Immunity Health News

A new book set to be published later this month in Great Britain claims that the British government is misleading people about its infant vaccination program.

The book, The Truth About Vaccines, by Dr. Richard Halvorsen, claims that “there are unfounded claims about [vaccines'] safety and effectiveness and I believe [the vaccinations] may be doing potentially serious harm to hundreds if not thousands of children every year.”

As an example, Dr. Halvorsen says a brand of MMR was brought on the market even though the Government was aware of its dangers. It was withdrawn four years later after increasing reports of deaths and brain damage.

He says risks have not been properly assessed because, unlike drugs, vaccines in Britain do not have to undergo proper long-term safety trials.

Read the whole article for more information on the additives and possible dangers associated with infant vaccinations.

About 4800 parents of autistic children believe their children’s autism is a result of vaccination.

Their theory is that thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative once included in many vaccines and removed from most in 1999, can combine with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination to damage the immune system. This damage, they said, can lead to autism, a developmental disorder characterized by speech and often severe social impairments.

The petitioners want access to the $2.5-billion Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund established by Congress two decades ago, and have brought their case to the Vaccine Court.

An arm of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the vaccine court consists of judges, called special masters, who determine whether people who say they or their children have been harmed by vaccines deserve compensation.

On June 26, three special masters finished listening to the first case in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, brought by the parents of Michelle Cedillo, 12, of Arizona. In large part, the hearing served as a time for each side — the families and experts retained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — to present its first argument.

The court is expected to hear three tests and then make a ruling on those. If they side with the parents, the court is likely to set up a framework for compensation to the others.

Read the whole article.

Sugar free. Caffeine free. Transfat free. And now, ladies and gentlemen, “China-Free”. Hardly a natural progression, I know, but it is here, nonetheless.

You’ve no doubt heard by now the almost weekly reports of contaminated products, from toothpaste to dog food, coming out of China. And to assuage your fears…

A U.S. health food company will label its products “China-Free”.

Food for Health International, based in Orem, Utah, makes whole food nutritional supplements for people and pets, and President Frank Davis said the company will begin trumpeting the fact none of its ingredients come from China.

Plans call for a “China-Free” sticker on products such as Food for Health’s “9 a Day-Plus” capsules, “Active Adults” whole food shakes and “Healthy Dog” supplements. The company also will use “China-Free” in advertisements and promotions. Read more.

I have said many times already on this blog how important I feel it is to have empirical research to back up claims of product effectiveness. Apparently the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) feels the same way.

Their recent draft dossier guidelines make no reference whatsoever to ‘traditional use’ or ‘history of use’ for botanicals in food and food supplements. Instead,

data from intervention studies and observational studies in humans and animals must be used as evidence to make a health claim.

However, this appears to set up a double-standard, as those same botanical ingredients, when marketed as supplements, can continue to rely on ‘traditional evidence’.

Read more.

Here’s what is going out on just about every major newswire this morning:

Makers of vitamins, herbs and other dietary supplements taken by millions of Americans must meet new government standards to show the products are free of contamination and contain exactly what the label says, U.S. health officials said on Friday.

The full article of this particular version can be found here.

This is good news for consumers, who have sometimes had to contend with bogus ingredients from knock-off supplement producers.

But these regulations don’t come into effect until 2010, and the dietary supplement producers

“…will have significant latitude to determine what quality control measures are appropriate, and limited resources will limit FDA’s ability to follow up on complaints,”

according to Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat.

Furthermore, these regulations still will not ensure that the supplements are either safe or effective. And as other websites are starting to point out, the FDA will only be investigating high-risk companies, and that only every five-to-ten years.

So will it help? Perhaps. At least it is a beginning point for more stringent assurances for consumers.

Here is an interesting blog post about the health claims of food companies, in particular those with products like yogourt claiming to have “probiotic” properties. In light of the increasing notoriety of probiotics, it’s not surprising that companies are trying to capitalize on the public’s buying trends, even if their claims may be misleading or fallacious.

This is why I’m such a big proponent of empirical testing as opposed to anecdotal or “traditional” evidence for product efficacy.

Earlier, I posted about the Macleans article on the somewhat fickle regulating of the Natural Health Products industry.

Here it is as a .pdf:a-natural-remedy.pdf

John Geddes reports in this week’s Maclean’s magazine about the poor controls on natural health products, including vitamins, by the Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD). The NHPD’s regulations come into effect on June 1, and it plans to have the whole industry under regulation by 2010. Look for the 8-digit number after the letters “NPN” on the label. Or don’t. According to Geddes, there isn’t much confidence that can be placed in the Government’s licencing.

He quotes David Bailey, professor of clinical pharmacology at the Universtiy of Western Ontario:

“Once these things are on the market — and this is what really astounds me and most people find hard to believe — you actually have to prove that there’s a problem. The manufacturer doesn’t have to prove that the herbal is safe or that it does anything.”

This, of course, makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish the efficacies of the nearly 40,000 natural products on the market.

For now, traditional claims seem to trump scientific testing for a manufacturer’s ability to get a licence and make unproven assertions, something the pharmaceutical industry would never get away with.

“There’s a huge misperception,” says Bailey, ” that because they come from a natural source they are safer and they are gentler.”

Bailey is known for his discovery that grapefruit juice can interfere dangerously with drugs ranging from blood-pressure medicine to Prozac.

The article is found in the print edition, and doesn’t appear to be online yet.

An associated press article is reporting the Supreme Court’s (USA) decision not to hear the appeal by dietary supplements maker Nutraceutical International, which sought to overturn a federal ban on the weight-loss aid ephedra.

The FDA banned ephedra after receiving reports that it had produced side effects including heart attacks, strokes and death.

In response, the company has said that “under the standards and tests it used, almost any herbal supplement could be banned.”