Make sure you distinguish your D's!

From Dr. Joseph Mercola:

Drisdol and Calcitriol are synthetic forms of vitamin D2; the form of vitamin D typically prescribed by doctors.

But this is not the type produced by your body in response to sun or safe tanning bed exposure.

A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database looked at mortality rates for people who supplemented their diets with D2 versus those who did so with D3, the form naturally produced by your body.

The analysis of 50 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 94,000 participants, showed:

• A six percent relative risk reduction among those who used vitamin D3, but
• A two percent relative risk increase among those who used D2

In an article posted on Live in the Now, Dr. John J. Cannell writes:

"Amazingly, this study somehow slipped under the radar...

You would think a paper that took a look at tens of thousands of subjects and analyzed the efficacy of prescription vitamin D (D2) and over-the-counter vitamin D (D3) would warrant a news story or two.

To my knowledge, these papers are the first to paint such a clear picture about the efficacy between D3 and D2."

The Two Types of Vitamin D

Supplemental vitamin D comes in two forms:

1. Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2)
    
2. Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)

They have long been regarded as equivalent and interchangeable, especially since a recognized vitamin D expert, Dr. Michael Hollick, recommended it. But that notion was based on studies of rickets prevention in infants conducted several decades ago. Today, we know a lot more about vitamin D, and the featured study offers compelling support for the recommendation to take vitamin D3 if you need to take an oral supplement—which is the same type of D vitamin created in your body when you expose your skin to sunlight.

According to the latest research, D3 is approximately 87 percent more potent in raising and maintaining vitamin D concentrations and produces 2- to 3-fold greater storage of vitamin D than does D2. Regardless of which form you use, your body must convert it into a more active form, and vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2. Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind poorly with proteins, further hampering its effectiveness.

Unfortunately, vitamin D2—which is a synthetic version made by irradiating fungus and plant matter—is the form of vitamin D most often prescribed by doctors in the U.S. Hopefully this will change sooner rather than later.

As stated by Dr. Cannell in the featured article:

"While there may be explanations for D3's superiority other than improved efficacy, for the time being, these papers send doctors a message: use D3, not D2."

By the way, Mercola shares a lot more good information on the referenced page about vitamin D and its uses.

New hype over flu shots doesn't match reality

Dr. Douglass has got to be kidding. Or maybe not. Check it out for yourself. From this morning's Daily Dose:

It's that time of year again... and no, I'm not talking about the approaching holidays.

It's the time of year when they'll say just about anything, no matter how absurd, to get more patients to roll up their sleeves for a flu shot -- like the claim from a new study that supposedly finds the vaccine is "60 percent effective" at preventing the flu.

Makes it sound like 60 percent of the people who get the shot are protected from the flu, right?

That sounded a little on the high side to me -- like around 60 percent too high -- so I dug a little deeper. Sure enough, the study actually proves what I've been saying all along: Statistically speaking, the shot protects practically no one.

In fact, the data from 31 studies published over the past 44 years finds that pretty much no one even gets the flu in the first place.

An exaggeration? Maybe -- but not by much, because despite the media's annual flu-shot frenzy, the study finds that it's simply a non-event: Just 2.7 percent of the unvaccinated and 1.2 percent of those who do get the shot come down with the disease in any given year.

On paper, that's a difference of 60 percent, but the ABSOLUTE reduction in risk isn't even close to 60 percent -- it's a measly 1.5 percent.

Whoop-de-doo... and believe it or not, even that number is a little on the high side, because other studies haven't been nearly as generous.

One analysis released earlier this year found no evidence the shot reduced the rate of hospitalization or slowed the spread of the disease. That study even found that the little evidence FOR flu shots came from studies that were rigged by vaccine makers.

But while the benefits may be nonexistent, the potential risks are all too real: Flu shots have been linked to fatigue, pain, nerve damage, seizures, paralysis and even death.

The bottom line here is you can do everything wrong and still not get the flu -- but if you want to slash your odds even further, don't waste your time with a vaccine.

Work on good hygiene and a strong immune system instead.

