The research* is based on 161,808 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years at 40 clinical centers across the United States.  The researchers are from the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Harvard Medical School.  In other words, this is mainstream Western medicine research.

Just as important as the study results is the bewildering press release.  It tries not to alarm anyone, puts a bizarre spin on the risks and benefits of statins, and suggests that you “be sure to talk to your doctor,” (the same person who has been poisoning you). 

The question is, how can the “benefit” of a drug that causes a disease known to drastically increase the risk of heart disease be good for long-term heart disease prevention?  The answer: It’s only “good” if you are trying to put children and healthy people (the new target market for statin idiocy) on these drugs.

Needless to say, the scholars at these prestigious think tanks could not figure out why statins cause diabetes.  They still haven’t quite figured out the basics of how the human body works and what statins are doing to it.

Let me give them a few clues.  Statins are anti-energy by core means of operation.  Any time you reduce the energy function of a cell you reduce the ability of that cell to burn calories as fuel.  This creates metabolic inefficiency and insulin resistance, with increased fatigue and eventual Type 2 diabetes. 

The medical profession cannot be trusted to make correct decisions for patients when its fundamental philosophy of treating numbers on paper with drugs is more important than the person in front of them.  Certainly some people are in difficult cardiovascular situations wherein the many risks of statins may be offset by a short-term benefit.  Taking statins short-term would give a person time to get their act together.  This type of situation, however, represents a small percentage of people on these drugs.  For the majority, the serious risks of developing heart disease or Type 2 diabetes outweigh the benefits.  Of course you would like better cholesterol numbers.  However, you want those improved numbers because you are healthy, not because you took a sledgehammer to the core system of survival in your body.  There is no shortcut to a higher quality of health.

The study is published in http://www.wellnessresource.com  Archives of Internal Medicine

Deen has continued to cook and promote her high-fat, high-sugar, disease-producing menu for the past three years, all the while knowing she had Type 2 diabetes.  “I made the choice at the time to keep it close to me, to keep it close to my chest,” she told USA TODAY in her first interview about the disease. “I felt like I had nothing to offer anybody other than the announcement. I wasn’t armed with enough knowledge. I knew when it was time, it would be in God’s time.”

That time has arrived, complete with a lucrative contract from Novo Nordisk to market the dangerous Type 2 diabetes drug, Victoza.  When asked about the financial relationship Deen said, “Talking about money is garish. It’s tacky. But, of course, I’m compensated for my time. That’s the way our world works.”

There is little doubt that this Southern cook has little understanding of her body.  Now that she is under the tutelage of Big Pharma she believes her problems were genetic and that her odds of getting Type 2 diabetes were the equivalent of Russian roulette.  “It’s about heredity. It’s about age, lifestyle, race. I’m the only one in my family who has it. My grandmother cooked and ate like I ate, and she didn’t have it.”

Big Pharma has apparently not explained the most basic of animal experiments to Deen.  When scientists wish to study a rat that is diabetic, but not genetically or drug-induced diabetic, they have to make it diabetic.  The common way this is done is to feed the rat a diet high in saturated fat and sugar and – presto – it has Type 2 diabetes. 

Scientists have wondered if it was the fat or sugar that was causing the problem, so they have studied each separately and discovered that either one causes Type 2 diabetes.  In the case of excess saturated fat intake, the fat marbleizes through body organs and clogs them to the point they can’t function.  In the case of excess sugar, such severe insulin resistance is produced that Type 2 diabetes follows.  This rat-inspired point is simple, eat too much saturated fat and/or sugar and you will be knocking on the door of Type 2 diabetes.  It is only a matter of how much abuse your body can tolerate.

In the case of Deen, she chose both the high-fat and high-sugar path.  Her sugar came courtesy of sweetened tea, which she has apparently stopped consuming. “That’s a big trick for a little Southern girl. I calculated how much sugar I drank in empty calories, and it was staggering. I would start drinking tea at lunchtime and drank it all the way to bedtime.”  And that was only a part of her sugar consumption.

Recipes drenched in excess saturated fat are her brand.  Her signature Lady Brunch Burger is a hamburger sandwiched between two glazed donuts.  Other celebrity chefs, such as Anthony Bourdain, have minced no words calling her “the worst, most dangerous person to America.”

Entering into this sad state of affairs is Big Pharma, who rarely misses a celebrity marketing opportunity.  Deen now takes the once-daily injection of Novo Nordisk’s Victoza.  Her partnership with Novo Nordisk is featured on the misleading website “Diabetes in a New Light.”  This relationship represents a new low for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes; the public is being given the advice of an unreliable, greedy woman and Big Pharma at the same time.  This is a public health outrage.

Victoza is associated with thyroid tumors and thyroid cancer.  You can develop severe pancreatic inflammation, which can readily lead to death.  This information is clearly displayed on the “Diabetes in a New Light” homepage so that when people start dying from following Deen’s advice they will not be able to sue Novo Nordisk, because in all fairness, they were warned in advance of the dangers.

The drug is a synthetic version of a natural substance produced in the beta cells of your pancreas called Glucagon-Like Peptide-1, GLP-1.  It stimulates your beta cells to make insulin.  When your body releases GLP-1 it lasts for 1.5-2 minutes before your body degrades it.  In other words, this is a powerful signal under tight metabolic regulation. 

