Frances Moore Lappé -- Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."

What?

Does the actual study say this?

No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?

In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten
Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."

Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?

Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"

Read more.. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/06-12

Dr. Gary Null PHD & Jeremy Stillman -- Does Heart Rate Affect Longevity?

          Having spent my entire adult career working with tens of thousands of individuals as a scientist, clinician, and therapist in anti-aging research, it has been my observation that the higher one’s resting heart rate, the more susceptible one is to heart disease and premature death. Considering that we have added nearly ten years to the average lifespan over the last forty years, what can we point to that accounts for this change? A look at the evidence shows that it is multifactorial. 

When I was growing up, my parents, aunts and uncles, all smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day. They drank a lot of alcohol- not to get drunk but to socialize- and they had high concentrations of animal protein, saturated fats and refined carbohydrates. They rarely exercised and more often than not, they internalized their distress. This lifestyle was typical among that generation of Americans.

Today, the last two generations have caused a renaissance in health awareness. Thanks to them, we now know the importance consuming a healthy vegan diet high in raw foods and fresh juices, using supplements, and abstaining from alcohol and smoking. We are aware of how indispensible exercise and more and more people are reaping the benefits of de-stress practices such as yoga and meditation.  The combination of all these factors has produced a quantitative change our life expectancy.

As a competitive athlete, having won more than 500 races and competed in more than 600, I have interacted with hundreds of professional athletes. Most of the athletes I have come to know have heart rates between 50 and 65. Most non-athletes, but those who still have a proper diet, have resting pulses between 70 and 80.  Those who are overweight, obese, or have diabetes, tend to have pulses between 75 and 85 and often suffer from heart disease and other serious medical conditions that inevitably shorten the lifespan. It is my experience that once they begin to exercise and bring their pulse down by more than 10 points or into the 60 to 70 range, that it increases their lifespan by approximately ten years. I’ve counseled many individuals who were given a very problematic prognosis (i.e., a shortened lifespan). By following the therapies listed above, many of them were able to significantly lower their blood pressure and heart rate. These people went on to live many years longer than what would have been expected and most of them survive today.  These experiences helped me arrive at my hypothesis that the lower the heart rate, the healthier the heart, and the longer the lifespan. A review of the scientific research on this subject shows that this hypothesis is well-founded. 

Examining the Evidence

In studies on both humans and animals, a clear relationship exists between high resting heart rate and shorter lifespan. In 2010, cardiologist Dr. Eva Lonn of McMaster University presented the results of a study that examined this connection in over 30,000 patients over the course of 4 years to the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress. Speaking before her colleagues, Lonn stated that "the higher the heart rate, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular and all causes, even after adjusting for all risk factors that could confound our results," [1] The study found that individuals with heart rates above 78 beats per minute were 77% more likely to die from heart disease, and 65% more likely to die from all causes, than their counterparts who had a resting heart rate of 58 or below.  

These findings are corroborated by numerous other studies that connect an above-average resting heart rate with a significantly increased risk of death, especially from cardiovascular illness.[2] [3][4][5][6][7]   A study of more than 129,000 women published in the British Medical Journal found that women who had a heart rate of more than 76 ran a significantly higher risk of cardiac arrest and heart disease than those women whose pulse rate was lower than 62.[8] A recent paper out of France noted that “an increase in heart rate by 10 beats per minute was associated with an increase in the risk of cardiac death by at least 20%.”[9]

The connection between heart rate and longevity goes well beyond deaths related to cardiovascular illness. Using data collected during the 25-year-long Paris Prospective Study, which surveyed over 5,000 men aged 42-53, researchers at University Paris Descartes determined “resting and exercise heart rate had consistent, graded and highly significant associations with subsequent cancer mortality in men.”[10] Compared to the men with a resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute, those individuals with a heart rate of more than 73 beats per minute were 2.4 times more likely to die from cancer. The results are consistent with previous analyses showing a direct relationship between heart rate with cancer mortality.[11] A study out of Italy known as the MATISS Project investigated the possible association of pulse rate and mortality among Italian middle-aged males. The authors concluded that heart rate was a reliable independent predictor of total mortality.[12]  

Not only does a higher heart rate predict a shorter lifespan, but a body of evidence indicates that carrying out heart rate lowering activities such as exercise and meditation may help boost longevity.[13] In a paper from 2003, researchers at the European Society of Cardiology proposed the following explanation of why resting heart rate may be related to lifespan:

