Monday, July 07, 2008

FDA - Drugs, Vaccines & Vitamin Supplements (Part 1)


Health Cover-up
"The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion) [in 2002]. Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself."
-- Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

In all, the pharmaceutical and health-products industry has spent more on lobbying -- over $1 billion -- in the last decade than any other industry.

Vioxx maker Merck and Co drew up doctor hit list
Milanda Rout April 01, 2009,25197,25272600-2702,00.html
AN international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.
Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.
The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.
It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.
"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.
Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx.
The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach problems as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs.
It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial testing these potential side affects was aborted for safety reasons.
Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, 58, claims the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003 after he took it for back pain and arthritis every day from May 2001.
Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no admission of guilt.
The company is fighting the class action in Australia.
The Federal Court was told yesterday that Merck wanted to gain the backing of researchers and doctors - or "opinion leaders" - in the fields of arthritis to help promote the drug to medical professionals when it was launched in 1999.
Mr Burnside said internal emails in April 1999 from Merck staff showed the company was not happy with what some researchers and doctors were saying about the drug.
"It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them," he said. "It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you."
The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.
"Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.
"This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."
Mr Burnside told the court Dr Fries went on to describe instances of intimidation, including one colleague who thought his academic appointment had been jeopardised and another who received phone calls alleging "anti-Merck" bias.
Dr Fries said in the letter that Merck had been systematically playing down the side effects of Vioxx and said the company's behaviour "seriously impinges on academic freedom". The court was also told a rheumatologist on Merck's Australian arthritis advisory board was angry he did not find out about Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx until an ABC journalist rang to tell him. Mr Burnside said James Bertouch wrote to other members of the board saying he was "extremely disillusioned" with the company.
"In every possible way the company exerted itself to present the impression to the world at large that Vioxx did not provide any increased cardio risk ... when (a) it probably would and (b) it probably did," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.
Peter Garling, acting for Merck, accused Mr Peterson of not taking the drug Vioxx in the months leading up to his heart attack in December 2003.
He said Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme figures showed he did not fill a Vioxx prescription for the drug in the two months before his heart attack.
Mr Garling put to Mr Peterson during his cross-examination that this was because he had retired from his job as a safety consultant and therefore he did not need to take Vioxx because his back pain lessened.
Mr Peterson denied this meant he was not taking the drug.
"No, I wouldn't accept that at all," he said. "I can remember taking Vioxx regularly."
The trial, before Justice Chris Jessop, continues.
NaturalNews Publishes Revealing Interview with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Author of "Saying No to Vaccines"
Friday, March 27, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Dr. Sherry Tenpenny speaks out against the dangers of vaccines in an exclusive audio interview published today on Author of the book Saying No to Vaccines (, Dr. Tenpenny is a well-informed, vocal opponent of mandatory vaccination policies and a well-respected educator on health freedom and vaccine exemption strategies for concerned parents.The exclusive interview with the Health Ranger is available as an audio MP3 file on NaturalNews at: In the interview, Dr. Tenpenny discusses:• The startling truth about dead animal materials used in the making of vaccines.• How many vaccines actually CAUSE the very diseases they claim to prevent!• Why vaccines are being pushed to treat symptoms caused by other vaccines.• How drug companies use medical quackery and fear tactics to push vaccines.• Why the idea that vaccines eliminate infectious disease is a medical myth.• How vaccines damage the immune system and can cause autism.• Why most children are given more than 100 different vaccines within the first six years of their life.• The shocking truth about how one doctor said children can be given as many as one thousand vaccines without any side effects at all!• How parents can protect their children from vaccines in any state or country.• Why doctors are so easily seduced by the vaccine pushers, and how you can protect yourself (and your children) from ignorant physicians.• The true history of vaccines and why vaccines became a favored form of Big Pharma quackery.
Get informed nowDon't you deserve to know ALL the facts on vaccines? Doctors, drug companies and health authorities only tell you one side of the story -- the Big Pharma side. But there's another side that you're not allowed to learn: The real world side of the story.In the real world, you see, injecting children with DNA fragments harvested from diseased animals seems utterly senseless. In the real world, the human immune system is an amazing system of biotechnology that doesn't need chemical assistance to function properly. In the real world, teenage girls are dropping dead within hours after receiving HPV vaccine injections.Drug companies don't want you to know these facts, but intelligent, concerned parents everywhere are getting informed!
Are Antidepressants, Bone Drugs, and Satins causing Heart Failure?By Byron J. Richards, CCN
March 12, 2009
Researchers have documented an alarming link between the use of antidepressants and the development of serious heart disease. The link was discovered by following 63,449 women as part of the Nurses’ Health Study. The results show a “specific relationship between antidepressant use and sudden cardiac death.” The specific conclusion of the study states, “In this cohort of women without baseline coronary heart disease, depressive symptoms were associated with fatal coronary heart disease, and a measure of clinical depression including antidepressant use was specifically associated with sudden cardiac death.”
This antidepressant news followed another recent and rather stunning finding, that antidepressants cause significant bone loss. The commonly used SSRI antidepressants double the risk for fractures in anyone over the age of 50 who uses them regularly. The mechanism involved is that too much serotonin from the drugs directly interferes with the formation of new bone.
On top of this disturbing news, it has become quite clear that the majority of negative studies about popular antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Effexor were never published, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, as reported in the New York Times. 37 studies the FDA considered positive were published, whereas only 3 negative studies were published. 33 studies the FDA considered negative or questionable were either not published (22) or published with spin to look positive when they were not (11). This made antidepressant studies appear 96% positive in the literature, when in fact the studies were only 51% positive.
In the Western medical model of treating symptoms as they arise, without identifying the cause, women on antidepressants losing bone mass will simply be put on the bisphosphonate drugs. This is another drug con job, as these drugs actually disturb the health of bone and at best keep old bone in place while blunting the formation of new and healthy bone. Two dimensional pictures can appear to show more bone density with their use, which is nothing but smoke and mirrors, as the bone is actually swollen and malformed (like a swollen ankle). The FDA has warned that these drugs can cause serious bone pain. Bone drugs are actually linked to rotting jaw bone, increased risk of fracture with long-term use, and a poor bone-healing response if you happen to fracture a bone while taking them.
To make matters even worse, going on bone drugs also increases a person’s risk for atrial fibrillation, which can also cause sudden cardiac death. A report in the Archives of Internal Medicine offers conclusive proof that users of Fosamax are at an 86% increased risk for developing heart-related damage in the form of atrial fibrillation. The FDA, looking at the same data, has stonewalled the issue, allowing Big Pharma to go on injuring without proper notification of risks for the public.
Adding to the list of suspect cardiovascular drugs are the widely prescribed statins. These drugs are now proven to disturb how your cells make energy, meaning they are directly making aging worse. Also, energy is required to make your brain function normally and have a good and positive mood. It is amazing that a society is so brainwashed by their pill-pushing physicians that 20 billion dollars worth of fatigue-producing and nerve-deteriorating drugs will be gullibly swallowed this year. The side effects of statins are so bad, especially in older people, that a new study demonstrates their risks in people 70 or over far outweigh their benefits even if the person has heart disease.
This is a real double-edged sword. Statins cause depression by directly interfering with normal nerve transmission, a problem that gets worse with extended use and higher doses, the primary way these drugs are used. On top of that, the anti-energy effects of statins can weaken the heart muscle, setting the stage for cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure. Partly, this is because statins directly interfere with the production of Q10, an important nutrient your heart must have to work properly so as to make energy. Partly, it is because statins are directly toxic to muscle and injure muscle in more than 15% of users, and your heart is a muscle.
Thus, men and especially women can find themselves on a potentially devastating cocktail of drugs, any of which by themselves increase the risk for heart failure and taken together are really likely to boost risk. The drugs are so bad for health that they create the symptoms that imply the need for more drugs! It is a vicious cycle that is hard to break. In fact, when combinations of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs are used to aggressively treat type II diabetic patients the results are abysmal, resulting in an increase in deaths.
This problem is not theoretical. At last fall’s meeting of the American Heart Association researchers presented data showing a staggering and unexpected increase in congestive heart failure in patients 65 and over. During the past several decades, paralleling the expanded use of such drugs as statins, bone drugs, and anti-depressants, the rate of heart failure amongst Americans has risen to an extra 450,000 cases per year (900,000 total). This statistic cannot be explained by an increased population of older Americans. There is a real problem here. People are being injured and killed and virtually nobody is doing anything about it.
The FDA does nothing to ensure such combinations of drugs are safe to take for an extended period of time – failing to inform and protect consumers from actual risks. To the contrary, FDA managers negate risk data in favor of Big Pharma on a routine basis, often disregarding the warnings of their own safety scientists. Drug injuries are on the rise. The newer drugs people are taking are twice as likely to injure. The FDA shirks responsibility and does not demand follow-up safety studies by Big Pharma that are required by law. And the expense of this to society is staggering.
Sure people have legitimate health issues that need to be improved. There are safe ways of doing this. It takes work. It takes personal responsibility. It takes commitment to a healthy lifestyle and spending the time needed to do the right things for your health on a consistent basis. There are no quick fixes.
Doctors are being paid on the side by Big Pharma to push Big Pharma drugs on you, and psychiatrists are the worst offenders. This is creating a clear path to seriously worsened health – and that path is through the use of Big Pharma medications to treat symptoms and numbers on paper.
Vaccines as Biological Weapons? Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countriesby Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
March 03, 2009
(NaturalNews) There's a popular medical thriller novel in which a global pandemic is intentionally set off by an evil plot designed to reduce the human population. In the book, a nefarious drug company inserts live avian flu viruses into vaccine materials that are distributed to countries around the world to be injected into patients as "flu shots." Those patients then become carriers for these highly-virulent strains of avian flu which go on to infect the world population and cause widespread death.

There's only one problem with this story: It's not fiction. Or, at least, the part about live avian flu viruses being inserted into vaccine materials isn't fiction. It's happening right now.

Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc. has just been caught shipping live avian flu viruses mixed with vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries. The "mistake" (if you can call it that, see below...) was discovered by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. The World Health Organization was alerted and panic spread throughout the vaccine community as health experts asked the obvious question: How could this have happened?
As published on (, serious questions like this are being raised:

"Baxter International Inc. in Austria 'unintentionally contaminated samples with the bird flu virus that were used in laboratories in 3 neighbouring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease'. Austria, Germany, Slowenia and the Czech Republic - these are the countries in which labs were hit with dangerous viruses. Not by bioterrorist commandos, but by Baxter. In other words: One of the major global pharmaceutical players seems to have lost control over a virus which is considered by many virologists to be one of the components leading some day to a new pandemic."
Or, put another way, Baxter is acting a whole lot like a biological terrorism organization these days, sending deadly viral samples around the world. If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter -- which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world -- getting away with saying, essentially, "Oops?"
But there's a bigger question in all this: How could this company have accidentally mixed LIVE avian flu viruses (both H5N1 and H3N2, the human form) in this vaccine material?
Was the viral contamination intentional?The shocking answer is that this couldn't have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) - a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.
As explained on Wikipedia (
"Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features."
Under the BSL3 code of conduct, it is impossible for live avian flu viruses to contaminate production vaccine materials that are shipped out to vendors around the world.
This leaves only two possibilities that explain these events:
Possibility #1: Baxter isn't following BSL3 safety guidelines or is so sloppy in following them that it can make monumental mistakes that threaten the safety of the entire human race. And if that's the case, then why are we injecting our children with vaccines made from Baxter's materials?
Possibility #2: A rogue employee (or an evil plot from the top management) is present at Baxter, whereby live avian flu viruses were intentionally placed into the vaccine materials in the hope that such materials might be injected into humans and set off a global bird flu pandemic.
It just so happens that a global bird flu pandemic would sell a LOT of bird flu vaccines. Although some naive people have a hard time believing that corporations would endanger human beings to make money, this is precisely the way corporations now behave in America's ethically-challenged free-market environment. (Remember Enron? Exxon? Merck? DuPont? Monsanto? Need I go on?)
Make no mistake: Spreading bird flu is a clever way to create demand for bird flu vaccines, and we've all seen very clearly how drug companies first market the problem and then "leap to the rescue" by selling the solution. (Disease mongering of ADHD, bipolar disorder, etc.)
Why it all suddenly makes sense
Until today, I would not have personally believed such a story. I personally thought talk of bird flu vaccines being "weaponized" was just alarmist hype. But now, in light of the fact that LIVE bird flu viruses are being openly found in vaccine materials that are distributed around the world, I must admit the evidence is increasingly compelling that something extremely dangerous is afoot.
Baxter, through either its mistakes or its evil intentions, just put the safety of the entire human race at risk. Given all the laboratory protocols put in place to prevent this kind of thing, it is difficult to believe this was just a mistake.
There is some speculation, in fact, that the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people worldwide (, was intentionally started by injecting servicemen with "experimental" flu vaccines that actually contained live, "weaponized" flu material just like the material being distributed by Baxter today.
Examine the historical record. You'll find that the 1918 flu originated with servicemen. Even more interestingly, it began in multiple cities, simultaneously! There is no single point of origin with the 1918 flu. It appears to have "spontaneously" sprung up across multiple cities all at once, including a military base in Kansas. (Kansas? Yep. So how did it get to Kansas in an era when air traffic was virtually non-existent? Vaccines, of course!)
All those cities and servicemen have one thing in common: Flu shot vaccinations given to them by the military.
If you put the pieces together on this, it's not too difficult to suspect that influenza could potentially be used as a tool of control by governments or drug companies to catalyze outrageous profit-taking or power grabbing agendas. A desperate, infected population will gladly give up anything or pay anything for the promise of being cured.
Or was it just an innocent mistake? Oops!But for the skeptics who dismiss any such talk of conspiracy theories, let's examine the other possibility: That a global avian flu pandemic was nearly unleashed unintentionally due to the outrageous incompetence of the companies handling these viral strains.
As we just saw, this is a very real possibility. Had this live bird flu virus not been detected, it could have very easily found its way into vaccines that were injected into human beings. And this, in turn, could have unleashed a global avian flu pandemic.
If the drug companies making and handling these materials are so careless, then it seems like it's only a matter of time before something slips through the safety precautions again and gets unleashed into the wild. And that leads to essentially the same scenario: A global pandemic, widespread death, health care failures and a desperate population begging for vaccines.
So either way -- whether it's intentional or not -- you essentially get the same result.
Why a global pandemic is only a matter of timeI am on the record stating that a global pandemic is only a matter of time. The living conditions under which humans have placed themselves (crowded cities, suppressed immune systems, etc.) are ideal for the spread of infectious disease. But I never dreamed drug companies could actually be accelerating the pandemic timeline by contaminating vaccine materials with live avian flu viruses known to be highly infectious to humans. This, it seems, is a whole new cause for concern.
You can believe what you will. Maybe you agree with the nefarious plot theory and you agree that corporations are capable of great evils in their quest for profits. Or perhaps you can't accept that, so you go with the "accidental contamination" theory, in which your beliefs describe a very dangerous world where biohazard safety protocols are insufficient to protect us from all the crazy viral strains being toyed with at drug companies and government labs all across the world.
in either case, the world is not a very safe place when deadly viral strains are placed in the hands of the inept.
We are like children playing God with Mother Nature, rolling the dice in a global game of Viral Roulette where the odds are not in our favor. With companies like Baxter engaged in behaviors that are just begging to see the human race devastated by a global pandemic wipeout, it might be a good time to question the sanity of using viral strains in vaccines in the first place.
Vaccine-pushing scientists are so proud of their vaccines. They think they've conquered Mother Nature. Imagine their surprise when one day they learn they have actually killed 100 million human beings by unleashing a global pandemic.
We came close to it this week. A global pandemic may have just been averted by the thinnest of margins. Yet people go on with their lives, oblivious to what nearly happened.
What's inescapable at this point is the fact that the threat of a pandemic that looms for all of human civilization, and that drug companies may, themselves, be the source of that threat.
Tyranny in the USA: The true history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin shops and supplement companiesby Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Here's a brief overview of some of the campaigns of terror the FDA has initiated against natural healers, nutritional supplement companies and other organizations. Many were conducted using armed agents wielding assault rifles and automatic weapons, dressed in body armor. All of them were intended to destroy natural medicine, thereby protecting the profits of drug companies and conventional medicine practitioners.
This is the true history of the FDA that the FDA doesn't wan't you to know! (This timeline is excerpted from my book Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them)
1987: The Life Extension RaidsThe Life Extension Foundation ( has long been targeted by the FDA. It is a non-profit organization that publishes information about the healing power of nutritional supplements and genuine anti-aging breakthroughs from the world of natural health.
On February 26, 1987, approximately 25 armed FDA agents and U.S. Marshals burst through the glass doors of the Ft. Lauderdale offices of the Life Extension Foundation with guns drawn. A second group of FDA agents simultaneously attacked the LEF warehouse, where they detained LEF founder William Faloon at gunpoint.
Employees were lined up against the wall and searched. Agents rifled through the personal belonging of the employees and confiscated many items. Over the next 12 hours, they seized thousands of items, including nutritional products, files, and documents, including 5,000 newsletters that were about to be mailed to subscribers. Computers and telephones were reportedly, "…ripped from the wall," and agents seized anything they could find regardless of whether such items were actually named in the search warrant. Later analysis revealed that 80 percent of the seized items were never named in the warrant.
Not surprisingly, the entire legal basis for the raid was fraudulent to begin with. The search warrant, issued by Magistrate Lurana S. Snow, was based on perjured testimony by FDA agent Martin Katz. But the intent to terrorize the Life Extension Foundation worked: Employees suffered nightmares and many were afraid to come to work.
Rather than giving in to the tyranny of the FDA, Bill Faloon and the Life Extension Foundation chose to fight for their First Amendment rights. As explained by Saul Kent of the Life Extension Foundation at
Everyone we consulted, including attorneys who were FDA "experts", told us we had to submit to the FDA's authority to have any chance of surviving. We ignored all this advice and instead decided to wage all-out war against the FDA. We did this knowing that we would not only risk our livelihood, but our personal freedom as well.
We were told again and again that the FDA had the unlimited resources of the federal government at its disposal, and that an organization with fewer than 5,000 members had no chance of winning an all-out war with them.
To further terrorize the Life Extension Foundation and its founders, the FDA, with the help of various corrupt law enforcement bodies, filed 56 criminal charges against Foundation officers Saul Kent and William Faloon. After an 11-year reign of terror in which the FDA spent millions of taxpayer dollars attempting to prosecute them, Kent and Faloon prevailed. In November, 1995, Federal Judge Daniel Hurley dismissed 55 of the 56 charges, and in February, 1996, the final charge was dismissed.
And thus ended the FDA's campaign of terror against the Life Extension Foundation. It was the first time in 88 years that the FDA had been forced to give up its prosecution efforts and throw in the towel.
As Saul Kent says, "The FDA's dismissal of the charges against me (and Bill Faloon) is an unprecedented victory against FDA tyranny that goes far beyond winning in court. The FDA's historic defeat is a victory for everyone who cherishes freedom in healthcare."
In 1994, the Life Extension Foundation established the FDA Holocaust Museum to document the decades-long reign of terror the FDA has perpetrated against the American people.
