A WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN : HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS MUST BE REGISTERED AS PHARMACEUTICALS WHILE TOXIC CHEMICALS BECOME HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS
by Beldeu Singh
Danish Doctor Fought For Freedom Of Speech In Court And Won!
According to a message from the MayDay Civil Rights and Health Movement, Danish physician and health consultant, Carsten Vagn-Hansen, better known in Denmark as 'the radio doctor', received a fine of 10,000 DKr. (more than 1300 Euro) last year for publicly writing about the health effects of dietary supplements, on the internet. He refused to pay the fine and instead took The Food Administration to Court. He won the case in September of this year. Around 100 public listeners were in the Court room on Friday September 16 2005, to support the popular health speaker who - naturally - won the case. The opponent, The Food Region under the Food Administration, had the right to appeal the Court's decision until September 30, but this opportunity was not taken, so the decision in the case is final. The conclusion is that Danish citizens may speak publicly about the health benefits of dietary supplements.
Supplement legislation drafted by the Danish Food Administration states since autumn 2004, that if a dietary supplement has a beneficial, preventive, or therapeutic effect, then it must be registered as a pharmaceutical product. The restrictive legislation of the Food Administration is adopting the coming Pharmaceutical Directive of the European Union, somewhat ahead of time (ref: Online WACOC News; By DGSaba at Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:45 am; source, Health Supreme). So, writing on the health effects of dietary supplements can invite legal action. Getting involved in health education can be such a risky affair. In the near future, if one wrote on the health benefits of food and manipulating the diet for preventing (deficiency) diseases or alleviating a host of symptoms associated with oxidative stress, there could be legal action from the health authorities. Let’s look at another more bizarre case in the developed world.
It was January 30th of 1994 when Tony Stephan of Magrath, Alberta suffered a life changing loss. His young wife, only 40 years old committed suicide after a lengthy battle with bipolar disorder, a common mental illness affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians. After losing his wife, Stephan was determined not to lose his son and daughter who had also been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
After discussing his fears with a local agricultural specialist, David Hardy, Stephan was shocked to learn about the nutritional impact on a common behavioral problem affecting pigs called ear and tail biting syndrome as identified by agricultural science. Using a nutritional supplement protocol for both his son and daughter, the 2 children had virtually no symptoms of bipolar, so Tony Stephan and David Hardy were determined to share their story.
After introducing this discovery to a skeptical Bonnie Kaplan, the Director of the Behavioural Research Unit at the University of Calgary, she agreed to launch a clinical trial of Stephan and Hardy’s nutrient supplement protocol. Shocked by her findings, Dr. Kaplan presented a detailed report to the Canadian Psychiatric Association’s annual general meeting entitled "Successful Treatment of Bipolar Disorder with a Nutritional Supplement: 10 Cases.” It was shortly thereafter that Stephan and Hardy’s peace of mind fell apart in a nearly 5-year legal battle with Health Canada.
Upon seeing Doctor Kaplan's report on the nutritional treatment of bipolar on CTV National news on October 4th of 2000, Health Canada officials contacted the University of Calgary within days, demanding that all testing and trials be stopped. Health Canada was determined to make this discovery go away by shutting down an Alberta government approved and funded study (reproduced: Background on Truehope and the upcoming case by Anthony Stephan; Health Supreme).
There may be regulations for marketing the nutrient supplement protocol to bipolar patients without a DIN number but the public perception is summed up in this comment by Croft Woodruff:
“Health Canada's Bureaucrats would rather see Canadians die than authorize the release of a safe & beneficial nutritional product. They closed down a clincal trial at the University of Calgary, funded by the Government of Alberta, that already had demonstrated safety and efficacy.”
We know that free radical chain reactions and oxidative damage initiates the development of many disease conditions and degenerative disease states. There is research to show that cells of the brain are susceptible to lipid peroxidation and there is now an accumulating science that clearly shows the association of free radicals and free radical damage with psychiatric illnesses. Against this background, it is obvious that natural antioxidants from food sources that can cross the blood-brain barrier would promote and enhance free radical scavenging activity in the brain and central nervous system (CNS) that can effectively prevent lipid peroxidation in the brain-CNS or reverse the biochemical damage caused by oxidative stress, depending on the amount of intake of such antioxidants which may be consumed in the diet or as supplements. And such information from clinical trials can upset members of the pharmaceutical industry as it hurts their bottom line and could adversely affect their market share.
Naturally, if a mixture of natural antioxidants derived from food sources or edible herbs can effectively eliminate the symptoms of disease, it is just like curing scurvy with onion consumption or lemon juice, and people prefer the non-toxic approach and steer away from drugs that can act as chemical stressors. Drugs that target the brain-CNS for their activity also generate free radicals in the brain-CNS and that may explain why the incidence of suicides is higher in groups that take such drugs when compared to the normal population. Naturally, that being the case, those with psychiatric problems would opt for free radical scavenging activity for relief rather increase free radical populations in their brain-CNS. Drugs work very differently from natural antioxidants from food sources or edible herbs, the latter proving to be effective primarily on account of promoting and enhancing free radical scavenging activity and providing minerals in bioavailable form.
Taking the Croft Woodruff comment further, one would expect more funds being made available for clinical trials at more research centers and universities to improve mental health but just the opposite is happening. If that can happen in a first world country, much worse might be the situation in a third world country for anyone going against the drug dogmas and pharmaceutically prescribed drugs. Drugs being toxic and acting as chemical stressors in the mammalian biological system, they ought not to be the first line of intervention in health and treatment of diseases, but that is the prevailing dogma as it stands, although there is now a tremendous renewal of interest in phytochemicals and natural antioxidants for therapeutic purposes that is funding research in this new direction of medicine, especially natural biomolecules that promote healthy biochemical pathways in the human biological system. And that means going back to the basics of biochemistry and healthy biochemical pathways in the mammalian and human biological system.
While research and interest in phytochemicals is underway in some of the largest pharmaceutical companies and the small biotech companies, there are clear attempts to reposition toxic drugs in the market as supplements.
Medical science, as it presents itself today, is largely a treatment science where disease conditions are to be treated with drugs while health science, which is about restoring health through biomolecules that promote and restore cellular function, has largely been abandoned. This chronic deviation is slowly and progressively repositioning toxic drugs and chemicals as clinically useful and later on as harmless or even beneficial for people who have not yet developed any symptoms. As a strategy, toxic drugs appear to be moving in that cycle and AZT is a good example that has dogmatic support (see: Beldeu Singh, Can I Have My Chemo Supplement Please?).
AZT is toxic and since it is “toxic by inhalation,” it is practically a poison. It causes widespread oxidative stress throughout the body and can cause congenital defects in the fetus and myopathy. The original label of the manufacturer warns that it is toxic by inhalation and can cause the same symptoms as AIDS but today it is the standard medicine for AIDS patients.
Now there is an advertisement in a peer review journal that touts that it is well tolerated in children, improving cognitive function, growth and well being! It is already sounding like a health supplement.
Medical science can create dogmas that can turn the fundamentals of biological science and biochemistry upside down. Tragically, no politician or Parliament or congressman is looking at this phenomenon.
Interestingly, no health authorities dare speak against the clever repositioning of toxic medication as health supplements, much less take legal action. The kind of gung ho that was so characteristic in the Truehope case and in the case of the Danish physician is reserved for companies and individuals who want to share the health benefits of natural dietary supplements that may even alleviate symptoms of disease - through clinical trials that may help develop the protocols for a market. Would there be any allopathic doctor today who dares to prescribe foods rich in vitamin C and minerals to cure scurvy and skin problems?