Side Effects of Prescription and OTC Drugs

Side Effects of Prescription and OTC Drugs

Side effect scares and recalls have left many of us questioning the safety of many prescription and OTC drugs. Now, reporting in the New York Times reveals that a major pharmaceutical company was behind scientific reviews that misrepresented the dangers of hormone replacement therapy (HRT)--and boosted sales.

Wyeth paid ghostwriters to promote its products in 26 journal articles that emphasized benefits and de-emphasized risks. Physicians were credited as authors.

Although this company has since improved transparency regarding published studies, the practice appears to be widespread.... --Remedies for Life, October 2009.

Suzanne

Oh yes, the battle to sell medicines, every more medicines, to the detriment of a few. We're used to a few dying by the wayside, or are we, the general public, generally apathetic? Seems the tide is turning, if you avoid the propaganda from the mainstream news outlets. Not sure even the NY Times is really that good, either, but it says something....

Side Effects of Popular Prescription Drugs

Elsa, a 70 year old woman who lives alone and chops her own wood feared she had intruders one winter morning when she found wood for her stove all split and scattered about her porch. Some time later she discovered a plate of partially eaten food in her kitchen. Ready to call the police, she stopped when she realized that the tracks in the snow were made by her own boots, yet she had no recollection of making them.

Doctors, who assured her that her tests were negative, suggested that her memory lapse might be due to Lipitor, the statin drug she had started taking to lower her cholesterol. She stopped its use and bounced back to her usual alert self.

There are many more reports similar to Elsa's story. Indeed, there are thousands who experience episodes of transient global amnesia after taking Lipitor and are unaware of this lesser-known side effect of the most prescribed drug in America. Many times the cognitive disturbances caused by statin drugs, including disorientation, confusion and unusual forgetfulness, often go unreported. Or if they are reported are freguently dismissed by doctors as normal symptoms of aging. --adapted from Let's Live, November 2004.

Comment: There are various dietary and lifestyle factors that can be implemented to lower cholesterol without resorting the these suspect drugs.

Suzanne

Adverse Effects of Osteoporosis Meds

Widely used osteoporosis drugs-prescribed since the 1990s--are being linked to previously unsuspected causes of serious heart problems, researchers have discovered. Drugs such as Boniva, Fosomax, Reclast and Actonel may cause serious heart rhythm problems, which increase the risk for stroke and heart attack.

The drugs contain bisphosphonates, which a research team from Wake Forest University School of Medicine has pinpointed as the cause of the heart problems. The researchers made the discovery after they tracked the health records of 13,000 patients who were compared with a further 13,000 people who were given a placebo. --Drug Safety, 2009; 32:219-28.

Suzanne

This might be as per the thread title, but it's on topic for the manner in which "scientific" articles are published.

Back a few years ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an article on hair-mineral analysis (HMA) tests. I was stunned to see the article pawned off as "scientific," when science it was not. (At least, it was not "good" science!)

The following is but an abstract of it. I guess you can pay something to read the full article from JAMA online. I didn't do that.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/1/67

Their research was fundamentally flawed in several areas:
1) The sample size was only ONE SINGLE PERSON.
2) There are many variables in a person's hair minerals, based mostly on time. Older hair may have a different composition than the fresher portion, including the factors of changes in body chemistry over time, changes in environment, exposure to the elements, and exposure to pollutants and contaminants which would spoil the sample.
3) No research was conducted, at all, on same-lab consistency between equivalent samples.

Each lab has its own unique system for presenting the results of the test. Some labs have greater precision in parts per million (PPM). Some labs do not give the information in numerical form, but rather in graph form. Some labs use a percentage of "normal" instead. However, each lab is likely consistent with itself between two equivalent samples, such that as long as you use the same lab each time, you have a meaningful comparison of data. This was not, however, included in the study--no data on intra-lab consistency was gathered.

The abstract linked above does not include this, but I read the actual article some years back, so I'll fill in some detail from memory. The single-person sample used for the laboratory comparison test was a lady with long hair. Her hair was cut and sent out to the various labs. However, there was nothing in the article to indicate exactly how this was done, or whether or not the hair could have been evenly mixed around so that each sample was as nearly equal as possible. Lacking this information, it is easy to assume that each sample was taken from a different portion of the hair--and this could easily affect the outcome.

To be done right, they should have tested a known quantity. For example, it is possible to send paper, cotton, etc. to the labs for testing--and they could have dipped sterile cotton balls into a solution of some form, dried them uniformly, and sent them instead. But this they did not do.

If the research had supported the labs, big pharma would simply choose not to have it published. There are many unpublished studies, just because they did not support the product(s) of the study's backer(s).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Pain Killer Warning for Women

Scary News: Johns Hopkins University reports that deaths from prescription painkiller poisoning more than tripled among women ages 45 to 64 in a recent 6-year period. Before you use hydrocodone (Vicodin) or acetaminophen and codeine combos, talk to your health care provider about overdose risks and the dangers of drug interactions and taking more than one med at a time. --Health, Nov. 2009.

Suzanne

But their conclusion was that laboratories differed in analyzing that single person. What more would a larger sample size show if they failed in one comparison? Now, if the data from the labs showed favorable comparisons, I agree, it would not give adequate information on the quality of the labs. But, since they can't get one right, is there a need to test further?

Sending a sample multiple times would be beneficial in showing how bad the labs were, but again, if they can't get one right, is there any need to show how bad they are once it is shown they are inadequate?

Now, if their purpose was to show which was the best lab, then maybe multiple testing would be in order. I don't understand that as their purpose, but more of a general recommendation. That would be more of a Consumer Reports research rather than assessing reliability of commercial labs. It does say, if improved, so the previous research would be needed, but if I'm reading it right, 10 times off, is still way off and nothing further needs to be done.

Interesting in a cited by article which linked autism with disability to eliminate mercury and how hair analysis did not indicate with mercury exposure due to some people's elimination problems. Wonder if they used different labs?
http://ijt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/277

kland,

Perhaps I did not explain myself well, because you missed half of my point. They sent a different sample of hair to each lab, and then expected the same results?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It takes a toxicologist to explain this intelligently, which I am not. However, I just recommended a lady with cancer see a toxicologist this week, and I am somewhat familiar with their science.

Hair will rarely have mercury. Mercury is fat-soluble, not water soluble, and as such it does not tend to show up in the hair, except by external contamination (exposure to smoke from fossil fuels, etc.). What the hair WILL do is show a pattern of minerals which can indicate whether or not mercury is present. The body has a complex balance of minerals, in which too much of one may affect the levels of another. There are many cooperating pairs.

For example: zinc and copper are a pair. If you drink water from copper pipes, you are getting more than the "natural" amount of copper in your diet. This means, among other things, that your body will try to flush the excess copper, which shows up in the hair. Along with the copper, since zinc is treated much the same as copper in the body, zinc gets flushed too. This means that those drinking from copper plumbing tend to be zinc deficient. Zinc supplementation may be recommended in this case, to offset the higher-than-normal copper intake.

People who are anti-supplements should necessarily be just as much against such things as copper pipes which upset the delicate natural balance of minerals in the body. Of course, it is much easier to take some zinc than to change all of your pipes to granite aquifers.

In the case of mercury, high levels of mercury may cause the body to flush another element instead, while vainly trying to rid itself of the mercury. Here's a short statement regarding mercury in the hair that I found online:


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I see your point, but kind of hard to send the same sample. Also, would you think hair near the scalp would vary 10 times on the same individual?

kland,

The ones doing the study had a clear bias against HMA tests before they performed their experiment, and they looked for every possible flaw to come back in the results. When you are looking for something, it's easier to find it, and easier to miss something else that you were not looking for. The results can only be biased.

I read the actual article in JAMA. It's been a few years now, but I remember them saying that their samples were all taken from one woman with long hair, who gave it up for the sake of the experiment. Therefore, it seems less than certain to me that all of the hair sent to the labs was taken from near the scalp. Perhaps some was, and some not. There can be huge differences in the mineral content of older vs. newer hair, not only from differences in the body but also from differences in external exposures (contamination).

Let's just say, for example, that the hair near the scalp was sent along with each sample, but the hair itself was left long. Some parts of the hair would have been longer than others, and therefore could reflect minerals from different time periods. On the other hand, they may have actually selected hair from different parts for the test. Who knows?

However, the writers of the article are clearly pushing conventional medicine. Conventional doctors use pharmaceutical drugs as directed by the medical insurance industry. Medical insurance does not want to pay for HMA tests. They want you to pay for those OTC drugs this thread is about, along with other, more expensive ones given under prescription. The doctors are pressured and bribed (by certain perks from pharma representatives) to use those drugs. Doctors are given X amount of free samples of the drugs, etc. along with various gifts and coupons, which then makes them feel obligated toward the makers of the drugs. (And I call this form of "persuasion" bribery.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Merck Hit with $8 Million Verdict in Fosamax Trial

Drugmaker Merck & Co. said it will challenge its first loss in a trial blaming its osteoporosis drug for destroying a patient's jawbone after a federal jury on June 25, 2010, awarded $8 million to a Florida woman.

The U.S. District Court jury in New York awarded that amount in compensatory damages to Shirley Boles, 72, of Fort Walton, Florida, who alleged Merck's Fosamax destroyed her jawbone near her ears, causing serious pain and disablity. --Press-Enterprise, June 26, 2010.

Suzanne

The evidence must have been overwhelming.

Painkillers Darvon, Darvocet Being Withdrawn

The widely prescribed medications are linked to serious heart rhythm abnormalities.

The makers of Darvon and Darvocet announced Nov. 19, 2010 that it would stop marketing the widely used painkillers in the U.S. because a new study links the active ingredient to serious and sometimes fatal heart rhythm abnormalities.

The FDA requested the withdrawal and urged doctors to stop prescribing the drugs immediately. But it advised patients to keep taking their medications while consulting quickly with physicians to find an alternative. Pain management experts said the drugs are easily replaceable.

The decision follows years of controversy about Darvon's dangerous side effects.

Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen's Health Research Group blasted the FDA's action as too late and called for congressional hearings into why the agency took so long. Public Citizen tried for more than 3 decades to limit use of the drug and petitioned the FDA to ban it in 2006.

Known generically as propoxyphene, Darvon is an opioid used to treat mild to moderate pain. Made by Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Newport, Ky., the drug was approved in 1957.

The FDA estimated that propoxyphene was used by 10 million people in 2009, with most of them receiving it in combination with acetaminophen, a compound known by the trade name Darvocet.

Many doctors who prescribe propoxyphene do so simply bcause it's been around so long and they're familiar with it, said Al Anderson, a Minneapolis family practitioner and president of the American Academy of Pain Managemnt board of directors. He said the withdrawal would hurt a few patients who can't tolerate other painkillers, but most patients have many alternatives, such as oxycodone, morphine and Nucynta.

Propoxyphene was effectively pulled from the British and European Union markets earlier because of regulator's health concerns: Britain in 2005 and the EU in June 2009.

In January 2009, an FDA advisory committee voted 14-12 against continued marketing of propoxyphene. The FDA rejected that recommendation but required a study of the drug's cardiac effects. That study showed an increased risk for heart arrhythmias even in healthy patients, not just those weakened by illness. "We concluded the the pain-relief benefit no longer outweighed the health risks," said John Jenkins, director of new drugs in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Wolfe said the FDA should have acted much sooner. Data about heart toxicity was available from an animal study 30 years ago, he said, and at least 1,000 people in the U.S. have did from using propoxyphene since Britain's 2005 ban. He labeled the agency's inaction "a serious indictment of the FDA's long-lasting unwillingness to protct people in this country from a deadly but barely effective painkiller." --Los Angeles Times, November 20, 2010

Suzanne

It seems that prescription drugs are worse than the health issue, whatever it may be.

Antibiotics are prescription drugs...

And......?

And they are the reason the surgery ward is no longer sending a majority of its patients to the morgue.
And in transforming many varieties of pneumonia from death sentences into a relatively minor illness.
And is a reason we will not have a plague epidemic as long as antibiotics are still useful.

True, but at the same time it doesn't mean antibiotics aren't harmful. They may very well cause damage, but the damage is considered less than death. I'm not so sure one could argue the same with pain killers. From what I know, the reason people take pain drugs is either addicted/imagined/exaggerated reasons or it's due to hoof-to-mouth disease which results in a cause and effect need for pain drugs. So, by a lifestyle choice, people are in turn being poisoned. Antibiotics are over prescribed and over taken causing all kinds of problems for lack of adequate drugs when they are really needed, plus the damage done to the individual taking them. I understand it kills your intestinal bacteria and then in the void, the bad kind can take over. So one would only take them if really needed, knowing they will cause harm, but their present conditions require immediate action.

Which is unlike vaccinations, which are also drugs with very bad ingredients besides some containing the toxic element mercury. One may argue the benefit outweighs the harm, but there are no present conditions requiring immediate action. Only supposed thought.

There are times when you have an all but immobilizing pain. Then, in the choise between squirming on the floor like a worm in pain and taking painkiller, well, painkiller suddenly comes in a much brighter light.

Everything which is good can be used or misused for lesser purposes. As you point out, antibiotics can save your life, but taking one without having the proper need will decrease your general body balance.
Another example is water, you cant live without it, but you also cannot live with too much of it, it will then drown you.

The same which is true for antibiotics is true for vaccination. You will have to make the cost/gain analysis for yourself. Is the ill of a miniscule amount of Hg a too high price to pay for not getting the brain-eating infection on your mission trip to Mongolia? Is the Hg in the vaccin too high a price to pay for your child to get a smallpox compared with the risk of dying (30%) or living the rest of your live covered in scars?
..Oh, thats right, vaccinations have already removed smallpox from the threats to human health. My mistake..

Yes, there are cases for pain killers, but I was referring to the majority who misuse them. Sometimes alternation of hot and cold packs will work just as well. Hopefully, taking pain killers for a one time incident won't cause the heart problems. It's the ones who say they always have pain and need them when really it's something else going on.

Going on a mission trip is something to consider carefully. However, to assume one must take mercury I don't think is wise. Most vaccines have alternatives if you demand them. But there are too many who think it doesn't matter and try to convince you to just take it.

But, you state vaccination have removed smallpox threats. Is that based upon the scientific method or is it based upon correlations which may be confounded?

It is the active ingredients in the vaccine that you are interested in, not the Hg. But your critique of vaccines did focus on the Hg aspect.

It might just be a very lucky coincidence that smallpox disappeared at the same time that vaccinations against it became well spread all over the world. Though it does beg the question, if its disappearance is based on different causes than the advance of medicine, why did it happen now rather than at any other previous time in history?

(The scientific method requires a control group. In the case of a vaccine, it would have to be a large majority of the population in the control area. Which population would you want to deny the cure of a deadly disease in the name of science?)

Are you asking why do many things happen at the same time?

It sounds like you admit that the concept of vaccinations has not been scientifically tested, nor will be, nor should be. That we should just accept it as self-evident truth.

I believe you and I agree that there is an absolute reality, that there isn't some sort of dual reality, split reality, nor multiple realities, that there exists some reality that either vaccines work or they don't work or it's somewhere in between. Do you understand what the null hypothesis would be in this case and which viewpoint would need to disprove it? But if you don't do scientific experiments on it, how can it be disproved - with circumstantial, coincidental, confounded occurrences, at a time of which many were happening rapidly at the same time?

But, based upon your posts, are you really questioning whether prescription drugs or otherwise are harmful, worse than the health issue, and are of real concern?

I admit that I am not aware of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of vaccination or the lack thereoff.

I am questioning that the generalisation that *all prescription drugs are always worse than the disease they are ment to cure* is a safe or true one to make.

I am not questioning that there are prescription drugs that are harmful to use,
that there are prescription drugs that are harmful though less harmful than the disease they are designed to cure,
or that missuse of prescription drugs is a very bad idea.

I would not advice anyone to take any kind of drug with less than a serious medical condition to cure involved.
I also could not quietly see someone advicing against taking a lifesaving drug on some anti-drug principle when not taking the drug is a one way ticket to death or serious health degradation.

I agree that there is an absolute reality. This reality includes that the human body is designed to adapt to threats it has previously encountered. Therefore, introducing the body to non-lethal versions/variants of the disease you wish to inoculate yourself against is a clear case of working within the design given to the human immune system.

It does seem that "all" are always worse wouldn't be a true statement. Though, I recall reading from Ellen White where she indicates all are harmful. To what degree, I don't believe she stated.

With supposing it works that way. Do you see a contradiction here? Threats versus non-lethal and versions/variants. Theory is nice, but if it hasn't been proven, it doesn't mean it's true. How did the theory become accepted if it wasn't tested? I've read things, which I don't know if they are true, about little testing being done and that it was a competition between two or more theories with this one winning from the power struggle. I'd be willing to read other stuff, too, if you have something. Odd how it's just accepted. Promotion was the term used. Guess it works. Aren't areas near you banning vaccinations?

Consider the cold virus. They say it can't be vaccinated against because there are new versions. A question to ask is, why is the smallpox version unable to change and cold viruses are? Some people catch the cold many times a year. Others don't catch one at all. Some who used to catch cold, no longer do. If the only thing of prevention is whether one has been vaccinated or not, why is this so? Another thing is why isn't there a cold vaccine that is a variant that has a common portion? Lot's of money to be made.

