Organic is organic, or is it? It would seem that it is all a matter of perspective when one takes a stroll through the mountains of documents on the FDA and USDA websites.
The word “organic” is fast becoming a high-dollar money-maker for corporations smart enough to jump on the bandwagon and start marketing their products as “made with organic ingredients,” or “certified organic.” Even Monsanto is taking advantage of this burgeoning market, and people naïve enough to believe that what we have traditionally thought of as pure, organic food, is still that way, are being duped.
It makes perfect sense, however, in a Machiavellian sort of way. Flood the food supply with poisons, then lead people to believe that the only safe choice left is USDA Certified Organic. Then buy up the organic companies one by one, and start changing the “organic” rules from the inside out via the bought and paid for government agencies so that you can reap the profits from those trying to escape the poisons.
So let’s take a closer look at just what the word “organic” refers to according to these government agencies. You might be surprised at what we find. The fact that the very agencies (FDA and USDA), which are supposed to be protecting our organic food supply, are intensely active in its adulteration will become apparent.
What is “Certified Organic?”
In the USDA Certified Organic Program, there are four categories established for labeling purposes:
Section 205.301 establishes the organic content requirements for different labeling provisions specified under this program. The type of labeling and market information that can be used and its placement on different panels of consumer packages and in market information is based on the percentage of organic ingredients in the product. The percentage must reflect the actual weight or fluid volume (excluding water and salt) of the organic ingredients in the product. Four categories of organic content are established: 100 percent organic; 95 percent or more organic; 70 to 95 percent organic; and less than 70 percent organic. (Organic Labeling Preamble)
If an item is labeled 100% Organic, then it is supposed to contain nothing but organic ingredients and processing aids that are organically produced.
Products labeled Certified Organic must contain 95% organic ingredients.
Up to 5 percent of the ingredients may be nonagricultural substances (consistent with the National List) and, if not commercially available in organic form pursuant to section 205.201, nonorganic agricultural products and ingredients in minor amounts (hereinafter referred to as minor ingredients) (spices, flavors, colorings, oils, vitamins, minerals, accessory nutrients, incidental food additives). The nonorganic ingredients must not be produced using excluded methods [GMO], sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation. (Organic Labeling Preamble)
70-95% Organic, labeled “Made with Organic Ingredients,” can contain the kitchen sink in the 5-30% of ingredients that are not organic. They can be grown with pesticides, but without the sewage sludge, and cannot be irradiated or genetically modified organisms (GMO).
70% Organic, which is labeled “Contains Organic Ingredients,” can contain the kitchen sink along with the pesticides, sewage sludge, irradiation, and GMOs.
A Matter of Perspective
Let’s say that you have a product that you think is better than its conventional counterpart because it has “certified organic” ingredients. So you buy it and think that you are getting healthier because you are eating mostly good, pure food. It is the word “organic” that led you to believe this. However, if an organic ingredient is mixed with conventional ingredients, doesn’t it become polluted? It’s like putting gasoline in a glass of pure water and charging a premium for that water because it only contains 30% of the contaminant. 30% contamination is probably better than 100%, but would you want to drink it? The whole glass of water is poisoned due to the gasoline, yet the companies selling this product would like you to believe that because it contains pure water it is good. They also know that they can charge you premium prices for that flawed perception.
The FDA and USDA would like us to believe that using “certified organic ingredients” somehow makes the poisons they allow in the other 30% okay, and companies charge through the nose for these adulterated products. It is a matter of perspective. Just how much gasoline in your water are you willing to tolerate just so you can live under the illusion that you are consuming a more pure product? And just how high a price are you willing to pay for it?
Organic Sleight of Hand
“USDA Certified Organic” is a big business, and the deception is great. With a bit of sleight of hand, by simply moving a word around a bit, you have a complete subterfuge.
(1) Use of “Organic” in Product Names. The NOSB, State organic program (SOP) managers, certifying agents, and a large number of individual commenters strongly recommended that USDA prohibit use of the term, “organic,” to modify an ingredient in a product name if the ingredient, itself, is not produced organically. The examples offered were “organic chocolate ice cream” and “organic cherry sweets” in which the ice cream and candy are at least 95 percent organic but the chocolate and cherry flavoring is not organically produced.
