In the David vs. Goliath world of the vitamin and herbal supplement industry vs. Big Pharma, the medical mainstream and the FDA, you can put away your slingshot–for now. But don’t put it too far out of reach, because you’ll need it again…sooner than you may think.

Yes, it’s hunting season…on supplements, that is.

We’ll start in Congress. It seems like every couple of years light bulbs blink on and some congressmen get the brilliant idea that the supplement industry should be more severely regulated. Of course, on the surface that might sound reasonable. Why not make sure something that millions of Americans are putting in their bodies every day is as safe as possible?

The problem: That isn’t how regulation works.

First of all, the FDA can’t manage and adequately enforce supplement regulations already in place. How in the world will they cope with excessive new layers of bureaucracy? That’s exactly how regulators bog down the whole system. They pile on layers of needless red tape at unmanageable expense and, at the end of the day, the results for the consumer are rarely any better.

And make no mistake…if the ideas currently pending actually come to life, supplement companies will be forced to shut their doors or raise their prices so high that it would put them out of reach for most of us.

So while some of the proposals seem harmless on the surface, I promise you they are anything but.

Your right to buy the supplements of your choice at a reasonable price is under attack by a Congress that sees an easy target and an administration looking to cross things off its “to do” list.

McCain Failin’

A bill, titled the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, was recently introduced by Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan. McCain is the big gun here, obviously, so the bill is widely referred to as “the McCain bill.” Yet, in a surprise move, Senator McCain withdrew his support of the bill late last week. (I don’t remember THAT in the Schoolhouse Rock song.) A new “compromise” bill is reportedly in the works.

As originally submitted, the bill would have been disastrous. In fact, a statement on the website for the Alliance for Natural Health USA spells out the chilling details: “Under current law, the FDA cannot arbitrarily ban a supplement that was sold prior to October 15, 1994, the date that the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was passed. McCain’s bill wipes out that protection.”

In addition, the bill would have authorized the FDA to keep a list of legal supplements. “The FDA would have arbitrary power to choose permitted supplements and (importantly) supplement doses.”

That means that the FDA could have decided vitamin C could be sold in doses only of 60 mg or that CoQ10 couldn’t be sold at all.

So, of course, supplement takers, makers and marketers alike are rejoicing in what they are declaring a victory.

But it’s not quite time to pop the champagne and laugh in Goliath’s face just yet.

One thing we know about Senator McCain is that he doesn’t walk away from a fight. We’ll soon see another version of his bill, and the changes may or may not be to the average supplement user’s advantage.

In any case, Congress isn’t the only looming threat…

All Noisy on the Western Front

Over at the FTC, someone appears to be cooking up such strict new requirements for supplement product claims that many supplement makers would simply be driven out of business.

According to Todd Harrison–a Washington, D.C., attorney and columnist for Nutraceuticals World–the FTC plans a new regulation that would require two human trials on the actual products to provide scientific support of supplement products. (Right now, most supplement companies rely on scientific studies about individual ingredients or combinations when developing formulations.)

Again, on the surface that might sound like a good idea. But clinical trials like that are extremely expensive– like, drug company expensive. In other words, it would effectively prevent most new supplements from entering the market or put the natural medicine industry squarely in the hands of the Big Pharma companies that could afford to comply.

Around the country, there are foxes guarding henhouses who are saying, “Wow…that’s a really bad idea!”

In addition, the FTC would be able to use third-party studies to refute a supplement maker’s claims, but the supplement maker would not be allowed to use third-party studies to support the claims.

Here’s the real kicker: IF the supplement company did two human trials AND their research proved a substantial benefit BUT the prevailing body of evidence doesn’t support their research, they still can’t use their study results.

So they will have invested years and hundreds of thousands of dollars and proven the value of their products and then the FTC can still disallow their results.

We still don’t know the true scope of this threat. The FTC is not quite as predictable or transparent as Congress. But if we do get an opportunity to comment on this before the agency makes a final ruling, I’ll make sure you’re the first to hear about it so we can let FTC officials know they’re way off track on this one.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Industry Attacks McCain Bill for ‘Regulatory Overkill’” Shane Starling, NutraIngredients-USA, 2/4/10, nutraingredients-usa.com
“Senator McCain–Please Read Your Own Bill” Alliance for Natural Health USA, 2/24/10, anh-usa.org

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

After all, you read that “fact” again and again, all the time, virtually everywhere. So it must be true.

Well you don’t read it EVERYwhere.

