Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 > " HSI - Jenny Thompson " > <HSIResearch > O'er the Ramparts We Watch > Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:24:59 -0400 > > O'er the Ramparts We Watch > > Health Sciences Institute e-Alert > > Monday July 12, 2004 > > ************************************************************** > > Dear Reader, > > It may sound a little corny, but over the > Independence Day holiday > last week – amid the parades, barbeques, and > fireworks – I got to > thinking about our freedom of choice. Specifically, > I was thinking > about our freedom to choose from a wide variety of > health care > options, which in a larger sense is the subject of > every day's e- > Alert. > > Unfortunately, there are a few powerful people who > believe we'd > be better off with fewer options. > > ------------------------------- > Double talk > ------------------------------- > > In the e-Alert " WHO Let the Dogs Out " (7/6/04), I > told you about > a new set of World Health Organization (WHO) > guidelines for > developing information on the " proper use " and > regulation of > complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The > introduction > to those guidelines reads: " Since traditional, > complementary and > alternative medicines remain largely unregulated... " > > > Largely unregulated? No one knows better than WHO > officials that > CAM is diligently regulated in scores of countries. > In fact, a set of > regulations will take effect in the European Union > (EU) next year > that will severely restrict access to CAM therapies. > And once > CAM becomes " largely regulated " in the EU, guess > which country > is the next prime target for stricter regulations > and less choice? > > Hint: It's the home of the free and the land of the > brave. > > In previous e-Alerts I examined the " European Union > Directive on > Dietary Supplements. " With the new WHO guidelines > calling for > more regulations worldwide, I thought this would be > a perfect time > to quickly review the directive, catch up on some > recent > developments, and take a look at what's in store for > European and > U.S. citizens who rely on daily supplements. > > ------- > With protection like this, who needs enemies? > ------- > > In August 2005, the following elements of the EU > directive are > expected to become law: > > * Dietary supplements (vitamins, herbal formulas, > and various > nutrients) will be classified as medical drugs and > will be available > by prescription only > * Dosages will be limited to " safe " levels, which in > most cases will > be too low to provide any real therapeutic value > * Many supplement ingredients that are currently > widely available > will become illegal and removed from the market > entirely > > So, what's the point in reducing access to these > useful health tools? > Why, it's for consumer safety, of course! > > The EU directive states: " In order to ensure a high > level of > protection for consumers and facilitate their > choice, the products > that will be put on the market must be safe and bear > adequate and > appropriate labeling. " > > The first half of that statement is widely > recognized as pure > bureaucratic double-speak. Consumer choice will not > be > facilitated, it will be severely reduced. And > consumer protection > will not be ensured, it will be deliberately > withheld. > > ------- > Follow the money > ------- > > Consumers currently enjoy a wide range of choices in > their dietary > supplements. And many consumers rely on these > supplements to > help them prevent health problems and to fight > specific diseases. > Under the directive, millions of European Union > citizens will not > be allowed to practice prevention as they wish, so > any claim of > facilitated choice and a high level of protection is > a transparent > deception. > > You might wonder: Why would the European Union want > its > citizens to have less access to dietary supplements > as a means to > improve their health? > > For the answer to that, just follow the money. > Without access to > prevention, the citizens of EU countries will > inevitably be forced to > rely on prescription drugs. That, of course, would > create a boost in > profits for international pharmaceutical companies, > some of whom > just happen to have direct links to several > influential European > Union commissioners. For instance: one prominent EU > commissioner is also a member of the supervisory > board of the > second largest pharmaceutical company in the world – > Merck, > Sharp and Dohme. > > The logic and economic motivation behind the EU > commissioners' > " high level " of " facilitated " double-speak is all > too clear. > > ------- > Sorry, we're closed > ------- > > Needless to say, the economic effects of the EU > directive will have > a huge impact on many thousands of Europeans > involved in > complementary and alternative medicine. In the UK, > for instance, > it's a forgone conclusion that when the drastically > reduced list of > allowed dietary supplements is enforced, many > supplement > manufacturers will cease production, and an > estimated 2,000 or > more health supplement stores will be unable to stay > in business. > > This is the EU's idea of " protection for consumers. " > And there are > plans afoot to import this debilitating protection > to the U.S. > > There are other important issues to address on this > vital topic. In > tomorrow's e-Alert I'll tell you how the EU > directive may impact > in very negative ways on the future of supplement > availability in > the U.S., give you specifics about the status of > certain supplements > within the directive, and let you know what action > you can take to > lend your voice to the huge public outcry against > this irresponsible > action. > > ************************************************************** > To start receiving your own copy of the HSI e-Alert, > visit: > http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealert/freecopy.html > Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can > sign-up to > receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert. > > ************************************************************** > > ...and another thing > > MeanwhilE... back at rancho pharmaceutical... > > Over the past couple of years I've told you about > several major > studies that have been shut down in order to protect > the health of > study subjects who were taking either estrogen or a > combination of > estrogen and progestin to address symptoms of > menopause. These > two variations on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) > have been > found to create increased risks for several health > problems, > including: > > * Heart disease > * Breast cancer > * Dementia and Alzheimer's disease > * Asthma > * Impaired hearing > > Last month, a new study expanded that list, while > another study > confirmed a previous finding. > > Study number one appeared in the journal > Circulation. A group of > 321 postmenopausal women with atherosclerosis > received > estrogen, estrogen plus progestin or a placebo for > periods ranging > from about two years to three years. At the outset > of the study, 140 > subjects were diagnosed with diabetes or impaired > glucose > tolerance. > > Angiograms before and after the study period > revealed that women > with abnormal glucose tolerance who received HRT had > a higher > risk of heart disease than those who didn't take > medication. > > The lead researcher of the study told Reuters Health > that " People > once thought that hormone therapy could prevent > heart disease in > women. " And why did " people " think that? Because the > early > promoters of HRT told them to think that, even > though these drugs > had not yet been thoroughly tested. > > People were also once told that HRT might help > prevent dementia > and Alzheimer's disease. But in 2003 a study > revealed a link > between HRT use and increased risk of dementia. Last > month that > result was confirmed in research that examined the > effects of > estrogen or placebo on 3,000 women. In a second > group in the > same study, 4,500 women received either placebo or > estrogen > combined with progestin. The result: Women who took > either type > of HRT had a 76 percent higher risk of developing > dementia > compared to women who took a placebo. > > After all the negative results we've seen from HRT > studies over > the past two years, it seems unlikely at this point > that we'll hear > any positive news coming from ongoing research. So > if you're > taking one of these HRT drug therapies yourself, > talk to your > doctor about these studies. Or if you know any women > who are > taking HRT, share this important information with > them. > > To Your Good Health, > > Jenny Thompson > Health Sciences Institute > > ************************************************************** > ************************************************************** > > Sources: > " Directive 2001, EC of the European Parliament and > of the > Council on the Approximation of the Laws of the > Member States > Relating to Food Supplements " European Parliament > Session > Document C5-0640/2001, 12/10/01 > " Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy Is Associated With > Atherosclerosis Progression in Women With Abnormal > Glucose > Tolerance " Circulation, Published online before > print 6/28/04, > circ.ahajournals.org > " Conjugated Equine Estrogens and Incidence of > Probable > Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in > Postmenopausal > Women " Journal of the American Medical Association, > Vol. 291, > No. 24, 6/23/04, jama.ama-assn.org > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.