In mammals, the calculated number of heart beats in a lifetime is remarkably constant, despite a 40-fold difference in life expectancy. According to this view, a reduction in heart rate would increase life expectancy also in humans. The heart produces and utilizes approximately 30 kg adenosine triphosphate each day, and slowing its rate by 10 beats/min would result in a saving of about 5 kg in a day. Considering that heart rate is a major determinant of oxygen consumption and metabolic demand, heart rate reduction would be expected to diminish cardiac workload. Clinical studies with beta-blockers have already shown a reduction in mortality and improvement in outcome as a result of reduction in heart rate.[14]

The authors go on to recommend research into therapies designed to lower heart rate and in turn, potentially increase lifespan.  This suggestion is supported by a 2008 report in the Harvard Heart Letter which concluded that engaging in activities aimed at reducing heart rate such as exercise and de-stressing techniques may extend longevity.[15]

---

[1] Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (2010, October 26). High resting heart linked to shorter life expectancy in stable heart disease patients, study suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2010/10/101026161239.htm

[2] J. Nauman, I. Janszky, L. J. Vatten, U. Wisloff. Temporal Changes in Resting Heart Rate and Deaths From Ischemic Heart Disease. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2011; 306 (23): 2579 

[3] Zhang, G., and W. Zhang. "Heart Rate, Lifespan, and Mortality Risk." Ageing Research Rev P. M. Okin, S. E. Kjeldsen, S. Julius, D. A. Hille, B. Dahlof, J. M. Edelman, R. B. Devereux. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in relation to changing heart rate during treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.

[4] Palatini, Paolo. "Elevated Heart Rate: A “New” Cardiovascular Risk Factor?" Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 1-5. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615486>.

[5] Benetos, Athanase, Et Al. "Influence of Heart Rate on Mortality in a French Population."Hypertension 33 (1999): 44-52. Ahajournals.org. 1999. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/33/1/44.short>.

[6] Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

[7] European Heart Journal, 2010; DOI:iews 8.1 (2009): 52-60. Print.

[8] BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Resting Heart Rate Can Predict Heart Attacks In Women."ScienceDaily, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 4 Sep. 2012.

[9] Perret-Guillaume, Christine, Laure Joly, and Athanase Benetos. "Heart Rate as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease." Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 6-10. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615487>.

[10] Jouven, Xavier, Sylvie Escolano, David Celermajer, Jean-Philippe Empana, Annie Bingham, Olivier Hermine, Michel Desnos, Marie-Cécile Perier, Eloi Marijon, and Pierre Ducimetière. "Heart Rate and Risk of Cancer Death in Healthy Men." Ed. Julian Little.PLoS ONE 6.8 (2011): E21310. Print.

[11] Persky, V, Et Al. "Heart Rate: A Risk Factor for Cancer?" American Journal of Epidemiology 114.4 (1981): 477-87. Pubmed.gov. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7304578>.

[12] Fulvia Seccareccia et al., “Heart Rate as a Predictor of Mortality: The MATISS Project,” Am J Public Health 91, no. 8 (August 1, 2001): 1258-1263.

[13] Hjalmarson A. Significance of reduction of heart rate in

cadiovascular disease. Clin Cardiol 1998;21:II3—7.

[14] Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

[15] "Harvard Heart Letter." Harvard Reviews of Health News. Harvard University, Dec. 2008. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. <http://www.harvardhealthcontent.com/newsletters/HeartLetter.pg>.

Gary Null & Jeremy Stillman - Does Heart Rate Affect Longevity?

Having spent my entire adult career working with tens of thousands of individuals as a scientist, clinician, and therapist in anti-aging research, it has been my observation that the higher one’s resting heart rate, the more susceptible one is to heart disease and premature death. Considering that we have added nearly ten years to the average lifespan over the last forty years, what can we point to that accounts for this change? A look at the evidence shows that it is multifactorial.

When I was growing up, my parents, aunts and uncles, all smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day. They drank a lot of alcohol- not to get drunk but to socialize- and they had high concentrations of animal protein, saturated fats and refined carbohydrates. They rarely exercised and more often than not, they internalized their distress. This lifestyle was typical among that generation of Americans.

Today, the last two generations have caused a renaissance in health awareness. Thanks to them, we now know the importance consuming a healthy vegan diet high in raw foods and fresh juices, using supplements, and abstaining from alcohol and smoking. We are aware of how indispensible exercise and more and more people are reaping the benefits of de-stress practices such as yoga and meditation. The combination of all these factors has produced a quantitative change our life expectancy.

