Chiropractic Elk Grove
Chiropractor Elk Grove, South Sacramento, Galt & Laguna (916) 685-1230
8580 Elk Ridge Way, Elk Grove, CA 95624

Chiropractic Elk Grove

High levels of BPA cause sperm problems, study finds

October 28th, 2010 . by admin

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

For the first time, a study in humans suggests that a
controversial, estrogen-like chemical in plastic may
be related to conditions that reduce men’s fertility.

Men with higher levels of BPA, or bisphenol A, were
two to four times more likely than others to have
problems with sperm quality and quantity, the study
shows.

BISPHENOL A: What to know about ‘everywhere
chemical’

In particular, men with high levels of BPA in urine
and semen were more likely to have fewer sperm
overall, fewer live sperm and poor semen quality.
Their sperm also had more problems swimming,
according to a study of 514 Chinese workers,
published today by doctors from Kaiser Permanente
in Fertility and Sterility.

Earlier studies by the same researchers also linked
higher BPA levels with sexual functioning problems,
such as low libido or impotence, says author De-
Kun Li of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in
Oakland.

Those problems can make men less fertile, says
Tracey Woodruff of the University of California-San
Francisco. The study has several strengths,
Woodruff says. For example, measures such as
sperm count provide more solid evidence of BPA’s
effects, unlike subjective measures such as men’s
rating of their libidos.

The men studied, some of whom worked in factories
that exposed them to BPA, had levels that were
within the range allowed by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Li says. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has found BPA — in many
plastic bottles, the lining of metal cans and other
consumer products — in the urine of more than 90%
of Americans.

A growing number of researchers and consumer
advocates are concerned about BPA, which acts like
the female hormone estrogen and can block male
hormones, such as testosterone. It has been shown
to cause harm in hundreds of animal studies,
including effects on male reproductive organs such
as the testes and prostate, says University of
Missouri researcher Frederick vom Saal.

Now, studies are beginning to confirm some of the
same effects on people, Li says.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry
group, says BPA has been safely used for 50 years.

Glaxo to Pay $750 Million for Sale of Bad Products

October 27th, 2010 . by admin

Glaxo to Pay $750 Million for Sale of Bad ProductsBy GARDINER HARRIS and DUFF WILSON
GlaxoSmithKline, the British drug giant, has agreed to pay $750 million to settle criminal and civil complaints that the company for years knowingly sold contaminated baby ointment and an ineffective antidepressant — the latest in a growing number of whistle-blower lawsuits that drug makers have settled with multimillion-dollar fines.

Altogether, GlaxoSmithKline sold 20 drugs with questionable safety that were made at a huge plant in Puerto Rico that for years was rife with contamination.

Cheryl D. Eckard, the company’s quality manager, asserted in her whistle-blower suit that she had warned Glaxo of the problems but the company fired her instead of addressing them. Among the drugs affected were Paxil, an antidepressant; Bactroban, an ointment; Avandia, a troubled diabetes drug; Coreg, a heart drug; and Tagamet, an acid reflux drug. No patients were known to have been sickened, although such cases would be difficult to trace.

In a rising wave, recent lawsuits have asserted that drug makers misled patients and defrauded federal and state governments that, through Medicare and Medicaid, pay for much of health care.

Using claims from industry insiders, federal prosecutors are not only demanding record fines but are hinting at more severe actions.

Suffering a research drought, drug makers have laid off thousands of employees. Some of those dispatched have in turn filed whistle-blower lawsuits that can lead to criminal investigations.

Justice Department officials announced the settlement in a news conference Tuesday afternoon in Boston, saying a $150 million payment to settle criminal charges was the largest such payment ever by a manufacturer of adulterated drugs. The outcome also provides $600 million in civil penalties. The share to the whistle-blower will be $96 million, one of the highest such awards in a health care fraud case.

When asked whether any individual could be charged in addition to the corporation charges, Carmen M. Ortiz, the United States attorney for Massachusetts, would say only that the investigation was not yet complete.

GlaxoSmithKline released a statement saying that it regretted operating the Puerto Rico plant in violation of good manufacturing practices. The company said the problem had involved only one plant that was closed in 2009. American shares in the company fell 0.35 percent on Tuesday.

