There's some riveting "whistle-blowing" stuff giving the inside story on how the American Food and Drug Administration are falling down in their job of ensuring that drugs allowed on the world-wide market are really effective, and, above all, safe to use, and that people are dying as a result-
at http://www.naturalnews.com/011401_Dr_David_Graham_the_FDA.html
The person doing the whistle-blowing is Dr David Graham, the top FDA epidemiologist (the branch of medicine that deals with the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations).
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Monday, 25 April 2011
The Case for Homeopathic Medicine: dealing with the medical fundamentalists and other crackpots
There are a good many "Medical Fundamentalist" doctors, and some "useful idiot" journalists (who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag as the saying goes) who call homeopathy "bogus" and go into auto-loop trotting out the hoary old myths about there being no evidence for it working or that it's no better than placebo, which means "dangerous" because it might put off people getting proper (conventional)(poisonous) medication etc etc. The other part of their auto-loop is that conventional medication is always backed up by the best "scientific evidence" (selectively chosen) and inconvenient side effects, including death, are to be ignored.
For these types Dana Ullman put together an article last August entitled "The Case for Homeopathic Medicine: Consider the Historical and Scientific Evidence" which can be found at
http://www.naturalnews.com/029419_homeopathic_medicine_evidence.html#ixzz1KZNBSErz
It's best when dealing with such crackpots not to indulge in time-wasting discussion with them but just to point them to such an article and tell them to read it. They won't of course, because they have no intention of changing their auto-loop mantras and their minds are closed.
And that would be fine if they confined themselves to poisoning their own minds and bodies and naturally thereby slowly selected themselves out of existence. The problem is that they are doing that for a lot of innocent people as well if they are conventional doctors, and those in the higher echelons are telling lies about other safe, natural healthcare therapies and attempting to use their influence to shaft them. That's criminal.
In 1542 Henry VIII was confronted by the Physicians and Surgeons wanting essentially a monopoly over treating patients and dispensing medications, and the suppression of the competition, which at that time was the herbalists. He took advice and found that the herbalists did a lot of good to the public treating a range of diseases for no payment, as compared with the Surgeons, who often did harm and yet demanded excessive payment. Much to the annoyance of the Physicians and Surgeons, he promptly passed the Herbalists Charter in 1543 to provide that "it shall be lawful to every Person being the King's subject, having Knowledge and Experience of the Nature of Herbs, Roots and Waters, or of the Operation of the same, by Speculation or Practice" ..."to practice, use and minister in and to any outward Sore, Uncome Wound, Aposelmations, outward Swelling or Disease, any Herb or Herbs, Ointments, Baths, Pultess, and Emplaisters, according to their Cunning, Experience and Knowledge in any of the Diseases, Sorea and Maladies beforesaid, and all other like to the same, or Drinks for the Stone, Strangury or Agues".I believe this Act hasn't been repealed.
Now that's the kind of King or Queen we need today!
BTW as I haven't yet discovered what Aposelmation means I'm going to accord it the following meaning: a malignant condition of the mind which denies the usefulness of any natural form of healing regardless of the evidence for it. Yes, there are homeopathic remedies such as Arsenicum, Arg. Nit etc which could well make considerable inroads into such a condition.
For these types Dana Ullman put together an article last August entitled "The Case for Homeopathic Medicine: Consider the Historical and Scientific Evidence" which can be found at
http://www.naturalnews.com/029419_homeopathic_medicine_evidence.html#ixzz1KZNBSErz
It's best when dealing with such crackpots not to indulge in time-wasting discussion with them but just to point them to such an article and tell them to read it. They won't of course, because they have no intention of changing their auto-loop mantras and their minds are closed.
And that would be fine if they confined themselves to poisoning their own minds and bodies and naturally thereby slowly selected themselves out of existence. The problem is that they are doing that for a lot of innocent people as well if they are conventional doctors, and those in the higher echelons are telling lies about other safe, natural healthcare therapies and attempting to use their influence to shaft them. That's criminal.