The drug version of GLP-1 cannot be degraded by your body’s natural enzyme systems, thus instead of lasting for one minute or two it lasts for 13 hours.  This results in an abnormal stimulation of insulin by a pancreas that is already in a condition of high stress.  It is like forcing your credit card to have another $10,000 limit increase when you are already $5,000 over your limit.  The only way any person would ever take this drug is if they are deceived by propaganda, and listening to a Big Pharma-trained doctor and the latest drug pusher on the block, Paula Deen.  As an informed consumer you are now prepared for the upcoming Paula Deen marketing campaign and TV commercials.

This shocking data comes from the United States National Ambulatory and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care surveys from 2006 to 2008, evaluating 65,000 outpatient visits by children under 18.  21% of the time children were given antibiotics and half that time they were the most powerful broad spectrum antibiotics.  Almost one-quarter of all antibiotic prescriptions were given to children with respiratory conditions that probably or definitely do not call for antibiotics, such as bronchitis, the flu, asthma and allergies.  That translates to 10 million cases of medical poisoning.

“We think of antibiotics as being wholly beneficial, but they are not very specific, they hit everything in your body. By making our microbes that are supposed to be with us disappear, we can be causing other health problems we don’t know about,” said Betsy Foxman, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the research.

And that is an under statement.  Even one dose of antibiotics can alter the digestive balance of power to a condition of poor health.  This is a prime cause of asthma, allergies, obesity, multiple digestive tract problems, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and even heart disease.  This is a massive public health problem.  This is no laughing matter.  Is the FDA anywhere to be seen?  Large sections of Western medicine have become a liability to the wellbeing of Americans and are drastically driving up health care costs - creating more business for themselves through miserable incompetence.  The whole profession should be put on trial.

Studies of this type are especially problematic for the shaky germ theory of Western medicine and its public health platform centered on endless vaccinations. How can you get people to line up for a mercury-containing flu vaccine when the benefit is highly questionable?

The study found that in healthy adults the flu vaccine was only 59% effective, and some years far less effective than that. No high quality study on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in children or pregnant women could be located, sort of odd for a belief system that expects the population to have unwavering confidence. It wasn’t that the researchers didn’t try to find credible research. They looked at 5707 studies over the past 45 years, settling on only 31 that met appropriate criteria. 

The simple fact of the matter is that flu vaccines have limited usefulness. There are many technical reasons for this. I reviewed them last November in my article, The Narrow Scope of Flu Vaccine Usefulness. This new study proves my point. You are far better off having a healthy and strong immune system than counting on the flu vaccine for your winter wellness.

IVF involves ovarian stimulation, designed to increase estradiol output so as to assist in the potential for pregnancy. Estradiol can be a double-edged sword. For example, women who start their menstrual cycles before age 12 have a 40 percent increased risk for breast cancer simply because they are exposed to more of their own estradiol over the course of their lifetime. Thus, dismissing the IVF-breast cancer link is quite naive, as was done by Dr. Cynara Coomer, chief of breast surgery and director of the Comprehensive Breast Center at Staten Island University Hospital, who said, “The studies that involve IVF and breast cancer are virtually inconclusive.”

While it is quite true that the medical profession does little to prove that highly lucrative procedures are dangerous, the link between IVF and breast cancer in women over 30 is a proven fact and not inconclusive. A 2008 study done by oncology researchers at the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem found that for women over the age of 30 IVF was linked to a 24 percent increased risk of breast cancer. This was a statistically significant finding and IVF was the only variably linked to increased breast cancer risk, causing the study authors to conclude “Women who start IVF after the age of 30 appear to be at increased risk of developing breast cancer.” Another 2008 study of 3,375 IVF-treated women found that women of any age were at a 40 percent increased risk of breast cancer following IVF and the risk jumped to 90 percent for women over age 40. 

These are the two most recently published studies on the subject and no study has found there is no increased risk of breast cancer for women over the age of 30 who are treated with IVF. Sure, more studies would be nice. However, those who sell the drugs and perform the treatments have no financial incentive to find out if what they are doing is actually a problem. IVF treatment is not alone in this dilemma. Possibly you remember when the makers of estrogen replacement therapy tried to prove it was good for heart disease and instead ended up proving it was too deadly to warrant giving women. From the Big Pharma point of view, that was a really good lesson in shooting yourself in the foot.

And now we have a celebrity, Giuliana Rancic, who has just gone through a double lumpectomy and is soon to have radiation treatment, grateful her breast cancer was identified at an early stage. Frankly, I’d be upset that the doctor was providing treatments without an accurate explanation of the risk and benefits. According to reports, once she gets through her cancer treatment, then she wants to try to get pregnant again. What on earth does that mean? More IVF?   

When you call let them know that you are very concerned that the FDA is issuing regulations in contradiction to the 1994 DSHEA law. As currently written, the net effect of these regulations will be to remove many supplements from the market that you rely on for your own natural health options – as well as driving up your prices for supplements. Tell them that what the FDA is doing is an unconstitutional abuse of regulatory power and you want Congressional oversight and hearings on this matter.

By clicking on this link, you can enter your zip code and get the phone numbers of your Senators and Representative. Additional talking points are also provided for you on this page, to help you formulate a simple and clear message. Please call on Thursday, September 8th and keep making efforts, as needed, until you get through. Your support is vital and your access to a wide variety of supplements at affordable prices depends on the active participation of consumers across the country. Please join in and help us combat this reprehensible and health-damaging regulation that is being pushed on dietary supplements by an agency that is very out of touch with reality.

