New Study: FDA-Approved Levels of Aspartame Distort Brain Function, Kill Brain Cells

Nutritional Anarchy

As reported before, aspartame has been shown time and again in studies (the ones not commissioned by the industry) to be bad for you.

Now yet another new study, this one published in the journal Redox Biology, has concluded what lots of other research over the past decades has repeatedly shown — aspartame, the popular sweetener in over 6,000 grocery store items, including everything from soup mixes to carbonated beverages to chewing gum — can essentially program your brain cells to kill themselves.

Key study findings include:
  • Aspartame administration alters the functional activity in the brain by elevating the antioxidant levels.
  • Chronic aspartame consumption altered the neuronal function and neurodegeneration in brain.
  • Observed changes may be due to the methanol or its metabolite.
  • Long-term FDA approved daily acceptable intake (40 mg/kg bwt) aspartame administration distorted the brain function and generated apoptosis in brain regions.
Apoptosis is defined as, “the process of programmed cell death in multicellular organisms. Biochemical events lead to characteristic cell changes and death.”
So even at the FDA acceptable levels, consuming this chemical is just not good for you, no matter what the mega food corporations and their lobbies say.
Aspartame (otherwise known by its brand names NutraSweet and Equal) is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners in foods today. It breaks down into three components: 50 percent phenylalanine, 40 percent aspartic acid, and 10 percent methanol (yummy). It comes from genetically modified (GM) E. coli bacteria, and by “comes from”, I mean aspartame is GM bacteria poop (super yummy). Aspartic acid is an excitotoxin, methanol is the wood alcohol used in antifreeze, and too much of the amino acid phenylalanine in the brain can decrease serotonin levels over time, leading to chemical imbalances that can actually induce mood disorders and depression.
Dr. Mercola has noted that aspartame actually accounts for over 75 percent of adverse food additive reactions reported to the FDA, including:
“Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.”
In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even lists aspartame as a “chemical with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” on its database of developmental neurotoxicants.
It’s the methanol released during aspartame’s metabolism, in this particular case, which these researchers say is helping to generate free radicals that lead to cell damage and death:
This study provides a scientific evidence to conclude that aspartame is toxic to the body system and particularly in brain it increase the free radicals and triggers the apoptosis. Aspartame consumption in a long-term basis may affect the brain. It may be due to its metabolite methanol Aspartame may act as a chemical stressor as indicated by the corticosteroid level. (source)
But I guess we should just keep on consuming it, right?
When I typed “FDA Aspartame” into Google’s search engine to get the FDA’s official take on how safe and wonderful this chemical is for everyone to eat all the time, ironically, the first thing that popped up was a file on the FDA.gov website about aspartame’s toxicity that lists off at least 50 horrible side effects people have experienced from eating and drinking this stuff.
The document, Docket # 02P-0317 Recall Aspartame as a Neurotoxic Drug: File #4: Reported Aspartame Toxicity Reactions by Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, also notes that the FDA admittedly stopped recording aspartame toxicity reactions back in 1995, so its figures on exactly who is being negatively affected by aspartame and how aren’t just sketchy, they’re apparently nonexistent:
 The FDA and NutraSweet have claimed that the number of reported adverse reactions have declined substantially since the mid-1980s (Pauli 1995, Butchko 1994). In addition, the FDA recently claimed that the number of reported toxicity reactions for 1995 was only 11 (WSJ 1996)! It is important to realize that during the mid-1970s the FDA was investigating wrong-doings of the aspartame manufacturer and stated the facts exactly as they found them:
 ”[The manufacturer] lied and they didn’t submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals.” [FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Andrian Gross (Wilson 1985)]
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of key government and FDA officials left their jobs to work with companies related to the aspartame industry (GAO 1986). This included key FDA officials such as the head of the FDA Bureau of Foods becoming a Vice President of the National Drink Association and the FDA Commissioner becoming a high-paid consultant for the manufacturer’s PR firm, Burston Marsteller (Gordon 1987). After this period of time, there was no scientific evidence and no amount of serious toxicity reports that could get the FDA to seriously consider funding independent, properly-conducted (e.g., chronic exposure) research. That appearance of the FDA being under the total control of the manufacturer, Monsanto, continues to this day.
I include these comments about the FDA to demonstrate why no independent scientist familiar with the aspartame issue takes statements from the FDA such as “11 reported reactions in 1995″ seriously.  There are many people, including myself who have received that many toxicity reaction reports in a single day during 1995. The reality is that independent organizations have noted that aspartame toxicity reaction reports given to them have *increased* every year since the late 1980s (Stoddard 1995).  It is also important to note that in mid-1995, the FDA admited that it had stopped recording aspartame toxicity reactions (Food 1995).  That may have something to do with why the numbers that the FDA reported to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ 1996) were so small! (source)
Why does aspartame continue to be approved and allowed in food after food after drink after gum after food?
That might be a good question for our current FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who used to be Vice President of Public Policy and a lawyer for Monsanto. He might have some special insight, considering that Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, back in 1985.
MonsantoGovVenn

