INFANTS IN YOUR BED?

Do you think infants should sleep with their parents?

The following letter appeared in the November issue of The Archives of Adolescent and Pediatric Medicine, which is a publication of the American Medical Association.  I have included the entire text, as it contains lots of interesting information and many good references.

“Don’t sleep with your baby or put the baby down to sleep in an adult bed.”  Ann Brown, chair of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Voiced this statement in the 9/30/99, New York Times through a CPSC press release.

The release previewed data from an October 1999 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine study entitled “Review of Hazards Associated with Children Placed in Adult Beds.”  The news flew over the associated Press wires, and emotionally charged commentaries were printed in newspapers and magazines nationwide, a clear indication of the public interest on this issue.  Numerous websites espouse the benefits of co-sleeping, also reflecting current interest in the family bed concept.

Historically, co-sleeping in this country was the normal practice.

Today, the practice of co-sleeping is standard for most non-Western cultures and is common in the US, yet  it’s probable that many pediatricians in this country, like the CPSC chairperson, counsel new parents to sleep separately from their infants.  This is one of many areas where physicians may counsel families based on few, or anecdotal data, in contrast to the recent trend toward evidence-based medicine.

What are the potential risks and benefits of co-sleeping?

Are there enough data to support encouraging or discouraging this common practice?  This commentary will review the relevant literature on this subject, enabling pediatricians to more knowledgeably counsel families about co-sleeping.

And because professionals in the field of health often receive information that isn’t shared with the general public, unfortunately, I like to do what I think is best, after all, who cares more for their babies then the parents?

Potential Benefits of Co-sleeping

From a biological perspective, co-sleeping is a natural extension of infant care practice.  Among mammals, human infants are born the most neurologically immature, needing close human contact for basic survival.  Mammals need close physical contact for more than just nutritional needs.  Harlow’s work demonstrated that newborn monkeys separated from their mothers spent significantly more time in contact with a cloth surrogate mother than a wire one, even if th wire surrogate provided all of the infant’s nutrition.

Recent work by Mosko et al has shown that the sleep architecture of infants who co-sleep is qualitatively different.  Healthy mother-infant pairs were studied in the sleep laboratory sleeping either alone or together.  While bed sharing, infants had significantly longer total sleep time, a greater duration and percentage of stage – half sleep, shorter duration and lower percentage of stage – three-quarters sleep (quiet sleep).

The authors postulate that if sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is caused by an arousal deficiency, then less time spent in quiet sleep through co-sleeping may be protective.

This same group observed patterns of breast-feeding in the sleep laboratory between those who routinely co-slept and those who did not.  For infants who routinely bed shared, the number and duration of breast-feeding episodes were significantly greater on the bed-sharing night.  The authors concluded that bed sharing promotes breast-feeding.

There are many professionals and parents who strongly advocate co-sleeping as the optimal way to raise a child.  Sears, author of Nighttime Parenting, advocates “attachment parenting,” a concept that includes the possibility of various sleeping arrangements, depending on the needs of the family.

Co-sleeping and SIDS

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (Atlanta, Ga) surveillance data between 1980 and 1994, SIDS was the leading cause of death among infants aged 28 to 364 days, accounting for 33% of all post-neonatal deaths.  The annual rate of decline of SIDS deaths in the U.S. was more than 3 times faster from 1990 to 1994 than from 1083 to 1989; the latter dates coincide with national efforts placed on educating families about the risks of prone sleeping.

Does co-sleeping increase the risk of SIDS?  Several studies have attempted to answer this question.  Results from the 3 most recent and comprehensive investigations.  These studies drew similar conclusions; there is no detectable increase risk of SIDS from co-sleeping unless the mother smokes.  Recall bias and residual confounding many have disforested results from these studies.  However, point estimates for the relative risk of SIDS while co-sleeping (and smoke free) were remarkably similar and close to unity in all 3 studies.

Co-sleeping and Suffocation

Another major concern involving the practice of co-sleeping is the risk of
suffocation, a fear dating back to biblical times.  (In 1 Kings, chapter 3, one woman accused another of having “overlaid” her newborn.)

