Would you purchase prescription drugs from a vending machine? Thanks to a new move by the FDA to allow the public to diagnose themselves with conditions and purchase the appropriate pharmaceuticals from a vending machine, it may become a reality. By simply visiting a ‘drug kiosk’ in a mall or drug store, you may soon be able to buy drugs that treat health conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, and migraines.

Furthermore, it would be as simple as answering an online questionnaire at this kiosk to obtain drugs that currently require prescriptions. Prescription medications like antibiotics, which are currently being rampantly and unnecessarily given to patients on such a scale that they are majorly contributing to antibiotic-resistant diseases that medical professionals are currently concerned over.

Those backing the idea claim that it would be an effective method of handing out more pharmaceuticals to ‘those who need it’. In contrast, many professionals highlight the fact that most consumers do not have a strong medical understanding and it could lead to serious problems. In addition, the vending machine could massively increase pharmaceutical drug use, which kills more individuals per year than traffic fatalities. Pharmaceutical painkillers in specific are responsible for more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.

Instead of distributing even more pharmaceuticals to consumers, perhaps the FDA should focus on solutions that do not require risky pharmaceuticals that on average contain 70 side effect. As a powerful alternatives to antibiotics, garlic is now being identified as a natural yet extremely potent method of fighting common food-borne illness that antibiotics are often prescribed to treat.

Of course this is not the only instance of pharmaceutical drugs damaging the human body and being outperformed by natural alternatives. Amazingly, it was shown by scientists that pharmaceutical cancer drugs, promoted by many as the only choice for cancer sufferers, actually breed massive tumors and kill patients more quickly. Meanwhile, research on the health benefits of turmeric is continually showing that the spice is an effective at combating cancer and shrinking tumors.

Additional sources:

FDA Prescription Vending Machine

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.

Pharmaceutical medication has always been very highly regarded in society, and its continued use shows that many individuals seem to use it without knowing — or more likely, even thinking — about the content of the drugs that they so hastily consume. Recently there has been yet another study that shows the Food and Drug Administration, trusted by millions and yet funded with trillions to overlook some of the most detrimental health risks, cares even less about drug trial regulation than previously thought.

The study reveals the varied corruption deeply rooted within the FDA, vying for approval of drugs that serve no medical purpose, sometimes with more harmful effects than good. Specifically, the drug Tamiflu (oseltamivir) — the drug praised as the be all end all cure for the ‘deadly swine flu epidemic‘.

The entire article debunks the use and distribution of the effectively worthless drug, as well as the FDA’s reasons for approval:

“If sales can be considered a proxy for utility, the controversies surrounding even the most successful drugs (such as blockbuster drugs) seem all the more paradoxical, and have revealed the extent to which the success of many drugs has been driven by sophisticated marketing rather than verifiable evidence… Prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza in 2009, the United States alone had stockpiled nearly US$1.5 billion dollars worth of the [drug].”

The researchers continue:

“This analysis, conducted by Kaiser and colleagues, proposed that oseltamivir treatment of influenza reduced both secondary complications and hospital admission. In contrast, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved Tamiflu in 1999 and was aware of these same clinical trials, concluded that Tamiflu had not been shown to reduce complications, and required an explicit statement in the drug’s label to that effect.”

This study only covers one single drug that has only been approved solely for profiteering; the FDA is known to have approved thousands upon thousands of commercial drugs from the big pharmaceutical corporations over the decades, with many questioning their serious side effects. Such is the case with highly-popular cancer drugs, which have been shown to make cancer worse and actually kill the patient more quickly. It has become abundantly clear that citizens cannot and should not place any sort of trust in many of these corporate-pushed these medications and their supposed ‘benefits’.

Cited:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001201

http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2012/04/13/massive-corruption-revealed-to-be-at-the-core-of-many-drug-approvals.aspx

Did you know that roughly 10% of the American population suffers from depression? It isn’t exactly a coincidence, with the FDA approving a wide variety of damaging foods and drugs that many millions of Americans consume each day. The FDA isn’t helping the population with their approval of the dozens of antidepressant medications on the market – it in fact is doing the exact opposite.

The beneficial results of antidepressants have been under the spotlight for quite some time in the health world, and the validity of giving them out like candy to patients in need of a quick and easy solution is under question as well; just how useful is medication for depression? At best, the tangible results felt by patients are comparable to sugar pills. That is to say, the medication itself does virtually nothing to improve the mood of the patient directly. At worst, antidepressants cause decreased mental stability. Wanting to kill yourself or others around you are feelings which antidepressants have been shown to ignite.

