Dangerous Drug Effects | Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health

Acid Blockers Cause Brain Damage, Kidney Disease?

Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:06:15 +0000

Increase the risk of Alzheimer’s by 50%? Kidney disease by up to 50%? Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the science suggests.
Over the years, we’ve written extensively about the dangers of stomach acid drugs—conventional medicine’s completely wrongheaded answer to stomach pain and acid reflux.
Scientists aren’t certain what causes acid reflux, but a leading hypothesis is that it’s caused by a stomach environment that is not acidic enough. The lack of acid in the stomach short-circuits the signal needed to close the pyloric valve.
Stomach pain apart from acid reflux may also be caused by a lack of stomach acid. It sounds counterintuitive, but the lack of acid leads to poor digestion, causing undigested food to ferment in the gut. This leads to painful intestinal gas and other symptoms of “bad bacteria” (such as helicobacter bacteria) taking hold. Here, too, more acid, not less, will help.
Despite this evidence, conventional medicine gives us proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to treat stomach pain and acid reflux, which work by eliminating acid production—thus making the problem even worse.
Unfortunately, the bad news doesn’t stop there. Recent studies have revealed a frightening spectrum of side effects caused by acid blockers:

A large study published in JAMA Neurology found PPIs to be linked with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. The study found that regular use of PPIs increased the risk for dementia by as much as 52% compared with nonusers.
Two new studies have linked acid blockers with chronic kidney disease. The increase in risk is cited as 20–50%.
Another study found that PPIs may raise the risk of heart attack by 15–20%. Other studies have shown that PPIs damage the lining of blood vessels and thus promote cardiovascular events.

The link with pneumonia and other infectious diseases was established years ago. This may be because acid is a barrier to infectious organisms getting inside your body.
Because stomach acid helps digest food, too little stomach acid can lead to nutrient deficiencies (since it is harder for the body to extract minerals and vitamins from food) and food poisoning. Reduced calcium absorption, for instance, leaves people who regularly take PPIs susceptible to bone fractures.
It can also be hard to stop taking PPIs once started. When patients stop taking them, fermentation can cause pain. It may also be hard to re-establish the ability to produce acid.
Given these dangers, why do doctors continue to suggest these drugs to their patients? As always, it is instructive to follow the money. Blockbuster drugs in this class such as Prevacid, Prilosec, and Nexium bring in billions of dollars each year and are some of the most widely prescribed drugs in the US. Nexium alone brings in about $6 billion a year. With so much money at stake, drug companies presumably do not want us to learn the truth, and drug companies are often the only source of information on the subject for doctors.
The good news is that stomach pain can be managed without using these dangerous drugs. Restoring stomach acid with hydrochloric acid supplements both helps the stomach signal the pyloric valve to close and also helps control the helicobacter bacteria. Lifestyle changes can also help reduce stomach pain and acid reflux, such as losing weight and eating a healthy diet.

The post Acid Blockers Cause Brain Damage, Kidney Disease? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

FDA Approves Controversial Diet Drug Despite Warning of Suicide Risk

Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:05:43 +0000

Contrave has terrible side effects, is expensive, includes a hidden antidepressant, and barely even works. So why did the FDA approve it? Action Alert!
The FDA approved two weight loss drugs in 2012, Qsymia and Belviq, but sales have been sluggish. This week FDA approved Contrave, even though the FDA initially denied approval to Contrave in 2011 due to health concerns—increased blood pressure and rapid pulse. Rather than addressing the safety issues, the manufacturer simply commissioned another study, which seems to have been enough for FDA to green-light the drug.
Contrave is the combination of two drugs: naltrexone, which is an opioid receptor antagonist used primarily in the management of alcohol and opioid dependence, and bupropion, an antidepressant (marketed as Wellbutrin). In other words, it is a repackaging of old drugs that have no direct link to appetite or eating. It carries the same black box warning as other antidepressants about the risk of causing suicidal thoughts. The black box warnings do not mention violence to others, although there is evidence of that too. Not to mention over-excitement and headaches.
Even with the threat of suicide and/or violence, not to mention the blood pressure and pulse dangers, it’s not as if this drug is a weight-loss powerhouse. From the evidence, it appears to be a dud. In clinical trials, non-diabetic patients taking Contrave lost only 4.1 percent more weight than those taking placebos. Only 42% of those getting Contrave lost more than 5% percent of their weight; in the placebo group, 17% lost the same amount. That means Contrave really worked to a small degree for only 25% of all patients. With this drug, a two-hundred-pound man would have lost only ten pounds over the course of a year. (Results from an earlier clinical trial that enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes showed that patients had an average loss of only 2% more weight with Contrave than with a placebo, and only worked on 18% of patients.)
Another weight-loss drug, rimonabant (known by the trade names Acomplia and Zimulti), also caused suicidal thinking and depression, even though it doesn’t contain antidepressants. In this case, the drug maker, the French company Sanofi SA, touted it as a possible “blockbuster” drug to treat obesity, with only mild side effects. In 2007 an FDA advisory panel urged the agency to reject rimonabant because of a significant increase in “suicidality” in patients. European regulators had approved the use of rimonabant prior to the FDA panel’s action, but sales were later suspended. It also spurred a class-action lawsuit from investors, who sued Sanofi for concealing clinical trials revealing the drug’s dangers. The lawsuit was settled this month for $40 million.
One in three Americans is obese, so naturally the drug companies see a potential bonanza. But obesity drugs have not made anything close to the “blockbuster” profits that manufacturers expected. The company that makes Qsymia is trying new tactics, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, and offering the first two weeks of pills for free.
The desperation to boost drug sales could also be why the FDA classified obesity as a disease in 2000, and the American Medical Association and the Obesity Society followed suit more recently. It could also be why vested interests are pushing legislation (the “Treat and Reduce Obesity Act”) to expand Medicare’s coverage of obesity drugs. Once insurance covers the major portion of the cost of the drugs, their sales are bound to increase. There is also a petition before the FDA to forbid supplements from making any weight loss reference, a petition that the agency hasn’t responded to but could at any time. If you haven’t done so already, write to the FDA and tell them not to ban weight loss supplements. Please take action immediately!