As a competitive athlete, having won more than 500 races and competed in more than 600, I have interacted with hundreds of professional athletes. Most of the athletes I have come to know have heart rates between 50 and 65. Most non-athletes, but those who still have a proper diet, have resting pulses between 70 and 80. Those who are overweight, obese, or have diabetes, tend to have pulses between 75 and 85 and often suffer from heart disease and other serious medical conditions that inevitably shorten the lifespan. It is my experience that once they begin to exercise and bring their pulse down by more than 10 points or into the 60 to 70 range, that it increases their lifespan by approximately ten years. I’ve counseled many individuals who were given a very problematic prognosis (i.e., a shortened lifespan). By following the therapies listed above, many of them were able to significantly lower their blood pressure and heart rate. These people went on to live many years longer than what would have been expected and most of them survive today. These experiences helped me arrive at my hypothesis that the lower the heart rate, the healthier the heart, and the longer the lifespan. A review of the scientific research on this subject shows that this hypothesis is well-founded.

Examining the Evidence

In studies on both humans and animals, a clear relationship exists between high resting heart rate and shorter lifespan. In 2010, cardiologist Dr. Eva Lonn of McMaster University presented the results of a study that examined this connection in over 30,000 patients over the course of 4 years to the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress. Speaking before her colleagues, Lonn stated that "the higher the heart rate, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular and all causes, even after adjusting for all risk factors that could confound our results," The study found that individuals with heart rates above 78 beats per minute were 77% more likely to die from heart disease, and 65% more likely to die from all causes, than their counterparts who had a resting heart rate of 58 or below.

These findings are corroborated by numerous other studies that connect an above-average resting heart rate with a significantly increased risk of death, especially from cardiovascular illness. A study of more than 129,000 women published in the British Medical Journal found that women who had a heart rate of more than 76 ran a significantly higher risk of cardiac arrest and heart disease than those women whose pulse rate was lower than 62. A recent paper out of France noted that “an increase in heart rate by 10 beats per minute was associated with an increase in the risk of cardiac death by at least 20%.”

The connection between heart rate and longevity goes well beyond deaths related to cardiovascular illness. Using data collected during the 25-year-long Paris Prospective Study, which surveyed over 5,000 men aged 42-53, researchers at University Paris Descartes determined “resting and exercise heart rate had consistent, graded and highly significant associations with subsequent cancer mortality in men.” Compared to the men with a resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute, those individuals with a heart rate of more than 73 beats per minute were 2.4 times more likely to die from cancer. The results are consistent with previous analyses showing a direct relationship between heart rate with cancer mortality. A study out of Italy known as the MATISS Project investigated the possible association of pulse rate and mortality among Italian middle-aged males. The authors concluded that heart rate was a reliable independent predictor of total mortality.

Not only does a higher heart rate predict a shorter lifespan, but a body of evidence indicates that carrying out heart rate lowering activities such as exercise and meditation may help boost longevity. In a paper from 2003, researchers at the European Society of Cardiology proposed the following explanation of why resting heart rate may be related to lifespan:

In mammals, the calculated number of heart beats in a lifetime is remarkably constant, despite a 40-fold difference in life expectancy. According to this view, a reduction in heart rate would increase life expectancy also in humans. The heart produces and utilizes approximately 30 kg adenosine triphosphate each day, and slowing its rate by 10 beats/min would result in a saving of about 5 kg in a day. Considering that heart rate is a major determinant of oxygen consumption and metabolic demand, heart rate reduction would be expected to diminish cardiac workload. Clinical studies with beta-blockers have already shown a reduction in mortality and improvement in outcome as a result of reduction in heart rate.

The authors go on to recommend research into therapies designed to lower heart rate and in turn, potentially increase lifespan. This suggestion is supported by a 2008 report in the Harvard Heart Letter which concluded that engaging in activities aimed at reducing heart rate such as exercise and de-stressing techniques may extend longevity.

^ Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (2010, October 26). High resting heart linked to shorter life expectancy in stable heart disease patients, study suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101026161239.htm

^ J. Nauman, I. Janszky, L. J. Vatten, U. Wisloff. Temporal Changes in Resting Heart Rate and Deaths From Ischemic Heart Disease. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2011; 306 (23): 2579 

^ , G., and W. Zhang. "Heart Rate, Lifespan, and Mortality Risk." Ageing Research Rev P. M. Okin, S. E. Kjeldsen, S. Julius, D. A. Hille, B. Dahlof, J. M. Edelman, R. B. Devereux. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in relation to changing heart rate during treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.

