Author: admin

100% Natural means no added chemicals

In the pursuit of better health, a growing number of individuals are turning to 100% natural products, free from synthetic chemicals. The rationale is clear: the human body is better equipped to recognize, absorb, and process nutrients derived from natural sources than it is to handle synthetic compounds created in a laboratory.

The Body’s Relationship with Natural Nutrients

Natural supplements contain vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients in their unaltered forms, as nature intended. These compounds are familiar to the body because they come from whole foods like fruits, vegetables, herbs, and other plant-based sources. For instance:

• Vitamin C from oranges: When consumed as part of the fruit, vitamin C is accompanied by fiber, flavonoids, and enzymes that enhance its absorption and effectiveness.

• Calcium from leafy greens: The calcium in kale or spinach is more bioavailable and often better utilized than calcium carbonate, a common synthetic form found in supplements.

Natural products offer a synergistic effect, where the various components work together to support the body’s functions. In contrast, synthetic supplements often isolate a single nutrient, ignoring the complexities of how nutrients interact in the human body.

The Risks of Synthetic Chemicals

Synthetic supplements and chemicals, while designed to mimic natural compounds, often fall short because they are foreign to the body. These man-made substances can sometimes have unpredictable effects or lead to unintended side effects. Examples include:

• Synthetic Vitamin E (dl-alpha-tocopherol): This laboratory-produced form is less effective than the natural d-alpha-tocopherol form and may even hinder the absorption of other vitamin E compounds.

• Artificial preservatives and colorings: Many synthetic products include additives for shelf stability or aesthetic appeal, but these can trigger allergies, inflammation, or other adverse reactions.

Moreover, synthetic compounds are often stripped of the co-factors and enzymes present in natural sources, which are essential for proper digestion and utilization.

Real-World Benefits of Natural Products

Consider the difference between a natural herbal tea versus a chemical-laden energy drink. A tea like chamomile provides anti-inflammatory and calming benefits through its natural flavonoids, while an artificial energy drink often relies on synthetic caffeine and sugar, which can lead to energy crashes and long-term health issues.

Another example is curcumin, a natural anti-inflammatory compound found in turmeric. When consumed in its whole form, turmeric provides a host of complementary compounds that enhance its bioavailability and effectiveness—something synthetic curcumin formulations often struggle to replicate.

Why Choose Natural?

Natural products align with the body’s innate chemistry. They provide nutrients in forms the body has evolved to process over millennia. By avoiding man-made chemicals, you also reduce the risk of exposure to harmful substances that may have long-term effects on health. Choosing natural is not just a trend; it is a return to the wisdom of relying on what nature has always provided for optimal health.

As the evidence mounts, it’s clear: when it comes to your health, trusting nature is not only safer but also smarter.

March 2022, one young entrepreneur’s groundbreaking natural health product has sparked controversy, drawing the ire of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and even the Department of Justice (DOJ). But why would these powerful institutions target a small business founded by a Black man, especially when the product has shown impressive results in scientific studies? The answer might not be as straightforward as it seems.

The Rise of a Natural Solution

Andrew Sinclair, the founder of a successful natural health company, introduced his innovative product to the market, claiming it could offer significant health benefits. The product, crafted from natural ingredients, quickly gained attention for its effectiveness and its potential to revolutionize how we approach health and wellness. Consumers, particularly those seeking alternative solutions to common ailments, hailed it as a much-needed breakthrough. But when a product becomes too successful, especially one that challenges conventional pharmaceutical methods, it often faces resistance from the powerful players in the industry.

Despite the positive reception and rapid growth, Sinclair’s product faced a formidable backlash from the FDA, FTC, and DOJ. These agencies, typically tasked with ensuring public safety and protecting consumers, initiated investigations, labeling the product and its marketing practices as potentially misleading or unsafe. However, the question remains: Why target a small business with a product that has shown promising results in independent scientific studies?