We agree with commenters that such product names can be misleading and would be a violation of section 205.300(a). In the examples, the word, “organic,” precedes the words, “chocolate” and “cherry,” and clearly implies that those ingredients are organically produced. The chocolate and cherry flavorings must be organically produced to be used in this way. If the product is at least 95 percent organically produced but the flavoring is nonorganic, the word sequence must be reversed or the word, “flavored,” must be added to the name; e.g., “chocolate organic ice cream” or “chocolate flavored organic ice cream.” A sentence has been added to section 205.300(a) to specify that the term, “organic,” may not be used in a product name to identify an ingredient that is not organically produced. (Organic Labeling Preamble)
So, you see how “organic chocolate ice cream” means that both the chocolate and the ice cream are organic, but if you reverse two words and make it “chocolate organic ice cream,” the chocolate is not organic. Or if you are really adept at manipulation, you can actually manufacture “organic beer” with conventional hops, label it “USDA Certified Organic,” and charge a premium price for it. See the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which includes hops as one of the approved non-organic substances allowed in USDA Certified Organic products.
If the FDA is here to help us instead of make money for its corporate owners, don’t you think this agency would demand that labeling be perfectly clear? If the USDA is here to help us, why would it have allowed the gross pollution and treachery that abounds in the National Organics Program (NOP) to have even gotten a foothold in what was the last bastion of safety left in our food supply?
ORGANIC IS ORGANIC. When it is mixed with non-organic ingredients, it is no longer organic, and no amount of agency double-talk will change that. When you play word games to trick people into purchasing something because they see the word “organic” on the label because you have led them to believe it is safe and better than the rest, all in the name of corporate profits, then organic or not, you are one of the bad guys. Period.
Neotame can be included in USDA Certified “Contains Organic Ingredients” without labeling. As I stated in a previous article “USDA Certified Organic’s Dirty Little Secret: Neotame,” Neotame does not have to be labeled. Period. Why? Because the FDA approved it as a general purpose sweetener, and it is designated as a “flavor, or flavor enhancer.” And since it is not a protein hydrolysate, the following applies:
If the flavor consists of two or more ingredients, the label either may declare each ingredient by its common or usual name or may state “All flavor ingredients contained in this product are approved for use in a regulation of the Food and Drug Administration.” Any flavor ingredient not contained in one of these regulations, and any nonflavor ingredient, shall be separately listed on the label. (FDA)
A document taken from the FDA site even states that pre-approval studies indicated that Neotame is not safe, yet it “was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for general use in July 2002″ (Wikipedia).
EnSigns Health Care Pvt Ltd and The NutraSweet Co USA have recently launched ‘Sweetos’, a cattle feed sweetener. Sweetos has been developed with neotame, a high intensity sweetener.
Amino acids based sweetener Neotame is 8,000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar and is a patented product of the NutraSweet Co USA. Ensigns is one of the leading manufacturers of Sweetos, low calorie sweeteners for the food industry. Together the two companies have launched this sweetener to be added to cattle feed. (Business Standard)
Organic livestock feed uses a similar type of labeling system as human food.
(c) Products sold, labeled, or represented as “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” Multiingredient agricultural product sold, labeled, or represented as “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must contain (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) at least 70 percent organically produced ingredients which are produced and handled pursuant to requirements in subpart C of this part. No ingredients may be produced using prohibited practices specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) of §205.301. Nonorganic ingredients may be produced without regard to paragraphs (f)(4), (5), (6), and (7) of §205.301. If labeled as containing organically produced ingredients or food groups, such product must be labeled pursuant to §205.304.
(d) Products with less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients. The organic ingredients in multiingredient agricultural product containing less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) must be produced and handled pursuant to requirements in subpart C of this part. The nonorganic ingredients may be produced and handled without regard to the requirements of this part. Multiingredient agricultural product containing less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients may represent the organic nature of the product only as provided in §205.305. (GPO Access)
As in human food regulations, the non-organic ingredients in “Made with Organic Ingredients” and “Contains Organic Ingredients” can contain the kitchen sink.
The question must be asked: Do we really want our cattle to be consuming feed that is made with a neurotoxin? How will it affect the animals that eat it? And just how will eating these animals affect us?
