Alliance for Natural Health USA – Protecting Natural Health View RSS

‘Food is Medicine’: The (Intentionally) Missing Prescription in Healthcare 27 Mar 8:50 AM (4 days ago)

Americans are eager for healthcare providers to embrace the ‘Food is Medicine’ movement, but the system remains stuck in a pharmaceutical-driven model that ignores the power of food and nutrition to prevent and reverse chronic disease. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

---

THE TOPLINE

• Poor nutrition is the leading cause of illness in the U.S., contributing to over 600,000 deaths annually and $1.1 trillion in preventable costs.
• A majority of Americans want more nutrition guidance from healthcare providers, yet fewer than half recall receiving such advice.
• Regulatory barriers and cronyism prevent the integration of nutrition and supplements into mainstream healthcare, keeping Americans dependent on costly pharmaceuticals instead of preventive solutions.

---

Each year, more than 600,000 Americans die from diet-related diseases, and our broken healthcare system racks up $1.1 trillion in preventable healthcare costs and lost productivity. Chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension are at epidemic levels, and rather than addressing the root cause—poor nutrition—the mainstream medical system continues to push pharmaceuticals as the solution. But Americans want change. A recent national survey found that a majority of respondents are eager for healthcare providers to engage in conversations about food and nutrition.

Yet, despite this overwhelming public interest, the healthcare industry remains largely silent on the issue. Why? Because acknowledging that food is medicine disrupts the entire pharmaceutical-driven model that has dominated modern healthcare for nearly a century. Fear of change is natural, but disruption is the only way to fix a broken system.

The Cost of Ignoring Nutrition in Healthcare

The evidence is clear: our current healthcare approach is failing. More than four in ten American adults are obese, and one in two has diabetes or prediabetes. The future looks even bleaker—most American children are predicted to have obesity by age 35. And it gets worse: America spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet has highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions compared with other high-income country, and sits a very lowly 80^th in the global rankings for healthy life expectancy.  

Poor nutrition is a leading cause of illness in the U.S., contributing to hypertension, cancer, diabetes, and more. In purely financial terms, the toll is staggering:

• $604 billion in healthcare costs linked to diet-related diseases
• 90% of annual healthcare spending goes to chronic and mental health conditions
• Billions are lost due to reduced workplace productivity

But the problem isn’t just financial. There are ripple effects on mental health, educational outcomes, and family stability, particularly for those with metabolic diseases. By ignoring the role of nutrition in health, we are allowing millions of Americans to suffer needlessly while footing an ever-growing medical bill.

What Americans Want—and What They’re Not Getting

The recent survey of U.S. adults highlights a massive disconnect between what people want and what the healthcare system provides:

• 52.0% said they would eat healthier if healthcare covered or provided nutritious food.
• 49.3% said they would change their diet if their healthcare provider talked more about food and nutrition.

Despite this demand, fewer than half of those surveyed recalled ever receiving food- or nutrition-related guidance from their primary care provider. This is unacceptable. Doctors should be at the forefront of the Food is Medicine movement, yet they are often silent because the system prioritizes prescribing drugs over prescribing dietary changes.

The reality is that the “Food Is Medicine” (FIM) movement is a broad, multi-stakeholder initiative that is heavily supported and promoted by the Rockefeller Foundation. History buffs will be well aware that the Rockefeller Foundation played a major role in the development of the pharmaceutical industry in the post-WWII era. Should we then be surprised that FIM initiatives all too often miss the mark?

Redefining Medicine: Overcoming Regulatory Barriers

One of the biggest obstacles to mainstreaming Food is Medicine is the artificial divide between food and drugs. The FDA treats any claim that a food can prevent or treat disease as a drug claim. This legal framework suppresses vital information about nutrition and wellness.

Take dietary supplements, for example. A recent report quantified the enormous benefits of using a few key supplements:

• Fish oil could prevent 174,811 coronary artery disease (CAD) events, saving $5.63 billion.
• Magnesium could prevent 93,349 CAD events, saving $3 billion.
• Vitamin K2 could prevent 274,933 CAD events, saving $8.86 billion.
• Vitamin D and calcium could prevent 335,518 fractures, saving $17 billion.

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

We are at a crossroads. Do we continue with the failed model of over-prescription and reactive treatment, or do we embrace a proactive approach that prioritizes nutrition, supplementation, and prevention? The answer is clear.

Leaders like RFK Jr. recognize that addressing the chronic disease epidemic requires a fundamental shift. We need a system where:

• Doctors and patients work together to create vibrant health.
• Preventative care is prioritized.
• Free speech and scientific transparency allow people to make informed health choices.

At ANH-USA, we have long advocated for this transformation, including redefining the arbitrary legal boundaries that separate food and medicine. We support the MAHA agenda in challenging the status quo and fighting for a healthcare system that serves the people, not corporate interests.

To help usher in a change in our medical system that recognizes the power of natural foods and medicines to heal us, send a message to Congress urging them to support policies that allow the free flow of information about supplements and natural health products.

The post ‘Food is Medicine’: The (Intentionally) Missing Prescription in Healthcare first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

How Big Pharma is Exploiting the Mental Health Crisis at Our Cost 27 Mar 8:38 AM (4 days ago)

With antidepressant use on the rise, concerns over adverse effects, addiction, and pharma influence grow. Discover the hidden truths behind antidepressants and explore safer, natural alternatives for mental well-being.

This article was adapted from work done by ANH International. Read the original here.

Listen to the audio version of the article here:

---

THE TOPLINE

• Antidepressant prescriptions have surged, especially post-COVID-19, despite concerns about adverse effects, addiction, and the lack of a clear link between serotonin levels and depression. Many experience severe side effects, including suicidal thoughts, withdrawal symptoms, and increased violent behavior.
• The pharmaceutical industry has promoted the chemical imbalance theory to justify widespread antidepressant use, despite evidence challenging it. Financial ties between drug companies and psychiatrists, selective publishing of clinical trial results, and media influence contribute to the over-medicalization of normal emotional distress.
• Effective, non-drug-based treatments such as psychotherapy, dietary changes, physical activity, social support, and herbal remedies offer safer, long-term solutions for mental health. A shift toward holistic, individualized treatment approaches is essential for genuine mental well-being.

---

The Rise of Antidepressant Use

According to the World Health Organization, mental health conditions affect over 450 million people worldwide, with depression and anxiety ranking among the most common. These conditions impact nearly 30% of adolescents and are leading causes of disability.

Antidepressants (ADs) are the primary treatment for depression and anxiety, making up 75% of all prescriptions for these conditions. While their use was already increasing, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an even greater surge. Between January 2016 and December 2022, research shows a 66.3% increase in monthly antidepressant dispensing rates.

Despite growing concerns over their safety, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)—such as Citalopram, Fluoxetine, Sertraline, and Mirtazapine—continue to be widely prescribed across all age groups. This raises important questions about their long-term impact and whether a medication-first approach is truly the best strategy.