Although nutritional supplement companies cannot make claims to treat obesity now that it’s considered a disease, their labels can still refer to the promotion of normal amounts of weight loss. Terms like “suppresses appetite” or “increases satiety” are barely permissible, so long as it is made clear that the product is for ordinary weight loss and not for the treatment of obesity. For a review of supplements, please see LEF.org.
Natural approaches to weight management—nutrition, exercise, lifestyle changes, supplements—are safer and far more effective. But apparently our government would rather have a whole nation of potentially suicidal, FDA-drug-addicted zombies with high blood pressure, so long as Big Pharma is able to rake in the dollars.

The post FDA Approves Controversial Diet Drug Despite Warning of Suicide Risk first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

One in Five Pregnant Women Take Opioid Painkillers

Tue, 06 May 2014 18:10:34 +0000

And what doctors are prescribing as an alternative is just as dangerous. Action Alert!
We’ve told you before about the dangers of prescription opioid painkillers: drugs like oxycodone (OxyContin) and hydrocodone (Vicodin) are incredibly addictive, and cause more deaths a year than heroin and cocaine combined.
Alarmingly, a full 20% of pregnant women now use these prescription painkillers, according to the New York Times. What’s worse, not all women are being prescribed opioids equally: those with Medicaid, as well as those who live in the south, are being prescribed painkillers during pregnancy at much higher rates: 23% of women on Medicaid, compared to 14% of women with private insurance, are being prescribed opioids.
Researchers aren’t sure about the reason for these prescribing discrepancies. However, they clearly demonstrate that opioid use during pregnancy is being influenced by other factors than necessity. For instance, there’s a strong overlap between areas where pregnant women are prescribed opioids at high rates and where opioid abuse runs rampant.
The effects of opioid use during pregnancy haven’t been thoroughly studied, but initial research shows that it can lead to neural tube defects (remember, the FDA is currently trying to ban folate—which can prevent such defects—from dietary supplements). Take this potential for severe birth defects, and throw in the fact that doctors are seeing a surge in infants born addicted to painkillers, and ask yourself why painkillers aren’t on the “banned” list for pregnant women.
Unfortunately, this nonsensical prescribing behavior aligns with how the FDA classifies what drugs are “safe” for pregnancy. The agency sorts drugs into five categories:

Category A: There is adequate evidence that there is no risk to fetuses.
Category B: Animal studies have failed to show a risk to fetuses; no well-controlled studies have been completed in humans.
Category C: Animal studies have shown a risk to fetuses; there are no well-controlled studies in humans. However, “potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women.”
Category D: There is evidence of fetal risk, but “potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women.”
Category X: There is too much evidence of risk to prescribe these drugs to pregnant women.