^ Palatini, Paolo. "Elevated Heart Rate: A “New” Cardiovascular Risk Factor?" Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 1-5. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615486>.

^ Benetos, Athanase, Et Al. "Influence of Heart Rate on Mortality in a French Population."Hypertension 33 (1999): 44-52. Ahajournals.org. 1999. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/33/1/44.short>.

^ Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

^ European Heart Journal, 2010; DOI:iews 8.1 (2009): 52-60. Print.

^ BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Resting Heart Rate Can Predict Heart Attacks In Women."ScienceDaily, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 4 Sep. 2012.

^ Perret-Guillaume, Christine, Laure Joly, and Athanase Benetos. "Heart Rate as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease." Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 6-10. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615487>.

^ Jouven, Xavier, Sylvie Escolano, David Celermajer, Jean-Philippe Empana, Annie Bingham, Olivier Hermine, Michel Desnos, Marie-Cécile Perier, Eloi Marijon, and Pierre Ducimetière. "Heart Rate and Risk of Cancer Death in Healthy Men." Ed. Julian Little.PLoS ONE 6.8 (2011): E21310. Print.

^ Persky, V, Et Al. "Heart Rate: A Risk Factor for Cancer?" American Journal of Epidemiology 114.4 (1981): 477-87. Pubmed.gov. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7304578>.

^ Fulvia Seccareccia et al., “Heart Rate as a Predictor of Mortality: The MATISS Project,” Am J Public Health 91, no. 8 (August 1, 2001): 1258-1263.

^ Hjalmarson A. Significance of reduction of heart rate in

cadiovascular disease. Clin Cardiol 1998;21:II3—7.

^ Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

^ "Harvard Heart Letter." Harvard Reviews of Health News. Harvard University, Dec. 2008. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. <http://www.harvardhealthcontent.com/newsletters/HeartLetter.pg>.

Dave Gutknecht -- Farmers Fight Monsanto's Threats and Intimidation

A major lawsuit against Monsanto was denied in at the district court and has been appealed. On July 5, 2012, seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., asking the appellate court to reverse a lower court's decision from February dismissing their protective legal action against agricultural giant Monsanto's patents on genetically engineered seed.

The plaintiffs brought the pre-emptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 in the Southern District of New York (Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto) and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto's most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act pre-emptively to protect themselves from Monsanto's abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement.

Lead plaintiff in the suit (and the main source for this report) is the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (www.osgata.org), a not-for-profit agricultural organization made up of organic farmers, seed growers, seed businesses and supporters. OSGATA is committed to developing and protecting organic seed and its growers in order to ensure the organic community has access to excellent quality organic seed – seed that is free of contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture.

Dangerous Drift

Seed and pollen can drift great distances, in some cases as far as 10-15 miles, increasing the likelihood of contamination of organic crops with genetics from Monsanto's laboratories. The latter seeds and crops are referred to as "transgenic," and have had DNA of foreign organisms inserted into their DNA through human engineered processes. The suit plaintiffs use and sell non-transgenic seed, more commonly referred to as heirloom, organic, or conventional seed.

Read more.. http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/445-farm-and-food-policy/13042-focus-farmers-fight-monsantos-threats-and-intimidation?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Ethical Dilemmas Contribute to 'Critical Weaknesses' in FDA Postmarket Oversight, Experts Say

 Ethical challenges are central to persistent "critical weaknesses" in the national system for ensuring drug safety, according to a commentary by former Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee members published August 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

With a caution against "reactive policymaking," committee co-chairs Ruth Faden, Ph.D., M.P.H., and Steven Goodman, M.D., M.H.S., Ph.D., with fellow committee member Michelle Mello, J.D., Ph.D., revisit the controversy over the antidiabetic drug Avandia that led to the formation of their IOM committee on monitoring drug safety after approval.

The Avandia postmarket trial, halted in September 2010, was "a lesson in how our current approach to the oversight of drug-safety and postmarketing research can fail both the public and the research participants," the authors write. With those lessons in mind, their independent commentary follows the May 2012 IOM report with a focus on the ethical challenges ahead.