The Benefits and Risks of Antidepressants

ADs have helped many people, especially those with severe depression and anxiety. However, their widespread use raises concerns about masking symptoms rather than addressing root causes. Additionally, adverse effects and long-term risks make it essential to explore alternative treatments.

Common side effects include insomnia, weight gain, nausea, headaches, drowsiness, vomiting, and sexual dysfunction, which affects nearly half of all SSRI users. More severe effects include anxiety, agitation, hallucinations, and palpitations. In extreme cases, ADs have been linked to violent behavior and suicidal thoughts. A Swedish study found that SSRIs increased violent crime rates by 43% among individuals aged 15–24. Other research also indicates an increased risk of suicide attempts, particularly among children and young adults.

Alarmingly, these risks were known during clinical trials but were often concealed by pharmaceutical companies. For example, within the first nine years of Prozac’s release, the FDA received 39,000 complaints, yet evidence of violence and suicide risks was downplayed.

Another major concern is the addictive nature of ADs. SSRIs create significant physiological dependence, often after just weeks of use. Many users experience severe withdrawal symptoms like anxiety, dizziness, and cognitive impairment when they attempt to stop. Despite growing evidence of these risks, regulatory oversight remains weak, and discussions about the dangers of ADs continue to be suppressed. This raises ethical concerns about the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on psychiatric treatment.

How Antidepressants Became the Default Treatment

Despite growing evidence that alternative treatments—such as psychotherapy, dietary changes, social prescribing, and physical activity—can be more effective and safer, these options are often overlooked in favor of medication. Pharmaceutical companies have ensured that antidepressants remain the go-to treatment through selective publishing practices, financial ties to psychiatrists, and media influence.

Beyond influencing doctors and researchers, pharmaceutical companies also shape public opinion through media control and direct-to-consumer advertising. In the U.S., negative press about antidepressant dangers is often suppressed, keeping concerns about dependency, withdrawal, and long-term harm out of the public conversation.

Boost Your Mood Naturally

The over-reliance on ADs highlights a pharmaceutical industry driven by profit over comprehensive mental health care. While helpful for some, ADs are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, integrating medical, social, and lifestyle-based interventions can provide more effective long-term solutions.

Here are some natural ways to boost your mental well-being:

1. Eat a nutrient-rich diet. Gut health is intimately linked to mood. A diet high in whole foods and low in ultra-processed, high-sugar foods can significantly reduce symptoms of depression.
2. Limit screen time. Excessive screen use affects mental health. Spending time outdoors can have significant psychological benefits.
3. Stay social. Direct human interaction is essential for mental well-being.
4. Spend time in nature. Exposure to natural environments improves mood and immune function.
5. Stay active. Physical activity, whether walking, cycling, or gardening, can greatly improve mood.
6. Prioritize sleep. Avoid screens before bedtime to maintain healthy sleep habits.
7. Use herbal remedies. Supplements like ashwagandha, rhodiola, and chamomile can help alleviate anxiety and depression.
8. Reconnect with old friends. Social bonds are crucial for mental health.
9. Practice meditation. Even a few minutes of quiet time can help clear the mind.
10. Consider homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies address mental and emotional well-being without the side effects of ADs.

Medical disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider regarding any medical condition or treatment.

A shift toward long-term, science-based solutions is crucial. Genuine progress requires independent psychiatric research and holistic approaches that prioritize well-being over corporate interests.

The post How Big Pharma is Exploiting the Mental Health Crisis at Our Cost first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Hidden Chemical Loophole Puts Public Health in Danger 21 Mar 12:00 PM (10 days ago)

A new study reveals that supposedly “safe” polymers can break down into toxic chemicals, challenging long-held regulatory assumptions. Action Alert!

---

THE TOPLINE

• Research shows that polymeric brominated flame retardants degrade into harmful substances linked to developmental and cardiovascular issues.
• The EPA’s 1995 “polymer exemption” allowed the chemical industry to self-regulate, overlooking the dangers of polymer breakdown products.
• The findings raise alarms about PFAS polymers, which have largely escaped regulation despite their major contribution to environmental contamination.

---

For years, the chemical industry has promoted polymers—large molecular compounds—as safe, inert substances that pose little to no health risk. However, a new study out of southern China published in Nature Sustainability challenges this assumption, revealing that certain polymers, such as those in used in the electronics industry and as model flame-retardant chemicals, often touted as ‘safe’, can degrade over time, releasing toxic chemicals into the environment and endangering human health.

The Hidden Dangers of Polymeric Flame Retardants

Researchers investigating polymeric brominated flame retardants discovered that these supposedly stable compounds break down into dozens of smaller, harmful molecules. The study found that these breakdown products can lead to mitochondrial dysfunction, developmental disorders, and cardiovascular harm. Alarmingly, these toxic byproducts were detected in soil, air, and dust, with the highest concentrations near electronic waste recycling facilities.

Despite their potential for harm, polymers are exempted from many of the rules designed to ensure chemicals are safe. The EPA’s justification is that certain polymers are “low-risk” and the agency’s attention is better spent elsewhere. This was all implemented in a rule change in 1995; the EPA even allowed the chemical industry to determine if a chemical met the requirements for the polymer exemption.

The science is increasingly showing this intentionally lax oversight that appears set to benefit chemical companies is a grave mistake—at least for the rest of us. The assumption behind the polymer exemption is that high-molecular-weight polymers are not bioavailable, do not cross the blood-brain barrier, and therefore are not toxic—but this does not account for their breakdown products, which include microplastics, that do become absorbed by humans and the environment. More and more evidence (such as here and here) is showing the disturbing accumulation of microplastics in human brains.

Implications for PFAS

The findings also raise concerns about ‘forever chemicals’, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS), another class of chemicals that have become ubiquitous in the bodies of Americans. This is down to the incredible persistence of these organo-fluorine compounds, their tendency to bioaccumulate, and their widespread use linked to their ability to partition oil and water. Among the adverse health effects that have been associated with PFAS are: immune system suppression, decreased fertility, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia, kidney prostate and testicular cancers, elevated cholesterol, hormonal disruption, liver toxicity, thyroid disease, and an array of developmental defects including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, and behavioral changes.  

One way the EPA has evaded responsibility for tackling the issue of PFAS contamination is by playing games with the very definition of “PFAS.”

The new information that is coming to light about the dangers of polymers adds an additional element of concern. PFAS as a class consist of polymers and non-polymers. Most regulatory attention has been focused on non-polymers on the assumption that fluorinated polymers are safer. As a result, PFAS polymers have been exempted from some PFAS regulations and definitions—even though 80% of historical PFAS environmental contamination is estimated to have originated from polymer production.

ANH-USA has long called for a complete ban on PFAS chemicals, recognizing their extreme persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate, as well as the growing evidence that they pose a major danger to public health. The token phasing out or establishment of exposure limits for legacy PFAS like PFOA and PFOS is just not enough as the newer PFAS have just not been studied sufficiently, and it is almost certainly total chemical load that is ultimately going to be the most critical factor linked to exposure. Despite mounting scientific evidence that exposure to PFAS is linked to cancer, immune disorders, reproductive issues, and other serious health problems, regulatory agencies have largely failed to take meaningful action.

