Google complies with FDA demands to secretly disable Adwords accounts of nutritional detox companies

via: NaturalNews
by: Mike Adams
August 8, 2012

[NaturalNews] The latest attack on free speech in America comes from the FDA and is supported by Google Adwords. NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is quietly, and without notice to affected companies, commanding Google to disable the full Adwords accounts of nutritional supplement companies offering “detox” or “chelation” nutritional products.

This secret war against nutritional supplement companies is being waged entirely outside the law, as the FDA gives no notice to affected companies and does not give them any opportunity to respond in their defense. No judge, no jury, no notice, no due process. The FDA simply bypasses legal notice requirements and goes straight to Google, which complies by disabling Adwords accounts, shutting off an important source of revenue for nutritional supplement companies.

An economic embargo ordered by the FDA and obeyed by Google Adwords

This action is just the latest round in the FDA’s war on nutritional supplement companies, which have been subjected to armed raids, threatening warning letters, product seizures, and even international kidnapping by the FDA itself (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_Greg_Caton_FDA.html).

In this case, the FDA is conducting an economic embargo on the company known as Global Healing Center (www.GlobalHealingCenter.com), founded by Ed Group III. Dr. Group is not a medical doctor, but he is a globally-recognized formulator of nutritional detoxification products that really work to help eliminate heavy metals from the body.

Ed Group’s company has been a long-time advertiser with Google Adwords, using the service to not only bring Google hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in revenue, but more importantly to help reach people with high-quality nutritional products that are revered throughout the industry for their safety, potency and efficacy.

None of this seemed to matter to Google Adwords, which shuttered his entire account without notice, then claimed the FDA told them to do so (see below).

“On June 29th we noticed our sales had dropped off about 25-30% over the previous week,” Dr. Group told NaturalNews. “After some research we found it was due to Google blocking our AdWords account from advertising. We tried contacting Google to see why our account had been blocked, but it wasn’t until July 27th (almost a month later) that we received the answer below.”

He goes on to explain:

The FDA contacted Google and demanded Google shut down our ads containing our heavy metal cleansing keywords. Google then shut down our ENTIRE account including all other non-chemical and heavy cleansing related ads resulting in a loss of approximately $70,000 in sales over a period of 3-4 weeks. The FDA did not contact us directly nor did Google contact us to let us know before shutting down our account. It seems as if the FDA has started a gestapo campaign to attack supplement companies indirectly through Google advertising.

[This was] an intentional campaign by the FDA to take money from our pockets because we never even had a product on our site which mentions chelation and the FDA has never contacted us or issued a warning to us as they are required to do by law. The FDA inspects our facility one to two times each year and have never mentioned any concern to us.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Neotame the next aspartame? FDA doesn’t require labeling of chemical sweetener created by Monsanto

via: NaturalNews
Monday, February 06, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson

[NaturalNews] Correction: The original version of this article stated that some U.S. Department of Agriculture certified organic products may contain neotame. Since the publishing of this article, NaturalNews has obtained a letter from the USDA’s National Organic Program Deputy Administrator, Miles McEvoy, explaining that neotame is NOT permitted for use in products labeled certified organic, or in products that contain the label “made with organic [specified ingredient or food group]. You can view a copy of this letter here:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5088960.

And while Monsanto was the original creator of neotame back when it owned the NutraSweet Company, J.W. Childs Equity Partners II, L.P. today owns the NutraSweet Company, which includes ownership of neotame as well.

It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto’s creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.

A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical (http://www.neotame.com/pdf/neotame_fda_US.pdf). In fact, an investigation conducted by Feingold.org found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.

Two of these “studies” were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.

So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.

“Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame,” writes HolisticMed.com on its page about neotame. “Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid” (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html).

The FDA, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all consider neotame to be safe for use, despite the fact that WHO actually published a paper seeking to establish acceptable daily intake levels for neotame. If neotame is so safe that it does not even have to be labeled, according to the FDA, then why do acceptable daily intake levels have to be established? And what is the point of establishing them in the first place?

This dog and pony show of special interest regulatory corruption is a travesty that will have global negative health consequences. Like most other toxins added to foods, neotame will most likely cause chronic damage over a long period of time, which means mainstream health authorities will get away with never having to admit that neotame is a dangerous toxin.

Sources for this article include:

http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com

http://www.gaia-health.com

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

China, Manufacturer of 50% of US Drugs, Arrests 2,000 for Counterfeit Drugs

via: NaturalSociety
by: Lisa Garber
August 7, 2012

Nearly 2,000 people have been detained and $180 million worth of fake pharmaceuticals seized in China’s latest crackdown. The detentions and seizures took place in late July but, in an effort to express its commitment to cleaning up Chinese industry’s tattered reputation, its Ministry of Public Security released the information on Sunday. The pharmaceuticals in question were counterfeit drugs for hypertension, diabetes, skin diseases, rabies, and even cancer.

