-
-
Cancer is not a disease - chemotherapy is a hoax
Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. "This is a very treatable condition," said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they're being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong." But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong.
The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" (from where?) and "spread" to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.
The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment. Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons of chemotherapy and deadly radiation. If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore?
Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong. But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair. Did the cancer do all this to him? Certainly not. Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does. He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake.
Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients? Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all? Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer? What do they know that you don't? The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year. Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons. Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for col... more -
Family love and medical greed can be a deadly combination
For many generations now, we, our families and our doctors have been taught to forget mankind's 6000 year history of preventing and treating illness naturally and to believe that the only real medicine comes in a brown bottle and that the only real healing comes from the medications of big pharma and treatments of mainstream germ theory doctors.
Over the past several decades we have seen how synthetic medicines created in the labs of the trillion dollar world pharma empire cure essentially nothing and merely manage symptoms while their many side effects lead to other conditions and even more medications. Despite the fact that such a system had failed to cure hardly anything in the last half century and lost the so-called war on cancer, we have nevertheless largely bought into the myth of mainstream medicine that has been hammered home by billions of dollars of propaganda, drug company reps and doctored studies -- and we refuse to be shaken from it. After all, "just ask your doctor."
Those of us who have researched and embraced natural medicine know a far different reality -- the reality that we can see with our own eyes and feel with our own bodies that tells us that clearly nature is by far the best choice, as it always has been, when it comes to preventing and treating illness. We have seen and learned firsthand that in most instances, nature is safer, more effective and far less expensive than anything mainstream medicine has to offer, even though it is largely ignored and suppressed. But we are still a small minority when it comes to the population at large, despite ample proof that nature is best. The mainstream campaign of lies, deceit and suppression of natural competition has been hugely successful. Profits win and healing takes a distant second.
As a result, those of us who know better sometimes are pressured into doubting our own knowledge from well intentioned friends and family who do not know any better and doctors who should know better but whose profits depend upon mainstream drugs and treatments. Far too often, the love of family and friends and the evil greed of mainstream medicine conspire to make a deadly combination.
The tragic combination of well meaning but brainwashed loved ones and oncologists who limit their treatments to the barbaric methods of trying to cut out, burn out or poison out the symptoms of cancer is a deadly combination.
I can understand the actions of friends and family who know no better and mean well. I have a much larger problem with oncologists who likely know better, but stick to what is most profitable -- choosing profits and greed over true healing which is supposed to be their call. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it is hard to ignore the obvious truth. First of all, oncologists cannot help but see the dismal success rates they have in treating most cancers. And secondly, we have this report:
"In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists." For many generations now, we, our families and our doctors have been taught to forget mankind's 6000 year history of preventing a... more -
Sad pets need love and exercise - not drugs
The practice of prescribing medications designed for humans to animals has grown substantially over the past decade and a half, and pharmaceutical companies have recently begun experimenting with a more direct strategy: marketing behavior-modification and “lifestyle” drugs specifically for pets. America’s animals, it seems, have very American health problems. More than 20 percent of our dogs are overweight; Pfizer’s Slentrol was approved by the F.D.A. last year as the country’s first canine anti-obesity medication. Dogs live 13 years on average, considerably longer than they did in the past; Pfizer’s Anipryl treats cognitive dysfunction so that absent-minded pets can remember the location of the supper bowl or doggy door. For lonely dogs with separation anxiety, Eli Lilly brought to market its own drug Reconcile last year. The only difference between it and Prozac is that Reconcile is chewable and tastes like beef.
Doggy diet pills may be plainly absurd, but scientists in an expanding field known as behavioral pharmacology say that the combination of new drug therapies and progressive training techniques can solve problems that in the past almost always resulted in euthanasia. The supposed effectiveness of psychiatric medicines in treating mood and behavior issues is prompting new questions in the centuries-old debate over what, exactly, separates mankind from the beasts. If the strict Cartesian view were true — that animals are essentially flesh-and-blood automatons, lacking anything resembling human emotion, memory and consciousness — then why do animals develop mental illnesses that eerily resemble human ones and that respond to the same medications? What can behavioral pharmacology teach us about animal minds and, ultimately, our own?