For instance, you won’t read it in a recent issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

That issue carries an analysis of 21 studies that included more than 345,000 adult subjects who were in good health. All subjects reported their dietary habits, and then medical records were followed for at least five years, some longer than 20 years.

Researchers report NO LINK between saturated fat intake and a higher risk of heart disease, cardiovascular disease, or stroke.

This isn’t the first study to come to this conclusion. But they’re all widely ignored because they run so contrary to the accepted belief that saturated fats are dietary villains.

In fact, the opposite is true when you eat high-quality saturated fats in moderation. For instance, saturated fats contain antiviral agents and help maintain cell membranes.

And some vitamins are fat-soluble, so they actually work more effectively in your body with the help of saturated fats. And these are key powerhouse vitamins like D, E, K, and A.

One thing you absolutely DON’T want to do is impede your body’s ability to utilize stores of vitamin D.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Source:
“Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies Evaluating the Association of Saturated Fat with Cardiovascular Disease” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 91, No. 3, March 1, 2010, ajcn.org

Basal cell cancer appears on the skin as a small lump or sore that doesn’t heal properly. This type of cancer is annoying and unsightly, but rarely dangerous.

The Orthomolecular Medicine News Service has posted an article that explains how to use vitamin C to treat small spots of basal cell carcinoma by mixing a paste of powdered vitamin C with a small amount of water and then applying it directly to the spots. After three applications per day for two weeks, many of the spots become dry and drop off.

So is this a revolutionary new breakthrough?

Not quite. This information comes from research that was published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition…more than 35 years ago!

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Source:
“Topical Vitamin C Stops Basal Cell Carcinoma” Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, 11/9/07, weblink:orthomolecular.org

Do you ever experience numbness in an isolated area in either of your legs? How about a prickly feeling or leg pain while walking?

If so, it’s time to face the reality that it’s probably not going away. In fact, there’s a very good chance it may be peripheral artery disease (PAD) caused by impeded blood flow in the legs.

Most people with PAD are undiagnosed and unaware there’s a problem lurking. And that’s especially troubling for diabetics, who (along with smokers) are most likely to develop PAD.

The danger: PAD patients are four times more likely to have a heart attack or stroke.

But new evidence shows that a well-known botanical may reduce these risks.

One man’s success story

A few months ago I told you about a study that found ginkgo biloba to be ineffective in reducing risk of heart attack or stroke in people over the age of 75.

But during that six-year study, about twice as many subjects in the placebo group developed PAD compared to the ginkgo group.

That’s not proof that ginkgo prevents PAD, but the suggestion is there. And an HSI member named Bertram agrees.

Bertram writes: “In 2006 I had an accident which threw by intrinsic rhythms off and resulted in elevated blood pressure levels. I researched alternative solutions after I was prescribed a lopressor and coumadin without any satisfactory explanation as to why. My arteries were clean; triglycerides, CRP, sugar and homocysteine were within acceptable levels.

“The doctors, including the chief cardiologist at the Interfaith Hospital in Brooklyn, told me that these drugs were prescribed as a preventative measure to prevent a blood clot even though my heart structure was sound.

“Total bunk! I started using ginkgo in 2006 after stumbling on the site of Dr. Blaylock who recommended ginkgo among other supplements.

“The end result is that I can now go out in the cold or touch ice without suffering from extremely white, blood starved fingers and toes. Today, I can walk in the cold New York…even Ottawa…winter and my fingers and toes remain red. This is evidence that there is blood circulation to my peripheral members.

“I will be 57 in two weeks and today my blood pressure is 110/60. Ginkgo is one of the main reasons for that.”

Those are great results. But I have two notes to add: 1) Beware taking ginkgo biloba with other drugs to address a heart condition, especially warfarin or aspirin. 2) Another HSI member wrote to warn that ginkgo might prompt adverse reactions in diabetics who take metformin.

Ginkgo is one of those very useful botanicals that should be researched before trying, and ideally used under the care of an herbalist or medical professional.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Does Ginkgo Biloba Reduce the Risk of Cardiovascular Events?” Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Published online ahead of print 11/24/09, circoutcomes.ahajournals.org
“Ginkgo No Help for Heart, But May Aid Leg Arteries” Reuters Health, 11/30/09, reutershealth.com

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

“I am so tired of hearing about men and their sex problems!

“Their problems get fixed but their wives and girlfriends get nothing. Most women have more problems than men and what can we do to fix our sex problems? We all want answers.”