In 1542 Henry VIII was confronted by the Physicians and Surgeons wanting essentially a monopoly over treating patients and dispensing medications, and the suppression of the competition, which at that time was the herbalists. He took advice and found that the herbalists did a lot of good to the public treating a range of diseases for no payment, as compared with the Surgeons, who often did harm and yet demanded excessive payment. Much to the annoyance of the Physicians and Surgeons, he promptly passed the Herbalists Charter in 1543 to provide that "it shall be lawful to every Person being the King's subject, having Knowledge and Experience of the Nature of Herbs, Roots and Waters, or of the Operation of the same, by Speculation or Practice" ..."to practice, use and minister in and to any outward Sore, Uncome Wound, Aposelmations, outward Swelling or Disease, any Herb or Herbs, Ointments, Baths, Pultess, and Emplaisters, according to their Cunning, Experience and Knowledge in any of the Diseases, Sorea and Maladies beforesaid, and all other like to the same, or Drinks for the Stone, Strangury or Agues".I believe this Act hasn't been repealed.
Now that's the kind of King or Queen we need today!
BTW as I haven't yet discovered what Aposelmation means I'm going to accord it the following meaning: a malignant condition of the mind which denies the usefulness of any natural form of healing regardless of the evidence for it. Yes, there are homeopathic remedies such as Arsenicum, Arg. Nit etc which could well make considerable inroads into such a condition.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Is your Doctor really to blame for the stuff he prescribes?
Here is a comment from a naturopathic US doctor which explains the modern day pressures they are under which, he believes, leads his (non-complementary minded) colleagues to prescribe in ways that, under other circumstances, they mightn't do. I think commonsense tells us laymen that he is speaking the truth. But what a damning indictment it is on the top hierarchy of the medical profession that they don't do anything to change this. Whatever happened to that fundamental precept of medical ethics "First, do No Harm" ? [The follow-up comments appended below came from the same website]
"As a naturopathic physician, I am always looking to new scientific findings to help explain why the treatments I provide work so well, despite often not having been subjected to "gold standard double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over studies." We vastly undervalue empiricism in medicine, yet many experienced conventional docs use unproven empirical treatments all the time. They figure out what works, despite what the "gold standard" research says.
Some of the treatments I provide have been around for thousands of years and I continue to be surprised how well my patients respond to acupuncture, nutrients, herbs, homeopathy, hydrotherapy and other approaches. I use several therapies simultaneously with my patients, an approach that is difficult to study using "gold standard" methodology. Additionally, you have to consider that "gold standard" methodology makes a massive and impossible assumption right out of the gate, that the population being studied is socially, phenotypically and genetically homogenous.
Perhaps my medicine's focus on the individual's overall health and function does work best -not labelling him with a diagnosis for the purpose of justifying a FDA/ industry accepted, standard-of-care treatment. The treatment X for condition Y approach sounds scientific and rational; but the catch is in determining the "condition," the whole health picture of the patient, not just that they have an affected part.
Yes, I use the available science to best direct my treatments, whether the approach is "conventional" or "alternative." I just like to practice good medicine; what I know works based upon my experience and what has worked for doctors who've come before me.
It's ironic that the word, physician, means 'one who knows nature.'
It seems that THE ONLY THING CONVENTIONAL PHYSICIANS KNOW THESE DAYS IS WHAT IS TAUGHT TO THEM IN MEDICAL SCHOOL FROM DRUG REPS AND PRACTICE GUIDELINES THAT ARE DICTATED BY THEIR INDUSTRY, DRUG COMPANIES AND INSURANCE FIRMS(my emphasis added).
I actually feel sorry for MDs these days. Even if they wanted to do things differently, the various industry influences would prevent it.
In addition, with ever-dwindling reimbursement from insurance, they have to provide even less individualized care than ever before; having to squeeze in more patients in a day just to pay their bills.
MANY MDS THESE DAYS ARE VIRTUALLY SLAVES WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN A WAY THAT IS BOTH ACCEPTABLE TO THEIR PEERS AND PROFITABLE FOR DRUG COMPANIES.
No, everyday MDs aren't evil. They are (most of them) very decent, well-intentioned individuals who are, unfortunately, caught up in a meat grinder of an industry. MOST of them aren't the ones churning the meat-grinder handle, so don't lump them all together. I say this even though MOST OF THEM HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE ANTI-COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE BIAS THAT IS FED TO THEM."
--------------------
The constructive vision is there, in the article!
1. Take more time caring for your patients - listen to them, think about what is going on, what are the real causes/triggers of their individual condition?