New Pig Vaccine to Prevent Cooking Odor by Creating Autoimmune Disease

Gaia Health
by Heidi Stevenson

The FDA and Pfizer avoided the issues of health and safety by simply declaring that there weren’t any. As a result, pork meat from vaccine-castrated pigs has never been tested for safety, nor has the health status of those pigs been considered.

Autoimmune diseases are something we all want to avoid, so why has Pfizer created a vaccine whose purpose is to create precisely that?

It seems that the odor of male pig meat is offensive to most people. Therefore, male pigs destined for the dinner plate are castrated. That is, of course, an inhumane procedure, especially as it’s generally done without anesthetics. Nonetheless, the implications of a vaccine whose purpose is to do the same thing need to be addressed. As we’ll see, the FDA and, of course, Pfizer, avoided the issues by simply declaring that there weren’t any. As a result, pork meat from vaccine-castrated pigs has never been tested for safety, nor has the health status of those pigs been considered.

What the Vaccine Does

Called Improvest by Pfizer, the vaccine’s technical name is Gonadotropin Releasing Factor Analog – Diphtheria Toxoid conjugate (GnRF analog-DT conjugate). It is given twice, when the pig is at least 9 weeks of age and again at least 4 weeks later. The first dose, according to Pfizer, “primes the pig’s immune system”(1). The second dose, again according to Pfizer, “creates the effective immune response”, as shown in the graph.

The result is effective castration by creating an immune response against gonadotropin releasing factor analog (GRFA), a hormone that’s required for maturation. It’s also known to be associated with releasing growth hormones. The full range of its effects is not known, but it is known to be produced in neural cells and is found in organs where its function is unknown.

No Testing for Safety in Pigs or Humans

In approving Improvest, the FDA had absolutely no concern for the welfare of the pigs. Whether it caused discomfort or pain was never a consideration. This is bad enough, because it indicates that animal welfare is of absolutely no concern to the FDA. However, the same is also true of human welfare. Here are areas of human health that the FDA opted not to look into, with quotes from the FDA document, “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION SUMMARY – SUPPLEMENTAL NEW ANIMAL DRUG APPLICATION. IMPROVEST”:

Microbial Food Safety: “The Agency has determined that an assessment of the microbial food safety for the use of IMPROVEST in intact boars pursuant to this supplemental approval (extension of the slaughter interval following injection of the second dose of IMPROVEST) was not necessary.”

Impact of Residues on Human Intestinal Flora: “The Agency has determined that an assessment of the impact of IMPROVEST on human intestinal flora pursuant to the conditions of this supplemental approval (extension of the slaughter interval following injection of the second dose of IMPROVEST) was not necessary.”

Toxicology: “CVM did not require toxicology studies for this supplemental approval.” [Note: CVM is the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine”.]

Assignment of the Final ADI: “No reassessment of the toxicological ADI or toxicological ASDI was needed for this supplemental approval.”

Safe Concentrations for Total Residues (edible tissues and injection sites): “No reassessment of the safe concentrations for total residues was needed for this supplemental approval.”

Residue Chemistry: “CVM did not require residue chemistry studies for this supplemental approval.”

Clearly, the FDA simply decided that meat from pigs given Improvest is safe to eat without testing whether it is. They showed the same amount of concern for the health and comfort of the pigs: “CVM did not require target animal safety studies for this supplemental approval.”

The only testing was for Improvest’s ability to remove the odor from male pig meat.

This utter lack of concern for potential harmful effects of Improvest comes in the face of knowledge that the total range of effects of the substance that it makes the immune system target, GRFA, is unknown. How can they possibly presume safety in such a circumstance?

