Archive for 05/09/15

Home » Archive for 05/09/15

Vaccinations - they have had little or no impact

If you listen to the Conventional Medical Establishment, you would believe that it is vaccines that have 'saved' us from so many terrible, deadly disesases.

It isn't true, of course. I realised this when reading Ivan Illich's book 'Medical Nemesis' (I believe in the 1970s). He published several graphs that demonstrated that these diseases were in decline, and had been in significant decline long before vaccines were introduced.

Further, the graphs indicated that after the introduction of vaccines, there was no significant change in the decline of these disease.

I am delighted, therefore, to have found a website that has published several similar graphs. If you are someone who believes that vaccination has 'saved' us from these killer diseases, you should really look at them.

http://gaia-health.com/articles101/000123-InfectiousDiseaseVaccines.PDF

So the great triumph of ConMed is just another Big Pharma lie!

Informed Consent - the Dark Heart of ConMed

"Doctors are deliberately withholding information about the dangers of some routine screening and clinical procedures - often because they fear patients would then refuse treatment".

So begins a Special Report on 'Informed Consent' in the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), May 2012. The report discusses the information patients are given about their treatment, and raises the important question:

Are patients giving their true, informed consent to medical treatment?

"Although it happens every day in surgeries and hospitals, the failure to inform is against the law and a breach of human rights legislation - which gives the patient the absolute right of autonomy over his or her body. It also leaves the doctor open to a legal challenge of negligence, assault and battering, and possibly even manslaughter if the drug or procedure goes wrong"

Given the dangers of ConMed treatments, not least through Big Pharma vaccines and drugs, this is important information that every citizen should know. The report goes over all the reasons doctors give for NOT telling us the information, all of which are illegitimate; it insists that patients have the right to know, and that if they don't, they cannot make an 'informed choice' about their treatment.

The information being withheld from us is legion, and the report mentions just a few of these:

* CT Scans cause cancer through radiation in 1 in 270 people screened by them.
* 5.7% if patients undergoing surgery for ulcerative colitis will die.
* Bronchoscopy (when a tube is threaded down the nose) results in a death with every 2,500 procedures.

As the report states, not many patients know this kind of information, largely because not many doctors are prepared to give the information to their patients.

"Even after the Vioxx drug scandal had become public - eventually, tyne manufacturer agreed to pay out $4.85 billion to the families of around 50,000 people who died while taking the painkiller - doctors were still asking, 'What should we tell our patients?'"

The answer is probably simple! The truth! But as the report goes on to describe, medical paternalism is rife within ConMed (it is very different in homeopathy and other alternative medical therapies), and so patients are rarely told about the dangers of the treatment they are 'offered'. The report suggests that patients should ask the following questions before agreeing to take any prescription drugs:

1. How long has the drug been on the market (if less than 2 years ask for an 'older generation' drug)?

2. Can you confirm I am not taking part in a drug trial?

3. Is the drug suitable for my age/gender/condition?

4. Are you using this drug 'off-label' or for the condition for which it was originally licensed?

5. Are there any special warning or 'black-box' alerts for this drug?

6. Can you explain to me the known side-effects and the likelihood of me suffering them?

7. Has the drug been tested among people similar to my own age/gender?

8. Do you know if the drug has been banned from use in other countries? (Note, many drugs prescribed in this country have been banned in other countries)

9. Have you given this drug to other patients? If so, have they reported any adverse reactions?

10. Is the dose you are recommending within the guidelines of the manufacturer for my age/gender/condition?

11. Do you know if the new drug will react with other drugs I am currently taking?

12. If I start to suffer from health problems when I take the drug, I shall stop immediately, and come to see you again. Do you agree this is the best course of action?

However, the report goes on to question how many of these questions the average doctor is actually able to answer. In other words, it questions how well informed doctors are about the drugs they prescribe to us, and how reliant they are on Big Pharma information.

The report goes on to consider, in some detail, what informed consent should consist off, and asks another set of questions, with the guidance - don't give your 'informed consent' to treatment or procedures without the answers to each of the questions. One of these questions is:

"Are there alternatives of which you are aware that could also be considered?"

The report states that it is highly unlikely that most doctors will recommend the patient to try homeopathy as a reasonable alternative, or indeed, any other form of alternative medical therapy! The reason for this, of course, is that most doctors will not be qualified to pass any judgement on this question. Indeed, many of them are known to consider homeopathy to be akin to witchcraft!

*Even 'alternative' advice on diet and nutrition may be a stretch too far for the doctor. Medical students in the US receive around 19 hours of education about nutrition during their five-year medical training".

As the report says, informed consent for the patient infers that the doctor is 'informed' and able to pass on the required information.

"Informed consent infers that the doctor is informed ... not only is this far from the truth, it is also untrue even for specialists".