Drago and Dannenberg reviewed 2178 case summaries from the CPSC Death Certificate Files from 1980 to 1997, for infants younger than 13 months, whose deaths were attributed to mechanical suffocation.

The leading pattern (40% of cases) of suffocation was wedging (infant is trapped between 2 products or parts of a product).  More than half of the wedgings involved a bed; 22% occurred in a crib.  Further investigation revealed that many of these cribs didn’t meet current federal crib standards.  The second leading cause (24% of cases) of suffocation death was due to nasal obstruction from bedding, pillows, and plastic bags.  The third cause (8% of cases) was from infants being overlain by another person.

Another article, published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, reviewed the CPSC’s databases from 1990 to 1997 for deaths of children aged younger than 2 years who were placed in adult beds, day beds, and waterbeds.  There were 515 deaths in children younger than 2 years who were placed to sleep in an adult bed, with 394 of these deaths attributed to entrapment in the bed.

A total of 121 deaths were attributed to overlying by a parent, sibling, or other adult.  During the same period, there were 17 deaths of children older than 2 years sleeping in adult beds, 8 of which occurred in severely disabled children.  Although the authors did not investigate deaths of children placed in cribs, they did cite another CPSC study from 1989 t0 1991, which found an average of 50 accidental deaths per year in cribs, compared with an average of 64 deaths per day in adult beds.

The authors maintain that mothers should be encouraged to breast-feed, but recommend they be “alerted to the hazard of overlying” if the mother and infant fall asleep together after feeding, which is likely to be a common occurrence.

Unfortunately, the CPSC data only represent a case series and aren’t denominator-based, making it impossible to ascertain the relative risk of death for infants who co-sleep.  There is also no possibility of ascertaining the accuracy of the information derived from the databases.  Last, how many infants were sleeping with parents impaired by alcohol or other drugs?  How many were sleeping with a sibling vs a parent (another potential risk factor)?

To put the risk of suffocation into perspective, the post-neonatal injury death rate per 100,000 live births of white infants in 1994 was 22, of which nearly a third were due to suffocation.  This is less than one tenth of the mortality rate from SIDS for the same cohort.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a statement on this topic.  Although co-sleeping is not encouraged, it’s not discouraged either, assuming that the sleep environment is otherwise safe, the infant is supine, and co-sleepers do not smoke or use other drugs that impair arousal.

Recommendations

To my knowledge, to date, the literature offers insufficient data to recommend or discourage babies and parents from co-sleeping.  Meanwhile, many parents and healthcare professionals believe that co-sleeping is the best way to raise a baby physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally.

Therefore, are pediatricians justified in condemning the family bed, making parents feel guilty about harming their baby?  Clearly, pediatricians must counsel families about the dangerous of smoking, drinking alcohol, or taking drugs that impair arousal, and the potential for infant suffocation in beds, cribs, and bedding.  However, until there is more compelling evidence, the decision to co-sleep, like many other child rearing practices, should be left to the family.

Catherine Kelley, MD, University Hospital, Department of Pediatrics. I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Kelley that physicians should keep their noses out of the business of parents’ person child rearing practices, particularly when there is insufficient evidence to back up their claims.  The co-sleeping arrangement may not be suitable for all families, but parents should not be scared away from it unnecessarily.

What doctor’s should do however, is discuss the issue or provide information to parents concerning how to keep such a sleeping arrangement as safe as possible.  Some of these recommendations would be as follows: 

   *       The safest arrangement, according to William Sears, MD, is for the infant to sleep between the breast-feeding mother and the edge of the bed, with an adequate barrier to prevent the baby from falling off.  This removes any risk of suffocation from the father.  Many experts have noted that there is a connection or awareness of the baby between mother and child that does not exist with the father.  I would stress that this in no way means the father loves the baby any less.  The mother’s special bond is simply a protective biological mechanism.

*       If the baby is to sleep between mother and father in the middle of the bed, extra care and precautions should be taken, particularly concerning the father.

*       Co-sleeping mothers particularly should try to breast-feed their babies, as that special biological bond discussed previously will be much more acute and in tune with the baby.

*       Do not sleep with the baby if you have had any alcoholic beverages.