Where the Vaccine Is Used

The simple answer to where this new vaccine is used is everywhere. At least 60 countries have approved it, including the European Union, Australia, and Japan. It goes by the name of Improvac outside the United States.

Dishonesty in Selling Improvest

As ever, the public is misled about the effects of a pharmaceutical product. People are rapidly becoming aware that it’s dangerous to play with hormones. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) proved to cause the very conditions it was supposed to prevent. Steroids are known to be dangerous and some are illegal for use as body-building enhancers. So, naturally, this vaccine that acts by turning the body’s immune system against a substance required for releasing hormones is of concern.

The way that Pfizer deals with this concern is through sleight of hand. In “Keeping Pork Delicious”(3), Pfizer asks the misleading question: “Is Improvest a hormone?” The answer to that is, of course, no. Improvest is a vaccine, and the vaccine does not contain a hormone, nor does it cause an autoimmune response against a hormone.

That leaves the reader with a completely misleading impression about how Improvest functions. No, it isn’t a hormone, but it has a dramatic effect on hormones by creating an autoimmune response against GRFA, which is required to release certain hormones.

They also claim that no residue is left in the meat, but interestingly, they don’t cite their own studies. Instead, they state, “There are no residues in the meat from IMPROVEST that could affect human health, according to the FDA.” [Note: Emphasis is Pfizer’s.] However, as noted in the list above, there was no testing done to determine if there were residues, microbes, or impacts on intestinal flora in humans. Therefore, we quite literally do not know the truth.

However, Pfizer has freed itself of liability by pointing a finger at the FDA, the agency that is supposed to look out for our welfare in the face of new pharmaceutical products, but quite clearly has completely abdicated any responsibility in the case of Improvest.

Labeling

It would, of course, be helpful to know when we’re buying pork from pigs that are given this vaccine. Of course, that’s a futile wish. No such labeling is done. Therefore, if you hope to protect yourself from any potential harm, you have two choices. You may simply not eat pork, or you must eat only pork that is organic, preferably from sources that you know and trust.

This is simply another example that the food supply has been coopted by multinational corporate interests for the sole purpose of profit. The health effects on humans and the welfare of animals is of no concern, and Agribusiness’s wholly owned agencies, such as the FDA, now work for them—not for us.

Irradiation of Food Induces Radioactivity: Government Claims That It Doesn’t Are Lies

Gaia Health

We are routinely told that irradiation can’t possibly make food radioactive. It’s a lie.

The official stance of both the US and UK, that radiation is not induced by the process, is false. It is, in fact, an outright lie. It has been understood for decades that irradiation of food renders it radioactive. The question isn’t whether it happens. The question is how serious the health risk is.

The fact that food irradiation carries significant and well-documented danger to health should have resulted in it being stopped before it was ever implemented. That it hasn’t tells us all we need to know about the purpose of our regulatory agencies.

Ultimately, though, what’s more upsetting is learning that we’ve been outright lied to about the most fearful aspect of food irradiation. Radioactivity is induced by it.

Documentation for Irradiation-Induced Radioactivity

No less an authority than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has clearly documented that irradiation of food induces radioactivity. Medical journals have documented it. The FDA regulates the acceptable amount of induced radiation in food packaging, all the while claiming that the food itself isn’t affected!

While documenting that irradiation induces radioactivity in food, the IAEA’s report(1) tries to diminish its significance by comparing it with background radiation. However, it isn’t a matter of one or the other, background radiation or irradiation-induced radiation. It’s the sum of both that matters—not to mention other sources that should be added in, such as medical test devices and airport scanners. They are all additive.

Another problem is that food is ingested. Foods that have become more radioactive through irradiation are taken into the body and become part of the cellular makeup. Therefore, the effects of irradiation-induced radiation in foods may be worse than other sources.

Should We Be Concerned About Irradiation-Induced Radioactivity in Food?

Exactly how bad is irradiation-induced food radioactivity? That’s a good question—one that is studiously ignored by the powers-that-be. After all, it’s rather difficult to do research on something when the official stance is that the problem doesn’t exist.

Of course, we do know that many studies documenting harm from irradiated foods have been done. Interestingly, much of that harm tends to coincide with the sort of damage done by radiation.

