Alan Watt – Must see


This totally floored and freaked me out. I have been listening to different opinions, reading many books but what is happening now is more and more evidence of this happening:

Advertisements

Lemons to Lemonade and other clichès


I quit my job and joined my brother in his locksmithing business. I was okay for a few months because I had some money spare, however I now find myself quite scared. It is six days to the end of the month and I don’t have rent money. I have put my CV in with so many employment agencies that I have lost count. I have been on a few interviews and the response is:

– “you are too um…. mature for this position”

– too old… gawd I’m only forty-five and life begins at forty

– too white… yes… sadly you read correctly”.  Some of the responses: “the position is AA” (Affirmative Action).

– too much experience.  Have you ever???

So whilst I wait for someone to realise my potential I decided I need to urgently become creative.  I have given it thought and I know I can do this – type and proof-read manuscripts and documents of all kinds.  Before my ex-company made me an offer I really couldn’t refuse, I had a small company called “Speedy Typing Services” which really worked well.

I am unashamably selling this service on my blog as I need rent money really fast!

I use MS Office 2010 (Word, Excel and Powerpoint.  High speed typing and document production, from writer’s original works to corporate documents of all kinds as well as slides.

I am able to work from home for anyone in English Speaking countries (courier works or e-mail), or go to an office anywhere in Gauteng (although I do add travel and callout fees).

Please leave a comment if you or anyone you know is interested?

Thank you from the bottom of my heart…

Natalie

Slave miners slaughtered


The below was sent by e-mail to me this afternoon.

I was sceptical, however I now believe there to be truth in the below article as (mysteriously) the blog has vanished as has other references to it save for a few small forums.  I am not sure if this is in an effort to quash the truth or create an alternate one, however it is the most interesting and thought provoking article I have read this week.

I have copied it directly from the e-mail sent and my notes are in the blocked brackets [  ]    I have also added links.

Ask questions – NEVER accept everything at face value.

[click here for mainstream media report on Lonmin events so far —–> new24.com coverage ]

[BEGINNING OF THE SUPPOSED MISSING POST]

Marikana Truth

Marikana Truth

Marikana Massacre: All this to protect an Oligarch?

Posted on September 5, 2012 by Arthur Mackay

Amidst all the confusion after the shooting of 44 protesting miners at Lonmin’s Marikana platinum mine in South Africa, we should not lose sight of the astonishingly simple underlying issues.

We are told the workers are demanding that their wage be raised to R12,500 per month (about $1,500) but the workers claim their salary is already at this level. They say they are sub-contracted by a company owned by billionaire South African oligarch Cyril Ramaphosa. He only pays them R5,400 or less and pockets the rest paid out by Lonmin. [note: please go to their latest press release of 17 September to read for yourself the motives of an orchestrated strike – I have included page one of three below for your information]

If this is so then agreeing to the workers’ demands would cost Lonmin nothing and the whole dispute is between the workers and Cyril Ramaphosa. Instead of saying this however, Lonmin has placed itself between the two and taken responsibility for negotiating a pay rise which no one has asked for. Doing this, Lonmin is placing Cyril Ramaphosa’s private interests above those of its common stockholders and is neglecting its fiduciary duties. It is also leaving itself open to litigation.

Cyril Ramaphosa in fact owns 9% of Lonmin but was paid out $304m in cash by the company in 2010 in a deal backed ultimately by Xstrata. By comparison common shareholders have received only $60m in dividends in the last two years and have incurred over $2.5bn of paper losses. What the workers are requesting is that Ramaphosa share with them about $18m which he is taking from their wages.

When Cyril Ramaphosa bought 50.03% of Lonmin’s Black Economic Empowerment partner Incwala Resources in 2010 , Lonmin put up the $304m in cash which he needed. Lonmin funded this with a share issue to which, according to Lonmin, Xstrata was the key subscriber. Since then a further $51m of credit has been extended to Ramaphosa.

[note:  this is an excerpt from Politicsweb in 2010 – see the end notes on that page;

4. In May 2010 with platinum prices on the global market beginning to recover, Cyril Ramaphosa’s Shanduka Resources “bought” a 50,03 percent shareholding in Incwala. This share-holding was acquired basically with money put up by Lonmin. According to one commentator “Lonmin is playing bank. If the loan gets paid back, then I am happy. Plenty of these BEE deals have run into trouble because of market conditions…Incwala was effectively bankrupt.” (see Business Report, May11, 2010, “Shanduka buys into platinum” ]

Ramaphosa’s company also provides all of Lonmin’s welfare and training services and for this he may have been paid at least $50m in 2011 alone. Based on the worker’s demands and their living conditions, we can guess at how much of this reached its stated purpose. Companies linked to Ramaphosa were also paid advance dividends’ by Lonmin of $20m in the last two years.

All-in-all Lonmin seems to have paid Ramaphosa and his related companies well over $400m since he bought into the company. This is about 25% of Lonmin’s current market value and is a very large amount for a man who was supposed to be doing the paying when he bought his stake.

And this is not all.

The Marikana conflict is portrayed as a dispute between two unions, the hegemonic NUM and a small new union, the AMCU.  But the NUM has been Cyril Ramaphosa’s vehicle since he founded it in 1982. He was its Secretary General until 1998, the year he went into private business to become a billionaire. This has led to claims that the ANC has instituted a form of modern day slave labour. The workers’ employer and their union are effectively the same person.  Is it surprising that the workers worry that their union is not wholeheartedly defending their legal rights?

All this casts the Marikana conflict in a very different light to what we have heard so far.

The dirt-poor Marikana workers, many from Lesotho, living in slums, wearing rags, are asking for an extra $750 per month from one of the most powerful figures in the ANC and one of the richest men in the world, and they are openly calling him an exploiter.

Such a debacle, which calls into question not only Lonmin, Xstrata and Ramaphosa but also the whole ANC hierarchy, the reality of the “New South Africa” and the credibility of the ANC’s many foreign supporters, not least those in the United States, helps to explain the speed and the savage brutality of the reaction.

[note: What does Africa and indeed South Africa have that everyone wants?  Gold.  The highest concentration of the world’s gold is in South Africa, specifically what was known as the Witwatersrand accounting for 79% of the global gold]

On 16th August, 6 days into the strike, the police opened fire injuring 112 and killing 34.

Local witnesses claim the workers were not charging at the police but were fleeing from them as tear gas was thrown at them by another police detachment. Autopsy reports apparently confirm many were shot in the back.

At the time Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa, was in Mozambique at an SADC meeting. He returned to South Africa but only one day later. He visited Marikana briefly but stayed away from the main area. A full five days passed and only then did he return and visit the crime scene. On the day of the attack Ian Farmer, the CEO of Lonmin, was diagnosed with a “serious illness” and still has not returned to work.

A few days later the 270 men who were arrested were charged with committing murder. They allege that they were stripped in their cells and beaten with sticks. Once an international outcry began and it became apparent that the publicity of a trial could be counterproductive, they were quickly released.

Even with the above illumination, some crucial questions still remain.

How could Cyril Ramaphosa exercise such influence over Lonmin’s Executive Board to be able to effectively bend it, and potentially the Board of Xstrata too, to do his bidding? And what truth could the South African government have been so desperate to hide that it was judged better to risk everything and open fire on its own people, rather than let it see the light?