Note that in two out of the five categories, there is no evidence at all on the impact of these drugs during pregnancy. The truth is, fewer than 10% of FDA-approved medications have sufficient data to determine whether or not they’re safe for expectant mothers.
The result of this skewed system is that doctors are prescribing drugs for which there is no classification at all—simply because the risks have yet to be declared by the FDA.
For example, as an alternative to opioids, aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen (the active ingredient in Aleve), doctors often prescribe acetaminophen. You may already know about the general dangers of acetaminophen, but new research suggests that acetaminophen during pregnancy may promote severe ADHD in children.
As reported by Dr. Mercola, a study in JAMA Pediatrics (a journal of the American Medical Association)found that the children of women who took acetaminophen while pregnant had a 30% increased risk of ADHD during the first seven years of life, as well as a 37% increased risk of hyperkinetic disorder (HKD), a severe form of ADHD. The more acetaminophen used during pregnancy, the higher the child’s risk of ADHD-related problems.
And don’t forget that many prescription painkillers contain a combination of opioids and acetaminophen, putting babies doubly at risk.
Pain and discomfort during pregnancy is inevitable. In our culture of instant gratification, and in a time where doctors spend less and less time with patients, it may be tempting to take a “magic pill” to feel better. But remember that there are many natural and alternative ways to manage pain, including massage (especially useful during pregnancy and especially during labor), acupuncture, psychical therapy, and meditation.
As always, talk to your integrative practitioner before trying a new health regimen, all the more so if you’re pregnant.
Action Alert! Although acetaminophen has no FDA classification for use in pregnant women, it is the go-to over-the-counter painkiller recommended for expectant mothers. Given the link between acetaminophen and ADHD, this drug should be classified as Category D (there is evidence of fetal risk, but it may still be recommended in urgent cases). Write to the FDA today, and ask them to warn expecting mothers about the dangers of acetaminophen!

The post One in Five Pregnant Women Take Opioid Painkillers first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Prescription Drugs in Prison—Watch Out

Tue, 06 May 2014 17:43:54 +0000

What we are looking at is a potential storm of inmate addiction, violence, and soaring federal medical costs.
Last month we told you about how under the new healthcare law, many more prisoners will receive powerful psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness—despite the fact that these drugs are linked to addiction, crime, and violent homicidal outbursts. The social consequences of treating inmates with these drugs is frightening.
Earlier, we told you about a new drug called Sovaldi to treat hepatitis C. It can cure up to 80% of hepatitis C cases in as little as twelve weeks—all at the low, low price of $84,000 per course of treatment. Why is the price of this drug so high?
Sovaldi’s $1,000-a-day price tag was a bit of sticker shock for several members of Congress: on March 20, three members of the powerful Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to the CEO of Gilead Sciences demanding an explanation of “the methodology used to establish Sovaldi’s pricing,” particularly since “a breakthrough treatment for hepatitis C could result in significant public health benefits.”
While Gilead has yet to publically respond to the committee, we believe the Sovaldi price-setting equation may be closely linked to America’s burgeoning prison population. Here are a few crucial facts:

	Over 50% of those infected with hepatitis C depend on taxpayer-funded healthcare. Across the country’s various prison systems, 13 to 54% of inmates have hepatitis C.
+	State jails are legally obligated to provide high-quality (and inherently pricy) treatments like Sovaldi to prisoners.
+	Thanks to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states can now shift much of their constitutional burden to provide healthcare to prisoners to federal taxpayers.
=	$1,000-a-day price tag, per inmate, for Hep C treatment.

Quite simply, it seems that Gilead can charge so much because they know that your tax dollars are paying for the healthcare of one of Sovaldi’s biggest target audiences: convicted felons.
Who would have thought that prisons would be the next frontier for Big Pharma profits? Big Pharma clearly has. Once the government has signed on, millions of literally captive customers are assured.
To fully understand Big Pharma’s prison arithmetic, Illinois is one of six states currently signing state prisoners up for Obamacare and ACA-expanded Medicaid. Illinois also happens to be one of the first states to approve Sovaldi for the treatment of its prisoners.
Increased costs aren’t limited to Sovaldi: the overall cost of healthcare for inmates ballooned 52% from 2001 to 2008 (another reason why states are trying to pass the financial hot potato onto the federal government).
Of course, there are a variety of cost-effective natural treatments that could help manage hepatitis C, but none seem to have to potential of Sovaldi to cure it:

As noted by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, clinical trials have shown that milk thistle, when compared with placebo, increases hepatitis C survival rates, decreases symptoms, and provides histological improvement (a reduction in tissue inflammation).
Licorice root extract has been shown to reduce ALT, an enzyme that is elevated in people with chronic hepatitis, and can help augment the results of interferon treatment.
Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, have found that the bioflavonoids catechin, naringenin, and quercetin can act as hepatitis C antivirals.
Vitamin D alone can make an enormous difference for the body’s ability to handle any viral infection. But regular vitamin D is natural, and therefore not patentable. So don’t expect Pharma or its partners in government to show any interest. Even if governments allowed the use of supplemental vitamin D-3 in prison, you can be sure the dose would be too low to do any good.