Of course, this could be disputed if the swine flu is a real threat and vaccines don't work, then lots of people will get sick. The question would be if it's a real threat or like I'm claiming that smallpox isn't a real threat today. Which could also be disputed by lots of people who have been vaccinated catching smallpox if the conditions become like they were before.

Well, I would certainly join you in refusing medication if the doctor prescribed the poisons that were sold during Ellens time.

As I said, I am not aware of what research exists, nor have I time to find out (amid thesis writing and researching postgraduate positions). Considering that vaccinations were introduced and developed already in the 19th century by Louis Pasteur, it is possible that the original research is written in Latin, and if not, then in French.

The common cold virus is a good example on how not all species evolve at the same speed. The HIV virus is another example of a virus which evolve so fast that it is almost impossible to prevent (thus far).
You step into the deep when you state that vaccination would be the "only thing of prevention". I have not heard anyone say a vaccination would be the only preventive. Rather the common cold vaccination is recommended for very young children and very old people for whom a common cold is no longer a week in bed but the first step into the grave.

I happen to think the Swine flu was heavily over-sold.
Smallpox on the other hand, was a serious illness. And while better conditions could explain why it no longer is occurring in America or Western Europe, it is not a sufficient explanation for why the Afghan or Ukrainian farmer no longer suffers from it.

Did I understand you saying there IS a common cold vaccination? Or are you saying IF there were one?

If vaccinations really work, why wouldn't they be a sole preventer? At least for those who are able to withstand the poisons. For instance, talking about the flu, promoters say you should get vaccinated, wash your hands, etc. Why, if it's true vaccinations really do work? Now, if they might, or sometimes, or kind of, then that would be understandable that you try everything in prevention, which indicates they don't "really" work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine
I realise there might be a confusion of terms on my part here.

kland, let me use an analogy here. People who drive cars with airbags who are involved in car crashes sometimes need ER treatment. Does that mean that the airbag did not work and that the car manufacturers should save money by not designing cars with them? Or does it mean that while the airbag did work (ie, the person goes to the ER rather than to the morgue), it isnt the magic bullet for solving all car crash injuries?

Also, some people argue simmilarily about christianity. They say, "if I confess the creed and go to church, then God will automatically remove my alcoholism and [censored] addiction and I will over night become a much better person". Then after a while when the person realises that these things do not get automatic and immediate solutions by becoming christian, the person decides christianity is a fake and discards it.

Claiming more for something than what it is meant to do is one way of making a strawman to shoot down.

The air bag did not work if it's goal was to prevent injury.

Reducing injury is another thing. Applied to vaccinations, that opens a whole new questionable concept. Which could be why some lists ways of preventing the flu: get vaccinated, wash hands... The logic indicating, vaccination will not solely prevent the flu.
Which, if it doesn't solely prevent the flu, is not intended to solely prevent the flu, has not be scientifically tested, does it do anything? Flu or otherwise?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8065407
This seems an interesting research document regarding influenza vaccination of the elderly. They write that in the vaccinated group, fewer experienced hospitalisation or death than in the control group, despite the fact that the control group persons were generally healthier than the vaccinated group.

Interesting article. Also, interesting that the only time someone else had presented any scientific study, it also involved the elderly but in a nursing home. In it, the vaccination appeared to reduce the effects of one disease but increase the effects of another.

Do vaccinations only partially benefit the elderly or is this an example where the elderly, especially when confined, can be specifically targeted.

Also, it was unclear from just the abstract, whether pneumonia and congestive heart failure are associated with the flu or a side benefit from taking the vaccine. I suppose it could be related. But, 48 to 57 percent and 43 percent does not seem like you could say it "works" to me if the idea is prevention, and when it says it reduces hospitalization, the benefits are further diluted.

Now, maybe there is an argument for the dollars saved, and that could be why so many are urging, without question, a drug which has not been adequately subjected to the scientific method. But I question if those dollars are really saved or if they reappear elsewhere.

Bechamp was the name I was thinking of who lost out to marketing maneuvers.
Here's an interesting segment about smallpox on page 197:
Bechamp Or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology

Would you suggest we vaccinated as the originally did? Did it work? Why not do it the same way? If our current methods are "better", are they right?

Principles of Vaccination & what Jenner did:
http://www.therealessentials.com/vaccination-princ.html

I had read before how they got this from calves.
Living calves.

A book quoting the situation 150 years ago and an article on a website which just happens to have a commercial interest in discrediting scientifically tested medicine? kland, honestly, if you want to think vaccine is unhealthy for you, it is your right to do so.

If something started whether 15 years ago or 150, and it's never been subjected to the scientific method, wouldn't it be useful to go back and see what was happening then as to why it came into being accepted without question? What if the base assumption was faulty? Is that a possibility? Or shall we just assume vaccination must be work, it has to be true, surely it must be scientifically tested or the ones in power would have told us differently?

I've read elsewhere that even the government is saying certain vaccinations aren't being effective, therefore they must step up coverage. Kind of reminds me that going into debt isn't causing the economy to recover, so we must put forth more effort to go further into debt.

If vaccinations work, or as you say, reduce the worse effects, and one area either bans it or no longer forces it against the will of the people (UK), then wouldn't you see an increase in the disease? But, from what I've read, the disease went down. Or in third world countries, where they are vaccinating the people but not providing clean water and sanitation, the disease still is high.

And as far as commercial interest go, you can find sites which aren't selling things, but really, who has the biggest commercial interest in this: the pharmakon industry or someone selling essential oils who also has articles on their website?

All I'm saying is to think, don't assume. Whether it's to do with our health or our religion. Ellen White says that the health message is the right arm of the third angel's message. Shall we pharm it out to industry?

As few as 3 posts ago I shared one link to research subjected to the scientific method verifying the effect of vaccine, yet you already are claiming it has never been done.

You shall not assume anything about vaccines working for you have already made up your mind that they do not. Is there a purpose to further discussing this?

The link showed the scientific method was used to help show that vaccines reduced the negative effects of illness, but showed that vaccines did not prevent disease. Hence, my conclusion that they do not "work" meaning prevention.

Yes, you are right in showing that it is much easier to get the desired results if one takes the liberty to decide how to define key words (eg work) according to what the present situation requires.

That does sound bad if I'm taking liberty to change the meaning of "works". Maybe you could give a good definition. Because, when I search about vaccines, I often see the word "prevention". Which I then take "works" to mean "prevents". I see recent articles in the paper from the health department talking about how vaccines prevent diseases. They didn't mentioned anything about reducing the effects of disease. So, I'm open to if you have a common definition of the purpose of vaccination. I say "common", as otherwise, that would mean the common people have been deceived.

kland, I wonder, did you notice this article?
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d22.full
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

So one of the "evidence based medicine is evil" groups darling studies, that vaccination cause autism is not only false. It was manufactured. And neither was it manufactured for some idealistic causes but its author was bought for almost half a million British punds by lawyers who wanted to make money by suing vaccine companies.



While this by itself does not speak on the function of vaccine, it does show that the "evidence based medicine is evil" groups out there are not only lightly regarding medicine, but also evidence.


On your last question, it is difficult to comment on the contents of articles you recently read. Provide some links or at least quote references and preferably both so I can see how the word is used in the literature you read.

Your links demonstrate why I don't ever support that mercury causes autism. Mercury is bad on it's own and does not have to be shown to cause a certain specific disease to be kept out of vaccines. Creationists have fraudulently created things to "prove" creation. But committing fraud doesn't disprove creation. Interesting how published research can be shown to be fraud. Suppose it works both ways?

Regarding "prevent", how about this about meningitis vaccines (amazing how many vaccines there are!) from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/meningitis/about/prevention.html

That someone commits fraud to defend a point of view might not say anything about the point of view, but it says much about the person. And it does suggest that there might not be all that much of substance to say if fraud was necessary. The doctor should have done some real research to prove his point if he actually believes in it, rather than only believing in the "almighty dollar".
The difference between published research and statements of faith is that published research welcomes, even requires criticism of this kind. All kinds of ideas are thought up and they are put to the test, and the ones that survive the best attacks of its strongest critics goes down to history. Although any idea that survived yesterdays critics may fall to new knowledge tomorrow. This is not a weakness of science, it is the greatest strength of science. It is really a biblical principle, to try all things and claim the good ones. A principle that is surprisingly often rejected on matters of faith. So I am just waiting for you to say that because the vaccine prevents only 2 of the 3 most common strains of the meningitis bacteria, and does nothing for viral meningitis, it does not "work".

Duplicate

And some would say that about creationists who carve footprints near dinosaur tracks. Would you then be saying that Creation does not have much of substance?

While reading the full text article, I was thinking that's the kind of analysis which was needed for the Jenner and BeChamp conflict. Or one about why vaccines were thought to work and the evidence found.

The purpose was to demonstrate to you that "prevent" is the goal of "working", not "help" reduce some the disease effects.

But, you should be waiting for me to say, why. Why only 2 and not 3? Shouldn't that be an obvious question to ask?

"Creation Science" certainly lacks substance. God on the other hand is the very definition of substance, wherefore Creation does not lack it. Thus making difference between Creation and theories about creation. I am not familiar with this conflict. But inadvertedly you also showed that preventing 2 causes of Meningitis is different from preventing all causes of it..

Why only 2? That is a good question, one I think requires a deeper understanding of microbiology than mine to answer. All bacteria are not equal, nor do they stay the same and willingly chose exile as soon as we find a weapon against them.

Yeah, you discredited it by saying it was an old book.

I have come across where it is said the interaction between the two in meetings are well documented. Is there any possible way in which I could present it to you so you do not say it is an old book, (Jenner and Pasteur were of long time ago), or that it is from a website which has a purpose for existing?

There are only 280 or so pages to the old book. Also, the book appears to speak on Bechamp while the article speaks on Jenner. So which conflict are you talking about?

I suppose you are talking about this Jenner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
And this Bechamp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_B%C3%A9champ

Looking for evidence of this conflict in the article you posted before, I read:

"As mentioned earlier, viruses are cell constituents and if they become pathogenic it is because there is disequilibrium. Hence when an infant has measles we find the virus specific to measles. But if the virus is expressed it is because the organism is enfeebled. "

Does this mean that the measles virus is beneficial to the human body if the body is in equilibrium?

"They maintain biological equilibrium; without them we die, and they become pathogenic only with change in physiological equilibrium or breakdown of the immune system. For example, the intestines are full of colibacilli and many saprophytic bacteria (that live on the organism by feeding on decomposing matter). These bacteria contribute to fermentation of digestive residues and to the synthesis of vitamins. But, in the event of disequilibrium, they precipitate diarrhoea, appendicitis and other problems. That is why it is much more sensible to rebalance and clean the body than to kill the microbe. "

The Escherichia coli bacteria is one of the bacteria species which fit the quote above. But why has no one been able to show what use Mycobacterium tuberculosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_tuberculosis or Mycobacterium leprae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_leprae
is to a human body in equilibrium? Do they aid digestion? Provide care of the human organs through reduction of dead cells?

"Béchamp, founder of enzymology, identified minuscule corpuscles, microzymes, smaller than cells. These are at the origin of life and are found in both man and animal and in plants and micro-organisms. In humans their form varies with the general state of their home terrain and their nutrition. Disease occurs when disequilibrium disturbs their normal functioning. When there is change in the normal state of health, from malnutrition, poisoning, or physical or psychological stress, the microzymes can transform into pathogenic germs or microbes. To Antoine Béchamp the same microbes could take several forms relative to their milieu – the theory of polymorphism, which, had it been widely recognised, would have revolutionised general perceptions of health and disease. The key, say it supporters, is reinforcing health, which enables the germs to recover their original microzyme form and their protective function. Recreate the right milieu and the mcrobes disappear and hence the disease also. "

So it would seem that these "microbes" usually are protecting us, but when we are weak and in the greatest need of having our body protected, they transform themselves into bacteria or viruses. One wonders why they transform themselves into the same bacteria every time there is an epidemic. How come these "defence microbes" always turn into flu viruses in the winter, and into diarreah bacteria for travellers, and into Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Russian jails but not in American jails. Someone definitely needs to look into these questions, find the cause for bad conditions resulting in "defence microbes" becoming tbc in Russia while they chose to become malaria amoebas in Congo and you will be famous (if not getting a Nobel Prize, at least you will be greatly admired in the circles that "The Real Essentials" caters to.

Study reveals top ten violence-inducing prescription drugs

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recently published a study in the journal PLoS One highlighting the worst prescription drug offenders that cause patients to become violent. Among the top-ten most dangerous are the antidepressants Pristiq (desvenlafaxine), Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine).

Concerns about the extreme negative side effects of many popular antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have been on the rise, as these drugs not only cause severe health problems to users, but also pose a significant threat to society. The ISMP report indicates that, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System, many popular drugs are linked even to homicides.

Most of the drugs in the top ten most dangerous are antidepressants, but also included are an insomnia medication, an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, a malaria drug and an anti-smoking medication.

As reported in Time, the top ten list is as follows:

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) - An antidepressant that affects serotonin and noradrenaline. The drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) - An antidepressant that treats anxiety disorders. The drug is 8.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) - A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drug that is 8.4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

7. Triazolam (Halcion) - A benzodiazepine drug for insomnia that is 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) - An ADHD drug that is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

5. Mefoquine (Lariam) - A malaria drug that is 9.5 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

4. Amphetamines - This general class of ADHD drug is 9.6 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

3. Paroxetine (Paxil) - An SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs. It is also linked to severe withdrawal symptoms and birth defects.

2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) - A popular SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

1. Varenicline (Chantix) - An anti-smoking drug that is a shocking 18 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

Sources for this story include:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/...

Suzanne

Guess that means there's no possible way for me to present it, that it's something you'll have to look up and/or decide.

Suppose I have a block of wood setting in water in a sterile environment. One would not expect it to decay. However, if it were exposed to any of various fungi or bacteria, it would start to decay. Suppose you exposed it to another block of wood which had a specific fungi. You could say it "caught" that fungi from the contaminated block of wood. You could put a fungicide on it to keep it from catching it. But then, you place a different block of wood contaminated with a different fungi resistant to that fungicide or a bacteria. Soon, it catches the new disease. Maybe a new fungicide or bactericide is in order?

Now suppose that block of wood was part of a healthy growing tree. No matter how many contaminated blocks of wood were placed near it, would you expect the tree to "catch" it? I wouldn't.

(Speaking of contamination, isn't it interesting that the first vaccines only "worked", whatever that entailed, if the batches were contaminated, that the actual vaccine didn't "work"?)

Suzanne listed 10 popular drugs and their side effects. Extreme side effects. Would you expect much less from the drugs in vaccines? Does, not extreme, give you much confidence in taking them?

I think you are mistaken about pleomorphic bacteria and viruses. Also hepatitis B.

Tell me kland, what causes you most resignation over this conversation, that I have more important things to do (like work) than to read 300 pages in a book you mentioned, or that I read a couple of pages in the article you also mentioned and found some interesting questions from doing so.

Lets ignore that bacteria and fungi are not the only things that decay dead wood (as there also is chemical decay, for instance by oxidation).

Suppose the block of wood that is part of a healthy growing tree is next to a fungi-infested log of wood. If the tree is healthy, it will fight the fungi by a process corresponding to immune defence. Suppose further a lumberjack would cut a chunk of bark from the growing tree. The tree would now have lost a main part of its defence and is suddenly susceptible to being colonized by the fungi.

Come on kland, you know as well as I that it is a great difference between a Heliobacter pylori changing between a helix-shaped form and a coccoid form, or the Heliobacter changing into a Hepatitis or even into a virus as the people at "The Real Essentials" seem to argue. That level of plasticity would soon send the bacteria or protobacteria into an amoeboid form on its way to evolve a mammal.

Make that the conflict between Bechamp and Pasteur.

A tree with a chunk of its bark missing is no longer a healthy tree.

Regarding vaccinations, what do you say the null hypothesis is?

A tree with a chunk of its bark missing will, like the human body, try to repair the damage. In the case of a tree, it will cover the bark wound with sap/wax. That living organisms will respond to outside threats, and remember the signatures of the threat for future reference is the null hypothesis of vaccination.
With a vaccination, you are simply trying to add a specific outside threat to the body defence library without causing the threat to break out full-scale in the body while doing so. A threat which is known in the immune system defence library will be responded to much faster than a threat which must first be identified and catalogued, which is the reason such a threat will have less time to build up strength and thereby less time to cause damage.

Ah, I think that is part of the reason we have a disagreement on the issue. It's not the type of null hypothesis I'm familiar with.

Using your definition, I guess the burden of proof that there is no benefit to vaccinations would rest with me.

Yes, I am assuming that the standard theory is the null hypothesis, which the challenging hypothesis should be tried against.

What did you consider the null hypothesis to be?

I was going with:

• The treatment is the vaccine.
• The treatment group are those treated with the vaccine.
• The control group are those without the vaccine.
• The observed results would be whether the subjects got the disease.
• The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference between the control and the treatment.

If there is a significant difference, the null hypothesis that there is no difference would be rejected.

I am guessing you are stronger than I on statistics..

American research may vindicate Dr. Wakefield and expose vaccine danger.

Scientists fear MMR link to autism:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

It would be interesting to read the paper this article is talking about.

Scientific method.

This is happening in the U.S. I do not have information re: Canada:

Employers start firing employees who test positive for certain prescription drugs

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Companies across the United States have started including some prescription drugs in random employee drug tests, and firing workers who test positive.