*      Do not sleep with the baby if you’re very overtired or fatigued enough to impair your ability to awaken during the night.

If the father has gone out and had a few alcoholic drinks or is overtired for whatever reason, it would be much safer for him to sleep on the couch, than to sleep next to a newborn baby.

Most of the risks associated with co-sleeping tend to decline rapidly as the baby grows, but care should still be exercised with children of all ages.

Hope this is information that some of you can use today, or may have family and friends that should read this article.  Remember, that knowing is the first step in making wise decisions for you and those you love.  OK?

Dr. Rhonda – helping you to –

Plan for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY

 

Website:                www.drhenry.com

Email:                   contact@drhenry.com

Office:                   702-269-8120

Infant DIE…t

May Raise Adult Obesity Risk!

New mothers with newborn babies, and sometimes even women who are not first-time mothers, often find themselves at a loss when a baby is still fussy despite being fed and dry-bottomed.  Unfortunately, the first inclination is to feed more, which is often not the answer at all.  In fact, what we feed our babies is very important, and the early introduction of cereals and juices and giving babies high carbohydrate infant formulas may cause an increased risk for obesity in later years.

Feeding our babies in this manner is called “metabolic programming,” and the risks associated with it may carry over into future generations, according to the findings of a recent study.
The study, the results revealed that rats fed with high-carbohydrate diets as infants or early in life exhibited over-production of insulin and permanent changes in their pancreatic cells.  The insulin abnormality is a contributor to human adult obesity.  The children of the high-carbohydrate female rats became obese with high insulin levels as they matured.

————————–

“Overfeeding of formula and

early introduction of

supplemental weaning foods …

May be the culprits.”

We are always looking at what happens later in life.  Maybe we should be looking at the role of early metabolic programming.  Metabolic signals in the body reset in response to high carbohydrate diets, this induces the permanent changes in the rats.

Overfeeding of formula and early introduction of supplemental weaning foods such as cereals, fruits, and juices that are high in carbohydrates may be the culprits.

So what does this mean to us?  Obviously, it means that mothers have to fight the urge to feed fussy infants cereal to get them to sleep.
Instead, try giving them more formula, or changing formulas.  Ask your natural-oriented doctor for solutions before deciding it’s time to add foods and juices to your baby’s diet – if you don’t, you just might be making a fat adult.

 

It’s every mother or caretakers responsibility to feed your child properly – when you start them off with junk – their bodies become a garbage full of chemicals, toxins, pesticides, etc.  They deserve better – don’t you agree?

Besides, you don’t want to make your child a food addict – let your mistakes be their blessing.

Dr. Rhonda

 

If you need assistance, here’s my contact information:

Website:          www.drhenry.com

Email inquiries:                 contact@drhenry.com

Las Vegas Office:              702-269–8120

 

Health is Wealth so start

Planning for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!™

For YOU and YOURS!

Walk or Pay…

If you were paid to exercise, would you engage in more healthy physical activity?  When a health insurance company tried out that kind of program, the results were pretty striking.

Obese people enrolled in Blue Cross in Michigan were given a choice.  Do more walking (measured with pedometers that tracked their steps) or pay 20% more for health insurance.  Some people were unhappy with the program, but 87% of the people complied and took an average of 5,000 steps a day.

“There are ethical debates around the idea of forcing someone to be personally responsible for health care costs related to not exercising, but we expect to see more of these approaches to financially motivate healthier behaviors,” says researcher Caroline R. Richardson.  “Our evaluation of Blue Care’s incentivized program showed a surprisingly high rate of people who enrolled in the Internet-mediated walking program and stuck with it-even among those who were initially hostile to the idea.  Wellness interventions like this clearly hold significant promise for encouraging physical activity among adults who are obese.”

Many people in the program saved about $2,000 a year walking.

So, let me ask my readers – what do you think of this approach?  I sincerely want you to drop me a line and let me know how you feel about this controversial approach to helping the obese (and remember, as an ex-311 pounder) – The leading causes of illness, disease and ultimately early death is the food we put in our mouths – then we as a society pay.  Now it’s your turn!