I get a lot of e-mails like that one, which comes from an HSI member named Irene. Here’s another from a member named Dena…

“Not meaning to sound sarcastic, but what about something for women? Someone really needs to talk to several OB-GYN’s and see the complaints that they are hearing from women wanting/needing help with this issue.”

For Dena, Irene, and many other women I have one word: testosterone.

If you think of testosterone as a male hormone, you’ll probably be surprised to find that it plays a key role in stimulating the female libido. But simply adding testosterone appears to be risky. The FDA declined approval of a testosterone patch for women because the product was ineffective and prompted adverse side effects, including liver dysfunction, acne and unwanted hair growth.

Gentle hormonal coaxing appears to be a safer way to go.

You can start with vitamin D. New evidence shows that when your D level is high your testosterone level is probably higher as well.

A number of botanicals have also been shown to enhance female sexual drive and enjoyment by helping maintain balanced hormone levels.

For instance, saw palmetto (commonly used to promote prostate health) has been prescribed for centuries as a sexual stimulant for both women and men. The ancient Mayans used an herb called damiana to energize sexual vitality. Siberian ginseng has long had a reputation for arousing sexuality and enhancing stamina in women. And the herb Nettle has been used as an aphrodisiac for centuries.

Down the Amazon

For women who aren’t experiencing the hormonal imbalance of menopause, but still need some oomph in their sex drive, a botanical from the Amazon might provide a jumpstart.

As I’ve mentioned before, clavo huasca is a vine that grows wild in the Amazon rainforest and is traditionally used as a treatment for…shall we say…frigidity.

Leslie Taylor, an HSI Panelist and board-certified naturopath who has spent years investigating herbal medications with shamans throughout Peru, used the vine bark to formulate a highly concentrated extract.

When Ms. Taylor provided HSI with a supply of her Clavo Huasca product, we conducted an informal trial with 38 volunteers, all over the age of 50, who had no known hormonal imbalance. (Clavo has been shown to have little effect on women with low libido due to hormonal imbalance.)

Each of the subjects used Clavo Huasca for one month, while keeping a journal and submitting weekly reports. The final responses were split: 19 women experienced no changes, while 19 reported benefits. In the latter group, six said the benefits were slight, while 13 felt the formula significantly improved their sexual relations.

Aside from the sexual benefits, a number of women reported that even when they didn’t experience a change in libido, they slept better, had a better attitude, and felt more energetic. And none reported any adverse side effects.

For more information about Clavo Huasca, you can visit the website for Raintree Nutrition, Inc., at rain-tree.com.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Source:
“Help for Low Libidos” Barbara Kantrowitz and Pat Wingert, Newsweek, 9/30/05, msnbc.msn.com

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

In a UK study, researchers found that middle-aged and older subjects with the highest levels of vitamin C were more that 60 percent less likely to develop type 2 diabetes compared to subjects with the lowest levels of the vitamin.

That’s the good news.

Now for the bad advice…

When a local newscast here in Baltimore featured this study, the anchor introduced it by suggesting that a couple of glasses of orange juice every day might help prevent type 2 diabetes.

In fact, a glass of orange juice is practically a full day’s serving of type 2 diabetes!

And that’s why newsroom copywriters with a background in newsroom copywriting should not give nutrition advice.

The fruit of an orange is high in unrefined, water-soluble fiber. And that makes it very different (and healthier) than orange juice. Many types of fruit juices (such as orange, grapefruit and grape juices) actually contain as much sugar per serving as a soft drink.

In a previous e-mail I told you about a Tulane School of Public Health study that analyzed dietary and medical records in more than 70,000 subjects. Results showed type 2 diabetes risk increased by nearly 20 percent among subjects who drank one serving of fruit juice daily.

The study also found that three daily servings of whole fruit LOWERED type 2 diabetes risk by about the same amount.

But that didn’t make the headlines in Baltimore.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“High Vitamin C Intake May Cut Diabetes Risk” Reuters Health, 8/7/08, reutershealth.com

A Cinnabon for lunch? A half-gallon of Boardwalk Fries for dinner? Sure, why not? You’re at the mall. You’re not supposed to do much thinking at the consumers paradise.

Nevertheless, a recent Rachael Ray Show featured a segment titled “Healthier Choices at the Food Court.”

That’s a gusty challenge!

Rachael’s guest was Liz Vaccariello, editor-in-chief of Prevention magazine. I’m not sure what Prevention is designed to prevent, but on that show Liz was preventing clear dietary thinking.