Dr. Douglass offers no references for his claims. Let me give you links via Dr. Joseph Mercola and others:

• Regular Flu Vaccine Actually INCREASES Risk of Swine Flu
   
• "Everyone knows vaccines are based on solid science"--or might there be some conflicts of interest? (Ummmm. Yes!)
   
• Australia actually BANS the flu vaccine for children under five. Why?
   
• Flu Vaccine Likely Does Not Prevent the Flu, nor Protect Against the Vast Majority of Flu-Related Deaths
   
• Is Vitamin D deficiency the real cause of flue?
   
• And a more nuanced view?

Should we trust our restaurants to provide us safe food?

Our bodies are probably a whole lot more resilient (and resistant to disease) than most of us are willing to give them credit for.

Just yesterday I read an article that referenced some of the results of poor hygiene practices engaged in (or, rather, hygiene practices not engaged in) by many employees at different fast food joints.

It didn't discuss any of the rather startling chemical ingredients added to so many of the even supposedly "healthy" foods available at Americans' favorite restaurants.

It didn't reference the lousy--I mean, truly horrific--feed practices followed by the CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feed[ing] Operations; often likened to the inhumane and horrifying Nazi concentration/death camps of the 1930s and early '40s) that supply most of the meat used in the restaurants we frequent. I mean, were you aware that a Pfizer Pharmaceuticals subsidiary has been including arsenic--a known carcinogen--in its chicken feed for years? (How did they justify this adulteration? On the grounds that the arsenic never found its way into the human food chain because the chickens pooped it out before it became incorporated within their meat. Of course, now they tell us that, "Oh! Sorry about that! Hmmmm. I guess it is in the chicken meat, after all!" . . . Oh. . . . Except . . . now wait a second! Where did all that chicken poop go? . . . No! You've got to be kidding me! . . . Nope. The majority of the chicken litter went into cow feed. . . . So did the FDA really think we were being protected from Pfizer's arsenic-laced chicken feed after all?)

But this morning, I came across another article about how the FDA refuses to promote health with respect to the ubiquitous use of antibiotics in animal feed. Such enforcement would be "too expensive and resource intensive," you see. It took them 12 1/2 years finally, to respond to a citizen petition seeking rescension of the FDA's approval of subtherapeutic uses of antibiotics in livestock feed.

The response to petitioners says,

Although we share your concern about the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals for growth promotion and feed efficiency indications (i.e., production uses), . . . FDA is denying your petition.

Why? Two reasons (and, of course, remember that it has taken the FDA 12 1/2 years to come to this conclusion!):

1. "[B]ecause there is a formal evidentiary process that must be followed before new animal drug approvals may be withdrawn. In order to withdraw a new animal drug’s approval, FDA must follow a number of statutory requirements, such as providing the sponsor of the new animal drug with notice that the Agency proposes to withdraw approval of the drug and an opportunity for a formal evidentiary hearing on the matter. FDA cannot withdraw approval of a new animal drug until the legally-mandated process is complete. . . .
   
   "FDA must provide the drug’s sponsor with notice and an opportunity for a formal administrative hearing ("NOOH").
   
   "Because no hearings have been held with respect to the animal drugs at issue in the Citizen Petition, and because the Commissioner has not made any final determination about whether grounds for withdrawal under section 5 12(e) of the FD&C Act have been satisfied, the relief requested in the Citizen Petition cannot be granted at this time."
    
2. "Recognizing that the process of reviewing safety information for antimicrobial drugs approved before 2003, and pursuing withdrawal proceedings in some cases, would take many years and would impose significant resource demands on the Agency, in June 2010, FDA proposed a different strategy to promote the judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals in a draft guidance entitled, 'The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals' draft Guidance for Industry #209 ('draft GFT 9209'). . . .
   