And that’s why with every blog, I try to remind you of how important you should be to you, and that’s why I close with: Plan for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!™

Dr. Rhonda

Temporary website:              www.drhenry.com

Email inquiries:                     contact@drhenry.com

Las Vegas Office:                  702-269-8120 for appointments, or…

What about Nutella?

Answer to Nut Butters

 

Q: Are some nut butters more nutritious than others?

     What about Nutella?

 

For those of you who follow my blogs you know I normally answer questions directly to the person who has left me a message, but, I guess the mass advertisement has caused a couple of folks to bring this up.

A: All nut butters – from almond and cashew to macadamia and walnut – have something healthful to offer.  But go easy on Nutella.

Nut butters provide healthful fats, protein, a little fiber, and an array of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals.  Their specific nutrients vary somewhat, though, depending on the type of nut.  Walnut butter, for instance, is richest in alpha-linolenic acid an omega-3 fat, while almond butter provides a small amount of calcium (60 milligrams per tablespoon) and the most fiber (2 grams).

Studies have shown that all kinds of nuts help improve cholesterol levels and have other heart-healthy effects.  There’s no reason to think that plain nut butters wouldn’t have the same benefits.  One study linked peanut butter consumption in women (a tablespoon most days of the week) to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Many nut butters contain just ground-up nuts.  But some have added salt and sugar.  Some also contain small amounts of partially hydrogenated oil, a source of unhealthful trans fats, to keep them from separating; others use palm oil, whose health effects are unclear (but I wouldn’t consume).  All nut butters have about 100 calories per tablespoon.

Soy nut butter is another option.  It tastes somewhat like peanut butter but is lower in fat and calories and higher in protein.  However, recent research has shown that soy may be in question and I will deal with this in another blog.

Nutella, a chocolate-hazelnut spread, is a different story.  The original recipe was developed in Italy during World War 11 when cocoa supplies were low and hazelnuts were plentiful.  But its main ingredients today are sugar (11 grams per tablespoon, providing about 40% of the calories) and palm oil, followed by hazelnuts, cocoa solids, and skin milk.  If I had a child, I certainly would not give then this and as the commercial is proud to say that mother has sent her children off with a good breakfast.  I can tell you honestly, my cats eat healthier.

For those of you who follow my online radio shows, you know I say it as it is and even tell what some would be the negative of me, but if it helps just one person – I’m happy.  All this to say, I love peanut butter, but I only buy organic, and I’m grateful to know the difference and share it with all of you.

PLASTIC BAG BAN!

To date, their dream hasn’t been realized, but it’s certainly not from lack of trying.  In fact, one of the most recent attempts to ban the plastic bags was via Assembly Bill (AB) 298, which was a bill to ban single-use plastic bags statewide at supermarkets, retail pharmacies and convenience stores in California starting in 2014.  AB 298 would have also required retailers to provide reusable bags for sale and to charge a fee for recycled paper bags – all to give incentives to people to remember to use their reusable bags. Unfortunately, AB 298 failed to pass the California State Senate.

But that won’t stop Californians from their bag-ban mission.  In fact, in a little over the past two years, over 50 California cities or counties have voted to ban single-use plastic bags.  When all of those ordinances go into effect, then nearly one-third, or approximately 38 million, of Californians will reside in plastic bag-free communities.  That in itself is a win, but Californians won’t stop until they accomplish the dream.

Banning the plastic bags is not just a trendy bandwagon to jump on, either.  Plastic bags have serious consequences for beaches and other waters, marine life and other wildlife, and even for the land-based taxpayers.  Truth be told, single-use plastic bags are one of the most common forms of waste found on beaches that make their way into the ocean, becoming a part of what’s called the “Great Floating Garbage Patch” or the “Pacific Gyre.”  (By the way, there’s also one in the Atlantic Ocean – a similar story, but a different location.)

In fact, over the last 25 years, 7,825,319 plastic bags were collected from beaches around the world.  Plastic bags can also clog drains and create mosquito breeding grounds during warmer months, resulting in other health consequences.

Adding to the plastic-bag nemesis is that plastic bags nearly indefinitely – since they’re not biodegradable – to continually work their damage.  What’s more is that of the 115 billion plastic bags used nationally each year, only a dismal 5% are recycled.  (California alone uses a whopping 12 billion plastic bags a year.)

