Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Things That Are Killing You.
Prescription and over the counter Medication
Is it mere coincidence that the drug industry is a billion dollar industry, and that the US just happens to be the most medicated population on earth? In the U.S. , prescriptions have increased over the past decade to 3.4 billion annually, a 61 percent increase. Retail sales of prescription drugs jumped 250 percent from $72 billion to $250 billion, while the average price of prescriptions has more than doubled from $30 to $68. Source
One only needs to turn on the TV, to practically any station to see Drug advertisements. We're told to ask our Doctor, since we are definitely so educated on the topic after watching 30 seconds of old people frolic and listened to 25 seconds of side effects.
Ironically enough, Ads will often tell you one of the side effects of the product is what it actually supposed to treat. And if you get that side effect, you'll likely have numerous others as well.
In 2004 it was stated that on average, each month 40 new side effects or adverse reactions were added to drug warning labels after they had already been approved and were being consumed by customers. Source.
In one of the longest delays in changes, widely used Demerol a common pain reliever got a new warning in 2003, 70 years after its introduction. The change? Demerol was passing straight into mothers milk, being passed on directly to suckling babies. A powerful pain reliever being consumed by a baby is terrifying, who knows the full extent of the health consequences of that problem.
Another example would be the product Pletal, which in February of 2004 was given a battery of new, terrible side effects.
The following adverse events have been reported worldwide since the launch of Pletal in the US. Pain, Chest pain, hot flashes, cerebral hemorrhage, angina pectoris, hypo-tension, hepatic dysfunction/abornmal liver function, jaundice, vomiting, thromboctopenia, leukopenia, bleeding tendency, paresthesia, hyperglycemia, pulmonary hemorrhage, interstitial pneumonia, pruritus, skin eruptions including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, rash, increase BUN, and hematuria.
The following adverse events occurred OUTSIDE the US prior to marketing of Pletal in the US: Pulmonary Hemorrhage and Stevens-Johnsons syndrome.
That last line means “Massive bleeding of the heart, and excruciating, disfiguring skin reaction that sometimes kills you”. They knew all of this, before they happily made a fortune selling it to us.
How we got over medicated
As you'll soon read later on in this thread, the issue is that we are being slowly poisoned by so many things daily that we essentially are permanently sick. Leading to a variety of different symptoms, then through the million dollar marketing campaigns are convinced to go ask about a drug that promises a quick fix for all these ambiguous symptoms.
But, not only do they cause as many issues as they solve, but could literally kill you in the process. All given to you legally from your local, helpful doctor. Who by the way, made a killing giving you that prescription. The perscription drug industry is able to pull all this off, thanks to its investment in lobbyists.
The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats. According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying. The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C.
What the Statistics say
Modern medicine kills 750,000 people each year, that's a 16,400% increase over terrorism. The equivalent to crashing 6 fully loaded jumbo jets daily. Source.
Adverse reactions alone claimed approx. 32,000 people in 2000. Source.
Non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin claimed 7,600 people in 2000. Source.
In contrast, all illicit drug use both directly and indirectly claimed only 17,000 people in 2000. Source.
Prescription pills are absolutely UNNECESSARY and should be avoided at all costs, unless it is a life or death situation. And, if such an event were to come about, you will be glad you are not already resistant to the drug that could ease great pain in a life or death situation. The negative effects are substantial, and as mentioned, could kill you. It's worth noting I have taken one prescription in my quarter century, it was for an ear infection when I was a child. I could also count the amount of Tylenol and Advil I have taken with my fingers. I have not been sick in approx 8 years, and I have never experienced a head ache. I do not believe this to be due to my lucky nature, rather the fact that I do not medicate.
Some people may already know about fluoride. I have talked about it several times on this forum, as well as others. But since we come in contact with this poison daily, everyone should be educated about it's toxicity and the illogical way it came to invade our daily life.
For those who haven't already, I suggest reading my thread about tooth sensitivity and it's apparent association to Fluoride, I suggest reading it as others have found the information useful.
So what is Fluoride?
The 1984 issue of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products lists fluoride as more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic. It has been used as a pesticide for mice, rats and other small pests. A 10# infant could be killed by 1/100 of an ounce and a 100# adult could be killed by 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride.
So, just slightly less lethal than lead, and not quite as poisonous as the infamous arsenic. Doesn't that sound like something you want added to your body daily? Some people who feel that fluoride is a less of a threat then it is perceived to be, like to use the argument that the amount is so small.
If we were only speaking of 1 single, tiny dose daily, then perhaps that could be the case. But, even if that were the case, why would anyone want a chemical known to be more toxic to humans than lead, ingested at all?
If video is your thing, learn all about it in 10 minutes at this YouTube link
How it has invaded our life
The reason it's such a great threat is the fact that it bombards our life daily. One of the main ways we ingest Fluoride is through our drinking water.