A Call for Stronger Protections

This study underscores the urgent need for stricter oversight of polymers, particularly those used as flame retardants and in PFAS applications. Without regulatory intervention, these chemicals will continue to accumulate in the environment, threatening both human and wildlife health.

As ANH-USA has warned, the time for incremental change has passed. The only effective solution is to ban PFAS as a class, preventing further contamination and safeguarding public health. Until regulators step up, consumers must stay informed, advocate for stronger protections, and demand transparency from manufacturers. The fight to eliminate PFAS is far from over—but with increased public awareness and action, real change is possible.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the EPA today, urging them to implement a comprehensive ban on PFAS chemicals to protect public health. Please send your message immediately.

The post Hidden Chemical Loophole Puts Public Health in Danger first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

New Study Highlights the Health Risks of Cell Phone Radiation and 5G Networks 21 Mar 11:53 AM (10 days ago)

Recent research continues to shed light on the potential health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cell phones and the increasing presence of 5G networks. So why are the feds trying to take away local control over 5G rollout? Action Alert!

---

THE TOPLINE

• New research links prolonged cell phone use—especially on one side of the head—to higher risks of brain tumors like glioma and meningioma, with notable increases for those using phones over ten years or more than 896 cumulative hours.
• The expansion of 5G technology, which uses higher-frequency millimeter waves, means more antennas in close proximity to populated areas, raising concerns about increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF).
• Despite scientific evidence of EMF health risks—ranging from cancer to neurological effects—the federal government is trying to make it easier for the telecoms industry to preempt local restrictions on 5G rollout.

---

A new review analyzed recent research on the risk of brain tumors like glioma and meningioma from cell phone use, with some concerning findings. This highlights ongoing concerns with human exposure to EMF radiation that is only increasing as our society becomes ever more dependent on, even addicted to, wireless technologies. In the meantime, the federal government is intervening—on behalf of the telecoms industry. Several bills in Congress remove the ability of local governments to control whether, or how, 5G infrastructure gets rolled out.

Key findings on cell phone radiation and brain tumors

The new study (a meta-analysis, i.e., a study of studies) analyzed existing research on cell phone use, examining factors like which side of the head the phone was used on and the duration of use. Among the study’s findings:

1. People who predominantly used their phones on one side of the head were found to have a higher risk of brain tumors, particularly glioma and meningioma, compared to those who didn’t use phones as frequently.
2. Individuals who used cell phones for more than ten years were at a greater risk of developing glioma.
3. Users with over 896 cumulative hours of cell phone use (equivalent to 16 weeks of daily use, 4 hours a day) faced a notably higher risk for glioma and other types of brain tumors.

These findings underscore the link between prolonged, frequent cell phone use and increased risk of brain tumors, especially when used predominantly on one side of the head.

The broader implications of EMF exposure

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley, has noted that the bulk of peer-reviewed research since 1990 indicates significant adverse effects from radiofrequency radiation and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields. A recently published review in Environmental Research, led by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, supports these concerns, identifying substantial scientific evidence linking radiation from wireless networks to cancer, endocrine, and neurological issues.

The growing concerns with 5G

As 5G networks expand, we’re seeing an even greater focus on millimeter-wave (mmWave) frequencies (24 GHz to 100 GHz) to meet the demand for faster data streaming. They have massive bandwidth for data transfer, meaning they are regarded as being better suited to cope with the data requirements of the Internet of Things (IoT). Unlike previous generations of networks that used frequencies up to 6 GHz, this form of 5G relies on shorter, high-frequency waves, which means more cell towers and antennas will be installed closer to where people live, work, and spend their time. This proximity, coupled with the new-to-nature waveforms and frequencies, raises serious concerns about mmWave rollout.

Another application for mmWave technology illustrates why we should be concerned with its wider use. The Department of Defense has developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the Active Denial System (ADS). The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target—that is, millimeter wavelengths.  Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.

Hundreds of scientists worldwide have expressed “serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.” These scientists point to effects at levels below most international safety guidelines, citing evidence of cellular stress, genetic damage, cognitive impairment, and more.

The three providers getting in behind mmWave are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile:

Verizon has been a significant proponent of mmWave, using it for its 5G Ultra Wideband service, particularly in dense urban areas and venues like stadiums.  

AT&T also utilizes mmWave for its 5G+ service, focusing on providing high-capacity connectivity in specific locations.  

T-Mobile has focused more on its midband and lowband 5G deployments for broader coverage, but they are also exploring and utilizing mmWave, especially for applications in crowded areas and for fixed wireless access.

Railroading local communities

Due to the health risks from increased exposure to EMF, including mmWave 5G (and subsequently 6G, expected around 2030), not to mention the infrastructure demands of setting up all the small cell towers needed to support mmWave 5G, many local communities have tried to push back against 5G rollout. Outrageously, the federal government, headed by the Federal Communications Commission, is stepping in on the side of industry. Recent legislative efforts are making it harder for local governments to regulate 5G infrastructure, limiting the public’s ability to exercise any control over 5G rollout. Here’s just a sampling of some of the bills currently in circulation:

• HR 339 – Limits local governments’ ability to regulate 5G infrastructure modifications, fast-tracking approvals and reducing oversight of potential health and safety concerns.
• HR 651 – Expands commercial 5G spectrum use without requiring further health research, increasing the number of small cells and 5G base stations along with public RF radiation exposure, with minimal local control.
• HR 1617 – Further erodes state and local authority over modifications to existing wireless facilities, making it harder to regulate 5G expansion.
• HR 1836 – Forces automatic approval of telecom facility installations on federal lands if not acted on in time.
• HR 278 – Preempts local barriers to telecom expansion, weakening municipal control over small cell deployment in residential and sensitive areas.
• HR 1455 – Strengthens federal telecom research but focuses on spectrum efficiency rather than studying potential health risks of increased 5G radiation. This is a taxpayer subsidy to the telecoms industry.

Put simply, government regulators, as in so many other areas of health, are asleep at the wheel, content to let an industry-friendly status quo prevail. Hopefully, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. poised to have more influence on health policy, this concerning trend can be reversed.

As we move further toward the IoT which is dependent on ever greater bandwidths that mmWave provides, awareness and precaution are key. Reducing exposure by using hands-free devices, limiting prolonged use, and keeping devices away from the body when possible can help minimize risks.

The development of 6G involves complex research into new technologies, including terahertz frequencies, artificial intelligence (AI) integration, and advanced network architectures. It is our view that this progression should not occur by default, without ample evidence that the projected EMF exposures would be safe. Current data suggests this is unlikely, and it is only public awareness of the potential risks posed by fullscale roll-out that will stop the public becoming guinea pigs in global experiment.

We must also encourage federal regulators to oppose bills that eliminate local control over 5G expansion.