When did we learn to accept anything less than the best? When did we acquiesce to inferiority? To the endless compromise of our food supply? Why do we think that we somehow deserve to be robbed blind, lied to, poisoned for profit, and cheated every step of the way by the corrupt corporate system that acts like a black hole – sucking in everything and giving nothing back in return except abject misery? And why do we seem to like it? Why do we keep going back for more instead of ridding ourselves of these pariahs? Do you really want to know why? Because we have been trained that way! That’s why we accept “organic beer” made with conventional hops, and USDA Certified “made with organic ingredients” food items that have been poisoned with the likes of Neotame. We accept these things because we have been conditioned to think that this is somehow okay. It’s time to change our way of thinking.
It’s time to stop bowing to multi-national corporations who may or may not be what we think they are. Know your food producer. Know what you are eating. Become a food warrior, and fight for the right to not be deceived. Know how to read labels and figure out what the ingredients really are. The more people that wake up to the reality that we are surrounded by people who could care less about our health and are actually out to do us harm as long as they can profit by it, the better our chances of survival. Make no mistake about it. We are in a food war, and that is a war for our very lives.
Barbara H. Peterson, Farm Wars
Share and Enjoy
Thanks to Surgeon General’s Warning labels, public smoking bans, strict regulation of advertising, excise taxes, and public service messages, nearly everyone in America is fully aware of the many health risks associated with cigarette smoking. Ongoing research has continuously proven that smoking causes lung dysfunction, cancer, SIDS, heart disease, birth defects, preterm birth, and other serious health problems. Knowing this, the idea that cigarette smoking may offer health benefits may seem utterly absurd.
However, cigarette smoking has been confirmed to provide numerous benefits to the health of smokers. Surprisingly, the tobacco plant appears to have more to offer our bodies than a guarantee of certain death. Although the health benefits of smoking are far outweighed by the many very dire risks, tobacco may provide alternative relief or prevention for some diseases in certain individuals.
The most fascinating and widely recognized health benefit of smoking is its ability to seemingly alleviate symptoms of mental illnesses, including anxiety and schizophrenia
. According to an article published in 1995 in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, schizophrenics have much higher smoking rates than people with other mental illnesses, and appear to use it as a method of self-medicating. The article postulates that nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.
The treatment of schizophrenia isn’t the only positive effect that nicotine has on the brain. A series of very interesting studies from multiple academic sources confirms that the risk of Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease is surprisingly higher in non-smokers than in smokers. Doctor Laura Fratiglioni of Huddinge University Hospital in Sweden states, “Cigarette smokers are 50% less likely to have PD or AD than are age- and gender-matched nonsmokers [...] cigarette smoking exerts an undefined, biologic, neuroprotective influence against the development of PD and AD.”
or obesity. Many smokers experience weight loss and decreased appetite after they begin smoking, and the Melbourne study found similar results in lab rats and mice exposed to cigarette smoke. While tobacco-influenced pharmaceuticals may at some point be an available option to treat obesity, smoking as a self-treatment is very ill-advised, since the negative effects of tobacco and obesity tend to compound and create interrelated conditions.
Cigarette smoking has also been linked to a decrease in risk of certain inflammatory disorders, since nicotine itself appears to be an anti-inflammatory agent. The department of gastroenterology at the University Hospital of Wales conducted a number of in-vitro studies to confirm and explain the decreased risk in ulcerative colitis (a potentially severe digestive disorder) in individuals who smoke cigarettes.
Perhaps most shockingly, tobacco smoke’s anti-inflammatory effects may actually provide some benefits to children who are exposed to secondhand smoke. While this is certainly not worth at-home experimentation, one astonishing study conducted in Sweden observed two generations of Swedish children and found that the children of smokers had lower rates of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema, and food allergies. The studied groups included 6909 adults and 4472 children, and the findings remained consistent, even when adjusted to reflect other variables.
Other surprising academic findings reveal that tobacco may have a positive effect on pregnancy, although this, too, should not be left up to individual experimentation. A study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology revealed that preeclampsia, an extremely common but potentially deadly condition, is significantly less common in expectant mothers who smoke cigarettes than in expectant mothers who do not smoke.
While it is undebated that tobacco cigarettes pose a number of deadly hazards to human health, they also reveal a surprising link to decreased mortality and morbidity for some conditions. While it may be interesting to note tobacco’s few benefits, it is also critical for all consumers to recognize that its positive aspects are few compared to its many very serious risks. Even taking the health benefits of smoking into account, tobacco smokers can expect to live shorter lives and experience many chronic diseases.