Almost everywhere in the continental US undergoes fluoridation of their water supply.
The fluoride used in our water supplies is industrial grade fluoride called Hydrofluosilicic Acid which contains harmful contaminants such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead and mercury. It is a byproduct from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Water fluoridation is a cheap way for industry to get rid of their waste and consumers pay the price.
We then drink the water, cook with the water, and bathe in the water. The compounding effect ramps up the levels in our body quickly. Water is essential to a humans survival, so it makes sense that ingesting clean water will improve overall health. If you haven't already, you should seriously invest in a Berkey water filtration system. Around $200 you can have a complete system, and if you're currently purchasing bottled water, this pays itself off quickly, but better yet, could save your biggest asset, your health.
Having a good water filtration system also allows you enough water to cook with. Additionally, even if you are not concerned about the health benefits, it will be extremely useful during any sort of situation X where water supplies could be compromised. Berkey filters specifically can use practically any water source and turn it into beautifully clean, healthy, drinking water.
Additionally, there are products that you can attach to your shower head so the water you use to clean yourself, isn't doing more harm than benefit.
Fluoride For Teeth
As far as fluorides use for dental care, I suggest reading my thread linked above. More and more information is coming to late that is challenging the orthodox thinking of the use of fluoride. Dental fluorosis is a devastating problem that has resulted from mass fluoridation. It is a lot like natural decay, using something to treat a problem, that it itself creates, is an illogical thought process that needs to be changed.
Nazipedia – Dental Fluorosis
Dental Fluorosis Pictures – Look familiar?
In a number of small villages in Sicily, Turkey and India there is naturally occurring fluoride in the water ranging from 0.7 to 5.4 ppm. Here the villagers and their livestock are chronically ill, while neighboring villages with no fluoride have no such illnesses. Premature aging is the overall effect. Children have brown decaying teeth; young adults often have none. Young men are bent over and crippled with pain in their joints and hips. Their skin is wrinkled and they look 60 at age 30 to 40. There is premature hardening of the arteries, loss of appetite & sex drive by age 30. The rate of stillborn miscarriages by 4 months is extremely high.
Monosodium Glutamate, or MSG as it's more commonly referred to is another substance that has covertly invaded our lives, primarily due to the profit motive. It was first manufactured commercially in Japan and was introduced to the United States in 1947, as a “Flavor Enhancer” Source.
I could list the foods that contain it, but I only have 10000 characters here. Small rule of thumb, almost all processed food, fast foods, junk foods such as potato chips, condiments, and prepackaged foods. Unless you are actually vigilant, you are most likely consuming MSG at least once in your day. I suggest going into your pantry and cupboards and reading ingredient lists. You will most likely be shocked to find it in almost everything. It's also worth noting that MSG sometimes hides under a variety of other ambiguous names such as “Spice” and other equally misleading names.
If you shop at stores such as Safeway, Wal-Mart, Costco, etc etc. You are definitely buying food every visit that contains MSG.
Why is it so prevalent?
The reason for it's prevalence is because of it's addicting quality. There's a reason why once you pop, you can't stop, and it's name is Monosodium Glutamate. It's salty nature is where it gets the “Flavor Enhancer” title, cause it does do that. But the fact that it is addictive by nature is the main reason it has invaded our food supply.
It is listed as a Safe Food additive, so why as a company would you not want to add it? Makes garbage taste fantastic, and gets customers addicted to the product. Does that not sound like a miracle ingredient for food manufacturers?
It's also worth noting that it is utilized in sit down, formal restaurants as well as fast food. A simple way to find out if they are using MSG is to ask the waiter, and tell him that you are highly allergic. If they do use it, they wont. Or if they are selling you packaged garbage, they will redirect you to something different on the menu.
As I already briefly stated, the addictive quality is bad news for a society that has grown to contain epidemic levels of obesity. The relation of the introduction of MSG and the growing percentage of Obese Americans since, is quite obvious.
MSG Sensitivity is a problem that some may not even be aware they are suffering from. Instead attributing the problems to different issues. Check out a list of Symptoms. It's estimated that potentially upto 30-40% of our society is suffering from MSG sensitivity without even knowing it. Leading to more prescriptions, and poor health. It's also worth mentioning, that although it is listed as a safe additive, society as a whole actually ingests more daily than even they regard as safe. Source
People should eat foods because they enjoy them, not because they are chemically addicted. There's no rocket science analysis skills needed to understand that the prevalence of this ingredient and the nature of deteriorating health in Americans, as well as obesity, are linked. Check sources for expanded information on MSG.
Artificial sweeteners come in a variety of household names Aspartame, Splenda, NutraSweet etc. This is another thing, that unless you are conscious of, are likely ingesting almost everyday. They are essentially, all the same garbage with different names.