1990 - The El Cajon pet food store raidIn 1990, FDA agents raided the pet food store of Sissy Harrington-McGill, a 57-year-old pet lover who was guilty of the "crime" of claiming that vitamins would help keep pets healthy. Without a search warrant, FDA agents ransacked her store, confiscating products and literature.
She was later tried and convicted of violating the Health Claims Law, a law that did not exist at the time of the raid and was never passed by the U.S. Congress. Nonetheless, likely due to FDA pressure on the presiding judge, she was sentenced to 179 days in prison and fined $10,000 for daring to say that vitamins are good for puppy dogs!
1990 - The Highland Laboratories raidIn 1990, Ken Scott ran a vitamin business in Mt. Angel, Oregon, a small rural town. He was selling nutritional supplements containing coenzyme Q10, a vital nutrient for cellular energy that has received tremendous praise from the scientific community for boosting cardiovascular health, preventing congestive heart failure, improving blood pressure and cholesterol profiles, as well as many other benefits. To help educate customers about the healing power of CoQ10, he offered to send reprints of magazine and newspaper articles describing some of the scientific findings about the nutrient.
This public education effort, of course, would not be tolerated by the FDA Gestapo. So the FDA organized an armed raid comprised of nine FDA agents, 11 U.S. Marshals and eight Oregon state police. With guns drawn, they kicked in the doors to Ken Scott's business and conducted one of the most terror-driven "vitamin" raids in U.S. history.
For the next 11 hours, agents confiscated nearly everything they could find at Highland Laboratories. Ken Scott and his employees were threatened with violence if they tried to set foot in the office, and his daughter, who was located miles away, was illegally detained and held in "house arrest" for 12 hours.
The FDA, you see, would not tolerate Ken Scott mailing scientific literature or articles to his customers. So in order to comply with the FDA, Scott later hired an outside mailing service owned by his daughter to run the article mailing operations.
The FDA's response to that? They illegally raided the mailing service company and threatened to confiscate the checkbook and cash of its owner. Out of fear (terrorism works, you see?), that owner subsequently closed her business and refused to file charges against the FDA.
Ken Scott was ultimately forced to cut a deal with prosecutors, and eventually served five years on probation for his "crime" of telling the truth about CoQ10.
The message from the FDA to other vitamin companies couldn't be more clear: Don't you dare tell your customers the truth about vitamins, or we'll shut you down and prosecute you!
1990: The Century Clinic "chelation" raidsIn Reno, Nev., 1990, the Century Clinic was raided by the FDA and Postal Service inspectors. Agents seized large quantities of items from the clinic, virtually wiping it out of computers and equipment, as well as patient records and files. No charges were filed.
After Century Clinic rebuilt and sued the FDA for the return of its property, the FDA raided it again and conducted a search of the persons and homes of the owners and employees. Patients at the clinic were reportedly interrogated and not allowed to leave without turning over their names and addresses. No charges were ever filed against the clinic or its owners.
1991: The Tijuana cancer clinic kidnapping
Jimmy Keller cured his own cancer through the use of natural medicine therapies. Encouraged by success with his own cancer, he pursued a career in natural medicine and later moved to Mexico and opened a clinic that could legally treat U.S. patients with the disease (treating cancer naturally is illegal in the United States, so the best practitioners are forced to open clinics in Mexico or other countries). The success of this clinic caught the eye of health authorities in the United States, and they decided to put a stop to it.
In March 1991, armed Mexican police officers, with no warrants or charges whatsoever, kidnapped Keller from the St. Jude Hospital and delivered him to U.S. Justice Department bounty hunters who, against his will, drove him across the border to the USA. There, the FBI arrested him and charged him with wire fraud (Keller had used the telephone to hold conversations with prospective patients). Keller was later convicted of wire fraud and sent to a North Dakota prison for two years. His kidnapping and arrest are blatantly illegal under international law.
1992 - Raid on Nature's WayIn 1992 in Utah; the FDA seized bulk primrose oil from Nature's Way, a manufacturer that offers some of the highest-quality supplements in the business. Nature's Way filed a lawsuit to get their product returned, but was forced to remove the natural Vitamin E from the formulation, as the FDA insisted that Vitamin E had not been approved as an additive for primrose oil.
1992 - The Tahoma Clinic FDA RaidOn May 6, 1992, FDA agents joined armed King County police officers in an armed raid against the clinic of Dr. Jonathan Wright, an M.D. and natural health practitioner. His crime? He was treating patients with injectable high-dose B vitamins -- a safe, natural treatment -- and in doing so was actually helping patients heal.
The armed agents smashed down the door, rushed into the clinic like a SWAT team with guns drawn, terrorizing the patients and shouting at them to put their hands in the air. Over the next fourteen hours, agents rifled through Dr. Wright's clinic, seizing patient records, computers, vitamin supplies, and various natural therapy products. The FDA illegally held on to confiscated items, including the computers needed to run his clinic, for three years.
But was Dr. Wright really so dangerous as to justify an armed raid? He's a graduate of Harvard and the University of Michigan Medical School. He's a book author, a prolific public speaker, and served as the nutrition editor of Prevention magazine for more than ten years. The purpose of the FDA raid was clearly not to arrest Dr. Wright, who was never charged. Rather, the purpose appears to be conducting a campaign of terror: sending a message to the alternative medicine community that anyone engaged in nutritional treatments could be raided and shut down, with no legal justification.
It was all part of the FDA's campaign against natural health treatments, a campaign that continues to this day.
1992: The Texas vitamin store raidsIn 1992, the FDA prompted the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the Texas Department of Food and Drug to conduct raids on more than 12 health food stores. Agents seized flaxseed oil, aloe vera, zinc supplements, vitamin C, and even Sleepytime Tea. One health food store owner was reportedly threatened by TDH with, "Don't talk to the press, or we'll come down on you twice as hard!"
None of the confiscated products were ever returned to the store owners, no charges were filed, and no reason for the raids was ever given. The raids were simply a campaign of terror designed to destroy the inventory and disrupt business operations of stores selling natural health products.
1993: The health food store raidsIn 1993, the war against health freedom reached its peak in Texas, where combined forces of the FDA, DEA, IRS, U.S. Customs, and U.S. Postal Services conducted commando-style raids on nearly 40 different health food stores, vitamin companies, and natural health clinics from May through September. The homes of company owners and employees were also raided, and some raids were conducted with SWAT teams brandishing assault weapons and flak jackets.
In one home, a mother who was breast feeding her infant was reportedly "roughed up and handcuffed for 11 hours while FDA agents ransacked her home." Items seized in the raids included vitamins, minerals, herbs, and nutritional supplements. IRS officials also seized computers, automobiles, and bank accounts. The U.S. Postal Service illegally blocked the mail of some of the targeted companies, denying them the ability to conduct business or even organize a legal defense.
Targeted products included Dr. Kurt Donsbach's nutritional products and Dr. Hans Neiper's German-made health products.
The 1963 Church of Scientology raidIn the early 1960s, the FDA got word of something it didn't like: The Church of Scientology was helping its members overcome mental problems with the use of a simple biofeedback device called the E-meter. With the market for psychotropic drugs so consistently profitable, and with Scientology gaining momentum in helping millions of people overcome severe emotional and mental problems, this E-meter had to be taken out of play… and fast!
To do so, the FDA filed a "libel of information" with a U.S. District Court, after which Judge William B. Jones ordered a warrant authorizing the arrest of the E-meters. Yes, the meters themselves were to be arrested. The warrant also authorized the arrest of "an undetermined number of items of written, printed or graphic matter."
With the warrant issued, armed U.S. Marshals and FDA agents launched a military-style raid on the church. According to sworn affidavits of eyewitnesses, the agents "…burst into the church offices… and loudly demanded and threatened all in sight; observed absolutely no courtesies except for not actually shooting the guns they carried, and denied to the Church administrators any opportunity to arrange that students and Church members not be disturbed, upset or terrorized."
Showing no legal warrant, the agents and … deputies pounded their way up stairways, bursting into confessional and pastoral counseling sessions, causing disruption and violently preventing the quiet pursuit of the normal practice of religious philosophy.
"They seized all the publications and all the confessional aids called E-meters they could find in desks, in ladies' handbags, in students' briefcases and in the session rooms."… the agents removed from the church to the waiting vans some tens of thousands of copies of over twenty Church books, texts, recorded sermons; even the Church archives were sacked. The confiscated material was handled roughly, and when ministers of the Church asked that their property be handled more carefully, the 'deputies' from Baltimore gave only sneering illiteracies for answer."
In all, three tons of materials were seized. In clear violation of both the First and Fourth Amendments, the FDA had illegally used its powers to spread yet more fear and terror through the world -- this time, to raid a church.
All religions have healing tools
Of course, Scientology is not as mainstream as Christianity, Buddhism, or Catholicism, but since when did religions have to be popular to enjoy equal protection under the U.S. Constitution? Besides, various churches have always attributed special healing powers to their particular tools. Roman Catholic churches have Holy Water and other healing elements (Easter wafers, Saint Glaize Candles, Scapulars, and so on). Other religions use prayer clothes, prayer oils, and various pieces of string for which healing benefits are commonly prescribed. Nearly all churches recognize prayer as an effective form of healing. Yet the FDA chose to single out Scientology's E-meter machine, likely because it perceived the device as presenting a genuine threat to psychiatry's monopoly over mental health treatment.
The FDA, you see, believes it not only regulates foods, drugs, and cosmetics, but also religions. Only "mainstream" religious practices will be allowed, and any such religions that use alternative symbols, rituals, or scriptures will be prosecuted, regardless of what the Constitution says. The rule of law never interferes with the FDA's campaigns of terror.
The history of the U.S. government's persecution of the Church of Scientology is long and complex, and it is a sad demonstration of true religious intolerance right here in the United States. The First Amendment, which protects both Free Speech and Religion, offers no real protection against the criminals at the FDA, who have for decades attempted to suppress alternative philosophies that actually help people heal.
After nine years of protracted legal battles, and the expenditure of countless millions in taxpayer dollars that funded the prosecution efforts, the Church of Scientology achieved a victory in the courts, and the FDA was forced to return the E-meters. Yet, just to inflict a little more pain and punishment upon the Church, the court ordered the Church of Scientology to pay for all the warehousing costs of the confiscated items held over the previous nine years, plus all the legal fees of the government's prosecution efforts. The courts also ruled that all Scientology literature describing the E-meter must carry a warning message written by the FDA, and that the church must pay the salaries and travel expenses of FDA agents who would, from time to time, visit the church to ensure compliance with the courts. (Source: The Hidden Story of Scientology, Omar V. Garrison, page 143.)
In other words, the Church of Scientology was to be severely punished for daring to oppose the tyranny of the FDA. Just as a factory-working Jewish prisoner who talked back to his Nazi captors in 1942 would be beaten and shot, the FDA made sure that the Church of Scientology would pay a dear price for daring to question the authority of this all-powerful federal agency, an agency that could summon the aid of firearms-brandishing law enforcement officials at any time, for apparently any reason, regardless of its legality.
Other FDA raids1991, San Leandro, Calif.: A nutritional supplement company, NutriCology, is raided by 12 FDA agents. All FDA injunctions were eventually thrown out of court.
1991, Texas: The anti-cancer clinic of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a brilliant researcher from Poland, is raided by the FDA and the Texas Department of Health. Just before the raids, the National Cancer Institute had announced they would evaluate the pioneering work of Dr. Burzynski, which involved cancer treatment using antineoplastons. With the help of health freedom champions like Dr. Julian Whitaker, Dr. Burzynski fought FDA oppression and went on to save the lives of countless cancer patients, some of which are profiled on his clinic website today:
1992, San Diego, Calif.: The heads of three European vitamin companies, along with their U.S. marketing professional David Halpern, are arrested and charged with 198 counts of conspiracy, smuggling, and violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for importing simple nutritional supplements that are freely available in Britain, Germany, and other European countries. The indictments reportedly carried combined prison terms of 990 years.
And this report, by the way, doesn't even cover the FDA's terror-style tactics against a company called Lane Labs, which developed and marketed anti-cancer supplements that really worked.
As you can see from this report, it is quite clear that the FDA has the intention of destroying natural medicine using any means necessary, including terrorism tactics.
And who supports the FDA? Pharmaceutical companies, medical associations, doctors, medical journals, hospitals and numerous corrupt Congresspeople and Senators. By supporting the FDA, they condone the use of terrorism tactics against the American people and, ultimately, support the continued use of police state tactics against innocents.
You can learn more about the true history of the FDA and Big Pharma in my tell-all book, Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them.
FDA Nazis Outlaw Vitamins
By: Alan Stang
Published in the March 4, 2005 issue of Ether Zone
Recently we wrote about the 72-year-old Florida grandmother whom the Food and Drug Administration Nazis are charging with a couple of felonies and some misdemeanors for helping cancer victims get the laetrile (Vitamin B-17) they need. There is still time for you to help her. Please let me know.
Now here come these same offspring of unmarried female canines, with a scheme that may outlaw dietary supplements as soon as June of this year. Yes, we are talking about vitamins, minerals and herbs.
Starting in June, dietary supplements in this country will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The scheme is called the Codex Alimentarius (food code) and it mandates supplement standards for all member countries.
Codex nailed down "Step 8 (the final stage)," in a secret meeting in November, 2004, and if you are hearing about it for the first time, you are no doubt wondering how such an outrage could happen.
The answer is that the President and Congress agreed to the supplement takeover when the WTO treaty was signed, at the so-called Uruguay Round, which means that these supplement standards will be enforced by the WTO and will override U.S. laws. Codex violations are and will be punished by WTO trade sanctions.
Remember that the District of Criminals has already yielded to WTO orders many times. There is no reason to believe it would not yield again. Of course this would represent another long step toward world government. What will your vitamin store look like when Codex kicks in?
No supplement could be sold for preventive or therapeutic use. Any potency higher than RDA (recommended daily allowance, aka minimal strength) would be a "drug" that requires a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5,000 safe items now in health food stores will be banned, which would put most of those stores out of business.
Indeed, new supplements will be banned unless Codex approves them and the testing will be so expensive no one but Big Pharma could afford it. Remember that Codex will be imposed around the world.
In Norway and Germany, just a couple of examples, Zinc tablets cost $4 per bottle before Codex. Zinc of course is supremely important in the diet for too many reasons to list. The same bottle in those countries now costs $52.
Echinacea, which recharges the immune system and is therefore very useful against colds, used to be $14 before Codex. Now – the envelope please – the same bottle costs an unbelievable $153. Why so expensive? Both those supplements are legally available in those countries only by prescription. Because they work, they have now become "drugs."
I take about 5 grams of Vitamin C daily, sometimes more, in the face of warnings by "orthodox" quackery that such megadoses are dangerous. And I have to admit that Vitamin C did kill its best known champion, scientist Linus Pauling – who boasted that he consumed much more than I do – when he was only ninety three. Who knows how long he could have lived without it?
Under Codex, Vitamin C in mini-doses above 200 mg. will be banned (OTC) over-the-counter. You will be able to get it as a prescription drug only. The same will go for Niacin above 32 mg., Vitamin B-6 above 4 mg., along with amino acids like arginine, lysine, carnitine, and so on.
I take six or so Omega Essential Fatty Acids daily. They work well on some headaches and help neutralize blood clots. Under Codex they will be given the same treatment as dangerous narcotics. So will DHEA, CoQ-10, which I also take daily, MSM, beta-carotene, etc.
In effect, this means the end of freedom of choice in this crucial area of life. Notice that you have heard next to nothing about this from the right Communist media, because the sainted President Smirk could stop it but won’t. You have also heard next to nothing from the left Communist media, because it means more totalitarianism, which they adore.
Presumably, they will have untrammeled access to their supplements via Hollyweird pushers while you and I go without. Notice also that the feminoid frauds who push baby murder and mutilation under the banner of "choice," also have not extruded a peep. They want "freedom of choice" about what a woman takes out of her body (a baby), but they care nothing for freedom of choice about what she puts into it (a dietary supplement).
Yes, I know it is impossible to believe, but utterly benign things like garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. In fact, anything you ingest that has a therapeutic effect could be considered a drug. Would that include water?
This battle was last fought in 1993, when FDA Nazis and drug companies tried to impose these controls, but millions of Americans told Congress and the President to protect their untrammeled right to take supplements. The DSHEA was enacted in the next year to protect that right; but it will be tossed into the toilet by Codex and WTO.
The totalitarians have now almost won with a secret, unscientific meeting what they failed to win when they went nose-to-nose with aroused Americans. As the outrage now stands they will win, because the Communist media, from the Communist Broadcasting System to Rush Limbaugh have said not a word.
What can you do? First get the facts. Then act. Demand that Bush and the Congress oppose S. 722 and H.R. 3377. These bills would support the Codex restrictions by mutilating DSHEA. Instead, demand that your elected political employees support H.R. 1146, which would cancel Codex and restore the independence of the United States in this area.
Also, investigate the British Alliance for Natural Health. I am told that it has won permission to challenge the Codex directives in the World Court later this month or next. They need help financially, although I do not fool myself that an outfit as Communist as the World Court would overthrow this Communist scheme.
If Codex is imposed here, a black market will erupt. People will produce the supplements they want privately. FDA Nazis will conduct raids in the national forests, searching for contraband oregano, the way they hunt today for marijuana. Will there be shootouts? Garlic addicts are said to be especially dangerous. Which raises the question of whether grandmothers will be outlawed. Certainly one main effect of the prohibition of supplements will be a resurgence of sickness and disease. One of the reasons the health and life span of our people have improved is the freedom of choice in health that the FDA Nazis and the Mussolini doctors are trying to suppress. Those advances would evaporate under Codex.
Now remember that the goal of the conspiracy for world government has long been to reduce the world’s population. We know that because they say so again and again, at the conferences they attend. From Barbara Marx Hubbard to Ted the Traitor Turner and Jacques Yves Cousteau, the only thing they disagree about is how many human beings must be eliminated.
The highest percentage I have seen is 90%. Other, "moderate" proposals would eliminate half or more of the world’s people. So far, they have not decided – at least they have not admitted – what methods they would use. To exterminate that many millions of people would require something more elaborate than the primitive Nazi death camps and Dr. Josef Mengele.
Question: Is Codex Alimentarius in part one of the many schemes – including perpetual war, abortion, lethal narcotics and so on – that the conspiracy for world government has adopted for the purpose? Remember that food control is a weapon of conquest dictators often use. Stalin used it to murder in just one genocidal act as many victims as Hitler did in his thankfully brief totalitarian career.
The Codex horror proves yet again – if more proof were needed, which it is not – that President Smirk is an utter fraud, a Communist world government traitor, who has given us by far the biggest government the American people have ever suffered. Codex is his policy. Like so many present horrors, it could not continue five minutes after he picks up the telephone and commands it to stop.
Also Read:
FDA Announces Plan to Eliminate Vitamin Companies
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
June 27, 2007
The FDA, emboldened by its transformation into a drug company, has embarked upon an anti-American plan of interfering with business and intentionally eliminating various dietary supplement companies from the market. The FDA announcement came on Friday, June 22, 2007 under the guise of a final rule for dietary supplement good manufacturing practices (CGMPs). Within this 800 page rule the FDA states, “We find that this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.... Establishments with above average costs, and even establishments with average costs, could be hard pressed to continue to operate. Some of these may decide it is too costly and either change product lines or go out of business.... 140 very small [less than 20 employees] and 32 small dietary supplement manufacturers [less than 500 employees] will be at risk of going out of business.... costs per establishment are proportionally higher for very small than for large establishments....The regulatory costs of this final rule will also discourage new small businesses from entering the industry.”