So an informed doctor, capable of answering important questions for you, is certainly not something that can, or should be automatically inferred! Certainly, the vast majority of doctors are informed only about conventional medical practice. And even within this single medical discipline, they appear to work on the information provided to them by the Big Pharma drug companies, and other ConMed companies and commercial interests. Little wonder, then, that they have only a limited knowledge about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, and other treatments and procedures!

However, the problem of getting informed consent is probably even more difficult than the report suggests. The NHS is (virtually) a ConMed monopoly, and as an organisation it is equally unlikely to answer the kind of questions the report recommends that we ask. Successive governments have failed to challenge the Conventional Medical Establishment, and appear more interested in funding and supporting it than asking serious questions about its efficacy and safety. And the mainstream Media is entirely supine in matters relating to health - parroting the 'good' news of conventional 'medical breakthroughs' tomorrow - and ignoring the conventional medical disasters of both yesterday and today.

So no-one appears to be asking the questions, or undertaking the investigations, that might lead us all towards a greater understanding and awareness of the problems associated with the conventional health treatments we are routinely offered today.

I would encourage everyone to read WDDTY on a regular basis. It is a magazine which is full of information about conventional medical treatment, and about alternatives to it. And it really does include material that 'doctors don't tell you', so it can lead to you, at least, becoming more aware of health issues, and therefore capable of making an informed choice.

Diabetes Drugs. The cost to our health

Diabetes drugs cost us dearly.

One drug, now banned, is Avandia. Not long ago, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), were fined $3 billion when they pleaded guilty to a felony in the USA. Apparently, when they marketed the drug GSK admitted that they decided to hide data about Avandia increasing the risk of heart attacks, and congestive heart failure. They continued to do so between 2001 to 2007, during which time they made enormous profits - at the expense of our health.

So was this just a one-off situation? A rogue Big Pharma company who broke the rules? No, GSK's biggest rival, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co, which makes a diabetes drug called Actos, have now been accused of withholding safety data in order to make it appear safer than its rival, Avandia. It is know that the adverse reactions to Actos include diseases such as bladder cancer and congestive heart failure.

So, was this just a two-off situation? No. Other Big Pharma companies since sought to fill the gap left by Avandia and Actos, and introduced more diabetes drugs. Four years ago, Victoza was introduced, the latest magic pill,the cure for diabetes. Unfortunately, it has since been discovered that this drug can cause disastrous harm to the pancreas, increasing the risk of an early, unnecessary death.

So was this just a three-off situation? No. According to Agora Health's 'Daily Health Alert', a new study in the journal Diabetes has now implicated more than a dozen drugs, in the same class as Victoza. Brand names include Byetta, Nesina, and Januvia, and that US researchers have found that these drugs, incretin mime tics, can drastically increase your risk of pancreatitis.

"Here's where it gets insane. None of this is new to the medical authorities. In fact, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously warned that post-marketing reports about these drugs include "fatal and serious nonfatal cases" of acute pancreatitis".
There is also evidence that Januvia can increase a patient's risk of cancer.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/20/dpp4-inhibitors.aspx?e_cid=20121220_DNL_art_1

and

http://drguberman.com/allnews.php?id=273

In their newsletter, dated 3rd July 2012, and their magazine, dated November 2012, What Doctor's Don't Tell You stated that the 'new generation' of diabetes drugs were 'killers'. They said that research, at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, had found that anyone taking these drugs were 50% more likely to die than people taking the older diabetes drugs. The drugs Glucotrol, Daonil, and Diabeta were analysed in this research.

So this is yet another situation that demonstrates that the Drug Regulation system, designed as they are to protect patients, quite simply fail to do so. At the test stage evidence of drug dangers are either hidden, or not acted upon even when they are known. Once introduced, drugs are allowed to harm patients, and Big Pharma companies are allowed to profit from them, with only inadequate restrictions being placed on their prescription. In the meantime, our doctors are offered inducements, by the Big Pharma companies to sell the drugs; and in the main, they meekly go along with it.

Only when pharmaceutical drugs are found to be killers, and only when the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, do Drug Regulations act to protect patients.

See 'Medical Science: the failure to protect' for more on this.

There has been an epidemic of diabetes in recent decades, at least partly caused by other BigPharma drugs, such as diuretics and Beta Blockers, and the result is that many diabetics are, or have been, taking these 'anti-diabetes' drugs. Clearly, these patients cannot be assured that they are safe taking them. There is a long history of too much obfuscation, too many lies, a record of fraud and dishonesty, a lack of concern about patient safety,within the entire conventional medical establishment (starting with Big Pharma companies, through regulation, right up to our doctors).

So what should patients do? The Daily Health Alert says that anyone taking any diabetes drugs should talk to their doctors "about an alternative treatment plan". They add that

"... you can usually restore normal pancreas function by making the right dietary changes. These might not be easy but they certainly won't increase your risk of cancer, heart attack or premature death".