We all need to utilize safe, effective, and economical alternatives to lucrative Big Pharma drugs. We also need to break the government protected monopoly that allows a company to charge $1,000 per pill. But so long as the money keeps flowing back and forth between Pharma and public officials, it will be difficult to rein in the current plague of crony medicine.

The post Prescription Drugs in Prison—Watch Out first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Popular Antidepressant May Promote Breast Cancer

TIM REIHM — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:58:19 +0000

Even worse, it’s frequently prescribed to the most at-risk group: women in their 40s and 50s. Action Alert!

We’ve told you before about the dangers of SSRIs, an incredibly popular class of antidepressants that can cause violent outbursts—both homicidal and suicidal. But now, researchers have found another alarming side effect: they may promote breast cancer.

About 70% of breast cancers are sensitive to estrogen—that is, estrogen contributes to their growth. Recently, researchers have found that paroxetine—the active ingredient in Paxil and Pexeva, some of the most widely prescribed SSRI antidepressants—has an estrogenic effect that likely promotes the development and growth of breast tumors in women.

The same study also identified bisphenol A, or BPA, which we have also warned about, as having estrogenic effects. BPA is found in some plastics, and in particular in the liner of tin cans and on many sales receipts.

In thinking about the breast cancer risk from SSRIs, keep in mind that clinical depression is twice as common in women as it is in men. In fact, one in four women in their 40s and 50s (one in ten Americans overall) now take an antidepressant medication.

As you may recall, last year the FDA approved paroxetine (marketed under the name Brisdelle) as a treatment for hot flashes and menopausal symptoms—despite the fact that the FDA’s own Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee voted 10 to 4 against approval, because the severe side effects associated with SSRIs outweigh the minor benefits. In addition, SSRIs can be highly addictive. Many people struggle to get off them.

The agency touted its decision to approve Brisdelle as an opportunity to provide women with a non-hormonal alternative to synthetic hormone replacement therapy (a common way to treat hot flashes). Why? Because synthetic—but not bioidentical hormone—therapy has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer as well as heart disease.

Let’s walk through this. The two most important risk factors to developing breast cancer are being female and growing older: the older you get, the more likely you are to get breast cancer. So the FDA has approved a drug that may cause breast cancer for the group most at risk for breast cancer—in the hope of reducing breast cancer.

Is there a link between increased antidepressant use and increased rates of breast cancer? There’s no way to tell without a reputable, long-term study, but it’s not far-fetched to think that these two trends are linked.

You’ll note that the FDA conveniently ignored the safer alternative treatment option for post-menopausal symptoms: natural, bioidentical estriol. In addition, as Dr. Joseph Mercola points out, there are well over 800 references in the medical literature showing vitamin D’s effectiveness against cancer. Most recently, a meta-analysis of five studies published in the March 2014 issue of Anticancer Research found that patients diagnosed with breast cancer who had high vitamin D levels were twice as likely to survive compared to women with low levels. Moreover, high levels of vitamin D in conventional medicine is not really high by integrative medicine standards. Conventional medicine considers ng/ml blood levels of 30-100 to be safe. To prevent cancer and other health hazards, there is considerable evidence that levels need to be above 60 while still below 100.

For more about breast cancer and its diagnosis, see our other article in this issue.

Action Alert! Tell the FDA to reverse its approval of paroxetine for hot flashes. There is no reason for this dangerous drug’s approval, especially considering that it does the opposite of what it was intended to do when it was initially approved—reduce the risk of breast cancer. Send your message to the FDA today!

Are We About to Make Criminals Even More Violent?

Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:00:50 +0000

The latest from the Department of Unintended Consequences.

At least 1 million American prisoners suffer from mental illness, and of these only 15% of local inmates and 27% of state prisoners currently receive some treatment in the form of psychotropic drugs. However, under new Obamacare programs, many more of these sick inmates will be “treated” with these powerful drugs linked to addiction, cyclical crime, and violent homicidal outbursts.

Hitherto, state, county, and local jails have been required to provide healthcare for inmates. But under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states have two ways to shift this responsibility—along with its enormous costs—to federal taxpayers:

Medicaid. Many more prisoners and parolees will now qualify for Medicaid, which is expanding to cover more childless adults.
Obamacare. It’s true that the ACA expressly prohibits the enrollment of inmates who are serving full-time sentences. However, there’s a loophole for prisoners awaiting trial. This incentivizes cash-strapped states to sign as many inmates up for Obamacare as possible.

Sadly, because the ACA is based on a conventional medical paradigm (“drugs and surgery for all!”), it’s unlikely that newly-covered prisoners will receive the natural health treatments for anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric disorders that could actually help. Instead, they’ll be prescribed psychotropic drugs that are linked to violent (homicidal and suicidal) and criminal acts.