If you need more information about this topic, please consult the three in-depth articles I have written:
Senator Durbin & the FDA Viciously Attack Dietary Supplements
The FDA’s Scheme to Reclassify Nutrients as Drugs
FDA Propaganda Attempts to Destroy the Dietary Supplement Industry

THANK YOU!!

The FDA is aggressively reducing the size and scope of the dietary supplement industry, culling from its ranks many small, innovative producers to pave the way for an ultimate assumption of market control over basic vitamins and minerals by pharmaceutical companies. For decades the FDA employed direct, blunt tactics to force supplements off the market or make them available only by prescription, ranging from efforts to declare nutrients above certain dose levels unlawful to sell except as drugs to efforts to define dietary supplements as unapproved food additives (on the ridiculous theory that a gel cap is a food and the nutrients within in it are food additives). Those efforts failed miserably because they appeared to the public transparent attempts to take their supplements away. The current FDA approach to remove supplements from the market does not offend public sentiment because it proceeds under the guise of safety without ever having to prove a product actually unsafe. That approach is causing the supplement company carcasses to form heaps along the regulatory road.

Unwisely, major dietary supplement companies, through their trade association the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) (since renamed Natural Products Association (NPA)), drafted a lengthy document calling for FDA to adopt rules mandating process controls over every aspect of dietary supplement manufacture, holding, and distribution, the so-called current Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines. Misunderstanding the relative strength of the dietary supplement lobby at the FDA and the amount of power conveyed to FDA through the proposal, many leading supplement makers thought the new regulations would force small firms out of the market, achieving an anti-competitive goal. They failed to appreciate that the primary regulate at the FDA, and the one that has the agency as its captive, is the drug industry. Consequently, FDA with pleasure adopted the cGMPs but proceeded to enforce them in ways that are enormously costly, adversely affecting all companies, big and small, in the industry, to the great benefit of those, like the pharmaceutical companies, that rely on economies of scope and scale in standardized mass manufacture of drug and supplement products that already satisfy these same kinds of regulations. When fully implemented, the GMPs are estimated by the FDA itself to result in a reduction of some 25% of the companies in the dietary supplement industry. An economic assessment my firm had commissioned of the impact yielded a higher estimate, some 30% of supplement companies.

In addition, under Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, FDA has selectively changed its enforcement priorities and policies to be far more aggressive, protecting the agency’s favored regulatee, the drug industry, from all but nominal actions while slamming supplement companies even for minor infractions of the rules. During the Bush Administration, the FDA required its district offices to obtain approval from the FDA Chief Counsel’s office before initiating an enforcement action against a company. Commissioner Hamburg eliminated that requirement, enabling district offices to proceed as desired against supplement companies. Indeed, she stepped up enforcement, investigating far more companies and issuing far more warning letters than her predecessors. She also approved agency reliance on draconian consent decrees (forcing those accused of wrong-doing to face criminal charges or agree to a multi-year system of FDA oversight that forces the accused to hire outside counsel beholden to the FDA to review all company labels and labeling and report to the FDA and permits random agency inspections at the company’s expense, among other costly strictures).

Adding to those changes, the Food Safety Modernization Act invites FDA to hire some 30,000 new investigators, forces all food companies to register with the FDA for the first time in American history, and compels companies to pay the cost of all reinspections of food facilities with the proceeds going to pay for additional inspections.

While all of those measures would appear enough to force out of existence a significant number of supplement companies, FDA just recently added yet another weapon to its arsenal against supplements: the New Dietary Ingredient guidance. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, a New Dietary Ingredient is presumed adulterated and unlawful to sell unless (1) it is a dietary ingredient in food that has not been chemically altered or (2) it has been the subject of a petition to FDA and the agency registers no objection to its entry into the market. In its guidance, FDA has vastly expanded the definition of chemical alteration, so that far more ingredients must be the subject of advance FDA approval to be lawful to market.

As counsel to the Alliance for Natural Health—USA, my firm commissioned Dr. Joanna Shepherd Bailey, professor of law and economics at Emory University, an expert in assessing the impact of regulation, to determine the impact of the FDA’s New Dietary Ingredient guidance. She determined that if fully implemented by supplement companies, the guidance would cause approximately 50% of dietary supplements currently on the market to be unlawful to sell. The guidance would cause over 100,000 people in the industry to lose their jobs. Revenue losses would be in the billions.

When we examine the history of law, policy, and enforcement under President Obama’s FDA, we see aggressive regulatory enforcement that is having the effect of destroying businesses, sacrificing jobs, and denying consumers access to health enhancing nutrients. The beneficiaries of the FDA’s supplement wrecking ball are the large pharmaceutical companies who, like Cheshire cats, sit on the fence, eyeing the developments with smiles, waiting to pounce and fill the void once the supplement companies have been sufficiently culled by big pharma’s help mate.

Instead of embracing the nutritional gene science and ushering in a new generation of health, happiness, and wellbeing for Americans, Hamburg has chosen a return to yesteryear, a not-so healthy, happy time. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is doing everything in its power to prevent the truth from being told. Logically, we ask, what are her motives? One of them is clear—facilitating pharmaceutical takeover of many ingredients sold by the dietary supplement industry. 

For as long as a hundred years, FDA management has been in a constant revolving door with high-paying Big Pharma jobs and the large agribusiness/food companies it is supposed to be regulating. This corrupt corporate culture pays lip service to actual safety issues while it uses the FDA as a vehicle to secure profits and wipe out competition. It is a flagrant abuse of regulatory power. 