This FDA rule will directly raise the price of dietary supplements for all consumers. The FDA acknowledges this and says “We expect that the majority of these costs will be borne by consumers of dietary supplements, who will likely respond to the increase in prices by reducing consumption.” Thus, the FDA is intentionally seeking to shrink the size of the dietary supplement industry and reduce the influence of safe and effective options to improve the dreadful trend in the health of Americans. The goal is to leave toxic drugs as the primary health option.
Independent analysis of this FDA rule has placed cost of compliance at 10 fold what the FDA estimates with as many as 50% of small companies unable to comply.
The gutless cowards of Congress, a majority of whom are on the Big Pharma payroll or will be on it once they leave Congress, have delegated their lawmaking powers granted by the U.S. Constitution to a bunch of Big Pharma-friendly unelected bureaucrats at the FDA, who are in turn using this power to undermine free commerce and help Big Pharma eliminate competition from the market. This is the behavior of a government in tyranny, inviting a revolution by the people. It is noteworthy that fascist governments of the past have eliminated health freedom and health options as a necessary condition to enslave and brainwash a population. Congress has delegated its responsibility to the people to such an extent that over half the laws in this country are now concocted by unelected bureaucrats with vested interests. [Read entire article at:]
Exposing the Cholesterol Myth

The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Cholesterol-Lowering Medicat
By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
21 July 2004
Hypercholesterolemia is the health issue of the 21st century. It is actually an invented disease, a "problem" that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood. High cholesterol exhibits no outward signs--unlike other conditions of the blood, such as diabetes or anemia, diseases that manifest telltale symptoms like thirst or weakness--hypercholesterolemia requires the services of a physician to detect its presence. Many people who feel perfectly healthy suffer from high cholesterol--in fact, feeling good is actually a symptom of high cholesterol!
Doctors who treat this new disease must first convince their patients that they are sick and need to take one or more expensive drugs for the rest of their lives, drugs that require regular checkups and blood tests. But such doctors do not work in a vacuum--their efforts to convert healthy people into patients are bolstered by the full weight of the U.S. government, the media and the medical establishment, agencies that have worked in concert to disseminate the cholesterol dogma and convince the population that high cholesterol is the forerunner of heart disease and possibly other diseases as well.
Who suffers from hypercholesterolemia? Peruse the medical literature of 25 or 30 years ago and you'll get the following answer: any middle-aged man whose cholesterol is over 240 with other risk factors, such as smoking or overweight.
After the Cholesterol Consensus Conference in 1984, the parameters changed; anyone (male or female) with cholesterol over 200 could receive the dreaded diagnosis and a prescription for pills. Recently that number has been moved down to 180. If you have had a heart attack, you get to take cholesterol-lowering medicines even if your cholesterol is already very low--after all, you have committed the sin of having a heart attack so your cholesterol must therefore be too high. The penance is a lifetime of cholesterol-lowering medications along with a boring low-fat diet. But why wait until you have a heart attack? Since we all labor under the stigma of original sin, we are all candidates for treatment. Current edicts stipulate cholesterol testing and treatment for young adults and even children.
The drugs that doctors use to treat the new disease are called statins--sold under a variety of names including:
Lipitor (atorvastatin)
Zocor (simvastatin)
Mevacor (lovastatin)
Pravachol (pravastatin)
How Statins WorkThe process begins with acetyl-CoA, a two-carbon molecule sometimes referred to as the "building block of life." Three acetyl-CoA molecules combine to form six-carbon hydroxymethyl glutaric acid (HMG). The step from HMG to mevalonate requires an enzyme, HMG-CoA reductase. Statin drugs work by inhibiting this enzyme--hence the formal name of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Herein lies the potential for numerous side effects, because statin drugs inhibit not just the production of cholesterol, but a whole family of intermediary substances, many if not all of which have important biochemical functions in their own right.
Consider the findings of pediatricians at the University of California, San Diego who published a description of a child with a hereditary defect of mevalonic kinase, the enzyme that facilitates the next step beyond HMG-CoA reductase.1 The child was mentally retarded, microcephalic (very small head), small for his age, profoundly anemic, acidotic and febrile. He also had cataracts. Predictably, his cholesterol was consistently low--70-79 mg/dl. He died at the age of 24 months. The child represents an extreme example of cholesterol inhibition, but his case illuminates the possible consequences of taking statins in strong doses or for a lengthy period of time:
Depression of mental acuity
Frequent fevers
Cholesterol is one of three end products in the mevalonate chain. The two others are ubiquinone and dilochol. Ubiquinone or Co-Enzyme Q10 is a critical cellular nutrient biosynthesized in the mitochondria. It plays a role in ATP production in the cells and functions as an electron carrier to cytochrome oxidase, our main respiratory enzyme. The heart requires high levels of Co-Q10. A form of Co-Q10 called ubiquinone is found in all cell membranes where it plays a role in maintaining membrane integrity so critical to nerve conduction and muscle integrity. Co-Q10 is also vital to the formation of elastin and collagen. Side effects of Co-Q10 deficiency include muscle wasting leading to weakness and severe back pain, heart failure (the heart is a muscle!), neuropathy and inflammation of the tendons and ligaments, often leading to rupture.
Dolichols also play a role of immense importance. In the cells they direct various proteins manufactured in response to DNA directives to their proper targets, ensuring that the cells respond correctly to genetically programmed instruction. Thus statin drugs can lead to unpredictable chaos on the cellular level, much like a computer virus that wipes out certain pathways or files.
Squalene, the immediate precursor to cholesterol, has anti-cancer effects, according to research.
The fact that some studies have shown that statins can prevent heart disease, at least in the short term, is most likely explained not by the inhibition of cholesterol production but because they block the creation of mevalonate. Reduced amounts of mevalonate seem to make smooth muscle cells less active, and platelets less able to produce thromboxane. Atherosclerosis begins with the growth of smooth muscle cells in side artery walls and thromboxane is necessary for blood clotting.
CholesterolOf course, statins inhibit the production of cholesterol--they do this very well. Nowhere is the failing of our medical system more evident than in the wholesale acceptance of cholesterol reduction as a way to prevent disease--have all these doctors forgotten what they learned in biochemistry 101 about the many roles of cholesterol in the human biochemistry?
Every cell membrane in our body contains cholesterol because cholesterol is what makes our cells waterproof--without cholesterol we could not have a different biochemistry on the inside and the outside of the cell. When cholesterol levels are not adequate, the cell membrane becomes leaky or porous, a situation the body interprets as an emergency, releasing a flood of corticoid hormones that work by sequestering cholesterol from one part of the body and transporting it to areas where it is lacking. Cholesterol is the body's repair substance: scar tissue contains high levels of cholesterol, including scar tissue in the arteries.
Cholesterol is the precursor to vitamin D, necessary for numerous biochemical processes including mineral metabolism. The bile salts, required for the digestion of fat, are made of cholesterol. Those who suffer from low cholesterol often have trouble digesting fats. Cholesterol also functions as a powerful antioxidant, thus protecting us against cancer and aging.
Cholesterol is vital to proper neurological function. It plays a key role in the formation of memory and the uptake of hormones in the brain, including serotonin, the body's feel-good chemical. When cholesterol levels drop too low, the serotonin receptors cannot work. Cholesterol is the main organic molecule in the brain, constituting over half the dry weight of the cerebral cortex.
Finally, cholesterol is the precursor to all the hormones produced in the adrenal cortex including glucocorticoids, which regulate blood sugar levels, and mineralocorticoids, which regulate mineral balance. Corticoids are the cholesterol-based adrenal hormones that the body uses in response to stress of various types; it promotes healing and balances the tendency to inflammation. The adrenal cortex also produces sex hormones, including testosterone, estrogen and progesterone, out of cholesterol. Thus, low cholesterol--whether due to an innate error of metabolism or induced by cholesterol-lowering diets and drugs--can be expected to disrupt the production of adrenal hormones and lead to:
Blood sugar problems
Mineral deficiencies
Chronic inflammation
Difficulty in healing
Reduced libido
Various reproductive problems
Enter the StatinsStatin drugs entered the market with great promise. They replaced a class of pharmaceuticals that lowered cholesterol by preventing its absorption from the gut. These drugs often had immediate and unpleasant side effects, including nausea, indigestion and constipation, and in the typical patient they lowered cholesterol levels only slightly. Patient compliance was low: the benefit did not seem worth the side effects and the potential for use very limited. By contrast, statin drugs had no immediate side effects: they did not cause nausea or indigestion and they were consistently effective, often lowering cholesterol levels by 50 points or more.
During the last 20 years, the industry has mounted an incredible promotional campaign--enlisting scientists, advertising agencies, the media and the medical profession in a blitz that turned the statins into one of the bestselling pharmaceuticals of all time. Sixteen million Americans now take Lipitor, the most popular statin, and drug company officials claim that 36 million Americans are candidates for statin drug therapy.
What bedevils the industry is growing reports of side effects that manifest many months after the commencement of therapy; the November 2003 issue of Smart Money magazine reports on a 1999 study at St. Thomas' Hospital in London (apparently unpublished), which found that 36 percent of patients on Lipitor's highest dose reported side effects; even at the lowest dose, 10 percent reported side effects.2
Muscle Pain and Weakness
The most common side effect is muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis, most likely due to the depletion of Co-Q10, a nutrient that supports muscle function. Dr. Beatrice Golomb of San Diego, California is currently conducting a series of studies on statin side effects. The industry insists that only 2-3 percent of patients get muscle aches and cramps but in one study, Golomb found that 98 percent of patients taking Lipitor and one-third of the patients taking Mevachor (a lower-dose statin) suffered from muscle problems.3 A message board devoted to Lipitor at contains more than 800 posts, many detailing severe side effects. The Lipitor board at contains more than 2,600 posts.
The test for muscle wasting or rhabdomyolysis is elevated levels of a chemical called creatine kinase (CK). But many people experience pain and fatigue even though they have normal CK levels.4
Tahoe City resident Doug Peterson developed slurred speech, balance problems and severe fatigue after three years on Lipitor--for two and a half years, he had no side effects at all.5 It began with restless sleep patterns--twitching and flailing his arms. Loss of balance followed and the beginning of what Doug calls the "statin shuffle"--a slow, wobbly walk across the room. Fine motor skills suffered next. It took him five minutes to write four words, much of which was illegible. Cognitive function also declined. It was hard to convince his doctors that Lipitor could be the culprit, but when he finally stopped taking it, his coordination and memory improved.
John Altrocchi took Mevacor for three years without side effects; then he developed calf pain so severe he could hardly walk. He also experienced episodes of temporary memory loss.
For some, however, muscle problems show up shortly after treatment begins. Ed Ontiveros began having muscle problems within 30 days of taking Lipitor. He fell in the bathroom and had trouble getting up. The weakness subsided when he went off Lipitor. In another case, reported in the medical journal Heart, a patient developed rhabdomyolysis after a single dose of a statin.6 Heel pain from plantar fascitis (heel spurs) is another common complaint among those taking statin drugs. One correspondent reported the onset of pain in the feet shortly after beginning statin treatment. She had visited an evangelist, requesting that he pray for her sore feet. He enquired whether she was taking Lipitor. When she said yes, he told her that his feet had also hurt when he took Lipitor.7
Active people are much more likely to develop problems from statin use than those who are sedentary. In a study carried out in Austria, only six out of 22 athletes with familial hypercholesterolemia were able to endure statin treatment.8 The others discontinued treatment because of muscle pain.
By the way, other cholesterol-lowering agents besides statin drugs can cause joint pain and muscle weakness. A report in Southern Medical Journal described muscle pains and weakness in a man who took Chinese red rice, an herbal preparation that lowers cholesterol.9 Anyone suffering from myopathy, fibromyalgia, coordination problems and fatigue needs to look at low cholesterol plus Co-Q10 deficiency as a possible cause.
NeuropathyPolyneuropathy, also known as peripheral neuropathy, is characterized by weakness, tingling and pain in the hands and feet as well as difficulty walking. Researchers who studied 500,000 residents of Denmark, about 9 percent of that country's population, found that people who took statins were more likely to develop polyneuropathy.10 Taking statins for one year raised the risk of nerve damage by about 15 percent--about one case for every 2,200 patients. For those who took statins for two or more years, the additional risk rose to 26 percent.
According to the research of Dr. Golomb, nerve problems are a common side effect from statin use; patients who use statins for two or more years are at a four to 14-fold increased risk of developing idiopathic polyneuropathy compared to controls.11 She reports that in many cases, patients told her they had complained to their doctors about neurological problems, only to be assured that their symptoms could not be related to cholesterol-lowering medications.
The damage is often irreversible. People who take large doses for a long time may be left with permanent nerve damage, even after they stop taking the drug.
The question is, does widespread statin-induced neuropathy make our elderly drivers (and even not-so-elderly drivers) more accident prone? In July 2003, an 86-year-old driver with an excellent driving record plowed into a farmers' market in Santa Monica, California, killing 10 people. Several days later, a most interesting letter from a Lake Oswego, Oregon woman appeared in the Washington Post:12
"My husband, at age 68, backed into the garage and stepped on the gas, wrecking a lot of stuff. He said his foot slipped off the brake. He had health problems and is on medication, including a cholesterol drug, which is now known to cause problems with feeling in one's legs.
"In my little community, older drivers have missed a turn and taken out the end of a music store, the double doors of the post office and the front of a bakery. In Portland, a bank had to do without its drive-up window for some time.
"It is easy to say that one's foot slipped, but the problem could be lack of sensation. My husband's sister-in-law thought her car was malfunctioning when it refused to go when a light turned green, until she looked down and saw that her foot was on the brake. I have another friend who mentioned having no feeling in her lower extremities. She thought about having her car retrofitted with hand controls but opted for the handicapped bus instead."
Heart Failure
We are currently in the midst of a congestive heart failure epidemic in the United States--while the incidence of heart attack has declined slightly, an increase in the number of heart failure cases has outpaced these gains. Deaths attributed to heart failure more than doubled from 1989 to 1997.13 (Statins were first given pre-market approval in 1987.) Interference with production of Co-Q10 by statin drugs is the most likely explanation. The heart is a muscle and it cannot work when deprived of Co-Q10.
Cardiologist Peter Langsjoen studied 20 patients with completely normal heart function. After six months on a low dose of 20 mg of Lipitor a day, two-thirds of the patients had abnormalities in the heart's filling phase, when the muscle fills with blood. According to Langsjoen, this malfunction is due to Co-Q10 depletion.
Without Co-Q10, the cell's mitochondria are inhibited from producing energy, leading to muscle pain and weakness. The heart is especially susceptible because it uses so much energy.14
Co-Q10 depletion becomes more and more of a problem as the pharmaceutical industry encourages doctors to lower cholesterol levels in their patients by greater and greater amounts. Fifteen animal studies in six different animal species have documented statin-induced Co-Q10 depletion leading to decreased ATP production, increased injury from heart failure, skeletal muscle injury and increased mortality. Of the nine controlled trials on statin-induced Co-Q10 depletion in humans, eight showed significant Co-Q10 depletion leading to decline in left ventricular function and biochemical imbalances.15
Yet virtually all patients with heart failure are put on statin drugs, even if their cholesterol is already low. Of interest is a recent study indicating that patients with chronic heart failure benefit from having high levels of cholesterol rather than low. Researchers in Hull, UK followed 114 heart failure patients for at least 12 months.16 Survival was 78 percent at 12 months and 56 percent at 36 months.
They found that for every point of decrease in serum cholesterol, there was a 36 percent increase in the risk of death within three years.
Dizziness is commonly associated with statin use, possibly due to pressure-lowering effects. One woman reported dizziness one half hour after taking Pravachol.17 When she stopped taking it, the dizziness cleared up. Blood pressure lowering has been reported with several statins in published studies. According to Dr. Golumb, who notes that dizziness is a common adverse effect, the elderly may be particularly sensitive to drops in blood pressure.18
Cognitive Impairment
The November 2003 issue of Smart Money19 describes the case of Mike Hope, owner of a successful ophthalmologic supply company:
"There's an awkward silence when you ask Mike Hope his age. He doesn't change the subject or stammer, or make a silly joke about how he stopped counting at 21. He simply doesn't remember. Ten seconds pass. Then 20. Finally an answer comes to him. 'I'm 56,' he says. Close, but not quite. 'I will be 56 this year.' Later, if you happen to ask him about the book he's reading, you'll hit another roadblock. He can't recall the title, the author or the plot."
Statin use since 1998 has caused his speech and memory to fade. He was forced to close his business and went on Social Security 10 years early. Things improved when he discontinued Lipitor in 2002, but he is far from complete recovery--he still cannot sustain a conversation. What Lipitor did was turn Mike Hope into an old man when he was in the prime of life.
Cases like Mike's have shown up in the medical literature as well. An article in Pharmacotherapy, December 2003, for example, reports two cases of cognitive impairment associated with Lipitor and Zocor.20 Both patients suffered progressive cognitive decline that reversed completely within a month after discontinuation of the statins. A study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh showed that patients treated with statins for six months compared poorly with patients on a placebo in solving complex mazes, psychomotor skills and memory tests.21
Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients develop some cognitive side effects.22 The most harrowing involve global transient amnesia--complete memory loss for a brief or lengthy period--described by former astronaut Duane Graveline in his book Lipitor: Thief of Memory.23 Sufferers report baffling incidents involving complete loss of memory--arriving at a store and not remembering why they are there, unable to remember their name or the names of their loved ones, unable to find their way home in the car.
These episodes occur suddenly and disappear just as suddenly. Graveline points out that we are all at risk when the general public is taking statins--do you want to be in an airplane when your pilot develops statin-induced amnesia?
While the pharmaceutical industry denies that statins can cause amnesia, memory loss has shown up in several statin trials. In a trial involving 2,502 subjects, amnesia occurred in seven receiving Lipitor; amnesia also occurred in two of 742 subjects during comparative trials with other statins. In addition, "abnormal thinking" was reported in four of the 2,502 clinical trial subjects.24 The total recorded side effects was therefore 0.5 percent; a figure that likely under-represents the true frequency since memory loss was not specifically studied in these trials.
CancerIn every study with rodents to date, statins have caused cancer.25 Why have we not seen such a dramatic correlation in human studies? Because cancer takes a long time to develop and most of the statin trials do not go on longer than two or three years. Still, in one trial, the CARE trial, breast cancer rates of those taking a statin went up 1500 percent.26 In the Heart Protection Study, non-melanoma skin cancer occurred in 243 patients treated with simvastatin compared with 202 cases in the control group.27
Manufacturers of statin drugs have recognized the fact that statins depress the immune system, an effect that can lead to cancer and infectious disease, recommending statin use for inflammatory arthritis and as an immune suppressor for transplant patients.28
Pancreatic Rot
The medical literature contains several reports of pancreatitis in patients taking statins. One paper describes the case of a 49-year-old woman who was admitted to the hospital with diarrhea and septic shock one month after beginning treatment with lovastatin.29
She died after prolonged hospitalization; the cause of death was necrotizing pancreatitis. Her doctors noted that the patient had no evidence of common risk factors for acute pancreatitis, such as biliary tract disease or alcohol use. "Prescribers of statins (particularly simvastatin and lovastatin) should take into account the possibility of acute pancreatitis in patients who develop abdominal pain within the first weeks of treatment with these drugs," they warned.