Tony West, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s civil division, said hundreds of such lawsuits were awaiting federal review.

“We’ve opened more investigations, we’ve recovered more taxpayer dollars lost to fraud, we’ve had more convictions, higher penalties and fines in the last two years than we’ve had in any other two-year period,” Mr. West said in an interview.

Whistle-blowers who win earn a cut of the eventual fine. Ms. Eckard will collect $96 million from the federal government, and she will collect additional millions from states.

The suits, all filed under seal, have for years been rising in size and scope, but the collective threat to the industry has been largely unnoticed because the growing mountain is obscured by a wall of judicial secrecy. Each successful claim begets more suits, with more being filed almost every week.

The suits are filed under a federal law originally intended to stop Civil War hucksters from selling rancid meat to the Union Army by paying bounties to tipsters. The pharmaceutical industry has become the law’s most successful target because the government now buys far more pills than bullets, and because fraud in health care is common.

Health care cases accounted for some 80 percent of the $3.1 billion recovered by the Justice Department under the false claims act last year, the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund, a nonprofit whistle-blower advocacy group in Washington, reported on Monday. Most of the money is typically returned to the programs in which false claims were filed, like Medicaid and Medicare.

The Food and Drug Administration and the inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department both announced recently that they would pursue charges against executives personally under a strict liability provision of the law, something that has not been done since 2007 when the three top executives of Purdue Pharma were convicted, sentenced to probation and personally fined $34 million while Purdue paid $600 million.

The rule allows executives to be prosecuted and barred from government sales even if they were not aware of specific violations.

Legislation could make such claims easier to win. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that permits executives to be barred even if they have left the company where the fraud occurred and that permits the inspector general to prosecute parent companies for the sins of subsidiaries.

Pfizer alone has settled four whistle-blower cases since 2002, and it paid a $2.3 billion fine last year, the largest in history. Whistle-blower cases have become so routine that Wall Street no longer takes much notice of individual suits, while the growing trend remains hidden.

When GlaxoSmithKline announced in July that it was setting aside $2.4 billion for legal costs, including enough to pay for the investigation into its Puerto Rico problems, the announcement was greeted with a yawn.

Still, the case may lead to a collective industry shiver because it opens a new frontier for whistle-blower suits. Nearly all previous cases against the industry involved illegal marketing. This is the first successful case ever to assert that a drug maker knowingly sold contaminated products.

“This case will change the way drug makers run their factories,” Ms. Eckard’s lawyer, Neil Getnick, said.

Some of the antidepressant Paxil CR produced at the plant was ineffective because a layer of active ingredient split from a layer of a barrier chemical during manufacturing, the government said, and some lots contained only the barrier chemical.

“The harm is really in the public’s confidence in the health care industry,” Ms. Ortiz said. “When you go to a pharmacy and you buy a drug, you expect that drug is what it purports to be and you don’t expect it to have any micro-organisms or not be sterile or not have the power or have too much power.”

Ms. Eckard’s role in the case began in August 2002 when GlaxoSmithKline sent her to Cidra, south of San Juan, to lead a team of 100 quality experts to fix problems cited by an F.D.A. warning letter a month earlier.

This was GlaxoSmithKline’s premier manufacturing facility, producing $5.5 billion of product each year. But Ms. Eckard soon discovered that quality control was a mess: the water system was contaminated; the air system allowed for cross-contamination between products; the warehouse was so overcrowded that rented vans were used for storage; the plant could not ensure the sterility of intravenous drugs for cancer; and pills of differing strengths were sometimes mixed in the same bottles.

Although F.D.A. inspectors had spotted some problems, most were missed. And the company abandoned even the limited fixes it promised to conduct, the unsealed lawsuit says. Ms. Eckard complained repeatedly to senior managers; little was done. She recommended recalls of defective products; recalls were not authorized. In May 2003, she was terminated as a “redundancy.”

She complained to top company executives, but she was ignored even after warning that she would call the F.D.A. So she called the F.D.A. and sued. The agency began a criminal investigation and used armed federal marshals in 2005 to seize nearly $2 billion worth of products, the largest such seizure in history. Unable to fix the plant, GlaxoSmithKline closed it in 2009.