The FDA’s “public health” battle front is invariably against those who offer any alternative to the elite “FDA profit club.” In modern times this includes the dietary supplement industry, family/organic farms, and health professionals engaged in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Indeed, the dietary supplement industry in the United States is booming, with sales of $28 billion in year 2010. When you add in the natural/organic food industry and functional foods, that figure hits $117 billion.

The aging, baby boomer population is better educated than previous generations. While they listen to what the FDA and their doctors have to say, they are far more likely to ask questions and plot their own self-determined course of action. Use of CAM in the U.S. now involves 41.8 percent of adults, and that number rises to 61.4 percent for those struggling with health problems. As you can see, profits from failed and dangerous remedies sanctioned by the FDA and its crony alliances are rapidly diminishing.  Big Pharma companies are desperate to get their hands on nutrients to help replace their plunging profits from expiring patents and a skimpy new drug pipeline. 

The current battle in this ongoing saga centers on the FDA’s newly proposed regulations. The new regulations, known as “Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues,” were proposed on July 1, 2011. These regulations attempt to redefine which supplements can be on the market and potentially remove many of the best nutrients. Regarding their overall effect, these proposed regulations will cause many small and medium-sized American businesses to close and/or incur significant financial loss. Some large companies may survive, but with drastically reduced product offerings.

Big Pharma companies would be able to cherry pick numerous nutrient ingredients they desire. And most unfortunately, these proposed regulations will limit consumer access to affordable dietary supplements and dietary supplements in general. This is a diabolical regulatory proposal, falsely presented as a “needed” public health safety measure when, in fact, no such definable public health problem can be identified by the FDA that would otherwise be remedied by these regulations. The FDA’s illegal actions will be fought in court every step of the way.

I have explained the key points of this issue in two previous articles, “Senator Durbin & the FDA Viciously Attack Dietary Supplements” and “The FDA’s Scheme to Reclassify Nutrients as Drugs.”

The FDA’s Propaganda Toolbox

Propaganda is the intentional dissemination of false information to support or justify the self-serving actions of the individual or group. A central strategy of effective propaganda is something called the “Big Lie,” which if repeated often enough, people believe it to be true. In the case of dietary supplements, the “Big Lie” is the safety issue. 

The American dietary supplement industry makes the safest products for human consumption in America or anywhere in the world—far safer than the food supply or FDA-approved drugs. This stellar safety record is now proven by the FDA’s own database of adverse event reporting for dietary supplements. It is an open and shut case; dietary supplements are the safest products consumers ingest. Thus, whether the propaganda attack against dietary supplements is coming directly from Hamburg, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), or the behind-the-scenes, Big Pharma masterminds, the “Big Safety Lie” is invariably the justification for their actions.

Understanding the FDA’s NDI Propaganda

Effective propaganda always contains a half-truth or out-of-context truth, serving as the “credibility” for the propaganda. In other words, for her to launch a destructive NDI campaign against the dietary supplement industry, she needed an excuse. She found that excuse in a small group of criminals who were spiking products with drugs and selling them as dietary supplements. The FDA identified the problem and shut down this handful of operations. Such work by the FDA is obviously supported by the entire dietary supplement industry, as 99.9 percent of companies would never make such illegal products.

It is important for consumers to understand two points. This was not an industry-wide problem; it was isolated to a tiny number of bad actors. The FDA already has the power and authority to take action in these circumstances. They do not need any new regulations to perform the job that is expected of them. 

The FDA, however, has taken this out-of-context issue and trumpeted it up to wage war against the entire dietary supplement industry.  It has done so in a manner that is a flagrant and unconstitutional abuse of regulatory power.

Hamburg’s NDI propaganda campaign began on October 22, 2009 when she sent FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein to a supplement trade meeting to deliver a speech, telling the industry that the FDA would be using newly concocted NDI regulations for the entire industry to address this out-of-context issue, even though he freely admits that “this will not solve the problem of undeclared ingredients [meaning products tainted with drug substances].” 

This convoluted attack on the supplement industry continued with a hostile and threatening letter sent by Hamburg on December 15, 2010. Echoing the same “safety” propaganda used by Sharfstein, she broadens her attack to include the 99.9 percent of safe products already on the market. She uses phrasing such as “other compounds…that do not qualify as dietary ingredients” [in her twisted opinion, for example, her ridiculous new definition for new dietary ingredients or NDIs], “deceptively labeled ingredients” [meaning the FDA’s suppression of commercial free speech when companies explain the science of how their products are effective], and “new chemical ingredients” [her code word for NDIs]. This is an aggressive, over-reaching attack on the entire dietary supplement industry, and it is unwarranted.

And then she uses the famous propaganda ploy of instilling fear by threatening the owners of dietary supplement companies with criminal prosecution if they do not do as she says. She declares, “Responsible individuals and companies should be aware that the government may initiate criminal investigations to hold accountable those who violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) [the dubious 1938 law that allows the FDA undue power to harass]… Responsible individuals, even if the individual did not participate in, encourage, or have personal knowledge of the violation, can be criminally prosecuted.”  She actually has the audacity to threaten criminal prosecution for doing nothing wrong at all.  What kind of a tyrant is she?