2. Don't give too much emphasis to routine test results.
3. Avoid prescribing cocktails of drugs routinely and thoughtlessly. Take your patients off drugs whenever possible.
4. Resist the pressure from colleagues, manufacturers and journals to accept research at face value.
5. Don't get attached to trendy theories (e.g. dietary cholesterol causes heart disease - disproved decades ago, but still trotted out by many medics)
I get really flabbergasted by the opaqueness of many physicians vision when the answer is staring them in the face: YOU HAVE BECOME TOO DEPENDENT ON DRUGS TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS FOR YOU!
[TNM COMMENT: One could well add the advice to conventionally trained doctors .... Have the humility to understand that in any given case you may well not be the person in the best position to help the patient back to full health if all you can think of dosing them with is an antibiotic, statin, steroid, antidepressant etc which will just mask the symptoms and not cure but potentially damage the patient's immune system. It may well be that unless it is a case for acute emergency treatment the patient's best interests would be better served by you attempting a diagnosis and then handing the casenotes on to a qualified complementary healthcare practitioner eg homeopath, naturopath, nutritionist, accupuncturist, chiropracter, osteopath etc]
-----------------------------
- For many physicians it is very difficult to keep up with every single new guideline because publishing increases at an exponential rate every year (despite 90% of research being rejected by publishers).
- Only 54% of people seen in hospitals get what is considered the standard of care.
- The standard of care is usually based on gold & platinum standard large randomized control trials, of which around 10-25% may be wrong.
- Pharmaceutical companies fund about 90% of Randomized Control Trials performed globally. (WHY? Because these are REALLY EXPENSIVE).
- These RCTs rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the [pharmaceutical] companies' products. AND, overall, studies funded by a [pharmaceutical] company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the company than studies funded from other sources.
[TNM COMMENT: RCTS have been and doubtless still are being "fudged". Take a look at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269.
For testing homeopathic remedies conventional medicine's RCT test is totally unsuitable and inappropriate because homeopathy, as properly practised, treats each patient individually and most often with a succession of different remedies depending upon the aetiology in the case, that patient's vital state and the totality of their symptoms, to nudge the patient's system back to full health. This would be the case even where, say, each individual had been diagnosed as having eg arthitis. There is no way an RCT could begin to accurately test this process, but that has never stopped homeopathy's detractors from clamouring for the homeopathic profession to use RCTs!]
"As a naturopathic physician, I am always looking to new scientific findings to help explain why the treatments I provide work so well, despite often not having been subjected to "gold standard double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over studies." We vastly undervalue empiricism in medicine, yet many experienced conventional docs use unproven empirical treatments all the time. They figure out what works, despite what the "gold standard" research says.
Some of the treatments I provide have been around for thousands of years and I continue to be surprised how well my patients respond to acupuncture, nutrients, herbs, homeopathy, hydrotherapy and other approaches. I use several therapies simultaneously with my patients, an approach that is difficult to study using "gold standard" methodology. Additionally, you have to consider that "gold standard" methodology makes a massive and impossible assumption right out of the gate, that the population being studied is socially, phenotypically and genetically homogenous.
Perhaps my medicine's focus on the individual's overall health and function does work best -not labelling him with a diagnosis for the purpose of justifying a FDA/ industry accepted, standard-of-care treatment. The treatment X for condition Y approach sounds scientific and rational; but the catch is in determining the "condition," the whole health picture of the patient, not just that they have an affected part.
Yes, I use the available science to best direct my treatments, whether the approach is "conventional" or "alternative." I just like to practice good medicine; what I know works based upon my experience and what has worked for doctors who've come before me.
It's ironic that the word, physician, means 'one who knows nature.'
It seems that THE ONLY THING CONVENTIONAL PHYSICIANS KNOW THESE DAYS IS WHAT IS TAUGHT TO THEM IN MEDICAL SCHOOL FROM DRUG REPS AND PRACTICE GUIDELINES THAT ARE DICTATED BY THEIR INDUSTRY, DRUG COMPANIES AND INSURANCE FIRMS(my emphasis added).
I actually feel sorry for MDs these days. Even if they wanted to do things differently, the various industry influences would prevent it.
In addition, with ever-dwindling reimbursement from insurance, they have to provide even less individualized care than ever before; having to squeeze in more patients in a day just to pay their bills.
MANY MDS THESE DAYS ARE VIRTUALLY SLAVES WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN A WAY THAT IS BOTH ACCEPTABLE TO THEIR PEERS AND PROFITABLE FOR DRUG COMPANIES.