Action Alert! Send a message to Congress calling for a moratorium on 5G rollout until safety can be assessed and urge Congress to update standards for RF radiation exposure to better protect Americans. Please send your message immediately.

The post New Study Highlights the Health Risks of Cell Phone Radiation and 5G Networks first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Why RFK Jr.’s Stance on Nutritional Support of Immune Health is Right 13 Mar 10:32 AM (18 days ago)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been lambasted by the mainstream media for telling Americans they should think about their vitamin intake in the face of potential threats of measles and bird flu. Are his views wacky, or is he shining a spotlight on a long-overdue call to address America’s widespread nutrient deficiencies?

Listen to the audio version of this article:

---

THE TOPLINE

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken flak for promoting the importance of nutrition in immune health, emphasizing that while vaccines play a role in disease prevention, a well-balanced diet rich in essential vitamins and minerals is crucial for immune resilience.
• Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) highlights most Americans consume well below the amounts required for optimal health and immune resilience, with many falling short of even basic recommended daily allowances for key vitamins like A, C, D, and E that simply prevent deficiency diseases.
• Kennedy’s stance aligns with the principle of informed consent, arguing that individuals should be educated on all possible options to support immune health, whether pharmaceutical, nutritional, or lifestyle in nature, rather than dismissing dietary strategies as anti-vaccine rhetoric.

---

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent comments as HHS Secretary about the importance of nutrition in supporting immune health have been met with significant criticism. Yet his statements reflect well-documented, yet insufficiently communicated, scientific evidence about the role of vitamins and minerals in maintaining a strong immune system. Kennedy emphasized that while vaccines play a vital role in public health, “Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Vitamins A, C, and D, and foods rich in vitamins B12, C, and E should be part of a balanced diet.”

The reality is that many Americans—children and adults alike—fail to meet some of the most basic benchmarks for key nutrients essential for immune function. Is it really so outlandish for a public health leader to call attention to this alarming fact?

The Nutrient Deficiency Crisis

Data from the US government’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) show alarming gaps in Americans’ consumption of key micronutrients. Not only are many of us far below what integrative health experts consider optimal; millions of Americans fall short of the government-set guidelines developed to ensure we don’t develop deficiency diseases like scurvy and rickets.

In Table 1 below, we’ve compared average (mean) daily intake data derived from NHANES for 5 vitamins and one mineral that are recognized as being essential to immune health and compared these with two other metrics: the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) and the Optimum Daily Allowance (ODA). The RDA is one of several values that make up the Dietary Reference Intakes and have been developed by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The RDA is defined as “the intake level sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97-98%) healthy individuals in a particular life stage and gender group.” By contrast, the ODA represents levels set up leading British nutritionist Patrick Holford, a long-time associate of ANH, that represents common views of optimal intakes for adults among clinical nutritionists, functional medicine practitioners, and other nutrition specialists.   

What the data show is that the average intake only meets the RDA in the case of vitamin B12. Even for this vitamin, it is not worth being complacent, because there are still vast numbers who are below this level (because we are looking at mean intakes, not minimum intakes). More than this, the RDA is incredibly low, and simply prevents vitamin B12 deficiency conditions such as megaloblastic anemia, peripheral neuropathy and cognitive issues. As you will note the amounts required for optimum health (for all vitamins and minerals), as shown by the ODAs, are substantially higher. Here we see that the mean intakes represent only 4 to 49% of the optimal intakes. This means that for these 6 micronutrients deemed by consensus science to be essential for the immune health of adults, there is a very strong justification for increasing intakes, whether this is through the diet or with supplements.   

Table 1. Mean daily intakes of adults (aged 20 years and over) based on NHANES, compared against the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) (for men and women) and Optimum Daily Allowances (ODAs)*

Nutrient	Mean Daily Intake (Age 20 and over)	RDA (Men)	RDA (Women)	Optimum Daily Allowance (ODA)	Mean Daily Intake as % of ODA
Vitamin A (RAE)	580.5 mcg	900 mcg	700 mcg	2,500 mcg	36
Vitamin D	4.3 mcg	15-20 mcg	15-20 mcg	100 mcg†	14
Vitamin C	87.3 mg	90 mg	75 mg	2,000 mg	4
Vitamin E	9.8 mg	15 mg	15 mg	250 mg	4
Vitamin B12	4.3 mcg	2.4 mcg	2.4 mcg	25 mcg	17
Zinc	9.8 mg	11 mg	8 mg	20 mg	49

In Table 2, we’ve compared mean daily intakes for children (from 2 through to 19 years of age) versus optimum levels for two groups of younger kids (1 to 4-year-olds and 5 to 8-year-olds). Even these show disturbingly low levels of intake compared with optimum levels.

Table 2. Mean daily intakes of children (aged 2-19 years) based on NHANES, compared against the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for kids and Optimum Daily Allowances (ODAs)*, based on relative body weight conversions of ODAs.  

Nutrient	Mean Daily Intake (Ages 2-19)	RDA (for kids aged 1-8)	ODA 1-4yo	ODA 5-8yo
Vitamin A (RAE)	481 mcg	300-400 mcg	500-750 mcg	750-1050 mcg
Vitamin D	4.35 mcg	15 mcg	6-9 mcg	9-13 mcg
Vitamin C	79.8 mg	15-25 mg	400-600 mg†	600-840 mg*
Vitamin E	7.9 mg	6-7 mg	50-75 mg‡	75-105 mg†
Vitamin B12	3.33 mcg	0.9-1.2 mcg	5-8 mcg	8-10.5 mcg
Zinc	8.15 mg	N/A	4-6 mg	6-9 mg

It’s impossible to build resilience, to give our immune system the tools it needs to ward off infectious diseases, if the body is lacking the resources it needs to mount a full, healthy immune response.  

This is not to say that good nutrition or supplementation with key micronutrients are cure-alls. It is an argument for health authorities to take a larger view of disease mitigation and prevention, as RFK Jr. has. Many people will choose to vaccinate. Other will choose differently.

Like RFK Jr., we also believe passionately that each one of us should be able to exercise our right to make informed choices, especially when it comes to managing our health. This means we need to be informed of all the options that are available, including those that can be administered through self-care, that are unnatural and unpatented. This of course means being informed of the various tools in the natural medicine cabinet that can be used to boost our resilience.

SAD State of Affairs

Information about the far-reaching consequences of dietary choices should be a priority for public health officials. The Standard American Diet (SAD) is crippling our health: three out of four Americans don’t eat a single piece of fruit in a given day, and nine out of ten don’t reach the minimum recommendations for vegetables. The SAD is high in ultra-processed foods and low in fiber and polyphenols needed to support gut health. With 70–80 percent of immune cells residing in the gut, diet plays a pivotal role in immune resilience. A nutrient-poor diet leads to an imbalance in the gut microbiota, which weakens immune function and increases susceptibility to infections.

Let’s not forget that the nutrient content of foods has declined over the past century due to modern agricultural practices. Many essential vitamins and minerals, including zinc and magnesium, are less abundant in food today, requiring supplementation for optimal intake.