There is even the possibility that while on these terrible drugs you can become even more vulnerable to more serious mental illnesses – all whilst other legitimate non-medication methods for treating depression are being tread underfoot by the FDA.

In more recent studies, there has been surfacing evidence that antidepressants cause arteries to thicken at a faster rate. One some cases, research specifically points to an increased thickness of the lining of the carotid artery by up to 5% in men, thereby increasing the risk of heart disease substantially by putting more pressure on the heart. This occurs when on both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs, the primary form of antidepressants) and antidepressants that affect other chemicals in the brain. The evidence isn’t completely concrete, but it points towards the change of serotonin in the body caused by the medications.

Another study in women who have gone through menopause unveiled that women who take either variation of antidepressants were up to 45% more likely to suffer from life threatening brain damage from a stroke. This same study also found that women’s death rates rose 32% more whilst on the drugs.

Other side effects that are documented in both normal people and scientists are much more prominent, but certainly no less detrimental to your health. These include those suicidal/homicidal thoughts mentioned earlier, as well as an increased risk of diabetes, an increased possibility of stillbirth, lowered immune system support and reduced bone density -  resulting in a higher risk of fractures, primarily in the spinal column.

There are also a few long term risks with using these detrimental drugs: a conversion from unipolar depression to bipolar depression, and an overall cognitive decline in most users. If becoming bipolar unnecessarily does not steer you away from these, then the overall loss of your mental capacity should be enough to raise a warning flag.

After serious health campaigning led to a United States judge ordering the FDA to remove approval for antibiotic use on common animal feed products, the FDA is now limiting the usage of antibiotics among the food supply. However, the FDA is not completely revoking approval for the antibiotics, only placing an order for farmers to stop using the drugs solely to help animals grow — what’s more, the farmers are given another 3 years before any real legal action goes into effect. The initial proposal was introduced back in 1977, and the FDA has stalled for decades to give a final answer.

That means that antibiotics used to ‘treat’ animal diseases, or even ‘prevent’ future diseases, will be perfectly fine under these guidelines. The result may have to do with the livestock corporate juggernauts, who refused to admit that the mass drugging of animals with superbug-breeding antibiotics posed any real threat to the public. Many consumer activists, such as Laura Rogers from the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, fear that these new guidelines are so broad that they mean virtually nothing.

“If you were to ask me what’s the biggest gap, it’s that they’ve left way too much wiggle room [leeway] when it comes to preventative uses,” said Rogers. “That’s going to have to be shored up [i.e., made more specific] in order for this action to be meaningful.”

Around 80% of all antibiotics used in the United States today are pumped into livestock, according to health and environmental advocacy groups in their lawsuit against the FDA regarding excessive antibiotic use. It is these antibiotics that are contributing to the spread of ‘super-bugs’, such as heavily resistant tuberculosis. In fact, the resistant tuberculosis strains — a direct result of excess antibiotic consumption — are so serious that scientists are calling it the new ‘white plague’.  Even members of the World Health Organization’s ‘Stop TB Partnership’ are outraged over the man-made disease progression, with member Lucica Ditiu stating that the drug-resistant TB “is a totally man-made disease”.

Outside of super viruses, antibiotics have also been linked to mental illness as a result of compromised gut health.

Is tainting food with mercury a crime? Apparently only if you’re a citizen and not a major corporation or a United States government agency. One retired pharmacist was rightfully arrested after contaminating cafeteria food with heavily toxic mercury, yet no action has been taken against processed food manufacturers whose products are known to contain mercury. Nor has action been taken against the FDA, the organization that sits idly by as consumers continue to eat mercury-laden processed foods that make up on average about 90% of the US food supply.

It’s no conspiracy theory, the Washington Times — a mainstream news publication — was actually the first to report on the crisis back in 2009. Now more than 3 years ago, activist groups expressed serious outrage over the findings. Two individual scientific studies found the presence of the hazardous element mercury in nearly half of all high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) test samples. HFCS, of course, is a ubiquitous and oftentimes genetically altered ingredient that pervades the vast majority of processed foods. It makes sense, then, that mercury was identified in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products which listed high-fructose corn syrup as the first-or-second-highest labeled ingredient.

