800000 killed by Big Bad Pharma - breaking story

reply to post by beckybecky


People are getting what they inadvertently ask for. I'd bet 4 in 5 people think by handing off the choices of what substances they should and should not put in their body to the government, everyone will be better off. These people are wrong. Modern governments are built on a foundation of unequal rights. The elite government class tells you what you can and cannot sell, then the peon class(most ATS readers) don't have a right to tell anyone what substances they can and cannot sell.

The only people who should be evaluating these substances are unions of consumers who band together to do what is best for them. Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab are a start but there should be more organizations. Fact: The FDA has never been trustworthy and never will be. Our choices are start or join organizations we can actually trust or simply be worse off with a totally useless organization. Thats right, the FDA employees can all pack their bags and go home tomorrow and we'll never miss them because we can do better with privately (democratically) managed solutions instead of tyrannically managed solutions. I challenge anyone who disagrees to pull out charts of before and after the FDA's existence and offer a shred of evidence they've done any good. The burden of proof is on the fools who think the FDA is helping anyone to show they really do help people.

Shut down the FDA. We can do better on our own.

reply to post by Propulsion


Did it deal with with Diabetes? I remember sitting on the couch with my girlfriend and we saw a Diabetes commercial that had about 15 seconds of the narrator stating side affects. We both sat there in shock and just thought "Is there ANY reason to take this medication. Sadly I can't remember the medication nor can she :/

reply to post by Propulsion


Was it Champix? To stop smoking?
I asked to have that medicine, because I was really struggling with quitting. My doctor was really clear about risks- some people had become suicidal while on it. I figured- I am psychologically good right now, happy, secure situation without problems, and very aware of my internal states- if I start to feel any blues coming on, I will contact the doctor immediately.


But what happened was beyond what I could imagine! No depression creeping in slowly, just woke up one morning, with the very logical, unemotional conclusion that I have done all I ever wanted to achieve in life, and more.... I had finished raising children, no one depended on me, my husband is still able to find another wife, I have no debts...I can go now. The end. I was all convinced it was for the best that I end it today.

Friends tried to tell me it was crazy, and my husband called the doctor. They didn't allow me to do it.

Turns out though, that this happens if you suddenly stop taking it, instead of lowering the dosage slowly and weaning off- like anti-depressants. I had stopped taking it on my own decision, thinking I didn't need it anymore. I had to start takign it again and go through the process of lowering the dosage progressively. In two days of taking it again, I could see how crazy my thinking had been.

Which just confirms for me that -
we know drugs can be a poison, or heal,
What determines that is how it is used and with what.

Not taking it as it should be taken can cross the line from healing into death.
Which is why research is necessary (to find the right way of using it) and why people should not self-medicate, and why a "panel of consumers" should not be the ones to decide what drugs should be allowed and how! -Unless they have years of medical school and medical treatment behind them.

In this thread, the drug in question wasn't the problem- it is the best way of using it. There is no question about beta blockers being life savers in certain cases! It is specifically the use of them in preparation for a surgery, in non-cardiac patients, to help protect the heart during the surgery, that is in question. One study showed it might increase the mortality rate, another study showed it brought it down.
The study which showed it went down was badly run and deemed unreliable.
But that study also tested the use for many days leading up to the surgery, whereas the other one only tested using it the day of the surgery. < That little detail can make all the difference in the effects though. More controlled research needs to be done. In the meantime, the guidelines will reflect that the treatment should not be done in such cases.

FriedBabelBroccoli

Pardon?
Firstly, beta-blockers aren't statins.
They are two very different drugs given for very different reasons.

Secondly, Polderman wasn't employed nor sponsored by pharma.

So if anything, blame the doctors for prescribing these in error as a result of bad research rather than the drugs themselves.

Statins and beta-blockers are often prescribed together. I linked to the article assuming this was pretty common knowledge and thought it might provoke some to question whether this was known about for some time and that efforts were being made to get ahead of the problem.

Beta-Blockers, Statins: A One-Two Combination
www.georgetownhospitalsystem.org...