No, everyday MDs aren't evil. They are (most of them) very decent, well-intentioned individuals who are, unfortunately, caught up in a meat grinder of an industry. MOST of them aren't the ones churning the meat-grinder handle, so don't lump them all together. I say this even though MOST OF THEM HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE ANTI-COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE BIAS THAT IS FED TO THEM."
--------------------
The constructive vision is there, in the article!
1. Take more time caring for your patients - listen to them, think about what is going on, what are the real causes/triggers of their individual condition?
2. Don't give too much emphasis to routine test results.
3. Avoid prescribing cocktails of drugs routinely and thoughtlessly. Take your patients off drugs whenever possible.
4. Resist the pressure from colleagues, manufacturers and journals to accept research at face value.
5. Don't get attached to trendy theories (e.g. dietary cholesterol causes heart disease - disproved decades ago, but still trotted out by many medics)
I get really flabbergasted by the opaqueness of many physicians vision when the answer is staring them in the face: YOU HAVE BECOME TOO DEPENDENT ON DRUGS TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS FOR YOU!
[TNM COMMENT: One could well add the advice to conventionally trained doctors .... Have the humility to understand that in any given case you may well not be the person in the best position to help the patient back to full health if all you can think of dosing them with is an antibiotic, statin, steroid, antidepressant etc which will just mask the symptoms and not cure but potentially damage the patient's immune system. It may well be that unless it is a case for acute emergency treatment the patient's best interests would be better served by you attempting a diagnosis and then handing the casenotes on to a qualified complementary healthcare practitioner eg homeopath, naturopath, nutritionist, accupuncturist, chiropracter, osteopath etc]
-----------------------------
- For many physicians it is very difficult to keep up with every single new guideline because publishing increases at an exponential rate every year (despite 90% of research being rejected by publishers).
- Only 54% of people seen in hospitals get what is considered the standard of care.
- The standard of care is usually based on gold & platinum standard large randomized control trials, of which around 10-25% may be wrong.
- Pharmaceutical companies fund about 90% of Randomized Control Trials performed globally. (WHY? Because these are REALLY EXPENSIVE).
- These RCTs rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the [pharmaceutical] companies' products. AND, overall, studies funded by a [pharmaceutical] company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the company than studies funded from other sources.
[TNM COMMENT: RCTS have been and doubtless still are being "fudged". Take a look at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269.
For testing homeopathic remedies conventional medicine's RCT test is totally unsuitable and inappropriate because homeopathy, as properly practised, treats each patient individually and most often with a succession of different remedies depending upon the aetiology in the case, that patient's vital state and the totality of their symptoms, to nudge the patient's system back to full health. This would be the case even where, say, each individual had been diagnosed as having eg arthitis. There is no way an RCT could begin to accurately test this process, but that has never stopped homeopathy's detractors from clamouring for the homeopathic profession to use RCTs!]
Do your homework before subjecting your children to any vaccine.
An update on the HPV vaccine ..... which no girl (or boy) should ever take.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/18/leading-vaccine-doctor-states-cancer-linked-to-polio-vaccine.aspx
Following on from my 28th Oct blog reporting the 40 UK children killed by the MMR vaccine, we hear that for the HPV vaccine as of December 13, 2010, 20,915 adverse reactions had been reported in the United States alone, INCLUDING 89 DEATHS, 297 miscarriages or stillbirths, and 370 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination. (NB these stats may be vastly too low because of the normal under-reporting of adverse events by the medical profession).
According to the US National Vaccine Information Center, the incidents of miscarriage and still birth events from Gardasil supersede the same event from all other vaccinations.
According to a recent Sane Vax press release on PR Log:
"There is no doubt the vaccine's safety and efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated. And independent investigation on the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix must be conducted before there are more injuries and deaths."
What's most frustrating about this is that not a single one of these 21,000 children and young women needed to be harmed or die.
In the case of the HPV vaccine (Gardasil and Cervarix) the choice is clear. It has a high rate of risk and the potential benefits are unproven:
In more than 70 percent of cases, HPV clears up on its own within a few weeks or months. In over 90 percent of cases, it's gone within two years, causing no symptoms or disease.
Only about 26 percent of girls and women ages 14 to 59 have been exposed to any HPV strain at all; and
Only 2 percent have been exposed to strains 16 or 18 – the two that Gardasil and Cervarix protect against – meaning this vaccine is completely unnecessary because HPV infection very rarely leads to cancer.