Numerous studies have linked low cholesterol with depression. One of the most recent found that women with low cholesterol are twice as likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. Researchers from Duke University Medical Center carried out personality trait measurements on 121 young women aged 18 to 27.30 They found that 39 percent of the women with low cholesterol levels scored high on personality traits that signaled proneness to depression, compared to 19 percent of women with normal or high levels of cholesterol.
In addition, one in three of the women with low cholesterol levels scored high on anxiety indicators, compared to 21 percent with normal levels. Yet the author of the study, Dr. Edward Suarez, cautioned women with low cholesterol against eating "foods such as cream cakes" to raise cholesterol, warning that these types of food "can cause heart disease." In previous studies on men, Dr. Suarez found that men who lower their cholesterol levels with medication have increased rates of suicide and violent death, leading the researchers to theorize "that low cholesterol levels were causing mood disturbances."
How many elderly statin-takers eke through their golden years feeling miserable and depressed, when they should be enjoying their grandchildren and looking back with pride on their accomplishments? But that is the new dogma--you may have a long life as long as it is experienced as a vale of tears.
Any Benefits?
Most doctors are convinced--and seek to convince their patients--that the benefits of statin drugs far outweigh the side effects. They can cite a number of studies in which statin use has lowered the number of coronary deaths compared to controls. But as Dr. Ravnskov has pointed out in his book The Cholesterol Myths,31 the results of the major studies up to the year 2000--the 4S, WOSCOPS, CARE, AFCAPS and LIPID studies--generally showed only small differences and these differences were often statistically insignificant and independent of the amount of cholesterol lowering achieved.
In two studies, EXCEL, and FACAPT/TexCAPS, more deaths occurred in the treatment group compared to controls. Dr. Ravnskov's 1992 meta-analysis of 26 controlled cholesterol-lowering trials found an equal number of cardiovascular deaths in the treatment and control groups and a greater number of total deaths in the treatment groups.32 An analysis of all the big controlled trials reported before 2000 found that long-term use of statins for primary prevention of heart disase produced a 1 percent greater risk of death over 10 years compared to a placebo.33
Recently published studies do not provide any more justification for the current campaign to put as many people as possible on statin drugs.
Honolulu Hearth Program (2001)This report, part of an ongoing study, looked at cholesterol lowering in the elderly. Researchers compared changes in cholesterol concentrations over 20 years with all-cause mortality.34 To quote:
"Our data accords with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death ... The most striking findings were related to changes in cholesterol between examination three (1971-74) and examination four (1991-93).
There are few studies that have cholesterol concentrations from the same patients at both middle age and old age. Although our results lend support to previous findings that low serum cholesterol imparts a poor outlook when compared with higher concentrations of cholesterol in elderly people, our data also suggest that those individuals with a low serum cholesterol maintained over a 20-year period will have the worst outlook for all-cause mortality [emphasis ours]."
MIRACL (2001)
The MIRACL study looked at the effects of a high dose of Lipitor on 3,086 patients in the hospital after angina or nonfatal MI and followed them for 16 weeks.35 According to the abstract: "For patients with acute coronary syndrome, lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin, 80 mg/day, reduced recurrent ischemic events in the first 16 weeks, mostly recurrent symptomatic ischemia requiring rehospitalization." What the abstract did not mention was that there was no change in death rate compared to controls and no significant change in re-infarction rate or need for resuscitation from cardiac arrest. The only change was a significant drop in chest pain requiring rehospitalization.
ALLHAT (2002)
ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), the largest North American cholesterol-lowering trial ever and the largest trial in the world using Lipitor, showed mortality of the treatment group and controls after three or six years was identical.36
Researchers used data from more than 10,000 participants and followed them over a period of four years, comparing the use of a statin drug to "usual care," namely maintaining proper body weight, no smoking, regular exercise, etc., in treating subjects with moderately high levels of LDL cholesterol. Of the 5170 subjects in the group that received statin drugs, 28 percent lowered their LDL cholesterol significantly. And of the 5,185 usual-care subjects, about 11 percent had a similar drop in LDL. But both groups showed the same rates of death, heart attack and heart disease.
Heart Protection Study (2002)
Carried out at Oxford University,37 this study received widespread press coverage; researchers claimed "massive benefits" from cholesterol-lowering,38 leading one commentator to predict that statin drugs were "the new aspirin."39 But as Dr. Ravnskov points out,40 the benefits were far from massive. Those who took simvastatin had an 87.1 percent survival rate after five years compared to an 85.4 percent survival rate for the controls and these results were independent of the amount of cholesterol lowering. The authors of the Heart Protection Study never published cumulative mortality data, even though they received many requests to do so and even though they received funding and carried out a study to look at cumulative data.
According to the authors, providing year-by-year mortality data would be an "inappropriate" way of publishing their study results.41
PROSPER (2002)
PROSPER (Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk) studied the effect of pravastatin compared to placebo in two older populations of patients of which 56 percent were primary prevention cases (no past or symptomatic cardiovascular disease) and 44 percent were secondary prevention cases (past or symptomatic cardiovascular disease).42
Pravastatin did not reduce total myocardial infarction or total stroke in the primary prevention population but did so in the secondary. However, measures of overall health impact in the combined populations, total mortality and total serious adverse events were unchanged by pravastatin as compared to the placebo and those in the treatment group had increased cancer. In other words: not one life saved.
J-LIT (2002)Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial was a six-year study of 47,294 patients treated with the same dose of simvastatin.43 Patients were grouped by the amount of cholesterol lowering. Some patient had no reduction in LDL levels, some had a moderate fall in LDL and some had very large LDL reductions. The results: no correlation between the amount of LDL lowering and death rate at five years. Those with LDL cholesterol lower than 80 had a death rate of just over 3.5 at five years; those whose LDL was over 200 had a death rate of just over 3.5 at five years.
Meta-Analysis (2003)
In a meta-analysis of 44 trials involving almost 10,000 patients, the death rate was identical at 1 percent of patients in each of the three groups--those taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), those taking other statins and those taking nothing.44 Furthermore, 65 percent of those on treatment versus 45 percent of the controls experienced an adverse event. Researchers claimed that the incidence of adverse effects was the same in all three groups, but 3 percent of the atorvastatin-treated patients and 4 percent of those receiving other statins withdrew due to treatment-associated adverse events, compared with 1 percent of patients on the placebo.
Statins and Plaque (2003)
A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology casts serious doubts on the commonly held belief that lowering your LDL-cholesterol, the so-called bad cholesterol, is the most effective way to reduced arterial plaque.45 Researchers at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City examined the coronary plaque buildup in 182 subjects who took statin drugs to lower cholesterol levels. One group of subjects used the drug aggressively (more than 80 mg per day) while the balance of the subjects took less than 80 mg per day.
Using electron beam tomography, the researchers measured plaque in all of the subjects before and after a study period of more than one year. The subjects were generally successful in lowering their cholesterol, but in the end there was no statistical difference in the two groups in the progression of arterial calcified plaque. On average, subjects in both groups showed a 9.2 percent increase in plaque buildup.
Statins and Women (2003)
No study has shown a significant reduction in mortality in women treated with statins. The University of British Columbia Therapeutics Initiative came to the same conclusion, with the finding that statins offer no benefit to women for prevention of heart disease.46 Yet in February 2004, Circulation published an article in which more than 20 organizations endorsed cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines for women with several mentions of "preferably a statin."47
ASCOT-LLA (2003)
ASCOT-LLA (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial -- Lipid Lowering Arm) was designed to assess the benefits of atorvastatin (Lipitor) versus a placebo in patients who had high blood pressure with average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations and at least three other cardiovascular risk factors.48 The trial was originally planned for five years but was stopped after a median follow-up of 3.3 years because of a significant reduction in cardiac events. Lipitor did reduce total myocardial infarction and total stroke; however, total mortality was not significantly reduced. In fact, women were worse off with treatment. The trial report stated that total serious adverse events "did not differ between patients assigned atorvastatin or placebo," but did not supply the actual numbers of serious events.
Cholesterol Levels in Dialysis Patients (2004)
In a study of dialysis patients, those with higher cholesterol levels had lower mortality than those with low cholesterol.49 Yet the authors claimed that the "inverse association of total cholesterol level with mortality in dialysis patients is likely due to the cholesterol-lowering effect of systemic inflammation and malnutrition, not to a protective effect of high cholesterol concentrations." Keeping an eye on further funding opportunities, the authors concluded: "These findings support treatment of hypercholesterolemia in this population."
Related Articles:
Safety Concerns Surround the Latest Statin, Crestor
Statin Drugs Are Now Available Over the Counter
The Truth About Crestor: Is Crestor Dangerous And, if so, Why?
The Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs (Statins), Cholesterol, and Health
Crestor and Other Statins: Are They Really Worth the Risk?
Half of Population Will be Taking Statins
Statins - Is the Danger is the Dose?
Whistle Blower is My New Hero
By Dr. Mercola
18 December 2004
Dr. David Graham, associate director in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, called the FDA's approval of arthritis drug Vioxx, "The single greatest drug safety catastrophe in the history of this country or the history of this world." Graham went on to cite the following statistic: A staggering 88,000 to 139,000 Americans suffered heart attacks and strokes as a result of taking Vioxx.
In addition to Vioxx, Graham named five other drugs that are putting the lives of the public at risk. The five drugs in question are:

Graham stated that the FDA's inability to protect Americans from another case similar to the Vioxx case was clear evidence that massive changes need to be implemented for the future protection of the public.
One of the regulatory changes Graham proposed was granting the Office of Drug Safety independent regulatory authority. Presently, safety officers are faced with a conflict of interest in the event they have to convince the Office of New Drugs that a drug is causing side effects. The conflict arises because the very group that approved the drug in the first place is also responsible for taking regulatory action against any post-marketing activities.
Graham's Future
Tom Devine, Graham's lawyer, stated that Graham would be exiled from his duties of reviewing drugs and placed in the office of the commissioner. Devine described this position as "filling space under the scrutinizing watch of a babysitter."
JUPITER Study Highlights 4 Reasons to say No to Crestor
By Shane Ellison M. Sc.
The People's Chemist
December 7, 2008
There's been a deep lying suspicion that a deliberate push to get each and every American hooked on drugs, while at the same time bankrupting them, exists among Big Pharma, the U.S. government and the popular media. But now, a new study confirms this suspicion as fact. It's the JUPITER study.
JUPITER stands for Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin. It's not a clinical trial. It's a rouse to promote drugs as vitamins. Dr. Timothy J. Gardner, president of the American Heart Association, was so excited by it that he insisted, "this one [JUPITER] is pretty clearly a winner for statin therapy."
The New York Times gave us the infomercial, scripted response of, "Taking the statin Crestor, also known as rosuvastatin, slashed the risk of heart attack by more than half according to the JUPITER results." But if you believe this, then you're already on too many drugs.
Big Pharma money can be intoxicating. Like a frat boy with beer goggles, few health professionals or popular media outlets could see the ugly truth. Four important points of the JUPITER rouse were missed, which serve as four reasons to avoid Crestor.
The media failed to mention that Crestor makers - AstraZeneca - funded the study. When a company pays for a study, they pay for the interpretation of results, which always involves statistical trickery. Most of us learned this with the heart attack inducing, pain killer Vioxx. Touted as the safest NSAID of all time, it proved to be the deadliest once unleashed with the rubber stamp approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - it snuffed out an estimated 40,000 lives, fast. Its' wake of destruction still resonates within Americans, but apparently not with the media.
The media failed to mention the statistical trickery at work. Cardiovascular events were reduced by an absolute, paltry 0.9% with Crestor use. Using a few tricks of the statistics trade, this bland number was converted into the more lucrative, "relative risk reduction" of 53%. This trickery happens so fast, it's like watching magician David Blaine pull his heart out of his chest. You don't know if it's real or just a cheap magic trick. Dr. Mark Hlatky of Stanford shows that it's just a trick.
Commenting on the trickery, he told the New England Journal of Medicine that, "absolute differences in risk are more clinically important than relative reductions in risk in deciding whether to recommend drug therapy, since the absolute benefits of treatment must be large enough to justify the associated risks and costs." But, using statistical sleight of hand helps AstraZeneca make some serious cash.
The media failed to mention that it would cost bookoo bucks to follow JUPITER's recommended Crestor protocol. The drug giant stands to pocket an estimated $500,000 per patient, courtesy of their insurance company, if the drug is used as recommended by the study - over a patient's lifetime.
And finally, the media failed to mention that Crestor users risk the particularly, nasty side effect of liver failure, rhabdomyolysis, diabetes and more. If you really needed another one, that's the fourth reason to say no to Crestor: It's a seriously expensive way to get sick.
Falsely promoting ineffective and dangerous drugs, while pillaging bank accounts, is illegal. Street thugs go to jail every day for it. If the JUPITER rouse is to be condoned by the federal government and supported by the media, then there is no need for the FDA since Big Pharma can violate the laws with predatory prescription hype disguised as science. Say no to Crestor and all the other cholesterol-lowering drugs. Otherwise, face the outcomes of government mandated drug addiction.
How Many More will Die Before FDA Ghouls are Held Accountable?
By: Devvy Kidd
July 14, 2008
© 2008 -
The American people have grown up with so many federal alphabet soup agencies, they've become immune to the dastardly deeds done by these unelected officials - except when it hits their home. When I refer to the FDA, I don't mean the Federal Drug Administration, I mean the Federal Death Administration. This agency derives its jurisdiction from treaties and has been getting away with destroying people's health for decades, and in too many cases, the result is death. The FDA is nothing more than another out of control agency answerable to no one. It needs to be abolished. While I was still writing news items for NWVs back in 2004, I wrote a piece on Donald Rumsfeld and aspartame. The mail came flooding in with accusations that aspartame was perfectly safe because the ghouls at the FDA said so! I followed up the deluge with a column under my own by-line; Aspartame Concerns - Junk Science, Quack Doctors?
Dr. Betty Martini has been a pioneer in exposing the devastating effects of ingesting that deadly chemical. Naturally, she's been attacked on a regular basis as have doctors and scientists who have studied the effects of aspartame on the human body - particularly the brain. Anyone who dares expose the truth which cuts into the profits of the big pharma houses is persecuted by the ghouls at the Federal Death Administration. Many are political prisoners for doing nothing more than trying to naturally treat their patients.
This is especially true for the multi-billion dollar a year cancer industry; see The Cancer Research Money Machines. Since I wrote that column almost two years ago, more "safe" drugs and treatments, given the stamp of approval by the Federal Death Administration, have proven fatal. Let's start with Gardasil, a new, deadly vaccine that I've covered in previous columns:
July 3, 2008. From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: Judicial Watch Uncovers Shocking New FDA Documents Related to Gardasil
"Those of you who regularly read this column know that Judicial Watch has taken the lead in exposing the ugly truth about the dangerous side effects associated with Gardasil, the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV) currently being administered to young girls.
"Well this week, we released a special report based on new "adverse event reports" and other information obtained from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act. These reports document 10 reported deaths since September, 2007. (The total number of death reports is at least 18 and as many as 20.) The FDA also produced 140 "serious" reports (27 of which were categorized as "life threatening"), 10 spontaneous abortions and six cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome - all since January 2008. Here are a few excerpts from the documents we uncovered. The rest can be read in our report. (Warning: These descriptions get very graphic.)"
July 7, 2008. Should parents worry about HPV vaccine? "7,802 "adverse event" reports to CDC since Gardasil was approved. Reports claim drug caused nausea and paralysis -- even death."
Only after enough Americans die or thousands have their health destroyed, does the FDA pull some of these dangerous drugs:
October 8, 2007, FDA pulls Drug for Stomach Ills Is Pulled From the Market: rug for Stomach Ills Is Pulled From the Market: Zelnorm...Arthritis Drug Bextra Pulled: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today requested Pfizer recall arthritis drug Bextra (valdexocib) and change the warning label on Celebrex (celecoxib)...Parkinson's disease drug pulled from market: "The FDA pulled a Parkinson's drug from the market after reports of heart valve damage in more than a dozen patients. Pergolide is sold under the name Permax and is believed to raise the risk of heart valve damage by 20 percent." "FDA Okays Stomach Drugs Prilosec And Nexium, For Now. Diabetes drug should be pulled over heart risks, FDA scientist says; Avandia."
How about the widely popular, HRT (hormone replacement therapy) drug, Prempro, found in the government's own study to increase a healthy woman's risk of breast cancer by 24%, stroke by 41% and heart attack by 29%?
April 24, 2007. 70 women 'die each year from cancer after taking HRT. "But the UK-sponsored Million Women Study now suggests HRT resulted in 1,300 extra cases of ovarian cancer between 1991 and 2005. Of these women, 1,000 died of the disease."
2008: Wyeth, Pfizer ordered to pay $27 million in punitive damages. "A Little Rock, Ark., federal jury found Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Upjohn (a Pfizer unit) liable for $27 million in punitive damages to Donna Scroggin, who sued the drug manufacturers in 2004 after developing breast cancer after taking hormone replacement therapy. The award includes $19.3 million from Wyeth and $7.7 from Upjohn.
"Wyeth manufactures Premarin, an estrogen replacement, and Prempro, which is a combination of estrogen and progestin. These, along with Upjohn's Provera, which contains progestin, are commonly prescribed to treat the unpleasant effects of menopause....About 25 million American women use hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to ease the discomfort of menopause. There are about 5,300 similar cases pending across the country for Premarin and Prempro."
Here's a news flash: These dangerous cocktails are still on the market and being prescribed! I've never taken any form of HRT and am truly thankful I listened to my friend, Dr. Lorraine Day, 14 years ago. The 25 million women who use HRT's in this country just might be 'concerned' they will end up dead from breast and/or cervical cancer. I don't understand why anyone would take these drugs once you read the side effects: "Long-term treatment with Prempro may increase your risk of breast cancer, heart attack, or stroke." To help with hot flashes? Perhaps women should try natural supplements (Evening Primrose Oil, Dong Quai, Black Cohash) and a good 100% Mexican Yam progersterone cream for hot flashes. Okay, I have to give the disclaimer: I'm not a doctor nor am I making a medical referral here. I wouldn't want the Nazi's from the Department of Fatherland Security to charge me with some federal crime, i.e., prescribing natural supplements without the approval of the ghouls at the FDA.
[Read entire article at:]
Aspartame Disease: An FDA-Approved Epidemic
By H. J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P.
07 January 2004
"Diet" products containing the chemical sweetener aspartame can have multiple neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic, fetal and carcinogenic effects. My database of 1,200 aspartame reactors--based on logical diagnostic criteria, including predictable recurrence on rechallenge--is reviewed. The existence of aspartame disease continues to be denied by the FDA and powerful corporate entities. Its magnitude, however, warrants removal of this chemical as an "imminent public health threat." The use of aspartame products by over two-thirds of the population, and inadequate evaluation by corporate-partial investigators underscore this opinion.