On July 1, 2011 the FDA actually issued its proposed new NDI regulations. In justifying the “need” for these regulations, the FDA states, “There are an estimated 55,600 dietary supplement products on the market, and FDA has received approximately 700 NDI notifications since we began reviewing NDI notifications approximately 16 years ago. Additionally, the Institute of Medicine has estimated that 1,000 new dietary supplements are introduced to the market each year. These figures, coupled with recent concern by both the agency and industry regarding the presence of undeclared active ingredients in products marketed as dietary supplements, highlight the necessity for marketers of dietary supplements to submit NDI notifications as an important preventive control to ensure that the consumer is not exposed to potential unnecessary public health risks in the form of new ingredients with unknown safety profiles.”

In actuality, the reason there are so few NDI applications in comparison to the number of products on the market is because nobody, including the FDA for the past 17 years, has ever decided to interpret the 1994 DHSEA law to mean most products need an NDI approval. The FDA is now trying to create new law through regulatory interpretation in a manner that far surpasses its authority. Their interpretation is in direct conflict with the intent of the 1994 DSHEA law, concocting an unconstitutional regulatory framework.

Furthermore, making all companies spend tens of thousands, even millions, to comply with drug-like approval of ingredients that have been on the market for the past 17 years with a proven track record of safety will in no way stop anyone intentionally spiking products with drugs, which the FDA previously and openly admitted and already has the regulatory power needed to address any such problem. In other words, the premise for the need for these new regulations is based on bald-faced lies. The reasons the FDA is offering for needing new NDI regulations are pure propaganda.  The actual reasons are financially and politically motivated.

The Iron Fist of FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg

On May 26, 2011, Hamburg was indoctrinating a group of aspiring public health students at Columbia University when she relayed her experiences dealing with the supplement industry during the H1N1 flu scare. She announces, “It was a little bit like playing Whac-A-Mole…you would shut down one and it would pop up somewhere else.”

And Hamburg is not just playing a game of hitting a mole over the head with a mallet, she is using Gestapo-style raids with armed U.S. Marshals against American companies—companies that have done no wrong, other than try to inform the public of the benefits of how nutrition can help them with their health.

On June 7, 2011, this was the fate suffered by a long-time, reputable manufacturer of acidophilus products, UAS Laboratories. It is very important for the public to understand that UAS Laboratories is a helpful and responsible America company—a small family business that over decades of very hard work has been able to help many people improve their quality of health.

Also in June, the FDA used federal force against an American company, Wyldewood Cellars, to seize an elderberry fruit juice based, again, on opinions and disagreements, and no evidence of any harm or threat to the public health.

Dietary supplement companies are not alone, as the FDA wrath has also spread to makers of natural foods with a special interest in raw milk. In May of this year, the FDA terrorized Amish dairy farmer, Dan Allgyer. And recently, they have been involved with a highly-publicized, federal-armed raid on Rawesome Foods in California, dumping milk down the drain.

Let’s delve deeper. The Obama administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (overseen by the Justice Department), through its gun-running fiasco known as “Fast and Furious,” has provided advanced weapons to Mexican drug cartels which has resulted in the loss of American life. All the while, the Obama administration’s FDA is busy using federal police force to terrorize supplement companies and steal their products, seize fruit juice, and pour their milk down the drain. Something is inherently wrong.

It is odd that Hamburg demonstrates such a hostile and aggressive—seemingly, even violent personality. After all, her elite psychiatrist father, David Hamburg, spent a great portion of his life trying to prevent aggression and violence in children so they would not grow up with such undesirable personality traits, in part hoping to prevent the next Hitler from emerging on the world scene. David Hamburg has also been a proponent of eugenics in this context, as he states in a speech as head of the National Institutes of Health, “The adverse effects of exceedingly rapid population growth are not only those affecting health, but also education, economic development, resource depletion, pollution, conflict and violence.” One might ask, where did he go wrong with his own daughter?

Furthermore, FDA “public health” campaigns are typically more about the hidden agenda than any real public health concern. For example, under Hamburg, the FDA has now taken on the “public health” initiative aimed at reducing the future population of U.S. children, embracing and acting on the political belief that an unwanted pregnancy (which by their estimates accounts for 46 percent of current pregnancies in our country) is a newly defined health condition. Taxpayers are slated to foot the massive bill for this public health agenda and will also get roped into paying for the same services in poorer, developing countries around the globe. The FDA will regulate who should live and who should not be born, all under the cover of public health propaganda.

A Brief Lesson in Health Regulatory History

Once upon a time there was a freedom-loving country whose scientists, engineers, and inventors were the envy of all other countries. A prosperous economy was built even though the country had scarce natural resources. It was powered by human ingenuity and free market competition, innovation that extended to the field of medicine. Doctors worked side by side with all manner of alternative and complementary health practitioners in a system of health that came to be known as the “freedom to cure.”

Along came a nasty war and that country lost its way. Defeated, its prosperous people were left in economic ruin. Out of the ashes of despair a “Pied Piper” emerged with a new plan, galvanizing large portions of the population to share a vision of a new world and restored prosperity. The good scientists, engineers, and inventors ran for cover. 

This “Pied Piper” didn’t want a free people; he wanted a herd of followers. He wanted to control the health and mental health of a nation. Health freedom stood in his way. Natural health options were obliterated.  He knew that if you could control the health of a nation, you could control the free will of that nation. An obsession with mind control followed, all in the name of the public health.  Those with other thoughts and opinions lived in fear for their lives. Over the period of a few short decades the true freedom of an entire people vanished into thin air.