Counterfeit Drugs – FDA Fails to Inspect Foreign Factories

China is one of the world’s biggest producers of fake pharmaceuticals. It is also one of the biggest producers of our drugs in America.

Although the Chinese government has made more and tightened existing regulations of late, it has much bad karma to convince consumers to forget. The government executed the director of its food and drug agency in 2007 for taking cash in exchange for approval of counterfeit, even deadly medication. Though this didn’t prevent the deaths of 81 people in the United States the very next year as a result of a tainted batch of heparin, a blood thinner.

Still, the Food and Drug Administration can’t be bothered to buy plane tickets to visit many of those or other foreign factories; a whopping 81% of them have never even been visited by an FDA inspector! It is no surprise so many counterfeit drugs are being circulated.

The Price Squeeze

The pharmaceutical industry is booming in China despite these disasters. Many provinces have even established bidding systems so drug companies can sell at rock bottom prices in exchange for hospital and pharmaceutical contracts.

So, how low can they go? In an example from earlier this year, China’s drug regulator stopped sales of 13 types of drugs with dangerous levels of chromium. How did it get there?  The capsules for these counterfeit drugs were made from leather scraps with industrial gelatin—and chromium—from the tanning process.

How to stay safe

How are we to protect ourselves against counterfeit, often deadly drugs when they are so rampantly made in faraway factories our own government doesn’t care to inspect?  Remember that every dollar is a vote. The government—and certainly Big Pharma—won’t count it, but your body will appreciate high quality supplements made of food-based ingredients without toxic fillers and synthetic ingredients.

Remember Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine.”  Many foods like turmeric and ginger have been found to work better than pharmaceuticals in helping treat many chronic diseases.

Additional Sources:

Huffington Post

Wall Street Journal

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

Deadly anemia drugs like Procrit made billions – FDA kept their dangers a secret to protect pharma profits

via: NaturalNews
Monday, August 06, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes

[NaturalNews] The agencies and bureaucracies of our Leviathan government were created for our own good, we are constantly told, which is also the excuse we’re given anytime a group of lawmakers or citizens calls for any of them to be dismantled.

That excuse may no longer hold water for the Food and Drug Administration which, according to a recent Washington Post report, could have some liability in covering for a drug that a growing body of research says is dangerous and deadly.

For many years, the report said, three drugs known as Epogen, Procrit and Aranesp were among the top-selling prescription drugs in the U.S., raking in more than $8 billion annually for a pair of Big Pharma corporations – Amgen and Johnson & Johnson. In fact, these two companies were stars among stars; for a number of years, Epogen was the single costliest medicine under Medicare, costing U.S. taxpayers as much as $3 billion a year.

“The trouble, as a growing body of research has shown, is that for about two decades, the benefits of the drug – including ‘life satisfaction and happiness’ according to the FDA-approved label – were wildly overstated, and potentially lethal side effects, such as cancer and strokes, were overlooked,” the Washington Post reported.

Shocking, to say the least, but there’s more.

Medicare researches last year said, in an 84-page study, that they found among most kidney patients – the original and largest market for the trio of drugs – no solid evidence the medications made anyone feel better, improved their chances of survival or even had any “clinical benefit” outside of elevating one statistic for red blood cell count.

So while the drug companies had made tens of billions in profits over more than two decades, much of it from unsuspecting taxpayers, millions of patients were given dangerous doses of the medications to no advantage.

How?

Economic incentives, willing participants, congressional liability

“To answer the question, The Washington Post obtained the agreements between the drug makers and the Food and Drug Administration, reviewed thousands of pages of transcripts and company reports, and relied on new academic research, some by doctors who once administered the drugs but now look askance at the drug makers’ original claims,” the paper reported.

The paper said part of the blame comes from economic incentives built into the U.S. healthcare system, which can lead to inefficiencies and potentially deadly uses for drugs. But there is more here than simply that.

Drug makers cannot and will not manufacture and market drugs at a loss, that much is a given. But the FDA, according to the Post’s report, shares as much blame as anyone for this travesty. So, too, does Congress.

The paper said Amgen launched a well-funded research and lobbying campaign that was ultimately successful to win “far-reaching approvals” from the FDA. But both companies held drug trials that obviously missed (or ignored) the dangers while touting benefits that, 22 years later, would be disclosed as unfounded.

