I have been reading a wonderful book
about Aloe vera called "The Science Behind
Aloe: The Healing Plant," "Edited" by Bill
H. McAnalley, PhD. Since Bill is most likely the
leading expert on Aloe vera in the world, I suspect
that he participated in more than "editing." I am
also struck by his subtitle, "The Healing
Plant."
I suppose that Dr. McAnalley can get
away with saying that Aloe is "healing" because he
no longer works for anyone or any company who is
marketing Aloe vera. I, on the other hand, could NOT
make that statement because I am still committed to
getting the highest quality Aloe vera barbadensis
inner leaf gel freeze-dried powder into the
awareness and onto the supplement shelf of everyone
on Earth who has even the slightest desire to be
healthy. Since the reality of economics forces us to charge people for it
in order to cover expenses and pay ourselves and the people
who help us, we are subject to the "Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act" of 1994 (a.k.a
"DSHEA.")
Personally, I am a huge fan of the
DSHEA, and I intend to honor it to the best of my
ability. That said, there are "gray areas" in
speaking about supplements that may be legitimate,
yet risky, to communicate to consumers due to the
"sore spots" created by passage of the legislation.
In effect, it's passage screamed "BACK OFF!" to the
FDA, to the pharmaceutical companies who were
"supporting" legislation to control nutritional
supplements in their favor, and to the minority
group of overly vocal allopathic doctors who
apparently believe that they are far superior to God
in their abilities to manipulate diseases.
(Case in point: a "Quackwatch" posting by Stephen
Barrett, M.D.)
Although I find Dr. Barrett's article
to be either remarkably short-sighted, or, biased by
self-interest, he and I do agree on one aspect:
Nutritional supplements should NEVER be allowed to
be promoted in any way, shape or form as a
diagnostic, prevention, treatment or cure of any
disease. That is soooo not the business of
nutritional supplements! The allopathic community
invented all those diseases, so they should have
full rights to treat them. The sole business of
nutritional supplementation is to support the
natural functions of the body to keep itself healthy
and fully functional--completely apart from
disease.
Therein lies the first questionable
"gray area." If supplements are effective at what
they are supposed to do, which is to support the
natural functions of the body so that it can keep
itself healthy, isn’t that , in essence,
"preventing" all
diseases? Given the intent of the DSHEA, which is to
enable citizens of the U.S.A. to make their own informed choices without
government interference, shouldn't it be permissible
for supplements to be promoted to generally
prevent disease solely by enhancing overall natural
health?
And what about Aloe vera inner leaf
gel with respect to the immune system? Nearly every
Aloe researcher agrees that the Acemannan in Aloe
significantly enhances the function of the immune
system. Carrington Laboratories openly stated that
their
(dried Aloe gel)M was for immune system enhancement.
Researchers confirm those statements, but by using
bigger words, like "immunomodulatory support," but
it all boils down to the same thing. Shouldn't
people be advised of this characteristic under the
intent of the "and Education" portion
of the DSHEA?
In studying the "Overview of Dietary
Supplements" published by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, I came across the following
definition:
"Under DSHEA, a firm is responsible
for determining that the dietary supplements it
manufactures or distributes are safe and that any
representations or claims made about them are
substantiated by adequate evidence to show that they
are not false or misleading."
Aloe vera is documented to have been
used, apparently quite successfully, for over 6,000
years for uses including arthritis, gout, acne,
dermatitis, headache, high blood pressure,
indigestion, hair loss, rheumatoid arthritis, peptic
ulcers, mouth diseases, pruritis, psoriasis and
burns. In the 1930s clinical tests proved that it
was effective in the treatment of radiation and
thermal burns. Additional studies were conducted in
the 1940s that gave significant evidence that fresh
Aloe was quite effective in the treatment of
conditions that I dare not even mention here, even
though this is merely a summary of actual history …
I reported the above merely to show
that, given the definition statement made by the
FDA, that quite a few
"representations or
claims" would appear to be valid and
legitimate for"prevention,
treatment and cure" efficacy of Aloe vera.
However, in my opinion, to do so would be
irresponsible, inappropriate and inaccurate.
In my opinion, based on an evening of
discussion with Dr. McAnalley, and the contents of
his wonderful book, the Acemannan in Aloe vera inner
leaf gel is providing materials to the body that are
effectively used by the body's inherent maintenance
system to do it's own defense and
maintenance. In the paradigm
"No sickness or
disease can survive in a perfectly healthy body,"
external, non-nutritional agents are not
required,
or even helpful, to prevent, treat or cure
any disease that may be attempting to establish a
foothold in the healthy body. It simply has no
chance to survive there.
It seems obvious that the purpose of
the DSHEA was to support the availability of
substances that would support health. It also seems
obvious that the Acemannan in Aloe vera inner leaf
gel supports health.
Why say anything else?
This discourse began with the
question "What CAN BE said about Aloe vera?". In
summary, although it would appear that much could
legally be
claimed about it for many therapeutic applications,
why bother? Rather, educate people about the powers
and effectiveness of natural internal health, and
identify Acemannan, the beneficial ingredient in
Aloe vera inner leaf gel, as a very important
element in enabling the perfect functioning of a
perfectly healthy body.
General
Information