For example, Sue Bates lost her job of 22 years as an assembly line worker at Dura Automotive Systems after she tested positive for hyrdrocodone, a drug she had been legally prescribed.

Dura and other employers claim that many medications may hamper a worker's job performance and even affect job safety. Yet many workers' advocates object to such summary punishment for taking legal medication.

"I don't think it should end the way it did," Bates said. "You tell somebody you lost your job because you're on prescription medication and they're like, 'Yeah, right.' "

Indeed, many of the workers fired for taking pain medications had been prescribed those drugs after they were injured on the job. Some of those workers allege that their employers used the drug tests as a pretext to fire them and thereby avoid paying their insurance premiums.

Data from workplace drug testing company Quest Diagnostics shows that employees are 400 percent more likely to test positive for opiates (which includes many popular prescription painkillers) after suffering an injury than employees undergoing tests at the time of hiring.

Yet no one denies that legitimate medication may adversely affect employee performance, or that many people do in fact abuse narcotic painkillers and other prescription drugs. Quoting Dr. Julian Whitaker in their book Side Effects, Kenneth W Thomas, Ron Gilbert and Gerd Schaller write, "There is currently a nationwide epidemic of prescription drug abuse in this country. In a report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, it was revealed that this type of drug abuse had nearly doubled from 7.8 million to 15.1 million from the years 1992 to 2003."

"This may be the point guard for an important societal issue," said Robert Cochran Jr., a pain doctor treating three fired Dura employees who are now suing the company.

"How do we address these drugs as a society?"

Sources for this story include: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht....

Suzanne

Medication strips your body of vital nutrients, says pharmacist

by Neev M. Arnell

(NaturalNews) Often prescribed to alleviate symptoms of illness, pharmaceutical medications rarely attack the root cause and cure the illness and have the added downside of side-effects.

Aside from the litany of side-effects listed, new book "Drug Muggers: Which Medications Are Robbing Your Body of Essential Nutrients" suggests the medications may be further adding to your state of illness by "stealing nutrients from your system or preventing their absorption." Not only might this make you feel worse, but it also may cause you to develop another condition.

Author of the new book, leading U.S. pharmacist Suzy Cohen, claims, "If you run low on even one vital nutrient, you can experience a cascade of uncomfortable side effects," she claims. Eating healthy is not going to save you either, if you are taking nutrient-robbing medications, according to Cohen.

"Even if you eat fresh fruits and vegetables every hour, you still get only a fraction of the essential nutrients you need from these foods -- and if your medication is depleting them, you'll need even more," says Cohen.

The solution is supplements, according to Cohen, who suggests specific doses in her book depending on what drugs you are taking.

Here is a list of some medications and the associated side effects from Cohen's new book:

* Statins block the production of CoQ10, an anti-oxidant and nutrient associated with energy production. Risks include: fatigue, weakness, memory loss, shortness of breath, leg cramps and frequent infections.

* Antibiotics kill bacteria, including good bacteria that produce B vitamins. Risks include: heart disease, increased risk of cancer, leg cramps, low thyroid and bone loss.

* Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, a type of painkiller commonly referred to as NSAIDs, include ibuprofen and aspirin. They raise the risk of stomach ulcers and bleeding by attacking prostaglandins that protect the stomach lining. This also leads to a loss of iron, which can be made worse by some NSAIDs that also bind to iron and make it useless. Risks include: heart disease, depression, diarrhea, mouth sores and anemia.

* Some ACE inhibitors, a treatment for high blood pressure that dilates blood vessels, attach themselves to zinc in the body. This can affect certain kinds of cell growth in the body, the immune system and the production of testosterone. Risks include: loss of sex drive, prostate problems, hair loss and slow wound healing.

* SSRIs antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as paroxetine and fluoxetine (Prozac), may affect thyroid hormone production, which regulated metabolism, digestion, mood, immune function and muscle function. Risks include: hypothyroidism, depression, weight gain and lowered immunity.

* Diuretics, prescribed for hypertension, heart failure and edema, increase urine production, leading to loss of minerals and nutrients, including vitamin C and calcium. Risks include: slow wound healing, depression, leg cramps, weight gain and brittle bones.

* Prescribed to control hormone levels, the pill and HRT
also destroy good bacteria in the gut and affect synthesis of nutrients, including vitamin B6 and zinc. Risks include: insomnia, memory loss, irritability, heart disease and increased risk of cancer.

* Diabetes medications, including metformin (Glucophage), metformin and sitagliptin (Janumet), and glipizide (Glibenese, Minodiab), reduce levels of succinate dehydrogenase, CoQ10 and hemoglobin. Low hemoglobin levels can lead to lowered levels of vitamin B12. Risks include: anemia, muscle cramps, fatigue, memory loss and irregular heartbeat.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...

Suzanne

Research Finds Doctors Massively Overprescribing Drugs

The report states that U.S. doctors are too quick to prescribe drugs and often give little thought to side effets and non-drug alternatives. Indeed, overprescription is rampant, according to experts. Nearly half of all Americansw have used at least one prescription drug in the past month. Many are being expoed to side effects, someimes fatal ones, even though they are receiving few or no benefits from the drug.

According to MSNBC: "Yet many doctors are quick to prescribe a drug, partly because they have limited time to deal with individual patients or because they and their patients have been bombarded with ads from the pharmaceutical industry." --MSNBC, June 13, 2011; Archives of Internal medicine, June 13, 2011.

How is the situation in Canada?

Suzanne

The Push for Fewer Drugs

A nonprofit organization that studies ways to improve the safety of healthcare is urging doctors to prescribe fewer drugs and more lifestyle changes. The Center for Patient Safety Research and Practice at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital says dactors need to give more consideration to nondrug alternatives such as physical activity and healthier eating.

Experts say that overprescribing is rampant, partly because doctors have limited time to see each patient. Doctors and patients are also bombarded with ads from the pharmaceutical industry. "Often what is really bothering [patients] is not cured with a pill, but rather through exercise, physical therapy, or diet changes," Gordon Schiff, MD, the center's associate director, told Reuters Health.

"Patients need to ask critical and skeptical questions too," Schiff noted. "They really should learn about the side effects of the drugs they are taking and be on the lookout for themn." --Reuters Health, June 13, 2011.

Suzanne

Prescription drugs responsible for more deaths than traffic accidents, study finds

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Every 14 minutes, a person is killed by prescription drugs -- and unlike most other causes of preventable death, which have been on the decline for years, medication-induced deaths are on the upswing across the US. According to a recent analysis conducted by the Los Angeles Times (LA Times), drug-induced deaths have become so prevalent that their average yearly total now exceeds the number of deaths caused by traffic accidents.

It is truly a sad day in the world when the very medications prescribed for treating disease are one of the leading causes of death, including among young children. And based on data retrieved by the LA Times, the number of drug fatalities has doubled within the past ten years, as legal drugs now kill nearly 38,000 Americans every single year -- and these are just the deaths about which we know.

Prescription painkillers like OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax, Soma, and new-drug-on-the-block Fentanyl -- Fentanyl, which comes in the form of patches and lollipops, is 100 times strong than morphine -- are largely responsible for the uptick in drug deaths. Individuals both young and old, many of whom are specifically prescribed these drugs by their doctors for pain or anxiety, are increasingly overdosing on them, according to reports.

The tragic reality of the situation is that otherwise normal individuals, many of whom had no prior history of drug abuse or addiction, become hooked on prescription drugs. When the effects of one drug begins to lose its potency, many patients begin combining them with others just to maintain the same high they had before -- and the end result is often death.

"The problem is right here under our noses in our medicine cabinets," Laz Salinas, a sheriff's commander in Santa Barbara, Cal., is quoted as saying in the LA Times report.

Prescription painkillers, mentions the report, killed 15-year-old Nolan Smith of Aliso Viejo, Cal., back in 2009, as well as a 19-year-old Army recruit, a groom at a wedding, a teenage honor student, and even both parents of a young child. In other words, common individuals of all ages are now dying on a regular basis as a result of Big Pharma's rampant dispensation of toxic poisons peddled as "medicine."

And since as little as one percent of drug-induced injuries and deaths are even reported in the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) adverse event tracking system, the actual number of drug deaths is likely far higher than what has been publicly released. Based on 2008 data from an Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), estimates suggest that as many as half a million Americans die every year from taking pharmaceutical drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/024632_d...).

Sources for this story include:

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-d...

Suzanne

Canadian judge rules SSRI antidepressants like Prozac can cause children to commit murder

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The use of antidepressant and psychiatric drugs, particularly among children, is an extremely risky activity that could have fatal consequences for both the individuals that use them, as well as their friends and family. According to the National Post, a Canadian judge recently ruled that the extreme mind-altering effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac were in large part responsible for causing a 15-year-old boy to thrust a nine-inch kitchen knife into one of his closest friends.

Though the Winnipeg boy that committed the heinous crime had allegedly abused prescription drugs and "experimented" with cocaine long prior to the incident, he had never had a violent or aggressive personality about him, according to reports. It was only when he began taking Prozac, the very thing doctors had given him as a so-called "solution" to his previous illicit drug problems, that he began to rapidly go off the deep end.

"He had become irritable, restless, agitated, aggressive and unclear in his thinking," said Justice Robert Heinrichs of the Manitoba Justice Department, who ruled on the case. "It was while in that state he overreacted in an impulsive, explosive and violent way. Now that his body and mind are free and clear of any effects of Prozac, he is simply not the same youth in behavior or character."

What the judge appears to be implying here is that Prozac is directly responsible for altering the brain of a user and causing them to think irrationally, which in turn can cause them to harm themselves or others. In other words, if it were not for the use of this mind-warping drug, the murderer in this case most likely would never have dreamed of slaughtering one of his best friends.

Judge Heinrichs ultimately determined that, because of the drug's involvement, the boy who murdered his friend would not be tried in an adult court. Even though the boy pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, the judge only added a ten-month sentence on top of the two years that the boy had already spent in jail pending the trial -- and there will apparently be no appeal, which is a first in any North American court.

In a similar outcome back in 2001, a Wyoming jury ruled that the antidepressant drug Paxil had caused a man to murder his wife, daughter, and granddaughter, after which he killed himself. And one of the mass-murderers in the infamous Columbine High School shooting, Eric Harris, had allegedly been taking the antidepressant drug Luvox at the time that he participated in the tragedy (http://www.naturalnews.com/019342.html).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.cchrint.org/2011/12/07/c...

Suzanne

NFL players sue league for allegedly drugging up players with dangerous painkiller drugs in order to conceal concussions

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) With all the controversy surrounding the willful use of steroids and other illicit, performance-enhancing drugs by some professional sports players, it might come as a surprise to some readers to learn that professional sports leagues themselves may also be responsible for illicitly dishing out dangerous pharmaceutical drugs to players before games in order to conceal deadly injuries.

At least 12 former football players in the NFL have filed a lawsuit against the league for what they say is an irresponsible and highly-dangerous concussion policy. The plaintiffs allege that, before games, athletic trainers and medical staff administered injections of Toradol, a high-risk, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), to all players, regardless of their individual health conditions, in order to make them feel good for games.

It is fairly common for professional sports players to sustain concussions every now and again after undergoing big hits, and athletic trainers and medical staff are trained to respond quickly with appropriate treatments following an injury. But the NFL's alleged overuse of Toradol for all players put many of them at risk, particularly those who unknowingly may have had concussions or other serious injuries.

"The difference with this case is what we've learned from our players is that they used to administer a drug called Toradol, which is basically a painkiller, even when players didn't have symptoms," said attorney Christopher Seeger, who reportedly filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in a federal court in New Jersey. "Our experts say that's the worst thing you can do for a brain injury or concussion."

The NFL allegedly administered Toradol, despite its known risks, in order to cover up the symptoms of concussions, and thus cover up the very existence of concussions. Players suffering from head injuries, in other words, may have been unaware of the severity of their injuries thanks to the painkilling effects of Toradol. Taking the drug not only put them at high risk of further injury from it side effects, but also from sustaining more injuries on the field.

"Countless players were injected whether or not they were injured," says attorney Marc Albert, who is also representing the plaintiffs. "It was part of the routine. It would dull pain so players would feel good during the game. This is going on in every locker room. Football is a tough sport, but we're not talking about torn ligaments. These are life consequences. These are brain injuries."

Sources for this article include:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?sl...

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/...

Suzanne

Study - Statin Drugs Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk

(NaturalNews) A new study confirms a dangerous statin drug side effect: diabetes. Researchers at Harvard Medical School report women over the age of 45 are much more likely to develop diabetes if they're taking a statin drug.

The study followed more than 153,000 postmenopausal women who enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative study in the 1990s. At the time they enrolled, none of these women had diabetes. Researchers followed up with the women in 2005, and found that nearly 10 percent of women taking statins developed diabetes, compared to only 6.4 percent in women who did not take statin drugs.

Some experts are calling this a "slight" or "modest" increase. However, crunching the numbers reveals a different result: this is a whopping 50 percent increase in the risk for developing diabetes! Because statin drugs are the darling of the medical community, this risk is being played down. But with millions of Americans taking statin drugs, a 50 percent increase really adds up.

This is hardly the first study to turn up the link between statins and diabetes. In fact, there have been several studies demonstrating the same results. For instance, statins were also shown to increase diabetes risk in a randomized controlled study in 2008. More reports about the connection between diabetes and statin drugs were published in The Lancet in 2010 and yet again in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2011.

Although statins are supposed to be helping our hearts, they may be doing just the opposite. The link between diabetes and heart disease is frighteningly strong. The official website for the American Heart Association says, "Adults with diabetes are two to four times more likely to have heart disease or a stroke than adults without diabetes."

Statins: The scourge of modern medicine?

Unfortunately, diabetes isn't the only serious health problem connected with statins. These drugs have previously been linked to liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts (http://www.naturalnews.com/030317_statin_drugs_liver_damage.html). Statins are also associated with memory loss and depression (http://www.naturalnews.com/032125_statins_memory_loss.html). It's time to start taking these risks seriously and stop glorifying the use of statin drugs.

Sources for this article include:

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medi...omen/52470838/1

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/10/study-statins-linked-with-diabetes-risk/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions...865_Article.jsp

Suzanne

Depression drugs linked to falls in elderly

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Falls are the leading cause of accidental death in the elderly population of adults over 65 years of age. A recent study found that elderly people who suffer from dementia are more likely to suffer falls if they are given anti-depressants.

Selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are frequently prescribed to dementia patients, who often also experience depression. The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported that the risk of elderly injuring themselves from falls was TRIPLED after they were given SSRIs. This class of drugs includes the popular depression drugs Prozac and Paxil, which have long been considered first-line therapy for treatment of depression in older adults.

The high risk of falls following treatment with older anti-depressant medications is well established, as these drugs have long been shown to cause unpleasant and dangerous side effects in elderly such as dizziness and unsteadiness.

Although the medical industry and Big Pharma made claims that the newer SSRI-type anti-depressant drugs would likely reduce these dangerous consequences, the latest research from the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam appears to show the reverse.

The clear link between popular anti-depressants and increased risk for falls in elderly

The study recorded the daily anti-depressant drug use and records of falls in 248 nursing home residents over a two-year period of time. The average age of the residents was 82 and the records suggested that 152 of them had suffered a total of 683 falls.

The consequences of these falls were relatively high, with 220 falls resulting in injuries such as hip fractures and other broken bones. One resident died following a fall. The risk of having an injury-causing fall was three times higher in residents taking commonly prescribed SSRIs compared with those not taking the drug, and this risk rose even further if the patient was given sedative drugs as well.

Dr. Carolyn Sterke, the doctor who recorded the study, said that physicians should be cautious in prescribing SSRIs to older people with dementia even at low doses. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that many doctors will heed such a warning. It is a lot more likely that the medical industry will continue pushing these anti-depressants on elderly patients despite the fact that these drugs are doing elderly patients much more harm than good.

Anti-depressants have a history of making things worse

Up to one in 10 elderly primary care patients in the United States suffers from depression. This means that thousands of Americans are being affected by these potentially harmful anti-depressants and are at increased risk for falls that lead to injuries and deaths.

This is not the first time that conclusive research has revealed the danger of anti-depressant usage in the senior population. A study done in 2007 which appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that elderly patients taking SSRIs were likely doubling their risk of fractures from falls.

When the 2007 study first came out, a geriatrician and associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center admitted that there has not been very much research done on the effect of many drugs on bone formation, which is also true of SSRIs.

In general, SSRI anti-depressants are also known to cause long-term side effects. These include but aren't limited to sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbances, epilepsy or epileptic seizures, tardive dyskinesia/dystonia (a mostly permanent severe body movement disorder), Parkinsonism (a sign of future Parkinson's disease) and Akathisia (a neurologically driven severe manic agitation that can lead to suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, self-harm & suicide). It is well documented in medical literature that these neuroleptic induced side-effects can be attributed to various forms of brain damage. (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/LongTermSSRI.htm)

The side-effects of popular anti-depressants can take many forms because these drugs can cause some very severe neurological and physical damage, often either as a result of prolonged inhibition of liver-enzymes or impaired serotonin metabolism.

Alternative treatment for depression doesn't cause deadly falls or negative side effects

Elderly patients suffering from depression shouldn't have to choose between their mental health and their hips and other bones. There are much safer ways to treat depression that are in no way associated with increased risk of falls or fractures.