Look for the ingredient aspartame. This artificial sweetener was approved by the FDA in 1981. It is packaged under the brand names NutraSweet, Equal and Sugar Twin. It is used in over six thousand products and is usually listed as aspartame in the ingredients list in products like diet soda.
Coincidentally, it was good ol' Rumsfeld who did the pushing of this toxic product. In January of 1981, Rumsfeld, at the time CEO of Searle, announced at a meeting that he was going to push to have Aspartame approved within that year. He argued that his pull in Washington would mean more than science, and that's exactly what happened.
There are 92 Known Side Effects of Aspartame. Again, this leads to falsely diagnosed “conditions” and leads to an over medicated society.
Each artificial sweeter has it's own uses based upon the properties it yields. Some perform while under heat, and are used for baking. Others such as aspartame, are used highly in drinks, especially “diet” drinks. The zero calories, are in no way worth the damage that these chemicals inflict.
Ironically enough, many studies have actually found that those who consume diet soft drinks are over 30% more likely to gain weight. Which seems to defeat the purpose to begin with, and then of course you get 92 other potential reasons why it was a bad choice. Source
If video is your thing, learn all about it in 10 minutes at this YouTube link
Genetically modified foods could well turn out to be one of humanities most devastating blunders. In 2003 scientists announced that the gene sequence of the inserted genes in GMO foods, had actually changed their order. Thus the genetic inserts are not only unstable and changing, but are changing in an unpredictable fashion, which is extremely dangerous. - Esoteric
GMO Crops were given to us by arguably, one of the most diabolical companies on earth, Monsanto. And if you don't already know about Monsanto and their crimes against humanity please take a few minutes to watch some short film pieces.
The World According to Monsanto
The Genetic Conspiracy, Monsanto
There are a variety of detrimental health effects directly related to the use of GMO Crops. I could write an entire thread on this topic alone. Some problems of GMO Crops, tens of thousands of deaths and debilitating disabilities as well as near deaths, Direct Cancer and Degenerative disease links, Super Viruses, Antibiotic threats via milk, Antibiotic and pesticide threats via plants, Birth defects and shorter life spans;
...The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.
Other problems include, soil toxicity, extinction of seed variety, super weeds, plant invasion, terminator trees, super pests, poisonous to mammals, destruction of self sufficient family farming, terminator technology, dependancy issues etc.
Source: 50 Harmful Effects of GMO crops
SAY NO TO GMO CROPS.
Plastics are another common item we deal with practically every single day. The obvious pollution issues need not be discussed as it's common knowledge what this wonderful material we love does to our landfills.
In addition to creating safety problems during production, many chemical additives that give plastic products desirable performance properties also have negative environmental and human health effects. These effects include
Direct toxicity, as in the cases of lead, cadmium, and mercury
Carcinogens, as in the case of diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
Endocrine disruption, which can lead to cancers, birth defects, immune system supression and developmental problems in children.
Chemical Migration from Plastic Packaging into Contents
Find alternatives to plastic products whenever possible. Some specific suggestions:
* Buy food in glass or metal containers; avoid polycarbonate drinking bottles with Bisphenol A
* Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or storing fatty foods in plastic containers or plastic wrap.
* Do not give young children plastic teethers or toys
* Use natural fiber clothing, bedding and furniture
* Avoid all PVC and Styrene products
Buy food in glass or metal containers
Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or storing fatty foods in plastic containers or plastic wrap
Do not give young children plastic teethers or toys
Use natural fiber clothing, bedding and furniture
Avoid all PVC and Styrene products
Disinfection products and others
At one point or another, I am sure almost everyone has had an encounter with one of these products. Be it sanitizing wipes, Purell hand gel, cleaning products etc. For a while the media was on a big push to convince us that germs were our number one enemy and that they must be crushed at all costs.
This leads to over-zealous mothers who feverishly fight the battle on a daily basis. Through knowledge I have come to have over my life, I have noticed that it is most common for the child who had a mom running around sanitizing everything to be the person who is unhealthy most often.
Logic dictates that if your immune system is never given a chance to naturally learn to fight harmful germs, and later on in life you are in an unsanitary environment you are much more likely to get sick. For what it's worth, me and my brother grew up getting into everything two young boys could get into on 10 acres. Constantly dirty, neglecting our hand washing duties and our mom never wiped down anything for us. Ironically enough, we fit the exact opposite of what society recommends, yet were sick very seldom.
Additionally, I personally have not be sick in approximately 8 years. I attribute that to not only my life style selections, but also the fact that I have a very rugged immune system that has been battle hardened through the years of germ fighting.
It's also worth noting that since the disinfection campaign started, there has obviously been a rise in a variety of child hood diseases. Though links between the two are rarely drawn.