As said by Senator Howard Metzenbaum (1):
"We had better be sure that the questions that have been raised about the safety of this product are answered. I must say at the outset, this product was approved by the FDA in circumstances that can only be described as troubling."
I have devoted more than two decades to analyzing aspartame disease, a widespread but largely ignored disorder. Its existence continues to be reflexively denied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Medical Association (AMA), and many public health/ regulatory organizations.
The medical profession and consumers have been assured by the Council on Scientific Affairs of the AMA (2) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that aspartame is "completely safe." Moreover, the impression is left that reports of serious reactions are a "health rumor" fabrication ... notwithstanding the CDC report in 1984 of 649 aspartame reactors with many attributed disorders (3).
An Overview of Aspartame DiseaseAs far back as 1988, seven years after the initial release of aspartame, 80 percent (!) of complaints volunteered by consumers to the FDA about supplements involved aspartame products. By April 1995, it had received 7,232 complaints.
I coined the term "aspartame disease" to encompass reactions to the chemical sweetener aspartame, commonly known as NutraSweet® and Equal®. Aspartame was originally conceived, and an application submitted, as a drug to treat peptic ulcer. To place its magnitude in perspective, over two-thirds of the population now uses thousands of "diet" sodas and products--including an ever-expanding list of new ones having greater potential for adverse effects (e.g., strips placed on the tongue to freshen the breath).
This report summarizes data on the first 1,200 aspartame reactors in my database, coupled with information of considerable clinical significance. I have elaborated on the details in Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic (4), other books (5-8), and numerous published articles and letters (9-12).
It is my belief that most physicians with active practices frequently encounter its manifestations. But, unaware of the underlying problem, they fail to inquire about aspartame use.
For orientation about the gravity of this public health dilemma, I shall mention just a few of the published associations in aspartame reactors. They include the initiation or aggravation of diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemia, convulsions, headache, depression, other psychiatric states, hyperthyroidism, hypertension and arthritis; the simulation of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease and lupus erythematosus; increasing aspartame addiction (12); an apparent causative role in brain tumors (10); a neurologic condition in overweight young women known as pseudotumor cerebri; and even the carpal tunnel syndrome (11).
In my opinion, lack of awareness of aspartame disease has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Examples include attributing the symptoms of weight-conscious women consuming considerable amounts of aspartame to silicone breast implants in expensive litigation (7), and imprisonment for the alleged methanol poisoning of a deceased spouse who consumed large amounts of aspartame.Having been involved in medical practice, teaching and the authorship of texts for a half century, I do not casually make statements that might jeopardize a longstanding reputation. As a case in point, my first book, Difficult Diagnosis: A Guide to the Interpretation of Obscure Illness (13), was studied and used as a reference by tens of thousands of internists and other physicians.
Gender and Age RangeThere was a 3:1 preponderance of females (72 percent). The various influences that may be operative in this gender preference have been detailed previously (4-6). The ages of persons at the onset of their reactions ranged from infancy to 92 years. Most were in their 20s to 50s.
Family History
Two or more close relatives of 211 reactors (17.6 percent) were known to have had reactions to aspartame products.
Latent PeriodLatent periods of from several weeks to months between the initial consumption, and increased intake of aspartame and the onset of severe symptoms were common. On the other hand, some patients reacted almost immediately, particularly with products conducive to oral/buccal absorption.
Aspartame Intake
Many reactors consumed prodigious amounts of aspartame, especially during hot weather. Conversely, some experienced convulsions, headache, or other severe symptoms after exposure to small amounts (e.g., chewing aspartame gum; placing an aspartame strip on the tongue; babies while breast-feeding as the mother drank an aspartame beverage).
Interval Between Cessation and Improvement
Nearly two-thirds of aspartame reactors experienced symptomatic improvement within two days after avoiding aspartame. With continued abstinence, their complaints generally disappeared.
CausationThe causative role of aspartame products has been repeatedly shown by (a) the prompt improvement of symptoms (grand mal seizures, headache, itching, rashes, severe gastrointestinal reactions) after stopping aspartame products, and (b) their recurrence within minutes or hours after resuming them. The latter included self-testing on numerous occasions, inadvertent ingestion, and formal rechallenge.
Some aspartame reactors with convulsions purposefully rechallenged themselves on one or several occasions "to be absolutely certain." This was unique among six pilots who had lost their licenses for unexplained seizures while consuming aspartame products. (All had been in otherwise excellent health.) They sought to have their licenses reinstated by such objective confirmation on rechallenge.
High-Risk Individuals
These groups include pregnant and lactating women, young children, older persons, those at risk for phenylketonuria (PKU), the relatives of aspartame reactors (see above), and patients with liver disease, iron-deficiency anemia, kidney impairment, migraine, diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypothyroidism.
Clinical ImplicationsPhysicians must question patients who present with the aforementioned conditions about aspartame use, particularly when they fail to respond to conventional therapy. If it is being consumed, a brief trial of abstinence should be recommended before initiating expensive tests, consultations and hospitalization.
The following caveats derive from clinical experience:
Every patient with unresolved neurologic, psychologic, allergic, dermatologic, gastrointestinal and metabolic/endocrine problems should be queried about aspartame intake.
* The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis should be deferred pending at least several months observation in the case of persons consuming aspartame.
* A pregnant woman should not risk the health of her fetus by consuming aspartame products.
*Visual, neurologic or bowel problems in diabetics should not be ascribed to a presumed underlying retinopathy or neuropathy until evaluating the response to aspartame abstinence.
*Cataract surgery ought to be deferred in heavy aspartame users to evaluate for spontaneous improvement after abstinence.
*Patients presenting with seizures, headache, atypical facial or eye pain, the Meniere syndrome, depression, the carpal tunnel syndrome, normal-pressure hydrocephalus, and a host of other unexplained neuropsychiatric problems, or who fail to respond to conventional treatment, must be queried about aspartame use ... especially if invasive studies are planned.
*Young adults who express concern about "possibly having early Alzheimer's disease," based on recent confusion and memory loss, ought to be observed at least one month after stopping aspartame before this diagnosis is pursued.
*Gynecologic surgical procedures to evaluate gross menstrual changes should be deferred pending the response to abstinence. [Read entire article at:]
Related Articles:
Sweet Misery: The Horrors of Aspartame Revealed in Documentary
Why Nutrasweet was so Successful and Will Likely Never be Replaced by Splenda
Aspartame Is By Far, the Most Dangerous Substance On the Market That Is Added To Foods
Aspartame - Avoid It
FDA Pivotal Safety Study: Aspartame Caused Brain Seizures
Fighting the Autism-Vaccine WarBy Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted April 10, 2008
One of the most vitriolic debates in medical history is just beginning to have its day in court—vaccine court, that is. Without laying blame, the independent Office of Special Masters of the Court of Federal Claims—with a 20-year record of handling vaccine matters—recently conceded that the brain damage and autistic behavior of Hannah Poling stemmed from her exposure as a toddler to five vaccinations on one day in July 2000. Two days later, she was overtaken by a high fever and an encephalopathy that deteriorated into autistic behavior. Even though autism has a strong genetic basis, and she has a coexisting rare mitochondrial disorder, I would not be too quick to dismiss Hannah as an anomaly.
At some level, the decision was a vindication for families who have been battling with the vaccine community, arguing that some poorly understood reaction to components of vaccines or their mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, could cause brain injury. Yes, vaccines are extraordinarily safe and bring huge public health benefit. (Remember the 1950s polio epidemics?) But vaccine experts tend to look at the population as a whole, not at individual patients. And population studies are not granular enough to detect individual metabolic, genetic, or immunological variation that might make some children under certain circumstances susceptible to neurological complications after vaccination.
A trigger? Families are not alone in searching for a trigger that might explain why autism and autism spectrum disorders have skyrocketed; now they reportedly affect about 1 in 150 kids. No doubt some of the increase is soft, due to broader diagnostic criteria, greater awareness, and—now that the notion of a detached "refrigerator" mom as a cause has blessedly fallen by the wayside—greater openness. But the rise of this disorder, which shows up before age 3, happens to coincide with the increased number and type of vaccine shots in the first few years of life. So as a trigger, vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility.
Go back 40 or 50 years. The medical literature is replete with reports of neurological reactions to vaccines, such as mood changes, seizures, brain inflammation, and swelling. Several hundred cases of the paralytic illness Guillain-Barré after the swine flu vaccine were blamed on the government and gave Gerald Ford heartburn—but eventually led to the vaccine court.
Pediatricians were concerned enough about mercury, which is known to cause neurological damage in developing infant and fetal brains, that they mobilized to have thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines by 2002. Their concern was not autism but the lunacy of injecting mercury into little kids through mandated vaccines that together exceeded mercury safety guidelines designed for adults. But as in all things vaccine, this move too was contentious. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization remain unconvinced that thimerosal puts young children at risk.
There is no evidence that removal of thimerosal from vaccines has lowered autism rates. But autism numbers are not precise, so I would say that considerably more research is still needed on some provocative findings. After all, thimerosal crosses the placenta, and pregnant women are advised to get flu shots, which often contain it. Studies in mice suggest that genetic variation influences brain sensitivity to the toxic effects of mercury. And a primate study designed to mimic vaccination in infants reported in 2005 that thimerosal may clear from the blood in a matter of days but leaves inorganic mercury behind in the brain.
The debate roils on—even about research. The Institute of Medicine in its last report on vaccines and autism in 2004 said that more research on the vaccine question is counterproductive: Finding a susceptibility to this risk in some infants would call into question the universal vaccination strategy that is a bedrock of immunization programs and could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines. The IOM concluded that efforts to find a link between vaccines and autism "must be balanced against the broader benefit of the current vaccine program for all children."
Wow. Medicine has moved ahead only because doctors, researchers, and yes, families, have openly challenged even the most sacred medical dogma. At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of my dearest colleagues, I say thank goodness for the vaccine court.
NO AUTISM In Never-Vaccinated ChildrenFrom Alan Cantwell MD
From Philip Rudnick PhD3-8-9
Dear Drs. Eisenstein and Bradstreet:
In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never- vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois' relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst's medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We have a fairly large practice," Eisenstein told us. "We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. "We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said. "The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's not something that anyone would miss."
"Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, a Florida family practitioner with ties to families who homeschool their children for religious reasons, told Age of Autism he has proposed such a study in that group. "I said I know I can tap into this community and find you large numbers of unvaccinated homeschooled," said Bradstreet, "and we can do simple prevalence and incidence studies in them, and my gut reaction is that you're going to see no autism in this group.""
"A specter is haunting the medical and journalism establishments of the United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism?" ---Dan Olmsted
[Dan Olmsted did the research the vaccine industry and media refused to do and found little or no autism in the unvaccinated Amish and Homefirst Medical Services children.]
"I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century. "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that's just the way it is."
******* *******
Pharmacy News ArticleGovernment Again Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism
[3/14/09] Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey's Los Angeles-based non-profit autism organization, announced that the United States Government has once again conceded that vaccines cause autism. The announcement comes on the heels of the recently unsealed court case of Bailey Banks vs. HHS. The ruling states, "The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine...a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to PDD [Autism]."
In a curious and hypocritical method of operation, the mysterious Vaccine Court not only protects vaccine makers from liability but supports a policy that has tripled the number of vaccines given to U.S. children - all after being made aware of the fact that these vaccines do, in fact, cause autism and repeatedly ruling in favor of families with children hurt by their vaccines (see also Immunization).
"It was heartbreaking to hear about Bailey's story, but through this ruling we are gaining the proof we need to open the eyes of the world to the fact that vaccines do, in fact, cause autism," said Jenny McCarthy, Hollywood actress, autism activist, best-selling author and Generation Rescue board member. "Bailey Banks' regression into autism after vaccination is the same story I went through with my own son and the same story I have heard from thousands of mothers and fathers around the country. Our hope is that this ruling will influence decision and policy-makers to help the hundreds of thousands of children and families affected by this terrible condition."
Banks vs. HHS is the second known case where the Vaccine Court could not deny the overwhelming evidence showing vaccines caused a child's autism. The first was the case of Hannah Poling in March of 2008, where the court found in her favor and awarded her family compensation.
Jim Carrey, Hollywood legend and Generation Rescue board member, reacted to the news, "It seems the U.S. government is sending mixed messages by telling the world that vaccines don't cause autism, while, at the same time, they are quietly managing a separate 'vaccine court' that is ruling in favor of affected families and finding that vaccines, in fact, were the cause. For most of the autism community the question is no longer whether vaccines caused of their child's autism. The question is why is their government only promoting the rulings that are in favor of the vaccine companies."
Why is a secret court, which no one knows about or understands, quietly paying these families for vaccine injuries and autism? Deirdre Imus, Generation Rescue board member and founder of the Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology says, "Over the past 20 years, the vaccine court has dispensed close to $2 billion in compensation to families whose children were injured or killed by a vaccine. I am not against vaccines and my own child has been vaccinated. But, I share the growing concerns of many parents questioning the number of vaccines given to children today, some of the toxic ingredients in vaccines, and whether we know enough about the combination risks associated with the multiple vaccines given to children during critical developmental windows."
To help spread the word of the Banks ruling, Generation Rescue also bought a full-page ad that will run in the USA Today on 02/25/2009, which has a daily circulation of 2,272,815.
Generation Rescue seeks to answer these questions and many more on a daily basis as they fight for the truth and to recover children with autism around the world. To learn more please visit, write to
Copyright © 2009 Mental Health Law Weekly via
Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine Fraud
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
November 3, 2008
For several years the pharmaceutical firm has made aggressive efforts to market the Gardasil human papilloma virus vaccine as a prevention for cervical cancer. The governor of the state of Texas made the administration of this vaccine to young girls mandatory.
What is the truth about this vaccine?Natural News reporter Mike Adams has uncovered some interesting facts about this vaccine. The FDA has been aware since 2003 that Human Papillloma Virus does not cause cervical cancer. The Gardasil vaccine is unable to eradicate HPV virus from women who have been exposed to HPV (nearly all sexually active women). This makes vaccinating all young women in Texas against HPV virus a very questionable decision.
To make matters even worse it has now been learned that vaccinating women with Gardasil may actually increase the risk that those women harboring a benign cervical HPV viral infection have a 44.6 percent increased risk of having their benign HPV infection converted into a precancerous state by the HPV vaccine administration. Thus women vaccinated with Gardasil not only receive no benefit those who were sexually active before the vaccine administration have become at increased risk for developing cervical cancer.
To summarize some of the facts about HPV and this vaccine:• HPV vaccine increases the risk of developing a precancerous cervical lesion by 44.6% in women .previously infected with a HPV viral type found in the vaccine.• HPV virus does not cause cervical cancer.• HPV viral infections are self limiting and are not a health threat to healthy females.• This valuable information about the etiology of HPV viral infections has been suppressed from public knowledge.• Allowing untruths about Gardasil to be disseminated in public hearings and planting fear have been used to promote sales of this worthless vaccine.
The Evidence for the Gardasil Fraud HiFi DNA Tech was involved in manufacturing a portable device for testing for HPV viral infection. This company, to improve sales, needed to have their product reclassified as Class II instead of Class III because Class III category products are not able to be sold to the public whereas Class II products can be sold to the public because they are deemed safe enough for public release.
For 20 years the FDA had classified the HPV test as a test for cervical cancer. In 2003 the FDA changed its position advising that HPV virus was not associated with cervical cancer. On Oct12, 2007 HiFi DNA Tech sued the FDA to get their testing device reclassified as Class II based on the knowledge that cervical cancer was not caused by HPV infection .and therefore did not need to be restricted from public sales. The fact that the FDA had already acknowledged in a policy statement on March 31, 2003 that “most infections by HPV are shortlived and not associated with cervical cancer. Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no apparent long term consequences to their health.” It is not the HPV virus itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of ill health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to cervical cancer. Repeated transient HPV infections even when caused by high risk types of HPVs are characteristically not associated with an increased risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, the precursor lesion of cervical cancer.
This was not revealed when the public hearings over the need for mandatory HPV vaccinations was pushed by manufacturer of Gardasil. The FDA had known for many years that HPV was unrelated to cervical cancer but to have this knowledge disseminated during the hearings would have instantly made the HPV vaccine worthless.
The main push from the drug company has been that we “must save these young girls from losing their lives to cervical cancers.” The FDA knew when these hearings were held that this argument was phony but said nothing.!!!
Does the HPV Vaccine Actually Increase the Risk of Cervical Cancer?Gardasil vaccine actually increases the risk for a sexually active woman to develop cervical cancer (nearly all sexually active women have been exposed to HPV virus). Women who have already been exposed to HPV from sexual activity and have positive serologies for HPV viral types found in the HPV vaccine have a 44.6% increased risk for developing high grade precancerous cervical lesions after they have received Gardasil vaccine injections. This means that young women carrying a harmless form of HPV viral infection often get converted after HPV vaccine, into a more dangerous precancerous cervical condition. that can lead to cervical cancer.
These patients were made worse by exposure to a vaccine that contained a virus that had already infected them. Thus this evidence reveals that Gardasil increases disease in 44.6 % of patients who already been exposed to the same serotype found in the vaccine. This strongly suggests that sexually active women can become more likely to develop cervical cancer after taking Gardasil vaccine.
This information puts the state of Texas in the position where theoretically the Gardasil should be given only to young females who are virgins (sexually active females have existing HPV infections that may become more dangerous if given the vaccine). Questioning these young women about sexual activity may lead to sexually active girls denying sexual activity in the presence of parents or physician thus leading to HPV viral administration to a female with previous HPV infection who does have an increased risk of developing pre-invasive cervical lesions because of exposure to the vaccine. Thus females denying sexual activity will have an increased risk of getting pre-cancerous cervical lesions which can lead to cervical cancer.
To make this situation even worse the health officials that will be involved in screening candidates for HPV vaccine are heavily involved in promoting vaccine administration (They almost certainly have no idea the vaccine is worthless and capable of causing precancerous cervical lesions). Therefore the truth about the danger of cervical cancer resulting from the vaccine given to sexually active girls will not be given to these young women. This will probably cause an unnecessary increase in cervical cancer. [Read entire article at:]
$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives
Posted by Dr. Mercola
19 July 2007
Jock Doubleday, director of the California non-profit corporation Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc., has offered $75,000 to the first medical doctor or pharmaceutical company CEO who publicly drinks a mixture of standard vaccine additives.The additives would be the same as those contained in the vaccines recommended for a 6-year-old according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and the dose would be body-weight calibrated. It would include, but not be limited to:
Thimerosal (a mercury derivative)
Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
Phenol (a disinfectant dye)
Benzethonium chloride (a disinfectant)
Formaldehyde (a preservative and disinfectant)
On August 1, 2007, if no one has taken the challenge, the offer will be increased to $90,000 and will increase at a rate of $5,000 per month until someone accepts.
Vaccination Liberation Press Release
Jock Doubleday’s Vaccination Liberation
Could Your Fatigue be Low Levels of a Simple Vitamin?