The answer lies at the heart of the bitter fallacy of the South African commodities boom and the emerging markets paradigm which we have lived in the last 15 years. The sad truth is that nothing has changed, or, more accurately, nothing has improved.

In the past there was one oligarch and one South African mining company [the Oppenheimer family owned one]. They officially opposed the apartheid regime and were liberal but conveniently continued to export gold and diamonds from South Africa up to and beyond 1994.

Today there are five to ten oligarchs. They are black and they are African. They too oppose apartheid and they too are exporting all of South Africa’s gold and diamonds at the present time. The reason Cyril Ramaphosa could ransack Lonmin in the way he has is because he effectively is Lonmin.  Lonmin exists in many ways to serve his interests and its foreign shareholders would do well to understand this.  The whole debate about nationalisation is therefore completely moot.  South Africa’s mines have already been nationalised and given over to a ruthless tyranny, signed, sealed and delivered by the many cheerleaders of the ANC overseas.

[note here:  The Oppenheim and Oppenheimer families are also relatives of the Rothschild and de Rothschild as well as Rockefeller families.  Oppenheim and Oppenheimer set up the mining industry in South Africa for their own gain.  Even Microsoft Word spelling corrects all these family names if misspelt – makes one wonder how far the ‘tentacles’ reach?  The Rothschild family business is principally banking and it must be noted they own the Federal Reserve, which many confuse as being a United States government owned entity.  All gold sent is sent to the Federal Reserve in exchange for worthless paper or electronic money.  I encourage you to do your own research on the Rothschild (and their relations), families.  Many things going on in the world will soon make sense].

So what will happen next? In fact the next Marikana has already occurred. Tear gas was fired and four workers were shot two days ago on a gold property near Johannesburg controlled by another oligarch, Tokyo Sexwale [note: in fact if you search for “tear gas fired at miners” you will see articles up to this week where the name Lonmin and other mining houses are used].  The strategy of the ANC’s opposition, which is correct given the extent of the disenfranchisement since 1994, will be to now target every oligarch.  It will be demanded that they return much of what was taken. But this will never be done voluntarily and so this conflict, just like the apartheid struggle, will go on for many years.

[note:  This need not go on for many years if you spread the word and make people aware!]

Will this really be the lasting legacy of the post-apartheid era?  Is this what Nelson Mandela’s years in prison, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsements, Bob Geldof’s concerts and Bono’s songs were meant to bring to us?  Will they all now leave the world in darkness, with a set of fearful problems for a future generation to sort out? We will have to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Arthur Mackay is an analyst of global economic and political issues.  [note:  I cannot find anything else about Arthur Mackay on the web that confirms this, with the exception of what seems to be a deleted Whose Who and Linkedin Profiles – conspiracy?  You decide]

Posted in Uncategorized23 Comments

 [END OF POST]

 

EDIT 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 07:20 – THE ABOVE WAS ALSO POSTED HERE; UBUNTU LIBERATION MOVEMENT  <—-CLICK.  THIS IS A FASCINATING SITE.  MICHAEL TELLINGER IS  A RESEARCHER, AN AUTHOR AND EX TELEVISION PRESENTER AND IS ALSO SUEING STANDARD BANK. 

Below is the latest statement from LONMIN.  One wonders that in all this, the end goal is to drive up the price of platinum gold?  I can say I smell a few rats… and maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg as the above article suggests.  We already know the ANC and for that matter all government, is completely “bought” by “cheerleaders” elsewhere.  Think for a moment.  What have they to gain?  The answer is simple:  Control and Power.

Killer Medicine Post (very long post but very worth it!)


NOTE:  THESE ARE MY OPINIONS WHICH I AM ENTITLED TO.  MATERIAL HAS ALSO BEEN COPIED VERBATIM FROM SOURCE BUT SOURCE IS ALSO PROVIDED.

The below two articles are copied verbatim and the source is provided.  I did this because I believe it’s vitally important others who are “asleep” to what is going on, wake up urgently!  The first article was written in 2004!  It was just not given the attention it deserves.  Why?  Because it is not in the financial interests of doctors and pharmaceutical companies!  What happened to YOUR interests?  They don’t care – you are a FINANCIAL means to an end.  In my opinion this is criminally wrong.  Millions of people have effectively been “MURDERED” through chemo-therapy and other dangerous drugs.

SOURCE: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

The below article which is extensively written by Doctors, Professors and Specialists was produced in 2004!

Death by MedicineBy Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin   Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
Something is wrong when regulatory agencies   pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics showing   that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard.Until now, Life Extension could cite only   isolated statistics to make its case about the dangers of conventional   medicine. No one had ever analyzed and combined ALL of the published   literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by government-protected   medicine. That has now changed.

A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the   statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking.4 These   researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents   compelling evidence that today’s system frequently causes more harm than   good.

This fully referenced report shows the number of   people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2   million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually   for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary   medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year.   The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9   million per year.

The most stunning statistic, however, is that the   total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding   783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the   leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of   deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of   deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5)

We placed this article on our website to   memorialize the failure of the American medical system. By exposing these   gruesome statistics in painstaking detail, we provide a basis for competent   and compassionate medical professionals to recognize the inadequacies of   today’s system and at least attempt to institute meaningful reforms.

Natural medicine is under siege, as pharmaceutical company lobbyists urge lawmakers to deprive Americans of the benefits of dietary supplements. Drug-company front groups have launched slanderous media campaigns to discredit the value of healthy lifestyles. The FDA continues to interfere with those who offer natural products that compete with prescription drugs.

These attacks against natural medicine obscure a lethal problem that until now was buried in thousands of pages of scientific text. In response to these baseless challenges to natural medicine, the Nutrition Institute of America commissioned an independent review of the quality of “government-approved” medicine. The startling findings from this meticulous study indicate that conventional medicine is “the leading cause of death” in the United States .

The Nutrition Institute of America is a nonprofit organization that has sponsored independent research for the past 30 years. To support its bold claim that conventional medicine is America ‘s number-one killer, the Nutritional Institute of America mandated that every “count” in this “indictment” of US medicine be validated by published, peer-reviewed scientific studies.

What you are about to read is a stunning compilation of facts that documents that those who seek to abolish consumer access to natural therapies are misleading the public. Over 700,000 Americans die each year at the hands of government-sanctioned medicine, while the FDA and other government agencies pretend to protect the public by harassing those who offer safe alternatives.

A definitive review of medical peer-reviewed journals and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good.

Each year approximately 2.2 million US hospital patients experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to prescribed medications.(1) In 1995, Dr. Richard Besser of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections to be 20 million; in 2003, Dr. Besser spoke in terms of tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually.(2, 2a) Approximately 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed annually in the US,(3) while approximately 8.9 million Americans are hospitalized unnecessarily.(4)

As shown in the following table, the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures— in the US annually is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is itself the leading cause of death and injury in the US . By comparison, approximately 699,697 Americans died of heart in 2001, while 553,251 died of cancer.(5)

Table 1: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic   Cost of Medical Intervention
Condition Deaths Cost Author
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000 $12 billion Lazarou(1),     Suh (49)
Medical error 98,000 $2 billion IOM(6)
Bedsores 115,000 $55 billion Xakellis(7),     Barczak (8)
Infection 88,000 $5 billion Weinstein(9),     MMWR (10)
Malnutrition 108,800 ———– Nurses Coalition(11)
Outpatients 199,000 $77 billion Starfield(12),     Weingart(112)
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 $122 billion HCUP(3,13)
Surgery-Related 32,000 $9 billion AHRQ(85)
Total 783,936 $282 billion

Using Leape’s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million(14) multiplied by the 14% fatality rate he used in 1994(16) produces an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. Using this number instead of Lazorou’s 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine ‘s (IOM) estimated 98,000 annual medical errors would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually.