Likewise, pollution from those plastic bags directly affects 267 animal species annually, including whales, fish, birds and turtles.  Speaking of turtles … the Pacific Leatherback sea turtle, which consumed jellyfish, can mistake plastic bags for jellyfish.  Unfortunately, one-third of adult turtles have consumed the plastic, which undoubtedly adds to the reason why the Leatherback sea turtle population has declined by 95% in the last 20 years.  Additionally, plastic bags make their way into wilderness areas where they can choke and kill animals.

Marine life and wildlife are not the only ones who pay the cost of plastic bags, however.  California taxpayers spend approximately $25 million each year to landfill used plastic bags – money which could certainly be used for better purposed.  L.A. County alone spends $24 million on litter prevention, cleanup efforts and enforcement, with plastic bags weighing in significantly on those costs.

Getting rid of those plastic bags could also result in Green jobs in California, as there are currently 15 reusable bag companies based in California.  One of those companies, Green Vets, could see more jobs created for disabled veterans if there could be a statewide plastic-bag ban law.  The bottom line is that there is so much good that can come from getting rid of those plastic bags.

Unfortunately, Californians haven’t seen the plastic bag ban realized – yet!  They will keep trying, however, while the rest of the nation watch expectantly.

So I have a suggestion that would really help our environment and that is that each month we buy at least one reusable shopping bag, in this way, we are all responsible Americans.  Second, recycle all plastic so that you’re not part of the problem, but part of the solution.

We can’t continue to complain and not do anything.  It’s up to each one to start doing what is right – don’t worry about others – you and your household is all you have to concern yourself with – the others, one way or another, they will catch on.

Do realize that every time we do something like this we’re saving the world for our kids and their kids.  Understand, every small effort becomes really big down the road – so let’s all get started being good citizens.

Dr. Rhonda

Temporary website:          www.drhenry.com

Email inquiries:                 contact@drhenry.com

Las Vegas Office:              702-269-8120

PET PERKS:

 

Whether it be Smokie your canine companion, or Mollie, Maygen, and Maxie Boy, my feline kids – or even if you have both – you’re most likely reaping health benefits by having then as your pet. Why?

Studies indicate that having a pet can help:

*      lower stress levels

*      decrease blood pressure

*      support healthy cholesterol levels

*       improve our moods

*       boost our immunity, and more

For example, many studies, including some via the National Institute of Health, say that dogs can offer great social support and stress relief – sometimes even better than family or friends can.  Additionally, some studies even say that having a dog can control blood pressure better than prescription d rugs are able to.  Then there’s the exercise aspect.  Those who own dogs exercise more consistently than those who don’t own dogs.

Some other health benefits from having a dog are:

• increased longevity after having a heart attack
• lowered cholesterol and triglycerides
• improved blood pressure
• reduction of irregular heartbeats, or arrythmias
• improved blood vessel function
• increased physical activity as well as physical functioning
• reduction of minor health difficulties
• improved mood
• boost in self esteem
• improved alertness and attention in elderly people who own pets

Having a cat as a pet has its perks, too.

A study by the Minnesota Stroke Institute, which followed more than 4,000 cat owners over a 10-year time period, found that owning a cat can greatly reduce a person’s chance of dying from heart disease.  In fact, the study found that those who don’t have cats were between 30 to 40 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than cat owners were.  But were the same benefits found with owning dogs?  Not so, according to the study.

Other benefits of having a feline friend – some of which mirror the benefits of having a dog as a pet – include:

• a reduction in heart attack and stroke risk
• improved immune function
• decreased chance of children developing allergies
• helping to prevent asthma in children
• reduced stress and anxiety
• reduced blood pressure
• low triglyceride and cholesterol levels
• help with autism (in some instances) and depression

Likewise, pet ownership – in general – can reduce stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, can boost your immune system and can aid the management of pain.  Having a furry friend has also been found to reduce aggression, to build empathy and to improve learning, while  fostering a great sense of trust in others.  Additionally, owning a pet can speed recovery following surgery.

