the trust of American people and the integrity of the scientific exercise," said Gore at the time. As a result of their hearings, Congress passed a law in 1985 requiring institutions that receive federal money for scientific research to have some system to report rulebreakers.

"Often we're confronted with people who are brilliant, absolutely incredible researchers, but that's not what makes them great scientists. It's the character," said Debbi Gilad, a research compliance and integrity officer at the University of California, Davis, which has taken a lead on handling scientific misconduct.

David Wright, a Michigan State University professor who has researched why scientists cheat, said there are four basic reasons: some sort of mental disorder; foreign nationals who learned somewhat different scientific standards; inadequate mentoring; and, most commonly, tremendous
and increasing professional pressure to publish studies.

His inability to handle that pressure, Friedman testified, was his downfall.

"And it was almost as though you're on a treadmill that starts out slowly and gradually increases in speed. And it happens so gradually you don't realize that eventually you're just hoping you don't fall off," he told a magistrate during a state hearing in 1995. "You're sprinting near the end and taking it all you can not to fall off."

At the time he started cheating, Friedman was in his late 30s, married and a father of two young children. Following the path of his father, grandfather and uncle who were all doctors and medical researchers, he was an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and chief of the department of reproductive endocrinology at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

His reputation was tremendous and his work groundbreaking. His 30-page resume highlighted numerous awards and honors, lectures in Canada, Europe and Australia, and more than 150 articles, book chapters, reviews and abstracts. Of those, 58 were original research articles, where he had designed studies, conducted clinical trials, enrolled patients, collected and analyzed data and made conclusions.

In the end, investigators found and Friedman confessed to making up information for three separate journal articles (one of them never published) involving hormonal treatment of gynecological conditions.

He testified that he was working 80 to 90 hours a week, seeing patients two days a week, doing surgery one day a week, supervising medical residents, serving on as many as 10 different committees at the hospital and the medical school and putting on national medical conferences.

He did seek help, both from a psychiatrist, who counseled him to cut back, and from his boss, who demanded Friedman increase his research and refused to reduce Friedman's patient load.

As good as Friedman was as a doctor, surgeon and researcher, he was actually a lousy cheater. One thing that brought about his demise, in fact, was that the initials he used for fictitious patients were the same as those of residents and faculty members in his program.

Unlike many scientists who file immediate lawsuits when they're caught, Friedman was repentant, resigning from his positions at both Brigham and Women's, and Harvard.

In 1996, Friedman agreed to be excluded for three years from working on federally funded research. During the next three years he consulted with drug companies, he paid a $10,000 fine to the state of Massachusetts and surrendered his medical license for a year, became very active with the American Red Cross, donating more than 500 hours, and attended several lectures on ethics and record-keeping.

"Andy can never undo the damage that his actions have caused. However, he has paid the price his academic career is ruined, his reputation sullied, and his personal shame unremitting," wrote Dr. Charles Lockwood, then chair of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine, in a letter on Friedman's behalf.

In 1999, after successfully petitioning to get his license reinstated, he went to work as director of women's health care at Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals. The job, which he still has, involves designing and reviewing clinical trials for hormonal birth control, writing package insert labels and lecturing to doctors. Lately he's appeared on television and in newspaper articles responding to concerns about the safety of the birth control patch.

Mary Anne Wyatt, a retired biochemist in Natick, Mass., is one of several former patients.

"I think it's not at all surprising that a drug company would hire somebody who is very comfortable with hiding the effects of very dangerous drugs," said Wyatt, who unsuccessfully sued him.

Ortho-McNeil spokeswoman Bonnie Jacobs said the company was well aware of Friedman's history when it hired him. "He is an excellent doctor, an asset to our company," she said.
------

3.The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line
http://ngin.tripod.com/pblinks2.htm

Texas entomologist John Benedict blames the system. "The universities are cheering us on, telling us to get closer to industry, encouraging us to consult with big business. The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line. It's the way we move up, get strokes.... We can't help but be influenced from time to time by our desire to see certain results happen in the lab."