Table 2: Estimated Annual Mortality and Economic   Cost of Medical Intervention
Condition Deaths Cost Author
ADR/med error 420,000 $200 billion Leape(14)
Bedsores 115,000 $55 billion Xakellis(7),     Barczak (8)
Infection 88,000 $5 billion Weinstein(9),     MMWR (10)
Malnutrition 108,800 ———– Nurses Coalition(11)
Outpatients 199,000 $77 billion Starfield(12),     Weingart(112)
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 $122 billion HCUP(3,13)
Surgery-Related 32,000 $9 billion AHRQ(85)
Total 999,936

The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any invasive, unnecessary medical procedure must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. Each of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in ways that could have fatal consequences. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following:

  • In 16.4 million people, a      2.1% chance (affecting 186,000) of a serious adverse drug reaction(1)
  • In 16.4 million people, a      5-6% chance (affecting 489,500) of acquiring a nosocomial infection(9)
  • In16.4 million people, a      4-36% chance (affecting 1.78 million) of having an iatrogenic injury      (medical error and adverse drug reactions).(16)
  • In 16.4 million people, a      17% chance (affecting 1.3 million) of a procedure error.(40)

These statistics represent a one-year time span. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics, we project the following 10-year death rates.

Table 3: Estimated 10-Year Death Rates from   Medical Intervention
Condition 10-Year Deaths Author
Adverse Drug Reaction 1.06 million (1)
Medical error 0.98 million (6)
Bedsores 1.15 million (7,8)
Nosocomial Infection 0.88 million (9,10)
Malnutrition 1.09 million (11)
Outpatients 1.99 million (12,     112)
Unnecessary Procedures 371,360 (3,13)
Surgery-related 320,000 (85)
Total 7,841,360

Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history.

Our projected figures for unnecessary medical events occurring over a 10-year period also are dramatic.

Table 4: Estimated 10-Year Unnecessary Medical   Events
Unnecessary Events 10-year Number Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization 89 million(4) 17 million
Procedures 75 million(3) 15 million
Total 164 million

These figures show that an estimated 164 million people—more than half of the total US population—receive unneeded medical treatment over the course of a decade.

INTRODUCTION

Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one article. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually, each representing a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is like standing an inch away from an elephant and trying to describe everything about it. You have to step back to see the big picture, as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine keeps its own records and data on morbidity and mortality. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands of studies and putting pieces of the puzzle together.

Is American Medicine Working?

US health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003, representing 14% of the nation’s gross national product.(15) Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be preventing and reversing disease, and doing minimal harm. Careful and objective review, however, shows we are doing the opposite. Because of the extraordinarily narrow, technologically driven context in which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the larger picture.

Medicine is not taking into consideration the following critically important aspects of a healthy human organism: (a) stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes; (b) insufficient exercise; (c) excessive caloric intake; (d) highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil; and (e) exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins. Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being spent on preventing disease.

Underreporting of Iatrogenic Events

As few as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.(16,24,25,33,34) This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than 783,936. In 1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.(16) Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day.

What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform—from the curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is obvious that we cannot change anything if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required.

We are fully aware of what stands in the way of change: powerful pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, along with other powerful groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets, they entice scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional caution to uncritical acceptance of new therapies and drugs. You have only to look at the people who make up the hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflicts of interest. The public is mostly unaware of these interlocking interests.

For example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty who serve on institutional review boards (IRB) to advise on clinical trial research also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry.(17) The study authors were concerned that such representation could cause potential conflicts of interest. A news release by Dr. Erik Campbell, the lead author, said, “Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research. It’s possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members’ activities and attitudes.”(18)

Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine

Jonathan Quick, director of essential drugs and medicines policy for the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote in a recent WHO bulletin: “If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken.”(19)

As former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine , Dr. Marcia Angell struggled to bring greater attention to the problem of commercializing scientific research. In her outgoing editorial entitled “ Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science and called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers:(20) “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.

Angell left the New England Journal in June 2000. In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it would accept journalists who accept money from drug companies because it was too difficult to find ones who have no ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was not the case and that plenty of researchers are available who do not work for drug companies.(21) According to an ABC news report, pharmaceutical companies spend over $2 billion a year on over 314,000 events attended by doctors.

The ABC news report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug-company-funded study will show favorable results only 50% of the time. It appears that money can’t buy you love but it can buy any “scientific” result desired.

Cynthia Crossen, a staffer for the Wall Street Journal, i n 1996 published Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact in America , a book about the widespread practice of lying with statistics.(22) Commenting on the state of scientific research, she wrote: “The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government research funding.” Her data on financial involvement showed that in l981 the drug industry “gave” $292 million to colleges and universities for research. By l991, this figure had risen to $2.1 billion.

What constitutes the “best care”? The CDC does not elaborate and ignores the latest research on the dozens of nutraceuticals that have been scientifically proven to treat viral infections and boost immune-system function. Will doctors recommend vitamin C, echinacea, elderberry, vitamin A, zinc, or homeopathic oscillococcinum? Probably not. The CDC’s common-sense recommendations that most people follow anyway include getting proper rest, drinking plenty of fluids, and using a humidifier.

The pharmaceutical industry claims it supports limiting the use of antibiotics. The drug company Bayer sponsors a program called “Operation Clean Hands” through an organization called LIBRA.(57) The CDC also is involved in trying to minimize antibiotic resistance, but nowhere in its publications is there any reference to the role of nutraceuticals in boosting the immune system, nor to the thousands of journal articles that support this approach. This tunnel vision and refusal to recommend the available non-drug alternatives is unfortunate when the CDC is desperately trying to curb the overuse of antibiotics.

Drugs Pollute Our Water Supply

We have reached the point of saturation with prescription drugs. Every body of water tested contains measurable drug residues. The tons of antibiotics used in animal farming, which run off into the water table and surrounding bodies of water, are conferring antibiotic resistance to germs in sewage, and these germs also are found in our water supply. Flushed down our toilets are tons of drugs and drug metabolites that also find their way into our water supply. We have no way to know the long-term health consequences of ingesting a mixture of drugs and drug-breakdown products. These drugs represent another level of iatrogenic disease that we are unable to completely measure.(58-67)

Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: NSAIDs

It’s not just the US that is plagued by iatrogenesis. A survey of more than 1,000 French general practitioners (GPs) tested their basic pharmacological knowledge and practice in prescribing NSAIDs, which rank first among commonly prescribed drugs for serious adverse reactions. The study results suggest that GPs do not have adequate knowledge of these drugs and are unable to effectively manage adverse reactions.(68)

A cross-sectional survey of 125 patients attending specialty pain clinics in South London found that possible iatrogenic factors such as “over-investigation, inappropriate information, and advice given to patients as well as misdiagnosis, over-treatment, and inappropriate prescription of medication were common.”(69)

Specific Drug Iatrogenesis: Cancer Chemotherapy

In 1989, German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, wrote a monograph entitled “Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer.” It was later published in shorter form in a peer-reviewed medical journal.(70) Abel presented a comprehensive analysis of clinical trials and publications representing over 3,000 articles examining the value of cytotoxic chemotherapy on advanced epithelial cancer. Epithelial cancer is the type of cancer with which we are most familiar, arising from epithelium found in the lining of body organs such as the breast, prostate, lung, stomach, and bowel. From these sites, cancer usually infiltrates adjacent tissue and spreads to the bone, liver, lung, or brain. With his exhaustive review, Abel concluded there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced carcinoma; in small-cell lung cancer and perhaps ovarian cancer, the therapeutic benefit is only slight. According to Abel, “Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies.”