10 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than a Flu!

October 26th, 2010 . by admin

Submitted by Buzz Team on Wednesday, 20 October 201059 Comments.4397
Share3diggs
diggThe verdict is out on flu shots. Many medical experts now agree it is more important to protect yourself and your family from the flu vaccine than the flu itself. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind this verdict:

1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots are only able to protect against certain strains of the virus, which means that if you come into contact with a different strain of virus you will still get the flu.

2.) Medical journals have published thousands of articles revealing that injecting vaccines can actually lead to serious health problems including harmful immunological responses and a host of other infections. This further increases the body’s susceptibility to the diseases that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.

3.) Ever noticed how vaccinated children within days or few weeks develop runny noses, pneumonia, ear infections and bronchiolitis? The reason is the flu virus introduced in their bodies which creates these symptoms. It also indicates immuno-suppression i.e. lowering of the immunity. The flu vaccines actually do not immunize but sensitize the body against the virus.

4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases.

5.) The Flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. The amount of mercury contained in a multi-dose flu shot is much higher than the maximum allowable daily exposure limit. Mercury toxicity can cause memory loss, depression, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances, respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases and many more such serious health ailments.

And what about the elderly? Can the flu vaccine help them?

6.) There is mounting evidence that flu shots can cause Alzheimer’s disease. One report shows that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3 to 5 years had a 10-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots. Also with age the immune system weakens, thus lowering your ability to fight off infections. Introducing the flu virus in the bodies of elderly could have dangerous consequences.

Can we trust the authorities who are promoting the wide-spread use of flu vaccines?

7.) The Center for Disease Control appoints a 15-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is responsible for deciding who should be vaccinated each year. Almost all the ACIP have a financial interest in immunizations. It’s all about the money and may have very little to do with your health and well being. The very people pushing these vaccines stand to make billions of dollars. This itself creates a doubt on how effective these flu vaccines really are?

8.) Research shows that over-use of the flu-vaccine and drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can actually alter flu viruses and cause them to mutate into a more deadly strain. Couple this with drug resistant strains and you have virtually no benefits with much risk.

9.) There is enough evidence that shows that the ingredients present in the flu vaccinations can actually cause serious neurological disorders. In the 1976 swine flu outbreak, many who got the flu shots developed permanent nerve damage. Flu vaccines can contain many harmful materials including detergent, mercury, formaldehyde, and strains of live flu virus. Is this what you want to put in YOUR body?

10.) Trying to guess what strain to vaccinate against each season has proved to be no more effective than a guessing game. This has been very true in recent years with the H1N1 strain. Moreover getting multi-shots will only prove more dangerous as different strains of viruses and harmful ingredients are introduced into your body.

Flu shots are indeed more dangerous than you could think, and it is best to rely on natural ways to protect against the flu rather than getting yourself vaccinated.

Isn’t it interesting that the main stream public health officials never promote the various proven ways to avoid the flu other than through vaccination? How about spending some of the billions of advertising dollars teaching us natural ways to boost our immune systems and avoid the flu without harmful and sometimes deadly vaccinations.

Backlash grows against full-body airport scanners

October 25th, 2010 . by admin

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Worldwide, a backlash is growing against the push to install full-body scanners at airports.

The machines, which take a three-dimensional picture beneath a person’s clothing, were first introduced after the alleged “Christmas Day” attempt to bomb a plane headed for Detroit. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has already purchased 500 of the machines at a cost of $80 million. More than 100 have already been installed, and the government plans to put 1,000 in place by the end of 2011. They have also been adopted in the United Kingdom.

But concerns over the effectiveness of the machines, as well as their implications for passenger health and privacy, are on the rise. In October, the U.S. Government Accountability Office warned that the machines are being deployed without sufficient tests of their effectiveness. In March, it restated a concern that it “remains unclear” whether the scanners could have detected the explosives carried by the alleged Christmas Day bomber.

The International Air Transport Association, representing 250 airlines around the world, has also spoken out against the machines, warning that the TSA lacks “a strategy and a vision” for integrating the devices into an overall security plan.