If you believe you have, or are at risk for, a medical condition that can be treated or prevented with tobacco use, do not use this as a reason to begin smoking or to avoid smoking cessation. However, talk to your doctor about pharmaceutical or botanical solutions that may yield similar benefits, without the risks associated with tobacco. Emerging research may soon reveal an ability to synthesize and isolate the few positive chemicals in cigarettes and use them to manufacture new treatment options.
Share and Enjoy
Two weeks ago, I broke the news of a new FDA report that estimated for the first time the amount of antibiotics sold in the United States every year for use in agriculture: 28.8 million pounds.
That long-awaited report didn’t answer a crucial question: What volume of antibiotics are sold in the United States each year for human use. It’s a crucial question because, in answer to concerns about antibiotic resistance arising on farms, the answer has always been that human medicine is equally culpable because it uses similar volumes of antibiotics.
The only research that has attempted to answer that question is contained in a decade-old report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that put the proportion of antibiotics going to animals at 70 percent of the U.S. total.
That UCS report and estimate are a decade old not because no one has cared about the topic, but because accurate updated figures have been so hard to get. So we owe a special holiday thank-you to the researchers at the Center for a Livable Future, who decided the release of the FDA report justified another attempt to get the numbers straight. They succeeded.
The proportion of antibiotics sold in the United States each year that go to animals turns out to be not 70 percent, but rather 80 percent. Here’s CLF’s Ralph Loglisci, who got the confirmatory numbers from the FDA:
In accordance with a 2008 amendment to the Animal Drug User Fee Act, for the first time the FDA released last week an annual amount of antimicrobial drugs sold and distributed for use in food animals. The grand total for 2009 is 13.1 million kilograms or 28.8 million pounds. I … contacted the FDA for an estimate of the volume of antibiotics sold for human use in 2009. This is what a spokesperson told me:
“Our Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology just finished an analysis based on IMS Health data. Sales data in kilograms sold for selected antibacterial drugs were obtained as a surrogate of human antibacterial drug use in the U.S. market. Approximately 3.3 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs were sold in year 2009. OSE states that all data in this analysis have been cleared for public use by IMS Health, IMS National Sales Perspectives™.”
3.3 million kilograms is a little over 7 million pounds. As far as I can determine, this is the first time the FDA has made data on estimates of human usage public.
At its blog, CLF lays out the math for each major drug class as sold for animal use and human use, with a long discussion of the significance of the different drug classes. Here’s the CLF table summing up the math, but please go over to CLF’s blog for its discussion.
Most important to note: Most of the drugs used in animal agriculture and in human medicine are functionally identical. That’s one reason why the overuse of antibiotics in animals is such a concern: When organisms become resistant on the farm to drugs used on livestock, they are becoming resistant to the exact same drugs used in humans. (One major drug category used in animals, ionophores, do not have a direct human analog. But use of them on farms is still a concern, because resistance factors can move freely between species of bacteria. That’s a discussion for another day.)
Loglisci’s conclusion is also worth underlining:
The next battle, which industry has already begun, is defining what non-therapeutic use will constitute. Producers are already claiming that the use of antibiotics for growth promotion has decreased, maintaining current low-dose usage is aimed at disease prevention. Regardless, all low-dose usage of antibiotics can lead to a significant increase in antibiotic resistance.
Share and Enjoy
Magnesium, just like magnetite and manganese, owes its name to the greek word Magnesia, a place name derived from the tribal people known as Magnetes. Physicians and therapists have paid scant attention to this crucial element which is one of the most important minerals for all living organisms. Magnesium has a relaxing, anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effect on our organism. It is critical for metabolic processes, cell growth and reproduction and is involved in hundreds of enzyme processes affecting every aspect of life. It is not only essential for maintaining good health, but also for detoxification and the treatment of numerous diseases.