Over a decade after Abel’s exhaustive review of chemotherapy, there seems no decrease in its use for advanced carcinoma. For example, when conventional chemotherapy and radiation have not worked to prevent metastases in breast cancer, high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) along with stem-cell transplant (SCT) is the treatment of choice. In March 2000, however,
results from the largest multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted thus far showed that, compared to a prolonged course of monthly conventional-dose chemotherapy, HDC and SCT were of no benefit, (71) with even a slightly lower survival rate for the HDC/SCT group. Serious adverse effects occurred more often in the HDC group than the standard-dose group. One treatment-related death (within 100 days of therapy) was recorded in the HDC group, but none was recorded in the conventional chemotherapy group. The women in this trial were highly selected as having the best chance to respond.

Unfortunately, no all-encompassing follow-up study such as Dr. Abel’s exists to indicate whether there has been any improvement in cancer-survival statistics since 1989. In fact, research should be conducted to determine whether chemotherapy itself is responsible for secondary cancers instead of progression of the original disease. We continue to question why well-researched alternative cancer treatments are not used.

Drug Companies Fined

Periodically, the FDA fines a drug manufacturer when its abuses are too glaring and impossible to cover up. In May 2002, The Washington Post reported that Schering-Plough Corp., the maker of Claritin, was to pay a $500 million dollar fine to the FDA for quality-control problems at four of its factories.(72) The indictment came after the Public Citizen Health Research Group, led by Dr. Sidney Wolfe, called for a criminal investigation of Schering-Plough, charging that the company distributed albuterol asthma inhalers even though it knew the units were missing the active ingredient.

The FDA tabulated infractions involving 125 products, or 90% of the drugs made by Schering-Plough since 1998. Besides paying the fine, the company was forced to halt the manufacture of 73 drugs or suffer another $175 million fine. Schering-Plough’s news releases told another story, assuring consumers that they should still feel confident in the company’s products.

This large settlement served as a warning to the drug industry about maintaining strict manufacturing practices and has given the FDA more clout in dealing with drug company compliance. According to The Washington Post article, a federal appeals court ruled in 1999 that the FDA could seize the profits of companies that violate “good manufacturing practices.” Since that time, Abbott Laboratories has paid a $100 million fine for failing to meet quality standards in the production of medical test kits, while Wyeth Laboratories paid $30 million in 2000 to settle accusations of poor manufacturing practices.

UNNECESSARY SURGICAL PROCEDURES

In 1974, 2.4 million unnecessary surgeries were performed, resulting in 11,900 deaths at a cost of $3.9 billion.(73,74) In 2001, 7.5 million unnecessary surgical procedures were performed, resulting in 37,136 deaths at a cost of $122 billion (using 1974 dollars).(3)

It is very difficult to obtain accurate statistics when studying unnecessary surgery. In 1989, Leape wrote that perhaps 30% of controversial surgeries—which include cesarean section, tonsillectomy, appendectomy, hysterectomy, gastrectomy for obesity, breast implants, and elective breast implants(74)— are unnecessary. In 1974, the Congressional Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held hearings on unnecessary surgery. It found that 17.6% of recommendations for surgery were not confirmed by a second opinion. The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations extrapolated these figures and estimated that, on a nationwide basis, there were 2.4 million unnecessary surgeries performed annually, resulting in 11,900 deaths at an annual cost of $3.9 billion.(73)

According to the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(13), in 2001 the 50 most common medical and surgical procedures were performed approximately 41.8 million times in the US. Using the 1974 House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations’ figure of 17.6% as the percentage of unnecessary surgical procedures, and extrapolating from the death rate in 1974, produces nearly 7.5 million (7,489,718) unnecessary procedures and a death rate of 37,136, at a cost of $122 billion (using 1974 dollars).

In 1995, researchers conducted a similar analysis of back surgery procedures, using the 1974 “unnecessary surgery percentage” of 17.6. Testifying before the Department of Veterans Affairs, they estimated that of the 250,000 back surgeries performed annually in the US at a hospital cost of $11,000 per patient, the total number of unnecessary back surgeries approaches 44,000, costing as much as $484 million.(75)

Like prescription drug use driven by television advertising, unnecessary surgeries are escalating. Media-driven surgery such as gastric bypass for obesity “modeled” by Hollywood celebrities seduces obese people to think this route is safe and sexy. Unnecessary surgeries have even been marketed on the Internet.(76) A study in Spain declares that 20-25% of total surgical practice represents unnecessary operations.(77)

According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics for 1979 to 1984, the total number of surgical procedures increased 9% while the number of surgeons grew 20%. The study notes that the large increase in the number of surgeons was not accompanied by a parallel increase in the number of surgeries performed, and expressed concern about an excess of surgeons to handle the surgical caseload.(78)

From 1983 to 1994, however, the incidence of the 10 most commonly performed surgical procedures jumped 38%, to 7,929,000 from 5,731,000 cases. By 1994, cataract surgery was the most common procedure with more than 2 million operations, followed by cesarean section (858,000 procedures) and inguinal hernia operations (689,000 procedures). Knee arthroscopy procedures increased 153% while prostate surgery declined 29%.(79)

The list of iatrogenic complications from surgery is as long as the list of procedures themselves. One study examined catheters that were inserted to deliver anesthetic into the epidural space around the spinal nerves for lower cesarean section, abdominal surgery, or prostate surgery. In some cases, non-sterile technique during catheter insertion resulted in serious infections, even leading to limb paralysis.(80)

In one review of the literature, the authors found “a significant rate of overutilization of coronary angiography, coronary artery surgery, cardiac pacemaker insertion, upper gastrointestinal endoscopies, carotid endarterectomies, back surgery, and pain-relieving procedures.”(81)

A 1987 JAMA study found the following significant levels of inappropriate surgery: 17% of coronary angiography procedures, 32% of carotid endarterectomy procedures, and 17% of upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy procedures.(82) Based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) statistics provided by the government for 2001, 697,675 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (usually entailing biopsy) were performed, as were 142,401 endarterectomies and 719,949 coronary angiographies.(13) Extrapolating the JAMA study’s inappropriate surgery rates to 2001 produces 118,604 unnecessary endoscopy procedures, 45,568 unnecessary endarterectomies, and 122,391 unnecessary coronary angiographies. These are all forms of medical iatrogenesis.

MEDICAL AND SURGICAL PROCEDURES

It is instructive to know the mortality rates associated with various medical and surgical procedures. Although we must sign release forms when we undergo any procedure, many of us are in denial about the true risks involved; because medical and surgical procedures are so commonplace, they often are seen as both necessary and safe. Unfortunately, allopathic medicine itself is a leading cause of death, as well as the most expensive way to die.