Women whose partners wore condoms during vaginal intercourse are 70 percent less likely to become infected with HPV. That's a FAR greater level of protection than you can get from this vaccine!
Vaccines' Unsavory Assortment of Toxins
Mercury continues to be a major health concern, since it is still being used in a number of different vaccines, without sufficient safety testing. The science is increasingly clear about the dangers of mercury for children.
The latest studies confirm that mercury can damage children's brains and immune systems. Most childhood vaccines are finally mercury-free, but thimerosal continues to be used in multi-dose vials of DTwP, DT and most flu shots.
Besides mercury, vaccines also contain other dangerous ingredients conveniently disregarded by the pharmaceutical industry, including:
Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent
Phenol (carbolic acid)
Resin and gelatin, known to cause allergic reactions
Polysorbate 80 (Tween80™), which can cause anaphylactic reactions, and may cause miscarriage and infertility
Triton X100 (detergent)
Increasing numbers of concerned parents are opting out of vaccines for their children after concluding that the risks far outweigh the benefits. But if you live in Washington State, your right to file this kind of exemption is in jeopardy.
A bill that jeopardizes the freedom for Washington state residents to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccination was fast tracked and rammed through the state legislature by special interest lobbyists promoting forced vaccination. The legislators ignored the pleas of more than 100 parents and holistic health professionals, who showed up in Olympia to testify against the bill that would require parents to get a signature from a doctor or medical worker if they wanted to file a religious or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination.
The health committee chairpersons in the state House and Senate blocked the oral testimony of all but a handful of parents and then went on to ignore the thousands of phone calls by Washington state voters protesting the assault on their informed consent rights by the medical and pharmaceutical lobby.
Despite the public protest, the legislation passed the legislature on March 26 and is headed for Governor Christine Gregoire's desk for her signature after final touches are put on the legislation in the House and Senate.
The proposed new law discriminates against parents by failing to give them equal protection under the Federal Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL 99-660).
According to the National Vaccine Information Center, if the Governor of Washington signs this legislation into law, it will give doctors and other vaccine providers the power to sit "in judgment of," or interfere with, the free exercise of religious, spiritual or conscientious beliefs of their patients. It will also make it easier for physicians to deny children medical care as a way to punish parents for making selective vaccine choices, which is, unfortunately, the official policy of many American pediatricians.
Informed consent is especially important when it comes to vaccination, because there is no way for you or your physician to predict if your child will be one of the children who has a devastating vaccine reaction, such as brain inflammation, immune dysregulation, or even death.
REMEMBER with just a few minutes research on the internet you will probably be in a far more informed position than most doctors would have the time to be about these vaccines.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/18/leading-vaccine-doctor-states-cancer-linked-to-polio-vaccine.aspx
Following on from my 28th Oct blog reporting the 40 UK children killed by the MMR vaccine, we hear that for the HPV vaccine as of December 13, 2010, 20,915 adverse reactions had been reported in the United States alone, INCLUDING 89 DEATHS, 297 miscarriages or stillbirths, and 370 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination. (NB these stats may be vastly too low because of the normal under-reporting of adverse events by the medical profession).
According to the US National Vaccine Information Center, the incidents of miscarriage and still birth events from Gardasil supersede the same event from all other vaccinations.
According to a recent Sane Vax press release on PR Log:
"There is no doubt the vaccine's safety and efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated. And independent investigation on the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix must be conducted before there are more injuries and deaths."
What's most frustrating about this is that not a single one of these 21,000 children and young women needed to be harmed or die.
In the case of the HPV vaccine (Gardasil and Cervarix) the choice is clear. It has a high rate of risk and the potential benefits are unproven:
In more than 70 percent of cases, HPV clears up on its own within a few weeks or months. In over 90 percent of cases, it's gone within two years, causing no symptoms or disease.
Only about 26 percent of girls and women ages 14 to 59 have been exposed to any HPV strain at all; and
Only 2 percent have been exposed to strains 16 or 18 – the two that Gardasil and Cervarix protect against – meaning this vaccine is completely unnecessary because HPV infection very rarely leads to cancer.
Women whose partners wore condoms during vaginal intercourse are 70 percent less likely to become infected with HPV. That's a FAR greater level of protection than you can get from this vaccine!