Unfortunately, magnesium is one of the most depleted minerals in our soil. In fact, a U.S. Senate document from 1936 stated that fruits and vegetables being raised on millions of acres of land no longer contained enough of certain minerals, therefore starving the population of their nutritive effects no matter how much they ate. While some foods are enriched with calcium and vitamins, magnesium is usually ignored. Researchers actually found that the recommended daily allowance for magnesium is inadequate to prevent magnesium deficiency. In addition, drugs such as painkillers, antibiotics, diuretics, anti-depressants and others further deplete magnesium and other vital nutrients in our bodies, worsening the symptoms for which they were prescribed in the first place. Stressful situations such as surgery, injuries, malnutrition, diseases and psychological stress also increase our daily requirements of this important mineral. This translates into a widespread magnesium deficiency problem among the population which then causes or contributes to numerous conditions including degenerative chronic diseases:
Anxiety and panic attacks. Magnesium helps keep adrenal stress hormones under control.
Asthma. Both histamine production and bronchial spasms increase with magnesium deficiency.
Blood clots. Magnesium plays an important role in preventing blood clots and keeping the blood thin without any side effects.
Bowel disease. Magnesium deficiency slows down the bowel, causing constipation, which could lead to colitis, toxicity and malabsorption of nutrients.
Cystitis. Bladder spasms are worsened by magnesium deficiency.
Depression. Serotonin, which elevates mood, is dependent on magnesium. A magnesium-deficient brain is also more susceptible to allergens, foreign substances that in rare instances can cause symptoms similar to mental illness.
Detoxification. Magnesium is crucial for the removal from the body of toxic substances and heavy metals such as aluminum and lead.
Diabetes. Magnesium enhances insulin secretion, facilitating sugar metabolism. Without magnesium, insulin is not able to transfer glucose into cells. Glucose and insulin build up in the blood, causing various types of tissue damage.
Fatigue. Magnesium-deficient patients commonly experience fatigue because dozens of enzyme systems are underfunctioning. An early symptom of magnesium deficiency is fatigue.
Heart disease. Magnesium deficiency is common in people with heart disease. Magnesium is administered in hospitals for acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrhythmia. Like any other muscle, the heart requires magnesium. Magnesium is also used to treat angina, or chest pain.
Hypertension. With insufficient magnesium, blood vessels may go into spasm and cholesterol may rise, both of which lead to blood pressure problems.
Hypoglycemia. Magnesium keeps insulin under control; without magnesium, episodes of low blood sugar can result.
Insomnia. Sleep-regulating melatonin production is disturbed with insufficient magnesium.
Kidney disease. Magnesium deficiency contributes to atherosclerotic kidney failure. Magnesium deficiency creates abnormal lipid levels and worsening blood sugar control in kidney transplant patients.
Migraine. Serotonin balance is magnesium-dependent. Deficiency of serotonin can result in migraine headaches and depression.
Musculoskeletal conditions. Fibrositis, fibromyalgia, muscle spasms, eye twitches, cramps and chronic neck and back pain may be caused by magnesium deficiency and can be relieved with magnesium supplements.
Nerve problems. Magnesium alleviates peripheral nerve disturbances throughout the body such as headaches, muscle contractions, gastrointestinal spasms and calf, foot, and toe cramps. It is also used in treating the central nervous system of vertigo and confusion.
Obstetrical and gynecological problems. Magnesium helps prevent premenstrual syndrome and dysmenorrhea (cramping pain during menses). It is important in the treatment of infertility, and alleviates premature contractions, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in pregnancy. Intravenous magnesium is given in obstetrical wards for pregnancy-induced hypertension and to lessen the risk of cerebral palsy and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Magnesium should be a required supplement for pregnant women.
Osteoporosis. Use of calcium with vitamin D to enhance calcium absorption, without a balancing amount of magnesium, causes further magnesium deficiency which triggers a cascade of events leading to bone loss.
Raynaud’s syndrome. Magnesium helps relax the spastic blood vessels that cause pain and numbness of the fingers.
Tooth decay. Magnesium deficiency causes an unhealthy balance of phosphorous and calcium in saliva, which damages teeth.
[Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. The Magnesium Miracle. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007]
Correcting magnesium deficiency provides relief in these and other conditions too numerous to list in this article.
Standard serum (blood) tests are useless in screening for magnesium deficiency since less than 1% of our body’s total magnesium can be measured in our blood. Unfortunately, doctors rely upon this test even though magnesium must be measured at work inside the cells and tissues with very specific tests. For the average person, the easiest way to diagnose magnesium deficiency is simply by supplementing for at least a few months to see if symptoms are relieved.
