Food Irradiation Fallout, 10 years old

Responding to a recent article on Science Daily about a new push to irradiate your food.

If you would like to obtain our Healthy Handout© on food cleaning, you may do so by making a donation.

originally reported on Leaflady.org in 1998.

More on the Problems with Food Irradiation

Food irradiation exposes food to the equivalent of 30 million chest X-rays. Irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products. Some of these products are known cancer-causing substances (like benzene in irradiated beef). Others are unique to the irradiation process and no one knows what effects these have on human health.

Irradiation destroys essential vitamins and nutrients that are naturally present in food. No studies have been done to show that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe. Safer, well-tested alternatives to irradiation exist.

Irradiation plants pose environmental threats to workers and surrounding communities. The transportation of nuclear materials to irradiation facilities also poses severe public health risks.

What's Wrong with Food Irradiation?

Irradiation damages the quality of food.
Foods that have been exposed to ionizing radiation have second-rate nutrition and "counterfeit freshness." Irradiated fats tend to become rancid. Even at low doses, some irradiated foods lose 20% of vitamins such as C, E, K, and B complex. Because irradiation breaks down the food's cell walls, accelerated vitamin losses occur during storage--up to 80%. Ironically, irradiation both creates harmful free radicals and destroys the antioxidant vitamins necessary to fight them! When electron beams are used, trace amounts of radioactivity may be created. In Europe, food irradiation has been used to camouflage spoiled seafood. Consumers should ask, "Why is the food suddenly so dirty that it has to be irradiated?"

Irradiation produces toxic byproducts in the food.
Ionizing radiation knocks electrons out of atoms and creates free radicals. These free radicals react with food components, creating new radiolytic products, some of which are toxic (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some of which may be unique to irradiated foods. No one knows the long term impact of eating unknown quantities of these damaged foods. Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Chromosomal abnormalities occurred in children from India who were fed freshly irradiated wheat.

Irradiation using radioactive materials is an environmental hazard.
In Georgia, radioactive water escaped from an irradiation facility; the taxpayers were stuck with $47 million in cleanup costs. In New Jersey, radioactive water was poured into drains that emptied into the public sewer system. Few communities want the increased risks of hosting irradiation facilities and the periodic transport of radioactive materials to and from irradiators. Numerous worker exposures have occurred worldwide.

Irradiation is a quick fix with long-term consequences.
Irradiation doesn't kill all bacteria; those that survive are radiation-resistant. Eventually these bacteria will require higher doses of radiation. Irradiation doesn't kill the bacterium that causes botulism, or viruses. It can't be used on dairy products, a major source of food poisoning. If the labels are removed, irradiation will be used very widely because producers will 'follow the leader' and irradiate to prevent themselves from liability for food poisoning, no matter how remote the possibility. The costs, as always, will be passed on to the consumer.

Irradiation doesn't solve the problem, it just covers it up.
In a 1997 CBS nationwide poll, 77% of US consumers did not want irradiated food. This public resistance is why food trade associations have been plotting to eliminate all requirements for labeling irradiated food. Irradiation is not the only option for providing clean and sustainable food. Cleaning up filthy slaughter houses, slowing down processing lines, increasing the number of federal meat inspectors, and encouraging local and organic agriculture instead of factory farming are just a few proposals that can lead to long-term food safety solutions without the risks of irradiation.

Source material originally from BioDemocracy and Organic Consumers Association

Co-Pay Comments

CO-Pay Comments by Gayle Eversole, DHom, PhD, MH, NP, ND

As you may know the current administration has been pushing for privatization of Medicare, other changes in the health care, including both the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.

The first noticeable efforts came along with the idea for health savings accounts. Changes in Medicare try to push recipients toward HMO participation instead of traditional fee-for-service plans. Employer health plans and state sponsored health plans consistently move toward higher co-pay and deductible amounts in the policy.

When the Medicare Plan D drug program for seniors was devised, the clear writing on the wall was that this plan was nothing more than a profit machine for industry cronies at the expense of older and disabled citizens.

Now you see, as addressed in this article, a new plan to gouge more money from those with less disposable income, because they have a chronic illness or one that they believe the only answer is a specific drug. That drug may be one not perfectly tested with unknown side effects or potential for damage. That drug also may be one that contains genetically engineered compounds with long-term or yet unknown problems. No other options are offered.

Here are some facts about the pricing structure of drugs referenced for this NYT article. If any of the drugs on this list are being prescribed for you please make sure that the doctor prescribing them has fully educated you on the risk and benefit of these drugs, as is required by law. You can review side effects and warnings at Rxlist.com:

Procrit $1024 / 6 vials depending on dose
Neupogen $4700 / 10 prefilled syringes depending on dose
Actimmune (Gamma interferon B1) $600-900 + per dose
Cerezyme, Fabrazyme $200,000 annually, for life. A GMO drug, not unlike most on this list, made in cells of Chinese hamsters.

“Pharma recommends more drug than may actually be needed. This does not apply just to Cerezyme, but the Epo products (Amgen & J&J), Avastin (Genentech.)
"Pharma goes to the FDA with doses that they think are appropriate by virtue of clinical trials. To go with a low dose could doom the drug to failure. It takes further data to lower the dose and the companies are not stupid and want to keep their revenue up! In the case of Cerezyme the dose started at much higher levels costing over 1 million dollars are year at the recommended dose. The fact that we are now at $300K means there may be more "wiggle room" dosing wise but it depends on the patient’s response. That will be the treating Doc's decision and not the patient or regulators. Pharma is doing what they think is best, of course looking at the bottom line, but it ultimately falls on the treating physician."

Intron A, Intron A with Diulent, $600-900+ per dose
Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone $1800 / 4 doses
Humira, Remicade $1800 / 2 doses

Here are some natural approaches that may help, with less cost and less risk of harm:

Anemia: Vitamin B12 injection. This may also help reduce hypertension in women.
Cancer: Vitamin B12, IV Vitamin C, other -
Chronic Granulomatous Disease: Zinc, Vitamin C, Sesame Seeds, Natural anti-fungal herbs and/or pure essential oils
Gaucher’s Disease/other: Liposomal enzymes such as those developed by and used in The Kelley Method.
Hepatitis C – IV Vitamin C, Milk Thistle, other –
MS – Avoid aspartame, other -
Rheumatoid Arthritis: Niacinamide, Food allergy testing (wheat allergy is usually prominent), other -

NONE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED FOR OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.

Should you wish to inquire about our investigative method to assist you in understanding your unique metabolism and evaluation organ system nutritional deficiencies, please contact us.

Co-Payments Soar for Drugs With High Prices
By Gina Kolata, April 14, 2008

Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

The system means that the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too.

No one knows how many patients are affected, but hundreds of drugs are priced this new way. They are used to treat diseases that may be fairly common, including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia, hepatitis C and some cancers. There are no cheaper equivalents for these drugs, so patients are forced to pay the price or do without.

Insurers say the new system keeps everyone’s premiums down at a time when some of the most innovative and promising new treatments for conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis can cost $100,000 and more a year.

But the result is that patients may have to spend more for a drug than they pay for their mortgages, more, in some cases, than their monthly incomes.

The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans. Some have even higher co-payments for certain drugs, a Tier 5.

Now Tier 4 is also showing up in insurance that people buy on their own or acquire through employers, said Dan Mendelson of Avalere Health, a research organization in Washington. It is the fastest-growing segment in private insurance, Mr. Mendelson said. Five years ago it was virtually nonexistent in private plans, he said. Now 10 percent of them have Tier 4 drug categories.

Private insurers began offering Tier 4 plans in response to employers who were looking for ways to keep costs down, said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents most of the nation’s health insurers. When people who need Tier 4 drugs pay more for them, other subscribers in the plan pay less for their coverage.

But the new system sticks seriously ill people with huge bills, said James Robinson, a health economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is very unfortunate social policy,” Dr. Robinson said. “The more the sick person pays, the less the healthy person pays.”

Traditionally, the idea of insurance was to spread the costs of paying for the sick.

“This is an erosion of the traditional concept of insurance,” Mr. Mendelson said. “Those beneficiaries who bear the burden of illness are also bearing the burden of cost.”

And often, patients say, they had no idea that they would be faced with such a situation.

It happened to Robin Steinwand, 53, who has multiple sclerosis.

In January, shortly after Ms. Steinwand renewed her insurance policy with Kaiser Permanente, she went to refill her prescription for Copaxone. She had been insured with Kaiser for 17 years through her husband, a federal employee, and had had no complaints about the coverage.

She had been taking Copaxone since multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2000, buying a 30 days’ supply at a time. And even though the drug costs $1,900 a month, Kaiser required only a $20 co-payment.

Not this time. When Ms. Steinwand went to pick up her prescription at a pharmacy near her home in Silver Spring, Md., the pharmacist handed her a bill for $325.

There must be a mistake, Ms. Steinwand said. So the pharmacist checked with her supervisor. The new price was correct. Kaiser’s policy had changed. Now Kaiser was charging 25 percent of the cost of the drug up to a maximum of $325 per prescription. Her annual cost would be $3,900 and unless her insurance changed or the drug dropped in price, it would go on for the rest of her life.

“I charged it, then got into my car and burst into tears,” Ms. Steinwand said.

She needed the drug, she said, because it can slow the course of her disease. And she knew she would just have to pay for it, but it would not be easy.

“It’s a tough economic time for everyone,” she said. “My son will start college in a year and a half. We are asking ourselves, can we afford a vacation? Can we continue to save for retirement and college?”