FDA Once Banned Irradiation

In 1968, the FDA ended the practice of irradiating bacon for military personnel after learning that lab animals fed irradiated food died early and suffered from a rare cancer, other tumors, reproductive problems and inadequate weight gain. All of these are associated with radiation exposure…yet the FDA now says that irradiation doesn’t harm foods or make them radioactive.

EPA’s Gambit

This is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) answer to the question(2), Can irradiation make food radioactive?

No. Food does not come in contact with radioactive material during food irradiation, and cannot be contaminated this way. Radiation that is too energetic, however, can disrupt the energy balance in the nuclei of food atoms, making them unstable (radioactive). This is known as induced radioactivity.

Electron and x-ray beams can be energetic enough to induce radioactivity. To prevent induced radioactivity, FDA limits the energy of the radiation from these sources to less than 4 mega-electron volts. Radiation from cobalt-60 sources is not energetic enough to induce radioactivity.

Isn’t that cute? First, the EPA answers with an unequivocal no, stating that food “cannot be contaminated this way”. Then, they go on to describe two methods that can induce radioactivity, while claiming that the FDA’s limits prevent it from happening. But, that simply is not true. The IAEA’s report clarifies that fact.

Irradiation Methods

There are three methods of irradiating food: gamma rays, x-rays, and electron beams. At first glance, it would seem that electron beams and x-rays would be preferable, since they are not radioactive. The issue, though, isn’t whether the tool used to irradiate foods is radioactive, but whether it results in radioactivity in the food. Remarkably, there is some information to indicate that x-rays produce more radiation in food than the other methods.

Comparisons between irradiation methods can be difficult. Further complicating things is that different elements in foods react differently. Iodine, for example, is a necessary nutrient that is easily made radioactive, and is the element on which most emphasis is placed. Because different foods respond in different ways, absolute conclusions about all foods and all methods of irradiation can’t be made. However, some generalities can be drawn.

A paper entitled Report on the Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods (The Report) was produced in 1985 by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods, a UK agency. It was reviewed by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), which concluded the following:

The Report clearly stated that gamma rays and high-speed electrons can induce radioactivity in food.

Read more here

Does the CDC Tell the Truth About Vaccines and Immunizations?

Daily Bell

Measles cases reached 15-year high in 2011: CDC … Measles cases in the United States hit a 15-year high in 2011, with 90 percent of the cases traced to other countries with lower immunization rates, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Thursday. There were 222 cases of measles in the United States last year, more than triple the usual number, the CDC said. There had been only about 60 cases per year between 2001 and 2010. No one has died of the disease in the United States since 2008. But approximately 20 million people contract the measles virus each year worldwide, and about 164,000 die from it, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the health agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The agency said in 2000 that home-grown measles had been eliminated, but cases continued to arrive in the United States from abroad. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: People have to understand that vaccines are good for them, all of them.

Free-Market Analysis: The vaccine wars are heating up and now the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stepped in to let us know that measles is on the rise. Should we believe it?

Once we would have without question. Even the name of the CDC inspires confidence and authority. But what we’ve found out about vaccines, thanks to the Internet, has made us question some of the fundamentals of modern Western medicine.

Anybody reading that measles cases were increasing, according to the CDC, would surely accept such an innocent and factual statement. But having become increasingly aware that all is not always as it seems, we went looking to see if the CDC perhaps fudged statistics.

The answer? A qualified “yes.” This is what we found from some “ThinkTwice!” correspondence posted on the Internet. ThinkTwice bills itself as a “global vaccine network.” The documents are public record, though we would doubt much was ever done to rectify the situations they describe. Here’s an intro to the ThinkTwice documents:

Scientific Fraud and Vaccines … The Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute occasionally receives email from drug company insiders – people who truly know what goes on behind closed doors. We also receive undisclosed information from CDC, FDA and other government insiders, ethical people who wish to speak out against the scientific fraud that they observed or were forced to participate in. Usually they request anonymity and that their information not be made public for fear of legal retaliation – or worse.

Here’s an excerpt from one letter posted on the website:

Thinktwice! recently received from a research analyst who spent 7 years working for the CDC to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the chickenpox vaccine. This analyst quit in disgust when he found that his data proving serious problems with this vaccine was suppressed.