When the topic rolled around to burgers and what to eat on the side, Liz pointed out that French fries and onion rings are not “ideal” because they’re fried. Absolutely true. So the “healthier choice” here is obvious, right? Without question, you eat the burger and don’t order a side. You sure don’t need those trans fats and empty calories.

But no.

Liz’ suggestion: Go with the French fries.

Here’s her reasoning: “They have some vitamin C, some vitamin B, some potassium…the only thing onion rings have is that odor-causing sulfur so you’re not getting any nutrients.” And she adds: “Potatoes are very heatlhy.”

Stupefying.

First: No nutrients in onions? How about flavonoids? They’re loaded with antioxidants. Onions also contain vitamins C and B6, as well as folate and potassium.

Meanwhile, a potato — in ANY form — is a really bad choice. Sure, you’ve got nutrients there, but the carbs are simply junk. A baked potato is as close to a pure, refined starch as you can get without actually refining it. And potatoes are unique in that deep frying makes them even worse — dangerous actually — because the high cooking temperature creates acrylamide, a suspected carcinogen.

So if you WANT to promote weight gain, increase abdominal fat, and set the stage for type 2 diabetes, sure go with the French fries. And a Cinnabon, and an Auntie Anne’s Pretzel, and a Frappuccino, and…just about anything else in the food court.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Source:
“Healthier Choices at the Food Court” Rachael Ray Show, 2/19/10, rachaelrayshow.com

They REALLY don’t want you to think too much about this one.

Both Reuters Health and HealthDay News ran nearly identical lead paragraphs in their reporting about a new study of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.

The finding: Statin use increases risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

And along with that message, of course, they had to report that this risk is really a very small thing, hardly worth mentioning in light of the magnificence of the life-saving properties of the wonder drug…the Great Statin.

It’s as if they’re delivering bad news to a grouchy king who LOVES statins and is likely to have a lowly reporter beheaded if he even suggests that the adored heart drug is less than perfect.

Here’s the Reuters headline: “Cholesterol Drugs Raise Diabetes Risk, Just a Bit.”

Do they have any idea how hilarious that is? You can imagine a Reuters reporter holding his thumb and forefinger really close together, up near his eyeball, and squinting when he says in a high squeaky voice, “Just a bit.”

Just a teeny weenie bit, Your Highness.

HealthDay went one better, adding this quote from a news release about the study: “In view of the overwhelming benefit of statins for reduction of cardiovascular events…”

Yes, the benefits are OVERWHELMING! Why, a reporter might swoon under a spell of the vapors just thinking about the wonderfully overwhelming benefits of statins.

So? Ready to be overwhelmed?

Collateral damage, damage, and more damage

University of Glasgow researchers examined the results of 13 large statin trials that included more than 91,000 subjects.

Results showed that for every 255 patients treated with statins for four years, one would develop type 2 diabetes.

Well that doesn’t sound so bad. Just one little old diabetic for every 255 statin users? Since the benefits are grossly exaggerated (I’m sorry…I meant to say “overwhelming”) what difference do a few extra diabetics make?

A huge difference.

About 20 million people take statins in the U.S. So, one case of type 2 diabetes for every 255 patients comes to well over 78,000 people who will develop or already have developed diabetes as a statin side effect. (You can forget about the “four years” business because statin users are users-for-life.)

But if you’re convinced statins are life-saving wonder drugs, then I guess thousands upon thousands of cases of diabetes are acceptable. Not to mention the untold cases of muscle damage, kidney damage, liver damage, and cognition damage.

One of the Glasgow researchers told Reuters Health that the results of their study should put a stop to statin overuse, and the drug will be given “when appropriate for the right reasons.”

Aw, that’s adorable! He must have missed the news that the FDA recently OK’d the use of the statin Crestor for people who don’t have high cholesterol. And that approval came in spite of a Crestor study that showed a link to — yep — increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

The world of statins is a world gone mad (and not just a bit!).

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Statins and Risk of Incident Diabetes: A Collaborative Meta-Analysis of Randomised Statin Trials” The Lancet, Published online ahead of print, 2/17/10, thelancet.com
“Cholesterol Drugs Raise Diabetes Risk, Just a Bit” Ben Hirschler, Reuters Health, 2/17/10, reutershealth.com
“Small Increase in Diabetes Risk Noted in Statin Patients” HealthDay News, 2/16/10, healthday.com

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

That good advice – from an RN named Donna Mason – appears in a recent Reader’s Digest article titled “15 Secrets the Emergency Room Staff Won’t Tell You.”