Despite calls by scientific organizations for the FDA to take action regarding the findings, they did nothing:

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply,” the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy’s Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies, said in a prepared statement.

Retired pharmacist Martin Kimber was arrested for adding mercury to Albany Medical Center cafeteria food, finding a small metal ball of liquid in one individual’s chicken finger meal. Of course what Kimber did was truly horrible and he should be rightfully charged, but are what these major food manufacturers doing differently? Furthermore, is the FDA any better for letting it happen? What’s more is that Kimber’s attempts of mercury contamination only affected a small number of diners, whereas the presence of mercury in processed foods affects the entire globe.

Kimber was charged with a felony — first-degree tampering with a consumer product. When will consumers stand up and demand that corporations and the FDA answer to why they have allowed mercury to remain in the food supply?

Producers of toxic BPA are now boasting $8 billion in sales for 2012 thanks to the FDA rejecting a potential ban on the cancer-linked chemical on March 30th. According to GlobalData, manufacturers will produce 4.7 million metric tons of BPA this year to be dispersed into the daily lives of millions worldwide. BPA now goes into everything: plastic bottles, canned foods, DVDs, plastic wrap, and much more. Despite being linked to about as many serious health conditions as the amount of products it contaminates, the FDA has decided once again to side with mega corporations over protecting the health of the people.

Even Campbell’s Soup and the Heinz corporation are removing BPA from their products in an effort to reclaim consumers who are fully aware of the issues surrounding BPA. California is also banning the substance from baby bottles and sippy cups in attempts to protect newborn babies whose developing bodies are majorly affected by the estrogen-mimicking chemical. But the FDA? They recognize that BPA may be breeding disease among the public, but they’re still perfectly okay with letting it contaminate the food supply. Instead of taking action over the threat, the FDA decided to pick at the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have linked BPA to everything from cancer (in over 130 studies) to depression and diabetes.

“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.

This is the same agency that has no trouble going after nutritional supplements containing 100% organic and natural super-nutrients that have been used for thousands of years. It is also the same government powerhouse that has allowed for mercury to lurk in the processed food supply for years despite major consumer groups demanding action. The list can go on and on — the FDA simply does not seem to care about legitimately threatening items like GMOs and artificial sweeteners, so why would they care about BPA? After all, the carcinogenic chemical has the backing of an $8 billion industry.

It was reported not too long ago that the Food and Drug Administration would make a decision on the banning of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). Now, the agency has finally come to a decision, and unsurprisingly, it has decided that there is not enough scientific evidence supporting for the ban of BPA – that is to say, BPA will not be banned from use in food products, plastic packaging, and personal care products.

On Friday the agency made the decision due to lack of scientific evidence to justify the new restrictions, despite tons of evidence showcasing BPAs dangers. The FDA’s problem? Much of the research was performed using mice, and so they claimed that the findings don’t relate to humans.

“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.

But it seems that many other nations and companies seem to disagree with the FDA, in that they have already taken action in banning or removing the chemical from use. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles in 2007, while the European Union, Turkey, and other countries banned BPA from baby bottled in 2008. What’s more, various companies such as Toys “R” Us and even Walmart claimed to have discontinued use of BPA in children’s items.

While the FDA continues to fall behind many nations in the ban due to ‘lack of scientific evidence’, it seems that the agency secretly doesn’t want the ban altogether. The recent decision made by the FDA was prompted only due to a lawsuit against it after they failed to respond to petition requesting the ban. It took the FDA more than 180 days to respond to the National Resources Defense Council’s petition, which is surpassing a deadline it must reach regarding response to petitions.

BPA has been shown to prompt hyperactivity and depression in young girls, while also being linked to breast cancer in more than 130 studies. Infertility and fertility defects are also caused by BPA exposure. The chemical is used so widely that it has been found in the urine of nearly 93 percent of Americans, with one study finding that eating canned soup can spike urinary bisphenol-A levels by 1,200 percent compared to fresh soup.

While the Food and Drug Administration has seemingly reached the limit for unbelievable behavior, the company’s decisions continue to astound and appall consumers and health activists alike. In the agency’s latest decision, undoubtedly amazing thousands of individuals yet again, the FDA virtually erased 1 million signatures and comments on the ‘Just Label It’ campaign calling for the labeling of genetically modified foods.

FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign

The ‘Just Label It” campaign has gotten more signatures than any campaign in history for the labeling of genetically modified foods. Since October of 2011, the campaign has received over 900,000 signatures, with 55 politicians joining in on the movement. So what’s the problem here?

Evidently, the FDA counts the amount of signatures not by how many people signed, but how many different individual letters are brought to it. To the FDA, even tens of thousands of signatures presented on a single petition are counted as – you guessed it – a single comment. This is how, despite over a million supporters being gathered by the petition, the FDA concluded a count of only 394.

“This is an election year and there are more than a million people who say this is important to them. This is petition has nothing to do with whether or genetically modified foods are dangerous. We don’t label dangerous foods, we take them off the shelves. This petition is about a the citizens’ right to know what they are eating and whether or not these foods represent a novel change.” said Andrew Kimbrell an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the partner groups on the Just Label It campaign.

The argument as to whether genetically modified foods are dangerous is a whole discussion on its own, but for the FDA to completely sidestep away from the labeling of GM foods is completely and utterly irresponsible. Consumers have every right to know what they are consuming. Needless to say, biotechology giant Monsanto is against GMO labeling, claiming that it would mislead consumers since GMOs are ‘perfectly safe’. Of course there is plenty of evidence proving that GMOs are not completely safe, and how they affect life in the long-term is questionable to say the least. Either way, there is enough controversy surrounding the issue which is cause for alarm for millions of people, and Monsanto’s opinion on GMOs safety is a sorry excuse for not labeling foods as GM. Is the FDA avoiding such an issue because so many ties exist between genetically modified makers like Monsanto and the agency?

The bottom line is that you have the right to know what is in your food, and what your food IS. Denying that right, whether it be by the essential deletion of millions of signatures on a petition, or by ignoring the voices of thousands of people on the street, is taking power away from the people.

If you are the maker or seller of health supplements, or follow the decisions made by the Food and Drug Administration, then you probably know of the blatant corruption and injustice revolving around the FDA. Through examining and following the FDA’s decisions, anyone can see that the organization continuously pushes pharmaceutical drugs while censoring health food and supplements and their ability to heal. Such is the case with a company known as Fleminger, Inc. and their green tea product.

Court Rules FDA is Harshly Censoring Foods and Supplements

In 2004, Fleminger Inc. submitted a health claim petition to the FDA for their green tea product. Scientific research is available showcasing green tea’s ability to boost the immune system, promote graceful aging, and help to fight cancers, and so Fleminger Inc. rightfully thought to promote these health advantages. But the FDA responded a year later with proposed disclaiming stating that the “FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk” of breast cancer and prostate cancer — health claims that Fleminger wanted to promote. In 2010, after threatening to seize Fleminger Inc.’s products and enforce the use of new exact language proposed by the FDA, the organization sent over another revised claim which they insisted the company use:

“Green tea may reduce the risk of breast or prostate cancer. FDA does not agree that green tea may reduce the risk because there is very little scientific evidence for the claim.”

Being shocked and appalled by the FDA’s force, Fleminger created a suit in the US District Court. The Food and Drug Administration simple gave Fleminger no choice but to use their exact words in claims or risk facing the tyranny of the FDA. Thankfully, judge Bryant ruled in favor of Fleminger, saying:

 ”The FDA’s language “effectively negates the substance–disease relationship claim altogether….There are less burdensome ways in which the FDA could indicate in a short, succinct and accurate disclaimer that it has not approved the claim without nullifying the claim altogether.”

Unfortunately, companies promoting food and supplements are seldom allowed to showcase specific health benefits resulting from use of their product. As shocking as it may seem, the FDA deems food and supplements as drugs if they are marketed with health claims. Furthermore, these ‘drugs’ would need to go through costly drug trials, and can’t be patented like all other real drugs can be.

This is also the case with Diamond Foods and their walnuts. In response to claims by a company named Diamond Foods that walnuts possess health benefits, the FDA sent the company a letter informing them of their wrongdoing. According to the FDA, claims made by Diamond Foods that omega-3′s found in walnuts produce health benefits make their walnuts ‘drugs‘. As far as the FDA is concerned, these “drugs” can not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved new drug application.

There are many cases similar to those experienced by Fleminger Inc. and Diamond Foods. Why is the FDA absurdly censoring foods and natural supplements while promoting deadly prescription drugs? Well, to put it simply, the organization really does not care about your health.