I can tell you that I recently had knee surgery and my cats took turns being with me, I was never alone, not for a moment – that’s true love and companionship.  So, if you haven’t thanked your pet lately for being such a wonderful companion, then give him or her an extra dose of appreciation and treats for being a great addition to your overall health.

On a sad note.  I have tried for years to at least have cats in Senior Living Homes because of what I’ve just shared.  I even offered to buy the electric litter box and food.  People need something with a heart beat to hold and talk to.  So often children put their parents in homes and think that’s enough.  NO IT’S NOT!   Often when they’re left in these homes they start having more aches and pains, depression, etc., and what does that bring on – another toxic  prescription.  They don’t have a drug deficiency, they have a broken heart, no family, no visitors, etc., what they are is

human attention deficient.

We could start volunteering and visit a couple of times a month.  I promise, you will get more out of it than you ever expected.   Thinking about others, often takes our minds of ourselves, and that could be a very health move!

Dr. Rhonda

Always wanting to help you to –

Plan for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!™

 

Temporary website:          www.drhenry.com

Email inquiries:                 contact@drhenry.com

Las Vegas Office:              702-269-8120

GENTS ON AGING:

We all know that as men age testosterone levels decline.  While this may be a natural and unavoidable phenomenon, the process is not necessarily a good thing.  Low levels of testosterone are linked to a decrease in muscle mass, changes in blood lipids (including cholesterol) and increased bone fragility.

A recent study found that increasing levels of magnesium can effectively increase the hormone production.  This can be enhanced further when the supplementation was combined with exercise.

Product to consider:                          Contact@drhenry.com for availability.

#403       Magnezyme

                                                                                                                                                            

FDA TO BAN TRANS FATS

Trans fats – great for shelf life and for boiling French fries but horrible for  Heart Health– will be banned by the Food and Drug Administration – Finally!

The unhealthy partially hydrogenated oils had been subject of labeling since 2006.  This act alone led to a significant decrease in consumption of trans fats as food manufacturers sought healthier options.  In 2003, the average American intake of trans fats was 4.6 grams per day, according to the FDA, and that number has fallen to about 1 gram per day in 2012.

But trans fats still exist in some processed foods, from baked goods to microwave popcorn, frozen pizza to ready-to-use frosting.  Trans fats also naturally occur in a few foods, such as some meats, and there they will remain.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that a further reduction of trans fat in the food supply can prevent an additional 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year and up to 20,000 heart attacks each year.

Because the mere labeling of trans fats has led food makers to shy away from using it, the biotech industry has taken the hint and put up tens of millions of dollars to oppose labeling of GMO ingredients,.  That strategy has paid off as initiatives in California in 2012 and in Washington state this week both failed to win approval by voters.

The official regulatory death knell was made possible through the GRAS process – trans fats, the agency has declared, are no longer Generally Recognized As Safe.

“FDA can act when it believes an ingredient is, in fact, not GRAS.  And that’s what the agency’s preliminary determination is doing now with partially hydrogenated oils,” the agency noted in its statement on Friday, November 8^th, 2013.”  A Federal Register notice was published in Nov. 7, 2013, announcing the preliminary determination that PHOs (partially hydrogenated oils) are not GRAS, which includes the opening of a 60-day public comment period.

“If FDA makes a final determination that PHOs are not GRAS, the agency and food industry would have to figure out a way to phase out the use of PHOs over time.  To help address this concern in an appropriate manner, the Federal Register notice calls for comment on how long it would take the food industry to phase out its use of PHOs.”

Studies into the cholesterol-altering properties of trans fats began at the University of Maastricht in Netherlands in 1990.  In a series of studies until 2003, researchers discovered that coronary heart disease risk is reduced most effectively when trans fatty acids and saturated fatty acids are replaced with cis unsaturated fatty acids.  The largest reduction was seen with unhydrogenated oils, such as canola, soybean and olive oils.  These studies helped change the scientific and regulatory consensus on trans fats over the course of 2 decades.