Perhaps the words “health care” confer the illusion that medicine is about health. Allopathic medicine is not a purveyor of health care but of disease care. The HCUP figures are instructive,(13) but the computer program that calculates annual mortality statistics for all US hospital discharges is only as good as the codes entered into the system. In email correspondence, HCUP indicated that the mortality rates for each procedure indicated only that someone undergoing that procedure died either from the procedure or from some other cause.

Thus there is no way of knowing exactly how many people die from a particular procedure. While codes for “poisoning & toxic effects of drugs” and “complications of treatment” do exist, the mortality figures registered in these categories are very low and do not correlate with what is known from research such as the 1998 JAMA study(1) that estimated an average of 106,000 prescription medication deaths per year. No codes exist for adverse drug side effects, surgical mishaps, or other types of medical error. Until such codes exist, the true mortality rates tied to of medical error will remain buried in the general statistics.

AN HONEST LOOK AT US HEALTH CARE

In 1978, the US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported: “Only 10-20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.”(83) In 1995, the OTA compared medical technology in eight countries ( Australia , Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the US ) and again noted that few medical procedures in the US have been subjected to clinical trial. It also reported that US infant mortality was high and life expectancy low compared to other developed countries.(84)

Although almost 10 years old, much of what was written in the OTA report holds true today. The report blames the high cost of American medicine on the medical free-enterprise system and failure to create a national health care policy. It attributes the government’s failure to control health care costs to market incentives and profit motives inherent in the current financing and organization of health care, which includes such interests as private health insurers, hospital systems, physicians, and the drug and medical-device industries. “Health Care Technology and Its Assessment in Eight Countries” is the last report prepared by the OTA, which was disbanded in 1995. It also is perhaps the US government’s last honest, detailed examination of the nation’s health care system. An appendix summarizing this 60-page report follows this article.

SURGICAL ERRORS FINALLY REPORTED

An October 2003 JAMA study from the US government’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) documented 32,000 mostly surgery-related deaths costing $9 billion and accounting for 2.4 million extra hospital days in 2000.(85) Data from 20% of the nation’s hospitals were analyzed for 18 different surgical complications, including postoperative infections, foreign objects left in wounds, surgical wounds reopening, and post-operative bleeding.

In a press release accompanying the study, AHRQ director Carolyn M. Clancy, MD, noted: “This study gives us the first direct evidence that medical injuries pose a real threat to the American public and increase the costs of health care.”(86) According to the study’s authors, “The findings greatly underestimate the problem, since many other complications happen that are not listed in hospital administrative data.” They added: “The message here is that medical injuries can have a devastating impact on the health care system. We need more research to identify why these injuries occur and find ways to prevent them from happening.” The study authors said that improved medical practices, including an emphasis on better hand washing, might help reduce morbidity and mortality rates. In an accompanying JAMA editorial, health-risk researcher Dr. Saul Weingart of Harvard’s Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center wrote, “Given their staggering magnitude, these estimates are clearly sobering.”(87)

UNNECESSARY X-RAYS

When x-rays were discovered, no one knew the long-term effects of ionizing radiation. In the 1950s, monthly fluoroscopic exams at the doctor’s office were routine, and you could even walk into most shoe stores and see x-rays of your foot bones. We still do not know the ultimate outcome of our initial fascination with x-rays.

In those days, it was common practice to x-ray pregnant women to measure their pelvises and make a diagnosis of twins. Finally, a study of 700,000 children born between 1947 and 1964 in 37 major maternity hospitals compared the children of mothers who had received pelvic x-rays during pregnancy to those of mothers who did not. It found that cancer mortality was 40% higher among children whose mothers had been x-rayed.(88)

In present-day medicine, coronary angiography is an invasive surgical procedure that involves snaking a tube through a blood vessel in the groin up to the heart. To obtain useful information, X-rays are taken almost continuously, with minimum dosages ranging from 460 to 1,580 mrem. The minimum radiation from a routine chest x-ray is 2 mrem. X-ray radiation accumulates in the body, and ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures has been shown to cause gene mutation. The health impact of this high level of radiation is unknown, and often obscured in statistical jargon such as, “The risk for lifetime fatal cancer due to radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in one million per 1,000 mrem.”(89)

Dr. John Gofman has studied the effects of radiation on human health for 45 years. A medical doctor with a PhD in nuclear and physical chemistry, Gofman worked on the Manhattan Project, discovered uranium-233, and was the first person to isolate plutonium. In five scientifically documented books, Gofman provides strong evidence that medical technology—specifically x-rays, CT scans, and mammography and fluoroscopy devices—are a contributing factor to 75% of new cancers. In a nearly 700-page report updated in 2000, “Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population,”(90) Gofman shows that as the number of physicians increases in a geographical area along with an increase in the number of x-ray diagnostic tests performed, the rate of cancer and ischemic heart disease also increases. Gofman elaborates that it is not x-rays alone that cause the damage but a combination of health risk factors that include poor diet, smoking, abortions, and the use of birth control pills. Dr. Gofman predicts that ionizing radiation will be responsible for 100 million premature deaths over the next decade.

In his book, “Preventing Breast Cancer,” Dr. Gofman notes that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Because breast tissue is highly sensitive to radiation, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened other factors including a woman’s genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.(91)

Even x-rays for back pain can lead someone into crippling surgery. Dr. John E. Sarno, a well-known New York orthopedic surgeon, found that there is not necessarily any association between back pain and spinal x-ray abnormality. He cites studies of normal people without a trace of back pain whose x-rays indicate spinal abnormalities and of people with back pain whose spines appear to be normal on x-ray.(92) People who happen to have back pain and show an abnormality on x-ray may be treated surgically, sometimes with no change in back pain, worsening of back pain, or even permanent disability. Moreover, doctors often order x-rays as protection against malpractice claims, to give the impression of leaving no stone unturned. It appears that doctors are putting their own fears before the interests of their patients.

UNNECESSARY HOSPITALIZATION

Nearly 9 million (8,925,033) people were hospitalized unnecessarily in 2001.(4) In a study of inappropriate hospitalization, two doctors reviewed 1,132 medical records. They concluded that 23% of all admissions were inappropriate and an additional 17% could have been handled in outpatient clinics. Thirty-four percent of all hospital days were deemed inappropriate and could have been avoided.(93) The rate of inappropriate hospital admissions in 1990 was 23.5%.(94) In 1999, another study also found an inappropriate admissions rate of 24%, indicating a consistent pattern from 1986 to 1999.(95) The HCUP database indicates that the total number of patient discharges from US hospitals in 2001 was 37,187,641,(13) meaning that almost 9 million people were exposed to unnecessary medical intervention in hospitals and therefore represent almost 9 million potential iatrogenic episodes.(4)

WOMEN’S EXPERIENCE IN MEDICINE

Dr. Martin Charcot (1825-1893) was world-renowned, the most celebrated doctor of his time. He practiced in the Paris hospital La Salpetriere. He became an expert in hysteria, diagnosing an average of 10 hysterical women each day, transforming them into “iatrogenic monsters” and turning simple “neurosis” into hysteria.(96) The number of women diagnosed with hysteria and hospitalized rose from 1% in 1841 to 17% in 1883. Hysteria is derived from the Latin “hystera” meaning uterus. According to Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, US medicine has a tradition of excessive medical and surgical interventions on women. Only 100 years ago, male doctors believed that female psychological imbalance originated in the uterus. When surgery to remove the uterus was perfected, it became the “cure” for mental instability, effecting a physical and psychological castration. Fugh-Berman notes that US doctors eventually disabused themselves of that notion but have continued to treat women very differently than they treat men.(97) She cites the following statistics:

  1. Thousands of prophylactic      mastectomies are performed annually.
  2. One-third of US women have      had a hysterectomy before menopause.
  3. Women are prescribed drugs      more frequently than are men.
  4. Women are given potent drugs      for disease prevention, which results in disease substitution due to side      effects.
  5. Fetal monitoring is      unsupported by studies and not recommended by the CDC.(98) It confines women to a      hospital bed and may result in a higher incidence of cesarean section.(99)
  6. Normal processes such as      menopause and childbirth have been heavily “medicalized.”
  7. Synthetic hormone      replacement therapy (HRT) does not prevent heart disease or dementia, but      does increase the risk of breast cancer, heart disease, stroke, and gall      bladder attack.(100)

As many as one-third of postmenopausal women use HRT.(101,102) This number is important in light of the much-publicized Women’s Health Initiative Study, which was halted before its completion because of a higher death rate in the synthetic estrogen-progestin (HRT) group.(103)

Cesarean Section

In 1983, 809,000 cesarean sections (21% of live births) were performed in the US, making it the nation’s most common obstetric-gynecologic (OB/GYN) surgical procedure. The second most common OB/GYN operation was hysterectomy (673,000), followed by diagnostic dilation and curettage of the uterus (632,000). In 1983, OB/GYN procedures represented 23% of all surgery completed in the US.(104)

In 2001, cesarean section is still the most common OB/GYN surgical procedure. Approximately 4 million births occur annually, with 24% (960,000) delivered by cesarean section. In the Netherlands, only 8% of births are delivered by cesarean section. This suggests 640,000 unnecessary cesarean sections—entailing three to four times higher mortality and 20 times greater morbidity than vaginal delivery(105)—are performed annually in the US.

The US cesarean rate rose from just 4.5% in 1965 to 24.1% in 1986. Sakala contends that an “uncontrolled pandemic of medically unnecessary cesarean births is occurring.”(106) VanHam reported a cesarean section postpartum hemorrhage rate of 7%, a hematoma formation rate of 3.5%, a urinary tract infection rate of 3%, and a combined postoperative morbidity rate of 35.7% in a high-risk population undergoing cesarean section.(107)

NEVER ENOUGH STUDIES

Scientists claimed there were never enough studies revealing the dangers of DDT and other dangerous pesticides to ban them. They also used this argument for tobacco, claiming that more studies were needed before they could be certain that tobacco really caused lung cancer. Even the American Medical Association (AMA) was complicit in suppressing the results of tobacco research. In 1964, when the Surgeon General’s report condemned smoking, the AMA refused to endorse it, claiming a need for more research. What they really wanted was more money, which they received from a consortium of tobacco companies that paid the AMA $18 million over the next nine years during which the AMA said nothing about the dangers of smoking.(108)

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “after careful consideration of the extent to which cigarettes were used by physicians in practice,” began accepting tobacco advertisements and money in 1933. State journals such as the New York State Journal of Medicine also began to run advertisements for Chesterfield cigarettes that claimed cigarettes are “Just as pure as the water you drink… and practically untouched by human hands.” In 1948, JAMA argued “more can be said in behalf of smoking as a form of escape from tension than against it… there does not seem to be any preponderance of evidence that would indicate the abolition of the use of tobacco as a substance contrary to the public health.”(109) Today, scientists continue to use the excuse that more studies are needed before they will support restricting the inordinate use of drugs.

ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS

The Lazarou study(1) analyzed records for prescribed medications for 33 million US hospital admissions in 1994. It discovered 2.2 million serious injuries due to prescribed drugs; 2.1% of inpatients experienced a serious adverse drug reaction, 4.7% of all hospital admissions were due to a serious adverse drug reaction, and fatal adverse drug reactions occurred in 0.19% of inpatients and 0.13% of admissions. The authors estimated that 106,000 deaths occur annually due to adverse drug reactions.

Using a cost analysis from a 2000 study in which the increase in hospitalization costs per patient suffering an adverse drug reaction was $5,483, costs for the Lazarou study’s 2.2 million patients with serious drug reactions amounted to $12 billion.(1,49)

Serious adverse drug reactions commonly emerge after FDA approval of the drugs involved. The safety of new agents cannot be known with certainty until a drug has been on the market for many years.(110)

BEDSORES

Over one million people develop bedsores in U.S. hospitals every year. It’s a tremendous burden to patients and family, and a $55 billion dollar healthcare burden. (7) Bedsores are preventable with proper nursing care. It is true that 50% of those affected are in a vulnerable age group of over 70. In the elderly bedsores carry a fourfold increase in the rate of death. The mortality rate in hospitals for patients with bedsores is between 23% and 37%. (8) Even if we just take the 50% of people over 70 with bedsores and the lowest mortality at 23%, that gives us a death rate due to bedsores of 115,000. Critics will say that it was the disease or advanced age that killed the patient, not the bedsore, but our argument is that an early death, by denying proper care, deserves to be counted. It is only after counting these unnecessary deaths that we can then turn our attention to fixing the problem.

MALNUTRITION IN NURSING HOMES

The General Accounting Office (GAO), a special investigative branch of Congress, cited 20% of the nation’s 17,000 nursing homes for violations between July 2000 and January 2002. Many violations involved serious physical injury and death.(111)

A report from the Coalition for Nursing Home Reform states that at least one-third of the nation’s 1.6 million nursing home residents may suffer from malnutrition and dehydration, which hastens their death. The report calls for adequate nursing staff to help feed patients who are not able to manage a food tray by themselves.(11) It is difficult to place a mortality rate on malnutrition and dehydration. The Coalition report states that malnourished residents, compared with well-nourished hospitalized nursing home residents, have a fivefold increase in mortality when they are admitted to a hospital. Multiplying the one-third of 1.6 million nursing home residents who are malnourished by a mortality rate of 20%(8,14) results in 108,800 premature deaths due to malnutrition in nursing homes.

Nosocomial Infections

The rate of nosocomial infections per 1,000 patient days rose from 7.2 in 1975 to 9.8 in 1995, a 36% jump in 20 years. Reports from more than 270 US hospitals showed that the nosocomial infection rate itself had remained stable over the previous 20 years, with approximately five to six hospital-acquired infections occurring per 100 admissions, a rate of 5-6%. Due to progressively shorter inpatient stays and the increasing number of admissions, however, the number of infections increased. It is estimated that in 1995, nosocomial infections cost $4.5 billion and contributed to more than 88,000 deaths, or one death every 6 minutes.(9) The 2003 incidence of nosocomial mortality is quite probably higher than in 1995 because of the tremendous increase in antibiotic-resistant organisms. Morbidity and Mortality Report found that nosocomial infections cost $5 billion annually in 1999,(10) representing a $0.5 billion increase in just four years. At this rate of increase, the current cost of nosocomial infections would be around $5.5 billion.

DID YOU KNOW TUMERIC SLOWS CANCER CELLS????