Beta-blockers are among the most commonly used drugs for controlling high blood pressure and improving blood flow to the heart. They slow the heart rate, lower blood pressure, and decrease the amount of work the heart must do. By lowering the heart's oxygen needs, beta-blockers may help prevent or relieve poor blood flow.

. . .

Statins are the most frequently prescribed type of cholesterol-lowering drugs. They block a key liver enzyme involved in cholesterol production. This helps restrict the amount of cholesterol that can be deposited into the blood. It also increases the amount of LDL, or "bad," cholesterol that can be removed from the blood. Studies have shown that people who use statins have a reduced risk for heart attack, stroke, chest pain, and death from a heart-related condition.

The OP's first paragraph stated that beta-blockers were statins so I corrected that obvious error.

I know exactly what the drugs do, I used to be a cardiac physiologist.
I think you mean well in your post but the thread subject is specifically about the use of beta-blockers on their own and not in conjunction with statins as the study is for non-cardiac patients.

Feel free to start another thread about the use of statins though.

However, both beta-blockers and statins, when prescribed properly can be very beneficial.
Once again, look to the doctors prescribing them as the root of the problem rather than the drugs themselves.

The OP's first paragraph stated that beta-blockers were statins so I corrected that obvious error.

You guys should have heard the list of side effects I heard for the commercial on Tamiflu... Jesus christ, if people can't see they are purposely trying to kill us under the guise of 'health care', then they need to get their cranium checked.

Bad Pharma - Wiki

Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients is a book by British physician and academic Ben Goldacre about the pharmaceutical industry, its relationship with the medical profession, and the extent to which it controls academic research into its own products.[1] The book was published in September 2012 in the UK by the Fourth Estate imprint of HarperCollins, and in February 2013 in the United States by Faber and Faber.

Goldacre argues in the book that "the whole edifice of medicine is broken," because the evidence on which it is based is systematically distorted by the pharmaceutical industry.[2] He writes that the industry finances most of the clinical trials into its own products, that it routinely withholds negative data, that trials are often conducted on small groups of unrepresentative subjects, that it funds much of doctors' continuing education, and that apparently independent academic papers may be planned and even ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies or their contractors, without disclosure.[3] Goldacre calls the situation a "murderous disaster," and makes suggestions for action by patients' groups, physicians, academics and the industry itself.

reply to post by beckybecky


Beta-blockers are NOT statins. Your source article is about beta-blockers. The message is that they are sometimes good, sometimes bad, even fatal.

If you DO have a pre-existing, life-threatening condition, beta blockers appear to be helpful when you go into surgery. But if you DON'T, they appear to harm or even kill you. o, it’s important to realize that various studies address two very different scenarios:

People already taking beta blockers for serious heart conditions
People who are given beta blockers prior to surgery, even though their risk is negligible
One study9 opposing perioperative use of beta blockers showed that people who had the highest risk of dying from beta blockers were NOT the ones with the highest cardiac risk, meaning: Beta blockers may have helped those with the most serious conditions, while harming those with little or no prior heart risks.10

The first indication that beta blockers should not be routinely given prior to non-cardiac surgery due to the increased risk of death came out in 2008,11 but it appears that even though cardiology guidelines were eventually changed in both the UK and the US to reflect this concern, physicians continued to prescribe the perioperative use of beta blockers anyway.

Now, the reason for the controversy is that Poldermans has been called out for corrupt research practices; thus, now researchers are speculating that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by the mass use of beta blockers before surgery.

reply to post by beckybecky


Don't worry about any of this....don't question this ... it is a HOAX ..... now .... Have you had your flu shot yet?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Your post is a good example of how the AltMed woos cherry pick the information that supports their belief and discards the information that challenges/refuts it. Here's another book by the same author called Bad Science (which I thoroughly recommend) where he dissects the public and media's scientific ignorance and how it is capitalized on by the morally bankrupt, powerful and influential Alternative Medicine industry:

Introduction[edit]
A brief introduction (by Goldacre) touching on subjects covered by subsequent chapters. It bemoans the widespread lack of understanding of evidence-based science.