Although Kaiser advised patients of the new plan in its brochure that it sent out in the open enrollment period late last year, Ms. Steinwand did not notice it. And private insurers, Mr. Mendelson said, can legally change their coverage to one in which some drugs are Tier 4 with no advance notice.

Medicare drug plans have to notify patients but, Mr. Mendelson said, “that doesn’t mean the person will hear about it.” He added, “You don’t read all your mail.”

Some patients said they had no idea whether their plan changed or whether it always had a Tier 4. The new system came as a surprise when they found out that they needed an expensive drug.

That’s what happened to Robert W. Banning of Arlington, Va., when his doctor prescribed Sprycel for his chronic myelogenous leukemia. The drug can block the growth of cancer cells, extending lives. It is a tablet to be taken twice a day — no need for chemotherapy infusions.

Mr. Banning, 81, a retired owner of car dealerships, thought he had good insurance through AARP. But Sprycel, which he will have to take for the rest of his life, costs more than $13,500 for a 90-day supply, and Mr. Banning soon discovered that the AARP plan required him to pay more than $4,000.

Mr. Banning and his son, Robert Banning Jr., have accepted the situation. “We’re not trying to make anybody the heavy,” the father said.

So far, they have not purchased the drug. But if they do, they know that the expense would go on and on, his son said. “Somehow or other, myself and my family will do whatever it takes. You don’t put your parent on a scale.”

But Ms. Steinwand was not so sanguine. She immediately asked Kaiser why it had changed its plan.

The answer came in a letter from the federal Office of Personnel Management, which negotiates with health insurers in the plan her husband has as a federal employee. Kaiser classifies drugs like Copaxone as specialty drugs. They, the letter said, “are high-cost drugs used to treat relatively few people suffering from complex conditions like anemia, cancer, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and human growth hormone deficiency.”

And Kaiser, the agency added, had made a convincing argument that charging a percentage of the cost of these drugs “helped lower the rates for federal employees.”

Ms. Steinwand can change plans at the end of the year, choosing one that allows her to pay $20 for the Copaxone, but she worries about whether that will help. “I am a little nervous,” she said. “Will the next company follow suit next year?”

But it turns out that she won’t have to worry, at least for the rest of this year.

A Kaiser spokeswoman, Sandra R. Gregg, said on Friday that Kaiser had decided to suspend the change for the program involving federal employees in the mid-Atlantic region while it reviewed the new policy. The suspension will last for the rest of the year, she said. Ms. Steinwand and others who paid the new price for their drugs will be repaid the difference between the new price and the old co-payment.

Ms. Gregg explained that Kaiser had been discussing the new pricing plan with the Office of Personnel Management over the previous few days because patients had been raising questions about it. That led to the decision to suspend the changed pricing system.

“Letters will go out next week,” Ms. Gregg said.

But some with the new plans say they have no way out.

Julie Bass, who lives near Orlando, Fla., has metastatic breast cancer, lives on Social Security disability payments, and because she is disabled, is covered by insurance through a Medicare H.M.O. Ms. Bass, 52, said she had no alternatives to her H.M.O. She said she could not afford a regular Medicare plan, which has co-payments of 20 percent for such things as emergency care, outpatient surgery and scans. That left her with a choice of two Medicare H.M.O’s that operate in her region. But of the two H.M.O’s, her doctors accept only Wellcare.

Now, she said, one drug her doctor may prescribe to control her cancer is Tykerb. But her insurer, Wellcare, classifies it as Tier 4, and she knows she cannot afford it.

Wellcare declined to say what Tykerb might cost, but its list price according to a standard source, Red Book, is $3,480 for 150 tablets, which may last a patient 21 days. Wellcare requires patients to pay a third of the cost of its Tier 4 drugs.

“For everybody in my position with metastatic breast cancer, there are times when you are stable and can go off treatment,” Ms. Bass said. “But if we are progressing, we have to be on treatment, or we will die.”

“People’s eyes need to be opened,” she said. “They need to understand that these drugs are very costly, and there are a lot of people out there who are struggling with these costs.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." A.Lincoln, Inaugural Address 1861

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." A.Lincoln

New Canadian bill proposes to limit access to supplements

For more information go to http://nocodexgenocide.com

C-51 represents is a concerted effort to harmonize Canada to Australian law (where dietary supplements are even more restricted than they are in Canada), and via the FDA's Trilateral Cooperation Charter- the ruling elite intend to roll this train wreck across the line into the USA via the covert initiatives now being conducted with increased speed to deconstruct Canada, US and Mexico in order to force us together into a North American Union Dictatorship.

WHAT C-51 DOES- & WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE CANADIAN/US BORDER

You can read C-51 here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126&

The bill has been dissected by attorney Shawn Buckley in Vancouver who sent me a detailed analysis, some of which I'll provide here. Buckley expects to have a complete constitutional analysis completed by midweek, whereupon he and a core group that I'm in touch with will be approaching all stakeholders in Canada in an effort to mount a huge campaign against it.