Here are three more “secrets” that I thought stood out as particularly useful…

“When we arrive, don’t expect us to say hello. We’re focused on the patient. Once he’s stable, then we’ll introduce ourselves.”
—Don Lundy, paramedic

“Not all ERs are equally equipped to deal with children. Check with your pediatrician to see which ER he or she recommends.”
—Joan Shook, MD

“Calling from a landline can save your life because we can pinpoint your location instantly. If you call from a cell phone, we waste a lot of time asking where you are or searching for you.”
—Arthur Hsieh, paramedic

To Your Good Health (and hoping you never need to rely on any of these ER tips),

Jenny Thompson

Source:
“15 Secrets the Emergency Room Staff Won’t Tell You” Ginny Graves, Reader’s Digest, rd.com

After a fox raided the henhouse a second time, the farmer said to his watchdog, “What’s wrong with you? How did you miss that fox TWICE?”

Watchdog: “After the first raid I formed an advisory committee to look into the matter. Clearly a fox was in the henhouse, but among the expert committee members, opinions were mixed about whether or not the fox actually killed the chickens.”

Farmer: “Opinions? I don’t care about their OPINIONS! I don’t want any foxes in the henhouse!”

Watchdog: “I anticipated your concern. That’s why I organized another advisory committee to investigate. I expect to receive their report sometime next summer.”

And that’s how the watchdog ended up in a kennel at the ASPCA.

If only – IF ONLY! – we could do the same with our “watchdog” – the hapless, inept, and thoroughly dysfunctional FDA.

Meanwhile, prepare to hit the “forward” button, because if you know someone who might be taking the diabetes drug Avandia, this little fable about the watchdog, the farmer, and the slowest advisory committee ever is a story they MUST hear.

The alarming setup

Let’s start off with a strong contender for Most Clueless Quote of the Year.

This is from a recent New York Times report: “GlaxoSmithKline said that it had studied Avandia extensively and that ’scientific evidence simply does not establish that Avandia increases’ the risk of heart attacks.”

And why is that quote so stark raving clueless?

I’ll answer that question with another quote – this one from the Avandia website (avandia.com): “AVANDIA may increase your risk of other heart problems that occur when there is reduced blood flow to the heart, such as chest pain (angina) or heart attack (myocardial infarction).”

This sort of “up is down” Avandia reality has been the norm for several years.

In 2007, an FDA advisory committee concluded that Avandia might increase the risk of heart attack. The committee’s recommendation: Keep Avandia on the market. And of course, FDA officials thought that was a wonderful idea. After all, they’re the prime enablers of drug company cluelessness.

But not all of them.

Dr. David Graham is a sort of FDA Robin Hood. As I’ve mentioned before, Dr. Graham is an FDA drug safety scientist who has consistently pestered FDA officials about dangerous drugs. For instance, he was way out ahead of everyone in warning about Vioxx. The same with Avandia. Dr. Graham and a colleague authored an internal FDA report that calls for Avandia to be removed from the market.

According to the Times, another internal report concludes that if everyone who is now taking Avandia switched to Actos (another diabetes drug), as many as 500 heart attacks and 300 heart failures might be averted EVERY MONTH.

And the FDA response? They’ve formed another advisory committee. The report is expected next summer.

Today is March 4. So if the report arrives on, say, July 4…well the math is too tragic and too easy: a potential 2,000 heart attacks and 1,200 heart failures.

I’m not what you’d call a real big fan of politicians, but today I’m going to give the last words to a couple of U.S. senators: Charles E. Grassley and Max Baucus. For several years, Grassley and Baucus have been conducting an investigation of the way the FDA conducts its business.

Here’s Senator Baucus, getting straight to the heart of the Avandia situation: “Patients trust drug companies with their health and their lives, and GlaxoSmithKline abused that trust.”

No gray areas there.

And here’s Senator Grassley commenting on the need to allow Dr. Graham and others like him to have a louder voice at the agency: “It doesn’t make any sense to have these experts who study drugs after they have been on the market for several years under the thumb of the officials who approved the drug in the first place and have a natural interest in defending that decision. The Avandia case may be the most alarming example of the problem with this setup.”

Many thanks, senators! And way to hang tough, Dr. Graham!

Now, if you will, please hit that forward button and maybe some lives will be saved…

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

Source:
“Controversial Diabetes Drug Harms Heart, U.S. Concludes” Gardiner Harris, New York Times, 2/20/10, nytimes.com

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox