In their January 25 issue, Newsweek published a scientifically unsupportable article, claiming that antioxidants “may not be good for your health.” We asked natural biomedical researcher and physician Jonathan Wright, MD, to comment—and he didn’t mince words!
Who should worry about this? And will consumers learn even less about what they are eating?
The procedure may help more people shed the pounds. But it will also fill the coffers of surgeons, hospitals, and a global specialty pharmaceutical company.
In addition to this exciting announcement, we have some troubling news to report: more conflicts of interest over the IOM’s vitamin D report, and more evidence from a top Harvard expert that the IOM recommendations fly in the face of good science. What is really going on here?
A court defeat for the Texas Medical Board is changing policies—and minds.
Plaintiffs have accused the Texas Medical Board (TMB) of “pervasive and continuing violations of…constitutional rights”—and a federal court is allowing their suit to go forward.
We have to watch both the AMA and the Federation of State Medical Boards. They have a new strategy to limit your health freedom.
A federal district judge in Virginia has ruled that one of the central provisions in President Obama’s healthcare act is unconstitutional. ANH-USA has filed an amicus brief on the same provision, but in a different jurisdiction.
As we reported last week, the IOM’s new and absurdly low vitamin D recommendation flies in the face of scientific evidence. Now we need your help to get Congress to launch an investigation.
A new report, released today by the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, says that few people are vitamin D deficient. The scientific research says otherwise.