Under ideal conditions we need approximately 300mg of magnesium to offset daily losses. If you are under mild to moderate stress – physical or psychological disease, physical injury, athletic exertion, or emotional stress – your requirements for magnesium increase. Foods rich in magnesium, with a relatively low sensitivity profile, include fermented legumes (i.e. beans) and organic green vegetables. Since an average good diet may supply around 250mg, from which only half is actually absorbed, researchers feel that most people would benefit from magnesium supplementation. Otherwise, body tissue must be broken down to supply this essential mineral.
To benefit from magnesium supplementation, take chelated magnesium (bound to organic amino acids) for maximum absorption: magnesium citrate, malate, orotate, taurate, or magnesium glycinate. Do not use magnesium oxide because it is basically a laxative. The recommended dose is 6-8mg/kg of body weight (3 to 4.5 mg/lb), although 200mg four times per day is a better dose. If this dose has a laxative effect, cut down by 200mg until this effect stops. Spread your magnesium doses throughout the day because there is only so much you can absorb at one time. As you remedy your deficiencies over time, you might need less supplementation – your stools will tell you.
Some forms of chelated magnesium are better than others for certain conditions. Magnesium taurate is best for heart conditions. Magnesium taurate, glycinate and orotate are best for those who tend to have loose stools since they have less laxative effects. Magnesium malate is the best form to treat the chronic fatigue, pain, and insomnia of fibromyalgia.
Magnesium can be taken with or without meals but it’s best to take it between meals as it requires stomach acid to be absorbed. Digestion after a full meal may make the stomach acid less readily available for mineral absorption. Magnesium is an alkaline mineral which may act as an antacid, neutralizing the stomach acid needed for digestion.
Magnesium chloride can be used to make magnesium oil which can be readily absorbed through the skin when sprayed or rubbed on the body. It increases magnesium bioavailability in the body and provides the ideal solution for those individuals who experience loose stools when they try to take enough oral magnesium to meet their needs. Some researchers have found that using magnesium oil at a concentration of 25% magnesium chloride restores a magnesium deficiency in a matter of weeks that would otherwise require months or a year to restore with oral supplementation. If you pump about 6 sprays of magnesium oil for each leg and arm, you are applying about 400mg of magnesium (a 25-35% magnesium chloride solution delivers between 13 and 18 mg per pump). Using a few sprays under your arms will also function as a highly effective deodorant. If any redness or stingy feelings result, use a more diluted magnesium oil.
Requirements for a very ill person are much higher than for a healthy person. In general, if you take a full body magnesium bath, two ounces of magnesium chloride could be used. Some people prefer a very concentrated magnesium chloride bath with as many as eight ounces of magnesium at a time. Foot baths use much less water, so two ounces will yield a very concentrated intake. Soak the body or just the feet in the warm solution for 20-30 minutes. It is best to do it daily during the first week, starting at lower concentrations and working towards higher levels. Then continue at 2-3 times a week for 6-8 weeks or longer.
Magnesium sulfate, also known as Epsom salts, is another excellent option even though it is rapidly excreted from the kidneys and more difficult to assimilate. The effects from Epsom salt baths do not last as long, so you will need more magnesium sulfate than magnesium chloride in a bath to get similar results.
For the average individual, high doses of magnesium have no side effects except loose stools. However magnesium therapy is contraindicated in individuals with kidney failure, myasthenia gravis, excessively and pathological slow heart rate, and mechanical bowel obstruction. In such cases, it should at the very least be given under the supervision of a health care provider.
People often find relief from their symptoms when they take magnesium, so they immediately tell friends and relatives. This word-of-mouth spread of information about this miraculous mineral is really making a difference in the epidemic of magnesium deficiency, and I hope that you will benefit as well.
Gabriela Segura, M.D., Health Matrix,Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:16 CST
Share and Enjoy
The FDA has just notified small pharmacies that they will no longer be allowed to manufacture or distribute injectable vitamin C – despite its remarkable power to heal conditions that conventional medicine can’t touch. Please help reverse this outrageous decision!
Let’s get this straight. The government acknowledges the risk of a worldwide flu pandemic. It acknowledges that conventional drugs cannot cure big viruses-like the mononucleosis and hepatitis viruses, many influenza viruses, and many others. It acknowledges that many bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics and are killing increasing thousands. It acknowledges the risk of a worldwide drug-resistant TB pandemic.