There are a great many natural alternatives to SSRIs and other dangerous prescription drugs that have been proven to be effective in managing depression. To name only a few examples: counseling, supportive care, regular exercise, sunshine exposure, music therapy, diet changes and mood-boosting herbs such as St. John's Wort.

Read more about treating depression naturally with NO DRUGS whatsoever here: http://www.naturalnews.com/029310_depression_remedies.html

Read about the top 5 foods for beating depression naturally: http://www.naturalnews.com/020611.html

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16618160

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002423

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2814114&page=1

Suzanne

Better Diet Means Fewer Meds

Following a diet based on nuts, whole grains and other plant foods can substantially redue LDL (bad) cholesterol, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association . The diet was so effective that researchers believe it could replace cholesterol-lowering statin medications for some.

One in 4 American adults ages 45 and older takes cholesterol-lowering drugs. "There's no question that statins have made a major difference in terms of cardiovascular disease control," study author David Jenkins, MD, told Reuters Health. "[But] we can only get so far with statins."

Dr. Jenkins and his colleagus at the University of Toronto set out to determine whether diet alone could reduce LDL levels in those with high cholesterol. Participants stopped taking their statin mediations for 6 months while eating vegetarian diets. Those who ate a low-saturatd-fat diet saw an average LDL drop of 8 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), but others who included soymilk, tofu, nuts, oats, peas, and beans saw dops that were 3 times that large. --www.reuters.com, 8-23-11.

Suzanne

Scientists say forget osteoporosis drugs - Natural approach builds strong bones safely

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

(NaturalNews) (NaturalNews) For countless years, natural health advocates, who suggested caution at the near hysterical and highly advertised push to put women on anti-osteoporosis prescription drugs, were looked at as unscientific health "nuts". But now some mainstream scientists are in total agreement and are even sounding the alarm about those medications. Instead of popping side effect loaded pills, say University of Illinois (U of I) researchers, an effective first course of action to keep bones strong should be to simply increase calcium in your diet and vitamin D or take calcium and vitamin D supplements.

But, you may say, you just had a bone density scan and your doctor claims your score shows you are at high risk for the bone-robbing condition known as osteoporosis. Shouldn't you follow your physician's dictate to start taking a widely advertised bone-building prescription medication?

"Not so fast!" stated the U of I scientists in a media statement.

"For many people, prescription bone-building medicines should be a last resort," said Karen Chapman-Novakofski, a U of I professor of nutrition and co-author of a literature review published in a recent issue of the journal Nutrients.

The researchers also pointed out that bone density scans are anything but accurate measures of bones. Bone density tests only measure quantity, not quality, of bone. "Although the test reports that you're fine or doing better, you may still be at risk for a fracture," said Dr. Chapman-Novakofski.

Lead author Karen Plawecki, director of the U of I's dietetics program, and Dr. Chapman-Novakofski investigated the impact of dietary, supplemental, and educational interventions over the last 10 years and reached their conclusions after reviewing 219 articles in scientific journals.

So what should you do to protect and build healthy bones? The study concluded that adults who increase their intake of calcium and vitamin D usually increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk for hip fracture dramatically. While these results can be accomplished through supplements, the researchers also found that food is a good source of these nutrients, Dr. Chapman-Novakofski stated.

The scientists also warned that prescription bone-building medications not only are expensive but they are also loaded with potentially serious side effects including, ironically, an increase in hip fractures and jaw necrosis (dead bone tissue).

"Bisphosphonates, for instance, disrupt normal bone remodeling by shutting down the osteoclasts - the cells that break down old bone to make new bone. When that happens, new bone is built on top of old bone. Yes, your bone density is higher, but the bone's not always structurally sound," Dr. Chapman-Novakofski said.

As NaturalNews has previous reported, bisphosphonates have also been linked to dangerous heart rhythm problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/026027_rhythm_drugs_drug.html).

The researchers noted that a low-sodium diet seems to have a positive effect on bone density and, in particular, they advised staying away from smoked or processed meats, bacon, lunch meat, processed foods and many cheeses because they all contain a lot of sodium and could sabotage bone health. In addition to making sure you take in extra calcium and vitamin D for bone health, the U of I scientists urge eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, too. They stated that consuming adequate protein, less sodium, and more magnesium and potassium is a great way to protect bone health.

Another way to avoid osteoporosis naturally is physical activity, specifically a combination of aerobic, strength, balance, and flexibility exercises. Weight bearing exercises help build strong bones, and fit muscles can keep you flexible and prevent falls as you age, too.

For more information:
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/osteoporosis/.

Suzanne

Scientists issue urgent warning about danger of common drug combination taken by millions

by S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) Check out Big Pharma's ads or the inserts that come with pill packages and you'll find (in almost impossible-to-read tiny print) the side effects and risks of the meds in question listed -- at least the adverse effects that are supposedly known. But where is the info about taking more than one of the prescription medications together?

This issue is rarely ever brought up despite the mind-boggling number of people taking not only a single prescription drug but an assortment of these pills. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says that at least half of all Americans takes at least one prescription drug and one in six is on three or more. With so many prescription meds on the market being taken by pill popping millions, can you really have confidence that combining these drugs is safe if your doctor says so?

The answer, using any measure of common sense, is "no". And now comes a warning from a research group headed by Stanford University scientists that two commonly prescribed medications combine in the body to do something no one ever dreamed they would do -- rev up blood sugar levels to potentially dangerous levels.

In a study just published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the research team estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million people in this country may be taking the two medications simultaneously -- and their doctors, pharmacists and Big Pharma have been oblivious to any adverse, health-threatening interaction.

The researchers used an adverse-event reporting database maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sophisticated electronic medical records compiled by each of three participating medical institutions to identify patterns of associations in large populations that would not be readily apparent to physicians treating individual patients. That's how they zeroed in on the blood glucose spiking effect of Paxil and Pravachol.

"These kinds of drug interactions are almost certainly occurring all of the time, but, because they are not part of the approval process by the Food and Drug Administration, we can only learn about them after the drugs are on the market," said Russ Altman, MD, PhD, professor of bioengineering, of genetics and of medicine at Stanford, in a statement to the press.

The scientists pointed out that almost all of Big Pharma's drugs are tested and approved separately -- so it can be difficult or even impossible for anyone to predict the effects of drug combinations.

So what happens once adverse reactions to drug combos start cropping up? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be "not much".

The FDA literally only "encourages" doctors to report any adverse events a patient may have to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, or AERS. But, bottom line, physicians don't have to report problems -- even if a doctor or patient notices something dangerous has happened after drugs were taken. And, the new research report pointed out, even when there is "volunteer" drug problem reporting to the FDA, there's often no follow-up to identify the cause of the event or symptom.

In all, the scientists warn that between 13 and 15 million people in the US are taking Paxil and Pravachol. Up to a million are taking them together and may unwittingly be causing their blood glucose levels to soar.


For more information:

http://www.nature.com/clpt/index.html

Suzanne

If you either subscribe to, or have access to BEST PILLS WORST PILLS, which is published regularly, you will recieve information on adverse effects from combinations in almost every issue.

Also, it gives you warnings and information about such procucts that you are unlikely to obtain anywhere else.

In addition it evaulates such products and assigns a rating. I.e. It lists products that it recommends should not be taken. Gives the names of alternative products that are effective and a better safety record as well as products that should be taken only under precise circumstances.

It is a good publication.

Natural pain relievers beat Big Pharma drugs

by Craig Stellpflug

(NaturalNews) Want your headache gone? Take two Tylenol in your hand, drink a glass of water, throw the Tylenol away... headache gone. Dutch researchers found the same recovery rate of drug takers versus placebos. It is the water that you drink that does the job. Not the liver-toxic-internal bleeding-hearing loss-impotence-problems-Tylenol. Drinking water and staying hydrated alleviates pain time and time again as dehydration causes histamines to react in areas of pain in the body. One of Big Pharma's biggest dirty secrets is that most medications are in fact, antihistamines that treat the localized symptoms of pain - but not the cause.

There's no credible evidence that proves "aspirin therapy" can lower heart attack risk either. In fact, aspirin damages the stomach, causes ulcers, gastrointestinal bleeding, hemorrhagic strokes and has recently been linked to causing cancer. A study published by the National Cancer Institute found that women who took two or more aspirins a week for more than 20 years had a 58 percent increased risk of pancreatic cancer compared with women who rarely, or never, used aspirin. The risk of pancreatic cancer rose the more aspirins were taken. Women who took 14 or more aspirins a week had an 86 percent increased risk of pancreatic cancer over non-users.

The natural answers for pain

• Water is always the first choice of natural treatment for pain. Drinking two eight ounce glasses of natural spring water or reverse osmosis water can chase away abdominal pain, heartburn, back pain, arthritis pain, colitis, angina and even migraine headaches and more. Water has been reported to prevent and reverse premature aging, cure asthma in a few days, cure hypertension without diuretics or other medications and even help with weight loss effortlessly and naturally, without strict dieting.

• Fish oil reduces inflammation pain. A 2006 survey of arthritis patients found that daily fish oil supplements reduced pain in 60 percent of patients. One study found 59 percent of pain med takers discontinued taking their prescription NSAID medications for pain and 80 percent stated that their joint pain had improved after taking fish oil for one month. The kicker: There were no significant side effects reported with fish oil.

• Vitamin D deficiency was noted in 69 percent of inflammatory joint diseases or connective tissue diseases, 77 percent of soft tissue rheumatism, 62 percent of osteoarthritis, 75 percent of back pain, and 71 percent of osteoporosis. Avoid taking synthetic calciferol and get your vitamin D naturally from the sun or take the natural cholecalciferol D3 form.

Other natural remedies are Meadowsweet and Willow Bark,, Fructo Borate (shown to reduce joint pain in 79 percent of mild to moderate osteoarthritis), Bromelain (reduces pain and swelling, improves joint mobility and promotes tissue repair), cilantro tablets move pain-causing heavy metals out of the tissues while chlorella tablets bind to the metals for removal, Boswellia (works like the current OTR COX-2 inhibitor drugs), coffee enemas (reduce body toxin loads and inflammation), liver cleanses (unburden the liver and gall bladder that are the cause of a lot of mid-back pain), and acupuncture (works by releasing adenosine - a natural painkiller).

Stop treating the symptoms

Would you purposefully cut the wire to your oil warning light to your car engine to keep it from blaring at you? It costs about $6 for a quart of oil and $3,000 or more for an "engine transplant." There is no big money in selling the customer the quart of oil, but there is a lot of money to be made in the "hospital" (mechanics shop).

There's a king's ransom being paid to Big Pharma to do just this with our body's pain signal system. Big Pharma medications short the body's system out by treating the symptoms only. Pain is a symptom and not a disease to be "managed." Find the cause and fix it.

Sources for this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.consumerreports.org
http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_water_cure_1.html
--end of article--

Note: Flaxseed oil is the vegetarian alternative to fish oil.

Suzanne

Prescription painkillers kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

(NaturalNews) According to a new report from Brandeis University, prescription painkillers -- opioid or narcotic pain relievers like Vicodin (hydrocodone), OxyContin (oxycodone), Opana (oxymorphone), and methadone -- are now responsible for more fatal overdoses in the U.S. than heroin and cocaine combined.

"An epidemic of prescription drug abuse is devastating American families and draining state and federal time, money and manpower," Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said in a media statement about the study. "Law enforcement and health officials are doing heroic work and, thankfully, this report provides a road map to help them further."

So police and health "officials" are the key to stopping what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has called an epidemic of prescription painkiller deaths? Maybe there is another key factor, another proverbial elephant in the room that needs to be dealt with but that few, including those who wrote this report, want to acknowledge -- specifically, the doctors who prescribe these drugs in the millions and who have increasingly prescribed them for over a decade.

Let's breakdown the new painkiller drug study's "road map." The report's primary conclusion is that "prescription drug monitoring programs should shift from a reactive to a proactive approach." It points out that most states have programs to curb abuse and addiction but that many don't fully analyze the data they collect. And the report explains how analyzing trend data can help law enforcement agencies identify "pill mills" that illicitly distribute prescription painkillers and how getting more doctors to participate in and utilize prescription drug monitoring programs (revealing patients who "doctor shop" to get multiple prescriptions) could reduce fatal prescription painkiller overdoses.

But wait a minute. Is the so-called epidemic of prescription painkiller deaths really going to be halted primarily by more monitoring? Isn't the key for doctors to cut back on vastly over-prescribing these highly addictive and dangerous drugs in the first place?

If you think these drugs aren't handed out too readily by MDs, consider this statistic: according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, enough prescription painkillers were prescribed in 2010 to medicate every American adult around-the-clock for a month. Although many of these drugs ended up being misused or abused, the CDC also notes most of these pills were legitimately prescribed for a medical purpose. But narcotic and opioid drugs are not the only way pain can be relieved. While they may be the drugs of choice in extreme circumstances, other kinds of pain relief from less toxic drugs to natural therapies -- including acupuncture, yoga, chiropractic and exercise -- can often provide relief to countless pain sufferers without the danger of addiction and death.

Bottom line: the dramatic increase in mortality and overdoses from prescription drugs is largely due to a vastly increased use of these drugs by doctors. In fact, between 1999 and 2010, the sales of these Big Pharma, highly addictive and potentially killer drugs increased four-fold.

And while it is a terrible and sobering fact that, according to the CDC, about 15,000 Americans die from overdosing on prescription painkillers each year, let's put this tragedy in the larger perspective of the ongoing Big Pharma drug nightmare. The truth is, overdose deaths from painkillers are not the biggest drug problem in the US. Consider that 100,000 Americans die each year from their prescriptions due to known side-effects -- not because the doctor made a mistake and prescribed the wrong drug, or the pharmacist made a mistake in filling the prescription, or the patient accidentally took too much or overdosed on purpose.

Sources:

http://www.pewhealth.org
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/PainkillerOverdoses/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com
http://www.pewhealth.org

Suzanne

Drug companies pushing to replace nutrition with pharmaceuticals; take your meds even if you have no symptoms

by J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) Medications are nutrition. That's essentially the rationale behind a couple of Big Pharma corporations' decision to give a failed Alzheimer's drug a second chance.

In early August, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson said they were ending large-scale clinical trials of their experimental drug bapineuzumab in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, because patients taking it did not show signs of improved memory or thinking skills.

That was disappointing to millions of Alzheimer's sufferers and their families, though the results of the trials were all but expected by researchers and investors who believed the drug had little chance to succeed.

Such pessimism is driven by a new belief among scientists who think the disease is actually a decades-long process "in which the toxic protein beta amyloid gradually builds up in the brain before dementia sets in," Reuters reported.

If at first you don't succeed...

That belief has led scientists to conclude; therefore, that clinical trials for new Alzheimer's drugs should be conducted years in advance, before the disease has had a chance to do its damage - though some experts think Big Pharma will balk at such a notion after already spending billions on failed trial.

"Even though the scientific rationale might still be valid and strong and not adequately tested in the phase of the disease where you might expect the therapy to work, that may be lost to investors," Dr. Ronald Petersen, director of the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer's Disease Research Center in Rochester, Minn., told the newswire service. "I hope that is not the case."

Neither company has said yet whether they intend to conduct trials in people who have risk factors for Alzheimer's but do not yet have symptoms, but the companies - who are developing the drug jointly - are set to present data in September showing whether or not the drug reduced levels of beta amyloid and other so-called biomarkers in the brain. That data will determine whether bapineuzumab is appropriate for use in earlier trials.

In short, Big Pharma wants to treat a disease even before it ever shows up. What's more, an unproven medicine, rather than nutrition, is being pushed as the most effective way to deal with Alzheimer's.

There's a better way to guard against Alzheimer's that doesn't cost billions of dollars, risk your health or drive up the cost of medications.

Antioxidants and other natural nutrients

According to prior Alzheimer's research, evidence shows that the build-up of beta amyloid plaque is a major component of the disease. They show that high levels of beta result in neuronal cell death, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information at Bethesda, Md. In addition, researchers have found that beta amyloids can increase in the absence of friendly endothelial nitric oxide (eNOS), which is essential to the proper function of our vascular system. While more research is needed, some studies have shown a relationship between the disease and the chemical resveratrol, which can increase eNOS and thereby lower levels of the plaque seen in Alzheimer's (resveratrol "is a natural protective compound found in high concentrations in red grapes, red wine, purple grape juice, peanuts, and some berries," wrote NaturalNews.com's John Phillip).

There's more causal evidence.

"Our data suggest that endothelial NO (nitric oxide) plays an important role in modulating APP (amyloid precursor protein) expression and processing within the brain and cerebrovasculature," one study by the National Institutes of Health has concluded.

Other evidence suggests the naturally occurring antioxidant carnosine can also drastically reduce the formation of beta amyloid plaques, as can carcumin, the primary ingredient in curry.

Research is ongoing but it seems odd to try to replace a nutrient-based solution with an unproven medication that could have damaging side effects.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/031465_Alzheimers_prevention.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064266/

Suzanne

I have a medical friend whose specialty is curing the side effects of medication his patients have been using in the past.

It is those side effects which enrich the medical producers because with them the patients remain patients who are in need of expensive medication.

Another medical friend of mine on FaceBook has just posted an illustration which shows another medication with fatal effects - chemical therapy. 75% of doctors who use it on their patients do not use it on themselves if they get cancer, because they know how dangerous it is.

This information is a must for our health. Thank you!