The authors detail the IOM report's recommendations for maintaining the delicate balance of drug innovation and drug safety. Increased "fast-tracking" of drug approval for medical conditions with no effective treatment necessitates a counterbalance of increased postmarket oversight, the authors argue. They echo the IOM report's call for an independent ethics advisory board to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), focused on postmarket research and safety surveillance.

"As the pace of the translation of discoveries from bench to bedside continues to intensify, so too does the imperative for thoughtful ethical governance throughout the lifecycle of a drug," the authors write.

The authors also amplify one of the IOM report's key ethics points -- the responsibility of the FDA to participants in postmarket research, particularly in randomized trials that determine which treatment they receive. The FDA has a unique ethical obligation to the welfare of research participants when requiring a postmarket study, the authors assert, which "cannot be handed off to contractors or the industry sponsor."

Read more.. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822181226.htm

Kristen Gwynne -- Why Drug Dealers Are Now Competing with Doctors to Help Addicts

Twenty-three-year-old Joe*, a publicist living in New York City, doesn’t want to be buying his prescription drugs on the black market. It’s just that he doesn’t really have another choice.

As a recovering drug addict, Joe has spent almost three years successfully managing his former oxycontin addiction with suboxone, a prescription medication that reduces cravings and withdrawal symptoms for drugs like heroin and prescription painkillers. He first began suboxone when he was in college and was able to receive free treatment and prescriptions. But since graduation, the cost of obtaining his treatment legally has become unaffordable—largely because of the American health care system.

“Recently, I paid $100 for 20 [dissolveable suboxone] strips. That will last me over a year,” said Joe, “Now, if I were to go to a doctor, it  would cost $300 cash just to walk in and see the doctor for the first time. If you can use your insurance, you can get it a little cheaper, but a lot of insurances don’t cover it,” he said. Legally, each strip can cost a whopping $15 dollars without coverage.

Forced to choose between obtaining his treatment illegally and seeing an expensive doctor, Joe is buying on the black market. And he isn’t alone. Addiction  is so taboo in this society that even the medical establishment shies away from it. Few physicians are willing to prescribe suboxone and regulations have significantly limited the patients that those few physicians are allowed to prescribe.  The social stigma of addiction has helped create a thriving black market for the drug—one that poses real dangers for addicts trying to stay clean.

Suboxone is a life-saver for opioid addicts risking the overdose associated with shifting heroin purity, or, typically, mixing prescription drugs with alcohol.  Buprenorphine (a generic name for suboxone) binds to opioid receptors and only partially activates them, while naloxone blocks some opioid receptors from activation and reduces the chances of overdose.  Suboxone patients can without heroin or oxys, and at the same time minimize or avoid withdrawal symptoms that include physical pain, severe nausea and vomiting.

Read more.. http://www.alternet.org/health-care-disaster-why-drug-dealers-are-now-competing-doctors-help-addicts

Lisa Cerda - Monsanto: A Modern Day Plague

Monsanto’s history is one steeped with controversial products, deadly consequences, massive cover ups, political slight of hand, and culminates as a modern day plague on humanity, a plague that is about to peak to biblical proportions. Created in 1901, the company started producing its first form of poison, the artificial sweetener saccharin. The rise in use of saccharin really began 70 years later. Monsanto had plenty of time for a realistic and long term study on the impact of saccharin on human health. Instead, Monsanto learned how to finagle political support and grow its empire despite the growing consensus that saccharin caused cancer.

No surprise then that the company continued on a path of controversy. Here’s a bullet point history.
•    Contributed to the research on uranium, for the Manhattan Project, during WWII.
•    Operated a nuclear facility for the U.S. government until the late 1980s.
•    Top manufacturer of synthetic fibers, plastics and polystyrene (EPA’s 5th ranked chemical production that generates the most hazardous waste).
•    A top 10 US chemical company.
•    Agriculture pesticides producer.
•    Herbicide producer – herbicides 2,4,5-T, Agent Orange, Lasso, and DDT.

•    Agent Orange (used in Vietnam), had the highest levels of dioxin and contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen of which only partial compensation awarded.
•    Nearly 500,000 Vietnamese children were born deformed and never compensated.
•    Lasso was banned in USA, so weed killer “Roundup” is launched in 1976.
•    A major producer of both dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which generated many law suits and environmental cleanups
•    $180 million settlement for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange
•    Fined $1.2 million for concealing the discharge of contaminated waste water
•    Ordered to pay $41.1 million due to hazardous waste dumping
•    Paid $600 million in settlement claims to more than 20,000 Anniston residents in Abernathy v. United States.
•    Produced GM cattle drug, bovine growth hormone (called rBGH or rBST)
•    Acquiring seed companies from the 1990’s and forward.
•    Monsanto Filed 144 lawsuits against struggling farmers and settled out of court with 700 farmers, for reportedly violating seed patents.  A full time staff of 75 Monsanto employees investigates patent infringement. They are dedicated solely to finding farms that have been contaminated by their unwanted seed. As of 2007, Monsanto was awarded in 57 recorded judgments against farmers a total of $21,583,431.99. Monsanto vs. Farmers.