Perhaps you’re relying too heavily on caffeinated beverages to get you through the day. Or maybe you’re just suffering silently with that lack of ‘get-up-and-go’. Although there are many causes for fatigue, low levels of this simple vitamin may not only lead to a lack of energy, but also moodiness, nervousness, memory issues, and numerous other concerns.
Find Out More
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Not surprisingly, this offer has been on the table since 2001, but no one has been willing to take that toxic chemical cocktail -- except for the children who innocently go in for their routine vaccinations. With the average amount of loans for medical students now well in excess of $100,000 you might have thought some doctor would have tried to cash in on this so they could accelerate the payment of their student loans.
In addition to the vaccine additives listed above, others can include ammonium sulfate, amphotericin B, pig blood, rabbit brain, monkey kidney, betapropiolactone, tri(n)butylphosphate, and a laundry list of other chemicals. The mercury-based preservative thimerosal, in particular, is dangerous. Mercury is a poison and potent neurotoxin. Injecting it into a child, whose nervous system is rapidly developing, can have terrible consequences.
From the evidence I have reviewed and my own clinical experience it is clear that mercury is one of the reasons autism skyrocketed in the last 10 years. Autism has started to decrease now that some the vaccines have eliminated mercury, but be wary; many vaccines still do contain thimerosal, no matter what you may have heard.
And even those vaccines without thimerosal still contain an incredible number of dangerous chemicals. When the mercury is removed, it is typically replaced with another toxic additive that is frequently just as health-harming. The aluminum hydroxide used in many vaccines has been linked to symptoms associated with Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's. Phenols, methanol, isopropyl, and 2-pheoxyethanol are other ingredients which are corrosive or toxic.
The bottom line is, if you are a parent and are considering vaccinating your child, please read up on the potentially devastating side effects of vaccines before doing so. It could mean the difference between life and death. Avoid the fear mongering and take some time to read ALL sides of the issue, not just the propaganda conventional pediatrician will present to you. Most educated parents that I know that have done a careful analysis of the data invariably chose not to vaccinate their children.
Related Articles:Vaccinations May Increase Death Toll
Vaccinations, Not Virus, Responsible for Spanish Flu
Shocking Documentary Will Convince You to Stay Away From Vaccines For Good
Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine
Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.
1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
Should young girls be required to take Gardasil by the government when possible side effects include hospitalization and death? There have also been reports from the National Vaccine Information Center about fainting and dizziness reported by dozens of patients as side effects of Gardasil, and there are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.
These are steep risks for a vaccine that only sometimes protects against HPV, which is virtually 100 percent avoidable without an expensive and potentially fatal vaccine.
Please realize that Merck has manipulated the medical and political system to FORCE children to get this dangerous vaccine for their own bottom line profit. The potential promised reduction of cervical cancer is the bait they use.
Remember Merck, the manufacturer of this vaccine, is the same company that made Vioxx that killed over 60,000 people.
It is also important to understand that this year, some 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV, and about 3,700 will die from it. In comparison, 16 times more American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (178,480), and 11 times more will die from it (40,460).As Merck's own literature says, it is important to realize that Gardasil does not protect women against some "non-vaccine" HPV types. So, even if girls accept the risks and get vaccinated, they can still get HPV.Finally, although more than 6 million women contract HPV each year, a woman's immune system is often strong enough to clear up the infection on its own. About 90 percent of HPV infections simply clear up within two years.
Remember, it is NOT the infection that is the issue as much as it is the person's immune system. You can be exposed to these bacteria and viruses and if you are living a healthy lifestyle your body's immune system will typically know how to address the infection.
Virtually All U.S. Doctors Accept Money, Freebies from Drug Companies
Posted by Dr. Mercola
October 04 2007
Based on four different papers, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the PLoS Medicine, and the Journal of General Internal Medicine, the efforts to curb drug companies’ courting of your doctors is still ineffective.
In fact, the industry is working harder than ever to influence which medicines you are prescribed, by sending out sales representatives with greater frequency, bringing gifts, meals and offering consulting fees to high prescribers.
According to the study published in The New England Journal of Medicine,
94 percent of doctors have some type of relationship with the drug industry
80 percent of doctors commonly accept free food and drug samples
One-third of doctors were reimbursed by the drug industry for going to professional meetings or continuing education classes
28 percent of doctors have been paid for consulting, giving lectures, or signing their patients up for clinical trials
Contacts between doctors and sales reps have jumped from an average of 4.4 visits per month in 2000, to an average of:
16 times per month with cardiologists
9-10 times per month with internists
8 times per month with pediatricians
4 times per month with surgeons
The only group appearing to be meeting drug company representatives less often than before is anesthesiologists, who now see reps twice a month.
These sales tactics are working. In the second PLoS Medicine study, visits by drug detailers (sales reps) prompted nearly half of 97 doctors to increase their prescriptions for Gabapentin, an anti-seizure drug. In many cases the reps were advocating the use of Gabapentin for non-approved, so-called “off-label” uses.
The Journal of General Internal Medicine study found that physicians do understand the potential conflicts of interest, but that they still view their meetings with drug reps as both valuable and appropriate. According to the authors of that study, this proves that the voluntary guidelines currently in place are inadequate.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
If you do not believe your doctor is influenced to change their prescription patterns for personal attention, dinners, gifts, and cold hard cash, think again.
It’s not entirely their fault though, because drug company sales reps are highly trained in using very refined and specific psychological warfare techniques on your doctor. In many cases, they may not even realize they are being bamboozled.
Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion – which is why it works so well.
According to the in-depth report published in The New England Journal of Medicine, co-written by a former Eli Lilly drug rep, Shahram Ahari, and Adriane Fugh-Berman, an associate professor of physiology and biophysics, pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world.
It’s a fascinating read. I have supplied a link to the full text report above, so you can find out for yourself just how meticulously trained these drug reps are to spot the “in’s" and weaknesses of every client.
Remember, pharmaceutical companies spend more than $20 billion each year promoting prescription drugs in the United States.
These campaigns are designed to effectively alter prescribing behavior, in order to sell more of the high-profit drugs, as opposed to the most effective, and least dangerous.
In the end, you are the one paying the price twice, by emptying out your wallet, and endangering your health with drugs you probably don’t—and never did—need in the first place.
But it doesn’t end there. In recent years, the additional practice of script tracking has gained momentum as well. Health information organizations, like IMS Health, Dendrite, Verispan, and Wolters Kluwer, buy pharmacy prescription records and resell them. This is how drug companies keep tabs on the return on their bribes, as it tells them the prescription rate of each individual doctor.
This information also reveals how many of a doctor's patients receive specific drugs, how many competing drugs are prescribed compared with the target drug, and how the physicians prescribing habits change over time. It tells them if a drug is “in favor” or not, and gives them the tools to cook up a winning strategy for future manipulations.
Between 1990 and 2004, spending for prescription drugs increased five times, to a whopping $188.5 Billion, and drug reps increased from 38,000 to 100,000 strong. That’s a ratio of one drug rep for every 2.5 physicians targeted for “detailing.” Talk about having a personal “Big Brother.”
The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.
The Sunscreen Myth: How Sunscreen Products Actually Promote Cancer
The hard-hitting NewsTarget piece linked below explains in detail how the idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is nothing more than a myth promoted by industries seeking to make a profit off of human suffering.
In fact, sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking your body's absorption of ultraviolet radiation, and therefore blocking the production of vitamin D in your skin.
Studies have shown that vitamin D can prevent as many as 77 of all cancers. In addition, most sunscreen lotions also contain cancer-causing chemicals.
A portion of the profits from the sale of these lotions is then donated to organizations such as the American Cancer Society, which in turn runs public service ads encouraging the use of sunscreens.
Proper nutrition is a better way to prevent sunburn then sunscreen lotion. Berries and microalgae such as spirulina, astaxanthin, and blue-green algae can make the body naturally resistant to sunburn, as well as similar radiation damage to the eyes and optic nerve. June 15, 2007
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
How many people know that not getting enough sun KILLS 50,000 people from cancer deaths every year in the US alone?
The myth that the sun is detrimental to your health, and that sunscreen is a necessity to guard against cancer is one of the most pervasive hoaxes in our society today. As this article points out, this myth can be traced back to the two industries that benefit the most: the cancer industry and the sunscreen manufacturers. These two giant profit-makers tag-team efforts which keep the unsuspecting public in a trance.
Not only do sunscreens promote cancer by blocking your vitamin D production, they are also likely carcinogens all by themselves. A study in the April 2004 Journal of Chromatography found that there is significant penetration of all sunscreen agents they studied into the skin.
So when you use most sunscreens, your body is absorbing synthetic chemicals, and with experts' recommendations to apply generous amounts of the product every few hours, you will likely be absorbing a fair amount. Some of these chemicals are quite dangerous. Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 percent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses.
Sunburn should always be avoided, but there are many all-natural ways to protect yourself from sunburn that you can use instead of resorting to the toxic infusions of commercial sunscreens.
Boosting your skin's "internal sunscreen" from within with effective antoxidants from whole fresh vegetables and fruits like goji berries (not the juice), raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, are far healthier options. Additionally, slathering on some aloe vera gel can also be helpful.If you're still hooked on the idea of a cream, there are safer natural sunscreen products that contain no petrochemicals, such as Aubrey's Active and Green Tea sunblocks. Just remember, although these products are non-toxic, they still prevent you from metabolizing vitamin D, so use them with caution.
I recommend testing your vitamin D levels to make sure you're not deficient before resorting to sunscreen of any kind.
For more information about the vital importance of vitamin D from sunlight, please review my article Reduce Your Risk of Cancer With Sunlight Exposure, if you haven't already seen it. You might also want to keep an eye out for my forthcoming book, Dark Deception, which is due to be published in 2008. It will take an in-depth look at all of the various issues relating to sunscreen, cancer, vitamin D, and sunlight.
More Ridiculous News -- A Diet Pill For Your Pet
Posted by Dr. Mercola
January 16, 2007
With increasing numbers of pets becoming overweight, and many of their owners already taking dangerous fat-blocking drugs, the mega-drug companies would deliver drug-based solutions.
With the blessing of the FDA, that "paragon" of drug safety, Pfizer won approval for their anti-obesity concoction Slentrol earlier this month (available by prescription only for dogs).
Just like humans, any pill that is designed to have pets lose weight is designed to fail, as it does not address the underlying reason why animals get overweight. The situation is even far worse for pets, as they need whole unprocessed foods just like you do and when they are given traditional pet foods they will gain weight and acquire all sorts of diseases.
One of the best resources I found that helps describe the awful state of commercial dog food and a program to replace it is Dr. Martin Goldstein’s book, Nature of Animal Healing.
Treatments for Dog Depression
By John Gibb
Yes, even dogs can become depressed. It is not uncommon to see a dog start acting differently when certain things happen. For example if someone who cares for them goes away, you may find your dog sitting at the door at the time the person always comes home staring at the door. When the person returns the dog is likely to return to normal behavior.
Symptoms of Dog Depression
Your dog may seem mopey. S/he may be lethargic or slow moving. They may stop eating and may not drink enough water. The symptoms for dog Depression are strikingly similar to those seen in humans. Depression in dogs could be very dangerous especially if they stop eating or drinking enough water.
Causes of Dog DepressionGrief may be a trigger for pet Depression. If they have had a playmate for sometime and the other dog dies, your dog may try to act as if the other pet is there. They may be sad and mope around.
A change of environment where a dog is moved to a new home or put in a kennel may also cause your dog to feel depressed and stop eating or drinking. Returning home or getting used to the new home will likely see your dog's Depression start to lift.
Chemical imbalances typically in the brain may be to blame as well. Like humans there are chemicals in the brain that help to control mood. Treatment can be very effective for your dog.
Weather changes have long been known to influence Depression in animals. Have you heard that animals can always tell the weather? They know its going to storm before humans do.
Treatments for Dog DepressionYour vet might recommend that your dog be given canine anti-depressant. This is often an effective treatment for dogs.
Medication is often used including Prozac for dogs.
Try to increase the level of your dog's activity. Take them to a new place for their walk. Exercise helps torelease certain brain chemicals to make your pet feel better.
If your pet has lost a playmate you could try to expose him to other dogs. You could also try Doggy Day Care. If you are read y consider purchasing another dog. This could help give some relief to your pet's depression
ConclusionDogs can experience Depression as can humans. There are medications for pets as well as other non-medical options. Your vet can help you decide which avenue of treatments for Dog depression might be appropriate for your pet.
Exposing the FDA's Betrayal of AmericaBy Greg Ciola
January 18, 2007
According to Byron Richards, the FDA is out-of-control. It is a bully police force standing up for the profits of drug companies at the expense of health for Americans. It has far exceeded any legislative mandate and is blatantly involved in an abuse of Constitutional power.
In this eye opening interview, the FDA’s deceptions and drug-company profit schemes are revealed and the scam of the sickness industry is made clear. Health freedom is under attack and this interview will help arm you with invaluable information that you can use to take charge of your health.
Crusador: Byron, you say that the FDA is actually betraying America. Can you elaborate on that statement?
Well, really the FDA has a mandate to protect the health of Americans. What we are finding instead is that the FDA is now actively hiding risk data, keeping it as if it were a trade secret, and is literally in collusion with pharmaceutical companies so that the doctors who are prescribing medication, and the people who are taking it, do not understand the actual problems that are being reported to the agency. At the same time, the FDA is seeking to undermine the rights of citizens in states to file lawsuits when they have been harmed or damaged by medications. Instead of protecting the rights of citizens of states, the FDA is protecting the drug companies from legal liability when they don’t disclose known risks.
Crusador: Many people have validated what you’ve stated, including FDA’s own employee Dr. David Graham, yet nothing is being done to change this corrupt system. What’s going on here?
It’s really all about money. Right now the FDA receives several hundred million dollars a year in funding from drug companies to approve drugs and the safety branch of the FDA is no longer the main focus of the agency. The agency is instead, focused on approving drugs. In fact, the agency has shifted into drug development and drug design. So the agency that is supposed to be regulating the pharmaceutical industry is actually actively becoming part of the pharmaceutical industry, which truly compromises their role.
Essentially, the drug companies are buying Congress and the agency. When you have billions and billions of dollars, it’s hard to get a change that’s in the best interest of health. There’s a momentum, I call it an evil momentum, that’s in place here with the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. It’s an agenda that is not pro-American.
Crusador: You say in your book that Wall Street is dictating drug use for Americans. Tell us about that?
The pharmaceutical companies are under tremendous pressure from Wall Street to perform. The bottom line of it is the pharmaceutical companies cannot make money selling drugs to treat disease. Thus, they have to create markets for drugs in order to have profits. Two major areas they focus a lot of their marketing efforts on is the baby boomers with the idea of prevention, and children with antidepressants and antipsychotic medications. In the case of the adults it’s the bone drugs and statin drugs for cardiovascular health. There is close to $50 billion dollars in drug sales to these target markets for prevention or for modulating dubiously defined diseases such as ADHD or some kind of symptomatic behavioral disorder where they can then hand out an antipsychotic medication. So, we’re seeing Wall Street itself putting pressure on drug companies to perform.
At the same time the Bush administration has appointed to the second highest position in the FDA a medical doctor named Scott Gottlieb whose real experience is as a Wall Street adviser. His whole reason for being in the FDA is to speed new drugs onto the marketplace to the wishes of Wall Street. So we see another angle here where the top people in the FDA are involved with speeding new drugs to market, cutting down the costs of drug research, and exposing Americans to excessive risks for profit.
Crusador: You have a chapter in your book that discusses the real truth about cholesterol lowering drugs and high blood pressure. Are these drugs really causing more problems than what they claim to be helping?
Let’s take the statin medications as an example. They have shown a value in people who have had a heart attack or some serious heart problem. They may be able to reduce the risk of a second heart attack by 30%. So there is some value in them, but there aren’t that many people who have that specific issue that would warrant selling that much medication. What we have seen then, in order to boost sales of the drugs, is a shift of these medications into people who are relatively low risk. In that population we struggle to find a benefit, meaning over a ten year period 1% of the people are going to die as a side effect of the medication. Of course when you have fourteen million people on it that means 140,000 deaths are going to occur as a result of the medication. Then you have to be able to justify that you are saving more lives by doing that and what they find is it’s a wash, meaning that from a societal point of view, just as many lives are saved as are lost over a ten year period, which doesn’t make any sense at all when the drug is going to cost a couple thousand dollars a year. Instead of dying from heart disease, the individuals die from accidents, suicide, cancer, and infections.
Cholesterol fitness is a huge topic. There’s no shortcut to cholesterol fitness. People actually have to stay healthy, exercise, manage stress, manage their weight; they have to manage the amount of food they’re eating. There are a variety of nutrients that can assist in cholesterol metabolism to be healthy such as the nutrient pantethine or the tocotrienol form of vitamin E. These things can be very helpful as part of an overall plan, but unfortunately we’re in a quick fix society where people do not realize that statin medications do not return anything to normal. In fact, they make the system abnormal. Sure they can lower cholesterol numbers, but they don’t restore anything back to health.
Crusador: What surprises people that don’t know much about the subject is that the body actually needs cholesterol to produce all your hormones. Can you comment on that?
In the book “Fight For Your Health,” I explain how cholesterol actually works in normal function. I go into the actual value of LDL cholesterol. It’s astounding that LDL cholesterol could be labeled bad when in fact it is the vital substance that transports all fat soluble nutrition in the human body so the cells can get the important antioxidants they need. People need to go beyond the very naïve notion that there’s good and bad cholesterol and go to a more intelligent understanding where they’re actually trying to restore and maintain normal cholesterol functioning in their body. Until the public’s IQ on the subject is raised, they’re going to be subjected to this simplistic good and bad idea that then results in a medication being dispensed.
Crusador: Is it true that there’s a connection between statin drugs and memory loss?
The problem is brain cells and nerve cells do not split and divide like every other cell in the body, so they actually have a higher level of cholesterol in their cell membranes which enables them to live longer. One of the adverse side effects of statin medication is that it lowers the brain cell membrane’s natural level of cholesterol so that brain cells die faster. The longer the person takes the medication or the higher the dose of medication a person takes the greater the problem. This is an issue where people can be on a statin medication, not notice initially that it’s causing memory loss or nerve problems, and after two, three or four years these problems can really start to mount. Then the doctors just tell them it is aging or some other line. The point is these medications can have very serious, long-term neurological effects which are not being discussed or described to the public as a potential risk factor.
Crusador: What about high blood pressure medication?
Well, individuals really need to take charge of the blood pressure issue because as soon as you go down that path it’s a problem in terms of maintaining normal function for the entire body. I like to use the analogy of somebody watering their garden and they’re trying to water something maybe ten feet away and they have to turn up the pressure on their hose to get it there. Blood pressure medication is basically turning down the ability to water something. In the case of the human body, people then all of the sudden have trouble pumping blood up into their head and so they’re more prone to depression or cognitive decline from the blood pressure medication. The blood pressure medication over time can cause imbalances in circulation in the body to the point where the lymphatic system becomes sluggish and congested. When that happens a person is much more prone to becoming toxic and lethargic as a result of a blood pressure medication reducing normal circulation. We want people to have normal blood pressure, but because they’re healthy. A small percentage of people will need some blood pressure medication due to a serious problem, but a great majority of people could in fact return normal circulation to their body and not need the medication simply because they’re healthy.