They also took more than 10 years to fulfill research commitments to the FDA, which – finally – moved to reign in the largest doses of the drugs. The agency was then stifled in its efforts by a “high-powered lobbying effort” aimed at Congress until lawmakers forced regulators to back off.

‘It was just easy to do’

Sound familiar?

The paper also points an accusing finger at doctors and hospitals.

“Americans might like to think that doctors focus on only their health. But physicians and hospitals have to pay the bills, too, and, in some cases, the more they treat a patient, the more they earn. This was especially true in the case of the anemia drugs: The bigger the dose, the more they made,” said the Post.

Incentives offered to them by the drug makers to increase doses ultimately worked. By 2007, some 80 percent of 175,000 dialysis patients on Medicare were being given the drugs at levels above what the FDA believes now is safe.

“It was just so easy to do – you put this stuff in the patient’s arm, and you made thousands of dollars,” Charles Bennett, endowed chair at the Medication Safety and Efficacy Center of Economic Excellence at the University of South Carolina and a critic of the use of the drugs in cancer patients, told the paper. “An oncologist could make anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000 a year from this alone. And all the while they were told that it was good for the patient.”

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/023852_patients_drugs_drug.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/Big_Pharma.html

http://www.drugs.com/stats/procrit

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

FDA pushing to eliminate most prescriptions; make majority of drugs over-the-counter

via: NaturalNews
Saturday, August 04, 2012
By: Daniel C. Mizzi

[NaturalNews] The FDA is considering a new prescription program also referred to as the “New Paradigm” that would enable certain prescription drugs to be available without a prescription if they met certain criteria that ensured “conditions of safe use.” The program would involve a variety of medications that treat so-called “common conditions” (i.e. hypertension, diabetes, elevated cholesterol, migraine headaches, asthma, flu, allergies, smoking cessation etc.) The FDA’s apparent rationale behind this proposal is based on evidence from the National Journal that shows that people in the U.S. have poor medication adherence due to a variety of factors (i.e. costs, time, need for multiple physician visits, lack of a prescription drug plan and so on) that ultimately hamper the prescription and medication renewal processes. In addition, the FDA believes that these factors dissuade people from taking potentially lifesaving medications which further contributes to the under-treatment of common medical conditions.

Suggested Methods to Implement the New Prescription Paradigm

Although the FDA has not yet decided how to expand access of certain prescription medications, one key element of their proposal surrounds a pharmacist-driven patient care program that would likely involve patient counseling, patient monitoring, drug interaction prevention and simple diagnostic testing. Another element of the proposal, suggested by the FDA, may involve having a physician prepare the initial prescription for the medication with subsequent access to the medication without a prescription if “conditions of safe use” are met. Lastly, the FDA believes various technologies like pharmacy-based kiosks or internet based questionnaires may help support their proposal by helping patients properly self-diagnose and select the appropriate medication(s) for their condition(s).

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Microchip-Laden Drugs Given FDA Approval

via: GreenMedInfo
By: Sayer Ji
August 3, 2012

Rumors regarding the development of a ‘digital pill’ with a microchip inside have been circulating for some time, but today, the FDA actually green lighted the product.

The company, Proteus Digital Health, gained FDA approval for its 1 square millimeter device (the size of a grain of sand), which it believes will “shift the care paradigm” into an era of digital medicine.

According to Proteus Digital Health’s website:

Digital Medicines are the same pharmaceuticals you take today, with one small change: each pill also contains a tiny sensor that can communicate, via our digital health feedback system, vital information about your medication-taking behaviors and how your body is responding.

The company added “As a result, you can be sure you’re taking your medicines as prescribed, while at the same time receiving unprecedented feedback on your physical response to treatment.”

The aim of the “ingestible sensor” is to electronically verify patient compliance in taking the medication.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

Digital, Digestible Pills Allow Doctors to Monitor Medication Use

via: NaturalSociety
by: Mike Barrett
August 2, 2012

Some excitingly call it the ‘beginning of an era in digital medicine,’ while others view it as a technological movement toward absolute lunacy – despite the positive-sounding advancements. Scientists are moving to put digestible microchips inside of prescription drugs so that your doctor knows if you’re actually taking your medication or not.

Doctors Could Monitor You with Digital Pills

How exactly could these microchips track your medication consumption? The sensor, which is about the size of a grain of sand, generates a voltage in response to digestive juices. The voltage response ultimately transfers a signal to the skins surface, where a patch worn by the person then sends the information to a doctor’s phone.

Although the sensors within the microchip are the first digestible devices actually approved by the FDA, the approval is only based on studies using placebo pills that show it’s safety and efficacy. Of course, digestible microchip creator Proteus would love nothing more than to have the device approved for the massive amounts of pharmaceutical drugs given out today – many of which are taken for a lifetime.