A Closer Look at the Studies

To understand why the product has earned such strong scientific backing and to counter the accusations leveled against it, it’s essential to delve into the results of two major studies that were conducted.

1. Binding Inhibition Study:

One of the most significant studies conducted on the product was a binding inhibition study focusing on the spike protein associated with viral infections. This study tested the product’s ability to inhibit the binding of the spike protein to human ACE2 receptors—crucial in the transmission of viral diseases. At a 99% concentration, the product demonstrated up to 98% inhibition of this binding, which is a remarkable result that shows the product’s potential to impact viral function at a molecular level.

The study was conducted under strict controls, ensuring reliability:

• Filtered samples and low-temperature storage (4°C) enhanced consistency.

• The positive control confirmed the inhibition of the spike protein.

• The negative control showed baseline levels, confirming the accuracy of the results.

Numerous successful feedbacks from randomly selected people, but the FDA dismissed it, labeling it “snake oil.” This response appears to be a direct challenge to a natural product that could compete with synthetic alternatives from big pharmaceutical companies.

2. Immune Response Study:

In addition to the binding inhibition study, an immune response study was conducted to further understand the product’s effects on the human immune system. The results were equally impressive, demonstrating that the product significantly boosted the immune system’s response. The findings indicated an enhanced activation of key immune cells, strengthening the body’s defense against harmful pathogens. This study not only confirmed the product’s efficacy but also its safety—two crucial factors when it comes to public health.

The study employed rigorous methodologies, including strict controls and blind testing, which showed consistent and reliable results. The product’s ability to enhance immune function means it could play an essential role in supporting overall health, particularly in times of heightened vulnerability to disease.

The FDA’s Overreach and Lack of Transparency

Despite these scientifically validated results, the FDA, FTC, and DOJ have continued to attack Sinclair’s company. The FDA’s dismissal of the product as “snake oil” raises serious questions about whether these agencies are more concerned with protecting the interests of large pharmaceutical companies than safeguarding consumer health. When a natural product offers a safer, more effective alternative to conventional drugs, it threatens the multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical industry, and that can lead to resistance from regulatory bodies.

Moreover, the FDA’s approach appears to disregard the extensive scientific data supporting the product’s safety and effectiveness. Both studies demonstrated that the product is safe—free from harmful contaminants, free from dangerous side effects, and supported by substantial scientific evidence.

Why This Matters

Sinclair’s case is not just about one man’s fight against regulatory agencies—it represents a broader issue: the struggle of innovative entrepreneurs, particularly in marginalized communities, to bring natural, effective solutions to market in the face of established powers. The FDA, FTC, and DOJ’s actions against Sinclair’s company are a stark reminder of how the system can sometimes hinder progress and innovation, particularly when it challenges entrenched corporate interests.

The product in question has been tested, proven safe, and shown to work in multiple independent studies. This should qualify it as both safe and effective. Yet, Sinclair faces attacks from agencies that have a responsibility to protect public health, not stifle small businesses. The science is clear, but will the regulatory system allow truth and innovation to prevail?

Conclusion

As the regulatory agencies continue their investigation and the young entrepreneur waits for a response, the truth remains evident: the product is safe, effective, and backed by science. Sinclair’s determination to bring a natural solution to the marketplace should be celebrated, not attacked. The FDA, FTC, and DOJ must reevaluate their stance and consider the overwhelming evidence supporting this groundbreaking product.

As we await further developments, Sinclair’s journey serves as a beacon of resilience for all entrepreneurs facing obstacles in bringing innovative, life-changing products to the world. The future of natural health solutions is bright, and it’s time for the FDA and other regulators to acknowledge the potential of safe, effective alternatives.

Case update expected Jan 28, 2025

This Human study was done in India after the FDA first called my product Unproven, I did this 15 people study in India. During the case the DOJ Attorneys claimed that this study is not acceptable. I’m hoping the FOIA request will shed light on the influence of this trial.

Never the less this was the first study ever done with our product and it was a success