“The TSA is putting the cart before the horse,” association spokesperson Steve Lott said.

Then in June, the European Commission issued a report warning that the health risks of the devices are unknown, and that they should not be used on children, pregnant women or people with disabilities.

Because the machines can generate naked pictures of passengers, critics have also raised concerns over passenger privacy and abuse of the images by security workers.

Citing such health and privacy concerns, the government of Dubai recently announced that it will not use the machines.

The final straw for many passengers is that the devices take significantly longer to pass through than a metal detector.

“The system takes three to five times as long as walking through a metal detector,” said Phil Bush of Atlanta. “This looks to be yet another disaster waiting to happen.”

TSA regulations allow passengers to opt out of screening with the full-body scanners.

Several nations having flu shots for babies

October 21st, 2010 . by admin

Several nations banning flu shots for babies

This summer, after one baby girl died, and more than 250 other children were hospitalized with convulsions and high fevers following their seasonal flu vaccine injections, Australian health banned the shot for all children under the age of five.

A short time later, Finland also suspended the H1N1 vaccines due to six reports of narcolepsy in children and teens immediately following vaccination. According to The Helsinki Times, “Medical reports suggest that over 750 of those who have been vaccinated have experienced harmful effects.”

In Sweden, an investigation was launched after cases of post-vaccination narcolepsy appeared in children there as well.

“The vaccines appear to be causing a pattern of neurological disorders affecting children and teens across the planet,” said a report in India’s Bharat Chronicle.

A public outcry was raised after it was revealed that Australian officials apparently were aware of the problem for several weeks yet withheld the information and continued to encourage parents with infants, children, and teens to be vaccinated with H1N1.

Health officials at first tried to convince the public that there was no “causal” relationship between the vaccine and the side effects but even the Australian coroner had to admit he couldn’t rule out that the flu shot was responsible for the death of two-year-old Brisbane toddler Ashley Jade Epapara.

Next, the blame was put on a “bad batch” of vaccines manufactured by Australia’s biopharmaceutical company CSL under the name Fluvax. “This is not a long-term safety issue with vaccines,” University of Western Australia School of Paediatrics and Child Health Associate Professor Peter Richmond told WAToday.

In the US, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) announced in August that “Afluria [the version of Fluvax approved by the FDA for use in North America] should not be used in children aged 6 months through 8 years.”

Although health officials around the world were trying to calm parents by suggesting the reactions were relatively rare and not the effect of the vaccine itself (only of “rogue” batches), parents weren’t reassured.

“My 6 children all got the flu shot on Tuesday the 21st of April. Within hours they were violently ill. Fevers above 39c, vomiting. We are now day three, they all have severe headaches, fevers, aches and pains and the runs. This is terrible, people have known about this for weeks. This is being played down by the health department. I would like to know if there will be any long turn health issues for my family. I am sure there are more than 22 children ill. Well I have six of them. I want answers,” stated one woman in the WAToday comments section accompanying the article.

Is Salt Killing You?

October 20th, 2010 . by admin

Salt is one of the most basic and ubiquitous food seasonings. Historically, salt has been an extraordinarily valuable food preservative for most cultures in the world. Natural salt contains a vast array of essential minerals and continues to be incredibly valuable for our health. Today, modern refineries have chemically altered most salt making it hazardous for human consumption.

Typical table salt is composed of 97.5% sodium chloride and 2.5% chemicals such as anti-flow and anti-caking agents. Table salt is bleached and processed with excessive heat that alters the natural chemical structure and destroys essential trace minerals. Hazardous molecules such as iodine and fluoride are added along with toxic substances like aluminum hydroxide (used as an anti-moisture additive).

This processing takes the “life” out of the salt making the unnatural sodium chloride and chemical fillers more challenging to metabolize. The body must sacrifice tremendous amounts of energy and up to 23 times the cell water to neutralize the damaging effects of the salt. The inability of the body to effectively neutralize these toxic substances results in:

Unsightly cellulite

Rheumatoidism, arthritis, & gout

Kidney & Gall Bladder stones

High Blood Pressure

Many people have turned to sea salts for their regular salt usage. Unfortunately, many of our lakes and oceans are loaded with toxic poisons like mercury, PCBs and dioxin. Oil spills can toxify a lake or ocean’s salt stores for decades after the incident. Over 85% of all sea salt producers are using a refining process for their salt production. Based on this understanding it is wise to assume that sea salt can no longer be trusted as a pure source of essential salts.