Vaccines' Unsavory Assortment of Toxins
Mercury continues to be a major health concern, since it is still being used in a number of different vaccines, without sufficient safety testing. The science is increasingly clear about the dangers of mercury for children.
The latest studies confirm that mercury can damage children's brains and immune systems. Most childhood vaccines are finally mercury-free, but thimerosal continues to be used in multi-dose vials of DTwP, DT and most flu shots.
Besides mercury, vaccines also contain other dangerous ingredients conveniently disregarded by the pharmaceutical industry, including:
Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent
Phenol (carbolic acid)
Resin and gelatin, known to cause allergic reactions
Polysorbate 80 (Tween80™), which can cause anaphylactic reactions, and may cause miscarriage and infertility
Triton X100 (detergent)
Increasing numbers of concerned parents are opting out of vaccines for their children after concluding that the risks far outweigh the benefits. But if you live in Washington State, your right to file this kind of exemption is in jeopardy.
A bill that jeopardizes the freedom for Washington state residents to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccination was fast tracked and rammed through the state legislature by special interest lobbyists promoting forced vaccination. The legislators ignored the pleas of more than 100 parents and holistic health professionals, who showed up in Olympia to testify against the bill that would require parents to get a signature from a doctor or medical worker if they wanted to file a religious or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination.
The health committee chairpersons in the state House and Senate blocked the oral testimony of all but a handful of parents and then went on to ignore the thousands of phone calls by Washington state voters protesting the assault on their informed consent rights by the medical and pharmaceutical lobby.
Despite the public protest, the legislation passed the legislature on March 26 and is headed for Governor Christine Gregoire's desk for her signature after final touches are put on the legislation in the House and Senate.
The proposed new law discriminates against parents by failing to give them equal protection under the Federal Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL 99-660).
According to the National Vaccine Information Center, if the Governor of Washington signs this legislation into law, it will give doctors and other vaccine providers the power to sit "in judgment of," or interfere with, the free exercise of religious, spiritual or conscientious beliefs of their patients. It will also make it easier for physicians to deny children medical care as a way to punish parents for making selective vaccine choices, which is, unfortunately, the official policy of many American pediatricians.
Informed consent is especially important when it comes to vaccination, because there is no way for you or your physician to predict if your child will be one of the children who has a devastating vaccine reaction, such as brain inflammation, immune dysregulation, or even death.
REMEMBER with just a few minutes research on the internet you will probably be in a far more informed position than most doctors would have the time to be about these vaccines.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Meat Glue!
Here's something you might not know. I certainly didn't. The meat industry uses "glue" to stick together scraps and make them look like Prime Cuts.
(see the http://healthfreedoms.org website)
Did you know your meats can contain this meat glue? It’s not on labels because technically it not part of formulation of the product. It's called Thrombin coagulant.
It allows butchers to use the undetectable glue to piece together scraps of meat into a seamless full meat cut. England banned use of Thrombin coagulant last year. They found it misled consumers into thinking they were getting a prime cut for their money, and also the original glue was made from cow and pig blood, something they didn’t think was wise in restaurant meats.
When multiple pieces are globbed together, bacteria has a better chance of growth. “If there is a bacteria outbreak, it’s much harder to figure out the source when chunks of meat from multiple cows were combined,” said Keith Warriner who teaches food science at University of Guelph.
The EU recently brought back the use of the new glue, Thrombian, or Transglutaminase, right along with Australia, Canada and the US. The FDA, of course, deems it GRAS (generally recognized as safe).
It’s hush-hush because meat preparers are afraid to lose their suppliers and customers. The next time you buy natural and organic meat, it wouldn't hurt to ask whether the glue is in it.
This sort of thing has been a boon to the food industry, which can now treat all sorts of proteins like meat or fish as just another material to be processed, but in the hands of molecular gastronomists it’s become a way to manipulate food in a way that would have been previously impossible. It’s possible, for example, to make tenderloin rolls wrapped in bacon that hold together perfectly without the need for twine or toothpicks. So what kind of glue is it exactly?
Produced as Activa by Japan’s Ajinomoto Company, it’s scientific name is “transglutaminase” and it belongs to the family of clotting enzymes which are eight in number.
Thrombin is a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be used to develop a “meat glue” enzyme that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat. It can be made from blood taken from either cows or pigs.
Less than a year ago, the European Parliament had voted to ban bovine and porcine thrombin. The House said the meat glue has no proven benefit for consumers and might mislead them instead.