The Act gives overly broad discretionary powers to Health Canada inspectors to force compliance on alleged "safety" grounds. Currently, 60% of all licensing applications for Natural Health Products are being rejected by Health Canada. The majority of these are for single ingredient formulations.

Buckley estimates that as multi-ingredient product formulations are considered, fully 70% of license applications will be rejected. If this bill passes into law, it will accelerate the speed with which Health Canada is able to destroy the dietary supplement industry because it will enable inspectors to do far more to tie companies up in totally unecessary red tape. The bill gives Health Canada far more resources to process license applications, which means products will be banned, sooner rather than later.

C-51 gives inspectors broad new powers to force products off the market. The bill moves away from the term "drugs" and introduces the term "therapeutic products".

Applause

Applause goes to Dr. Andy Pausch of Carnegie-Mellon University for his commitment to be alive in the process of dying.

What is sad, and tragic at the same time, is that the doctors treating him failed to give him hope and tell him that there are several well known therapies proven to effectively cure pancreatic and liver cancer.

Closed minds, at all levels of health care, can be the greatest of obstacles to health.

A question about Requip

We always encourage you to read up on prescription drugs. Make sure you read the clinical information. If you read only the patient information you won't get the information you need in order to understand the possible side effects.

Read what I've written about magnesium and B vitamins in other posts.

What are some possible side effects of Requip (Ropinirole)?

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects: fever, muscle stiffness, feeling light-headed; or slow heartbeat, fainting.

Call your doctor promptly if you fall asleep during a daily activity, if you faint, or if you have hallucinations (hearing or seeing something that is not there). Your doctor may want you to stop taking ropinirole, or take a lower dose.

Other, less serious side effects may be more likely to occur, such as:

mild nausea, vomiting, upset stomach, or loss of appetite, worsened RLS symptoms, early in the morning, diarrhea or constipation, dry mouth, sweating, headache, drowsiness or confusion, sleep problems (insomnia); or agitation or anxiety

Side effects other than those listed here may also occur. Talk to your doctor about any side effect that seems unusual or that is especially bothersome.

Some people using ropinirole have developed a gambling habit. It is not known whether ropinirole actually causes this effect. Talk with your doctor if you believe you have an unusual urge to gamble while you are taking ropinirole.

DON'T FORGET

Simple action does make a difference.

Make every day Earth Day.

Drug Trials Halted, Cancer drug claims exaggerated

No need to say more. And this applies to many other Big Pharma products.

Heed 'M's'warning to Bond in our masthead.

Halted drug trial safety concerns

The benefits of some cancer drugs may be exaggerated as a rising number of trials are stopped early, experts say.

Italian researchers analysed 25 trials, including some for the breast cancer therapy Herceptin, that were stopped early between 1997 and 2007.

The Mario Negri Institute team said data from many of the recent cases had been used to get drug licences before the long-term impacts were known.

But drug firms said finishing trials early saved lives.

The Annals of Oncology report showed that of the 25 trials randomly chosen, 14 had been stopped in the past three years.

"Data on effectiveness and potential side-effects can be missed by stopping a trial early." Dr Giovanni Aplone, lead researcher

And of these, 11 were used to support applications for marketing authorisation from regulators.

Lead researcher Dr Giovanni Aplone said the increase in early conclusions to trials suggested drug firms were using good interim results to get their products to market more quickly.

But he warned: "Data on effectiveness and potential side-effects can be missed by stopping a trial early."

He admitted there was no hard evidence of this, but said there was an in-built bias in the system because trials were often only stopped early because the results were positive, when this could just be a "random high".

Positive results

Meanwhile, those that did not show such positive results were given more time to prove their worth.

The team found that the average study duration was 30 months - when the long-term impact could only be judged over years.

The report also said some trials only enrolled less than 40% of the total patients planned.

Researchers said regulators needed to take into account the impact of stopping a trial early when making decisions about licences.

And they added there needed to be more use of independent monitoring committees to verify trial data. Only the largest trials tend to take this approach.

Professor Stuart Pocock, an expert in medical statistics from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, agreed the issue was a problem not just for cancer drugs but all kinds of treatment.

He acknowledged trial organisers faced a dilemma when results were positive because those patients involved in the studies, but not receiving the therapies, could lose out.

But he added: "We need proof beyond reasonable doubt to stop a trial early."

A spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry pointed out that the study looked at only a small number of trials.

He added: "When a trial is stopped early the data is carefully scrutinised and we are confident it is robust.

"Patient safety is our top priority and when results are positive it can cost lives by not getting the product to market."

Story from BBC NEWS:Published: 2008/04/08 23:04:41 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7336695.stm