Chapter 1: Matter[edit]
Detoxification methods (the Aqua Detox, ear candles etc.) that can easily be shown to be bogus by simple experiments. Discusses the "detox phenomenon." Touches on purification rituals.

Chapter 2: Brain Gym[edit]
The claims for Brain Gym, a programme of specific physical exercises that its commercial promoters claim can create new pathways in the brain. The uncritical adoption of this programme by sections of the British school system is derided.

Chapter 3: The Progenium XY Complex[edit]
On cosmetics, and the misleading and pseudoscientific claims by their manufacturers.

Chapter 4: Homeopathy[edit]
Homeopathy is used to prompt a discussion of the nature of scientific evidence, with reference to the placebo effect, regression to the mean, and the importance of blind testing and randomisation in the design of fair clinical trials. Having concluded that homeopathic pills have been shown to work no better than placebo pills, the author suggests homeopathy may still have psychological benefits which could be the subject of further study.

Chapter 5: The Placebo Effect[edit]
Examples of the power of the mind over pain, anxiety and depression are presented with studies showing how higher prices, fancy packaging, theatrical procedures and a confident attitude in the doctor all contribute to the relief of symptoms. In patients with no specific diagnosed condition, even a fake diagnosis and prognosis with no other treatment helps recovery, but ethical and time constraints usually prevent doctors from giving this reassurance. Exploiting the placebo effect is presented as possibly justifiable if used in conjunction with effective conventional treatments. The author links its use by alternative medicine practitioners with the diversion of patients away from effective treatments and the undermining of public health campaigns on AIDS and malaria.

Chapter 6: The Nonsense du Jour[edit]
Nutritionists are accused of misusing science and mystifying diet to bamboozle the public. Misrepresentations of the results of legitimate scientific research to lend bogus authority to nutritionist theories, while ignoring alternative explanations are cited in evidence. The use of weak circumstantial associations between diet and health found in observational studies as if they proved nutritionist claims is criticised. The unjustified over-interpretation of surrogate outcomes in animal (or tissue culture) experiments as proving human health benefits is explored. The cherry picking of published research to support a favoured view is contrasted with the systematic review designed to minimise such bias. The supposed benefits of antioxidants are questioned with studies showing they may be ineffective or even harmful in some cases. The methods used by the food supplement industry to manufacture doubt about any critical scientific reports are likened to those previously used by the tobacco and asbestos industries.

Chapter 7: Dr Gillian McKeith PhD[edit]
The Scottish TV diet guru and self-styled "doctor" Gillian McKeith and her scientific claims are dissected. Statements exemplifying her scientific knowledge include that the consumption of dark-leaved vegetables like spinach "will really oxygenate your blood" as they are high in chlorophyll, and that "each sprouting seed is packed with the nutritional energy needed to create a fully-grown, healthy plant". She is described masquerading as a genuine medical doctor on her TV reality/health shows. Her publications are compared with a Melanesian cargo cult; superficially correct but lacking any scientific substance. Her belief in the special nutritional value of plant enzymes (which are broken down in the gut like any other proteins) is ridiculed. The general problems involved in establishing any firm links between diet and health are examined.

Chapter 8: 'Pill Solves Complex Social Problem'[edit]
The claim that fish oil capsules make children smarter is examined. The book probes the methodological weaknesses of the widely publicised "Durham trial" where the pills were given to children to improve their school performance and behaviour, but without any control groups and wide open to a range of confounding factors. The failure to publish any results and backtracking on earlier claims by the education authorities is slated. The media's preference for simple science stories and role in promoting dubious health products is highlighted. Parallels are drawn between the Equazen company behind the Durham fish oil trials and the Efamol company's promotion of evening primrose oil.