Since it's summer time, I figured I would add this cause it's important as well. Products like Sun Screen may actually not be all that the doctor ordered either.
Most sunscreens only block UVB rays, leaving UVA rays to do damage. Because people believe they are protected, it causes people to stay in the sun too long. And interestingly enough, it's UVB rays that make us burn. So our natural warning signal is slowed, and instead of us beginning to burn and realizing it's time to go inside, we stay in the sun far too long.
Furthermore, UVB is how we get Vitamin D naturally. Vitamin D, interestingly enough, is known to help prevent some cancers, most notably, breast and colon. If all this weren't bad enough, keep in mind that when you are lathering yourself up with lotion, you're smearing chemicals all over your skin. Some of those chemicals are toxic, and your pours drink them up and shuttle them all over your body.
The history of the household microwave ovens starts in 1945 when On October 8, 1945 Raytheon filed a U.S. patent for Spencer's microwave cooking process and an oven that heated food using microwave energy was placed in a Boston restaurant for testing. S In 1965 Ratheon, acquired Amana, which introduced the first popular home model, the countertop Radarange in 1967 at a price of US$495. S
For those who don't know, Raytheon is an extremely large Defense contractor of the United States. Some may reffer to it as a “Humanity loving corporation”. Learn more of its accomplishments here.
These days, practically everyone has a microwave, even I have one rotting in the corner of one of my counters. They have become so inexpensive that they are available for under $50. A fraction of what they once used to cost. The quick and easy nature is definitely their largest asset, if I can have a potato in one minute, I'm going to have a damn potato in one minute! But has our complacency with this household object been doing damage to our health and well being?
Challenges to the Safety of Microwaved Water
In 2006 a science fair project by a girl raised the question, does microwaving water effect it negatively? Her grandfather who later published her findings to the internet was just as surprised by the results, as the granddaughter who tested them.
Purified water was heated separately, one by microwave in a plastic container, the other on a stove. Once heated, both were allowed to cool to a normal temperature before both were used to feed two virtually identical plants. Results were immediate as the plant fed with the microwaved water grew slower every single day, ultimately leading to its complete destruction by day 9. Pictures.
Some immediately argued that since the microwaved water was heated in a plastic container, that there may have been a leeching effect of the plastic that lead to the damaging of the plant. Regardless, most people can remember a time where they microwaved something in plastic.
Additionally, the fact that she didn't replicate the experiment several times, with scientific precision it is hard to accept the information as definitive. People also claimed that the pictures show more water on the microwaved plant which people claim is proof of over watering. I disagree with this as I am sure most who have grown crops before will understand, that feeding the same dose of water to two plants, the healthy plant will consume it much quicker than a bleak, dying plant. But, it does not specifically state that they were given the exact same amounts of water each day, which I would hope would have been common sense for an experiment like this.
Furthermore some argue that it's nonsense to think anything has changed in the water. It went in as water and came out water, the same thing that would happen if heated by any other source. A google search will yield several people who use this argument.
So that's that then?
The central issue is whether there's such a thing as a "microwave effect"--that is, whether microwaves do anything that conventional heating methods don't. The main way microwaves heat up a plate of leftovers is by causing the food molecules to vibrate--an accelerated version of what ordinary cooking does. The microwave effect, if it exists, is more mysterious and potentially a lot scarier. For example, some conjecture that certain frequencies of microwave radiation can resonate with food, body tissues, and whatnot. Just as a low-power radio wave reaching a tuned-in boom box can rattle windows, a seemingly innocuous beam of microwave energy striking a harmonically attuned target may have disruptive effects.
More was discovered as microwaves made their way from the kitchen counter
into the lab in the '80s to be used by scientists. Reactions could be sped up exponentially without the use of heavy solvents. This led to some troubling results.
What the scientists soon discovered was that the results the microwaves produced were hardly consistent and often had unexpected and varied results. The wondered, if these unexpected and varied results may be leading to unexpected damage to the quality of the food and liquid we eat.
So are microwave ovens safe? I think that ultimately, the jury is technically still out on this one. But, similar to other topics I have looked into, it seems that popular belief is constantly being challenged by new studies and experience. Since scientists themselves refer to the reaction to what is put into the microwave is varied and inconsistent, almost implies that it could well be hazardous.
There is also a distinction to be made when talking about a simple ingredient such as water is put into a microwave, versus a complex plate of dinner, or organic material like breast milk. The chances for destruction of useful nutrients and bacteria exist in the latter. And also as mentioned, leeching from plastic that holds what is being heated is possible because the accelerated degradation of the plastic molecules. Source. But perhaps the knowledge we possess now is enough to think twice about that one minute potato.