Marketers have a new name for the age-old tendency to view animals as furry versions of ourselves: “humanization,” a trend that is fueling the explosive growth of the pet industry and the rise of modern pet pharma. Americans forked over $49 billion for pet products and services last year, up $11.5 billion from 2003; other than consumer electronics, pet products are the fastest-growing retail segment. The market expansion is being driven both by more pets and by more spending per pet, especially by affluent baby boomers whose children have graduated from college. A third of the total spending, and the fastest-growing category, is health care, with treatments formerly reserved for people — root canals, chemotherapy, liposuction, mood pills — being administered to pets.
“I get asked all the time, ‘What is it with this humanization — do we suddenly love our pets a whole lot more?’ ” says David Lummis, who analyzes the pet industry for the market research firm Packaged Facts. “My theory is that it’s always been there, but it’s been sanctioned now. It’s not just the crazy cat lady. It’s marketers and all of this consumer advertising that have made it O.K. to spend tons of money on your pet.”
Humanization has pharmaceutical companies salivating like Pavlov’s dogs. Surveys by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association found that 77 percent of dog owners and 52 percent of cat owners gave their animals some sort of medication in 2006, both up at least 25 percentage points from 2004. Sales of drugs for pets recently surpassed those for farm animals. Eli Lilly created its “companion animal” division at the beginning of 2007 and over the next three years hopes to release several other drugs. Pfizer, whose companion animal revenues have grown 57 percent since 2003 to nearly $1 billion, hopes to develop medications for pain, cancer and behavioral issues. Most consumer spending is still on traditional pet medications like antiparasitics, but Ipsos, a marketing research firm, estimates that at least $15 million was spent on behavior-modification drugs in the United States in 2005. The practice of prescribing medications designed for humans to animals has grown substantially over the past decade and a half, and ph... more -
America's next great disaster - Socialized Medicine
Let's put this one under the law of unintended consequences. Most of the progressives I know rail against tax breaks for corporations. If the Government nationalizes the healthcare system it would be the largest piece of corporate welfare ever given. If Uncle Sugar is going to cover you why should your employer, union or pension plan continue to pay?
Anyone who wants the government to run the healthcare system has not spent enough time at the DMV. At least with the DMV you can make choices to avoid the government, you can ride the bus or a bike. Maybe that's why the DMV is so gawd awful to force us to go green. With healthcare you got no choice, at some point you have to go to the doctor and then Big Brother has you. The government taking over the health care system would be a blunder almost as grand as George and Dick's Excellent Iraq Adventure and in the long run it would be about 1000 times as expensive.
We have all heard the mantra of the enlightened progressives; free and equal health care for all. Is that the big change Obama is bringing? Giving a Dr. Frankenstein jolt of electricity to the failed policies of Hillary Clinton from the early 90's? Why not, after all he is employing a lot of the same old hacks the Clinton used to employ and now have on their enemies list. Obama has said there is no reason the same package that covers congress shouldn't be available for the general population.
Well friends, it ain't gonna happen. At no time in the future will you or I get free healthcare equal to what your local congressman gets.
At no point will you get that or anything near the same health care Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get from their exclusive club called the Screen Actors Guild. SAG refuses to allow their peon low-income members access to the same health care system the big boys and girls get. You see if SAG gave access to its healthcare to all its members it would cost so much that the union would have to get a ton more cash from its big earners. As much as the Clooney's and the Penn's of Hollywood pay lip service to helping the little guy they really don't give a big rat's backside when it comes to reaching into their own pockets in anything other than a superficial way.
Let's take Obama's proposal to increase the income tax on the top one percent of earners to almost fifty percent of the earnings plus and extra point or two on money over $250,000 for the social security system. If SAG did the same to its top earners, took fifty percent of all salaries over one million dollars (the Obama government would do it for all earners over $250,000) to provide health care for all SAG members - Robert Redford and Sharon Stone could get by on the four or five million a movie they have left over. Even after the government took their fifty percent of the fifty percent they had left over they could still live a pretty cushy life. But since the actor's union is run by the same fat cats who would have to pony up under this scheme the chances of it happening are about the same as Obama picking Clarence Thomas as his running mate. Let's put this one under the law of unintended consequences. Most of the progressives I know rail against tax breaks for corporat... more -
The ADHD scam and the mass drugging of schoolchildren (transcript)
I have a child who was diagnosed with ADD when he was 7 years old. Against everything that I did and said, my ex, the psychologist and a judge decided that I had to give my son his Ritalin lest I be thrown in jail ...