Pink salts are one of the very few varieties of salts that have remained pure and stable in nature. Natural pink salts are known for their essential trace minerals and their ability to regulate cellular fluid balance. These salts take on their color due to the presence of iron oxide and their abundance of essential trace minerals. These minerals are in a very small colloidal form and inter-connected in structure allowing for easy absorption and a nutrient synergy that exponentially enhances their effect in the body.

Pink salt is often labeled based on its geography. The most reputable type of pink salt is Himalayan Salt although it is also found in Hawaii, Australia, Peru, Utah, and Poland.

Contrary to popular belief these salts do not elevate blood pressure. Their ability to regulate fluid balance allows them to naturally stabilize blood pressure at a healthy and supportive level for the body. Some of the other benefits of pink salts include:

Promoting blood sugar health Energy Production

Absorption of food particles Supports vascular & respiratory health.

Promoting sinus health. Prevention of muscle cramps.

Promoting bone strength. Regulating your sleep & moods

Supporting your libido. Enhances immune function

Stabilizes heart rate & blood pressure Extracts excess acidity

Pink salts provide a great remedy for asthma and allergy symptoms as well. The salts have a unique ability to unplug the thick mucus secretions in the lungs & stop overflow of nasal secretions when water is plentiful. As a natural anti-histamine, one can drink 2-3 cups of purified water with a pinch of healthy salts.

These salts are powerful hygiene and detox agents that can be applied to soaps, body rubs and baths. The salts help thwart off bacteria, viruses, fungus and other opportunistic organisms. They also drive toxins out of the cells and tissues.

Remember to listen to your body when it comes to the use of these powerhouse salts. Certain body types depend on more salts than others. If you crave salts, you are typically in need of trace minerals. Follow your instincts and use a bit more pink salt on your foods. If you have no craving for salts then only use small amounts of pink salts.

Kids drinks frequently contaminated with lead

October 19th, 2010 . by admin

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Eighty-five percent of beverages marketed to children contain levels of lead high enough to require a warning under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, popularly known as Prop. 65.

The nonprofit Environmental Law Foundation used previously published studies to evaluate which kinds of food products were most likely to contain lead, then used an Environmental Protection Agency-certified lab to test 146 products from these categories that are specifically marketed for children. In addition to juices, products tested included fruit cocktail mixes, packaged peaches and pears, and baby food.

A full 125 of the products tested — more than 85 percent — contained more than the 0.5 microgram threshold beyond which Prop. 65 requires a “clear and reasonable” warning on the packaging.

The FDA classifies lead exposures up to 6 micrograms per day as tolerable, but the American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that no “safe level” of lead exposure exists, in part because the heavy metal accumulates in the body over the course of a lifetime.

“Lead exposure among children is a particular concern because their developing bodies absorb lead at a higher rate and because children are particularly sensitive to lead’s toxic effects, including decreased I.Q.,” said Dr. Barbara G. Callahan of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Lead damages the central nervous system, including the brain, and can produce anemia, behavioral problems, learning disabilities and hearing loss.

The products found to be contaminated included Earth’s Best Organics Apple Juice, Trader Joe’s Certified Organic Apple Juice (pasteurized), Del Monte 100% Juice Fruit Cocktail, Safeway Diced Peaches in Light Syrup, and S&W Sun Pears Premium. A full list is available at http://www.envirolaw.org/documents/….

The Environmental Law Foundation has sent a letter to the producers of the contaminated products, as well as to California law enforcement, asking for compliance with Prop. 65.

Sources for this story include: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyl… ; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs….

Terminal cancer patients routinely exploited by high-profit screening scams even as death approaches

October 13th, 2010 . by admin

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Want to know the disturbing truth about the greed-driven cancer industry? I’ve written about it using blunt language here on NaturalNews, and awareness is spreading. People are sick of pinkwashing nonsense, and they’re wising up to the fundraising “run for the cure” scams that only funnel more money into corrupt, Pharma-dominated cancer non-profits.