Yes, this is the history of Germany leading up to WWII, relying on the Gestapo’s use of fear, intimidation, and violence against its citizens to keep them in line. 
 
More than a half century later the German people have never reclaimed their health freedom. Access to dietary supplements in Germany, and all of Europe for that matter, became a sinister regulatory joke—a joke that is not so funny, as the regulations are at the expense of their citizens’ health and wellbeing. This is the path that “regulatory science” has to offer, all in the name of “safety” and supposed support for the public health. The handwriting for health freedom in America is on the wall.

Freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to follow in the footsteps of German history.  Unlike the Germans, we do have our rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.  We must fight at every opportunity to see that those rights are preserved, and in so doing our freedoms, including our right to be healthy based on our own choices and preferences.

Take Action

Senator Orin Hatch (R-Ut), one of the original authors of the 1994 DHSEA legislation, is now providing wise leadership to the dietary supplement industry in the face of flagrantly illegal activity by the FDA, helping to organize industry leaders and companies.  He is telling the industry to first file comments to the FDA until the October 3, 2011 comment period closes, then get ready to do battle in court with help from Congressional oversight of the FDA.

Additionally, the efforts of those in the industry must be widely supported by consumers for this course of action to be effective.  If you value your access to a wide range of dietary supplements at affordable prices, do not just follow the herd. Rather, stand and be heard. Go to our TAKE ACTION page, file comments of protest with the FDA and let your Senators and Congresspersons know you will not tolerate what the FDA is doing. Spread the word and pass this and my previous articles on to anyone who values their access to dietary supplements, so they too can make their voices heard. 

While there are some of us in the dietary supplement industry that will stand on principle and fight for what is right, there are many companies that need some friendly consumer encouragement to keep you as a customer of their products. Please bring this information to the attention of dietary supplement companies and health food stores where you purchase products. Ask them what they are doing to preserve their customers’ rights to a wide range of dietary supplements at affordable prices. 

On September 8th 2011, once Congress has finished their summer vacation, grassroots organizations across America will launch a consumer protest campaign to the FDA and Congress, prior to the October 3rd deadline for public comments on the proposed NDI regulations. The FDA is listening and trying to gauge the strength of the opposition. Again, let your voice be heard and preserve the natural health options for yourself, your family, and the future generations of Americans.

TAKE ACTION NOW and AGAIN on September 8th.

A Brief History of Eugenics

The goal of eugenics is to utilize science to improve the genetic composition of a population. The elite eugenics ruling class is terrified of rapid population growth in “undesirable genetic stock.” Their efforts are focused on controlling rapid population growth in developing countries, such as African nations, and in minority groups in the United States and other developed countries. 

The “scientific” theory of eugenics originated in the 19th century with the works of Charles Darwin and others. Its theory was adopted as a core principle of genetic research by The Rockefeller University, Carnegie Institution for Science, and others at the beginning of the 20th century. It was openly promoted and discussed for the first four decades of the 20th century. It even gained a supportive Supreme Court ruling in 1927 which allowed for sterilization of mental health patients. Moreover, American eugenics-oriented psychiatrists continued to force sterilization on mental health patients into the 1970s. 

Beginning in 1910 and ending in 1944, a massive database of genetic information on Americans and related eugenics articles were collected in a Rockefeller and Carnegie-funded data repository known as the Eugenics Record Office.

WWII sent the public face and target of eugenics to scurry for cover as Hitler applied the theory to the Jews, giving the eugenics movement a major black eye. However, behind the scenes, American psychiatrists, German psychiatrists, and the heads of Rockefeller maintained their close working relationships. 

At the conclusion of WWII, the Rockefellers allotted land in New York City to house the United Nations (UN), an organization founded on the core beliefs of the elite eugenics thinkers. 

A wealthy Rockefeller family friend, England’s Sir Julian Huxley, led the eugenics movement in England. Upon setting up the United Nations, Huxley became the first Director-General of the United Nation’s human-rights organization, UNESCO. In his 1946 sixty-page document titled, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy,” he states:

The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background…its education program can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to world organization…Political unifications in some sort of world government will be required…Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible [thanks to Hitler], it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenics problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.

Click here to watch a documentary on eugenics. 

The Modern Packaging of Eugenics

A seismic shift is now occurring in the forces that will control health care in the United States and around the world. It is a shift in power away from the World Health Organization (WHO) and into a new alliance of wealthy governments (the G8), United Nations groups, and elite international non-governmental power brokers such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. American taxpayers should be alarmed. This means that tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for “humanitarian” foreign aide is being spent on objectives never approved by Congress. Americans should pay attention when Bill Gates makes very public proclamations about the need to reduce the surplus population.

In February of 2010, Bill Gates explained that there are just too many humans, as a key mathematical variable, involved in CO2 and global warming. He thinks that a global effort on population control, utilizing vaccines and birth control, can reduce the projected African population by one billion people in year 2050. This requires many tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to accomplish. The short version or long version of his speech is available to view on YouTube. 

His theory that overpopulation is a primary source for the cause of global warming has also been presented in a 2009 report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population, and Climate.” UNFPA is an example of a United Nations group that is helping to coordinate the spending of billions in U.S. taxpayer funds to accomplish the global elitist eugenics agenda. 