Is it wise to prescribe highly addictive, violence-sparking drugs to a population already prone to violence and crime? There’s already evidence that psychotropic drugs—particularly SSRI antidepressants—may be linked to the rise in mass public shootings. OnTime Magazine’s list of top ten legal drugs linked to violence, seven are psychotropics: three are SSRI antidepressants, two are another class of antidepressants, and two are for the treatment of ADHD. (To learn more about the link between SSRIs and violence, read our February 2013 and March 2011 articles.)

The latest possible link between mass violence and SSRIs just came out—the army has admitted that the shooter at Fort Hood had just recently been prescribed such drugs.

Antipsychotics are also extremely addictive: amphetamines (ADHD drugs like Adderall) and benzodiazepines (antianxiety drugs like Xanax) are both considered two of the world’s most addictive drugs. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 18% of federal prisoners and nearly 17% of state prisoners say they committed their offense to obtain money for drugs, while up to 80% of inmates already have substance abuse problems. Enrolling inmates in federal health programs could introduce populations already vulnerable to substance abuse to even more addictive drugs. This could serve to perpetuate—not break—the cycle of drug-fueled crime.

Given the high potential costs to incarcerated Americans, public safety, and our wallets, it seems a forgone conclusion that inmates should not be pushed into these drugs. How could states and the administration ignore this elephant in the room?

Perhaps it’s hidden behind the giant pile of Big Pharma profits and campaign finance dollars. Let’s take a look at who stands to benefit:

State and county jails are the biggest winners here. Because Medicaid is a federal program, and because they can charge the cost of the Affordable Care Act enrollees to the federal government, theirbudgets will shrink drastically—it’s estimated that $6.5 billion in annual healthcare costs will be shifted to the federal government (i.e., taxpayers like you).And we can’t help but think jails see some appeal to a population controlled by drugs. What they may actually get is anything but a sedated inmate population.
The Obama Administration. If this fledgling program is implemented nationally, there will be a huge jump in enrollment numbers—especially in the coveted young adult group as of 2002. 60% of the prison population is between the ages of 18 and 34. Although the administration hasn’t publically advertised expanded coverage for inmates, it is funding one organization that enrolls Illinois prisoners in Obamacare programs.
Big Pharma. Psychiatric drugs are a big, fat Big Pharma cash cow. In 2008 alone, sales of a single schizophrenia drug (Zyprexa) represented 23% of Eli Lilly’s total earnings; Johnson & Johnson’s antipsychotic franchise generated $3.8 billion. This program cracks an untapped market wide open, generating billions in new sales and—since psychotropic drugs are so addictive—what could be lifelong customers.

So far, only six states and counties are signing up prisoners under the new ACA rules. But if this program is implemented nationally, many of the seven million Americans behind bars, on parole, or on probation, as well as the thirteen million booked into county jails each year, would be eligible for taxpayer-subsidized drugs linked to violence.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time we’ve used government-subsidized healthcare to boost Big Pharma profits: after all, children on Medicaid are four times more likely to be prescribed antipsychotic drugs. Please note: that isn’t anti-depressants. It is highly toxic antipsychotic drugs that have not even been tested on a pediatric population. The FDA says that it is opposed to untested, “off-label” use of drugs. Why doesn’t it stop this cruel experimenting with children on Medicaid?

The post Are We About to Make Criminals Even More Violent? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

FDA Approves a Dangerous New Antidepressant—for Hot Flashes!

Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:00:15 +0000

The agency defied its own panel’s recommendation against approval because slight benefit is not worth the risk of suicide (and, we might add, addiction).
The FDA has approved the first non-hormonal treatment for hot flashes associated with menopause. The drug is paroxetine mesylate (marketed as Brisdelle). Paroxetine, an SSRI, is the active ingredient in two drugs for depression and other psychiatric disorders, Paxil and Pexeva. Both drugs contain higher doses of paroxetine than the version for hot flashes. The agency’s press release said studies of the drug showed that Brisdelle “reduced hot flashes compared to placebo,” though “the mechanism by which Brisdelle reduces hot flashes is unknown.”
What the press release fails to mention is that the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee voted 10 to 4 that the overall risk-benefit profile of the drug did not support approval—that the benefits over placebo were “minimal,” and that all of the severe side effects associated with SSRIs, such as suicidal thoughts and osteoporosis, outweigh the minor benefits.
The drug’s label features a boxed warning about the increased risk for thoughts of suicide. The label also warns clinicians that it can reduce the effectiveness of the breast cancer drug tamoxifen if taken together, increase the risk for bleeding, and comes with the risk for serotonin syndrome. Fatigue, nausea, and dizziness were the most common side effects. In the 24-week study, there were three cases of suicidal ideation and one suicide attempt among those on paroxetine, all after 12 weeks of treatment. One woman died while on Brisdelle but, according to the company, the death not considered to be related to the drug. Are the risks of taking an SSRI worth it for such an uncomfortable but temporary condition as hot flashes? Especially when we know that these drugs can also be addictive?
It’s highly unusual for the FDA to go against one of its panel’s recommendations, and the agency gave no explanation as to why they did so in this case. We note, however, that 24 million women suffer from hot flashes, and two-thirds of them currently do nothing to treat the condition. This means that the potential untapped market is huge. And FDA seems eager to do the bidding of the pharmaceutical companies.
The reasoning behind taking a non-hormone treatment for hot flashes is to reduce the risk of breast cancer. But this risk has only been studied for synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Bioidentical hormones produced naturally by the body do not involve the same risks—which is why protecting our access to compounded versions of the hormones is so important (as we discussed in our article on the dangerous compounding bill before Congress). Bioidentical estriol does not have known side effects associated with it, while the synthetic versions do.
Besides bioidentical estriol, there are other natural treatments for hot flashes. Dr. Joseph A. Mercola recommends the following:

Losing weight (overweight women are far more likely to get hot flashes) with regular exercise and a balanced, lower-carbohydrate diet;
Reducing stress;
Consuming natural phytoestrogens, which are found in plants like licorice, fermented soybeans, alfalfa, and many others (particularly helpful if they form part of a woman’s diet before menopause);
Acupuncture, which is very successful at combating hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms; and
Supplementing with black cohosh, an herb that is nearly as effective as estrogen at treating hot flashes, and is also useful in managing the mood swings and irritability that may accompany menopause.

We have wonderful natural treatments available, including bioidentical estriol. An agency that willfully defies its own experts and approves a dangerous drug on which women have already felt like committing suicide—one that is only a minimal improvement over a placebo—is an agency that dances to Big Pharma’s tune.

The post FDA Approves a Dangerous New Antidepressant—for Hot Flashes! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Distressing News: BPA in Mothers May Harm Newborns

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:00:42 +0000

It’s time to take the BPA fight to the state legislatures. Action Alerts!

Three recent studies paint a bleak picture about both the health risks and the prevalence of bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor.

A Dutch study has found that fetuses of mothers who have high levels of BPA in their systems grow more slowly, have smaller heads, and weigh 20% less at birth compared with babies born to women with the lowest BPA levels.

Moreover, BPA may have multigenerational effects. A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Endocrinology demonstrated that exposure to even very low levels of BPA during pregnancy results in adverse behavioral effects in mice carried forward over three generations. The multi-generational effects result from an epigenetic mechanism.

In a third study, children and adolescents with high levels of urinary BPA showed evidence of low-grade albuminuria (where the kidney has experienced damage and is starting to spill some albumin into the urine). Damage at this early stage may have implications for the later development of kidney and cardiovascular disease.

Despite growing evidence to the contrary, FDA’s assessment is that BPA is safe at low levels. The FDA rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban BPA in food containers. ANH-USA’s petition to the Consumer Protection Agency was denied, and we still haven’t received a response to our OSHA petition regarding BPA in thermal register receipts.

Given the federal government’s inaction, if we are to make progress on BPA, it will have to occur at the state level. This approach has already created positive change: the chemical industry voluntarily petitioned the FDA to limit BPA in baby food containers—and of course, since it came from the chemical industry, the FDA listened without commenting on the question of safety!

Action Alerts! If you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, or Pennsylvania, please write to your state legislators and ask them to support these important BPA bills:

Connecticut: S.16 would require all food containers containing BPA to be labeled as such. Take Action!

Massachusetts: S.400 would ban BPA in toys, and mandate that manufacturers use the least toxic alternative as a replacement. Take Action!

New York: A.1654 and S.4709 would prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution of business transaction paper containing BPA; S.3533 would prohibit the sale of toys, as well as liquids, foods, and beverages in containers that are intended for children 3 and younger if they contain BPA. This bill would also require manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative chemical compound to replace BPA. Take Action!

Pennsylvania: H.377 and S.490 would ban BPA in children’s and toddlers’ products, and mandates that manufacturers use the least toxic alternative as a replacement. Take Action!

The post Distressing News: BPA in Mothers May Harm Newborns first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Danger: Cherry-Picked Drug Studies!