Crusador: One of the topics that you discuss in your book is drug based mind control programs on children and adults under the false guise of mental health. Tell us about this?
This is a serious problem. The Bush administration is trying to get a medical model of psychiatric medications being dispensed on our children. To me this is a total travesty and a serious attempt at government-sponsored mind control under the false guise of helping people who may be struggling. Actually the big plan is to get all children tested as they enter public school; all fifty five million children screened for mental health issues using these questionnaires that were developed by drug companies that then result in a fictitious diagnosis of mental health issues that will result in medication and labeling of children. This is a huge issue and you’d like to think of what I just said as a joke, but this is exactly what they’re doing.
Crusador: The most shocking thing about the questionnaires they’re making the children fill out is that they’re deceptively designed to make you fail.
That’s right. In other words, it’s in the best interest of drug companies to sell drugs, not to really help people. It goes back to the connections with Wall Street and money. It’s all about greed, it’s all about profit, and they use some kind of mental health benefit as an excuse or justifiable reason why this is acceptable to do. History shows us that when our medicine starts to orient to the function of the mind and the subject of psychiatry as a medication system becomes dominant in society, this is really tracing back to the workings of Nazi Germany. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, which was funded by the Rockefellers, got all this in motion as a method of mind control on society. The whole underlying agenda is to separate children from their families, from God, from society, from community and create a drug society which is individuated and separated from family bonds so that the children can be controlled into a social agenda. It’s a very sinister plot and it’s actually very well documented.
Crusador: You say in your book that the FDA wants a radio transmitter chip in everyone’s arm and your DNA in their new database. What can you tell us about this?
The FDA wants all of that information purportedly, to improve health care for Americans. That’s going to be the plausible excuse they use to hoodwink Americans into being part of a national database where not only is the DNA of every American stored in an FDA owned computer, but they will also have these radio frequency chips in the arm of every individual with their medical history. And they’re saying this will improve the quality of health, but I think people are going to have to draw the line somewhere on the invasion of privacy related to quality of health.
Crusador: Let’s talk about the Codex issue and how the pharmaceutical industry wants to control and regulate the entire natural food/health movement.
Codex is basically an international body that is seeking to regulate nutritional supplementation. This is being done in conjunction with the Germans. American health, if Codex has its way, will be a model of German synthetic chemicals, which is what the Germans are good at. The Germans essentially want it so no useful amount of any non-synthetic vitamin can be used by the American population to improve their health. The actual game plan is to use Codex to make all therapeutic uses of nutrition into medical prescriptions so that the pharmaceutical industry can also completely control and rule the health industry from a supplement point of view. The real problem with this is that the FDA is colluding with these governments behind our back. And it’s not just Codex. There’s a huge threat being posed right now with the regional agreements between Mexico and Canada. The FDA has taken it upon themselves to set up health rules and regulations and they’re seeking to harmonize American law with foreign countries, actually undermining our Constitution and our American rights. The FDA is just simply out of control.
Crusador: Do you have any parting thoughts?
Well, I just think it’s really important for everyone to understand that health freedom is not an inalienable right that’s just been given to us that we don’t have to defend with vigilance. Fighting for your health is the duty and responsibility of every person in America because it is a front line issue on the battle of the U.S. Constitution and the rights that it gives our people and the founding of our country – what it means to be an American. One of the key battle lines is being drawn along the health freedom field.
Hitler said that health freedom and the state’s control of the population were not compatible and that’s why Hitler annihilated health freedom in Germany. It is quite ironic that this pathetic system of health that exists in Germany today, as an offshoot of Hitler’s work, that is now being re-imposed around the world today and the FDA is actively helping to implement it in America. We really need to stand up and do something about it and we can win, but we have to be vigilant and we have to be pro-active.
Crusador: Thank you for your time.
Thank you for the opportunity to get the word out. Each and every person can make a difference.
Flu Shot Dangers Far Outweigh Benefits
By Greg Ciola
December 16, 2006
When was the last time you heard an honest debate on the flu shot where experts from both conventional and alternative medicine were allowed to present their facts and debate the issues? There are plenty of independent researchers not beholden to the drug companies that have a wealth of interesting information to share that if disseminated widely, would cause many to stop and think twice before getting jabbed with a flu shot. The one good thing we’ve hopefully learned is to get a second opinion before making any major medical decision. Getting a flu shot is a major medical decision.
CRUSADOR editor, Greg Ciola, is pleased to interview vaccine researcher Marry Tocco about the dangers of the flu shot. Before succumbing to fear thinking that you’ll die or become horribly sick if you don’t get a flu shot, listen to what Mary Tocco has to say first, pray about it, and decide for yourself whether you should take a shot after weighing all the facts.
Crusador: Why do you believe that people should not get a flu shot?
First, let us all agree that the flu is an inconvenience and usually not life threatening. The only time it is life threatening is if someone is immune deficient. When you consider what is in the shot and how it is made, the toxic ingredients and additives are much worse for the body than the illness. Most people, including doctors, do not know what additives, preservatives or adjuvant are in this shot and therefore, do not understand how dangerous this vaccine can be.
Second, there is much debate as to whether the flu diagnosis is even correct. How would you know if the cause of your illness was a virus, you ate some spoiled food, or your body needs to eliminate toxins? In any circumstance, the human body has the inborn innate ability to deal with what ever it is effectively. Body aches, nausea, and fever are part of the immune function to deal with whatever the cause may be. Yes, this process is not fun, but we live on Earth and our Earth is toxic.
Crusador: What is it about the flu shot that has you concerned?
The vaccine created for the flu is based on guessing what virus will be around causing the flu illness a year in advance. The vaccine manufactures collect sample body fluids from infected people from China and Australia for three different viruses, (two A strains and one B strain). They breed the viruses months in advance of the flu season. The virus is inactivated with formaldehyde, and Tri(n)butyl phosphate and polysorbate 80 are added. There are no safety studies before releasing the vaccine. The American people are the guinea pigs! They spend millions promoting “The worst flu season in history,” using fear to get every American in for their flu vaccine. As far as the long term effects from these vaccines, we can only guess. We do not know how the shots or the neuro-toxins will affect the human body in the years to come. As I speak to people around the country, I am amazed how I hear that they suffered the “worst flu ever” after receiving the vaccine.
Crusador: What’s in the flu vaccine that could be toxic and potentially deadly to yourself, your spouse or your children?
In addition to the above mentioned potentially toxic chemicals, 97% of all flu shots contain 25 micrograms of thimerosal, a form of ethyl mercury that is extremely toxic to humans. Many people are under the assumption that thimerosal has been “completely removed” from all vaccines but that simply is not true. Even the baby shots contain the full load of mercury and according to the EPA safety guidelines; babies should not receive more than .01 - .4 micrograms of thimerosal at any given time (depending on their age and weight). The amount in one flu shot exceeds their own guidelines for one of the most lethal toxic chemicals, subjecting babies to the threat of severe life long injury. The current recommendation is to start infants out with a ½ dose and follow up with a full dose every year after for the rest of their lives. So the question parents must ask, “Is my child at greater risk from the flu or from the vaccine?”
Crusador: What do you think about churches being used as distribution points to administer flu shots and the Christian leaders that promote the shot?
I believe that most pastors and elders of the churches do not understand what they are doing. Even my own church, which I have shared factual information with about vaccine safety, has never brought this information to the attention of the congregation. I cannot speak for all the churches, but I do believe that this subject is too controversial and would offend many of their flock who are regular financial supporters of the church. Christians are putting their faith in the medical system we live in, instead of the human body that God created to be self healing. The churches need to promote natural health care with respect for the human body that is miraculously made and encourage their congregations to get “Back to the Basics.”
Vaccines are often referred to as the “Sacred Cow” of modern medicine. Perhaps vaccines are also a “Sacred Cow” of the modern church community? For those interested I have Biblical reasons not to vaccinate. Email me a request at:
Crusador: Is there any data that proves the flu shot really prevents people from getting the flu and is a benefit to society?
There is no proof that the flu vaccine will protect you or give you immunity. You never get long term immunity from any vaccine because the immune system responds differently to the vaccine than it does to the illness. You may have an immune response, which is usually suppression of the immune system. You may even get very sick and again, you will also get the mercury and other additives.
I know the flu vaccine is real good for the medical community because they make billions of dollars and if people get sick from the shot, more drugs are prescribed. I do not think there is any benefit to society…the whole vaccine theory is wrong and unproven to work. The year after Medicare started to pay for the flu shots for the elderly, hospital visits for seniors went up dramatically due to complications from the vaccine. I guess that is good for the hospitals! When studies are referenced by the local health department, those studies are funded and supported by pharmaceutical money. The studies are short term and usually only include a small fraction of society. The people who are involved with the studies are usually on the pay roll.
Crusador: Are you especially concerned about the elderly in nursing homes given the shot against their will?
Our elderly are considered “at risk” because they say their immune systems weaken as they age. If you consider how many drugs the elderly have been given in the last 30 years, it is not surprising that they are breaking down. I believe that the elderly generation of this country completely embraced the medical model and are now paying for it. They have been conditioned to believe that they need drugs for every ailment. Unfortunately, if someone is in a nursing home, they have little choice on what is done to them. It is standard procedure that everyone gets the flu shot. According to Hugh Fudenburg, the world’s leading immunologist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times, “If an individual has had 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980, their chances of getting Alzheimer’s disease is 10 times greater due to the accumulation of aluminum and mercury in the brain.”
Almost all vaccines contain some level of aluminum and the flu shot is no different. We hear about people being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s all the time and it is a big market for new drug development. I recommend that we as children of elderly parents, if at all possible, must be intricately involved in the health care decisions our parents make. Although difficult to do with some parents, we should question any prescription drugs being prescribed to see if they are absolutely necessary. If they are in a nursing home, go to the administrator, head nurse, and their personal nurse and educate them on why you do not want your parent to receive the flu vaccine. Keep an eye on their chart for what they are being given. You may not have the right to refuse since they are in a nursing home. This may be an area for legal advice.
Crusador: Do you believe the bird flu is being hyped and is a pandemic inevitable?
I had the opportunity to meet with the head of Michigan’s immunizations late last year at a chiropractic convention. The meeting consisted of the president and vice president of the Michigan Chiropractic Association, David Kirby, who just released the book, “Evidence of Harm,” the head of the $26 million dollar immunization program of Michigan, and myself. When we asked the question how they were going to develop the Bird Flu Vaccine, he said that it was just a matter of time before someone with the flu handles a bird infected with the virus and the two would mutate and infect humans. Then they would isolate the virus, grow it and put it in the current flu shot. When we inquired about safety studies, he said, “We do not need studies because the current flu vaccine is safe, and we are just adding to it.”
Just like the “swine flu” in the early 1980’s which was a disaster, and the rotavirus vaccine in the 1990’s that only lasted on the market for six month and was pulled, I predict they will come up with a vaccine and the people will be the big experiment. They spent $23 million in October of 2003 marketing, “The worst flue to hit America” making predictions that never came true. Thousands were flocking to the health department, stores and doctor’s office demanding the shot in fear for their lives. The supply was gone in weeks and guess what…the predicted epidemic was smoke and mirrors. I have articles from major newspapers that use hype every fall season, that claim thousands will die from the “deadly flu” soon to hit. Will it ever happen? I believe they will make sure it happens one way or another because Congress is trying to allocate billions for the development of a flu vaccine for our country.
We know the current flu shots can cause the flu so why wouldn’t the bird flu shot? The way they are messing with viruses and causing mutation, God only knows what is coming. Should we be fearful? No, I think it is wiser to promote our health naturally each and every day so that if we come in contact with something, we can effectively deal with it. I choose to not live in fear of the unknown. I trust God to give me wisdom and guidance in all areas of my life. I have faith in the body he created to deal with what ever. Fear can be a terrible motivator. Education is the key to dealing with fear. Nothing takes the place of strong convictions, and strength comes from knowing the truth.
“Fear Not” is in the Bible 365 times, one for each day of the year. Do you think the Lord is trying to tell us something?
Crusador: Where would you direct people to learn more about these issues?
They can start at my web site and go to my link page where they will find other great sites like,,
To have Mary Tocco attend your conference as a speaker call 231-642-7984.
Also see:
Danger Lurking in Flu Shots!
By Greg Ciola
October 8, 2007
Consider this insanity; they tell us that it’s unsafe to touch, breathe or swallow the mercury from a broken thermometer yet it’s perfectly acceptable to inject the same poison directly into your body through the flu shot or other vaccines. In fact, you can’t even find mercury based thermometers on the market anymore. Don’t worry – Big Pharma knows what’s best for you!
Providence Employees Get Vaccine Ultimatum
Brian Malone
Dec 9, 2008
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Workers at Providence Alaska MedicalCenter in Anchorage are facing an ultimatum: get flu shots byyear's end or face dismissal.
Infectious disease experts say the measure makes good healthsense. It is intended to protect patients, already ill, from beinginfected with potentially deadly influenza while hospitalized.
At Providence, the new requirement affects the more than the 3,100 employees at the main hospital in Anchorage and theadministration building a short walk away. As of Friday, 2,139 --or about 70 percent had been vaccinated.
But many nurses don't want to be forced to get a shot thatcarries health risks of its own and doesn't always work, accordingto the nurses' union. The nurses' union has filed a grievance protesting the policy.
Conspicuously absent from this article is any discussion of how many patients are actually infected with the flu each year during a hospital stay.
When a hospital mandates a dangerous vaccine as a condition of employment, shouldn’t administrators at least soften the blow with statistics that point to an expected reduction in patient infection rates?
The truth is there are no such statistics, because:
the majority of health care workers do not get a flu shot, and
there are very few documented cases of flu outbreaks caused by health care workers
Are mandatory flu vaccinations becoming a trend?
If so why?
Where’s the benefit – and for whom?
What’s Behind the Strong Arm Tactics?In a single word, money.
The CDC’s well-orchestrated annual campaign to frighten you into getting vaccinated against the influenza virus isn’t the resounding success they hoped for.
Is it just a coincidence news reports about mandated vaccine programs are starting to pop up? Is it possible the vaccine manufacturers and other financially interested parties think there’s too much money being left on the table?
What other explanation could there be when institutions like hospitals and schools begin issuing ultimatums to get vaccinated or get out?
The flu vaccine has not only proved ineffective, it also contains highly toxic substances that can be very dangerous to your health and the health of your family.
A Few Facts About Flu Shots
Vaccinations do not protect the elderly.
There is no conclusive proof that the flu vaccine prevents flu-related deaths among the elderly, despite the fact that 75 percent of flu-related deaths occur in that age group. Flu shots are thought to be less effective in older people due to lowered immune activity.
Most flu vaccines contain dangerous levels of mercury.
The CDC recommends that pregnant women, infants and children receive flu vaccines containing thimerosal. Thimerosal contains almost 50 percent ethyl mercury by weight, and is highly toxic.
The CDC’s recommendation is reckless, especially since the Institute of Medicine has warned that these specific demographic groups should not be injected with thimerosal. Most flu vaccines contain 25 micrograms of mercury, an amount unsafe for anyone weighing less than 550 pounds. Mercury isn’t the only toxic substance found in flu vaccines.
Fillers commonly used in the manufacture of flu vaccines include:
Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
Phenol (carbolic acid)
Formaldehyde – a known cancer causing agent
Aluminum – a neurotoxin linked to Alzheimer’s disease
Neomycin and streptomycin (antibiotics)
Flu-related deaths are rare.
As part of the CDC’s campaign to promote flu vaccines, it employs the use of a slippery statistic regarding flu-related deaths. Lumped together in this statistic are deaths from flu and deaths from pneumonia. Actual flu deaths are a very small percentage of the total deaths in this category.
Pneumonia, which is not the same illness as influenza, is responsible for the vast majority of deaths the CDC would have you believe are flu-related.
How to Protect Yourself from the FluThere is growing evidence that if you come down with the flu, you could be vitamin D deficient. The flu is primarily an illness of winter, when there are fewer hours of sunshine, and your exposure to the sun is often very limited.
It works like this. Vitamin D supports your immune system. If your vitamin D level is too low, your immune system has a reduced ability to fight bacteria and viruses. That circumstance can result in a “flu bug” taking you over.
One of the first things you should do to protect yourself from the flu virus is to optimize your vitamin D levels.
Other important ways to stay healthy during the winter months (and year round):
Eat right for your nutritional type
Eliminate sugar from your diet
Eat garlic regularly
Consume a high-quality krill oil daily
Get adequate sleep
Address emotional stress
Wash your hands regularly (but not excessively)
If You Already Have the Flu …You can also use vitamin D to treat your symptoms. It is best to read the entire article and view the videos, but the general recommendation is to take 2,000 units per kilogram of body weight (one pound = 0.45 kg), once daily for three days.
Parents Told to Get Kids Vaccinated or Go to Jail
Posted By Dr. Mercola
December 04 2007
The parents of more than 2,300 students in Prince George‘s County, Maryland, could face fines of $50 a day and 10 days in jail if their children do not meet the state‘s immunization requirements.
Prince George‘s has been struggling to get its 131,000 students immunized for chicken pox and hepatitis B, as is required by the state. More than 2,300 students have not been immunized, and have therefore been barred from attending schools.
School officials have previously made calls, sent letters and conducted home visits in attempts to make arrangements for free appointments for the shots.
The most recent round of letters ordered the parents to show up at Prince George‘s Circuit Court for a court hearing and free on-the-spot vaccinations of up to 17 required doses.
Any child lacking immunizations can be expelled, and their parents then brought up on truancy charges, which can result in a 10-day jail sentence for the first offence, and 30 days for a second.
Angry and upset parents called county’s action “intimidating,” and “very heavy handed.”
School officials deemed the court action a “success,” as the number of children lacking vaccinations dropped from 2,300 to about 1,100 by Friday November 16. That leaves about 900 children out of compliance with the vaccination requirements, said school system spokesman John White.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) issued a press release condemning Maryland’s vaccine roundup, promising to do everything it can to support parents who refuse to immunize their children.
“This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights,” said Kathryn Serkes, director of policy for the AAPS, one of the few national physician groups that refuse corporate funding from pharmaceutical companies. “This campaign of intimidation to brutally enforce blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and the school district gives no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child.”
The AAPS press release goes on to state, “Children should be carefully screened, medical records taken and decisions made carefully – not in an ad hoc assembly-line clinic in a county courtroom and under the brutal watch of law enforcement. This is a man-made disaster ready and waiting to detonate. Children could receive a dangerous cocktail of several vaccines without proper examinations.”
“The procedure is reckless and subjects children to the risk of severe reactions. Physicians would not be allowed to treat children in this way, without individual histories and physical exams – or informed consent,” said Jane M. Orient, M.D., AAPS Executive Director.
Interestingly, the state‘s attorney, Mr. Glenn Ivey himself apparently has no problem invoking his own right to informed consent and parental control. In a radio interview on Thursday, November 15, he admitted that he has chosen to refuse the hepatitis B vaccines for his own children. The AAPS stated that Mr. Ivey’s “galling hypocrisy” clearly demonstrates that not every vaccine is right for every child.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
What makes this story even more infuriating is that there is virtually no medical necessity to justify using these vaccines. I was strongly opposed to both the hepatitis B vaccine, and the chicken pox vaccine long before they both became mandatory -- for some very good reasons.