Chapter 9: Professor Patrick Holford[edit]
The influence of the best-selling author, media commentator, businessman and founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (which has trained most of the UK's "nutrition therapists") is acknowledged. Holford's success in presenting nutritionism as a scientific discipline in the media, and forging links with some British universities is also noted. The book judges that his success is based on misinterpreting and cherry-picking favourable results from the medical literature, in order to market his vitamin pills. His promotion of vitamin C in preference to AZT as a treatment for AIDS, vitamin E to prevent heart attacks, and vitamin A to treat autism are all condemned as lacking in sound evidential support. His reliance on the work of discredited fellow nutritionist Dr. R.K. Chandra is likewise slated. The Universities of Luton and Teesside are criticised for their past associations with Holford and the ION.

Chapter 10: Is Mainstream Medicine Evil?[edit]
The book remarks on the relatively low percentage of conventional medical activity (50 to 80%) which could be called "evidence-based". The efforts of the medical profession to weed out bad treatments are seen to be hampered by the withholding or distortion of evidence by drug companies. The science and economics of drug development are outlined, with criticism of the lack of independence of industrial research and the neglect of Third World diseases. Some underhand tricks used by drug companies to engineer positive trial results for their products are explored. The publication bias produced by researchers not publishing negative results is illustrated with funnel plots. Examples are made of the SSRI antidepressants and Vioxx drugs. Reform of trials registers to prevent abuses is proposed. The ethics of drug advertising and manipulation of patient advocacy groups are questioned.

Chapter 11: How the Media Promote the Public Misunderstanding of Science[edit]
The misrepresentation of science and scientists in the media is attributed to the preponderance of humanities graduates in journalism. The dumbing-down of science to produce easily assimilated wacky, breakthrough or scare stories is criticised. Wacky "formula stories" like those for "the perfect boiled egg" or "most depressing day of the year" are revealed to be the product of PR companies using biddable academics to add weight to their marketing campaigns. Among other examples, the speculation by Dr. Oliver Curry (a political theorist at the LSE) that the human race will evolve into two separate races, presented as a science story across the British media, is exposed as a PR stunt for a men's TV channel. The relative scarcity of sensational medical breakthroughs since a golden age of discovery between 1935 and 1975, is seen as motivating the production of dumbed-down stories which trumpet unpublished research and ill-founded speculation. An inability to evaluate the soundness of scientific evidence is seen to give undeserved prominence to marginal figures with fringe views.

Chapter 12: Why Clever People Believe Stupid Things[edit]
This chapter is a brief introduction to the research on cognitive biases, which, Goldacre argues, explain some of the appeal of alternative medicine ideas. Biases mentioned include confirmation bias, the availability heuristic, illusory superiority and the clustering illusion (the misperception of random data). It also discusses Solomon Asch's classic study of social conformity.

Chapter 13: Bad Stats[edit]
This chapter covers the cases of Sally Clark and Lucia de Berk, in which the author says poor understanding and presentation of statistics played an important part in their criminal trials.

Chapter 14: Health Scares[edit]
In this chapter, the author claims that the press selectively used a "laboratory" that gave positive MRSA results where other pathology labs found none. Creating an "expert" from Chris Malyszewicz who worked from a garden shed.
Goldacre notes how the Daily Mirror once managed to combine "three all-time classic bogus science stories" into one editorial:[4] the Arpad Pusztai affair of GM crops, Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine controversy and Chris Malyszewicz and the MRSA hoax. On the other hand journalists were very poor in uncovering or reporting on the thalidomide tragedy[5] - only covering well the ultimate political issue of compensation.

Chapter 15: The Media's MMR Hoax[edit]
Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine controversy. continues to discuss the lab results in previous chapter and discusses the MRSA mix up in hospitals wrong patients get wrong results.