Q. Dear Editor, I have read with great interest various items on your website. First of all, please let me introduce myself. I have served as Research Analyst on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project, one of three sites supported by a grant from the CDC, for the past 7 years. I recently resigned from this position as I encountered deleterious effects of the varicella vaccine (including increasing incidence of Herpes Zoster among children with prior wild-type varicella experience) which appeared to be suppressed by my supervisors and the CDC; while all positive results were published.

I have three manuscripts that have much technical merit, however, like other manuscripts that support increased incidence of HZ among adults by Brisson et al and Thomas et al, the major U.S. journals (such as Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) will not consider them for publication. Do you have any recommendations on other journals, even European ones that might be more objective?

Is there an appropriate manner in which to have the manuscripts objectively peer-reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed journal? Dr. Philip R. Krause, head research scientist of the Biologics Lab of the FDA, had done a preliminary review of one of my manuscripts and suggested there was indeed some merit to the hypotheses presented.

I have also, unbelievably found great manipulation of data by CDC suggesting “no increases in herpes zoster at this time.” Yet, they utilized a study that had insufficient power and too small of a sample size to detect increases in incidence less than 400%.

We can see from the above correspondence that significant questions are being raised about CDC data. What then are we to make about the bland statement now issued by the CDC via Reuters that “There have been more than 25 measles cases reported so far in 2012, most of them imported…”?

And their elaboration: “The virus can easily enter the country through foreign visitors or Americans traveling abroad who bring the disease back with them … Measles cases were found in 31 states in 2011. Last year’s count marked the highest number of cases since 1996, when there were 508 cases in the United States.”

Are these data accurate? We assume so (don’t we?). But we also believe a case is likely being made by public health authorities that people MUST take vaccines in order to create “herd immunity.”

As we’ve been reporting for years, there is increased controversy about vaccines, including about their effectiveness and the side effects. Just yesterday, in an article entitled “Is the Vaccine Industry Beginning to Fail?” we wrote the following:

Here at the Daily Bell, we track these dominant social themes that are used to frighten people into giving up power and control to the globalist institutions that are meant to run the world. We’re not sure why the dynastic central banking families apparently want one-world government, but they sure seem to.

And while they’re at it, they want control over our minds, habitats and above all, our bodies. Vaccines were a big part of that control. But this meme is falling to pieces. Turns out, as we’ve documented, that vaccines were never double-blind tested, for “ethical” reasons. And that the statistics that brought vaccines into force were fudged.

And then there is the extraordinary persecution of Andrew Wakefield, who had the temerity to explain that SOME children might have bad reactions to vaccines. It is malodorous and immoral for the medical profession to continue to pump children full of mercury and dead viruses (or live ones) when it knows collectively by now that a certain percentage of children will get sick from these vaccines.

On top of it, for anyone who examines the record without bias, the questions about vaccines and their efficacy are mounting daily. Just because the mainstream media – controlled by the same elites that own the large pharmaceutical companies – claim something is so doesn’t make it true. Prove it, we say.

Presumably, those who have been immunized won’t get the diseases they’ve been immunized against. That means those who have NOT been immunized may catch the disease, assuming that vaccines actually repel diseases, which is increasingly being shown to be untrue.

This seems to be the issue that Western medicine must grapple with: Is it fair to demand that all youngsters be immunized when some will likely suffer from side-effects that will result in injury or death?

The answer would be that, supposedly, vaccinations eradicate disease for all – even those who have not received vaccines but who benefit from the larger herd immunity. Granted this is a percentage of all children in a given region. But meanwhile, other children are likely suffering from the side effects of vaccines.

As more and more vaccines are given, the likelihood of increased injury from vaccinations rises. At what point does the trade-off become intolerable?

And here is a larger question: Who empowered public health officials to decide that the injury to some children was a tolerable side-effect to ensure a larger “herd immunity”?

And here is a larger question still: Are there any GOOD figures for the efficacy of vaccines? We know from past research that, for instance, the original claims regarding the polio vaccine were fudged. We know as well that vaccines were apparently never subject to double-blind testing, for “ethical” reasons.

And now, as a result of some preliminary digging on the Internet, we discover that the CDC, which keeps statistics on such things, is itself seemingly unreliable.

We begin to wonder what exactly is true when it comes to vaccines and what is being, well … covered up.