Now a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association sheds new light on just how cruel and greedy the cancer industry really is. It turns out that even when cancer patients are terminal — meaning they’re expected to die soon — the cancer industry herds them into yet more screening, mammograms, biopsies and lab tests in order to generate more profits from Medicare before the patient expires.

It turns out they’re still irradiating women with mammograms even though these women already have “incurable” cancers! (Incurable by conventional medicine, that is.)

Even according to cancer industry doctors, patients who have less than 10 years left to live receive no benefit from cancer screening. So why are such patients being subjected to a barrage of cancer screening tests? Because the tests make more money for the cancer industry!

Hurry, make more money before they die!
It’s almost as if they’re saying, “Gee, these patients are about to expire, and we can’t bill Medicare if they’re already dead, so hurry up and run some tests before they die!”

Never mind the fact that such tests don’t help the patient at all. In fact, these tests can be invasive, painful and psychologically damaging. They put patients through hell in order to rake in some additional profits in the last few days, weeks or months before the cancer patient dies.

That’s the truth about how the cancer industry really operates. To them, people are just profit machines to be exploited.

This is now evidenced by the cancer industry’s own actions, by the way. It’s one thing to accuse the cancer industry of being driven by greed (which I’ve done on many occasions), but it’s another thing entirely for the industry to be caught red handed in a study published in JAMA and funded by the National Cancer Institute that documents this systematic abuse of patients.

Turning a human being into sick profits
The sad, sick truth of the matter is that both cancer screening and cancer treatments are profit centers for hospitals and cancer clinics. The more people they can screen, diagnose and treat with toxic chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, the more money they can collect off that person before they die.

A dying cancer patient is a cash cow to the cancer industry because doctors can try almost anything and say they’re holding out for “hope” that something might work. It’s called “heroic medicine” but there are no heroes, really. Just cowards in the form of the cancer doctors exploiting patients for profit. Many conventional doctors have come to realize that a terminal cancer patient is like a blank check that they can cash in for huge financial gains.

I knew a cancer patient described as terminal by the doctors who was offered an “experimental” cancer drug which would involve a series of weekly injections. The only catch? The bill was $14,000 a month and you have to pay out of pocket since no insurance would cover it.

Drug companies and cancer doctors pressure cancer patients to try these useless “experimental” therapies not as a way to actually cure their cancers but as a way to extract their entire life savings before they die.

No one has ever been cured by chemotherapy
The conventional cancer industry, you see, has cured no one. There isn’t a single person who has ever been cured by chemotherapy because chemotherapy does not cure cancer, it only poisons the body. In fact, cancer doctors practicing today will tell you straight up that “there are no cures for cancer” which is they are “looking for the cure” by selling pink products and taking your donation money.

The cancer industry, you see, has a zero percent success rate at curing cancer. Think about it: After billions of dollars, three decades of research, and millions of cancer victims dead from chemotherapy and radiation, the cancer industry has not produced even a single success story of someone who was CURED of cancer. Not a single one!

How’s that for a failed approach to cancer? And they claim that if they only had a few billion more dollars, then they would be able to find the cure. Do you smell something fishy with that?

Meanwhile, in the world of natural medicine, people are cured of cancer every day. Well, technically they are not cured from the outside but rather are healed from the inside so that their cancer disappears and they regain full immune system health. It’s so common in the world of natural health that the really good cancer doctors don’t even consider cancer to be much of a challenge. I know of one cancer doctor who produces cancer cures every week at his clinic in Florida. But he has one rule: He will not see patients who have poisoned their bodies with chemotherapy. “They’re too far gone and cannot heal themselves,” he explains.

No wonder the conventional industry has zero success stories of people cured of cancer. Now, sure, they have some “remission” stories of people who temporarily “conquered” cancer, but guess what? Cancer always comes back in those people! And why? Because their body’s defenses have now been poisoned by chemotherapy, making them even more vulnerable to tumor growth.

Cancer patients come and go, you see, but the cancer industry keeps churning along, trading bodies for dollars, causing unimaginable human suffering just so it can keep itself alive with an infusion of new daily profits. Now, even the peer-reviewed medical journals are starting to see the ugly truth of just how profit-driven this industry really is.