Bill Gates is not your traditional elitist, born into a family of wealth and privilege. His wealth bought him entry into the elite club. Born in 1915, David Rockefeller Sr., is the oldest living patriarch of the Rockefeller Empire and the undeniable kingpin in this arena. And he is not trying to keep his life’s work a secret any longer.

In his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs, he sets the record straight, responding to all of those who have claimed he is working to manipulate governments to create a New World Order. He states, “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

In a 2008 lecture he states, “Unless nations agree to work together to tackle these cross border challenges posed by population growth, overconsumption of resources, and environmental degradation, the prospects for a decent life on our planet will be threatened.” Rockefeller tries to place a “socially acceptable” spin on the need for eugenics in modern times. Click here to watch his calculated explanation.

A key strategy of the eugenics movement is to package it, publicizing seemingly helpful changes that, to most people, would appear to be advantageous. The PR spin is all about helping the poor, fighting disease, solving the oppression and inequality of women, improving women’s health, and reducing childhood mortality, etc. It is a masterful cult in action, enlisting the help of many unwitting people by getting them to believe they are contributing to worthwhile objectives. Like any cult, once you get past the slick marketing and PR façade, evil stench is lurking.

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s Family Eugenics Tradition

One of the leading scientific thinkers on the subject of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century is FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s father, psychiatrist David Hamburg, as well as her psychiatrist mother Beatrix Hamburg. 

David Hamburg has had a major impact on U.S. government domestic public health as well as international public health and politics. He has been head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) from 1975 to 1980, member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board during the Clinton era, member of president Clinton’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Preventive Action of the Council on Foreign Relations—to name just a few of his involvements. Omitted from his official bio is his role as director from 1989 to 1991 at the American Eugenics Society (renamed the Society for the Study of Social Biology, SSSB). His wife, Beatrix, served as director in 1983 and as vice president from 1984 to 1990. 

Much of David Hamburg’s work has been funded as a result of his role as President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York from 1982 to 1997, where he retains the title, President Emeritus. The consortium of entities under the Rockefeller and Carnegie banners do many things to accomplish the political and social structure to facilitate a New World Order. This has included significant national and global financial support for eugenics and programs that promote eugenics philosophy. 

David Hamburg’s early training in genetics and psychiatry exposed him to the eugenics theory of his time. In a 1979 speech to the American Public Health Association, he emphasized, as head of NIH, the need to reduce population as part of preventive health. He declared, “The adverse effects of exceedingly rapid population growth are not only those affecting health, but also education, economic development, resource depletion, pollution, conflict and violence. Thus, in an increasingly independent world, the technically advanced nations cannot afford to overlook these problems which are so burdensome for most of the less developed countries. This involves biomedical and behavioral sciences, in international collaborative efforts. Some promising lines of inquiry deserve consideration here…to make possible an array of contraceptive techniques and relate these to cultural preferences with respect to acceptability. A practical approach to pregnancy interruption is emerging.” 

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg is quite proud of her parents, and her record as New York City Health Commissioner shows she is on the same page as Mom and Dad.  When Margaret Hamburg joined her parents in 1994 as one of the all-time youngest members of NIH, she said, “There was a sense of real fun that the father-mother-daughter constellation had been formed.” 

Understanding the Scope of the “Free” Birth Control Services

The August 1, 2011 United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy declaration will mandate significant costs to the health care system, as part of implementing Obama’s new health care plan. This policy focuses on preventing unwanted pregnancies. This health care regulation is based on recommendations provided by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in a July 19, 2011 report entitled “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps,” which says that 49 percent of pregnancies in the United States are unwanted. The implementation of this policy will rely on this report, so it is interesting uncovering the details of the recommendations that are not being made widely public. The FDA will be the final decision maker as to what these services comprise. Revealed below are direct quotes from the report.

Family planning services that are provided to prevent unintended pregnancies include contraception (i.e., all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, sterilization procedures) as well as patient education and counseling…unintended pregnancy is more likely among women who are ages 18 to 24 years and unmarried, who have a low income, who are not high school graduates, and who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group.

The committee recommends for consideration as a preventive service for women: the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.According to the report, an unintended pregnancy is now a newly defined disease to be eradicated, hopefully by costly preventive intervention. Such interventions include use of a eugenic movement favorite—sterilization. It should be noted that the term “sterilization” was omitted from the HHS press release and is only clearly explained in the full IOM report, made inaccessible by requiring logging in before the report can be downloaded and viewed. This deception by HHS is intentional, meaning it intends to diminish the number of people that will spend time trying to understand what health insurance plans we will now be required to cover.

Abortion as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy is not mentioned in this IOM report for political reasons. However, since an unwanted pregnancy is now being defined as an adverse health condition, the implication is obvious for those acting on these guidelines.  While funding for abortion would not be covered by the scope of this HHS regulatory policy, naming unwanted pregnancy as a health condition sets the stage for this to be the next step.

The health complications potentially arising from pre-term births, including adverse epigenetic programming and future disease, are a legitimate health issue. I would address this issue by improving the nutritional status of these mothers, while if needed, providing a social safety net, allowing them to live in a less stressful environment. No effort has been made by the HHS or even suggested in the IOM report to, rather, focus efforts on creating a set of stable circumstances for women so they actually desire the child they are carrying—thereby ethically wiping out the “new disease” of unwanted pregnancy.