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:33:58 +0000

Drug companies are deliberately keeping the public—and the medical community—in the dark about “unfavorable” clinical trials. Action Alert!
The RECORD trial (see our article in this issue) is just one example of how drug study data can be manipulated by pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. But it gets worse—even if a study finds a drug isn’t very safe or effective, it’s likely you and your doctor will never hear about it.
The problem—called publication bias—is widespread. About half of all drug trials aren’t made publicly available, and positive findings are twice as likely to be published as negative findings for the same drug. Since doctors can access only a small portion of the full scientific picture, they are led to believe that drugs are much safer or more effective than they actually are. This results in a huge gap between what the FDA knows about drugs and what prescribing doctors know.
For example, one independent study looked at all drug trials submitted to the FDA for twelve antidepressants. Thirty-eight of the trials showed positive results, while thirty-six showed negative results. Yet thirty-seven of the positive results were published in peer-reviewed journals, while only three of the negative studies were! Any doctor looking at the published studies would be led to believe that antidepressants were overwhelmingly effective. This is especially troubling considering the many negative effects of antidepressants—including suicidal behavior, and evidence of violent behavior against others.
Other manufacturers suppress drug trial information as well. A congressional investigation into the cholesterol drug Vytorin revealed that its manufacturer, Schering-Plough, deliberately hid results showing that the drug didn’t improve artery health, and continued to market Vytorin heavily. A trial on Multaq, a drug that treated irregular heartbeat, was stopped because more patients who received the drug were dying than those who received a placebo—yet this incredibly important study was not published until five years later!
Even if you don’t rely on patented medicines, this widespread deception costs you a great deal of money. Look, for instance, at Tamiflu, an antiviral influenza drug. The Cochrane Collaboration, which reviews drug trials, attempted to collect all data, both published and unpublished, from all Tamiflu trials. The results of the negative trials simply weren’t publicly available. When they started obtaining the trial write-ups via the Freedom of Information Act, the true effectiveness of the drug became murky. Tamiflu appears to be no more effective than aspirin—yet it has been stockpiled by governments around the world. The UK had contracts for over 50 million doses of Tamiflu—enough for 80% of the population—and the US has stockpiled over 37 million doses, costing taxpayers $1.5 billion.
In many cases, drug studies are retracted after they are published. Researchers found that nearly 75% of retracted drug studies were pulled because of scientific misconduct such as data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism. And such scientific fraud is on the rise: according to the most recent data, the number of scientific retractions is fifteen times higher than in 2001. Last fall, the Senate Finance Committee slammed medical device manufacturer Medtronic for ghostwriting entire studies to support its Infuse bone graft system, and for getting other authors to take credit for the research to give the appearance of impartiality.
When a new drug seeks FDA approval, FDA requires drug manufacturers to submit basic results of all the clinical trials they sponsor. Companies can sponsor as many trials as they like, many of which can have negative results—which the public almost never sees. But so long as two of the trials show that the drug is effective, the drug is usually approved! Even worse, this requirement only applies to drugs approved after 2007. Most drugs currently on the market were approved before 2007.
Action Alert! Write to your senators and representative and ask them for new legislation to require that all drug trials submitted to the FDA be publicly available—not only for new drugs, but for all drugs currently on the market. There is no reason a government agency should keep secret information that could affect the health of its citizens. Send your message today!

The post Danger: Cherry-Picked Drug Studies! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Are Big Pharma’s Drugs Making Your Heartburn Worse and Worse? Just Fix It with Surgery!

Tue, 28 May 2013 19:00:14 +0000

Now they want to cut open your throat and install a metal ring with magnets, when the best and safest natural remedies cost pennies!

Gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD, affects at least 20% of adult men and women in the US population, according to the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders. It also occurs in children. It’s the backflow of stomach contents (usually accompanied by heartburn) into the esophagus, and can cause tissue damage which may eventually lead to cancer. This kind of cancer has been increasing rapidly and threatens to become an epidemic. There are reasons to think that current treatments for heartburn are directly leading to the cancer.

Much of the current thinking about heartburn centers around the idea that one’s lower esophageal sphincter (LES) is defective—which leads to its not shutting properly—allowing stomach acid to flow back into the esophagus and burn the esophageal lining. So researchers have invented a procedure in which an expandable metal ring of titanium beads with magnetic cores is clipped onto the bottom of the esophagus. The ring of magnets pull inward to close the esophagus but can expand to allow food to pass downward.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a study showing that 86% of patients with GERD who had the metal ring implanted no longer used heartburn medicine one year after the implant. Over three years, most patients showed lower acid levels in their esophagus, and patients who continued taking heartburn medication were able to lower their doses.