Private industry contributes 10 percent of Texas A&M's whopping $41 million annual agricultural research budget, and Benedict says he knew Monsanto was contributing money to his research. "All of these companies have a piece of me," Benedict says. "I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it all." http://ngin.tripod.com/pblinks2.htm

---

Medical Laboratories Could Be Compelled to Report Citizens’ Blood-Sugar-Test Results to Local Governments

For the first time in our nation’s history, a local health department has proposed compelling medical laboratories to report blood-sugar-test results. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene floated the proposal in early July.  The New York Times says that although medical laboratories have been mandated to report information about infectious diseases (such as hepatitis), they have never been ordered to pass along information about chronic diseases.

According to the Times, the rationale for mandatory reporting of blood-sugar-test (A1c) results is to exercise “surveillance” of diabetes and employ “more aggressive intervention.”  City health officials are hoping to collect data on at least 90 percent of those with diabetes—meaning the government would obtain and analyze millions of test results.  It is estimated that the New York City government would keep information on approximately 500,000 citizens, including their names.

 

In proposing mandatory reporting, health officials point out that these other registries are already in operation:

 

·       New York State, Department of Health (NYS DOH) Cancer Registry

·       NYS DOH Alzheimer’s and other Dementias Registry

·       NYS DOH Congenital Malformations Registry

·       New York City, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH) Communicable Disease Registries

·       NYC DOHMH Lead Registry

·       NYC DOHMH Immunization Registry

·       National VA [Veterans Administration] Diabetes Registry

 

Upcoming Public Hearing on Blood-Sugar-Test Registry

 

A public hearing is expected to be held in August and the department of health could pass a regulation as early as September. Whether you live in New York City or not, you should consider how such a trend could affect your health privacy and freedom.

 

Additionally, you should become informed about the role and responsibilities of your local boards of health.  After all, tax dollars support them, and health officials are working for the citizenry.  According to the National Association of Local Boards of Health, more than 70 percent of health boards report they are responsible for recommending public-health policy; proposing, adopting and enforcing public-health regulations; and recommending health-department budgets and priorities.  Boards are typically small, with 74 percent having at most seven members.

 

In a free society, government serves the citizens—it is not the master, not even when it comes to public-health activities.

 

Sources:

 

·      New York Times, “City Officials Aim to Track How Diabetics Manage Illness,”July 8, 2005 · New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, “NYC A1C Registry”: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/diabetes/diabetes-presentation-a1c-registry.pdf

·     New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Homepage: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/home/home.shtml

·     National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH), “About Local Boards of Health”: http://www.nalboh.org/publications/aboutlboh.PDF

---

Chemotherapy, An Interesting Choice

By Jon Barron

Mark Twain quoted Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of England, as saying: 'There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damn lies, and statistics.'  That statement is even more true (and dangerous) when applied to medical studies.  One example is the recent Oxford University study published in The Lancet which touts the effectiveness of today's conventional cancer treatments. It supports the use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen for five years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third.

Very impressive, until you realize that you've just been 'statistic-ed.'

As presented, the newspaper cites studies proving the efficacy of tamoxifen that consistently read something like 'The National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Prevention Trial reported that there was a 49 percent decrease in the incidence of breast cancer in women who took tamoxifen for five years.'

That's stunning. If your doctor told you that using tamoxifen cut your chances of getting breast cancer by 49%, would there be any question in your mind on whether or not to use it? Not in mine - at least until I talked to Benjamin Disraeli. If you look past the statistics, the truth is that according to the study, your odds of getting breast cancer without using tamoxifen was only 1.3%, and with tamoxifen it dropped to .68%. That represents a 49% difference between the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-half of one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms.

And for that meager sixth-tenths of one-percent difference, we now need to consider that tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract. A study at Johns Hopkins found that tamoxifen promotes liver cancer, and in 1996, a division of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus. In another abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifen developed endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs, 130 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood vessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss. Other permanent damage includes osteoporosis, retinal damage, corneal changes, optic nerve damage, and cataracts. In short, the half percent of those who received a reduction in breast cancer by using tamoxifen traded it for an increase in other cancers and life threatening diseases. A half percent in real world terms is vastly different from the 49% 'statistic-ed' improvement cited in the studies - and hardly worth the increased risk.