Urgent warning: Widely used sleep, anxiety drugs double chance of dementia

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

(NaturalNews) There is probably no more dreaded illness associated with getting older than Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other forms of dementia - and the number of people with this identity-destroying, mind-robbing horror is growing. The increase is mostly blamed on the aging population but that doesn't explain why dementia hits some and not others in the first place.

Now, breaking research suggests a strong link between widely used drugs known as benzodiazepines (which include Xanax, Klonopin, Valium, Ambien, Halcion, Restoril, Lorazepam and dozens more) and a doubling in the risk of developing dementia.

The study by scientists from Harvard University and the University of Bordeaux in France, was just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and involved 1,063 men and women who were all free of dementia at the start of the trial. Followed for several years, those who began taking benzodiazepines demonstrated a 50 percent increase in developing Alzheimer's type problems compared to those who never used the drugs.

"The analysis of the cases of dementia in the first population group shows that individuals who began treatment after five years during the follow-up period had an increased risk of developing dementia," one of the lead researchers, Tobias Kurth, said in a media statement; he noted that the results were"robust."

So were the people who developed dementia taking high amounts of benzodiazepines for very long periods? Not at all. In fact, patients who had taken the pills at least once over the course of a week or so at some point in the previous 15 years were found to be at heightened risk. While the people in the study were elders, the research raises disturbing questions about what these popular pills are doing to anyone of any age who takes them.

If you take a drug like Xanax for years as a young or middle-aged person, does it mean you are raising the odds you'll end up with dementia? Unfortunately, no one knows. After all, previous studies have shown that side effects of benzodiazepines, along with problems like nausea, headache and lethargy, can cause memory impairment and personality changes. Some research has found impaired cognitive abilities can last long after a person goes off the drugs - suggesting they may well cause changes in the brain that last.

Dr. Kurth, who works jointly at Harvard University's School of Public Health and the University of Bordeaux, cautioned that this single study "does not necessarily show everything that is going on, so there is no need to panic." However, he admitted in a statement to the press that "There is a potential that these drugs are really harmful. If it is really true that these drugs are causing dementia that will be huge."

This is not the first worrisome clue that benzodiazepines have dangerous long-term effects. In 2011, scientists from Cardiff University found that Britons between the ages of 45 and 85 who had taken the drugs at least once over the last two decades were 60 percent more likely to develop dementia. And this year, a U.S. study by scientists showed that people taking between four and 18 of these pills a year were 3.6 times more likely to die prematurely. People taking 132 pills a year or more were 5.3 times more likely to face an early death

The new BMJ study concludes: "Considering the extent to which benzodiazepines are prescribed and the number of potential adverse effects, indiscriminate widespread use should be cautioned against." However, that caution could continue to fall on proverbial deaf ears. After all, these drugs are huge money makers for the drug industry, which keeps coming up with new uses for them - they are now heavily advertised as sleeping pills.

Prescribed primarily for anxiety, panic attacks, to relax muscles and as sleep aids, this family of drugs accounts for approximately 33 percent of all prescription drugs in the U.S. and they rake in over a billion dollars yearly for Big Pharma.

Sources:

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6231/rr/605111
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/ind-bua100512.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.upi.com

Suzanne

Study: Tylenol, acetaminophen linked to causing blood cancer

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A new study out of the University of Washington (UW) provides even more evidence that taking over-the-counter painkillers can kill you. Published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the study explains that taking acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, for extended periods of time can increase a person's risk of developing blood cancer.

Dr. Roland Walter, an assistant professor of medicine at UW, and his colleagues examined data on nearly 65,000 men and women between the ages of 50 and 76 who participated in the Vitamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) study, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2004. They found that participants who took acetaminophen at least four days a week over the course of four years were twice as likely to develop certain blood cancers compared to people who took less or none of the drug.

"We found that high use of acetaminophen, one of the most frequently used medications worldwide, was associated with an almost twofold increased risk of incident hematologic malignancies," said Walter, referring to non-Hodgkin lymphomas, plasma cell disorders, and myeloid neoplasms. "Acetaminophen use on the majority of the days over many years appears to be associated with this new adverse effect."

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already warns that acetaminophen is toxic to the liver, and is linked to liver failure and other serious problems (http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm165107....). Acetaminophen is found in many common drugs, including in Excedrin, Nyquil, and Theraflu. Previous studies have also linked acetaminophen to kidney damage, asthma, and death (http://www.naturalnews.com/acetaminophen.html).

According to a 2009 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, acetaminophen is the leading cause of drug overdose-related emergency room (ER) visits among children. More than 7,000 children end up in the ER every year from acetaminophen overdoses (http://www.ajpmonline.org/webfiles/images/journals/AMEPRE/AMEPRE_2545...).

Sources for this story include:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20110511/hl_hsn/chronictylenolusemaybelin...

Suzanne

Pharmaceutical giant Genzyme withdraws MS drug in order to re-brand it and sell at 20 times the original price

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Thousands of British patients suffering from the devastating chronic inflammatory disease known as multiple sclerosis (MS) now have one fewer conventional treatment option at their disposal thanks to the merciless greed of the Sanofi-owned pharmaceutical giant Genzyme. The U.K.'s Independent reports that Genzyme has intentionally withdrawn a popular MS drug known as alemtuzumab in order to re-brand it and sell it for up to 20 times its current price.

The drug, known as alemtuzumab, has been specifically licensed for the treatment of leukemia. But because it also apparently works quite well at alleviating MS symptoms in many patients, alemtuzumab is the drug of choice for many doctors successfully treating the condition. A study presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology back in April found that alemtuzumab actually works better than most of the other available drugs specifically approved as treatments for MS. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244718.php)

Just like in the U.S., off-label drug prescriptions are technically legal, which is why many doctors have chosen alemtuzumab over its various alternatives. But Genzyme, in a bid to significantly boost its profits, has decided to pull alemtuzumab from the market in order to run it through new clinical trials, and eventually re-brand it as "Lemtrada," which is expected to cost many thousands of dollars more than currently-available alemtuzumab.

"Many of us think [alemtuzumab] is the best drug for patients with aggressive MS in the early stages of the disease," says Professor John Zajicek from the University of Plymouth, one of many who is calling on the U.K. Health Secretary to stop Genzyme from restricting the drug's use. "It's the greedy behavior of the drug company that upsets me. They are just trying to re-brand it and put the price up. It is morally corrupt."

Genzyme's greed could end up needlessly killing thousands of MS patients

As a result of Genzyme's decision, alemtuzumab will now only be available as a treatment for leukemia patients, and not for MS patients. This is particularly concerning to Zajicek and many others who recognize that thousands MS patients currently rely on alemtuzumab for relief. Many people are questioning how Genzyme could be so heartless that it would pull a vital drug from the market, leaving thousands of patients without treatment.

"There is no good reason why people with MS who have been allowed to benefit from the treatment should now be denied it," Doug Brown, Head of Biomedical Research at the Multiple Sclerosis Society, is quoted as saying by the Independent. "Genzyme needs to come up with a scheme, quickly, that makes their product available to all those people currently being treated and, if it's licensed, price the drug reasonably so it is deemed cost effective on the NHS (National Health Service)."

Since MS is a chronic inflammatory disease, there are also a number of natural remedies that may help quell this serious disease and provide lasting relief without the need for pharmaceutical drugs. Here is a great article by our own Dr. David Jockers that explains some natural strategies for beating MS: http://www.naturalnews.com

Sources for this article include:

http://www.independent.co.uk

Suzanne

Taking aspirin as few times as once a week triples risk of blindness

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Many conventional doctors advise their patients to pop one every day like a multivitamin in order to supposedly ward off heart attacks, strokes, and even cancer. But taking an aspirin as few times as once a week, especially when you are not actually sick or in pain, can be incredibly dangerous, especially for your eyesight. This is the conclusion of a recent study published in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which found that "supplementing" at least once a week with aspirin can triple the risk of going blind.

For their study, researchers from Australia tracked nearly 2,400 middle-aged and elderly individuals for 15 years. Among this group, 257 individuals were determined to be "regular" uses of aspirin who took the drug at least once a week, while the rest were occasional users that took the drug less frequently. All participants were evaluated at the end of the study to determine their health status in conjunction with aspirin intake.

Upon analysis, the team found that only one in 27 of the "occasional" aspirin users developed a condition known as "wet" age-related macular degeneration, or neovascular AMD, which can lead to blindness. This figure represents 3.7 percent of all "occasional" users. But among "regular" aspirin users, nearly one in 10 developed the condition, or 9.4 percent, which represents a nearly threefold increase in blindness risk among those who take aspirin at least once a week.

"Regular aspirin use was significantly associated with an increased incidence of neovascular [wet] AMD," wrote the authors in their study conclusion. "The increased risk of age-related macular degeneration was only detected after 10 or 15 years, suggesting cumulative dosage of aspirin may be important," added study author Jie Jin Wang from the University of Sydney.

The study's authors and other commentators were quick to dismiss the findings, suggesting that they do not imply that patients should stop taking daily aspirin for disease prevention -- after all, just think of the immense profit losses that would result for the pharmaceutical industry. Some doctors even went so far as to manufacture ridiculous fear phrases like, "a healthy eye with full visual capacities is of no use in a dead body," suggesting that not taking aspirin will somehow kill you.

At the same time, these same doctors and researchers were unable to deny the fact that previous studies have also found a link between aspirin intake and blindness, including a 2011 study out of Europe which found that daily aspirin intake can double the risk of vision loss. Similarly, other previous studies have uncovered the fact that low-dose aspirin intake can lead to other serious health problems including intestinal bleeding and ulcers.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

http://online.wsj.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Suzanne

What about taking "baby aspirins"???

I ask, as I know some who are taking them regularly.

Difficult question, Daryl. My wife and I have now started following as much as possible of this program:

DRINK WATER ON EMPTY STOMACH

It is popular in Japan today to drink water immediately after waking up every morning. Furthermore, scientific tests have proven its value. We publish below a description of use of water for our readers.

For old and serious diseases as well as modern illnesses the water treatment had been found successful by a Japanese medical society as a 100% cure for the following diseases:

Headache, body ache, heart system, arthritis, fast heart beat, epilepsy, excess fatness, bronchitis asthma, TB, meningitis, kidney and urine diseases, vomiting, gastritis, diarrhea, piles, diabetes, constipation, all eye diseases, womb, cancer and menstrual disorders, ear nose and throat diseases.

METHOD OF TREATMENT

1. As you wake up in the morning before brushing teeth, drink 4 x 160ml glasses of water .....interesting

2. Brush and clean the mouth but do not eat or drink anything for 45 minutes

3. After 45 minutes you may eat and drink as normal.

4. After 15 minutes of breakfast, lunch and dinner do not eat or drink anything for 2 hours

5. Those who are old or sick and are unable to drink 4 glasses of water at the beginning may commence by taking little water and gradually increase it to 4 glasses per day.

6. The above method of treatment will cure diseases of the sick and others can enjoy a healthy life.

The following list gives the number of days of treatment required to cure/control/reduce main diseases:

1. High Blood Pressure - 30 days
2. Gastric - 10 days
3. Diabetes - 30 days
4. Constipation - 10 days
5. Cancer - 180 days
6. TB - 90 days
7. Arthritis patients should follow the above treatment only for 3 days in the 1st week, and from 2nd week onwards - daily.

This treatment method has no side effects, however at the commencement of treatment you may have to urinate a few times.

It is better if we continue this and make this procedure as a routine work in our life.

Drink Water and Stay healthy and Active.

This makes sense .. the Chinese and Japanese drink hot tea with their meals ..not cold water. maybe it is time we adopt their drinking habit while eating!!! Nothing to lose, everything to gain...

For those who like to drink cold water, this article is applicable to you.

It is nice to have a cup of cold drink after a meal. However, the cold water will solidify the oily stuff that you have just consumed. It will slow down the digestion. Once this 'sludge' reacts with the acid, it will break down and be absorbed by the intestine faster than the solid food. It will line the intestine. Very soon, this will turn into fats and lead to cancer. It is best to drink hot soup or warm water after a meal.

A serious note about heart attacks: Women should know that not every heart attack symptom is going to be the left arm hurting. Be aware of intense pain in the jaw line.

You may never have the first chest pain during the course of a heart attack.

Nausea and intense sweating are also common symptoms.

60% of people who have a heart attack while they are asleep do not wake up.

Pain in the jaw can wake you from a sound sleep. Let's be careful and be aware. The more we know, the better chance we could survive...

This was sent to me by a very good friend.

Ellen White tell us that the best medication of the stomach is charcoal and olive oil.

If my stomach is upset I often take 1/4 of a teaspoon of liquid charcoal in the bottom of a large spoon, then fill the spoon with virgin olive oil. It never fails. It repairs the stomach.

How are baby aspirins different?

Yesterday I suffered from the "flu" everybody has around us. With the water cure it was gone the following morning.

EGW makes quite a point of the importance of using water.

Sanjay Gupta and Tom Ridge warn about psychiatric drugs in mass murders

by Peter Breggin

(NaturalNews) For the first time ever, and for a brief moment in time, two knowledgeable and highly credentialed public figures have commented on the fact that psychiatric medications cause violence and must be considered suspect in the case of the Newtown shooter. But then, as if it never happened, and as if psychiatric drugs could not possibly be implicated in violence, the issue was dropped by the media.

Fortunately I happened to be watching television on both CNN and Fox Cable News shortly after the Newton tragedy and I have put the TV clips onto YouTube.

The most striking commentary came from Sanjay Gupta, neurosurgeon and famous chief medical correspondent on CNN. On December 18, 2012 at approximately 5:25 p.m. on CNN, he offered the following remarks:

We still don't know much about the shooter who lived in this home. But there is something else to consider: What medications if any he was on? I'm specifically talking about antidepressants. If you look at the studies of other shootings like this that have happened, medications like this were a common factor. Now I want to be clear I'm not saying that antidepressants can't be effective. But people seem to agree that there is a vulnerable time. When someone starts these medications and when someone stops could lead to increased impulsivity and decreased judgment, and making someone out of touch. None of this is an excuse and it's never just one thing. None of these behaviors will fully predict or explain why. But soon again there will be hindsight that might just help prevent another tragedy. It's worth pointing out over a seven-year period there were 11,000 episodes of violence related to drug side effects. If there was a death involved, often it was the individual of himself or herself, a suicide.

Gupta doesn't say where he got the figure of 11,000 drug-induced cases of violence. However, that exact unconfirmed estimate has circulated on the internet in regard to violence reports to the FDA.

There is very convincing evidence of violence induced by psychiatric drugs in a scientific review of all reports of violence and homicidal ideation made to the FDA over a 69 month period. Less extreme behaviors, such as "Aggression, Belligerence and Hostility," were excluded. Among 454 prescription drugs, 31 drugs had a disproportional rate of reported violence or homicidal threats for a total of 1527 reports. Two-thirds of drugs had no reports of violence. The drugs that most clearly cause violence included varenicline (Chantix, a smoking cessation aid), 11 antidepressant drugs, 3 drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and 5 hypnotic/sedatives (sleep aids and tranquilizers). Thus, all but one of the top offenders were psychiatric drugs. Antidepressants as a group were 8.4 times more likely than other prescription drugs to be associated with violence. This study should end the controversy. Psychiatric drugs do cause violence. As the researchers concluded:

Acts of violence toward others are a genuine and serious adverse drug event associated with a relatively small number of drugs.

On Sunday December 16, 2012 on the Fox News Channel, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was interviewed by Shannon Bream. Ridge was also on the Virginia Tech Review Panel. His roles as Homeland Security boss and Virginia Tech Review Panel member put him into a knowledgeable position. In discussing flawed efforts to intervene in the lives of potentially violent youth, Ridge observed:

Or we put them on severe medications. One of the students in the Columbine shooting was on severe medication and apparently there's analysis that it probably even contributed to his destructive aggressive behavior.

Combined with Sanjay Gupta's remarks, these observations by former Secretary of Homeland Defense Tom Ridge should elevate psychiatric drug-induced violence to a new level in public discourse.

Ridge's characterization of the medication prescribed to Eric Harris as "severe" was incorrect. Harris was prescribed routine antidepressant treatment. As a medical expert in cases surrounding Eric Harris and the Columbine shootings, I obtained the drug company's official report to the FDA on May, 14, 1999 confirming that one of the two shooters (Harris) had a "therapeutic blood level" of the antidepressant Luvox (fluvoxamine) in his system. Luvox is similar to other well-known antidepressants, including Prozac (fluoxetine), Paxil (paroxetine) and Zoloft (sertraline) in its effects.

As a medical expert, I also had access to medical records and can confirm from these unpublished documents that Eric Harris was taking Luvox regularly for one year leading up to the shootings. The dose was increased 200 mg per day on February 9, 1999, two and one-half months prior to the April 20th assaults. He saw his doctor and his prescription was renewed on March 13, 1999. At that time, the medical record described him as suffering from medication-induced tremors, indicating a degree of toxicity.

I first began writing about the risks of violence associated with antidepressants in the early 1990s in Talking Back to Prozac (coauthored by Ginger Breggin). I specifically addressed Eric Harris' use of Luvox in my book, Reclaiming Our Children: A Healing Solution for a Nation in Crisis (2000). I also about Eric Harris and Luvox-induced violence in a peer-reviewed scientific article titled "Fluvoxamine as a cause of stimulation, mania and aggression with a critical analysis of the FDA-approved label" (2001).