SOURCE: http://www.emfacts.com/2012/08/study-finds-chemotherapy-makes-cancer-far-worse/

Study Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse

August 14, 2012 in -Mailing List, Miscellaneous by EMFacts

Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
August 6, 2012
http://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-makes-cancer-far-worse/

A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment. Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly. Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly. Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains:

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.”

The team then complimented the statement with a word of their own:

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.”

Meanwhile, dirt cheap substances like turmeric and ginger have consistently been found to effectively shrink tumors and combat the spread of cancer. In a review of 11 studies, it was found that turmeric use reduced brain tumor size by a shocking 81%. Further research has also shown that turmeric is capable of halting cancer cell growth altogether. One woman recently hit the mainstream headlines by revealing her victory against cancer with the principal spice used being turmeric.

This accidental finding reached by scientists further shows the lack of real science behind many ‘old paradigm’ treatments, despite what many health officials would like you to believe. The truth of the matter is that natural alternatives do not even receive nearly as much funding as pharmaceutical drugs and medical interventions because there’s simply no room for profit. If everyone was using turmeric and vitamin D for cancer (better yet cancer prevention), major drug companies would lose out.

Additional sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21775121
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138983

Added August 28:

Turmeric Spice Used by Woman to Overcome Cancer – Researchers Stunned
http://naturalsociety.com/woman-stuns-researchers-by-overcoming-cancer-with-turmeric-spice/
Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety, July 8, 2012

While expensive cancer drugs linked to premature death and mega-tumors are pushed by many mainstream doctors as the only option outside of chemotherapy, a growing number of informed individuals are consistently opting to instead utilize natural methods that are known to conquer cancer cells and effectively negate the disease – without harsh side effects. One such person, Vicky Stewart of Britain, chose such a path when she refused mainstream medical cancer treatments and instead began consuming powerful turmeric spice.

Despite excessive warnings from MD’s who insisted that Vicky would surely not recover using superfoods that are commonly touted as ‘woo’ and ‘ineffective medicine’ by pharma-backed doctors, Stewart found amazing success by altering her lifestyle and taking in extra amounts of supefoods like turmeric each day.

Stewart recalls to The Telegraph how her doctor repeatedly voiced concern over switching to a healthy diet full of turmeric spice to fight the cancer (one of many turmeric health benefits), telling her that it would do virtually nothing:

“The doctors absolutely will not say that the diet is going to do anything to help the cancer in any way.”

Four years later, she is still cancer free with no signs of it coming back. At the age off 44, Stewart is now the center of a major research project led by scientists who are downright fascinated by what she has done.

Research Shows Turmeric Spice is a Natural Cancer Fighter

While it is indeed fascinating, it should come as no surprise that Vicky healed herself naturally using turmeric spice and other lifestyle changes. In fact, copious amounts of research highlight the anti-cancer properties of turmeric (in many cases due to it’s active compound curcumin), and countless individuals have used it to aid themselves in the fight against many diseases.

Not only has peer-reviewed research by the UCLA shown that turmeric can naturally block the growth of cancer cells, but in more than 9 studies it was revealed that turmeric can reduce tumor size by a whopping 81%. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So why is it so fascinating that a spice that has been used for thousands upon thousands of years by many South Asian and Middle Eastern countries as a ‘heal-all’ substance can actually stop cancer naturally?

As Stewart explains, turmeric has a unique ability (along with other great superfoods) to essentially cause cancer to regress in a number of ways. As she puts it, it essentially caused the cancer cells to ‘commit suicide’. Stewart explains to The Telegraph.

“Turmeric kind of makes cancer cells commit suicide and ginger and garlic are great to cook with.”

Mainstream Health Organizations, Doctors Continue to Ignore the Evidence

Even in the face of such overwhelming evidence (whether it be studies that have been available for decades, stories like those of Stewart’s, or the prominent role of turmeric spice in multi-national cultures), mainstream health organizations and traditional medical doctors continue to cling to radiation and dangerous cancer drugs as the only possible option to ‘treating’ cancer. Just as Stewart’s doctor warned her that diet would do virtually nothing despite saving her life and eliminating cancer from her body completely, these individuals will continue to assert that all alternative medicine is a joke.

In the same vein, cancer researchers will continue to be paid by charity walks and expensive non-profit events to ‘find the cure’ through invasive surgeries and pharmaceuticals. Turmeric spice, a dirt cheap alternative along with other nearly-free suprfoods, are blatantly ignored as they cannot be patented and sold through Big Pharma’s proverbial commodity gates. Thankfully, millions worldwide are waking up to this ‘old paradigm’ of health full of pharmaceuticals, surgery and sickness. In turn, they are utilizing life-saving techniques and foods to further their health without sacrificing both their finances and their health.
Explore More:
1. Beating Cancer with Nutrition – Turmeric Slows Spread of Breast Cancer
2. Turmeric Offers Powerful Anti-Cancer Benefits Without Side Effects
3. Turmeric, Curcumin Naturally Block Cancer Growth
4. Natural Cancer-Fighting Spice Reduces Tumors by 81%
5. Turmeric Shown to Cut Heart Disease, Diabetes Risk
6. Health Benefits of Turmeric – The Best of a Truly Amazing Food

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/woman-stuns-researchers-by-overcoming-cancer-with-turmeric-spice/

Medicine


NOTE: These are my opinions which are to be respected even if not agreed with.

I’m increasingly concerned about the validity of some medicines. I believe a lot of doctors work on commission from drug companies and collect when they subscribe. It goes without saying that many drug companies want to stay in business and therefore will do pretty much anything to ensure their profitable industry – even death.

I am not a qualified physician, but I can speak from experience. For nearly fifteen-years I was taking a drug called Topomax 200mg per day because I was first told I was “bi-polar” and then when I was re-assessed it was explained I may have petit mal as a result of contracting Encephalitis in my youth and not bi-polar!  I may have just had mild depression brought on by a series of events at the time and worsened by Post Partum after the birth of my second son.  I saw a variety of specialists and psychologists and underwent a ‘Holter’ eight-hour EEG.

The Topomax has horrible side effects. It affects your bladder, kidneys, and a host of physical problems like tingling fingers and toes, but the worst is it makes you as dumb as a rock and kills memory intermittently.

I had got the nasty reputation at work of being a “scatterbrain” and that I was completely unable to retain information or even recall important conversations and events.  My boyfriend at the time was aware of this and took full advantage, claiming I had said things I didn’t (luckily witnesses were about).

Because of these issues I decided to quit the drug around the last weeks of August or early September 2011.

My friends and family obviously would be concerned and so I only told my boyfriend I had stopped.  I also decided to not tell any doctors or people at work – not a soul other than my boyfriend.

Because I was a bit concerned too, I turned to the internet for answers and found many others had decided to stop as well.  The internet sites all warned of side effects of quitting including seizures and many other things, but they were written by representatives of the pharmaceutical companies and I was confident nothing would happen.  And nothing did, with the exception of the weight gain.

Among the side-effects the ones they don’t tell you about is once you quit Topomax you realise you have taste buds that work now.  You retain a large amount of water if you stop as Topomax has a diuretic effect also.  Despite this, a year on and I have had no seizures or problems (besides the weight gain).  I am actually really fine and on a diet to lose the weight I gained, naturally.

In fact, my memory is now very sharp and I am able to remember tiny details, every incident and complete sentences.  I sleep really well (except when I am worried of course – like a normal person).  I don’t urinate so frequently and my intelligence has returned – thank god for that.