I think that these drugs are a cop-out so that people do not have to deal with kids who are alive and just full of the one thing we all crave and that is energy ... but instead of praising them for being adventurous, so that they don't get in the way too much of our busy lives we medicate them and place them in a boring classroom and expect them to learn on our terms.
This is sickening! My son is now 18 and still suffering the effects of being on this medicine for more than 10 years. Socially he is about like a 12-14 year old.
These drugs are killing our children ... do something about it! Get them off of these medications and get them ON a good, healthy diet and exercise! I have a child who was diagnosed with ADD when he was 7 years old. Against everything that I did and said, my ex, the psychologist and... more -
Direct to consumer advertising by the drug industry video
The United States of America and New Zealand are the only civilized countries in the world that allow Direct to Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising.
Why do we? This is a blatant conflict of interest and a shame.
Our information is filtered through Pharmaceutical Board money, sadly even PBS.
Will this stop under our next administration with Obama or will our country continue to be vastly over medicated?..
TUNE IN!
additional information here
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaAndHealth/BigBucksBi...
http://www.askapatient.com The United States of America and New Zealand are the only civilized countries in the world that allow Direct to Consumer Pharmaceutica... more -
Prescription drug epedemic in America
For the first time, it appears that more than half of all insured Americans are taking prescription medicines regularly for chronic health problems, a study shows.
The most widely used drugs are those to lower high blood pressure and cholesterol - problems often linked to heart disease, obesity and diabetes.
Experts say the data reflect not just worsening public health but better medicines for chronic conditions and more aggressive treatment by doctors. For example, more people are now taking blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering medicines because they need them, said Dr. Daniel W. Jones, president of the American Heart A$$ociation
In addition, there is the pharmaceutical industry's relentless advertising. With those factors unlikely to change, doctors say the proportion of Americans on chronic medications can only grow.
Americans buy much more medicine per person than any other country - 51 percent of American children and adults were taking one or more prescription drugs for a chronic condition, up from 50 percent the previous four years and 47 percent in 2001. Most of the drugs are taken daily.
The biggest jump in use of chronic medications was in the 20- to 44-year-old age group - adults in the prime of life - where it rose 20 percent over the six years. That was mainly due to more use of drugs for depression, diabetes, asthma, attention-deficit disorder and seizures. About 1.2 million American children now are taking pills for Type 2 diabetes, sleeping troubles and gastrointestinal problems such as heartburn.
Antidepressant use in particular jumped among teens and working-age women. Doctors attributed that to more stress in daily life and to family 'doctors,' including 'pediatricians,'being more comfortable prescribing newer antidepressants. For the first time, it appears that more than half of all insured Americans are taking prescription medicines regularly for chronic he... more -
Propisterol EQ
"Taken just sixteen times a day...when you're ready for the heartbreak to end..."
-
Co-payments for expensive drugs on the rise
Many health insurers are adopting a new prescription plan that charges patients a certain percentage of the price for high-priced drugs. Insurers claim that this keeps premiums low, but many of these drugs are used to treat relatively common conditions and lack generic alternatives. Under this plan, patients can end up paying thousands of dollars a month on prescription medications. Many health insurers are adopting a new prescription plan that charges patients a certain percentage of the price for high-priced drug... more
-
The Health Insurance Mafia
Perhaps the solution to much of what currently plagues us in health care – rising costs and bureaucracy, diminishing levels of service – rests on a radically different approach: fewer people insured.
Organized crime, utilizes fear and intimidation to muscle its way into the provider-consumer chain, raking in hefty profits and bloating cost, without providing any benefit at all.
The health insurance model is closest to the parasitic relationship imposed by the Mafia and the like. Insurance companies provide nothing other than an ambiguous, shifty notion of 'protection.'
Insurance is all about betting against negative consequences and the insurance business model is unique in that profits depend upon goods and services not being provided. Using actuarial tables, insurers place their bets.
Physicians and other providers need to liberate themselves from the Faustian bargain they've cut with the Mephistophelian suits who now run their professional lives. Because many doctors are loath to talk about money, they allowed themselves to perpetuate the fantasy that "insurance is paying." It isn't. There is no free lunch and no free physical exam.