Read More:

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/07/16/monsanto-a-modern-day-plague/

Ethan A. Huff - How to fight water fluoridation in your city

Water fluoridation has become quite the hot-button political issue in America today, especially as the pro-fluoride establishment is increasingly being forced to address the myriad of emerging scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of fluoride. But many city officials and legislators continue to remain largely unaware of, and in some cases willfully defiant against, the truth about fluoride.

Still entrenched in the political framework of public health today is the idea that artificially fluoridating public water supplies prevents tooth decay and lessens the overall costs associated with dental treatments. This flawed ideology dates back to about the 1930s when the aluminum mining and smelting industries concocted a way to dispose of their unwanted fluoride chemical byproducts by pushing them on the unsuspecting masses as a remedy for tooth decay.

Though science has never backed up this and many other claims made by the pro-fluoride lobby, fluoridation remains a blindly-accepted public health measure throughout America today. And yet at the same time, things are also starting to change as citizens, health officials, and former fluoride advocates learn the facts about fluoride and begin spreading the truth (http://www.esterrepublic.com/Archives/dyates2.html).

Hundreds of North American communities have axed fluoride from their water supplies in recent decades (http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.aspx), and many more are in a position to follow suit if science can ultimately break the political stronghold that is holding on for dear life to the fluoride myth.

Read More:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036084_water_fluoridation_protests_activism.html

GMOs and Glyphosate Linked to Infertility, Botulism and SIDS

Introduction and Background Information

I have heard much confusion and doubt about a man I admire much… Dr. Huber. When I first met Dr. Huber over four years ago, listened to his presentation, then reviewed his work in my hotel room, I began to realize what this meant for mankind. I wept, I cried some more, realizing how much evil was behind this; my tears are still on my notes of his work, I did not sleep, realizing how much work needed to be done. I have seen countless friends and family affected by the evil stemming from this crony capitalism network. Huber’s work is sound, his character strong, and he needs help spreading truth and clearing confusion. I am now asking for help from you, any of my friends, to equip yourselves with knowledge, as knowledge is power. This may bore many of you; too difficult for others, but it is the #2 thing to understand in your life other than God. If we can stop this, Dr. Huber is deserving of any earthly honor we can give him. I urge anyone who comprehends any of what I write to share this with as many as you can. It is a matter of utmost importance right now to ALL life on this planet. 

Ephesians 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

Read More:

http://farmwars.info/?p=8543

Ed Silverman - FDA Does A Poor Job Of Communicating Recalls

The FDA has two systems for alerting physicians to product recalls, yet 20 percent of recalls for Class I products – which are the likeliest to cause patient harm – were not communicated through either system between 2004 and 2011, according to an analysis published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The upshot? Health care providers may not be aware of recalls that threaten patient safety, despite FDA efforts to upgrade its alerts.

“Drug recalls in the United States are common and often involve serious defects that pose health risks to patients. Given the large number of affected units per recall and the widespread distribution of these units, solutions are needed to minimize patient harm when recalls occur,” the researchers write. They note that recalls take place nearly once a month in the US and usually involve thousands of units of products distributed nationwide and beyond. Overall, the most common reason for the recalls were contamination and a wrong dose or release mechanism.

They researchers reached this conclusion after examining 1,734 recall entries in the FDA Enforcement Reports, of which 91, or 5 percent, were Class I recalls. During the same period, the FDA issued 2,912 Recall Alert System announcements, of which 166 were major human drug recalls for 126 unique products. Only 55, or 47 percent, were Class I recalls, but the agency did not a Recall Alert System notice for 36 of those, or 40 percent. Yet half of that group, or 18, were communicated through the Medwatch program, including all five recalls sent due to adverse events. However, 18 of the 91 Class I recalls, or 20 percent, were not communicated through either system (here is the paper).

Read More:

http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/06/fda-does-a-poor-job-of-communicating-recalls/