Though not classified as a heavy metal such a lead, it can be dangerous in high levels. Especially since it can accumulate in ones body, the brain being the worst place it can find itself. Higher aluminum levels have also been linked to Alzheimers. 2. 3.
How does it make it into us?
It's used in the manufacturing of cookware, flatware, foil, cans used for soda. It's also used commonly in the following health products: Antacids, Buffered Aspirin, Vaccines, Vaginal Douches, Hemorrhoid Medications, Anti-Diarrhea Medications, Astringents, Nasal Sprays, Baby Powder, Dentures, Lipsticks, Talcum Powder. It's used commonly in the following cooking ingredients, Baking Powder, Self-Rising Flour, Table Salt, Pickling Salt, Processed Cheese, Cake Mix. Source.
Many of the symptoms of aluminum toxicity mimic those of Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis. Colic, rickets, gastrointestinal problems, interference with the metabolism of calcium, extreme nervousness, anemia, headaches, decreased liver and kidney function, memory loss, speech problems, softening of the bones, and aching muscles can all be caused by aluminum toxicity.
Aluminum is excreted by the kidneys, therefore toxic amounts can impair kidney function. Aluminum can also accumulate in the brain causing seizures and reduced mental alertness. The brain is normally protected by a blood-brain barrier, which filters the blood before it reaches it. Elemental aluminum does not pass easily through this barrier, but certain compounds contained within aluminum, such as aluminum fluoride do. Interestingly, many municipal water supplies are treated with both aluminum sulfate and aluminum fluoride. These two chemicals can also combine easily in the blood. Aluminum fluoride is also poorly excreted in the urine.
If you feel that you may be effected by Aluminum Toxicity you can find out with tests. Keep in mind that it is impossible to be completely Aluminum free. But the more it's avoided and removed from your diet and surroundings, its cumulative effect will be slowed and could possibly save you from Alzheimers.
Vaccines have received a lot of attention on ATS in the past, 1300 Girls Harmed by HPV Vaccines. Vaccine Information Thread. Etc etc.
A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains a small amount of an agent that resembles a microorganism. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
I'll start by saying that I have never had a flu vaccine, and I have never had the flu. The same goes for my entire immediate family. People can draw their own conclusions to that statement. I hope some people can provide their own stories in this thread about their vaccine experiences. Have you been vaccinated by the flu, and did you subsequently come down with it?
There is a lot of evidence that Vaccines are far from as safe as claimed by the Manufacturers who reap billions in profit from them. Additionally, studies have found that their appears to be a link between the rise in childhood autism and the use of high levels of mercury in Vaccines. Mercury is added to vaccines as a preservative. 1. 2. 3.
It's also worth noting, that a recent study is out that appears to refute the link. Source. If I reaped the benefits of a billion dollar industry, I may go to some great lengths to make studies support my needs. Whether that's the case, and what the long term effects of the study will be, remains to be known. Keep in mind there have been many, many studies that have made the link, and only one to really refute it.
What about the other dangers, besides Mercury?
The vaccine history is fairly long and dark. Dr Mendelsohn, M.D. (1984) stated:
My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.
SIDS, is the acronym for “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” which as it name suggests, is the spontaneous death of an infant that remains to be completely explained.
The statistics alone are shady enough, but one also needs to realize that statistics collected by the manufacturers are often skewed and deaths are listed as coincidental, or under other terms such as cot death, MSbP & SBS
Smallpox vaccine infant deaths (UK) were estimated at 25,000 in 1880, and 6,000 in 1921.
780,000 people die from Allopathic (vaccinator) iatrogenic disease in the USA every year, 106,000 from adverse drug reactions.
The bottom line: Allopathy has always killed more children than the diseases with vaccination ( 1 2 3 4 ) and the suppression of effective non-Allopathic medicine such as Vitamin C which would prevent all cot-deaths and most other child deaths, (known since 1949
The evidence is overwhelming to anyone who bothers to look. It's also worth noting that it makes no sense to take what could be a toxic vaccine, to stop one strain, when it could mutate the same year and leave you unprotected any ways. Is the risk really worth it? With major death statistics, as well as Severe Adverse Reactions reported world wide, and billions spent compensating victims, say NO to vaccines for you, and especially your children. Cause once they've been damaged, they may never be the same.
Toxic Aids and Cancer Treatments
Recently a lot of discussion was stirred when a mother refused to allow the government to force her child to finish Chemotherapy. Link
Some supported the Judge who over ruled the kids decision to abandon chemo for alternative methods that wouldn't devastate his body and bring him to the edge of death, in hopes of avoiding it. I have seen first hand the destructive effects of chemo first hand. And it's terribly sad to see, especially when it's someone you love. Now don't get me wrong, there are cases where chemo does work. But is it as effective as it is popularly believed?