I am happy to see the AAPS is setting up a legal team to help parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated despite these Gestapo-like tactics, and encourage anyone who needs their help to contact them. The AAPS were also the coalition responsible for overturning Texas Governor Perry’s executive order to make the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) mandatory for schoolgirls, last spring.
If this kind of forced medical treatment does not bother you, then you may have given up the very last shred of personal freedom you, and your children, have.
If that is the case, make no mistake – it will not end with the forceful poisoning of your children. There are lots of medications out there that the pharmaceutical industry would love for everyone to eat in lieu of breakfast… What medications, and how many, would you like to be force-fed every day? Or do you truly believe industry, together with your government, would never take it that far even if they could? I believe public opposition is the only thing standing in their way.
Where are We Heading?
To get a glimpse of your potential future without using a crystal ball, just look at the current trends. For example, according to a BBC news brief, aired over the Thanksgiving weekend, autism has skyrocketed from 1 in 10,000 in 1993, to the current rate of 1 in 150. The mandatory immunizations program and the MMR vaccine were introduced in 1998.
Hardly. Although you will read reports, and hear through the conventional media that this has been disproven, don’t you believe it, as nothing could be further from the truth.
Are they involved in all cases of autism?
Probably not, but they are a major factor in many, especially in conjunction with the absolute explosion in exposure to information-carrying radio waves from cell phones, cell phone towers and WiFi routers. These waves tend to disrupt intercellular communication microtubules, which greatly increase these children’s ability to tolerate heavy metal insults that can cause severe free radical injury.
What are some other trends?
The pharmaceutical industry makes more than three times the average profit of all other Fortune 500 industries -- even after including all research and development costs
Between 1960 and 1998, the public expenditure on health care increased more than one hundred times, from $35 to $3,633, and government health care spending went from a budget of $13.6 billion is fiscal 1941, to $1.65 trillion in 1998
Drug prescription deaths are now in second place for unintentional deaths in the United States, rising from 4.4 to 7.1 per 100,000 in the five years between 1999 and 2004
"Preventive” drugs and vaccines for everything from cancer to dental caries are on the rise, which, of course, are prescribed to perfectly healthy people
Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for more and more non-logical uses of their drugs, such as administering the HPV vaccine to young boys, even though they do not have the prerequisite anatomy to contract the disease
Death attributed to psychotherapeutic drugs (anti-depressants and sedatives) nearly doubled, from 671 to 1,300 deaths between 1999 and 2004
State mandated drugging of children as young as three years old with psychiatric drugs is now on a steady rise
In January 2006, the FDA put in place the preemption protection scheme that bans private lawsuits against drug companies and physicians in state courts, once a drug has achieved the FDA’s stamp of approval
What do you believe all these trends point toward?
However, there are always two sides to a coin, and on the flip side, more and more people are slowly waking up and are searching for true health.
In a survey from 1990, 34 percent of the people surveyed used at least one “unconventional” intervention in the past year. Indeed, their visits to “alternative” practitioners exceeded visits to primary care medical physicians in that year. A follow-up study in 1997 reported that utilization of some form of “alternative” health care had increased to 42.1 percent, and as of 2002, 62 percent of Americans use it!
Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry appears quite ruthless when it comes to protecting profits, and perhaps the rise in alternative health care spending is one of the reasons behind more aggressive advertising, and increased “incentives” to doctors and public officials to enforce “public health” issues. At gunpoint if necessary.
What Can You Do to Avoid Vaccinations?
Remember, frightening as it may seem, you still have the legal right to refuse to vaccinate your children. While all 50 states have immunization requirements, 28 allow parents to opt out for medical or religious reasons. Another 20 states allow parents to opt out for personal or philosophical reasons as well.
Mississippi and West Virginia allow parents to opt out for medical reasons only.
Maryland, despite their handling of the issue, also still offers the right to opt out. My previous article, How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds, spells out how you go about practicing this right.
You also need to educate yourself on the dangers of the vaccines that your doctor or pediatrician insists on administering. I have numerous articles detailing the dangers of various vaccines on this site, and you have the entire internet at your disposal in addition to what I have documented through the years.
A good place to start is my vaccinations links page, and there is an entire chapter in my book Take Control of Your Health devoted to this very topic.
I also recommend reading my previous article about chicken pox, which explains why your child REALLY DOESN’T need the state mandated chicken pox vaccine, and Michael Belkin’s Testimony to Congress about the dangers of the hepatitis B vaccine. Mr. Ivey probably knows these facts already – you should too.
Winter flu jabs evidence queried
There is not enough evidence to support the policy of immunising people against seasonal flu, an expert has claimed.
BBC News
26 October 2006
Given the huge resources involved in yearly vaccination campaigns, an urgent re-evaluation is needed, Tom Jefferson says in the British Medical Journal.
Mr Jefferson said when he studied the data much of the work was flawed and he found little proof of the jab's merit.
BMJ editor Fiona Godlee criticised the way the UK evaluated the merits and costs of jabs and called for change.
The government's drugs watchdog, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), has already said it would be happy to take over this job.
Ms Fiona Godlee said: "The problem is that the UK has no transparent process for evaluating the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of vaccines.
"NICE would like to take this on. The government should let it."
Currently, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), an independent expert advisory committee first set up in 1963, does this.
Policy versus evidenceIn the UK, experts say groups most at risk, such as the elderly, should get the vaccine during the flu season.
But it is difficult for scientists to make the vaccine because the influenza viruses mutate and the strains circulating vary from year to year.
This also makes it difficult for scientists to study the precise effects of vaccines, said Mr Jefferson, who works for the Cochrane Library - a body that determines the relative effectiveness of health interventions.
He said the most reliable way to judge their effects was to use systematic reviews - impartial summaries of evidence from many different studies.
But when he did this, he found flu vaccines had little or no effect on many influenza campaign objectives such as hospital stay, time off work, or death from influenza and its complications.
Most studies were of poor quality and there was little evidence on vaccine safety.
Mr Jefferson said: "There is a misfit between the evidence and policy, and tax payers ought to ask why."
He said it was possible that some of the sickness labelled as flu was actually due to other infections, which would cloud the picture.
Best guess
This is compounded by a lack of accurate and fast surveillance systems that can tell what viruses are circulating in a setting or community within a short time frame.
In the hurry to prevent sickness and deaths, vaccine campaigns begin before more precise information about the circulating virus is available, he said.
"Given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken," he said.
Last year's flu campaign cost £115 million.
Dr David Salisbury, director of immunisation at the Department of Health, said evidence showed flu vaccines could give up to 80% protection from infection and prevented hospitalisations and deaths.
He acknowledged that the vaccines were not perfect, but said: "We are hopeful that new vaccines currently in development may overcome some of the concerns raised about efficacy."
He said the JCVI's work was open to public scrutiny and that the committee would consider Dr Jefferson's research.
Dr Douglas Fleming, director of the Royal College of GPs' Flu Unit, said: "We need to support the flu vaccination programme.
"There is good evidence from clinical trials that flu and its more serious effects are prevented by vaccination when you look at the community effect."
FDA Complicit in Pushing Pharmaceutical Drugs
NewStandard, April 20, 2007 Title: “FDA Complicit in Pushing Prescription Drugs, Ad Critics Say” Author: Shreema Mehta
Student Researchers: Lauren Anderson, Corey Sharp-Sabatino, and Marie Daghlian
Faculty Evaluator: Noel Byrne, PhD
While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) turns a blind eye, drug companies are making false, unsubstantiated, and misleading claims in their advertising, often withholding mandated disclosure of dangerous side effects. Though companies are required to submit their advertisements to the FDA, the agency does not review them before they are released to the public. A Government Accountability Office report released November 2006 found that the FDA reviews only a small portion of the advertisements it receives, and does not review them using consistent criteria.
Claiming lack of funds and resources necessary to impose effective regulations on drug marketing, the FDA is asking Congress to charge drug companies fees in order to fund FDA review of advertisements before they go public as part of renewing the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). PDUFA has come under fire from consumer advocates who say it gives the pharmaceutical industry too much leverage over the FDA and has resulted in rushing drugs to market. But the FDA hopes that if Congress approves the plan, it will raise more than $6 million annually through “user fees” to review advertisements.
Although Congress may approve the plan, author Shreema Mehta says a range of public-interest groups, from ad critics at Commercial Alert to senior advocates at Gray Panthers, want an outright ban on all prescription drug advertisements. Public Citizen and Consumers Union warn that the FDA review of drug advertisements will likewise be tainted if funded by the very companies the FDA is charged with scrutinizing. Critics are calling for stricter regulations over drug companies and they say eliminating the financial ties between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry should be the first step.
But the pharmaceutical industry is not the only industry that benefits from inconsistent FDA reviews and inadequate investigations of advertising claims. One of the nation’s biggest infant bottled water companies, Nursery Water, is misleading parents with erroneous information and false health claims on its website and in advertising materials, touting the safety and benefits of fluoride in infant bottled water, in clear violation of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and FDA rules.
A letter sent from scientists at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to officials at the FDA and FTC uncovers EWG’s extensive review of Nursery Water’s claims that both misrepresent the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which states, “supplementary fluoride should not be provided during the first six months of life” (AAP 2005), and contradict the official position of the FDA, which states, “the health claim [for fluoride] is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants” (FDA 2006).
Mehta reports that representatives from the food and pharmaceutical industries say banning ads would violate the First Amendment. “In our system of jurisprudence we have a very high threshold that protects the right to free speech, whether it’s political or commercial,” Jim Davidson, attorney for the drug-company-funded Advertising Coalition, told the Associated Press.
Mehta warns of the increased leverage food and drug companies may have over the FDA should Congress approve the fee plan. She reports that in 2005, pharmaceutical companies spent about $4.2 billion in advertisements aimed at the public, known as “direct-to-consumer” ads, up from about $2.5 billion in 2000 and $1.1 billion in 1997. And the promoting of drugs to physicians, with almost $7.2 billion spent in 2005, dwarfs advertising to the public. At the same time, public spending on prescription drugs has steadily increased, reaching about $140 billion in 2001, more than tripling since 1990.
Meanwhile, Mehta reports that it’s not clear whether the FDA reviews most advertisements at all. The agency can direct drug companies to change their advertisements after they are released to the public if it finds they violate regulations, but does no screening before the release of ads that may be dangerously deceptive.

Gambling with Your Healthby: Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor
Monday, December 15, 2008
As recent developments in the HRT drug scandal continue to reveal (, relying on conventional medicine to treat your health is like playing Russian Roulette with your life. Virtually every popular treatment offered by conventional medicine is potentially deadly: Chemotherapy kills more patients than it saves, bariatric surgery kills thousands of obese patients right on the operating table, HRT drugs double your risk of breast cancer and pharmaceuticals may double your risk of heart attacks or stroke.
Over-the-counter painkillers can kill you from internal bleeding, and vaccines cause autism and Alzheimer's disease. Antidepressant drugs cause diabetes, and diabetes drugs double the risk of bone fractures. Statin drugs cause eye disorders, too, which might be what Big Pharma's researchers are referring to when they say their studies are "double blind."
The industry of modern medicine kills 783,000 Americans a year, according to research (Death by Medicine, Dr. Gary Null). Sadly, it saves nowhere near that number, meaning that America would be better off without modern medicine at all!
Every time you pop a pill, it's like betting on a roulette wheel in Vegas. Only it's not your money that's at risk: It's your life!
Sure, if you're lucky, you might spin a chance result of having your symptoms go away for a while. Maybe the cancer tumor shrinks, or your blood pressure is artificially lowered, or you don't feel as much pain because your body is numbed with pharmaceuticals... But if your roulette wheel comes up empty, you could end up not only losing your bet, but losing your life! Various pharmaceuticals cause liver disease, cancer, heart disease, strokes, kidney failure, impaired brain function, impaired immune system function, loss of sleep quality, impotence, infertility, loss of hair, gastrointestinal bleeding, accelerated aging, neurological disorders and much more. And these are the drugs the FDA says are "safe and effective" for treating your health conditions!
Meanwhile, virtually the entire industry is aligned against nutrition. Don't waste your money on superfoods, they say: Nutrition doesn't work in the human body. Don't visit natural health practitioners. Don't take those vitamins, they might kill you! These are the deceptions of the drug pushers who are far more interested in controlling the marketplace than actually helping human beings enhance their health.
And every time you take a pharmaceutical, you're betting another piece of your life on a risky gamble. Even doctors don't know the true risks because they're widely misinformed. Having been taught virtually nothing about nutrition in medical school, doctors are pumped full of so much pro-pharma information that, by the time they begin to practice medicine under a state license, they've actually been thoroughly de-educated about health. They probably knew more about health and healing before they entered medical school than after they graduated!From the quackery of flu shots to the harmful effects of mammograms and chemotherapy, much of modern medicine is commercial fraud. Peel back the TV commercials, the brainwashing of doctors and Big Pharma's influence over the mainstream media and you find nothing but empty promises, toxic chemicals and obscene profits. The industry of modern medicine is built on scientific fraud.
So who can you trust? Mother Nature, of course!
What we've learned in the last few years is that you can't trust the medical journals because they're pushing junk science in order to please their Big Pharma advertisers. You can't trust the media, either, since they depend on drug money to pay salaries. You also can't trust lawmakers, because almost all of them have been bought off by Big Pharma. Of course, you can't trust the regulators (FDA, FTC) because they're in bed with these powerful corporations, too. So who can you trust?
You can trust Mother Nature. She'll never ask you for a royalty on a patent. She gives all her medicine for free, and she provides the seeds, soils, rainfall, sunlight and nanotechnology to construct all the medicines the human body needs. Mother Nature is the answer to our health care problems, and she'll never bribe a journalist, psych doctor or lawmaker just to promote her products (which is probably why she's not so popular).
No wonder, then, that virtually the entire medical community has been trying to suppress Mother Nature for so long. The FDA says Mother Nature is incapable of creating anything useful (nutrients don't have any positive effect on the human body, they claim). The FTC says you can't talk about Mother Nature's medicinal gifts (or you'll go to jail). The medical journals say you can't trust Mother Nature (trust in drugs, they say), and the drug companies insist they're better than Mother Nature even while they're scouring the world, seeking yet more molecules to rip off from Mother Nature (biopiracy).
Mother Nature, it seems, continues to be battered by modern medicine and all its corrupt enforcers. They don't want you to discover the healing miracles offered by Mother Nature, you see. That might cause you to stop playing pharmaceutical roulette with your life and leave the health care casino entirely! Gee, you might never need another pharmaceutical again...Stay at the roulette table, they insist! Keep betting your life on pharmaceuticals! Keep placing poker chips on the numbers, hoping against all odds that maybe this pill will finally solve your problems.
Keep on playing health care roulette, folks, because the longer you play, the more the House wins. And the House, in this case, is Big Pharma. When you play health care roulette, you're betting against the house. There's one rule every gambler in Vegas learns sooner or later: The House always wins.
Why Doctors Often Dismiss Drug Side EffectsDr. Mercola
August 30 2007
Patients’ concerns about drug side effects are often shrugged off by their doctors, according to a survey of 650 patients who were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins.
Statins, such as Lipitor and Zocor, are common drugs with widely known side effects that include liver damage, muscle problems, memory and mood changes, and more. In the case of muscle problems, if the side effect is not recognized it can progress to a potentially fatal condition called rhabdomyolysis.
Nonetheless, patients who responded to the survey said that they had to initiate a discussion about side effects with their doctor, and when they did:
47 percent said their doctors dismissed their muscle or cognitive problems, and said they were not statin-related
51 percent with a type of nerve pain called peripheral neuropathy said their doctors denied a connection to the drugs
32 percent said their doctors denied a connection between their symptoms and statins
29 percent said their doctors "neither endorsed nor dismissed the possibility of symptom link to statins"
Rather than attributing the patients complaints to the drugs, many doctors instead blamed the “normal aging process” or denied the symptoms entirely. Aside from not addressing the health concern in the patient, this ignorance toward a potential adverse drug reaction (ADR) means that no “adverse event report” is being given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Side effects are already underreported by 90 to 99 percent, according to one Harvard Medical School expert, and the FDA relies heavily on such reports to gauge a drug’s safety once it hits the market. In short, the survey suggests that the FDA is missing out on a wealth of ADRs because doctors are not recognizing them in patients.
The study’s authors believe that statin-related side effects are not the only one’s being missed. They suggest that many other drug side effects are also being ignored. The researchers speculated that doctors’ tendencies to ignore drug side effects may be due to the powerful ad campaigns touting medications’ benefits and downplaying side effects.
Drug Safety August 2007 30(8):669-675
Reuters August 28, 2007
Washington Post August 28, 2007
Dr. Mercola's Comments:I strongly agree with many of the posters on this article that doctors should not be made scapegoats to this unfortunate finding. Most physicians are intelligent, well intentioned individuals who truly believe that they are dong the best they possibly can for their patients. They are clueless that they are merely pawns in the system that is spending tens of billions of dollars EVERY year to manipulate and deceive them into believing drugs and surgery are the best solution for chronic degenerative health conditions.
When you think about it for awhile it is not that much of a stretch since it certainly true for acute traumas, all they had to do was extend that view to degenerative diseases and when you have tens of billions to invest in purchasing the best marking minds on the planet, this is a relatively easy change to achieve. The results speak for themsevles, the drug companies have been fabuloulsy successful in capturing the minds of logic of most of the brightest and educated professionals our country has ever seen.
BUT, they have only done this temporarily. The Internet will change all that. This site is helping to educate consumers and health professionals alike about the fraud and deception. So many physicians are deceived that they are not at all motivated to listen to their patients' concerns about the medications they’re taking. This is particularly tragic when you consider that prescription drugs result in more than 700,000 visits to the emergency room in the United States every year.
It is also a shame that doctors are so quick to interrupt their patients as it may be only have about 23 seconds to state your concerns before your doctor will interrupt you, which may at least partly explain why most patients had to initiate the drug side effects conversation, or not have it at all.
Physicians certainly do have some responsibility here, particularly in being familiar with, and open to, the fact that drugs often cause side effects (and sometimes strange ones at that).
Drug Companies Are Influencing Your Doctor
In the United States an estimated 80,000 drug company representatives, backed by more than $19 billion of industry's combined annual promotional budgets, are visiting doctors every day. These visits are influencing your doctor, essentially biasing him or her in favor of drugs.
Drug companies do not stop there. They spend millions each year to influence Congress, and similar amounts to influence YOU (via TV commercials, magazine ads, and the like) to ask your doctor specifically for their drug, the way you might ask for a particular brand of food in the supermarket.
Only a very well-informed, open-minded physician will be able to withstand this brainwashing (that actually starts way back in medical school)!
What can you do?
You are making the first major step already; you’re getting informed about what’s really going on.
YOU now know that if you suspect a drug is causing you a side effect, you must be sure that your doctor does not dismiss it. If he or she refuses to acknowledge it, you must seek out another doctor who will. As many Vital Votes readers have also pointed out, you can make a difference by printing out informative articles from and elsewhere, and giving them to your doctor.
Doctors are only human, and many will be very receptive to the information contained in these pages.