Posts Tagged Side Effects

19 Ways Cancer Becomes the Ultimate Soft-Kill Operation

via: ActivistPost
by:Paul Adams, J.D.
July 17, 2012

In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people then to control a million people. – Zbigniew Brzezinski (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Carter/Obama Advisor).

The cancer epidemic is a soft-kill operation and a move by the world’s so-called elites to cull the human population. It is well documented that the Club of Rome, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, the Rockefellers, Warren Buffet and many other globalists plan to dominate and decimate humanity with their population reduction agenda.

As we will see, the globalists first cause the cancer and then provide us with their ineffective treatments (not cures) for profit. This method is known as Problem – Reaction – Solution.

According to the American Cancer Society, 1,638,910 new cancer cases will arise in the United States during 2012. Approximately 577,190 American cancer patients are expected to die from their cancer this year as well. One in every two men will suffer from cancer (one in four will die) as will one in every three women (one in five will die). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer is the second leading cause of death, closely trailing heart disease.

In 1971, President Nixon and Congress declared war on cancer. Since then, the federal government has spent well over $105 billion to battle cancer. In 2010 alone, the National Cancer Institute had a budget of $6.4 billion. As of March 2011, the Susan B. Komen Foundation, allegedly leading the fight against breast cancer, had $439,451,449 in “total public support and revenue.” Pharmaceutical giant Merck alone had a 2010 research and development budget of 8.12 billion.

Why all the death and suffering despite billions, if not trillions, in government and private cancer research? Why have cancer treatments remained almost unchanged since the 1950s: toxic radiation, toxic chemotherapy, and surgery?

The answer is simple: treating cancer is profitable; curing it is not. Cancer also furthers the globalist goal of massive depopulation.

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Prescription drugs’ side effects are especially dangerous for the elderly

via: NaturalNews
Monday, July 16, 2012
By: Luella May

[NaturalNews] We live in a world full of drugs whose primary objective is to relieve symptoms instead of heal. Most of these drugs come with side effects, some of which may be quite dangerous. That is especially true when it comes to drugs prescribed for the elderly who are the largest consumers of prescription and over the counter drugs.

When waiting to see a doctor, it is common to share the waiting room with prescription drug salespeople with suitcases full of the latest “drugs of choice.” Too many doctors get their drug education from these salespeople who often have no medical background. The end result is that when we go to the doctor, whether to address a specific condition or for a routine check-up, more often than not, we come out of the office with one or more prescriptions.

Prescribing medications to treat several health conditions can actually result in side effects that can make problems worse. A side effect doesn’t necessarily have to make itself known when first taking a medication. There is a greater chance of experiencing side effects the longer a drug is taken.

Drug side effects and the elderly

Researchers in Britain have found that commonly used drugs prescribed to half of those that are 65 or older lead to an increased incidence of death and mental health decline, especially when the drugs are prescribed in combination. The researchers’ findings, which was published in the August 2011 Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, suggest that these types of drugs negatively affect the brain and increase the risk of decline and death. The study found that patients taking a combination of prescription drugs were at greater risk.

Elderly people take approximately three times the amount of medications that younger people do. Although the elderly are prescribed a wide array of drugs, the most common drugs are heart medications, statins, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants.

Drugs that treat the cardiovascular system can result in nausea, vomiting, weight loss, anorexia, and bleeding problems. Statins’ side effects include muscle weakness and pain (the most serious that can be life threatening), headaches, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, skin rash, and general weakness.

Benzodiazepines can result in sedation, confusion, and falls. The side effects of antidepressants include sedation, confusion, falls, low blood pressure, and urinary retention. Antidepressants also thin the blood. They decrease blood clotting capacity, increasing the risk for stomach and uterine bleeding. Add over the counter NSAID’s taken at the same time and the risk doubles.

Other common drugs’ side effects

Other commonly prescribed drugs also have a host of potentially harmful side effects. Examples include:

* Antipsychotic medications that are used to treat “mental disorders” can result in confusion, sedation, low blood pressure, falls, urinary retention, Parkinsonism (involuntary shaking and twitching), and tardive dyskinesia (repetitive body movements)

* Antihistamines used to treat allergies can result in confusion, sedation, low blood pressure, falls, sleep disturbance, and urinary retention

* Drugs that relieve nausea can lead to confusion, sedation, low blood pressure, falls, urinary retention, Parkinsonism, and tardive dyskinesia

* Pain medication can result in constipation, confusion, & sedation. Even over the counter medications can result in serious liver and gastrointestinal side effects.

* Drugs to treat Parkinson’s disease can result in confusion, dizziness, low blood pressure, and an increase in cardiovascular toxicity

* Drugs to relieve muscle spasms can result in dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, and delirium

* Urinary incontinence drugs can result in dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, delirium, and confusion

All of these side effects relate to individual drugs. Imagine how these side effects can be compounded by taking several prescription drugs at a time.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13880553
http://www.netwellness.uc.edu/healthtopics/aging/faq16.cfm
http://www.tbyil.com/Elderly_Dangerous_Drugs.htm

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Why Your Doctor’s Advice May Be Fatally Flawed

via: Mercola
by: Dr. Mercola
July 13, 2012

Curious about the prevalence and extent of scientific misconduct, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research investigated the reasons why research studies were retracted, and from wherei.

The highest number of incidents of misconduct occurred in the drug literature, as compared to general biomedical literature. Nearly 75 percent of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, which includes:

  • Data falsification or fabrication
  • Questionable veracity
  • Unethical author conduct
  • Plagiarism

This is a significant rise when compared to a 1998 review—cited in the featured NewsWise article—in which 37 percent of scientific retractions between 1966 and 1997 were due to scientific misconduct. Even more shocking: According to data from Thomson Reuters, the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001ii!

The most unfortunate thing about this is that these are the types of studies many health care professionals rely on to make treatment recommendations. Large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings are published, as the average lag time between publication of the study and the issuing of a retraction is 39 months. And that’s if it’s ever caught at all.

Just How Scientific is “Science-Based Medicine” Really?

I am a big believer in the scientific method, provided it’s applied appropriately that is. And that’s the key issue here. In order to qualify in the first place, the research must be unbiased, unprejudiced and free from any significant conflicts of interest. Sadly, this is not the case with most of modern medicine—especially not when it comes to drug research, as evidenced by the featured findings.

It’s quite shocking that nearly three-quarters of all retracted drug studies are due to pure falsification of data. Especially when you consider that even well-researched drugs can still have significant side effects.

Just imagine the potential for tragedy when a drug is based largely on pure fantasy!

Vioxx is perhaps one of the better examples of what can happen when a drug is manufactured and sold under false pretenses. It killed more than 60,000 people in just a few years time, before it was removed from the market. In the case of Vioxx, there are lingering questions about the soundness of the research backing the drug in the first place. Back in 2008, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine came across ghostwritten research studies for Vioxx while reviewing documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck.

According to an April 16, 2008 article on MedHeadlinesiii:

“In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the report made substantial contribution to the research itself. … Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern… question the true nature of ghostwriting. One neurologist originally listed as “External author?” and then listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the University of California, San Diego in the final draft, died a year ago in an airplane crash.”

An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)iv that year by Drs. Psaty and Kronmal also questioned whether Merck might have deliberately manipulated dozens of academic documents published in the medical literature, in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.

Avandia is another potent example. This diabetes medication hit the market in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster drug. By 2006 its annual revenue was $3.2 billion. A year later, a damning study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) linked Avandia to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients treated with other methods.

Between 1999 and 2007, Avandia is estimated to have caused over 80,000 unnecessary heart attacksv, although the actual numbers of people harmed or killed by the drug is still largely unknown. The most recent analysis by the Cleveland Clinic in 2010vi, which used data from 56 clinical Avandia trials, calculated that for every 37 to 52 patients who take Avandia for five years, one additional heart attack can be expected as a result of the drug. As a result, the authors of this meta-analysis estimate the number of deaths caused by Avandia to be around 48,000, between 1999 and 2009.

This is a steep price, to say the least, for a disease that does not require drugs to begin with. Avandia is a poster child for the lethal paradigm of faux science as GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, hid damaging information about the drug for over 10 yearsvii, as it would adversely affect sales!

Again and again we are confronted with indisputable evidence that the drug paradigm is about money, not health, and certainly not dependable scientific inquiry.

Since that 2007 NEJM study, data from various trials, studies and meta-analyses have consistently confirmed the dangers of Avandia, and based on the evidence amassed over the past three years, the European Medicines Agency is now recommending the withdrawal of rosiglitazone-containing diabetic drugs due to the increased risk of ischaemic heart disease. NEJM also hit the nail on its head with the statement that,

“[T]he case of rosiglitazone underscores the need for a robust evidence base to demonstrate the safety of medicines administered long-term.”

Unfortunately, a committee of independent experts recommended that Avandia remain on the US market, despite its risks, and an FDA oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept the advice.

It’s important to understand that our current medical system has been masterfully orchestrated by the drug companies to create a system that gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to manipulate and deceive you into using expensive and potentially toxic drugs that benefit the drug companies more than it benefits your health. Across the board, drugmakers do an excellent job of publicizing the findings they want you to know, while keeping very quiet about the rest.

It’s important to realize that all research is NOT published. And it should come as no surprise that drug studies funded by a pharmaceutical company that reaches a negative conclusion will rarely ever see the light of day… What this means is that even if you scour the medical literature to determine what the consensus is on any given medical topic, what you’ll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the drug approach that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of the scientific investigation that went into that specific drug.

How Drug Companies Manipulate Research Evidence to Fool You

The pharmaceutical industry as a whole has become the poster-child for fraud, deception, and manipulation of science for profit. Nearly 20 percent of the top 100 Corporate Criminals listed for the 1990s were in fact drug companies!

In an online series called Transparency and Medicine featured on the web site The Conversationviii, Jon Jureidini discusses how science-based medicine is clouded by marketing departments that control and distort information in the medical literature. Jureidini is a professor of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide (Australia), who got an inside look at this murky mess while examining drug company internal documents as an expert witness in a case against a pharmaceutical company. The voluminous amounts of documents he was given access to showed “serious misrepresentation” of both the effectiveness and safety of certain drugs, with published articles making the research appear positive, while negative secondary outcomes were deleted.

When you consider that this is the type of research data that then ends up being used to make treatment decisions for years to come by many expert review panels, is it any wonder the United States has the most expensive health care in the world, while STILL experiencing a decline in life expectancy and other health indexes? The whole idea that modern medicine is science-based has become laughable, as the evidence tells a whole different story…

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Toxic Teeth and the Breast Cancer Connection

via: GreenMedInfo
by: Dr. Veronique Desaulniers
July 12, 2012

There is no safe level of mercury. Mercury is the most toxic naturally occurring substance on the planet, yet, according to the EPA, there is currently over 1,000 tons of mercury from amalgam fillings in the mouths of Americans. Over 67 million Americans exceed the exposure of mercury vapors considered “safe” by the EPA because of the presence of amalgams in their teeth.1

Mercury is treated as a bio-hazardous material in a dental office, but then, the uninformed and unsuspecting patient ends up with a mouth full of amalgam fillings, which are 50% mercury.

With over 32 years in the Wellness Industry and having worked with thousands of very sick patients, I have noticed that there has always been a common denominator – amalgam fillings and root canals. Although the focus for this article is the effect of toxic teeth and the role they play in breast cancer, the principles can be applied to every known disease.

Your teeth are living entities that are intricately connected to your blood stream and lymphatic system. There are miles of microtubules inside each tooth that are connected to the bloodstream. Once the tooth is drilled and the enamel is compromised, any substance placed in that tooth is absorbed directly into the body. Human and animal studies have confirmed the presence of mercury in several organs as a result of amalgam fillings placed in the teeth.

The biohazard effect of the amalgam fillings is increased with the slightest friction on an amalgam filling such as brushing the tooth and chewing warm food.  Toxic mercury vapors in the form of methyl mercury are then released and absorbed in the body. The release of these vapors has an estrogen disrupting effect.

Specifically relating to the effect of heavy metals and the effect on breast cancer, several studies suggests that there is a link between accumulation of “transition metals” such as mercury, nickel and cadmium (also known as metalloestrogens) and the malignant growth process of breast cancer. A Canadian research team recently (2011) assessed breast cancer tissue biopsies and discovered a highly significant accumulation of heavy metals in the diseased breast tissues.2

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Microsoft Buys Eugenics Technology From Merck, Becomes Drug Development Partner With Top Global Vaccine Manufacturer

via: NaturalNews
Thursday, February 02, 2012
By: Mike Adams

[NaturalNews] When you buy Microsoft products, you are now promoting the pharmaceutical industry and its global vaccine agenda. That’s the new reality in which we live, where the world’s largest software company is “in bed” with the world’s largest vaccine pusher.

How so? In 2009, Microsoft purchased a key piece of technology from the drug company Merck, the world’s largest maker of vaccines (which Bill Gates says can help “reduce the global population” by 10 to 15 percent). That technology, as you’ll see below, can conceivably be used to develop eugenics vaccines that target specific races and nationalities with infertility-inducing pharmaceuticals — something that is entirely consistent with Bill Gates’ openly-admitted goal of reducing world population through the use of vaccines (see link to video below).

This gene-targeting vaccine research technology purchased by Microsoft was developed by the company known as Rosetta Biosciences, formerly owned by Merck. Their software is described as a way to “figure out how genes interact with each other, analyze peptides and metabolites, and determine how they relate to gene expression.” (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2009288622_rosetta020…)

An announcement on the Rosetta Biosoftware web site explains, “The deal allows Microsoft to incorporate genetic, genomic, metabolomic and proteomics data management software into the Microsoft Amalga Life Sciences platform for enhanced translational research capabilities.” (http://www.rosettabio.com/company/news/rosetta_microsoft)

This same announcement goes on to say that vaccine maker Merck will “provide strategic input to Microsoft” as a part of the deal. Merck’s strategy, of course, is to make money by pimping vaccines and pharmaceuticals, including the now-infamous Gardasil vaccine.

Rupert Vessey, the vice president of Merck Research Laboratories, openly admits this deal puts Microsoft in the role of being a drug developer. He says, “We look forward to collaborating with Microsoft to develop new bioinformatic solutions to enable and expedite drug discovery and development…”

This is a key statement to understand, because the term “bioinformatic” can only mean one thing. What stores information in biology? These is only one digital storage system in human biology, and that system is, of course, DNA. Therefore, the idea of developing “bioinformatic solutions” really means to develop “gene-targeting drugs and vaccines.”

This is fully consistent with Bill Gates’ admitted agenda of reducing world population with the help of drug company technologies. At a TED conference, he announced in front of a live audience: “…if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [global population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html)

See the video yourself at:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

All this comes on the heels of other recent news that Bill Gates is funding sperm-destroying technology to cause widespread male infertility (http://www.naturalnews.com/034834_Bill_Gates_sperm_infertility.html). His foundation has also funded genetically modified mosquitoes and other mad science experiments (http://www.naturalnews.com/030940_Bill_Gates_Foundation_genetics.html).

Microsoft the new leader in eugenics technology?

What’s clear from all this is that Bill Gates is pursuing an agenda of human depopulation. This is a similar agenda of those who pursue eugenics efforts around the globe, including Adolf Hitler and a long list of former FDA Commissioners in the United States. One of the most common ambitions of those in the highest positions of power, it seems, is to cull the human population and eliminate “the little people,” leaving only a “master race” of supreme beings.

Even major universities around the globe are now teaching students that human beings are evil for merely being alive and exhaling carbon dioxide, and that killing off humans is “green” for the planet.

In order to kill off large swaths of human beings, the most efficient mechanism to use is a self-replicating, gene-targeted bioweapon. Microsoft’s Amalga Life Sciences technology, purchased from vaccine developer March, theoretically provides a viable platform to develop precisely such bioweapons. It is interesting that no announcements from the company appear to have been made since being acquired by Microsoft in 2009, indicating that their work is now being conducted in total secrecy, behind closed doors.

U.S. government admits developing weaponized, deadly flu strains

Recent headlines reveal that the United States government has also secretly funded bioweapons research that resulted in the development of super-deadly flu strains that could wipe out far more than just 15 percent of the human population. As revealed in recent news headlines:

“Scientists agreed Friday to a 60-day moratorium on research into a modified avian flu virus that has been demonstrated to be more transmissible among mammals. Although the investigators believe their research has a public health benefit, they acknowledge the fear of some governments and others that the genetically altered virus could escape from labs and infect people.” (http://www.philly.com/philly/health/news/HealthDay660965_20120120_Res…)

That may be precisely the point, it turns out. There is no better way to promote the vaccine profits of the pharmaceutical industry than to actually release an engineered bioweapon virus into the wild. And there is no faster way to reduce the world population than to engineer either a vaccine or a weaponized flu virus that burns through the human population, targeting those of an “undesirable” genetic profile who need to be “cleansed” from the human gene pool.

This about this the next time you think about purchasing Microsoft Office, Windows or some other Microsoft product. By doing so, you are funding what could very well be a global eugenics agenda with the ultimate goal of wiping out a significant proportion of the human race.

Source: NaturalNews.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Aspartame – Donald Rumsfeld’s Bioweapon Legacy

via: TheGIC.org
by: Dr. Betty Martini, Founder Mission Possible Intl
September 9, 2011

Among the many ironies of our modern world is that Gerald Ford awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom-America,s highest civilian honor-to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on January 19, 1977. Just a few weeks later on March 8, Rumsfeld became the CEO of G.D. Searle to take point on a mission to force the Food and Drug Administration to approve for human consumption a known carcinogen and neurotoxic poison.

Mission accomplished: Today some 9,000 commonly consumed products are laced with this weapon of mass misery and millions of people live with chronic illnesses linked to the artificial sweetener aspartame. It is our belief at The Idaho Observer that if some guy named Parkinson can have a disease named after him, then Donald Rumsfeld ought to have his own disease, too. Hence the term Rumsfeld disease A.

Continue Reading At: TheGIC.org

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 319 other followers