And why, after trillions of dollars of funding and millions of educated man hours, is there not a treatment that is not only effective most often, but does not require extensively poisoning the body, in hopes of maybe poisoning the cancer while your at it? Is it not fair to demand such results after the expense that has been paid by private donations and tax dollars?
One study goes far for the case of debunking Chemotherapy as an effective treatment. : “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.”
The three authors of the paper are: (1) Graeme Morgan, Associate Professor and radiotherapist at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. (2) Robyn Ward, a senior specialist in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. She is also a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, Research Director Associate Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.
They publish their work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 16, Issue 8, December 2004, pages 549-560. This is a peer-review well-respected medical journal. Their paper was submitted for publication on 18 August 2003. It was revised and finally accepted for publication on 3 June 2004. This means the paper has been scrutinized by fellow doctors and has undergone the normal peer-review process. It is not a back-door, arm-twisting way to get into the pages of the medical journal. Given the above, you and I (and even doctors!) should not have any doubt as to the credibility and validity of what they say in their research paper.
The absolute real-life data that this article carries is most shocking: “The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” In short, they said that the contribution of chemotherapy is not more than 3%.
Not more than 3%? That's our effective chemotherapy situation. And as I mentioned, don't get me wrong, if you find those 3 people in the hundred that it saved, they will tell you it saved your life. If you ask the other 97, they would likely tell you it ruined what life they had left. Results not acceptable considering what has been put into the industry. Once again, profit has become the driving force.
Aids and AZT
From my thread - Aids – We've Been lied to
Up until now, its been treated as a correlation between the two, if you're HIV positive, you will die from AIDS. But what is stumping experts is the fact that not all people with AIDS are HIV positive. HIV Has been around since before the USA, so why did it just start killing people 30 years ago?
The experts in the documentary go over all the evidence and discover that the correlation is not enough since it does not prove true 100% of the time. Retroviruses and viruses in general infect and ravage the host between days and upto a month, but HIV(AIDS) can take upto 10 years, which another thing that doesn't add up.
It appears just like the failed Cancer industry which is simply a ponzi scheme, the Aids industry is alll about the money. Surprise surprise? It may be that AZT the most popular treatment for aids could do more harm than help.
Information derived from the following Documentary
What are we told about AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)
We have been told that it is caused by a tiny retrovirus named HIV, which interesting enough has been around for many, many decades prior to it ever having any link to causing the sudden AIDS epidemic. We are told that anyone of us could be at risk with unsafe sex, and that once diagnosed with HIV, we will eventually die from any one of several debilitating diseases as a result.
Oddly enough, unlike every other retrovirus which attacks it's victims immune system within days, weeks or perhaps a month or two of infection. HIV/AIDS can take up to and exceeding 10 years.
Over 100,000 studies have been conducted and yet there are still no solid links that HIV actually is the cause of AIDS to begin with. Perhaps the industry is barking up the wrong tree, and that's why it has still never delivered a cure almost 30 years later, and after utilizing more resources than it took man to make it to the moon.
How did it go so wrong?
Well, if AIDS has not been caused by HIV then millions of people have been given a diagnosis of death. Additionally, hundreds of thousands have been given drugs that could potentially cause AIDS themselves.
As people rushed to find the cause and cure for AIDS, public pressure mounted, pushing for expedient results. In the haste, one hypothesis was accepted, that HIV was causing AIDS, but it was never peer reviewed and since its acceptance billions in funding, and thousands of jobs now hang in the balance.
The doctors that produced the Hypothesis were Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. M. Essex. This was after failing to find a virus cause for Cancer. He would later be the one to “discover” the retrovirus HIV as the cause of AIDS. Incidentally, as the press conference was going on to announce the probable cause of AIDS was discovered, the test to find HIV was being patented. It would yield royalties to the discoverers (above), and would direct $100,000,000 into the Department of Health Coffers, yearly.
This meant that the AIDS industry had just been born, and the US government was now heavily invested in it's status quo. This would lead to the suppression of contradictory claims and lack of trying anything else. Instead, people decided to continue barking up the wrong tree. It's also the reason, 30 years later, there is still no cure.
AZT – The Deadly Cure
Zidovudine (INN) or azidothymidine (AZT) (also called ZDV) is a nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), a type of antiretroviral drug. It was the first approved treatment for HIV. It is also sold under the names Retrovir and Retrovis, and as an ingredient in Combivir and Trizivir. It is an analog of thymidine.
Can the antiviral drug AZT, given to HIV-positive mothers in pregnancy and to their newborn babies, protect against mother-to-baby transmission of AIDS? The claim that it does so is entirely speculative. Yet the harm done by the drug is extensively documented. [AZT stands for azidothymidine. It is also called zidovudine by the manufacturer and marketed under the name Retrovir.]
