Posts Tagged JAMA
Friday, July 27, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes
[NaturalNews] How does a drug manage to become so popular with the medical community, yet turn out to be ineffective at achieving the treatment objectives it was prescribed to achieve? How do such drugs get past clinical trials if they don’t do what they’re supposed to do?
Those are good questions to keep in mind as you consider recent reports regarding interferon beta, the most widely prescribed medicine for treating multiple sclerosis (MS). A new study has found this most common and popular of MS drugs has little or no effect on halting a patient’s progression towards disability, The New York Times and other media reported.
The drug does seem to help reduce the development of brain lesions while limiting the frequency of relapses. But other than that, it appears to be pretty worthless; up to now, few other studies have examined the long-term, overall effect of interferon beta that would demonstrate how effective it is at preventing the beginning of the non-reversible disability.
MS, you may or may not know, is a chronic, often debilitating autoimmune disease that very often attacks the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spinal cord, as well as the optic nerves.
“Symptoms may be mild, such as numbness in the limbs, or severe, such as paralysis or loss of vision. The progress, severity, and specific symptoms of MS are unpredictable and vary from one person to another,” says a description of the disease on the Web site of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
The primary reason for using the drug is now – what?
The current study examining the long-term preventative effects of interferon beta, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, was conducted by researchers at the University of British Columbia. A team led by Afsaneh Shirani, M.D., utilized data collected from 868 MS patients who were being treated with interferon beta. They were compared with 1,788 patients who never took the medication.
Using what was described as a well-validated scale, the researchers said they found those who took the drug no less likely to suffer long-term disability than those who took none.
“A key feature of MS is clinical progression of the disease over time manifested by the accumulation of disability. Interferon beta drugs are the most widely prescribed disease-modifying drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-onset MS, the most common MS disease course,” said background information in the JAMA article.
So, essentially, the drug is worthless for the most important of uses for MS patients.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
by: Mike Adams
[NaturalNews] In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado Batman movie theater shooting, President Obama chimed in on the gun control debate yesterday, saying, “Every day, the number of young people we lose to violence is about the same as the number of people we lost in that movie theater. For every Columbine or Virginia Tech, there are dozens gunned down on the streets of Chicago or Atlanta…” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/25/obama-calls-measures-…)
What he didn’t say, however, is that every day 290 people are killed by FDA-approved prescription drugs, and that’s the conservative number published by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
As no one seems to believe these numbers are real, I’ll quote the source: The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000, authored by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.
That study, which is twelve years old — and drug deaths have risen considerably since then — documents 106,000 deaths per year from the “adverse effects” of FDA-approved prescription medications.
To reach this number from outbreaks of violent shootings, you’d have to see an Aurora Colorado Batman movie massacre take place every HOUR of every day, 365 days a year.
If a massacre of people using slugs of lead is bad, why is a massacre of people using deadly chemicals perfectly acceptable?
A medical massacre that dwarfs the number of deaths from shootings
No one in Washington talks about prescription drug deaths. There are no sobbing victims shown on the evening news. This “chemical massacre” happens quietly, behind closed doors. Yet to achieve this level of mass death in the world of plane crashes, for example, you’d have to see a jumbo jet airliner crashing into the ground once a day, every day of the year.
But that’s only the beginning of the mass death caused by modern medicine, where greed-driven doctors are routinely bribed by the drug giants (http://www.naturalnews.com/036510_doctors_bribes_drug_companies.html) and thereby make the “Joker” James Holmes look like a boy scout by comparison. As NaturalNews previously revealed, just one company — GlaxoSmithKline — had a bribery network of 49,000 doctors who received financial kickbacks to prescribe more Glaxo pharmaceuticals to patients.
According to the report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, the medical establishment kills 783,936 people in the United States every year. (http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_02.htm)
Those deaths include:
• 106,000 Americans killed from drug side effects
• 115,000 Americans killed from bedsores
• 98,000 Americans killed from medical error
• 88,000 Americans killed from infections
• 32,000 Americans killed from surgery
• 37,000 Americans killed from unnecessary procedures
… and so on. See the source link, above, for the rest of the numbers.
The bottom line total comes to 783,936 deaths every year from “conventional” medicine (drugs and surgery medicine).
You are 6200% more likely to be killed by your doctor than by a shooter
According to the CDC’s numbers from 2007, the total number of homicide shooting deaths in the United States each year is roughly 12,600 (Xu, Jiaquan; Kenneth D. Kochanek, Sherry L. Murphy, Betzaida Tejada-Vera (2010-05-20). “Deaths: Final Data for 2007″ (PDF). National Vital Statistics Reports (CDC) 58(19): 11. Retrieved 2011-04-07.)
This means that your risk of being killed by your doctor is 62 times higher than the risk of being killed by a shooter. Put another way, that’s a 6200% higher risk.
It seems that before we even think about the issue of gun control, we need a national debate on DOCTOR control.
After all, when doctors inadvertently kill people by prescribing deadly chemotherapy cocktails or deadly prescription drugs, they don’t even get arrested for it! But they do get financial kickbacks, exotic vacations paid by drug companies, free travel, free meals and other perks of being a Big Pharma whore. Plus, they’re free to go on killing other people, over and over again. While doctors obviously don’t intend to kill people, they nonetheless keep doing so as long as they get their bribes, kickbacks and perks. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html)
If Obama really wanted to protect Americans from being killed, he’d call for restrictions on the prescribing of deadly pharmaceuticals. But don’t hold your breath on that one, because when it comes to actually protecting the American people from medical massacres, or GMOs, or toxic fluoride in the water supply, the real Joker is Obama himself.
by: Anthony Gucciardi
June 14, 2012
Just after it was released that CT scan radiation actually triples the risk of brain tumor development in children, new research is now ousting the fact that average radiation exposure from such medical imaging tests has skyrocketed over the past decade. And the result of this admittedly ‘excessive radiation’ is an increased risk of not only cancer, but other significant health conditions.
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) published the findings of the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which reveals just how serious the issue of radiation exposure is. Researchers write not only how the rates in which patients are scanned by the radiation-emitting machines are much higher, but there is also some concern over how many patients receive repeat scanning — ultimately leading to higher and higher doses of radiation. For those suffering from chronic issues that need consistent ‘monitoring’ from such devices, this could mean heavy radiation levels on a highly routine basis.
High radiation that is undoubtedly spiking cancer rates, as doctors are openly admitting – the same radiation that has been coming from Fukushima in amounts far exceeding original estimations and causing an ‘unknown’ number of cancer deaths. Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at UCSF, explains just how dangerous radiation exposure is when it comes to the development of cancer:
“The studies are pretty clear – high exposure to radiation causes cancer.”
Such is the case even for the common dental x-ray – the seemingly harmless imaging technique that is actually associated with a two-fold or higher increased risk of developing brain cancer. This particular research was very effective in measuring the true severity of repeat scans. While patients who received the bitewing x-rays (showing upper and lower back teeth) less than once per year were only 1.1 to 1.6 times more likely to develop brain cancer, more frequent runs proved to come with a hefty price. Those receiving frequent panorex dental x-rays (an x-ray showing all of the teeth) upped their risk by 2.7 or 3.0 times — much greater than those receiving bitewing tests less frequently. What’s more, the risk increased to 4.9 times if the patient was below the age of 10.
So why the increase in medical imaging tests? The study boldly set out to examine the incentives for the spike, even examining financial factors that could play a role. Even more boldly, they reached the conclusion that financial interests were indeed one main driving factor. A sad truth considering the fact that these financial incentives are contributing to the epidemic of cancer — particularly among young children. Smith-Bindman reports:
“One of the thoughts for the change in the rise of imaging is a change in the incentives… It suggests that financial factors may play a role, but there are other factors as well.”