What is disturbing is that some doctors are prescribing this crap for headaches?  Even worse, for weight loss.

If you are on Topomax read this from their official website (www.topomax.com):

Warnings and Precautions

TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> may cause eye problems. Serious eye problems include: sudden decrease in vision with or without eye pain and redness; blockage of fluid in the eye causing increased pressure in the eye (secondary angle closure glaucoma). These eye problems can lead to permanent loss of vision if not treated. You should call your healthcare professional right away if you have any new eye symptoms. <br><br>TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> may cause decreased sweating and increased body temperature (fever). People, especially children, should be watched for signs of decreased sweating and fever, especially in hot temperatures. Some people may need to be hospitalized for this condition. Call your healthcare provider right away if you have a fever or decreased sweating. <br><br>TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> can increase the level of acid in your blood (metabolic acidosis). If left untreated, metabolic acidosis can cause brittle or soft bones (osteoporosis, osteomalacia, osteopenia), kidney stones, can slow the rate of growth in children, and may possibly harm your baby if you are pregnant. Metabolic acidosis can happen with or without symptoms. Sometimes people with metabolic acidosis will: feel tired, not feel hungry (loss of appetite), feel changes in heartbeat, or have trouble thinking clearly. Your healthcare provider should do a blood test to measure the level of acid in your blood before and during your treatment with TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup>. If you are pregnant, you should talk to your healthcare provider about whether you have metabolic acidosis. <br><br>Like other antiepileptic drugs, TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> may cause suicidal thoughts or actions in a very small number of people, about 1 in 500. Pay attention to any changes and call your doctor right away if you have any of these symptoms, especially if they are new, worse, or worry you: thoughts about suicide or dying, attempts to commit suicide, new or worse depression, new or worse anxiety, feeling agitated or restless, panic attacks, trouble sleeping (insomnia), new or worse irritability, acting aggressive, being angry or violent, acting on dangerous impulses, an extreme increase in activity and talking (mania), or other unusual changes in behavior or mood. <br><br>TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> may affect how you think, and cause confusion, problems with concentration, attention, memory, or speech, depression or mood problems, tiredness, and sleepiness. <br>Do not stop taking TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> without first talking to your doctor. Stopping TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> suddenly can cause serious problems. <br><br>If you take TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> during pregnancy, your baby has a higher risk for birth defects called cleft lip and cleft palate. These defects can begin early in pregnancy, even before you know you are pregnant. There may be other medicines to treat your condition that have a lower chance of birth defects. All women of childbearing age should talk to their healthcare providers about using other possible treatments instead of TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup>. If the decision is made to use TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup>, you should use effective birth control (contraception) unless you are planning to become pregnant. Tell your healthcare provider right away if you become pregnant while taking TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup>. You and your healthcare provider should decide if you will continue to take TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup>while you are pregnant. Metabolic acidosis may have harmful effects on your baby. Talk to your healthcare provider if TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup> has caused metabolic acidosis during your pregnancy. If you become pregnant while taking TOPAMAX<sup>®</sup>, talk to your healthcare provider about registering with the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry. You can enroll in this registry by calling 1-888-233-2334                         FREE 1-888-233-2334 end_of_the_skype_highlighting . The purpose of this registry is to collect information about the safety of antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy.

TOPAMAX® may cause high blood ammonia levels. High ammonia in the blood can affect your mental activities, slow your alertness, make you feel tired, or cause vomiting.

Taking TOPAMAX® when you are also taking valproic acid can cause a drop in body temperature (hypothermia) to less than 95ºF, feeling tired, confusion, or coma.

Adverse Reactions

The most common side effects of TOPAMAX® include: tingling in arms and legs, loss of appetite, nausea, taste change, diarrhea, weight loss, nervousness, and upper respiratory tract infection.

Tell your doctor about other medications that you are taking. Report any side effect that bothers you or that does not go away.

These are not all the possible side effects of TOPAMAX®. For more information, ask your healthcare professional or pharmacist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This leads me to wonder about ALL chemical medicines.  Do your own research and you will see all the nasties out there.

 

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES AND LIES YOU ARE TOLD

I then decided to perform research on natural healing and found this very very interesting blog on the Huffington Post regarding Marijuana <—-CLICK HERE.

Marijuana/Cannabis/Hemp  has been used for thousands of years and is a remedy for a host of things.  Because medical companies don’t want to lose out on the money they make on chemical drugs they have collectively campaigned to have Marijuana outlawed everywhere where it was once sold over the counter in pharmacies up until 1937 when drug companies wanted it made illegal.  The trend followed throughout the world.

Note that nobody has died from an overdose or the normal use of Marijuana/Cannabis/ Hemp.  Further it is my opinion that, in order to employ scare tactics, pharmaceuticals have lied that the use of Marijuana/Cannabis / Hemp leads to the use and abuse of damaging drugs.

Hemp oil is actually sold (in the refrigerator section) at Dischem.  They just don’t advertise it.  Not on their website and not in brochures – you will have to go directly to Dischem and request it or let them order it for you.  You are looking at R80.00 for 250ml.  It tastes like crap, but if you blend with squeezed 100% natural lemon juice on a salad (about a tablespoon of it), you don’t even know you have eaten it.

Also fantastic and highly recommended is Hemp cream.  You can find it for around R40.00 at your local Body Shop.  Great for scars, wrinkles and very dry skin.

 

Absent tears


Lately I feel I cannot express myself sufficiently though I do have various talents and tools at my disposal.  I want to write again, paint, sketch, sew a dress, and grow some plants from seed…  It feels at times that there’s no point or I’ve lost “something” and cannot pin-point what will help me into action.  Today is a particularly low day for me…

Attempting to be positive is utterly thwarted by a single nameless individual intent on confusing me to the point of torpor.  I have been completely unable to get out of this chair since very early this morning save for usual ablutions… I am still in my pyjamas, make-up free, scraggly hair and I think I smell bad… I need a bath.  I am also completely beyond tears but terribly sad and cannot seem to articulate my exact feelings other than to say I feel unmitigated blankness.

I seem to have switched off inside and even though I know this is wrong, I need to get my emotions out, I also wonder if I should care that I feel this way?  Today is a “non-day”…it should be cancelled until further notice.

As I write this I realise I need to cry, but I’ve done that over and over in the past and it seems I am all cried out…

I want to say or do something…anything… I want to laugh again.  I want to go dancing again…  I want to feel HOPE for fucksakes… I want to experience jubilation and delight again… I want to be loved and to feel and know it by being openly and often desired.

I’m so tired of the individual personalities in my world, particularly the selfish ones…  I have low tolerance for “created” problems and excuses that mean shit…  Some things that are so simple to me yet seem very difficult for another… This makes it really problematic for me to accept someone else’s obscure problem as I often wholeheartedly believe the solution is so damn simple… Hypocritical of me as I sit here lamenting my depressed state so clearly where others may see simple solutions.  Maybe I just want to be melancholic for a while.  After all I can easily sort my own crap out using my aforesaid solution-finding skills.

I just had scrambled egg on toast for lunch and I can report that I lost a wonderful two kilograms of weight in four days; however I am more excited about the three centimetres I lost on my arse.  That’s about as positive as I feel right now…

A bath is a very good idea I think…