AZT treatment strategy is based on a number of beliefs. One is that certain biological signals, such as elevated "viral load" and "HIV" antibodies, signify HIV infection. Another is that HIV infection is the cause of AIDS. If either or both of those suppositions are untrue, as some scientists argue [see adjoining article "Molecular Miscarriage: Is the HIV Theory a Tragic Mistake?"], then all mothers and babies treated in this way are being uselessly exposed to an unquestionably dangerous chemical.
AZT's proven toxicities include severe muscle pain, weakness, and atrophy; heart muscle changes and malfunctions; bone marrow suppression, with consequent anemia and loss of all types of blood cells; liver failure; and broad-ranging and sometimes irreversible loss and poisoning of mitochondria, the energy "factories" within our cells. The drug also leads to permanent DNA damage, and studies in mice and monkeys have raised concerns that babies exposed to AZT in the womb will face an increased risk of cancer when they grow up.
Similarly, an Italian study involving more than 200 HIV-positive children found that at three years old, those born to mothers treated with AZT during pregnancy were significantly more likely to have developed severe disease than children whose mothers were not treated. They also had a higher death rate.
Further information - Aids INC – 2 hour Documentary on the fraud of the AIDS industry.
If we have failed to find the cause, and have been improperly treating it, it could go down as one of the largest medical blunders in history. So in the future, think first before supporting the Cancer and AIDS industry monsters. Some people call the AIDS epidemic, genocide. Source
This topic is from Pretty Vacant's post in Part 1. All props to them, I am simply quoting. Anyone wishing to refute any part of it, is welcomed. Full post, here.
Let's also add some other chemicals to the list which can be readily identified in all too many personal care products and cleaning products:
Polyethylene glycol (PEG), lanolin, diethanolamine (DEA), isopropanol, triethanolamine (TEA), propylene glycol, aluminium, ether, methylene chloride, acetone, mineral oil, triclosan, and the big one sodium lauryl/ laureth sulfate (SLS/ SLES)
.. to name but a few.
Everywhere I go, I look for these chemicals in various products, and I can tell you, they're literally everywhere. I was shocked to find out that they were so commonly used! All of the mentioned chemicals can be found in either hair care products, hair sprays and styling products, hair dyes, toothpaste, mouthwash, antiperspirants, baby products, bubblebath and bodywashes, soap, shaving cream, skin care and cosmetics, fragrances, sunscreen and nail treatments.
And I'm sure these are not strictly limited to this list alone. .
Too many times I've picked up an eco-friendly dish-washing liquid to find sodium laureth sulfate used as a primary ingredient - SLS/ SLES is used in the industrial industry in engine degreasers, car wash soaps and garage floor cleaners. It can lead to direct damage of hair follicles, skin damage, eye damage and even liver toxicity.
Many of these chemicals are either linked to cancer in animals and/ or humans, or are often contaminated with carcinogens, or readily form carcinogen nitrosamines when mixed with other ingredients - such as fluoride, propylene glycol, PEG and acetone; many are identified as accumulating in the organs - such as triclosan, aluminium, and again fluoride and propylene glycol; and many are neurotoxins, which damage the central nervous system or are Teratogens, which affect the embryo, including ether, propylene glycol, lanolin, acetone and methylene chloride.
Propylene glycol can also be found in tyre sealant, rubber cleaner, de-icer, stain removers, fabric softener degreaser, paint, adhesive and wallpaper stripper. It acts as a humescent, which causes retention of moisture content of the skin.
Obviously, products containing these ingredients are allowed on the shelves because the amounts of chemicals used within are not dangerous enough to harm on an individual level. However, it is my belief, that prolonged daily use of products containing such toxins can build up to cause diseases such as cancer.
Replacement of Breast Milk
Another one of the failures of modern society is the move from natural breast feeding of children. I was breast fed as a child and think that it served me well. I knew people growing up that were not, and I have watched people I know have kids and not breast fed them. Personally, I noticed that there seemed to be a link between childhood disorders and the removal of breast feeding as the primary nutrition source for babies.
Studies seem to have confirmed my observations, J Hum Lact. 1997 Jun;13(2):93-7. Published by School of Nursing, Wichita State University, Kansas, USA.
Breastfeeding, a valuable natural resource, promotes health, helps prevent infant and childhood disease, and saves health care costs. Additional annual national health care costs, incurred for treatment of four medical conditions in infant who were not breastfed were estimated. Infant diarrhea in non-breastfed infants costs $291.3 million; respiratory syncytial virus, $225 million; insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, from $9.6 to $124.8 million; and otitis media, $660 million. Thus, these four medical diagnoses alone create just over $1 billion of extra health care costs each year. Breastfeeding may also enhance intellectual development of children according to at least one medical research study. The potential societal benefits of more intelligent children is incalculable even though it cannot be directly measured in terms of dollars.