New Gene Technology Soon to Bring Eugenics to the Front and Center

Rapid advancement in gene technology will for the first time allow for non-risky genetic testing of fetal DNA within five weeks of conception. This groundbreaking genetic testing will utilize unique fetal cells from the bloodstream of the mother. While this is an enormous leap forward in technology and has some legitimate value, it reopens the eugenics Pandora’s box. This testing is a dream come true for the eugenics movement. It will stimulate an impassioned social debate about who should be allowed to be born at all and who should make this decision.

The FDA will be intimately involved in all regulations relating to this new technology and how it is controlled. This is an emerging market with legal and financial implications that are actively being debated by stakeholders and the FDA. The emerging industry wants to develop at-home consumer testing for many of these new genetic testing tools.  Doctors want to monopolize on providing the tests as a new profit center. And public health officials, such as those at the FDA, are trying to figure out how this highly lucrative technology should be regulated. 

The day of genetic counseling is coming, with parents being presented with a wide-variety of data about their unborn child’s health status, future health risks, and even personality. And expect that the government will want full access to the testing results.  What will be the slant on any counseling given with such services? Who will be forced to have an abortion and who will regulate under what circumstances a woman may have an abortion? Will taxpayers and insurance companies have to foot the bill? Only time will tell.

Do you trust FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to make these decisions? Do you trust her to set up the regulations, ultimately determining who should be born?

United States Health Care Now Reflects the Globalist Agenda

It is fascinating that the Obama administration has endorsed an IOM report that says all pregnancies should be wanted and that an unwanted pregnancy is a medical health condition. 

The belief that all pregnancies should be wanted is a major tenant of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which as stated earlier is a group bent on the eugenics goal of reducing world population. Funding to UNFPA was cut off by Reagan and both Bush presidents, due to their controversial role in using U.S. taxpayer funds to implement abortion and sterilization. UNFPA funding was restored in 2009 by President Obama. 

The new HHS regulatory mandate, defining what must now be covered for “free” by health insurers, goes far beyond the issue of birth control services. The following categories are listed to be covered by health insurers:
  1)  well-woman visits;
  2)  screening for gestational diabetes;
  3)  human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
  4)  sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
  5)  human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
  6)  FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
  7)  breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
  8)  domestic violence screening and counseling.

These issues, one for one, are top priority issues of the United Nations Population Fund, intended to be delivered as “free” healthcare services to women around the globe.  UNFPA is in a mad dash to meet 2015 international deadlines for health implementation regarding especially maternal health and reproductive health, as defined by a set of international healthcare objectives known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

UNFPA has been sounding the alarm that governments are moving too slowly to accomplish their globalist health plan. This plea for action was culminated during a UN meeting in New York this past April called the “Commission on Population and Development.” At this meeting abortion groups actively participated in the meetings and hosting panels. This meeting ended with a policy statement designed to influence the immediate actions of the United States.

President Obama has long promoted spending 50 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars per year to accomplish these Millennium Development Goals, which are spearheaded by UNFPA. It is not surprising that he is now marching lockstep with this globalist plan, responding to their urgent plea for governments to speed up their efforts with the IOM study and the resulting HHS regulatory declaration on August 1, 2011.

Americans should understand that under these international influences we are expected to pay for these “free” health services for all women both nationally and internationally. On the national level this is being accomplished through the new HHS regulations. Health care premiums for everyone will rise to cover these costs (a form of regulatory taxation and redistribution of wealth). Additionally, direct taxpayer contributions will go to cover government spending on its Medicare and Medicaid requirements to cover these services. Furthermore, tens of billions of U.S. dollars in foreign aide goes directly into UNFPA and related groups. This is taxpayer money that is being used to fund this agenda and the international delivery of health care services for the world. UNFPA is one group advocating for reduced global population.

The fact that these efforts are directly associated with a massive effort to reduce world population, a key theme of the eugenics movement, should be clearly understood by all Americans. The slick repackaging of the eugenics movement is now in high gear, is well-funded by U.S. taxpayers, and is the leading-edge movement, stripping the United States of its sovereignty and forcing Americans to comply with an international set of priorities and regulations. 

The FDA will be used as the regulatory bully that enforces compliance. This comes naturally to the FDA, which has a long history of using force against any competition to suit whatever its priorities happen to be. In this emerging New World Order power structure, the FDA is drastically expanding its reach and will be called on to be an international regulatory authority. 

Americans need to wake up and understand what is going on. Since it is now obvious to the world that our country is broke, it is the perfect time to stop the elite globalist movement from moving forward. We need to move to cut off funding to the international health care movement and the new HHS birth control regulations—we simply cannot afford them. It is time to flood Congress with objections to these eugenics-promoting initiatives and save our country and the rest of the world from the immense pain and harm of this societal experiment.

I am not at all opposed to a social safety net for those truly in need.  However, the lions share of these Big Pharma pills are for treating self-inflicted health problems due to years of eating poorly and not taking care of oneself.  Furthermore, the pills don’t cure anything and often require more pills to treat the adverse side effects of the pills being given.  The only one benefiting is Big Pharma, whereas Big Pharma wants you to believe that it is the most vulnerable members of society that are benefiting – which is a bald-faced lie.

If America wants to get serious about spending cuts and reducing the cost of healthcare, then we will need politicians that can take on the Big Pharma lobby.  If history is any predictor then that will be a tough challenge.  Big Pharma has successfully purchased Democrats and Republicans for as far back as the eye can see.  And it is mostly your tax dollars and inflated charges for health care that pay for Big Pharma’s lobby - a sort of self-perpetuating destruction of health in America.