Once you look behind the numbers, is it any wonder the 'war on cancer' continues to fail so miserably? The problem is that the doctors themselves believe the statistically manipulated numbers they feed to the public. And yet, the general trend is undeniable. Things are not getting better. The incidence rate of cancer has exploded from around one in five hundred in 1900 to approximately one in two today. And for every statistical blip downward in selected cancers such as breast and prostate cancer (after years of soaring incidence and mortality, mind you), there is a significant jump in "new," even more deadly cancers such as liver, pancreatic, and lymph cancers.

Chemotherapy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

For those of you who are new to the debate, let me explain some of the pros and cons of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a high probability that you or someone you know will have to face the decision on how to treat cancer.

Before we get into how chemotherapy works, it's probably worth a little digression to talk about its history. The first drug used for cancer chemotherapy was not originally intended for that purpose. Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I and was studied further during World War II.  During a military operation in World War II, a group of people were accidentally exposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low white blood cell counts. It was reasoned that an agent that damaged the rapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect on cancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advanced lymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drug by vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas. Their improvement, although temporary, was remarkable. That experience started researchers studying other substances that might have similar effects against cancer.

Chemotherapy is used to kill cancer cells anywhere in the body, including cells that have broken off from a main tumor and traveled through the blood or lymph systems to other parts of the body. Many doctors have successfully slowed cancer cells by using chemotherapy after a tumor has been surgically removed.  How does it work? Chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic, meaning they poison the cells in our body that multiply the most rapidly, which is how the majority of cancer cells perform. So, if your cancer cells are rapidly multiplying, you may find chemotherapy effective.

The major disadvantage to chemotherapy is that the drugs don't just kill the cancer cells that are dividing, but any dividing cell, including the multitude of healthy cells all over the body caught in the act of dividing. For those whose 'healthy' cells are multiplying faster than the cancer cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance of success. This explains why chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers - primarily, Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.

For the majority of people who have healthy cell division, you may end up killing the body before the cancer. For instance, there is a high probability that certain fast multiplying immune system cells including our T and B lymphocytes will also die, contributing to our body's inability to fight opportunistic diseases that arise as a result of the treatment. Other cells that grow fast are cells of the bone marrow that produce blood cells, cells in the stomach and intestines, and cells of the hair follicles, which is why a patient's hair usually falls out.

In either event, the drug's objective is to poison the system-creating horrendous pain and illness often worse than the disease itself. The toxins attack healthy, dividing blood cells and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsions causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Some drugs can slough the entire lining of the intestines.  Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain loses memory. The hair falls out. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. The kidneys are damaged. Sores appear in the mouth and throat. The body bleeds and bruises easily and can't fight infections. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment. It makes you wonder how most people die when they report the rising cancer death statistics.

It's especially telling when a number of surveys over the years show that most chemotherapists would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Today's chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. In fact, personnel who administer these drugs take great precautions to avoid exposure. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for medical personnel, offers strict warnings for handling cytotoxic agents and sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around the chemicals. In addition, increased concerns regarding mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated.

The sad part is that we accept these types of results, feeling that we have no choice in the matter. We submissively believe the medical community's statement that chemotherapy 'improves quality of life' even though most doctors find this absurd. Some doctors, such as Dr. Ulrich Abel, go so far as to state that there is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend the lives of patients suffering from 80% of all cancers.

Bottom line, orthodox chemotherapy is toxic, immunosuppressant, and carcinogenic.  As death rates keep going up, why then do the majority of doctors and oncologists still push chemotherapy?

First, effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an 'effective' drug as one that achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life. So, when a doctor says 'effective' to a cancer patient, it does not mean it cures cancer-only temporary shrinks a tumor. (Sound like Disraeli again?)