What we call the Internet Reformation is creating the questions – not just for us but for others as well. As time goes on, even the fundamental tenets of social verities are questioned with greater or lesser energy.

The Roman Catholic Church suffered the same fate during the Reformation after the Gutenberg Press allowed people to read the Bible. Of course, the world didn’t end then – when people discovered that institutions they’d trusted in were unreliable.

The world won’t end now. But chances are the information WILL come out at some point. We’re too far down the track. That goes for vaccines and for other verities as well.

Conclusion: As the elite’s dominant social themes begin to collapse, the truth of some variant of it shall emerge. Metaphorically speaking, these elite memes are, perhaps, a kind of “dead men walking.”

FDA Targets Nanoparticles in Food, Appliances Over Health Risks

Natural Society

Although not known by many people, a number of companies and manufacturers are actually using tiny, engineered particles in consumer products, food, and even clothing. These particles are called nanoparticles, which can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause potential bodily harm. Due to the questionable safety of nanoparticles, regulators are proposing that any company or manufacturer that wants to use nanoparticles in packaging has to prove products are safe through additional testing.

Nanoparticles Usage in Food to Undergo Additional Scrutiny
According to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), over 1,300 manufacturer nanotechnology-enabled products are in the global commercial marketplace. Nanoparticles can be found in car batteries, appliances, aluminum foil, non-stick cookware, and is especially present in health and fitness items. The Food and Drug Administration, though, has recently issued new trial guidelines for nanoparticle users.

“At this point, in terms of the science, we think it’s likely the exemption does not apply and we would encourage folks to come in and talk to us…This is an emerging, evolving technology and we’re trying to get ahead of the curb to ensure the ingredients and substances are safe,” said Dennis Keefe, director of FDA’s office of food additive safety.

Nanotechnology is much like organism-based biotechnology, where even supporters of the technologies know there needs to be more long term testing to determine safety. Like genetically modified foods, nanoparticles are being warned against solely based on the lack of thorough safety (in addition to the known complications). Similarly, nanotechnology is believed by some to be the ‘next industrial revolution’, but like genetically modified foods, it has never been proven totally safe for use or consumption.

One study published in the journal Nature titled “Oral exposure to polystyrene nanoparticles affects iron absorption” found that intestinal changes affecting iron absorption occur due to polystyrene nanoparticles. They also expect to see an alteration in absorption of calcium, copper, zinc, and vitamins A, D, E, and K. Another study conducted in 2004 found that nanoparticles cause brain damage in fish and other aquatic species.

The FDA will take comments on the proposal for 90 days, but there is no deadline for the finalization of the documents.

FDA Raids Herbal Distributor Over Cancer Remedies

Natural Society
Patrick Gallagher

It’s no secret that the FDA is responsible for some of the most vastly detrimental products on the consumer market, but did you know that they are capable of raiding and confiscating ‘potentially harmful’ substances that only they arbitrate?

Indeed, the FDA, known benefactors of big pharma, have been succeeding in their rampage across natural health remedy stores, and they could be coming to your town next.

After an alleged complaint against the ‘Notion-n-things’ store in Missouri, the State department of Health and Senior Services managed to embargo the company’s herbal products. Only as recently as three weeks ago did the district judge sign the order for seizure of those products.

 Remember, this is the same organization that has declared walnuts to be illegal drugs.

 The three products now in custody of the FDA are Chickweed Healing Salve, a product based on comfrey; To-Mor-Gone, a product developed for the treatment of cancer; and R.E.P., a natural remedy for various headaches and sinus infections. The FDA’s only reasoning for seizure of the products is that they do not have properly labeled information; something that they are far too concerned with rather than for the health of the American people.

 Of course, none of these products had been approved by the FDA as a safe or effective method of treatment for their prescribed usage, and as such are considered unapproved – and illegal – drugs. The FDA has not yet conducted a formal review of any of these products in order to determine if they actually work or not; either way, the administration describes them as ‘misbranded’ and ‘false’ products.

 The FDA, spoken for by Dara Corrigan, admitted that the administrations’ concerns with these three products, and many others like them, is that cancer patients will choose them over their own ‘effective and proven’ treatments. In other words, only something that the FDA has approved is a valid method of treatment for cancer, and any sort of home or locally manufactured remedy is not only invalid, but also unlawful.