If this is so, it has to asked - why have doctors not suggested this before?

The Health Debate (3). The safety of Big Pharma drugs

Many consumers of the mainstream Media, in all its many forms, believe that if there was a problem with the Big Pharma drugs, or the conventional medical (ConMed) treatment we were getting on the NHS, or if there was an health issue we should know about, the Media would tell us.

Unfortunately, in matters of our health, this is just not so.

The dangerousness of Big Pharma drugs, to our health and wellbeing, has such a long and continuous history it should now be a matter of common knowledge to us all. The fact that it is not well-known is testimony to the abject failure of our Media to tell the truth about ConMed treatment, and its failure to enter fully into "the health debate".

If the Media were doing their job, they would be asking many questions about the safety of ConMed drugs, and it would be seeking to inform is readers, listeners and viewers, about the safety of ConMed treatment generally. They would be asking questions like these:

Is the ConMed Establishment telling us (the Media, and the general public) the full story about the dangers of the drugs currently being prescribed by our GPs through the NHS? And if not, why not?

The Media would not be content to parrot Big Pharma propaganda in presenting any new drug or vaccine as being ‘safe’? They would be aware of the long, and on-going history of drug failure, and they would ask more questions about the side-effects, adverse reactions, and 'disease-inducing-effects' (DIEs) of any and all new drugs and vaccines. As it is, the Media rarely, if ever, brings to our attention the history of Big Pharma drug failure on grounds of patient safety.

Why, when ConMed drugs have been found to have serious DIEs, does the Media fail to ask why this is, and in particular, why the Drug Testing process, and Drug Regulation system, consistently fail to discover this before patients are damaged (or even killed) often after taking the medication for decades?

Why is the public not being told at an earlier stage by the Media about the potential seriousness of the problems with each Big Pharma drug? Information about the dangerousness of drugs is usually well known many years before the Media reports it (that is, if they bother to report it at all). Why does the mainstream Media leave it to small magazines like 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), and internet magazines like 'Natural News' to publicise this information, who have this information often many years before the drug is eventually banned or restricted, and the mainstream Media bother to report it?

Why is the mainstream Media failing to ask questions about the dangers to patients of the drugs and vaccines currently being prescribed by the ConMed Establishment? Why are they not investigating, and telling us about these dangers, and how serious they are? When drugs and vaccines are found to be dangerous, why are conventional doctors not asked what patients can, and should do in order to protect themselves?

Why does the Media not ask searching questions about the relationship between the serious epidemic rise of chronic disease, in all its many forms, and the Big Pharma drugs and vaccines that are probably a significant cause of such diseases? Why are they not asking questions about whether, and to what extend, ConMed drugs and vaccines are the cause death? Why does the Media fail to investigate the links between these modern epidemics with the massive increase in drug and vaccine consumption?

Why does the Media fail completely to ask questions about alternative medical therapies, such as homeopathy, what these therapies can offer, and whether they are safer, firstly, by not causing disease, and secondly, in the treatment of illness and disease?

Indeed, why does the mainstream Media consistently seek to criticise, undermine and attack alternative medical therapies - usually in line with the thoughts and interests of the Conventional Medical Establishment?

Drugs are regularly withdrawn from the market, because they have been found to be dangerous. Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media.

Drug companies are consistently found guilty in US courts, and heavily fined, as a result of their drugs being unsafe and dangerous. Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media.

Drug companies, in recent years, have regularly been associated with corrupt or illegal practices in the testing, promotion and selling of their drugs. Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media.

The failure of the mainstream Media to report on these matters is a failure to work in the best interests of its paying customers, who are, of course, also patients and consumers of ConMed treatment. The Media seems completely unconcerned about the damage being done to its readers, listeners and viewers by ConMed! Indeed, the Media appears to be more interested in reporting 'positive' news about conventional medicine, and ignoring any news that is in any way 'negative' to their vested interests.

It is perhaps time that the Media begins to ask itself the question: in whose interests, are they working when reporting on matters of health!

The fourth part of this series will look at the cost-effectiveness of ConMed drugs and treatments, and looking at the questions the Media fails to ask about this.

If you would like to be informed when the fourth part of this series is published, why not become a 'follower', and sign up for this blog; or subscribe to it by email - and join the Health Debate.

Obat Diabetes

Mengenai Saya

IKLAN

IKLAN

Vaccinations - they have had little or no impact

More drugs causing more problems

Informed Consent - the Dark Heart of ConMed

Diabetes Drugs. The cost to our health

The Health Debate (3). The safety of Big Pharma drugs

DISEWAKAN SPACE IKLAN

IKLAN

Entri Populer

Label

Arsip Blog

Cari Blog Ini