Despite acknowledging all this, it now insists on wiping out one of the best potential treatments for these conditions and for certain cancers as well. And why is this being done? What possible rationale is offered? Because it’s dangerous? No. Because it can’t be patented and therefore won’t be taken through the standard FDA approval process. No matter that vitamin C is one of the least toxic components of our food supply and liquid forms of it have been used safely for decades.
By the way, here is what is not safe. Don’t substitute home-made vitamin C solution for pharmaceutical grade liquid. That is not safe for injection. If the FDA action leads someone to do that, the FDA should be held responsible for the results.
The government, instead of banning intravenous vitamin C, should instead be supporting research into it. Even though IV C is being used in burn units around the world, including in the US, and has been adopted by the military for this purpose, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) refuses to fund any studies using intravenous C in patients. There are privately funded studies currently underway, but of course these cannot continue if the FDA bans the substance.
With at least one of the pharmacies, the FDA seems to be banning injectable magnesium chloride and injectable vitamin B-complex 100 as well. These two substances are routinely added to intravenous C to make the “Myers Cocktail,” used especially for conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, and infectious diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, mononucleosis, and flu. The FDA is not going after the Myers Cocktail directly, but is rather attacking each individual substance used to make the cocktail, and may conceivably be going after injectable vitamins and minerals in general, despite such injections being given under the care of a qualified physician.
Each of us reading this should think, “Intravenous C could someday save my life.” Dr. Jonathan Collin, editor of the Townsend Letter, discusses the case of a man in New Zealand who nearly died from swine flu. After developing a severe fever and upper respiratory infection, his condition deteriorated and he became comatose. Eventually even a ventilator was insufficient to keep him breathing because his lungs were so compromised by pulmonary edema. After weeks of heroic intervention, doctors decided there was no chance of survival and nothing further should be done for him.
The family asked the hospital to administer intravenous vitamin C. After much disagreement, the hospital gave him 25 grams of vitamin C every 6 hours. There was so much improvement over the next two days that the hospital decided to reinstate his intensive care – but they discontinued the vitamin C, saying that he had improved only because they had rolled him onto his side or his stomach instead of keeping him on his back! Not surprisingly, his condition once again deteriorated.
The family moved him to another facility that reluctantly allowed the IV vitamin C (albeit at a lower dose), and his lung function gradually improved. He came out of coma after four weeks, and after taking vitamin C orally, he gradually improved enough to be discharged. One year later, he was back to flying his plane and surveying his farm in New Zealand. None of the doctors who fought so hard to prevent his treatment with vitamin C have ever acknowledged their error.
Even people in perfectly good health may not be getting enough vitamin C. We recently noted the research that up to 87% of Americans are vitamin D deficient. But studies also show that many people may be deficient in vitamin C as well. A recent study on 1,000 Canadian adults found 33% had suboptimal levels of vitamin C – one in seven was “very deficient” – which could place them at increased risk for chronic health problems. Those who were vitamin C deficient were also more likely to have larger waists, greater body mass, and higher blood pressure.
The study’s author, Dr. Ahmed El-Sohemy, suggested eating fruits and vegetables high in vitamin C, such as citrus fruits and peppers, or taking supplements. The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) in adults is 90 mg per day for men and 75 mg for women, though some experts say a minimum daily dose of 120 to 200 mg is more appropriate, and some routinely take much higher doses themselves. Research also shows that people suffering from various diseases may benefit from larger amounts. In the case of the common cold, a review of published trials found that amounts of 2 grams per day appear to be more effective than 1 gram.
But there is a big difference between oral vitamin C and intravenous C. One maintains your health. The other seems to directly attack pathogens and cancer cells. Vitamin C taken orally will not do this, because the concentration does not seem sufficient to accomplish the task.
Please take action immediately! Please contact the FDA here, and tell them to take their job of protecting our health seriously – by allowing injectable vitamin C, magnesium chloride, and vitamin B-complex 100 to continue being manufactured and sold! And don’t accept the answer that these substances need to be taken through the full FDA approval process. These are not patentable substances and no one will pay billions to do that. To require a standard approval process for them is identical to banning them, as the FDA know full well.
Alliance for Natural Health, Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:49 CST