With the exception of the disclosure of Eric Harris' toxicology report, it has been very difficult to obtain exact information about the psychiatric drug exposure of previous mass murders. For example, James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter was in treatment with psychiatrist Lynne Fenton in the months before he assaulted people in a movie theater. He mailed a box of materials to her shortly before committing the violence. A court hearing recently revealed that four prescription bottles had been removed from his home. Yet to this day information has been withheld about what psychiatric medications he was almost surely taking.

Similarly, there are unconfirmed reports that Newtown mass murderer Adam Lanza was taking psychiatric drugs. According to the Washington Post, he was, "A really rambunctious kid, as one former neighbor in Newtown, Conn., recalled him, adding that he was on medication." Yet no information has been released concerning his medication use.

Psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants, stimulants and tranquilizing sedatives, can cause violence. It is imperative to find out what, if any, psychiatric drugs were being taken by twenty-year old Adam Lanza in the Newtown elementary school massacre.

Peter R. Breggin, MD is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the author of more than forty scientific articles and twenty books, two of which are very relevant to current events in regard to medication-induced violence. In Medication Madness (2008) Dr. Breggin examines fifty cases of medication-induced violence, mayhem and suicide. His latest book is Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guidebook for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families. It presents reasons to withdraw from psychiatric drugs and describe a safe and effective patient-centered approach. Dr. Breggin's website is www.breggin.com

About the author:
Peter R. Breggin, MD is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York. Dr. Breggin criticizes contemporary psychiatric reliance on diagnoses and drugs, and promotes empathic therapeutic relationships. He has been called "the Conscience of Psychiatry." See his website at www.Breggin.com

Suzanne

Top-selling antidepressants double your bone fracture risk

by PF Louis

(NaturalNews) Pharmaceutical antidepressants are usually among a class of varied chemicals known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Serotonin is the feel good central nervous system neurotransmitter that is produced in the body.

The phrase re-uptake inhibitor is confusing to most of us laypersons. Why does inhibiting a feel good chemical make someone feel less depressed?

The SSRIs purportedly modulate and redistribute serotonin, keeping it from being taken in by some neuron receptors and leaving that extra serotonin free for chemical synapse activity in the brain.

There are various SSRI drugs under several brand names such as Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, Lexapro, Effexor, and Celexa. These drugs are commonly prescribed throughout the world for depression, anxiety, compulsive obsessive disorders, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

They are also often prescribed to keep school kids "manageable." Maybe the fluoride molecules in most SSRIs is supposed to keep them docile and dumb. But antidepressants among young people have been linked to many school shootings and other killing sprees, as well as suicides and suicide attempts.

Besides the standard pharmaceutical side effects of nausea, diarrhea, nervousness, insomnia, weight gain, and mania, a "black box" warning, which is meant for medical practitioners, states that SSRIs can cause suicidal and homicidal thought. Class action lawyers are getting more action.

The trade-off is for those side effects is way out of balance because the efficacy of these psychotropic drugs has been questioned and effectively challenged often.

Now, a recent study has disclosed the strangest side effect possible for a psychotropic drug: brittle bones.

Chill out and maybe break a leg

A recent March 2013 post by saveourbones.com featured the results of a 2007 Canadian study that determined the risk factor for fracturing bones was doubled among those using SSRIs.

According to the Canadian study: "Functional serotonin receptors and the serotonin transporter have been localized to osteoblasts and osteocytes, and serotonin seems to modulate the skeletal effects of parathyroid hormone and mechanical stimulation."

Translation: Inhibiting serotonin from normal receptors has a negative impact on bone production.

This is compounded by the fact that people who are depressed tend to show higher markers of inflammation. Inflammation weakens bones and produces other chronic autoimmune diseases.

The "chill out" in this section's title refers to the fact that a New England Journal of Medicine meta-analysis in 2008 had determined that efficacy reports on antidepressants were unreliable and misleading.

Even more damning was a report by psychologist Irving Kirsch, associate director of the Placebo Studies Program at Harvard Medical School. Kirsh determined that for mild to moderate cases of depression, virtually all the SSRI positive changes were from the placebo effect and not the chemicals.

Some minor chemical efficacy was found among those with severe depression. But the majority of SSRI prescriptions are dispensed to a population with mild and moderate levels of depression or anxiety and disruptive classroom kids.

The trade-off with side effect potential is much more risk than result.

Natural remedies for depression

St. John's wort is the most commonly accepted natural depression and anxiety relief herbal remedy. Homeopathic remedies should be determined by a trained homeopath. A controversial solution is the powerful herb Kratom. Find out more here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035480_kratom_pain_relief_herb.html

Improving diet goes a long way for staying out of depression. Studies have determined that junk food consumers tend to be more depressed than healthy eaters. Include healthy fats, especially omega-3, in your healthy diet.
(http://www.naturalnews.com/035069_low_fat_diet_myths_weight_loss.html)

Sunshine exposure helps mood considerably. If seasonal conditions inhibit sunshine, blue or full spectrum indoor lighting may help. Exercise boosts serotonin production.

Do enough exercise for that feeling of well being, and make sure you get enough quality sleep. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026637_sleep_health_immune_system.html)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/ssri.html#.UT6g5FeNSVo

http://saveourbones.com

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

http://www.cbsnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/026332_serotonin_natural_fat.html

Side Effects http://www.healthyplace.com

Technical information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor

Suzanne

Tylenol can kill you; new warning admits popular painkiller causes liver damage, death

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) It has been a common household name in over-the-counter pain relief for more than 50 years. But the popular painkiller drug Tylenol is getting a major labeling makeover following a string of personal injury lawsuits. According to the Associated Press (AP), so many Tylenol users these days are suffering major liver damage or dying that the drug's manufacturer, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, has decided to put a large, red warning label on the cap that informs users about the drug's risks.

Even when taken at recommended doses, acetaminophen, the primary active ingredient in Tylenol, can cause major damage to the liver, potentially leading to liver failure and even death. In fact, acetaminophen is currently the leading cause of sudden liver failure in the U.S., as its toxic metabolites have been shown to kill liver cells. The drug is so toxic that as many as 80,000 people are rushed to the emergency room annually due to acetaminophen poisoning, and another 500-or-so end up dead from liver failure.

These are disturbing figures that might come as a surprise to most people, especially considering that millions of Americans pop Tylenol and acetaminophen-containing drugs on a regular basis. But with more than 85 personal injury lawsuits and counting filed against the company in federal court, McNeil is feeling the heat from a drug that has long been claimed as one of the safest painkiller drugs on the market, which it clearly is not.

"The warning will make it explicitly clear that the over-the-counter drug contains acetaminophen, a pain-relieving ingredient that's the nation's leading cause of sudden liver failure," writes Matthew Perrone for the AP. "The new cap is designed to grab the attention of people who don't read warnings that already appear in the fine print on the product's label, according to company executives."

The new label, which will bear the phrases "CONTAINS ACETAMINOPHEN" and "ALWAYS READ THE LABEL," is set to first appear on all bottles of Extra Strength Tylenol, which contains more than 50 percent more acetaminophen per dose than regular strength Tylenol. And in the coming months, all bottles of Tylenol, including regular strength Tylenol, will bear the new label.

NyQuil, Sudafed, Excedrin and many other common drugs also contain acetaminophen

Despite the new label, McNeil, which is owned by drug giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J), insists that Tylenol is safe when taken as directed. But what the company fails to admit is that many people are taking not only Tylenol but also other drugs that contain acetaminophen, which increases their dose of the chemical to levels that are much higher than they probably realize.

According to the AP, nearly one in four Americans, or about 78 million people, consume drug products that contain acetaminophen in a given week. Some 600 over-the-counter drug products, it turns out, contain acetaminophen. These products include other painkiller drugs like Excedrin, for instance, as well as NyQuil cold formula and Sudafed sinus pills.

Combining these and other acetaminophen-containing drugs is a major cause of acetaminophen overdose, say experts, hence the addition of the new labels. But some people who stay well within the maximum daily dose of acetaminophen, which is currently set at 4,000 milligrams (mg) per day, still fall ill or die, which suggests that perhaps any level of acetaminophen is toxic and should be avoided.

"It's still a little bit of a puzzle," says Dr. Anne Larson from the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. "Is it a genetic predisposition? Are they claiming they took the right amount, but they really took more? It's difficult to know."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.mercurynews.com

http://www.foodconsumer.org

http://www.painmedicinenews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Suzanne

I am glad that I am not in the habit of taking any of these drugs.

In fact, I am very leary of taking any OTC drugs, or any type of drug.

I believe in trying to deal with health issues the natural way.

I heard that those who drink and then have a headache the next day should not take Tylenol as that's a good way to kill yourself.

I wonder if the same holds true for the other drugs listed above? But maybe they should stop drinking and then they wouldn't have the headache and then wouldn't need to take yet more drugs.

All drugs are harmful.


(By the way, is it acetaminophen what they make non-government sponsored drugs out of? Imagine adding the others to the restricted list besides Sudafed!)

Prescription drug abuse may now be the top cause of accidental death in America

by PF Louis

(NaturalNews) The phrase "prescription drug abuse" allows Big Pharma to get away with too much, shifting the blame to stoners, druggies and youths who like to get their kicks from illegal prescriptions and black market OxyContin-type drugs that sell for high prices.

Death by Modern Medicine: Seeking Safe Solutions, written by Dr. Carolyn Dean, outlines the statistics and issues within several other categories of prescription drugs that have caused deaths despite being properly prescribed and used.

Dr. Dean's latest book has uncovered even more statistics of iatrogenic (medically caused) death than her original paper "Death by Medicine." The death toll has gone up to almost 900,000 annually from various areas that include hospital stays, surgeries, incorrect or unnecessary procedures and prescriptions.

But the highest death toll comes with adverse reactions from "correctly prescribed" medications and procedures. [1]

Over the counter drugs (OTC) haven't been included in these statistics, but OTC sleeping pills and Tylenol (acetaminophen) are responsible for many more ER visits and deaths. Also not included are permanent disabilities from vaccines and other drugs.

The numbers are probably worse than any statistical reports, as not all adverse reactions are actually reported.

Regardless of Dr. Dean's and others' offered solutions, the actual solution probably won't come until the whole edifice of the medical mafia finally crumbles with enough health-conscious people abandoning it, by self-educating and living healthier lifestyles while seeking natural medical solutions.

The prescribed painkiller quandary

Oxycodone is the main opioid ingredient of OxyContin, a synthetic offshoot of heroin. Oxycodone ingredients were once a last-ditch solution for usually terminal cancer patient pain when morphine failed. That was a couple of decades ago.

Since then, oxycodone opioids have been used in several prescription drugs that have been successfully marketed to overcome original resistance to prescribing potentially addictive painkillers. Now, they're being prescribed too often and too easily.

And the overdose death toll has skyrocketed to over 15,000, more than street heroin and cocaine combined. [2] [3]

By the way, late-stage cancer patients have used various forms of full-cannabinoid hemp (including THC) to relieve pain from cancer and cure it without addiction. It can't be patented, so Big Pharma wants to keep it from competing with its high-profit patented drugs, and it's still mostly illegal. But that's beginning to change, slowly.

In 2010, 254 million opioid prescriptions were filled in the USA. Shortly after that report, the CDC estimated that health insurers forked over several billion dollars for health care costs related to prescription painkillers' adverse effects.

Meanwhile, Big Pharma raked in over $11 billion in revenue from opioid sales, with Purdue Pharma's OxyContin, for which they were once fined $635 million for false advertising, pulling in over $3 billion of that. [3]

So who are getting all these prescriptions? A lot of prescriptions, driven by oxycodone addicts, are obtained illegally or creatively. One such notorious, hypocritical example is Rush Limbaugh's incredible oxycodone, mostly OxyContin, addiction.

Hypocritical because, for a few years up until Limbaugh got busted for obtaining and using massive amounts of oxycodone through multiple doctor resources, he often railed on air about throwing drug users in jail, even while he was high on illegally obtained OxyContin. Suspiciously, the charges were dropped or reduced from felonies. [4]

Other painkillers, like Percocet, Vicodin and fentanyl, contain some variation of oxycodone, chemically close to heroin. But OxyContin is almost pure oxycodone. It's the strongest and most addictive. The others include either some aspirin or acetaminophen (Tylenol), also unhealthy with long-term use.

Even those who have experienced enough severe pain to warrant oxycodone become addicted and experience terrible withdrawals if they try to kick the painkillers. [4]

Sources for this article include

[1] http://www.whale.to

[2]http://www.philly.com

[3] http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com

[4] http://www.bradleyreport.net

http://science.naturalnews.com

Suzanne

Big Pharma Profiteering Gone Wild: $1,000-a-Pill Hepatitis Drug In USA Sells For Less Than $10 in Egypt

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The financial raping of America by Big Pharma has just achieved a new milestone with the impending launch of a Hepatitis C drug that costs $1,000 a pill. If you've ever wondered why U.S. health care is so unaffordable and inaccessible -- and why health insurance costs are bankrupting businesses and municipalities across the nation -- this is exactly why. The same drug that sells for $1,000 a pill in the USA -- named "Sovaldi" -- sells for just $10 in Egypt, or 1/100th the USA price.

Drug companies are, of course, granted FDA-enforced monopolies on the treatment of anything considered a "disease." As such, drugs are pushed into the marketplace at monopoly prices. Because if you're the CEO of Gilead Sciences, Inc., makers of the Sovaldi drug to be sold at $1,000 a pill, your job is to maximize revenues by any means necessary. When you're handed a monopoly by the FDA, the strategy for achieving that is simple: Raise the price to whatever you can get away with, then bill the insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid for $100, $500 or even $1,000 a pill.

100,000% mark-up?

Even if one pill of Sovaldi only costs 68 cents to manufacture, it will still be sold at $1,000 a pill because that's what the company demands. At this price, a course of treatment runs $84,000 in the USA. Gilead reduces the price to $57,000 in the UK -- apparently in a completely arbitrary manner based on whatever it can get for the drug rather than the drug's actual cost or value.

How much does this drug actually cost to produce? Consider this shocking fact, as reported by CNBC:

Gilead confirmed that it had agreed to supply the new drug in Egypt - which has the world's highest prevalence of the virus due to use of contaminated needles in the 1970s - at around $900 for a 12-week course of therapy, or about 1 percent of the U.S. price.

Yep, the same drug sold in the USA for $84,000 is sold in Egypt for $900 -- and the company still makes a profit!

What we are likely looking at with this drug is something approaching a 100,000% mark-up. In any other industry, that would be called "profiteering."

Modern medicine exists to enrich big business, not to make people healthy

The entire U.S. health care system is, of course, set up to fill the coffers of big business. That's why U.S. health care ("sick care") is the most expensive in the world, by far, even though it produces poor overall results. More people are sick, obese and diseased in America today than at any other time in human history, yet we are all paying more for health insurance coverage. Why is that?

The honest answer is that we are paying higher and higher prices for drugs that simply don't work. At the same time, the FDA and Big Pharma are systematically discrediting natural cures that are safe, effective and affordable. Hepatitis C, for example, can readily be treated with plant-based bioflavonoids called catechin and naringenin, both of which are entirely non-toxic and have been scientifically proven to kill the Hepatitis C virus.

You can buy a lot of green tea and citrus fruits for the $84,000 cost of a drug treatment. In fact, you could buy and juice organic produce for years with that much money, and the juicing protocol would help prevent cancer, heart disease and diabetes at the same time, dramatically lowering overall health care costs.

But that's never been the goal of health care. There is no incentive for anyone to lower costs. Every incentive, in fact, is based on raising costs so that revenues and profits can be raised, too.

Anyone who expects the health care industry to lower its own costs is expecting the impossible. No for-profit business sector ever seeks to shrink in size and revenues.

Profits for the few, sickness for the masses

Why does the pharmaceutical industry push $1,000-a-pill drug treatments rather than affordable, safe and effective natural protocols like juicing and superfoods? Because, of course, the drugs make the most money.

The entire "sick care" industry is driven by profits rather than any real desire to help humanity. As a result, whatever makes the most money gets pushed onto the most patients. The billing for all this gets shoved over to health insurance companies which must then raise insurance rates to insane levels to cover all the ridiculously-high-priced drugs.

And that's how we end up with families paying $5,000 - $10,000 a year for health insurance coverage. In a system driven by pure greed, nobody gets healthy and everybody gets financially raped one way or another.

Trust me when I say America's economy will continue to implode as long as we allow this parasitic, monopolistic health care system to rape us all of our incomes, investments and small business profits. The main reason why U.S. companies are closing their doors and firing workers is because they can't afford to pay the exorbitant health insurance premiums!

Suzanne

Prescription drugs: A Nation's Killer

by Mayimina

(NaturalNews) In a nation that seems to thrive on popping pills for a range of different health woes, it really should come as no surprise that deaths due to the overdosing of prescription drugs are on the rise in the United States, and will likely to continue to be so. Though there is a definite need for a number of these prescription drugs, and they provide relief from pain, infections and a host of other uncomfortable ailments, history is starting to tell the story of how these medically prescribed medications can be abused by patients. Many physicians, too, simply write a prescription as a cure-all for their patients rather than spend the time and make the effort to get to the root cause of the issue.

Sobering statistics

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released some sobering and chilling statistics. More than 36,000 people across the country died in 2008 as the result of overdosing on various prescription drugs. In fact, these deaths have more than tripled in number since 1990, and they show no signs of abating. Each day, 100 people in the United States die from drug overdoses.