I am confident that one day this present era of medicine will be characterized as a “Dark Ages” of medicine, driven by egos, profits and greed. Chemotherapy will be seen as utterly senseless, and radiation therapy as barbaric. Future generations will look back upon the pinkwashing, the “Run for the Cure” fundraising and the free mammogram drives and just shake their heads in disbelief, wondering, “How could they have all been so stupid?”

The answer to that is complex, of course. Some people aren’t stupid. They’re the ones reading NaturalNews and taking charge of their health to prevent cancer in the first place. There are lots of smart, informed people around who don’t buy into the cancer industry’s ridiculous propaganda and disease fear mongering. It’s the masses, however, that fall for the cancer industry quackery that has now become so routine that almost no one questions it.

And in understanding their stupidity, you have to remember that they’ve all been dosed with fluoride in the drinking water and injected with brain-harming seasonal flu vaccines. They’re also living on chemically-altered, genetically modified processed junk food. Thus, they probably don’t have their full mental faculties up and running, and it’s difficult for them to think clearly enough to resist cancer industry propaganda.

How to brand a disease — and sell a cure

October 12th, 2010 . by admin

How to brand a disease — and sell a cure
By Carl Elliott, Special to CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Carl Elliott: Drug makers have mastered the art of branding medical conditions to sell cures
By creating a brand, firms can make consumers feel taking a drug is needed
The disease branding tends to overlook the potential side effects of the drug, he says
Elliott: Paxil was marketed to treat “social anxiety disorder,” once known as “shyness”
RELATED TOPICS
GlaxoSmithKline plc
Paxil
Anxiety and Panic Disorders
Marketing
Editor’s note: Dr. Carl Elliott, an M.D. and Ph.D., is the author of “White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine” (Beacon Press, 2010).

(CNN) — If you want to understand the way prescription drugs are marketed today, have a look at the 1928 book, “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays, the father of public relations in America.

For Bernays, the public relations business was less about selling things than about creating the conditions for things to sell themselves. When Bernays was working as a salesman for Mozart pianos, for example, he did not simply place advertisements for pianos in newspapers. That would have been too obvious.

Instead, Bernays persuaded reporters to write about a new trend: Sophisticated people were putting aside a special room in the home for playing music. Once a person had a music room, Bernays believed, he would naturally think of buying a piano. As Bernays wrote, “It will come to him as his own idea.”

Just as Bernays sold pianos by selling the music room, pharmaceutical marketers now sell drugs by selling the diseases that they treat. The buzzword is “disease branding.”

To brand a disease is to shape its public perception in order to make it more palatable to potential patients. Panic disorder, reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, restless legs syndrome, bipolar disorder, overactive bladder, ADHD, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, even clinical depression: All these conditions were once regarded as rare until a marketing campaign transformed the brand.

Once a branded disease has achieved a degree of cultural legitimacy, there is no need to convince anyone that a drug to treat it is necessary. It will come to him as his own idea.

Disease branding works especially well for two kinds of conditions. The first is the shameful condition that can be destigmatized. For instance, when Pharmacia launched Detrol in the late 1990s, the condition the drug treated was known to doctors as “urge incontinence.” Patients called it “accidentally peeing in my pants” and were embarrassed to bring it up with their physicians.

Pharmacia fixed the problem by rebranding the condition as “overactive bladder.” Whereas “incontinence” suggested weakness and was associated mainly with elderly women, the phrase “overactive bladder” evoked a supercharged organ frantically working overtime.

To qualify for a diagnosis of “overactive bladder,” patients did not actually have to lose bladder control.” They simply needed to go to the bathroom a lot.

The vice president of Pharmacia, Neil Wolf, explained the branding strategy in a 2002 presentation called “Positioning Detrol: Creating a Disease.” By creating the disease of “overactive bladder,” Wolf claimed, Pharmacia created a market of 21 million potential patients.

Another good candidate for branding is a condition that can be plausibly portrayed as under-diagnosed. Branding such a condition assures potential patients that they are part of a large and credible community of sufferers. For example, in 1999, the FDA approved the antidepressant Paxil for the treatment of “social anxiety disorder,” a condition previously known as “shyness.”