   "Draft GFI #209 proposes two principles aimed at ensuring the judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals. The first principle set out in the draft guidance is that the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in foodproducing animals should be limited to those uses that are considered necessary for assuring animal health. As set out in the draft guidance, FDA does not consider production uses of such drugs to be necessary for assuring animal health. . . . [I.e., "We agree that the use of these antibiotics is not necessary for assuring animal health. So these drugs really ought not to be used for promoting growth. But . . ." --JAH] The second principle set out in the draft guidance is that the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals should be limited to those uses that include veterinary oversight or consultation. This principle speaks to the need for the scientific and clinical training of licensed veterinarians in assuring that medically important antimicrobials are used in a judicious manner. . . . [So, again, "We agree with you. However . . ." --JAH]
   
   "Based on feedback this Agency has received following the issuance of draft GFI #209, FDA believes that the animal pharmaceutical industry is generally responsive to the prospect of working cooperatively with the Agency to implement the principles recommended in draft GFI #209. FDA intends to work with sponsors who approach FDA and are interested in working cooperatively with the Agency to phase out production uses of medically important antimicrobials and to transition medically important antimicrobials currently approved for over-the-counter use in food-producing animals to a marketing status that involves veterinary oversight."

Really? The pharmaceutical industry is "generally responsive" to the prospect of phasing out the use of this huge source of revenue because it is concerned for the health of human beings? When the FDA itself, in 1977, found that adding antibiotics to animal feed undeniably causes antibiotic resistance? Is Big Pharma any more interested in human health than Big Tobacco?

Somehow, I doubt it!

(By the way, if you want a virtually identical response--only six and a half years in the making--to a virtually identical petition, you can find it here.)

But getting back to the original point of this post: Sadly, there are precious few restaurants to which you can go where they will feed you all-natural, truly open-range, grass-fed, grass-finished meats.

And I will confess that I haven't yet weaned myself from my favorite hamburgers at certain hamburger joints. But the more I learn about our food, the more I am moving toward that kind of lifestyle. Who wants to be filling their bodies with the kind of junk the FDA, Big Pharma, and Industrial Agriculture want to push upon us?

PS: For the original news release on the FDA decision, please see PR Newsline's FDA Denies Citizen Petitions on Animal Antibiotics.

Federal government to extinguish naturopathic remedies?

This story has been brewing for weeks, now. No, actually, for months. But I didn't want to sound the alarm too quickly. And, honestly, I haven't been able to work my way through the proposed FDA "guidance" to form my own opinion about just how problematic the proposed regulations really are. (And it is possible that's indicative, right there, about just how problematic they are. On the other hand, if you are a professional/commercial manufacturer of supplements, it does seem reasonable that you should go through a certain level of "proof" for your product before unleashing it on the market.

Anyway.

The doctors (Rowen, Mercola and others) are saying it's now time to act.

Dr. Robert Rowen writes:

Do you enjoy your HD cable television set or your iPhone? How would you feel if the government stepped in to tell you that you can't use these anymore? Instead, you have to return to the archaic analogue bulky phones of more than 17 years ago, or switch back to just network TV with its rabbit-ear antenna. Would you sit and take it? I hope not!

Well, that's exactly what's going to happen to your supplements at the hands of our rulers if we don't act and act decisively. The FDA has sat and watched (not always peacefully) the supplement industry make incredible progress for 17 years.

After 17 years with a near-perfect safety record (ephedra being one of the only exceptions), the FDA has announced a new set of guidelines for supplements. These new guidelines will roll back the availability of supplements to those that were sold in 1994, and in the forms [in which] they were sold at that time.

In other words, these guidelines will roll back a decade of innovation, discovery, and improvements. We have discovered incredible combinations of supplements, better delivery methods, improved methods of extraction, etc. But your rulers say they know better than science and you. They plan to remove the majority of supplements that you well know, including fish oil, high-potency vitamin C products, new bioflavonoids (such as resveratrol), and combination products.

In order to get these non-patentable formulations to you, the supplement companies will have to comply with costs and regulations that will drive them out of business.

It's no wonder this is happening. Big Pharma's in big trouble. Its products not only don't work, but they also kill and maim people. Profitable drugs are going off patent, which will incur bazillions in lost revenue. Pharma's products simply cover symptoms with chemicals, resulting in yet more symptoms, needing yet more treatment. [See my post that includes a doctor's summary of just one woman's experience of this. --JAH] This is great for the drug companies. But it's horrific for you and your wallet.