Painkillers are the main killers

As the CDC notes, there are a number of prescription drugs that are abused by people who live in the United States. By far, though, there is a growing epidemic that involves painkillers. Studies show that out of every four death that occurred as the result of prescription drugs, three of them are the result of painkillers.

Also known as opioid pain relievers, this class of drugs is solely responsible for the 300% increase in drug-related deaths that has occurred since 1999. In 2008 alone, pain killers were the cause of nearly 15,000 overdose deaths. This figure is more than both heroin and cocaine combined.

Deaths are not the only result of such overdoses. In 2009, more than 475,000 visits to hospital emergency rooms occurred as the result of people overdosing on prescription drugs. This figure represents a number that almost doubled in five years.

A study in 2010 revealed that over 12 million people in the United States used painkillers on a non-medical basis. These are drugs that are supposed to be available only by prescription from a licensed doctor. However, the study participants indicated that either they were using these drugs without having a valid prescription or they were using them simply because they wanted to experience the feelings they evoke.

Other factors

In many cases, those people who abuse prescription painkillers are also using other drugs. These vary from drugs that are legal, such as alcohol, to those that are illegal, such as cocaine, benzodiazepines or heroin. In around 50% of these overdose deaths, the person is also taking another drug. Alcohol is often the second drug involved.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org

http://www.cdc.gov

http://www.drugfreeworld.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Suzanne

Suicides Among Patients Taking Antidepressants On The Rise Despite Black Box Warnings

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The damaging effects of America's most popular class of pharmaceutical drugs, antidepressants, are highlighted in a new study out of Harvard University. Researchers there found that suicides, particularly among teens, have risen dramatically in recent years, despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements that antidepressants carry the strictest "black box" warnings about the potential for deadly side effects.

The study found that, since the FDA black box warnings were applied back in 2003 and 2004, the number of attempted suicides among adolescents has risen by nearly 22 percent. Among those between the ages of 18 and 29, attempted suicides rose a shocking 33.7 percent, a figure that the mainstream media is now blaming on a corresponding 31 percent decrease in antidepressant use during the same time.

Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Harvard study looked at insurance claims data from 11 different companies, analyzing the number of drug poisonings that may have been associated with suicide attempts. Based on this data, Christine Lu, an instructor at Harvard's Pilgrim Health Care Institute and lead author of the study, determined that suicide rates jumped among young people who had been taking antidepressants.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), some 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 were taking antidepressants between 2005 and 2008, just a few years after the FDA issued warnings that antidepressant use among children, adolescents and adults could lead to suicidal thinking and behavior. Now, it is clear that this is precisely the case, especially when individuals suddenly stop taking the deadly drugs.

Antidepressants are deadly and should be avoided

Not surprisingly, the findings of this study are being perverted to suggest that the FDA warnings themselves, rather than antidepressant drugs, are responsible for the increase in suicides. But it is clear both from the warnings as they are written and the drugs as they are known to function in the brain that antidepressant drugs are dangerous and cause many who use them to suffer brain abnormalities that could lead to suicide and potentially even homicide.

"It's a stretch to say that the people that are committing suicide or the increase in suicide attempts has to do with the prescription of antidepressants," stated Marc Stone, a senior medical reviewer at the FDA, to Bloomberg in defense of the warnings. "There's absolutely nothing in the study to say that these are the people who would have been prescribed the antidepressants if it weren't for the warnings."

Stone has adamantly denied suggestions made by the media and even the study's authors that the FDA is somehow responsible for this increase in suicides, simply because it issued appropriate warnings to the public about their dangers. Antidepressants are known to induce chemical changes in the brain that oftentimes lead to pronounced increases in violent thoughts and behaviors. Such changes may include genetic mutations in the CYP450 gene family that result in major metabolic disturbances.

"SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] are one of the most addictive drugs known" to man, stated one Bloomberg commenter. "[They] are several times more addictive than nicotine, heroin, cocaine, or even meth. This is an ideal situation for pharmaceutical companies, but not for patients."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.fiercepharma.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.bloomberg.com

http://www.fda.gov

http://science.naturalnews.com

Suzanne

Prescription Drug Use Now Causing More Driving Fatalities Than Alcohol

by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) According to a study published in the Public Health Reports, driving under the influence of prescription drugs is becoming a large problem in society, causing more fatal driving accidents than ever before.

Today, driving fatalities due to driving under the influence of prescription drugs, including Xanax, Cymbalta, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, Lexapro, Sarafem and Abilify, are surpassing those caused by drunk drivers.

"While we've seen a decrease over the years in motor vehicle fatalities involving people under the influence [of alcohol], the nature of those crashes is changing," said study author Fernando Wilson, Ph.D., associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

How psychotic medicine logically increases risky driving behaviors

The study shows an alarming increase in motor vehicle accidents due to prescription drugs. The mind altering medications do not allow the person's mind to cope naturally with life's stressors and periods of depression. The prescription drugs quickly change the chemical levels in the brain (with the intent of a quick fix for depression or anxiety), but confuses the normal functions of the mind. The mind naturally tries to adapt to the quick changes and can become stressed in new ways, which confuses the natural state of the person's mind, predisposing them to act out of character. In a vehicle, this change could correlate to risky driving behaviors. According to some drug labels, suicidal behavior as a side effect could translate to violent driving patterns in a vehicle.

The use of multiple drugs increases the risk dramatically

The study investigated the characteristics of U.S. drivers involved in fatal crashes between 1993 and 2010. While drug use across the board increased significantly during that time, the percentage of impaired drivers with three or more drugs in their systems nearly doubled during that time, from 11.5% to 21.5%.

Drug use by older adults

A large number of fatal crashes came from prescription drug users (39%) who were 50 years or older. This trend correlates with the increasing reliance on prescription drugs by Americans.

According to the study, 90% of individuals 65 and older have prescription drug expenses.
The authors of the study hope that medical professionals begin counseling patients about the driving impairments posed by prescription drugs.

By 2010, prescription monitoring program were in place in 42 states. These programs, designed to curb illicit drug use and prevent overdoses, also focused on the overuse and abuse of prescription drugs.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.sciencedaily.com
http://app1.unmc.edu
http://publichealthlawresearch.org

Suzanne

These "medications" scientifically make you slower, dumber, and at greater risk for dementia

by Lance Johnson

(NaturalNews) True medicine does no harm and promotes self healing within. Modern medicine operates in the exact opposite manner. Nearly all pharmaceuticals mask symptoms while throwing off vital inner workings of various systems of the body. For instance, a specific class of drugs has been shown to make users slower and dumber, delaying their cognitive processes. On top of that, these drugs, which include some very common over-the-counter and prescription meds, scientifically put users at greater risk of dementia. These are the findings according to a new study from the University of Washington, Seattle.

These classes of drugs all fall under a class of anticholinergic medications. This includes antihistamines, sleep aids, cold medicine, and antidepressants. Anticholinergic meds work by blocking a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine. In doing so, these meds prohibit acetylcholine from naturally binding to its receptors in the brain. This slows cognitive processing, making the user slower to respond and dumber altogether.

Common antidepressants, sleep aids, anti-histamines, and cold meds cause cognitive dysfunction that leads to dementia

The University of Washington study tracked a large group of people who used anticholinergic meds every day for over three years. In a seven year follow up period, the researchers found that users were 10 percent more likely to receive a dementia diagnosis than those who didn't use the pills.
These findings help explain why common over the counter cold medications, antihistamines, prescription sleep meds, and antidepressants cause brain fog, impaired memory, and loss of attention span. It's simple. These meds destroy the natural science of the human brain, blocking an important neurotransmitter, ultimately resulting in cognitive dysfunction.

"It's possible that long-term use of these medications leads to changes in the brain similar to those seen with Alzheimer's disease, such as neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles," says study coauthor Sascha Dublin, M.D., Ph.D.

Dr. Dublin suggests that patients talk to their doctor about stopping these meds to find more productive options for healing that don't destroy cognitive function.

Choose a path to healing that does no harm

From experience, we know that quality vitamin D, Siberian ginseng, turmeric, green tea, passionflower, and oat straw are all helpful for nervous system healing and balancing. Supplementing with these herbs along with whole food zinc, selenium, and chromium can help one overcome the challenges of depression and insomnia without subjecting oneself to heinous psychotic and metabolic side effects of prescription psych meds, which only cause cognitive dysfunction and pharmaceutical dependence.

From experience, we know that colds and excess histamine production can be thwarted using a blend of medicinal herbal teas including but not limited to: licorice root, Echinacea, mullein, marshmallow root, elderberry, cats claw bark, and amalaki berry.

Subjecting oneself to over-the-counter cold medications and anti-histamines is an abusive practice that destroys cognitive function, memory, and attention. The above mentioned herbs are more effective long term and balance other systems of the body including the immune system and digestive system.

When we see modern medicine for what it really is, we learn to turn the other cheek and look into the infinite healing wisdom and depth of nature, nutrition, and the true healing energies within the Earth that restore our body systems without doing us harm.

Sources:

http://www.msn.com

Suzanne

600,000 Americans each consume more than $50,000 worth of pharmaceuticals annually, shocking analysis finds

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The real drug addicts in America today aren't out on the street begging for spare change; they're driving their children to soccer games, working in corporate offices, playing bingo in nursing homes, and attending church services weekly. Regular, everyday citizens, it turns out, are consuming more pharmaceuticals than ever, according to a new analysis, with a shocking 600,000 Americans each consuming the equivalent of $50,000 worth of drug pills annually.

An Express Scripts report entitled Super Spending: U.S. Trends in High-Cost Medication Use found that an estimated 576,000 Americans spent more than the media household income last year on legalized drugs. Everything from pain pills to psychiatric medications to cancer poisons make up what the report found to represent a 63 percent increase in pharmaceutical drug use compared to 2013 figures.

Most of the patients in this category were found to be taking "specialty" medications, having multiple co-morbidities, prescriptions, and prescribers. Nine out of 10 patients in the high-cost category take medications for multiple conditions, in fact, including drugs for conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and depression. Antidepressant use within this category was exceptionally high, representing twice the use rate compared to the general population.

Shockingly, six in 10 patients in the high-cost drug category were found to be taking 10 or more different medications at one time, with 72 percent taking written prescriptions from at least four different prescribers. And perhaps not surprisingly, the bulk of patients in this category, some 58 percent, are "baby boomers," meaning they range in age from 51-70.

Nearly 140,000 Americans currently spend more than $100,000 each on pharmaceuticals every year

If you think spending $50,000 a year on drugs is bad, consider this: As many as 140,000 Americans each spend twice this amount every year on pharmaceutical sorceries, which is more than triple the number from 2013. Together with the 576,000 who each spend $50,000 annually, this represents a collective societal burden of $52 billion per year spent on drugs for just 716,000 people.

This figure is staggering, illustrating how American "sick care" is an unsustainable quagmire, and a scourge on society's collective purse. There's no reason why anyone should be spending this much money on "medication," and yet this is exactly how the system has been designed for the purposes of maximizing drug industry profits - get as many people as possible signed up to take the most expensive drugs, as do this as quickly as possible.

The top contenders, according to Express Scripts, are expensive "compounded therapies" like those sold for hepatitis C and cancer. Nearly two-thirds of drug spending among patients whose annual drug costs exceed $100,000 is spent on these therapies.

Most pharmaceutical drug addicts don't pay their own medical bills; taxpayers and others in the insurance "pool" do!

The folks actually paying this enormous bill, however, aren't the patients individually consuming $100,000 worth of pharmaceutical drugs annually. Insurance plans and employers, a.k.a. you and I and everyone else in the insurance "pool," are the real payers, as are taxpayers who fund Obamacare. The rest of the low-use, insurance-paying population, in other words, is inadvertently funding the high-use drug addicts who are draining the system with their expensive pharmaceutical treatments.

"Insurance plans and employers covered more than 98 percent of the costs for patients whose prescription drug bills exceeded $100,000 in 2014, paying an average of $156,911 of these patients' 2014 pharmacy costs," says Express Scripts.

"Patients within this highest-cost tier were responsible for less than 2 percent of their total 2014 pharmacy costs, paying an average $2,782 out-of-pocket in 2014. This reflects an annual decrease in the out-of-pocket percentage these patients paid in 2013."

Sources for this article include:

http://lab.express

http://www.marketwatch.com

Suzanne

Although this last post deals more with politics than health, the previous posts here are all a great warning that is probaly more important to the average person than all of our discussion on the ordination of women. In many cases women have more health sense than men, one more reason women should have the influence given them as serving our churches as ministers. Ellen White tells us these women should be ordained. Why not take her word for it?

Doctors Criticized For 'Over-prescribing' Harmful Drugs For Patients Who Can Heal With Healthy Diet and Exercise

by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) Pharmaceutical companies spend big money on advertisements to constantly brainwash people to "ask their doctor" how a pill is right for them. Even after listing several terrible side effects, these commercials are still convincing, planting a dangerous seed in the minds of onlookers. In this mental programming, people stop learning how to take care of their own health and instead start depending on the prescription drug model of disease fabrication and side effect perpetuation.

Health suddenly becomes a complicated maze that people start to feel trapped in. Patients seek out a doctor, not realizing the doctor's education and expertise is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceutical "science" destroying the foundations of health and the art of healing, pressuring doctors to become drug pushers

By controlling the advertising space, pharmaceutical companies buy out and control medical knowledge. These companies "seal the deal" for themselves when they pay off doctors and medical journals, bribing professionals to promote and prescribe their products. In this way of thinking, true prevention is redefined as "early diagnosis," and a steady prescription drug regime is praised as a lifesaving protocol.

This model of care teaches people to be submissive to experts' synthetic preparations. People are no longer their own doctors; instead, they are trained to be lifelong patients. Integrating the building blocks of nutrition is suddenly viewed as practicing "alternative medicine" when it's really the foundation of quality living.

A band of leading doctors at the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AoMRC) is now highlighting these simple truths. Writing in the British Medical Journal, these leaders are now declaring that doctors are "over treating" patients with pills that are doing more harm than good. They also admit that patients are given unnecessary tests and pills by doctors who feel pressured to intervene. In other words, pharmaceutical "science" has complicated medical care and taken the foundation and art out of healing. Many pharmaceuticals have complicated the natural process of healing and turned doctors into drug dealers who are pressured by their drug overlords.

Patients are labeled with conditions when their problem is a simple imbalance that can be corrected through lifestyle changes

As the leaders point out, there are simpler, safer options that empower patients rather than burdening them, and these options are simply not being explored. They are being replaced by pharmaceutical brainwash and pressure. Doctors feel pressured to "do something" when a patient comes to them. This leads to unnecessary diagnoses and pill treatments that set off a cascading set of problems.

This overzealous medical culture suggests that "more is better," leading them to label patients with conditions that aren't really conditions at all. Health has become a mind game, and patients are being convinced by doctors, pharmaceutical companies and themselves that they have a problem when they really don't. A few simple adjustments in behavior or lifestyle could correct imbalances in body function, emotion and energy, but these simple adjustments are often overlooked.

The current medical culture values routine testing over intuitive care and listening to the body's signals. It values diagnosis and labeling over integrative approaches to correct imbalances. It values medical dependence and intervention over personal empowerment in the healing process.

Medical organizations to be retrained to identify unnecessary procedures and drug regimes

Leaders at the AoMRC are now launching the Choosing Wisely Campaign, which calls on medical professionals to identify five routine procedures that aren't necessary at their organization.

Examples include ending prescription drugging for mildly raised blood pressure and depression and halting routine and unnecessary blood tests.

Instead of drugging people who are depressed, Professor Dame Sue Bailey of the AoMRC suggests that patients should be led toward group exercise classes or talking therapies instead.

She suggests that frequent blood tests for elderly patients only distresses them more because of their frail skin. This is also true for newborns, especially when babies are separated from a breastfeeding mother to be pricked unnecessarily as doctors search for problems that aren't there.

Likewise, patients with elevated blood pressure can be counseled on lifestyle changes before they are made dependent on a pill for their imbalance. Perhaps a few circulatory system-enhancing herbs like hawthorn berry and garlic could correct the imbalance.

The new Choosing Wisely campaign, which is already underway in the U.S. and Canada, is also advising patients to ask questions such as:
◾Do I really need this test or procedure?
◾Are there simpler options?
◾What happens if I do nothing?
◾Is my diagnosis really just an imbalance that can be corrected without pharmaceutical intervention?

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com

Suzanne

Legal, Over-the-counter Pain Relievers Cause Fatal Strokes And Heart Attacks

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The FDA has announced that it will require new labels on both prescription and over-the-counter painkillers in the aspirin family, warning that even brief use of these drugs increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes, including among people with no heart disease risk factors.

The warning applies to all drugs in the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) family, with the exception of aspirin. Non-aspirin NSAIDs include those marketed under trade names such as Motrin, Aleve and Celebrex. The drugs are among the most widely used over-the-counter drugs, taken by millions each year in the United States alone.

But new research suggests that even small amounts can be deadly.

"One of the underlying messages for this warning has to be there are no completely safe pain relievers, period," said Bruce Lambert of Northwestern University, a specialist in drug safety communication.

Not "benign"

In its announcement, the FDA noted that NSAIDs have carried a boxed warning about the risk of heart attack and stroke since 2005. The new labeling rules, based on a further decade of research, strengthens those existing warnings.