See more CNN.com opinion articles

In order to convince shy people they had social anxiety disorder, GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil, hired a PR firm called Cohn and Wolfe. Cohn and Wolfe put together a public awareness campaign called “Imagine being allergic to people,” which was allegedly sponsored by a group called the “Social Anxiety Disorders Coalition.”

GlaxoSmithKline also recruited celebrities like Ricky Williams, the NFL running back, and paid them to give interviews to the press about their own social anxiety disorder. Finally, they hired academic psychiatrists working on social anxiety disorder and sent them out on the lecture circuit in the top 25 media markets.

The results were remarkable. In the two years before Paxil was approved for social anxiety, there were only about 50 references to social anxiety disorder in the press. But in 1999, during the PR campaign, there were over a billion references.

Within two years Paxil had become the seventh most profitable drug in America, and Cohn and Wolfe had picked up an award for the best PR campaign of 1999. Today, social anxiety disorder, far from being rare, is often described as the third most common mental illness in the world.

It is hard to brand a disease without the help of physicians, of course. So drug companies typically recruit academic “thought leaders” to write and speak about any new conditions they are trying to introduce. It also helps if the physicians believe the branded condition is dangerous.

When AstraZeneca introduced Prilosec (and later Nexium) for heartburn, for example, it famously repositioned heartburn as “gastroesophageal reflux disease,” or GERD. But it also commissioned research to demonstrate the devastating consequences of failing to treat it.

If all drugs were harmless, disease branding would be relatively harmless, too. But no drug is completely benign.

For example, Detrol can make elderly people delirious and may cause memory problems. Paxil is associated with sexual dysfunction and dependence. It also carries a black-box warning for suicide in children and adolescents. Side effects like these are a part of every drug. But they are never part of the brand.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Carl Elliott.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/11/elliott.branding.disease/index.html?hpt=C2

500,000 kids a year have bad reactions to common drugs

October 5th, 2010 . by admin

Posted 9/29/2009 8:14 PM

CHICAGO (AP) — More than half a million U.S.
children yearly have bad reactions or side effects
from widely used medicines that require medical
treatment and sometimes hospitalization, new
research shows.

Children younger than age 5 are most commonly
affected. Penicillin and other prescription antibiotics
are among drugs causing the most problems,
including rashes, stomachaches and diarrhea.

Parents should pay close attention when their
children are started on medicines since “first-time
medication exposures may reveal an allergic
reaction,” said lead author Dr. Florence Bourgeois, a
pediatrician with Children’s Hospital in Boston.

Doctors also should tell parents about possible
symptoms for a new medication, she said.

The study appears in October’s Pediatrics, released
Monday.

It’s based on national statistics on patients’ visits to
clinics and emergency rooms between 1995 and
2005. The number of children treated for bad drug
reactions each year was mostly stable during that
time, averaging 585,922.

Bourgeois said there were no deaths resulting from
bad reactions to drugs in the data she studied, but
5% of children were sick enough to require
hospitalization.

The study involved reactions to prescribed drugs,
including accidental overdoses. They were used for
a range of ailments including ear infections, strep
throat, depression and cancer. Among teens,
commonly used medicines linked with troublesome
side effects included birth control pills. Bad
reactions to these pills included menstrual
problems, nausea and vomiting.

Children younger than 5 accounted for 43% of visits
to clinics and emergency rooms; followed by teens
aged 15 to 18, who made up about 23% of the visits.

Similar numbers of hospitalized children — about
540,000 yearly — also have bad reactions to drugs,
including side effects, medicine mix-ups and
accidental overdoses, recent government research
suggests.

The new report indicates children at home are just
as vulnerable.

Michael Cohen, president of the Institute for Safe
Medication Practices, said a common problem
involves giving young children liquid medicine.
Doses can come in drops, teaspoons or milliliters,
and parents may mistakenly think those amounts are
interchangeable.

Cohen said doctors should be clear about doses
and parents should be sure before leaving the
pharmacy that they understand exactly how to give
liquid medicine.

The study was funded by the National Library of
Medicine and the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights
reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

« Previous Entries