The Parliament estimated that there is “a clear risk that meat containing thrombin would find its way into meat products served in restaurants or other public establishments serving food, given the higher prices that can be obtained for pieces of meat served as a single meat product”.
But two weeks ago, all but one of the European Union nations voted in favor of using Thrombian, or Transglutaminase (TG). They now join other developed nations such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia who approved the product.
If there is a bacteria outbreak, it’ll be much harder to figure out the source when chunks of meat from multiple cows were combined.
Yet another innovation is “modified atmosphere packaging”, the widespread practice of filling meat packaging with adjusted levels of oxygen and other gases. The gases can keep meat from losing its fresh-looking red hue. Shiv Chopra, an Ottawa food-safety expert and retired Health Canada scientist, said in an e-mail that the technique is “dangerous” because it may prevent shoppers from seeing when meat has gone bad. UBC’s Allen agreed: “This can be misleading to consumers.”
Invariably, industry justifies use of these so called meat glues because they are used only during processing and resist declaring it in the label obviously maintaining that it is not a part of the formulation of the product. While technically they are correct, the fact still remains that the so called processing aid stays right there in the final product.which certainly requires declaration for the information of the consumer.
Maybe it's time to have a chat with your butcher or shop more from farmer’s markets.
(see the http://healthfreedoms.org website)
Did you know your meats can contain this meat glue? It’s not on labels because technically it not part of formulation of the product. It's called Thrombin coagulant.
It allows butchers to use the undetectable glue to piece together scraps of meat into a seamless full meat cut. England banned use of Thrombin coagulant last year. They found it misled consumers into thinking they were getting a prime cut for their money, and also the original glue was made from cow and pig blood, something they didn’t think was wise in restaurant meats.
When multiple pieces are globbed together, bacteria has a better chance of growth. “If there is a bacteria outbreak, it’s much harder to figure out the source when chunks of meat from multiple cows were combined,” said Keith Warriner who teaches food science at University of Guelph.
The EU recently brought back the use of the new glue, Thrombian, or Transglutaminase, right along with Australia, Canada and the US. The FDA, of course, deems it GRAS (generally recognized as safe).
It’s hush-hush because meat preparers are afraid to lose their suppliers and customers. The next time you buy natural and organic meat, it wouldn't hurt to ask whether the glue is in it.
This sort of thing has been a boon to the food industry, which can now treat all sorts of proteins like meat or fish as just another material to be processed, but in the hands of molecular gastronomists it’s become a way to manipulate food in a way that would have been previously impossible. It’s possible, for example, to make tenderloin rolls wrapped in bacon that hold together perfectly without the need for twine or toothpicks. So what kind of glue is it exactly?
Produced as Activa by Japan’s Ajinomoto Company, it’s scientific name is “transglutaminase” and it belongs to the family of clotting enzymes which are eight in number.
Thrombin is a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be used to develop a “meat glue” enzyme that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat. It can be made from blood taken from either cows or pigs.
Less than a year ago, the European Parliament had voted to ban bovine and porcine thrombin. The House said the meat glue has no proven benefit for consumers and might mislead them instead.
The Parliament estimated that there is “a clear risk that meat containing thrombin would find its way into meat products served in restaurants or other public establishments serving food, given the higher prices that can be obtained for pieces of meat served as a single meat product”.
But two weeks ago, all but one of the European Union nations voted in favor of using Thrombian, or Transglutaminase (TG). They now join other developed nations such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia who approved the product.
If there is a bacteria outbreak, it’ll be much harder to figure out the source when chunks of meat from multiple cows were combined.
Yet another innovation is “modified atmosphere packaging”, the widespread practice of filling meat packaging with adjusted levels of oxygen and other gases. The gases can keep meat from losing its fresh-looking red hue. Shiv Chopra, an Ottawa food-safety expert and retired Health Canada scientist, said in an e-mail that the technique is “dangerous” because it may prevent shoppers from seeing when meat has gone bad. UBC’s Allen agreed: “This can be misleading to consumers.”
Invariably, industry justifies use of these so called meat glues because they are used only during processing and resist declaring it in the label obviously maintaining that it is not a part of the formulation of the product. While technically they are correct, the fact still remains that the so called processing aid stays right there in the final product.which certainly requires declaration for the information of the consumer.
Maybe it's time to have a chat with your butcher or shop more from farmer’s markets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