The over prescription of antibiotics to children is another factor undermining gut and immune health. Antibiotics disrupt gut microbiota by wiping out beneficial bacteria along with harmful ones. This imbalance can weaken the immune system, making individuals more prone to illness. Recovery of gut bacteria after antibiotic use can take months, and in some cases, the diversity of the microbiome never fully returns to its previous state. One study found that, for some people, a course of antibiotics causes a persistent reduction in microbiome diversity similar to patients hospitalized in intensive care units.

Key Nutrients for Immune Health

Micronutrients are critical to support immune health. For more details on these nutrients, you can reference the resources from our colleagues at ANH International.

Vitamin A

Vitamin A is crucial for immune function, cell growth, and skin health. However, many Americans do not consume enough preformed vitamin A from liver, eggs, and fish, relying instead on beta-carotene conversion from plant sources, which is inefficient. Supplementation may be necessary to meet optimal levels.

RFK Jr.’s reference to vitamin A helping with measles has been particularly criticized by the media. Here’s what the HHS Secretary said:

While there is no approved antiviral for those who may be infected, CDC has recently updated their recommendation supporting administration of vitamin A under the supervision of a physician for those with mild, moderate, and severe infection. Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.

These are actually science–backed statements and shouldn’t be controversial. Then we’re told that these data don’t apply to the US because the studies involved areas of the world with malnourished populations. Again, consider the tables above. While most of us in the US are not malnourished, the evidence is clear that we are not getting enough of the right nutrients in our diet which, along with many other factors (like exposure to environmental chemicals, lack of exercise, stress, etc.), prevents optimal immune function.

Vitamin C

Vitamin C acts as both an antioxidant and a pro-oxidant in fighting infections. Daily maintenance doses range from 250–500 mg, with immune-challenged individuals benefiting from 2-3 grams in divided doses.

Vitamin D

Research shows that 100 mcg (4,000 IU) or more of vitamin D3 is often required to achieve optimal blood levels. Low vitamin D is linked to increased susceptibility to infections, and the common “flu season” may be linked to seasonal declines in vitamin D due to reduced sun exposure.

Zinc

Zinc is vital for immune cell function, particularly T cells. Modern diets, soil depletion, and high-grain consumption (which binds zinc, reducing absorption) contribute to deficiencies. The recommended daily intake for immune support is 25-50 mg of bioavailable zinc. Don’t take zinc supplements with grain-based foods to avoid binding with phytic acid. Consider taking it in liquid or lozenge form between meals.

Nutrition and Informed Consent

One of the key aspects of Kennedy’s stance is the principle of informed consent. If individuals opt not to receive vaccines, they should be fully educated on the complete spectrum of immune-supporting strategies, including diet and supplementation. The notion that immune health relies solely on pharmaceuticals ignores the body’s innate ability to resist disease when properly nourished.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is right to highlight the role of nutrition in immune health. It is not an “anti-vaccine” stance to promote a strong, well-nourished immune system—it is a pro-health stance. Instead of attacking Kennedy for advocating better nutrition, public health officials should focus on addressing widespread nutrient deficiencies that leave many Americans vulnerable to illness. Ensuring that everyone—especially children—receives adequate vitamins and minerals is a simple, effective, and evidence-based approach to building true immune resilience.

Please share this widely with your networks.

The post Why RFK Jr.’s Stance on Nutritional Support of Immune Health is Right first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Glyphosate Immunity Bills: Big Chem’s Latest Ploy to Evade Accountability 13 Mar 10:27 AM (18 days ago)

A closer look at the science Bayer/Monsanto want to run away from. State-based action alerts!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

---

THE TOPLINE

• Glyphosate, a widely used herbicide linked to serious health issues like cancer, neurological disorders, and immune dysfunction, is being pushed by chemical giants like Bayer/Monsanto to be legally untouchable through state-level immunity bills.
• Independent research has highlighted glyphosate’s harmful effects, including cancer risks, reproductive harm, neurological damage, and immune system impairment, while exposure is widespread in food, water, and even human bodies.

---

What if the food on your table, the water in your glass, and even the air you breathe were silently poisoning you and your family? Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, has infiltrated nearly every aspect of daily life, from breakfast cereals to rainwater. Scientists have linked it to cancer, infertility, neurological disorders, and immune system dysfunction—yet instead of addressing these dangers, chemical giants like Bayer/Monsanto are pushing to make themselves legally untouchable.

A wave of state-level legislation in Georgia, North Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Florida seeks to grant these corporations blanket immunity from product liability lawsuits. The ultimate goal is to gain immunity at the federal level. If these bills pass, Americans harmed by glyphosate exposure will have no legal recourse, allowing Big Chem to continue profiting while the public bears the cost—in the form of chronic illness and suffering.

The Science Bayer Wants to Ignore

A growing body of independent research highlights the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide.

• Carcinogenicity: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Studies have linked glyphosate exposure to a significantly increased risk of many different kinds of cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia. The authors of one study concluded that the effect of pesticide use on cancer incidence “may rival that of smoking.”
• Endocrine Disruption & Reproductive Harm: Research shows glyphosate interferes with hormonal balance and fertility. It has been detected in human seminal plasma and is correlated with oxidative stress and DNA damage, raising fertility concerns.
• Neurological: Studies link glyphosate to neuroinflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress, factors contributing to conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
• Cellular and DNA Damage: Glyphosate-based formulations induce DNA damage at low concentrations, raising concerns about their classification as carcinogens or mutagens.
• Liver and Metabolic Disorders: Studies associate glyphosate exposure with liver inflammation, fatty liver disease, and metabolic syndrome, particularly in children exposed early in life.
• Kidney and Cardiovascular Effects: Glyphosate exposure has been linked to renal toxicity and cardiovascular dysfunction. Chronic exposure may contribute to kidney disease, particularly in agricultural workers.
• Immune System Impairment: Glyphosate affects immune function by disrupting phagocytic activity, lymphocyte function, and cytokine production. There is evidence that glyphosate may alter the gut microbiome, affecting immune regulation and increasing vulnerability to infections.

Routes and Levels of Exposure

Glyphosate exposure is not limited to agricultural workers—residues have been detected in food, water, and even human biological samples, showing how widespread contamination has become. The CDC reports that 81% of the US population has detectable glyphosate levels in their system. Studies have found glyphosate in drinking water due to agricultural runoff, in the air and household dust from pesticide drift, and in commonly consumed foods such as grains, cereals, and produce. Alarmingly, children show some of the highest exposure levels, with glyphosate detected in breast milk and urine samples from non-farming households. This isn’t just an issue for agricultural workers: we’re all being exposed to this dangerous chemical cocktail.

EPA’s Regulatory Capture: A Rubber Stamp for Industry

Despite overwhelming evidence, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to downplay glyphosate’s risks. Unlike the IARC, which relies on independent studies, the EPA primarily considers industry-funded research—a blatant conflict of interest that mirrors the FDA’s reliance on pharmaceutical company data. The result? A federal agency more focused on protecting corporate profits than public health.

Follow the Money

These immunity bills are being pushed by the very corporations that stand to gain the most. Bayer/Monsanto has faced thousands of lawsuits over Roundup. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was part of the legal team that won a massive settlement on behalf of Dewayne Johnson, a groundskeeper that died from cancer after using Roundup for years. At the time, RFK said:

“This jury found Monsanto acted with malice and oppression because they knew what they were doing was wrong and doing it with reckless disregard for human life. This should send a strong message to the boardroom of Monsanto.”

That message was received, but instead of reforming their business practices, big chem is trying to twist the law to their favor. Bayer, Syngenta, and other chemical manufacturers have spent hundreds of thousands lobbying for these bills, flooding lawmakers’ campaign coffers to secure their passage. This isn’t democracy; it’s regulatory capture at its worst.

Big Chem wants to make it illegal for victims to seek justice—but we still have time to stop them. Help us fight back against corporate immunity for chemical polluters.

If you live in one of the following states, please click the corresponding link below to take action.

State based action alerts:

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

The post Glyphosate Immunity Bills: Big Chem’s Latest Ploy to Evade Accountability first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Big Chem’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card to Make America $ick Again 6 Mar 7:31 AM (25 days ago)

Bayer and other pesticide giants are pushing for state laws that would block lawsuits against them, stripping Americans of their right to hold these corporations accountable for poisoning our farms, food, and families. State-based action alerts!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

---

THE TOPLINE

• Bayer and other chemical giants are lobbying for state laws that would shield them from lawsuits, preventing victims of pesticide exposure from seeking justice.
• EPA relies on outdated, industry-funded studies to approve pesticides, prioritizing corporate interests over independent scientific findings.

---

Imagine being diagnosed with cancer after years of working with pesticides, or eating pesticide-laden food—only to find out you can’t seek justice from the company responsible—even if it was blatantly apparent the company was fully aware of the cancer risks but failed to tell the public to protect its own profits. That’s the future Bayer/Monsanto and other chemical giants are trying to create with a multi-state lobbying campaign aimed at securing legal immunity from lawsuits. If these bills pass, chemical companies will have free rein to poison Americans without consequence.

Bayer’s Legal Escape Hatch

The cat is out of the bag: glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is toxic. Bayer has already paid out more than $10 billion to settle lawsuits from plaintiffs claiming their cancer was caused by exposure to glyphosate. Courts have repeatedly found the evidence linking glyphosate to cancer compelling, and internal documents have exposed how Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) manipulated science and public opinion for decades. But instead of reforming their equally toxic business practices, these companies are taking a different approach: making it illegal for victims to sue them in the first place.

Currently, states including Georgia, North Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Florida are considering bills that would provide pesticide manufacturers with blanket immunity from product liability lawsuits. The timing and locations of these bills speak volumes—these are the very states where glyphosate and other herbicides are heavily used and where future lawsuits are most likely to emerge.

Follow the Money

The push for these bills isn’t coming from concerned farmers or public health advocates—it’s being bankrolled by the very companies set to benefit. Big Chem has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into PACs and campaign contributions to state lawmakers, with dozens of lobbyists working in these states to get this over the finish line.

And let’s not forget that foreign corporations are major players in this game. Syngenta, owned by ChemChina—a company linked to the Chinese military—is among the biggest beneficiaries of these immunity bills. If these laws pass, American farmers and families will lose their right to sue, while Chinese and German chemical giants rake in the profits.

Do You Really Trust the EPA to Protect You?

One of the main arguments behind these bills is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already approved pesticide labels—so why should companies be liable?

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), on the other hand, classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and the balance of evidence from years of research makes it evident that glyphosate does, in fact, cause cancer.

The agency tasked with protecting public health is simply rubber-stamping industry claims and failing to act on independent science. These immunity bills would make that rubber stamp the final word.

Sell the Cancer, Sell the Cure

But it gets worse still. Bayer now not only produces glyphosate but also makes drugs to treat the cancers its products are causing. This is the same company that used to sell heroin as a cough suppressant and, in the 1980s, knowingly sold HIV-contaminated hemophilia medication. Why would anyone believe Bayer suddenly has the public’s best interest at heart? Especially given Bayer’s dark history as part of the German I.G. Farben conglomerate that included the company Degesch that made the Zyklon B used in the Holocaust gas chambers.

Legislators Are Waking Up—But We Must Act

Fortunately, lawmakers in several states have already rejected this outrageous overreach. Bills in Wyoming, Montana, and Mississippi have stalled because they’ve been recognized for what they are: a handout to foreign chemical corporations at the expense of American farmers, families, and future generations.

But Bayer and its allies aren’t giving up. They’re continuing to push these bills in statehouses across the country, hoping to quietly slip them into law before the public notices.

If these bills pass, pesticide companies will have total immunity—even if they lie to the EPA, even if they hide critical health information, even if their products cause deadly diseases. We can’t let them get away with it.

If your state is listed below, click the link to take action to oppose these terrible bills!

State based action alerts:

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

The post Big Chem’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card to Make America $ick Again first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Bird Flu and Measles: Threat or Hysteria? 6 Mar 7:21 AM (25 days ago)

Are bird flu and measles genuine threats or just another round of manufactured panic?

Listen to the audio version of this article:

---

THE TOPLINE

• Public health emergencies often serve to justify policy shifts that concentrate authority and favor pharmaceutical solutions over broader systemic health approaches.
• The framing of these diseases focuses on fear and compliance rather than a balanced discussion of immune resilience, nutrition, and alternative public health strategies.

---

In an era where crises seem to emerge in an endless cycle, the latest alarms over measles outbreaks in rural Texas and the looming specter of H5N1 bird flu expose a deeper pattern—one in which fear becomes a tool for shaping public perception and behavior, justifying policy shifts, and concentrating power. The question is not merely whether these health threats are as severe as we’re led to believe, but why the response remains so predictably narrow, favoring centrally-controlled pharmaceutical interventions over holistic, region-specific, systems-based solutions.

Measles

With 159 reported cases reported so far in Texas, measles has returned to the national conversation. The prevailing media angle focuses on vaccine hesitancy and places blame on figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the HHS Secretary, for questioning vaccine policies. We’re told that the unvaccinated are the problem, even though outbreaks have occurred in populations with over 95% vaccine coverage. The death of an unvaccinated child, attributed to measles by the Texas Department of Health, has added fuel to the fire, with the media predictably using the opportunity to scold anyone who may choose a health route other than one devised by the medico-industrial complex.

Once considered a routine childhood illness that conferred lifelong immunity and could be managed at the community level through ‘measles parties’, measles has been rebranded as a dire public health threat. The practice of measles parties, by contrast, is now regarded as “foolishness” and “dangerous.” While it is true that serious complications disproportionately affect individuals with poor nutrition and weakened immune systems, public discourse rarely centers on these factors. Instead of promoting immune support strategies, health authorities default to mass vaccination as the primary, and often sole, solution. Indeed, the health establishment gets angry at the mere suggestion of holistic solutions even if they are mentioned as an adjunct to vaccination.

This has been evident in the backlash to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s March 3 written statement regarding the Texas outbreak. Near the top of the statement, RFK as HHS Secretary writes, in bold text: “Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons.” He then dares to state, “Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health. All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one.” The nerve!

He goes on to remind us that, while vaccines have helped, “[by] 1960 — before the vaccine’s introduction — improvements in sanitation and nutrition had eliminated 98% of measles deaths. Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Vitamins A, C, and D, and foods rich in vitamins B12, C, and E should be part of a balanced diet.”

This, in our view, is exactly the kind of open-mindedness and embrace of holistic solutions we need from public health officials, an approach which was so glaringly absent during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s no wonder trust in public health institutions has fallen to rock bottom!

Bird Flu and the Expansion of Centralized Authority

The H5N1 bird flu narrative follows a similar trajectory. The federal government’s One Health framework consolidates public health authority across multiple agencies, ostensibly to protect human, animal, and environmental health. While coordination is necessary in managing zoonotic diseases, this approach also raises questions about how centralized control impacts food systems, disease surveillance, and individual medical choice.

Simultaneously, the Department of Health and Human Services is reconsidering a nearly $600 billion contract with Moderna to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine. Once again, the public health establishment has gone to bat for big pharma, arguing that the move jeopardizes our ability to respond to a health crisis. But the question remains: why must taxpayers pay hundreds of billions to Moderna to run trials on a vaccine that the company will then profit from? Why can’t Moderna raise its own capital from investors, and why don’t we get to choose to diversify our investment in solutions other than a vaccine?

The implicit message: preparedness requires preemptive pharmaceutical solutions, despite the lack of public discourse on alternative strategies.

Rethinking Investment in Public Health

A truly robust public health strategy would extend way beyond vaccination campaigns. Key areas of investment should include:

• Strengthening innate immunity through proper nutrition, supplementation, lifestyle modifications and public health education that empowers individuals to make informed health choices.
• Reevaluating biosafety lab procedures to ensure that human interventions in viral research do not inadvertently increase risks to human health.
• Encouraging non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as improved sanitation and nasal hygiene (which has been shown to reduce sick days by 20%).
• Building public trust through transparency, ensuring that health policies are informed by a balanced evaluation of risks and benefits rather than industry-driven imperatives.

Who Benefits from Back-to-Back Crises?

If we are to move beyond one-size-fits-all public health and medicine, we must demand a more thoughtful approach—one that prioritizes resilience, decentralization, and informed choice. Fear should not be the foundation of public health policy. Instead, we need a framework that acknowledges complexity, fosters trust, and invests in long-term well-being rather than perpetual crisis management.

Please share this widely with your networks.

The post Bird Flu and Measles: Threat or Hysteria? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Blueprint for Government-Controlled Medicine Sidesteps RFK Jr. 27 Feb 11:28 AM (last month)

Just as RFK Jr. gets his legs under his desk at HHS, a centralized public health agenda is gathering pace that threatens medical freedom, farmers’ rights, food security, and individual choice. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article

---

THE TOPLINE

• The CDC’s One Health Framework centralizes authority over public health decisions, potentially limiting independent research, open discussion, and medical freedom.
• The rollout of One Health is part of the public health response to bird flu, mirroring the COVID-19 playbook.
• The One Health approach sets the stage for greater government control, mandated health policies, and reduced medical autonomy.

---

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Interior (DOI) have jointly unveiled their National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States. Framed as a way to address zoonotic diseases and public health challenges—like the H5N1 bird flu—the One Health approach claims to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health concerns into a unified strategy. In our view, this framework lays the groundwork for sweeping governmental control over medical (and veterinary) decision-making and, in the case of the bird flu, direct intervention in the nation’s food supply.

One Health: Centralized Control Disguised as Public Health

The One Health approach has been around for several years but had not become official policy until January 2025. The policy effectively consolidates power in the hands of three federal agencies led by the CDC, USDA and DOI, dictating public health responses during crises. Instead of allowing independent research, open discussion, and medical freedom, this framework ensures that a “unified federal voice” dictates the narrative and available treatment options.

Crucially, the powers-that-be appear to be deploying One Health policies primarily through the USDA and not the CDC, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This shift away from CDC control is likely linked to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s role as new head of HHS, and he has been vocally resistant to pharmaceutical-driven health policies. The rollout of One Health, which emerged during the COVID era under the Biden administration, is being justified by rising concerns over the bird flu situation.

COVID Redux: H5N1

H5N1 avian influenza, aka ‘bird flu’, renamed more recently (presumably because it sounds more dangerous?) as ‘highly pathogenic avian influenza’ (HPAI) is a highly transmissible viral infection that primarily affects wild birds but has spread among poultry and dairy cows in the US. There have been a handful (70) human cases so far in the US with 1 death, according to the CDC. (You can reference our earlier coverage of the bird flu here to get more background.)

The unfolding public health response to H5N1 bird flu mirrors the tactics used during COVID-19, except this time the food supply is involved. Scientists working under the pretext of pandemic preparedness have long manipulated avian influenza viruses, increasing their ability to cross species and infect humans (sound familiar?). Pharmaceutical interventions like mRNA vaccines are already in development using half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, ensuring that government-backed solutions are already in place if/when further outbreaks occur.

Federal agencies have used this situation to justify mass culling of poultry, purportedly to prevent further spread. Just as during COVID-19, PCR testing—known for its high false-positive rates—is being used to assess the number of infections. Inflated case numbers fuel media hysteria and the sense that there is a public health crisis. The result is artificial food shortages and price inflation.

Why This Matters

The One Health Framework is, in essence, an infrastructure for centralized medical and veterinary control. By ensuring a unified government voice, dictating public and animal health responses, and training agencies to enforce these directives, the plan undermines medical and health freedom as well as the right to informed choice. Under One Health-style frameworks, it’s not hard to imagine what the next round of lockdowns might look like, with public health authorities having learned from the mistakes of the first round during COVID.

A similar push for centralized control is evident in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) plans to exert greater influence over global health policies (see ANH International’s analysis). President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO was driven by desire to resist global control, but only time will tell how the new Administration will respond to centralized, coordinated responses like One Health that develop within America’s borders. There is also the specter of how future presidents might act in relation to the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and other United Nations’ agencies. The One Health Framework is, oddly, entirely in alignment with the global doctrines of UN agencies, and they potentially lay the foundation for international directives that override national sovereignty in health or veterinary policy.

Farmer First and Health Freedom

Outbreaks of highly contagious diseases like bird flu have already led to large-scale culling of poultry in the US, with over 35 million birds in commercial flocks being killed so far. This has caused significant distress and financial hardship for poultry farmers. The policy is part of the ‘stamping-out’ policy for avian influenza that meets World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) standards in an effort to maintain international poultry exports. Accordingly, the USDA is using the policy to force farmers to cull their flocks when ‘HPAI’ is detected, regardless of whether or not animals are sick. Many farmers and farmers’ groups are questioning the ethical and animal welfare impacts of the ‘stamping-out’ policy.

But it’s not just farm animals that are at risk of these draconian policies. One Health envisions coordinated responses against human cases that follow the rubric that was so widely adopted—and rarely questioned—by government authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than consolidating authority into a top-down bureaucracy, we should encourage open scientific debate rather than enforcing a unified narrative, promote individual choice in medical treatments, ensure transparency and accountability in public health decisions, and prioritize local or regional responses and health strategies over broad federal mandates.

Public health should empower individuals, not enforce compliance. The CDC’s One Health Framework moves us toward an era where governments dictate medical choices, silencing those who dare to question official recommendations.

It’s time to reject centralized medical authoritarianism and advocate for a diverse, open, and decentralized health system that encourages the dissemination of truthful health information and respects the right of individuals to make informed choices about their own bodies and well-being.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to reject the One Health framework to protect individual medical autonomy. Please send your message immediately.

The post Blueprint for Government-Controlled Medicine Sidesteps RFK Jr. first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The Food and Vitamin Controversy 27 Feb 11:19 AM (last month)

Crucial points about the need for supplements from William Falloon, co-founder of Life Extension.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

---

THE TOPLINE

• While a healthy and balanced diet is crucial, even the best diets typically lack sufficient nutrient potency and diversity, making supplementation necessary for optimal health.
• Many mainstream experts dismiss supplements based on outdated or incomplete data, failing to consider widespread nutrient deficiencies in the population and the declining quality of ultra-processed and simplified diets.
• Government-set nutrient upper limits are too low and based on flawed methodologies, restricting access to beneficial supplement dosages.

---

ANH Editor’s note:

In the ongoing debate over whether a “balanced diet” provides all the nutrients necessary for optimal health, mainstream experts continue to assert that supplements are unnecessary. However, we feel that the February 2025 article from Life Extension’s Bill Falloon (“The Food and Vitamin Controversy,” see below) makes perfectly clear that this position is deeply flawed. We have been given permission by the author, a long-time supporter of ANH, to publish the article on our website, such is its relevance to so many of our subscribers. While the benefits of a nutrient-dense diet are well-established, the idea that food alone can supply the levels of vitamins and minerals required for optimized health just does not hold up under scrutiny.

Furthermore, these guidelines do not account for the widespread nutrient insufficiencies found in the American population. Surveys consistently show that large segments of the US population do not meet the recommended intakes for vitamin D, magnesium, omega-3 fatty acids and more—nutrients critical for immune function, cardiovascular health, and cognitive performance. Should we really be discouraging nutrient-depleted Americans from taking vitamins?

The notion that supplements are unnecessary is not rooted in science. Whole foods are crucial, to be sure, but supplementation bridges nutritional gaps and enhances well-being. The US must resist the EU’s restrictive approach and ensure consumers can make informed choices for their health.

Please share this widely among your networks!

---

Article text:

The Food and Vitamin Controversy

by William Falloon

Credentialed “experts” claim that people can get their vitamins and other vital nutrients in their diet.

Published data continue to validate the favorable impact of the right dietary choices on healthy longevity. Yet many influencers proclaim you can obtain all the nutrients you need from food.

These assertions are often based on studies demonstrating benefits of healthy diets, such as a 2018 publication showing a 25% lower risk of cardiovascular disease in women with the greatest adherence to a Mediterranean diet, compared to the lowest adherence.

A 2024 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association corroborates this. It showed 23% reduced all-cause mortality in a large group of women with the highest adherence to a Mediterranean diet over a multi-decade period.

These data sets demonstrate the benefits of ingesting health-promoting foods as opposed to the toxic ones that dominate today’s dietary patterns.

This has little relevance, however, to the scarcity of critical nutrients contained even in the best diets.

When nutrition experts claim people can get their nutrients in a “balanced diet,” they appear unaware of how little of these nutrients are contained in foods. They also seem to not fully realize how few Americans ingest the wide variety of nutrient-dense foods they espouse.

We at Life Extension long ago advocated healthy dietary practices but also warned of the strikingly low potencies of nutrients contained in foods.

This editorial quotes those who claim that supplements are unnecessary and reveals the inadequate potencies of nutrients derived from foods.

The media reports on studies showing the life-shortening impact of ultra-processed foods that now dominate the Standard American Diet (SAD).

The data sets are consistent, with the most startling study showing that people with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods are 62% more likely to die over a 15-year period as compared to those with a low intake.

The life-shortening culprits in ultra-processed foods include all kinds of artificial compounds and natural ones like sugars and salt.

Nutritional professionals point out that ultra-processed foods are low in essential nutrients such as fiber, vitamins, and minerals, leading to increased risk of chronic diseases. These experts state that people can mitigate these risks by eating a healthier, balanced diet.

The problem is that nutrient potencies, even in most healthy foods, do not add up to what many experts believe are needed.

Vitamin D

Vitamin D is the most widely recommended nutrient by physicians due to its multiple roles, including in protecting against age-related pathologies.

The minimal blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to achieve protective effects is 30 ng/mL. Levels below 20 ng/mL are considered deficient.

Many experts view 40 to 60 ng/mL of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D as optimal ranges. We at Life Extension believe 50-80 ng/mL may confer the greatest benefits.

A randomized controlled trial published in 2022 showed that in people over age 70, supplementing with 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D combined with an omega-3 supplement and modest exercise reduced their risk of invasive cancer by 61%.

In a 2023 published meta-analysis of three randomized-controlled trials, people supplementing with vitamin D and maintaining a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 50 ng/mL reduced their absolute three-year risk for diabetes by 18.1% compared to those who had 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels between 20-29 ng/mL.

To achieve these higher beneficial ranges may require 2,000 to 8,000 International Units (IU) per day of vitamin D. The dose depends on body weight and individual absorption/utilization rates.

One of highest dietary sources is sockeye salmon which provides approximately 570 IU of vitamin D per 3-ounce serving.

Other commonly consumed dietary sources of vitamin D have lower potencies as follows:

• SARDINES: Approximately 164 IU per 3-ounce serving
• TUNA: Approximately 231 IU per 3-ounce serving
• SOY MILK: Approximately 119 IU per cup
• MILK: Approximately 117 IU per cup
• FORTIFIED ORANGE JUICE: Approximately 100 IU per cup
• EGGS: Approximately 44 IU per egg

If a person attempted to ingest even minimum amounts of vitamin D from foods, he or she would have to ingest sockeye salmon each day, plus lots of high-calorie/glucose-spiking foods and beverages, some of which are considered “processed.”

Low-cost supplements provide individualized vitamin D doses without unwanted calories. Yet, experts claim humans can get enough vitamin D from a “balanced diet,” which mathematically does not make sense.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

The post The Food and Vitamin Controversy first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.