“About half of all people don’t take medications like they’re supposed to. This device could be a solution to that problem, so that doctors can know when to rev up a patient’s medication adherence,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla,California. While Topol isn’t affiliated with Proteus Digital Health, the company that manufactures the futuristic device, he embraces what it has to offer, and says“It’s like big brother watching you take your medicine.”

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

Milk Wars: The Latest Battlefront In Food Freedom

via: CorbettReport
July 31, 2012

Recent research and data are challenging long held beliefs about the benefits of pasteurization, and a vigorous debate is currently underway in the medical profession over the safety and benefits of raw, organic dairy products.

Whatever side of this argument any individual comes down on in the scientific debate, the policy and law that comes out of that debate has to be seen in the larger societal and historical context. If farmers have enjoyed the freedom to grow and process their foods as they see fit for centuries, and customers likewise have enjoyed the freedom to purchase those foods from those producers they personally trust, how and why did the FDA gain the authority to interfere in that process? By what jurisdiction does a federal regulator have the authority to legislate what foods people are allowed to put into their own bodies?

You Think GMO Is Scary? Nano Tech is Here, In Your Store

via: GreenMedInfo
by: Anne Gordon, RN
July 30, 2012

Nanotechnology is measured in billionths of a meter, encompassing all aspects of life from food to medicine, clothing, to space. Imagine hundreds of microcomputers on the width of a strand of hair programmed for specific tasks….in your body. Sound good?

Engineering at a molecular level may be a future corporations’ dream come true, however, nano-particles inside your body have few long-term studies especially when linked to health issues. Despite this new huge income-generating field there is a growing body of toxicological information suggesting that nanotechnology when consumed can cause brain damage (as shown in largemouth bass), and therefore should undergo a full safety assessment.

It is possible for nano-particles to slip through the skin, suggestive of a potential unnatural interaction with the immune system, or when micro particles enter the blood-stream. Some sunscreens on the shelf today, for instance, have nano-particles that might be able to penetrate the skin, move between organs, with unknown health effects. Nano-particles in cosmetics have few regulations done by FDA.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

Food Industry Won’t Take out Harmful BPAs

via: NaturalSociety
by: Lisa Garber
July 30, 2012

What do latchkey kids, college students, and busy parents have in common?  Well, one thing is that they save valuable time and money by cooking with canned foods. The bad news? Tagging along with these foods is a hefty dose of bisphenol A.

According to a past study conducted by the nonprofit Consumers Union, 18 of 19 canned foods contained 22 micrograms of BPA per serving—116 times more than the ‘daily recommended limit.’ Progresso, Del Monte, Campbell’s, Annie’s, and Hormel soups took the BPA lead. Unfortunately, BPA still continues to taint food cans today.

BPA Affects Fertility

Researchers have linked BPA consumption to hyperactivity, aggression, depression, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, various cancers, and reproductive difficulties including Anogenital distance. Males with short AGD have been found to have 7 times the chance of being sub-fertile. This is a troubling statistic given that prenatal BPA exposure through parental consumption is associated with shortened AGD.

Men alone are not at risk, however. The journal Human Reproduction published a study that found women who miscarried three or more times had markedly high levels of BPA compared to mothers of successful pregnancies.

Food Industry’s Ties to BPA

That the food industry has remained largely silent despite this barrage of research means one thing: they’re making too much money to change. As said by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the FDA has repeatedly failed “to safeguard the food supply.” Even the Environmental Protection Agency left BPA off the list of chemicals needing stricter regulation after a heart-to-heart with lobbyists.

Though even while, until now, both companies and manufacturers have been slow to remove BPA, the chemical is slowing inching it’s way out of food and consumer products. One most recent decision was made by the FDA to ban BPA in baby bottles. But even with BPAs departure, companies are beginning to use a close relative of BPA known as bisphenol-S. Unfortunately, this BPS chemical is also toxic.

Staying BPA-Free

Still, there’s no need to despair. Just because the industry isn’t on the side of healthful eating doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the convenience of canned foods. Eden Foods lines most of its cans with oleoresin (a plant-based lining) and puts acidic foods like tomatoes in paper cartons often used for soups.

You can even DIY canned foods with a home canning kit and BPA-free lids. Parents wary of BPA’s effects on their children’s health as well as their future fertility can even make canning a family venture, with benefits to be reaped for months!

To naturally reverse the effects of BPA, try drinking black tea and eating foods—like sauerkraut and kimchi—high in probiotics.

Additional Sources:

MotherJones

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com