Secondly, most doctors just don't know what else to do. They face patients that they feel have hopeless conditions and justify the continual loss of life brought about by these drugs because it's the only alternative they know (along with surgery and radiation). They refer to this stage not as therapy, but as experimentation, which is better than telling a patient there is no hope. As for oncologists, they have devoted countless hours to the understanding of poisonous, deadly compounds and how to administer these drugs. This too is all they know.  They all want to help cancer patients, but they don't have other options in their arsenal - certainly not options that come from outside the medical fraternity.

Third, and commonly seen in all major industries, as long as drug companies and the cancer industry see profits, there will be little motivation to change. It is not surprising that the cancer industry turns over in excess of $200 billion annually. Or, that the few who sought alternative cancer methods encountered armed raids, loss of licensure, professional smearing, and ostracism.  One such person is Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, who stated at a recent National Institute of Health meeting, about chemotherapy: '[It's] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at physicians and prescribers."

And last but not least, in a small percentage of cases, chemotherapy absolutely does help - which is not to say that other approaches wouldn't work as well, or better. But it is, in fact, this minimal success rate that fuels the continued use of the therapy. Based on these occasional successes, doctors will often pressure patients to opt for the therapy even when it has little chance of success in their particular cases.

Also, it is worth noting that the benefits of chemo vary widely from cancer to cancer - sometimes improving 'short-term' survivability by as much as 50%; but also, in many cases, by 1% or less. For example, the statistical chances of chemotherapy being helpful with lung cancer are less than 1 in 100, and yet doctors often pressure their patients into utilizing, what is in this case, a non-effective and debilitating treatment. And on top of everything else, the success rate for chemotherapy is highly age dependent. It is much more likely to be effective with the young who have strong immune systems, dropping to about 50/50 by age 50. And by 50/50, I don't mean that it's effective 50% of the time, but rather that it's a 50/50 call as to whether doing chemo or nothing at all is the better option in terms of survivability. And by age 55, you're statistically better off doing nothing rather than subjecting yourself to chemo.

Keep in mind that whatever else you can say about chemotherapy, no one can ever claim it addresses the cause of cancer. It merely attacks the symptom.  No one, even the most jaded doctor in the world, claims that people get cancer because they're suffering from a chemotherapy deficiency.

Obviously, there is only so much we can do with the current state of affairs and we should not expect the industry to change any time soon. However, we do not have to sit on the sidelines when it comes to our personal health and wellness due to ignorance, money, and bureaucrats.

Solution -- Take an Active Role

I always encourage people to take an active role in their health, and this is even more important when you are dealing with a catastrophic illness such as cancer. Ask as many questions as you can and research your specific type of cancer to understand both the conventional and non-conventional success rates for specific remedies. Look for strategies that strengthen the body, not weaken it, allowing the body to heal itself. I also encourage you to read my book, Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, which gives many suggestions for those fighting cancer as well as preventative measures everyone should take to avoid cancer in the first place. (You can download a free copy at www.jonbarron.org. And while you're there, be sure to check out the newsletter archives.) And, finally, be careful what you read or what conclusion you draw from any study or statistic.  Know the motive behind the study. Don't be 'statistic-ed.' In the end, we are the ones responsible for our health and our bodies. It is only prudent to look at the details.

And one final note. There is more hope than you can possibly imagine in terms of dealing with cancer. There are at least 18 different peoples on Earth today who do not suffer from cancer - many of these cannot record even one victim of the disease in their entire culture. Do genetics play a role? Quite probably. But when entire cultures are cancer free, it makes the environmental and lifestyle connections undeniable - especially when those cancer rates change once they move from their original environment. That means that for most of us, we can dramatically improve our odds when it comes to getting cancer in the first place, or curing it if we do get it simply by modifying our environmental and lifestyle circumstances."

---

---

Editor-In-Chief: Dr. Edward F Group III, DC, PH.D., ND, DACBN
Executive / Managing Editor: Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP

Published monthly by:
Global Healing Center, Inc.
2040 North Loop West Suite 108
Houston TX 77018
713.476.0016
www.ghchealth.com
www.oxypowder.com