Finally, it was calculated that an additional $2,665,715 in federal funds is needed yearly in order for WIC to provide infant formula to non-breastfeeding mothers. For the average family, the cost of purchasing formula is twice the cost of supplemental food for the breastfeeding mother. Breastfeeding education and support should be an integral part of health care, especially under managed care which rewards the prevention of health problems and reduced use of health services.
One of the features unique to primate infants is slow early development of the immune system, during which time energy and nutrients are devoted to the growth and development of other systems such as the central nervous and musculoskeletal systems. According to Sellen, lactation is thought to have evolved around 200 million years ago as a means of transferring the protective functions of fully mature immune systems across generations; all mammals derive essential protection from their mothers' milk.
"The mother supports the host defense of the infant in two ways," says Lars Hanson, a clinical immunologist at Göteborg University in Sweden. "One is via antibodies from her blood that are actively transported over the placenta to the infant's circulation during fetal life, and are ready for use from birth on. The other is due to the numerous and complex defense factors provided via the mother's milk, available directly after delivery."
Not only is it harming the child by setting them up for a myriad of possible problems in their future. But studies have also found that the lack of a close relationship between mother and child can lead to a whole host of it's own problems later on in life.
Many researchers have found correlations between secure mother-infant attachment and later psychological and social development. Infants who securely attach to their mothers become more self-reliant toddlers and have a better sense of self-esteem, said Alan Sroufe, PhD, an attachment researcher at the Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota.
He's been following a group of 180 disadvantaged children-now age 19-since before birth, looking at mother-infant attachment and multiple developmental measures such as the kids' expectations from relationships with parents and friends. He's also looking at the children's life stress, success in school and peer relationships.
Sroufe has found that even though these children lead unstable lives, if they had a secure mother-infant attachment they were likely to be self-reliant into adolescence, have lower rates of psychopathology, enjoy successful peer relationships through age 16 and do well in school-especially in math-at all ages.
Pesticides – In Honor of Audus who only likes shouting and not providing sources
More and more studies are defining the link between Pesticides and the growing cancer rates that our society experiences. As if it weren't bad enough that companies like Monsanto were Genetically engineering crops to create more of their own pesticides that leads to toxicity in humans. Studies now find links between the amounts of pesticide pollution and the growing levels of PCB's in humans, to higher levels of Cancer. Source
Not only are the effects on humans devastating, but so are the effects it creates in the soil itself.
Pesticides decrease biodiversity in the soil because they do not just kill the intended pest; they often kill many of the other small organisms present.
When life in the soil is killed off, the soil quality deteriorates and this has a knock-on effect upon the retention of water. This is a problem for farmers particularly in times of drought. At such times, organic farms have been found to have yields 20-40% higher than conventional farms.
Soil fertility is affected in other ways, too. When pesticides kill off most of the active soil organisms, the complex interactions which result in good fertility break down.
Plants depend on millions of bacteria and fungi to bring nutrients to their rootlets. When these cycles are disrupted plants become more dependent upon exact doses of chemical fertilizers at regular intervals. Even so, the fantastically rich interactions in healthy soil cannot be fully replicated by the farmer with chemicals
Effects of Pesticide Pollution on Humans
Pesticides can also endanger workers during production, transportation, or during and after use.
Bystanders may also be affected at times, for example walkers using public rights of way on adjacent land or families whose homes are close by crop spraying activities.
One of the main hazards of pesticide use is to farm workers and gardeners.
A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, discovered a 70% increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease for people exposed to even low levels of pesticides.
Diet as a Source
The main source of exposure to pesticides for most people is through diet.
A study in 2006 measured organophosphorus levels in 23 school children before and after changing their diet to organic food. The levels of organophosphorus exposure dropped immediately and dramatically when the children began the organic diet.
Residues, set by governments, are limited to tolerance levels that are considered safe, based on average daily consumption of these foods by adults and children. But, as we all know, some people do not behave as average!
What can be done?
Some pesticides are so toxic that their use is restricted to licensed, trained applicators. In the US it is a violation to apply any pesticide in any way that is not in accordance with the label for that pesticide. Further, it is a crime to do so intentionally.
In most counties pesticides are classified according to their toxicity. Most acute pesticide poisonings result from disregarding the label directions.
If you must use toxic pesticides at all (and there are usually safer alternatives) - then the most important advice is: Read the label! - and then follow the instructions to the letter.
Apart from political action, anyone who is concerned about the toxic effects of pesticides should try to eat organic food whenever possible. Organic foods are grown without toxic pesticides for the most part.
If you are growing food or flowers and other plants at home, consider doing everything by organic methods. There are many strategies available to organic gardeners to avoid attacks by pests.
The toxic effects of pesticides on our foods and our land and the effects on our health and the health of our children make it an issue which is sure to become more and more crucial.