Research has now shown that the risk of heart attack, heart failure or stroke can be increased even in the first weeks of NSAID use, and even among people with no prior heart disease risk. The risk is still much greater for those already at risk of heart attack or stroke, however. People who were given NSAIDs following a heart attack are also significantly more likely to die in the following year than people not given the drugs, studies have now shown.

The label will also specify that higher doses of NSAIDs lead to higher risks. It will note that different drugs may carry different risks, but that it remains unknown which are riskier. A clinical trial is currently under way to examine these variations.

Peter Wilson, an Emory University professor of medicine and public health, served on the FDA's expert panel to evaluate the evidence on NSAIDs and cardiovascular risks. While cautioning that individuals vary widely in their response to different drugs, he offered the following rule of thumb for estimating the risk from non-aspirin NSAIDs: Over-the-counter doses (the lowest available) increase heart attack and stroke risk by about 10 percent; low prescription doses increase it by about 20 percent, and high prescription doses could increase risk by as much as 50 percent.

Such risk increases are especially dangerous for those over age 65 or who have other cardiovascular risk factors, he warned.

"There is great concern that people think these drugs are benign, and they are probably not," Wilson said. "The thought is these are good for short-term relief, probably for your younger person with no history of cardiovascular trouble."

Avoid NSAIDs for minor aches, pains

The consensus among health experts and the FDA is that NSAIDs should only be used for short periods of time, and should not be used for minor pain or discomfort.

"The point of this warning is that we have to be very careful," said cardiologist Sanjay Kaul of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, who also served on the expert panel. "There has to be a good reason to take them. We shouldn't just be using these drugs willy-nilly."

Lambert noted that there are many non-pharmaceutical methods for managing many of the more minor complaints that people regularly rely on NSAIDs for. One of the most effective ways to get relief from arthritis symptoms, for example, is to lose weight.

"It's a risk-benefit decision," Lambert said.

"For people who are in the habit of taking these drugs for headaches or mild pain, they might want to reconsider."

(Natural News Science)

Sources:

http://healthimpactnews.com

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.fda.gov

Suzanne

CVS, Walgreens And More: Drugstore Scam Exposed As Profiteering Racket That Poisons Customers, Then Sells Them High-profit Prescription Drugs

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) American drugstore chains are trying really hard to re-brand themselves as corner-store healthcare providers rather than basic convenience marts that dispense pharmaceuticals. CVS made the first move recently by axing all cigarette sales in an effort to prod its customers toward healthier lifestyles. Nevertheless, these same chains continue to sell soda pop, sugar-filled snack items and other harmful consumer products that end up creating lifelong legal drug addicts.

Take a walk through the aisles of an average CVS store and you'll see this reality first-hand: shelves lined with two-liter bottles of Coca-Cola, endless packages of artificially flavored and colored candy and chemical-laden personal care products galore. It's everything a person wouldn't want to consume or expose himself to when trying to live a healthy life, and yet CVS, Walgreens and all the rest see nothing wrong with selling these products.

Getting rid of cigarettes is a step in the right direction, but should CVS continue to peddle processed junk foods loaded with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and trans fats while claiming to promote health? What about the many dozens of square feet of refrigeration units filled with beer and wine? Are these items somehow more beneficial to consumers than tobacco?

"While consumer advocates note that CVS's ban on tobacco products to promote 'better health' is a laudable one, they note that to be truly 'healthy,' drugstores (not just CVS) should do more to clean up their shelves -- in particular in the food and beverage aisle," writes Catey Hill for MarketWatch. "Indeed, some of the items that these drugstores still sell may lead to conditions that the drugstores have medications to treat, like heart disease, obesity and diabetes."

Top five unhealthy products that drugstores continue to sell to customers

What are the top five product categories that drugstores such as CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens are peddling to customers that will eventually drive many of them to the prescription counter for a pharmaceutical quick-fix? Here's a simple breakdown:

1) Soda pop. Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and other sodas are a staple of American drugstores. Whether sweetened with sugar (HFCS) or artificial sweeteners (aspartame and/or sucralose), these products are a driving factor in the obesity and heart disease epidemics.

2) Alcohol. Although it is potentially safe to consume in moderation, alcohol is really no better than tobacco when it comes to long-term health. Alcohol consumption has been linked to all sorts of chronic health conditions, including depression, liver disease and gout. Walgreens reversed a 15-year ban on alcohol sales in 2010, while CVS and Rite Aid sell beer and wine in many of their stores.

3) Chips. Even baked and "reduced-guilt" processed chips are unhealthy and loaded with "empty calories," says Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League. If drugstores were really concerned with improving the health of their customers, they would replace many of these products with fresh, organic fruits and vegetables.

4) Candy. If they're not getting them at gas stations and truck stops, many Americans looking for a sweet fix will drop into the local drugstore to grab a Snickers or Hershey's chocolate bar. These products are brimming with GMO sweeteners, preservatives and other toxic additives that - not unlike cigarettes - are sure to cause health problems.

5) Heavily-processed cookies and snack cakes. Whether it's Little Debbie oatmeal cream pies or Hostess Twinkies, drugstores are notorious for selling these and other imitation food products that are largely responsible for causing metabolic disorders such as diabetes and heart disease.

Sources for this article include:

MarketWatch.com

Suzanne

PHARMA SHOCK: Indigestion drugs like Prilosec and Prevacid found to raise the risk of dementia by 50%

by Harold Shaw

(NaturalNews) Every once in a while, attending a dinner party becomes the best thing you've done in days. Great company and amazing food are always the premise of a successful evening, but a delicious meal is not always followed by instant satisfaction. In fact, one in five Americans have to suffer the consequences of heartburn. If it's a common issue, you're already reaching for those antacids. Every drug has its downsides, but did you know that there might be a link between indigestion medication and Alzheimer's?

The German Center for Neurodegenerative Disease in Bonn examined insurance data on people aged over 75 and came to the conclusion that there's a strong link between heartburn medication and dementia. Their statistics indicate that patients who used proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), a type of medication associated with strong acid reflux, at least once every three months were 44% more likely to experience neurological damage that leads to dementia. Now would be a good time to re-think your strategy of dealing with acid reflux.


Yet another heartburn medication side effect

However, the scientists in the German study were unable to identify precisely why PPIs are associated with such a significantly higher risk of dementia. A possible theory is that these drugs result in vitamin B12 deficiencies and therefore caus consumers to manifest symptoms that are identical to Alzheimer's disease. The authors' findings are also supported by another study conducted back in 2013 on proton pump inhibitors. The latter effectively proved that when you treat mice with this type of heartburn medication, they develop high levels of amyloid plaques. These plaques play a crucial role in the on-set of Alzheimer's.

Antacids, which are also commonly used to treat heartburn, are no better. Although they are essentially different from PPIs, they can easily cause constipation, diarrhea, bloating and even worsen your condition. That's correct. Heartburn medication can actually increase your levels of stomach acid once you are done taking it.

People still cling to missing links

In spite of compelling evidence, Dr. Laura Phipps, a member of Alzheimer's Research UK, declared that the study doesn't prove the increased risk of dementia is actually caused by PPIs. According to her, other factors may have contributed to the results and we should not jump to rash conclusions. Nevertheless, according to the Daily Mail, even she acknowledged that "[s]tudies like this, which harness large amounts of medical data to highlight trends in health and dis-ease, are incredibly useful to inform future, detailed, follow-up studies into risk factors for conditions like dementia. When any drug is taken, doctors, pharmacists and patients have to weigh up the benefits against the potential side effects and further studies into this area will help to better inform these decisions."

Next time you're looking to get rid of your heartburn, keep in mind the consequences that indigestion drugs can have on your body. While some of them have been proven beyond any doubt, others are highly possible, but yet to be officially confirmed by the authorities. A pill is the quick way out, but it does not make sense for your health in the long run.

Treat your body naturally

Instead of running to your general practitioner for a prescription, why not try to cure your acid reflux and digestion problems naturally? You can try out natural remedies, but also make changes to your lifestyle that will ultimately cure your ache without these potentially disastrous side effects. In another couple of years, the link between these drugs and dementia might be irrevocably proven. If that's the case, is it worth risking your sanity for a condition that can easily be cured in an alternative way?

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

ArchNeur.JAMANetwork.com

Journals.PLOS.org

-Suzanne-

Big Pharma's Opiates Will Make You Constipated

by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) Pharmaceutical science is pretty good at one thing: creating entirely new health problems. Take Big Pharma's opiate pain meds, for example. Researchers are now finding out that this common class of drugs causes severe opioid-induced constipation (OIC) which may lead to rectal tearing and abdominal pain. This condition, also known as opiate bowel dysfunction (OBD), occurs in up to 95 percent of patients who are chronic users of Big Pharma's opioid (narcotic) pain meds.

The Australian Pain Society reports, "One of the most common adverse effects of chronic opioid therapy is constipation. Up to 95% of patients prescribed an opioid report constipation as a side effect, which can occur soon after taking the first dose."

Opiates suppress one of the body's most important functions

A side effect like this is no laughing matter. Under the curse of the pain meds, one of the body's most important functions is being systematically suppressed, forcing the body to eat its own waste. According to the American College of Gastroenterology, "constipation may be debilitating among those who require chronic analgesia [pain relief]. ... OIC or OBD affected an average of 41% [of] patients taking an oral opioid for up to 8 weeks."

This happens because "opioids cause constipation by binding to specific receptors in the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system, resulting in reduced bowel motility through direct and indirect (anticholinergic) mechanisms." These medications destroy the body's natural intelligence, blocking the messages that innately tell the body when to empty the bowels.

When bowel movements stop, the colon gets backed up with waste byproduct that breaks down and infiltrates the blood. This side effect alone can actually feed a person's pain long-term. Opioid pain meds do not help people manage pain; in the long haul, they shut down an all-important function of the body, instructing the digestive system to stop having bowel movements, and leaving rotting waste caked inside the body. It's a recipe for disease and chronic inflammation.

So, are pain meds worth the risk if they "may cause rectal pain and bleeding, abdominal pain and distension, urinary incontinence, fecal impaction, rectal tearing, and, in very severe cases, bowel obstruction and colonic perforation?"

Big Pharma's opiates cause greater pain long-term

As the Australian Pain Society points out, some patients would rather deal with the pain than be cursed with severe opioid induced constipation. "Some patients would rather endure chronic pain than suffer from the severe constipation that can arise with long-term opioid therapy. One study found that approximately one-third of patients missed, decreased or stopped using opioids in order to make it easier to have a bowel motion. ..." They found that in some cases, even after stopping the meds, the body continues to struggle to have a normal bowel movement.

It should also be noted that anticholinergic meds work by blocking a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine. In doing so, these meds prohibit acetylcholine from naturally binding to its receptors in the brain. This slows cognitive processing, in practice affecting brain function.

The publication, Practical Pain Management, points out that Big Pharma's opioid pain meds are finally being investigated for all their debilitating effects. Even though they've been used for multiple decades, "we are only beginning to understand and identify the many side effects of opioids. Constipation, nausea, emesis, pruritus, respiratory depression, and somnolence are well known. However, not so well known are effects on immune function, urinary retention, endocrinopathies, gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), gastroparesis, sleep apnea, cardiovascular system, osteoporosis, emotions, dentition, and renal function."

As Big Pharma's opiates are leaving people helpless in the long-term, exacerbating entirely new health problems, better pain management strategies exist. Several foods, herbs and spices contain anti-inflammatory compounds that reduce pain while promoting proper digestion and brain function. For example, the powerful compound in turmeric root – curcumin – is well documented for reducing inflammation throughout the body. Plant-based medicines such as ginger root, cayenne, boswellia, cherry, pineapple and devil's claw, provide pain relief through different mechanisms that work with the body, instead of against it.

Sources include:

APSoc.org

GI.org[PDF]

PracticalPainManagement.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalAntiInflammatory.org

Science.NaturalNews.com

-Suzanne-

Finally Some Good News: More Doctors Are Moving Away From Prescriptions

by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) A health center in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood has implemented a new program that helps patients access a gym membership for just $10 a month. Instead of focusing solely on prescribing drugs, tests and physicals, internists and psychologists now have the free will to prescribe exercise. The $10 a month gym memberships also include aerobics classes, kids' programs and childcare, making it more convenient for patients to get moving.

Healthworks Community Fitness is a nonprofit gym in Dorchester. The gym gives low-income residents an extremely affordable way to get moving and access some of the best exercise equipment. Doctors are now prescribing gym access to help these low-income residents recover from chronic health problems. 70 percent of the people who go to Healthworks community Fitness have been prescribed exercise for their obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes or depression.

After more than two years of regular workouts, area resident Monisha Long says she is getting extraordinary results. "I lost well over 150 pounds, and I've been keeping it off for the past couple of years."

"I'm more energized," Long says. "As far as my energy, I feel like I'm stronger. I feel like I'm less tired. I feel like I can do almost anything now."

Dr. Edward Phillips, a Boston physician who now prescribes exercise, says, "Our bodies are meant to move. Integrating movement into our day allows the system to work optimally. Part of the system that needs to work is our brain, and includes sleep, mood, cognition, ability to concentrate."

An object in motion tends to stay in motion

One of the universal laws observed by physicist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton, stated that an object at rest will stay at rest unless a force acts upon it. Additionally, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Apathy and passion are two forces that carry out those same roles in the human body. The less we care, the more apathetic we become. With no forward movement in our life, stagnation sets in, making it harder and harder to move from our helpless, docile state. On the other hand, finding passion for something can be a momentous force that can make our energy "snowball." As our energy builds and crescendos, our forward motion becomes hard to stop.

Exercise can work in the same way. By simply starting and getting the ball moving, a person creates a platform from which they can launch and build momentum. The key is to get the ball moving, to start the motion, so momentum can be created. This takes focus and commitment at first, but as the motion becomes second nature, it becomes easier to be that object that Newton describes as tending "to stay in motion."

The New Living Translation of Matthew 25:29 of the American Bible sums up this phenomenon well, "To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away." Perhaps this passage can help us understand that if we do nothing with what we already have, we will lose it (including our health), but if we efficiently utilize, fully appreciate, and put to work what we have, momentum is welcomed into our lives, pushing us toward a more fulfilling (and healthy) life.

Health professionals are starting to see how these simple universal truths can be applied in the field of medicine. More doctors are starting to prescribe exercise over drugs, because exercise works to encourage forward movement, encouraging the movement of blood and the inner cooperation of organs. Exercise helps us to exit a revolving state of stagnation, encouraging the organs to work together and detoxify the body. A person in motion tends to stay in motion, and the health benefits are remarkable.

Sources include:

WashingtonPost.com

BibleHub.com

Biography.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

-Suzanne-

Tylenol Found To Dull The Brain And Make People Less Likely To Notice Errors... The Dumbing Down Of America Continues At Full Pace

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The active ingredient in Tylenol may interfere with people's ability to detect errors, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia, and published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

It's not the first time acetaminophen (also known as paracetamol) has been linked with cognitive disruption. It is the first time, however, to use brain imaging to examine Tylenol's effects on error identification and processing.

"The core idea of our study is that we don't fully understand how acetaminophen affects the brain," researcher Dan Randles said in a press release. "While there's been recent behavioural research on the effects of acetaminophen, we wanted to have a sense of what's happening neurologically."

Less aware of mistakes

The double-blind study was performed on 60 participants, half of whom were assigned to take 1,000 mg of acetaminophen (the maximum recommended dose) and the other half of whom were given a placebo. The participants then took part in a task called Go or No Go, which consisted of watching a screen and pushing a button every time the letter F appeared, but not pushing it when the letter E appeared.

"The trick is you're supposed to move very quickly capturing all the GOs, but hold back when you see a No Go," Randles said.

While they performed the task, the participants were connected to an electroencephalogram (EEG) to measure their brain activity. Prior research has shown that, when people make errors in a Go or No Go task, their brains respond with strong increases in the wave patterns known as Error Related Negativity (ERN) and Error Related Positivity (Pe).

The researchers found that participants who had taken acetaminophen had significantly less Pe in response to errors than patients in the placebo group. This suggests that they were less aware that they had made a mistake.

"It looks like acetaminophen makes it harder to recognize an error, which may have implications for cognitive control in daily life," Randles said.

Damages emotional processing, too

A hampered ability to detect errors could have serious everyday consequences. That's because people spend much of their normal lives on "autopilot," performing routine tasks without necessarily paying attention to every detail.

"Sometimes you need to interrupt your normal processes or they'll lead to a mistake, like when you're talking to a friend while crossing the street, you should still be ready to react to an erratic driver," Randles said.

"The task we designed is meant to capture that since most of the stimuli were Go, so you end up getting into a routine of automatically hitting the Go button. When you see a No Go, that requires cognitive control because you need to interrupt the process."

Notably, people in the Tylenol group were also significantly more likely to fail to respond to Go stimuli than people in the placebo group. This suggests that acetaminophen might also increase the likelihood that the mind will wander — and then make it less likely that the errors this causes will be noticed. The researchers are planning further studies to explore this possibility.

"An obvious question is if people aren't detecting these errors, are they also making errors more often when taking acetaminophen?" Randles said. "This is the first study to address this question, so we need more work and ideally with tasks more closely related to normal daily behaviour."

Prior studies have also shown that acetaminophen dulls the emotional pain caused by social rejection and also numbs emotional reactions more generally — causing people to respond more neutrally to all kinds of emotional stimulus. It has also been shown to blunt the sense of indignation that underlies moral judgment.

Sources for this article include:

EurekAlert.org

NaturalNews.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

-Suzanne-