Big Pharma knows it's selling snake oil. And it knows the public is getting wise to its ponzi scheme. So if you can't beat the competition with a superior product, as a true free market system should provide, then buy the government and destroy your competition with regulations. Big Pharma has the billions of dollars it takes to buy and control government. The FDA says it's doing all this to protect you. But the reality is the FDA is doing this to protect Big Pharma.

It's not just the government and FDA that Pharma own and runs. It's also the medical journals that are supposed to publish information that can help save your life. In light of the FDA's move to wipe out supplements, I'd like to give a nod to cardiologist Stephen Sinatra, MD. Two recent articles in mainstream medicine admitted that conventional medicine has NOTHING to offer for a serious and growing heart problem - diastolic dysfunction. Dr. Sinatra wrote the Archives of Internal Medicine a letter (in his capacity as a cardiologist) to the editor in response to the two reports pointing out his effective approach using the "awesome foursome" for heart: D-ribose, CoQ10, magnesium, and L-carnitine, the very supplements I recommend here.

You'd think that the journal would snap up a treatment for a major disorder. This disorder affects millions worldwide, has no drug treatment, and can lead to serious heart failure. Add to this that it's a disorder often caused by statins!

But, no, he quickly got a form letter of rejection. Sinatra noted that previous medical research found that the more pharmaceutical advertising a journal publishes, the less reporting on supplements it does. And, what these journals report is generally negative. [See Sinatra's newsletter for the original source of Rowen's story, here. --JAH]

Now please consider that there is NO drug that cures any disease (except perhaps antibiotics for infection). Consider that nutrition insufficiency is 100% proven as a major cause of disease. It's also 100% proven to help or cure certain conditions, like the above heart condition. So, is there any wonder who owns the FDA and who has every interest in controlling the disease maintenance system of America?

Here's what you need to do today:

Complaining to the FDA will likely do little. Leopards don't change their spots. Neither will those who are working actively FOR Pharma. Please contact your U.S. elected officials. You can find their contact information at www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.

Please call their offices AND write letters demanding that they rein in the FDA to protect your rights to the supplements you choose (not supplements based on the knowledge of two decades ago). There is already enough protection written into law for the FDA to move on anything found unsafe. We don't need to wipe out an entire industry at this time of economic hardship. We don't need to wipe out your means to maintain and regain your health, at a time when "symptom suppression" costs are skyrocketing. We need to empower people to keep well.

My publisher Garret Wood has a far more detailed story that you can read here. Please read it thoroughly and join me in my continuing efforts to totally wrest our medical freedoms from draconian government interventions. Please act NOW to prevent the 200-year-old warnings of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush from happening.

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.

...Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers." - Benjamin Rush (famous colonial physician, Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence, 1787).

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert J. Rowen, MD

Food wars: It's us (consumers) v. them (the processors)

Please excuse the occasional scatological language the author uses in The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry is Feeding You. The information is solid. And, I hope, will alarm you enough to take action . . . at least to avoid the most egregious offenders. Someone needs to stand up against the processed foods juggernaut.

Ever since I realized I had to begin eating gluten-free, Sarita and I have attempted to become more diligent about reading our food labels (when we buy processed foods).

There are times--when we go out to eat--that we do the equivalent of the two (out of three) "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" monkeys. We cover our eyes and ears and simply eat what is put before us . . . as long as they tell us the food is gluten free.

But for everyday eating, we have become ever-more-diligent about reading our labels. Perhaps this article will encourage you to begin doing that, too.

In preparation for some of your label-reading, you can't do much better than The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry is Feeding You.

I've known about the top four lies ("Bulls**t Health Claims," "'Free Range' Chickens That Are Crammed Into a Giant Room." "Fake Berries," and "Ammonia-Infused Hamburger"). But I didn't know about Number 5 ("Zombie Orange Juice"--referring to that premium "Not From Concentrate" juice I have loved ever since I first discovered it) or Number 6 ("The Secret Ingredient: Wood").

Rather maddening--no, infuriating--to find out what the FDA permits in our food and to be said or implied about our food--so long as it has been processed.

Even more maddening what they won't permit to be said about natural, unprocessed foods . . . like walnuts and cherries.