There were some downsides, however: six patients experienced pain, vomiting, and difficulty swallowing, and ultimately had the device removed. Two-thirds of all who received the implant reported difficulty swallowing, though this fell to 11% after one year, and 4% after three years.

The study was far from ideal. The researchers excluded everyone who was obese, and everyone who had advanced inflammation of the esophagus or a large hiatal hernia (a bulge, which is associated with GERD). In other words, they didn’t even study the very populations who need a treatment for GERD the most.

We would also note a rather telling irony: the study was not a random controlled trial (RCT), which is mainstream medicine’s idea of the “gold standard.” Even so, the results are being announced as if it were a great triumph. When it comes to natural treatments, one of conventional medicine’s main critiques is that no RCTs have been done, even though the critics know the expense is too great for non-patentable supplements!

This is not the first time surgery has been suggested as a treatment for GERD. Last year we told you that surgeons were trying to seal the valve with sutures.

Mainstream medical treatment for GERD and heartburn has up to now been to use drugs to decrease stomach acidity, either by neutralizing stomach acid (antacids) or shutting down the stomach’s ability to produce acid through proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The study is quick to say this new surgery is a way to get patients off stomach acid drugs.

It may be they’re finally acknowledging that the popular acid blockers, the PPIs in particular, are dangerous. They have a number of highly undesirable side effects, as documented by academic research, including reduced calcium absorption (which is associated with an increased risk of bone fractures in women); reduced absorption of other critical minerals and nutrients; an increased risk of vomiting and diarrhea; an increased risk of pneumonia (because an acid-free stomach lets pathogens into our body); and an increased risk of dementia in elderly African Americans and probably in others.

An article published in the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery also showed that these medications increase bile reflux and that this bile reflux is particularly dangerous for the throat. Other drugs can also increase your risk for reflux and throat cancer, including pain relievers (NSAIDS) and bone medications called bisphosphonates (e.g., Fosamax), as integrative physician Dr. Frank Shallenberger points out in his publication “Stop the Stomach Torture.”

Common sense tells us that acid is in our stomachs for a reason. We need it for digestion. Moreover, acid production declines, sometimes sharply, with age, while stomach problems including GERD increase sharply with age. If stomach problems are more often associated with declining acid production, how can completely shutting off acid production improve the situation? In time, we will look back on the almost promiscuous use of acid-blocking drugs, among the drug industry’s biggest sellers, as one of modern medicine’s most colossal and inexcusable errors.

Neither the drugs nor the surgery address the question of why people have a “defective LES” in the first place. Most likely, it’s a simple case of needing more stomach acid, not less, in order to keep the valve shut. If there is enough acid in the stomach, the stomach probably signals the valve to shut. If there isn’t enough acid, this won’t happen.

As we noted last year, the lack of acid in the stomach, where it is meant to be, means that the stomach may fail to signal the pyloric valve at the top of the stomach to close when you are digesting food. Failure to close may also be linked to an overgrowth of helicobacter bugs (associated with ulcers) which do not like acid and are able to reduce your stomach acid production.

In some people, it could also be caused or exacerbated by food allergies and sensitivities, or by too much caffeine, alcohol, nicotine consumption, or other drugs, as mentioned above.

In other words, the very drugs being prescribed by conventional medicine could be offering temporary relief but at the cost of exacerbating the problem over the long term. Why do they even provide temporary relief? Because when the stomach lacks the acid and enzymes released by the acid needed for digestion, it falls back on a secondary mechanism of fermentation. This works to get the food through but creates gas and discomfort. The acid blockers probably make you feel better by temporarily stopping the fermentation.

Bottom line: promoting an invasive and unreliable surgical throat ring is not exactly a solution for a problem probably caused in the first place by acid-blocking drugs.

Alternative remedies for GERD will vary, of course, depending on each individual’s symptoms. You’ll need to see an integrative physician, but their recommendations may include:

Supplements containing hydrochloric acid and enzymes to control GERD and restore the digestive system; melatonin to help strengthen LES function; and vitamin C and beta carotene;
Deglycrrhizinated licorice (DGL), zinc, carnosine, chamomile, and aloe vera, which may also help ease heartburn;
D-limonene, an extract from the orange peel. Evidence suggests it provides a barrier in the stomach and esophagus against bacterial infection and may reduce the amount of gastric juices that reflux into the esophagus;
Testing for food allergies; and
A healthy, low-carbohydrate diet free of processed foods, with lots of green, leafy vegetables.

An excellent book on this subject is Your Stomach: What is Really Making You Miserable and What to Do About It by Dr. Jonathan Wright, MD, published by our friends at Praktikos Books.

The post Are Big Pharma’s Drugs Making Your Heartburn Worse and Worse? Just Fix It with Surgery! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.