If substantial numbers of health-care providers shook off the insurance monkey on their back, en masse, and the supply of providers was substantially increased by opening more medical schools, the result would be a more honest, cost-effective system benefiting everyone. Except the insurance companies. Perhaps the solution to much of what currently plagues us in health care – rising costs and bureaucracy, diminishing levels of service... more -
Clinton announces ambitious breast cancer research effort
Senator Clinton announced a plan that would provide $300 million a year in increased government funding on breast cancer research, focusing on treatment and exploring possible genetic and environmental triggers for the disease. The program would help more low-income women gain access to screenings and explore racial disparities in diagnosis and treatment of the disease.
I'm not a supporter of Senator Clinton. But I really have to give her credit for this program. I hope something like can be possible no matter who wins the election in November. Senator Clinton announced a plan that would provide $300 million a year in increased government funding on breast cancer research, foc... more -
Viagra helps dog's ticker
An impotence tablet is helping to keep a pet dog with a heart condition from an early grave. Talisker, a border collie, was living on borrowed time after vets found his heart had become dangerously enlarged. An impotence tablet is helping to keep a pet dog with a heart condition from an early grave. Talisker, a border collie, was living on ... more
-
Clinton records now online
all 11,000+ pages. Enjoy!!
-
Student asks Chelsea Clinton the BIG question
Campaigning for her mother, Chelsea Clinton was asked by a student at Butler University about the former First Lady's handling of the Lewinsky scandal.
She responded: "You're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know, 70 college campuses that I've now been to and I do not think that's any of your business." Campaigning for her mother, Chelsea Clinton was asked by a student at Butler University about the former First Lady's handling of... more -
Scandal, Intrigue on Capitol Hill: Pregnant Moms, Drugs, Baby Zombie Uprising
A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by allowing doctors to prescribe SSRI antidepressant drugs while they're still pregnant.
SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?
This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new "customers" for the chemicals. A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by allowing doctors to pres... more -
Scandal, Intrigue in Congress: Zombies and Lobbyists Eat Childrens' Brains
Drug companies are struggling because their products don´t work for preventive health and they can´t make money just using them for appropriate uses. Their main trade group spent $22 million in 2007 to buy favors from Congress.
Partly this money was spent trying to maintain a legal monopoly – such as blocking less expensive drug re-importation, preventing fair-price drug negotiations for Medicare, manipulating patent laws to extend drug profits, and ensuring direct to consumer ads continue.
Most of the increase in spending was to get Congress to reauthorize the State Children´s Health Insurance Program, a program to get and keep low-income kids on mind altering drugs – a cash cow worth billions for Big Pharma. These drugs cause permanent adverse alterations in the developing nervous system of children. There is a reason every school-related mass murder involves shooters that have been on psych drugs.
Proposals aimed at lowering drug prices and restricting industry advertising fell by the wayside in Congress. Drug companies are struggling because their products don´t work for preventive health and they can´t make money just using them for ap... more -
Scandal, Intrigue on Campus: Science and Drugs for Sale
The most prestigious universities have let themselves become prime candidates for doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry.
The dependence of Universities on biomedical research funding from big business is leading to a disastrous decline in scientific ethics and on the public perception of science. The most prestigious universities have let themselves become prime candidates for doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry. ... more -
Scandal, Intrigue in Bottled Water: Drugs, Drugs, and more Drugs
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.
Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.
The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested.
Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe — even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.
Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.
Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs — and flushing them unmetabolized or unused — in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.
Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life — such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.
For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants — pesticides, lead, PCBs — which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.
However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.
"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects," says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs. A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the ... more -
Scandal, Intrigue on Drugs: Now More Uses Than Ever
The FDA seeks to broaden the range of use for drugs
The rules would allow drug and device makers to provide doctors with copies of medical journal articles that discuss product uses that have not been vetted or approved by the F.D.A. The rules also say that drug companies do not have to promise to adequately test the unapproved use discussed in the article.
But critics of the proposal say that drug and device companies have a long history of promoting unapproved drug and device uses that later proved dangerous and that allowing companies to talk about such unapproved uses removes incentives for companies to research adequately whether the new use is actually beneficial.
“People will die if they are getting drugs that don’t have clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s health research group.
Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, said the proposed rule “caters to the industry’s desire to market their products without adequate testing or review.” The FDA seeks to broaden the range of use for drugs ... more
-
related topics
PhRMA
Contributors (87)
PhRMA