The trans fats story has been a rare opportunity for food processors to develop and market nutritionally advanced oils.  The key to successful launches has been to maintain both hydrogenation’s ability to extend product shelf life by reducing oxidation as well as its superior structural functionality in finished baked goods.  At the same time, new oils had to eliminate trans fats’ untoward cardiovascular health effects.  As the cost for these oils is as much as double compared to hydrogenated trans fats, expense has also a consideration.

But food science marches on, and consumers have not even noticed the elimination of trans fats in the diet.

The FDA is Sharing Patients’ Private Medical Records Illegally!

The FDA is Sharing Patients’ Private Medical Records  to Harass Integrative Doctors

 Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) has learned that the FDA is working with state medical boards behind the scenes – sometimes in violation of the law.

 According to our sources, professional medical boards are launching investigative actions against integrative physicians not because of patient complaints, but because of materials forwarded to them by the FDA before they are made public.  These boards are treating the FDA documents as if they were formal complaints.

In other words, the US Food and Drug Administration, which is barred from interfering with the practice of medicine, is in fact deliberately but secretly ignoring the rules – something practitioners and consumers alike need to be warned about.

We suspect, but cannot yet prove, that this is widespread and is being orchestrated by a shadowy private group called the Association of State Medical Boards.

Today we will offer just a few examples:

One doctor in Louisiana was accused by the FDA of not following his IND (investigational new drug study) protocol involving stem cells.  The state’s medical board – prompted by the FDA – then went after his license.  In the end, the doctor kept his license by signing a consent agreement.  Demanding the signing of an onerous consent decree is a favored government tactic.  Because the government has unlimited legal funds, it can threaten to bankrupt the doctor if the decree is not signed, and then include provisions in the decree that are not only humiliating but difficult to follow, so that further charges can be threatened or filed.

The system sometimes works in reverse as well.  The California medical board notified the FDA about a possible contamination problem with intravenous garlic that a doctor was using to treat lyme disease.  The FDA started its own investigation and obtained the patients’ private information, it them handed the patient records over to the medical board, exposing the patients’ private information.  This is illegal in California, but sadly, not in most other states, where a state board may obtain patients’ medical records without their consent.

In response, a case was filed in Sacramento on behalf of the patients whose medical records were improperly given to the board by the FDA.  For strategic reasons, it was a narrow action: the suit went after the medical board and its agents, not the FDA.  California’s constitution includes the right to privacy, which the courts have interpreted to mean that absent explicit consent from the patient, the medical board has to prove good cause for a request for private records.

There are other areas in which the FDA is aggressively interfering in the practice of medicine. The agency assets that one’s own stem cells, when used in a medical procedure, are drugs – and therefore to be regulated as drugs.  For example, a Colorado company offered a treatment in which stem cells were isolated from the patients’ bone marrow, processed, and the resulting cells injected back into the same patient to treat joint pain.  The FDA said the company was “manufacturing, holding for sale, and distribution of (sic) an unapproved biological drug product, “ and issued an injunction  to stop the treatment.  The company sued, but the court sided with the FDA, stating that the biological characteristics of stem cells are changed enough in the procedure that they warrant regulation by the FDA.  The company plans to appeal the ruling.

In another attempt to regulate the human body, FDA tried to claim human excrement as a drug.  No, we’re not kidding.  There’s a medic al procedure to treat gut infections by implanting the intestine with healthy bacteria from healthy family member-donors’ fecal matter.  FDA said the stools were unregulated drugs, and would require investigational new drug applications and would have to be taken through the extraordinary expensive approval process before doctors could continue to perform the procedure.  In June, as a direct result of embarrassing publicity, the FDA said they won’t enforce the new requirement, after all.

Information such as this and others that I share on my online weekly radio shows is starting to have people who were never involved in the natural health field, to take notice of how we the people are being manipulated and used as experiments which the food and drug companies with their friendship and financial rewards to the powers that be, are getting wealthier by the minute – of course, at our expense.  Dr. Rhonda

The Journey Begins

Hello All,

You will be able to find many answers to your health questions as I post weekly about all natural health.  The links will be the title and it will take you to my weekly radio broadcasts.  It is my sincere desire that all of you who are listening out there will be enlightened and helped in regards to your health.  So please join me on the journey.

 

Click this link:  The Journey Begins