The form is downloadable here and to be sent to email@example.com
The plot thickens. Nature’s nutrient DHA, typically in fish oil, is a powerful activator of PPAR gamma, helping to break down triglycerides as well as make new metabolically-fit fat cells that boost adiponectin and help fight type 2 diabetes—the exact objectives of Big Pharma’s Avandia and Actos. DHA is a near-miracle nutrient for the heart and overall cardiovascular health and also supports strong bones. It has all of the benefits of Avandia and Actos and none of the side effects.
And this is why Big Pharma is so interested in taking over many dietary supplement ingredients. The nutrients know how to work in harmony with gene function in the human body, since nutrition was a key part of human evolution. These nutrients appear to have inherent intelligence that no drug could possibly have. They understand the context of the gene signal and thus support the beneficial gene activity. They know how to behave differently in different areas of the body to promote healthy function at every turn.
Under the FDA’s new draft guidance that redefines the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the FDA targets many nutrients for elimination from the market, and DHA is one of them. DHA is a component of fish oil, which is a pre-DSHEA nutrient. This means that it should be grandfathered in and not subjected to the newly-published New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidelines.
Various companies have been able to concentrate the DHA as well as remove toxins from the oil, enabling consumers to take higher amounts of the most important ingredient in fish oil. Consumers can now easily and safely reach doses of DHA that are consistent with studies showing extreme health benefit. Such doses of DHA are known to be safe, have been tested in clinical trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and are consistent with the amounts consumed by people who regularly eat fish.
The FDA’s point man on NDI guidance issues, Daniel Fabricant, has been telling the supplement industry what to expect. In a recent webinar he was asked, “Should it be necessary to submit an NDI notification over a small change in the ratios of the long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA to DHA in one fish oil supplement versus another? Is this really a big safety issue?” Shockingly, Fabricant responded “If it is a different ingredient, a different chemical entity, then it should trigger an NDI notification.”
Fabricant is saying that any modification of basic fish oil should trigger an NDI notification. This is utter nonsense, but it is exactly what the FDA is attempting to do. What Fabricant did not bother to say to the supplement industry webinar audience was that an NDI application for modified fish oil would be denied, since GlaxoSmithKline already has a fish oil prescription drug on the market called Lovaza. Again, shocking.
Yes, the new guidance document makes it clear that if an existing drug contains any form of the nutrient DHA, a NDI will not be allowed (section IV.C.8-11). In other words, if modified DHA did not require an NDI notification, it qualified as a grandfathered nutrient, an obvious part of fish oil. But if the FDA decides that the newly manufactured form of the nutrient, in this case DHA, is different than its typical concentration in food, it can require that nutrient to have an NDI notification. By retroactively applying this definition to nutrients that compete with drug applications, that nutrient will automatically be denied NDI status. As of now, this is the intended fate of DHA. It is gravely unfortunate, as DHA is one of the most beneficial and effective nutrients offered by the dietary supplement industry.
This is a blatant power play to hand the entire high-grade DHA market to GlaxoSmithKline, one of the largest drug companies in the world. Lovaza already costs five to seven times what a similar amount of high-grade DHA costs—imagine how high their price will go up when there is no competition.
Dr Sundardas D Annamalay
Until the advent of the new gene-regulating drugs, virtually all medications worked on the principle of poisoning the function of a cell or enzyme system to hopefully produce a change that the doctor thinks “beneficial.” If taking a drug results in a better-looking blood sugar, blood pressure, or cholesterol number, then doctors automatically assume the person is healthier. Rather, health has nothing to do with it. It is in the financial interests of drug companies to dispense more and more drugs, on an ongoing basis.
There is a night-and-day difference in quality of health between a person who has good numbers because they are healthy and a person who has reasonably-looking numbers because they are poisoned with drugs. Studies using high doses of metabolic and cardiovascular drugs to attempt to drive numbers down to the levels of healthy people invariably injure and even kill the participants—clearly failing to improve health quality and extend lifespan.
To make matters worse, the pharmaceutical industry fraudulently hides the actual risks of the drugs from both patients and doctors. This includes slanting, to blatantly falsifying, studies routinely published in medical journals and used for marketing, illegally promoting off-label use of drugs, using funding to bribe research universities to publish only favorable results and blacklisting researchers who refuse to accept, and paying influential doctors to present their data as independent research at medical meetings.
The scope and magnitude of the drug safety issue is a nightmare. In 2006 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted interviews with FDA management and hundreds of FDA employees to ascertain issues leading to drug safety problems. Widespread conflict of interest and many other issues led IOM investigators to label FDA management as dysfunctional. Little has changed.
The Gene-Experimentation Era of Western Medicine
The human body is no slouch when it comes to elaborate complexity. It is often the case that the same exact gene signal is “good” or “bad” depending on the context in which it is activated. In fact, the same genes often behave differently in different areas of the body. Unlike earlier toxic drugs that force cell and enzyme behavior at a rather crude level, biotech drugs turn gene signals “on” or “off” at a powerfully fundamental level of cell function. Unfortunately for consumers, our understanding of genes is in its infancy. There is daunting complexity in gene regulation, making use of any gene-regulating drug highly questionable.
One example of this problem involves diabetes drugs Avandia and Actos, which turn on the gene PPAR gamma. This gene signal helps to break down triglycerides. These drugs also stimulate the formation of new fat cells, which are more metabolically fit and therefore produce more adiponectin that stops insulin resistance. Thus, in theory, they are potentially great drugs for lowering triglycerides and benefiting people with type 2 diabetes. As these drugs became blockbusters it was soon observed that the patients taking them were experiencing devastating side effects. These drugs have no way to know the context in which they should be operating. They activate PPAR gamma in the wrong places, such as the heart, leading to a 40 percent increased risk for heart failure or heart attack. Additionally, inappropriate PPAR gamma activation in bones causes them to break more easily.
The FDA rushed these drugs to market despite the objections of its own safety supervisor who wanted employ a black box warning for heart failure. In other words, the FDA knew about the risks but prevented the public from understanding them, and still allowed the drugs to go to market. This was a major scandal at the FDA.
The FDA has finally restricted Avandia, but Actos remains available in full swing. Actos has recently been highly restricted in Europe, but in America, the FDA continues to drag its feet. This is likely because the FDA has mud on its face for approving these biotech nightmares in the first place and would rather consumers suffer injury and even die than look bad. The mainstream media fails to aggressively report on or investigate this tragic issue as they are large recipients of drug company advertising dollars. Even when one of their own, Tim Russert, was likely killed by Avandia or Actos, they turned a blind eye.
Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay