Thursday, April 26, 2012

"...where are the bodies?"

"As noted by Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Americans easily take more than 60 billion doses of nutritional supplements every year, and with zero related deaths this is an outstanding safety record:
"Well over half of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. Even if each of those people took only one single tablet daily, that makes 165,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of over 60 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin or mineral tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of nutritional supplements is all the more remarkable.
Over 60 billion doses of vitamin and mineral supplements per year in the USA, and not a single fatality. Not one. If vitamin and mineral supplements are allegedly so "dangerous," as the FDA and news media so often claim, then where are the bodies?"
"In striking contrast, drugs are known to cause well over 125,000 deaths per year when taken correctly as prescribed – yet the FDA allows "fast-track" approvals and countless new additions to the marketplace. So why are dietary supplements on the chopping block?
"...Back in the early 1990s, the FDA threatened the availability of dietary supplements to the point that consumers staged a massive revolt, which resulted in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
"The law specifically protects your access to dietary supplements by classifying them as foods, not food additives or drugs, and it grand-fathered in dietary supplements that were already in use as of 1994...As bizarre as that sounds, the mere fact that a product is being extracted or produced by improved means compared to methods used in the past, could reclassify any grandfathered nutrient as an NDI that would now have to undergo the same type of safety testing and approval process as a drug..."
Dr. Mercola, MD, and neurosurgeon, urges us to contact our U.S. Congress and provides a sample letter at the above web link.


Monday, April 23, 2012

Retailer Whole Foods Weighs in on the FDA's NDI, back in 2011

http://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/supplements/features/regulatory-update-2011
Food Safety Modernization Act passed into law in January of last year.  Below is a very good summary of the retailer business, Whole Foods, concerns about the new regulations covered in the new law:

·         Registration with FDA was once per life, now every 2 years

·         How to prove a product was on the market prior to 1994 since there's no list

·         What if an ingredient was on the market before 1994, but is now being extracted through new technology

·         Ingredient suppliers not exempt from Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) practices in their facilities, creating more costs

·         Vulnerability assessments will be conducted and regulations be issued to protect against the intentional adulteration of food in such categories as weight loss, sexual enhancement, and body building

·         Gives FDA some additional recall authority and the ability to collect fees for re-inspection, from car mileage to overhead costs, plus no strict definition of "re-inspection," which could be considered anywhere from weeks to decades as it stands now

·         If there is ever a government shut-down, due to a debt ceiling deadline being missed, there would be funding issues on how much the FDA would be allowed to do

·         2009, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s (GOED), Salt Lake City, UT, and 10 other organizations submitted a citizen’s petition to the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) asking for a panel to review the data on the health benefits of omega-3s now that the report on Vitamin D has been published--IOM is studying the review process itself, not sure whether they will eventually choose EPA/DHA or choose choline as the next nutrient to study--takes 2 years for a report to be established once the study is completed

·         Messages have been very mixed about what makes an acceptable health claim since the FTC has indicated that 2 human studies are sufficient to support a claim, and other times indicating it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; the FTC recently asked some companies to sign consent decrees saying they can’t make future claims without first having two independent double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials and having pre-approval from FDA for any health claims. This is despite the fact that FTC doesn’t formally require such FDA pre-approval under the law. So far, two companies have been served this order, but the industry is concerned that this is becoming a de facto standard

·         Confusion on Codex standard for fish oils vs. marine oils

·         FDA cracking down faster on more illegal, tainted products out of legitimate dietary supplement industry, sending message to criminals that their drug spiking is being watched more closely

·         Good Manufacturing Practice Watch (GMP's) increased by FDA, giving a pattern of the FDA's priorities for these inspections, but not sure how it will continue based on the debt ceiling funding

·         There are strong scientific data that in a very short period of time—three to five years—organic crops will be tainted with GMO pollen, causing problems for both the organic farmers and the consumers

·         In other news, the USDA recently deregulated some genetically modified organisms (GMOs); now GMO sugar beets, alfalfa and feed corn can be planted. The concern is that as crops get deregulated to use GMOs and to plant GMO crops, the inadvertent contamination of organic crops then becomes an enormous problem for farms—which then becomes an enormous problem for retailers--At this time, the only recourse for the industry may be litigation, such a lawsuit would not be raised by the OTA, but by others concerned about the threat to organic crops. Unfortunately, there may be upwards of 20 potential GMO crops that may be deregulated

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Step #4: Suze Orman's "The 9 Steps to Financial Freedom"

(Hope we do justice to this 80 page chapter summary)
Topics in Step #4:  Wills and trusts, durable power of attorney for healthcare, life insurance, long-term care insurance, and estate planning.  This posting is about the first topic, wills and trusts >>
What is a will? It is simply a piece of paper, either drawn up by a lawyer, purchased at a stationery store, a computer program, or written by yourself. All of these can be contested in court after you die because all wills must go through the court system. First, a judge has to authenticate the will to make sure it is valid, and this process is called probate. After the judge probates the will, a court order will be signed by the judge to transfer property to those intended to receive it.  This process can take anywhere from six months to two years or more, while the ownership of the property is in probate limbo.
This is not cheap because probate fees are based on a fixed-by-law percentage. For example, a home mortgage of $175,000 minus the $15,000 paid in mortgage payments, making the house worth $160,000, but the worth of the house is $300,000, the equity in the house is $140,000, and the bank owns the rest. Probate fees is not based on the equity of the house, but on the fair market value of $300,000. In one state for example, California, probate fees would be $15,000 plus $1000 or more for court costs, just to claim the title of the house from a deceased spouse. Probate fees vary from state to state, but no matter what state you’re in, probate fees takes time and money. Wills can be contested by anyone who thinks they should have received something that the deceased left to someone else, and the judge has to decide. For example, specified guardians for children is not binding. It can only express the deceased’s wishes because legal guardianship of children always rests in the hands of the court, not the biological parents. The court will decide based on whatever it feels is in the best interest of the children.
Trusts: The name of the trust that you want is called a revocable living trust. While a will says where you want your assets to go after your death, a revocable living trust takes the steps while you are alive, to sign the title of your property over to the trust for your own use and benefit while you are alive. You also specify in the revocable living trust where you want each piece of property to go when you are gone.
Most important with a revocable living trust, there is no probate--the courts are never involved in the transfer of your property. Think of a trust as a suitcase where you put the title to everything you own into it. You carry the suitcase while you were alive and you can put new things in and take things out, and when you die it gets handed directly over to the beneficiaries at which time they open it and take out what is theirs. No courts. No attorneys. The deceased’s wishes would have been carried out smoothly (including guardianship for minor children, which has more details about that below). When is the best time to get a revocable living trust? As soon as possible because the sooner you set one up, the easier it will be to accumulate assets in the name of the trust.
Protection of a revocable living trust:  Suze gives the example of a widow with the daughter she could trust, but a son who had received tens of thousands of dollars from them over the years to bail him out, who turned to elderly abuse as the parents got older. The parents owned a house in Florida and kept their stock money in a brokerage account, which the husband handled it by himself, with the wife not being involved with it, forgetting that if her husband might die before her, she'd have problems getting caught it up. The statements from the brokerage firm in Florida would arrive in the widow’s mail, and she would file them away never opening them. Suze opened them, and the account assets had added up to more than $3 million. The abusive son had made it his business to know about the brokerage account since he was living in the Florida home.
Suze transferred the entire account to a reputable broker in California where the widow and her daughter were living. They put the assets in a revocable living trust, and because of the widow’s age and frail health, they also gave the daughter what is called durable power of attorney for healthcare. Because the assets were so large, Suze took an additional precautionary step by videotaping the widow talking about the revocable living trust and what she wanted to have happen to her property when she was gone. The widow stated in the videotape that she wanted her abusive son to have $10,000 cash, that was all since he had already received a huge amount over the years, and his name was not to be put on any titles. 
Everything went fine until the widow was ill, and wanted her trusted daughter to become the new trustee. All institutions were notified including the abusive son.  Two weeks later, the abusive son came to California. He had been at his mother’s home, and he had changed all the locks.  The daughter had to get the apartment supervisor and a locksmith to get in, found her mother, her suitcase, and her checkbook, all gone.
The daughter flew to Florida and learned that her brother had gone to the bank in California and tried to close out the account, but was not able to because the sister’s name was on the trust. However, he did clean out the safety deposit box that had been full of cash as an emergency.  When they were back in Florida, he had his mother sign a new power of attorney with his name on it.
When the daughter was bringing her mother home to California, during the trip her mother died. When the abusive son found out about the $10,000 being left to him, he became furious, claiming that the mother had promised the Florida house to be transferred into his name, plus a lot of other bogus claims, and he threatened to sue. But when his attorney saw the copy of the revocable living trust, and a copy of the video, it ended all claims and threats.
The revocable living trust protected the widow’s property, but if she had had a will, the probate fee on $3 million would have been $82,000, in addition to the attorney fees for the daughter to pay in fighting her brother’s contesting of it.  Another plus in having a revocable living trust was that the trust was not a public document, and their privacy was protected, without anybody being able to go down to the courthouse and look it up  as they could have if it had been probated as a will. With trusts, only the people you want to see them can ever see them.
A revocable living trust means this: The word trust means you are trusting the entity to take care of your assets for you and to carry out your wishes when you are no longer here; the word living means that the trust is going to be set up while you are alive and will also live on after your death to carry out your wishes; the word revocable means whoever is in charge of the trust, which is usually you, can change it at any time.
Suze recommends that you set up a revocable living trust through a reputable attorney, which could cost between $500 and $3,000, plus a little more when you have the attorney transfer your assets into it (example: a couple who owns a house together would change the name on the deed to read John and Jane Doe, trustees for the John and Jane Doe revocable living trust; the couple would then also change the titles on their stocks, insurance policies, bank accounts, etc. the same way—the trust by itself means nothing until the trust assumes ownership of the things you intend to put into it).  Making any simple changes would cost about $100. These fees are quoted from 1998 and could be changed by now. 
The word trustor or trustee means it is the person who creates the trust and owns the property. The word co-trustee means someone who also has authority such as, married couples, or parents choosing their children to be co-trustees upon the deterioration or disability of the parents.  The words successor trustee means that someone who becomes the decision-maker when the owner of the trust no longer once the burden. The words current beneficiaries means the owner of the trust. Remainder beneficiaries means those who will inherit everything in the trust after the owner of it dies. 
Pretend that you have a certificate of deposit at the bank worth $100,000—put that CD into your trust, and though there might be estate taxes for your beneficiaries to pay, there would be no probate. Forgetting to put it into the trust would cost you $5,000 in the state of California. Every institution has a form they use to make this transfer easy, but it is better to have an attorney take care of all of this paperwork.
Retirement accounts cannot by law be held in the trust, and if you are married, do not change the beneficiary on the retirement account to match that of the trust. Upon your death your spouse can take over the retirement account as if it was their own, and can take the money out or leave it in, whatever they want to do.  However, if the retirement account lists the trust as the primary beneficiary, instead of a spouse or other beneficiary, by law the retirement account would have to be closed out, and taxes paid on it. Make sure that if you are married that your retirement account has your spouse as the primary beneficiary, and not the trust, but the trust can be the secondary beneficiary that would get everything if the primary beneficiary has died.
If you die with a will, say in an automobile accident, and you’re expecting your best friend Joe to take care of your children because you have a nice size life insurance policy to cover the expenses, remember the sooner you get a trust the better.  Without the trust, the court always has the last decision when it comes to appointing a legal guardian for your children, but the judge can also take charge of the funds that you want your children to have for private school, camps, music lessons, prom dresses, etc., by appointing a guardianship over the assets of the life insurance policy, and each year the Guardian has to go back to court to account for money spent on behalf of the children during the past year. When each child reaches 18, their share will be legally signed over to them, but by that time, there will not be as much in there as could’ve been because of Guardian fees and lawyer fees to do the guardianship reporting to the court. 
If you die with the trust, you will assign your own chosen guardian of the assets (the court still assigns a guardian for minor children, but your chosen guardian will be in charge of your assets), and poof, it’s done. No yearly reporting, no extra fees, no nothing.
Trusts are not for old people who were going to die. Trusts are for people who are lucky enough to live among people they love. Trusts are for people who are responsible to those they love.
The question has been asked as to why so many people think they should have a will in addition to a trust and the lawyer does not tell them anything different. Guess who gets probate fees for the wills? The lawyers. If you were an attorney, would you rather make thousands of dollars in probate fees, or just a few hundred dollars to set up a trust?
Revocable living trusts are even more important for the people with fewer assets than those with tons of money, because the less you have the more probate fees hurts.  If you use the will at all, it would be as a backup to cover any assets you did not put into your trust such as, furniture, personal items, and items of strictly sentimental value.
Also, since the trust does not address guardianship for under age children, your designation in the will as to who should serve as their guardian will be made clearer to the court as your wishes.
Word-of-mouth is the age-old way of finding a reputable attorney to draw up a revocable living trust and a backup will, for the sentimental assets listed above, and be sure to find one who is well-versed in estate planning.  You could also ask a reputable attorney to refer you to one who specializes in revocable living trusts, or if there is a law school close by, you can call one of the professors and ask for their recommendation.
Interview at least three of them which is expected by the attorneys and no fee is charged. Be sure to take your spouse or family members with you to these interviews. The questions you need to ask in the interviews follows:
  • How long have you been specializing in estate planning? (Should be at least 10 years);
  • How many people have you drafted wills and trust for in the past five years? (Should be at least 200 people);
  • Will you be drafting the documents yourself, or will someone else be doing the paperwork? (If someone is supervised to do it correctly, it’s okay because it could cost you less in the long run, you just need to know one way or the other);
  • How much do you charge? (Should be a flat fee that includes drawing up the documents, explaining them to you, and transferring the titles of your property and assets into the name of the trust);
  • If I have other questions will you charge me if I call and ask? (Should be no charge for simple questions over the phone).
  • And what if you don’t have a will or trust? No problem, as long as you don’t die. If you have no will or trust when you die (either from age, disease, or suddenly in a car accident), the laws of the state go into effect (called intestate succession), and the beneficiaries will need to come up with the attorney and probate court fees, with none of your wishes ever heard or heeded. 

Friday, April 6, 2012

Fluoride Gets Awards in Illinois


Illinois honors communities for water fluoridation
Mar 22, 2012
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - Illinois officials have announced that 432 communities have been recognized for maintaining state-mandated fluoride levels in their water systems last year.
The awards were presented Wednesday by the Illinois Department of Public Health and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Health experts say drinking fluoridated water from birth can reduce tooth decay by 40 to 65%.
Another 122 communities received honorable mentions for meeting state fluoride levels for 11 out of 12 months last year.
State officials say about 99% of people served by public water systems in Illinois drink fluoridated water. That's compared with the national average of about 72%.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
How's that for reinforcing flawed science, reinforcing lack of logic, reinforcing bad policy to pay for dumping waste products, reinforcing health damages, and reinforcing the confused public -- give awards to 432 cities who fluoridate their water!  Anybody got any ideas on how to give awards to those cities all over the nation who do NOT fluoridate their water? 

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Update on FDA's NDI Guidelines - now a political issue

House Energy & Commerce Committee members call on FDA to ‘re-examine’ NDI draft guidance

Select members of the highly influential House Energy & Commerce Committee have written to FDA calling for a 'significant reworking' of the controversial new dietary ingredient (NDI) draft guidance.


Finding a better way to work with FDA
Mar. 26, 2012

"...So, 18 years after passage of DSHEA, we find ourselves revisiting these very same issues once again. There is, however, one big difference. This time, the public debate will focus on whether FDA has overstepped its authority—a similar debate to the one that preceded the passage of DSHEA. But the other issue will be, has the industry underperformed in meeting the safety and quality provisions laid out in DSHEA? Dietary supplement consumers are upset about the prospect of FDA overreaching. But they are also unsettled to hear that FDA’s reasons for doing so are based on a lack of compliance..."

Members of Congress Unhappy with FDA Draft Guidance entitled, “Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues”
"...on February 29, 2012, 17 members of Congress sent a letter to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA, “strongly urging FDA to withdraw this guidance and begin work on a new draft that does not undermine the balance Congress struck in [the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)] to provide consumers with access to safe, affordable dietary supplement products...” http://www.fuerstlaw.com/wp/index.php/27/members-of-congress-unhappy-with-fda-draft-guidance-entitled-dietary-supplements-new-dietary-ingredient-notifications-and-related-issues/