I guess you won't be reading and recommending this book in a hurry, no?

reply to post by GetHyped


I never cherry picked information in this case... I just pointed it out because the "ProMed" brigade like to pretend that the pharmaceutical industry isn't as powerful as the "AltMed" crowd says that it is.. If you want to get down to it really, all beliefs on either side are cherry picked. Promed, only accepts evidence that they deem is appropriate (despite testimonials to the efficacy of some Altmed practices) and goes on discrediting binges to silence the Altmed advocates; no matter what kind of treatment they may be promoting. Altmed, discredits the Promeds based on the fact that their 'science' is backed by corporate greed, and endless amounts of cherry picked trials, misinformation, and lies in order to make money off of their 'science'. It's the same situation in either direction. Promed doesn't like Altmed because they are considered on the 'fringe' and a threat to the money of Big Pharma, and Altmed doesn't like Promed because of their attitude for one, but also the fact that they are backed by corporate greed as I mentioned above; their standpoint is incredibly biased.

Altmed exists for the people. They seek to promote natural and readily available cures for ailments and disease, while additionally promoting healthy lifestyle choices such as proper dieting, exercise, and knowledge of what they actually put into their body. I would like to point out something about the crusade in the book against detoxing as well.. Detoxification of ones body is essential for any continued healthy lifestyle, because it is via these harmful toxins (food additives) in our current SAD of America, that we get these chronic diseases and illnesses in our later years after being subjected to them for 30+ years. For instance, most of these toxins are stored inside fat cells, like THC for example. When you exercise, or take supplements like Milk Thistle which promote liver function (fat burning organ of the body), you are helping to flush these toxins out of your system by breaking down the fat to release the toxins into the bloodstream. After the fat has been broken down, and the toxins released into the bloodstream, then the kidneys may filter the blood, and remove the toxins via the urine. That is science; not some pipedreams and snake oil from charlatans...

Promed exists for the financial benefit of the pharmaceutical industry.. It is antithetical to their purpose to create products which actually heal and treat patients, rather than giving treatment or relief to their symptoms.. They make billions on the suffering and illness of sick patients; no sick people = no money = no job = no nice car = no unsightly mansion, and so forth. I think you get the idea. Promed is not about making people better, but about making these companies profit; the very opposite of Altmed.. And please do not throw some charlatans at me as proof that they want money. Personally, I am Altmed, but whenever I have helped treat or cure somebody's condition I did it out of my own pocket or told them specifically what to get to alleviate the condition.. What an abomination huh? Using my own money to treat sick people instead of exchanging one pain for another or allowing them to find what they needed on their own, and creating nothing of profit for myself.. How... selfless..

Big Pharma Profits Over 700B In 10 Years

Toxins Stored In White Adipose Tissue & Cells (Citations are at the bottom as well)

How Liver Detoxifies The Body (Cornell Edu)

Why Liver Is Important

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by GetHyped

 

I never cherry picked information in this case... I just pointed it out because the "ProMed" brigade like to pretend that the pharmaceutical industry isn't as powerful as the "AltMed" crowd says that it is.. If you want to get down to it really, all beliefs on either side are cherry picked. Promed, only accepts evidence that they deem is appropriate (despite testimonials to the efficacy of some Altmed practices) and goes on discrediting binges to silence the Altmed advocates; no matter what kind of treatment they may be promoting. Altmed, discredits the Promeds based on the fact that their 'science' is backed by corporate greed, and endless amounts of cherry picked trials, misinformation, and lies in order to make money off of their 'science'. It's the same situation in either direction. Promed doesn't like Altmed because they are considered on the 'fringe' and a threat to the money of Big Pharma, and Altmed doesn't like Promed because of their attitude for one, but also the fact that they are backed by corporate greed as I mentioned above; their standpoint is incredibly biased.

Altmed exists for the people. They seek to promote natural and readily available cures for ailments and disease, while additionally promoting healthy lifestyle choices such as proper dieting, exercise, and knowledge of what they actually put into their body. I would like to point out something about the crusade in the book against detoxing as well.. Detoxification of ones body is essential for any continued healthy lifestyle, because it is via these harmful toxins (food additives) in our current SAD of America, that we get these chronic diseases and illnesses in our later years after being subjected to them for 30+ years. For instance, most of these toxins are stored inside fat cells, like THC for example. When you exercise, or take supplements like Milk Thistle which promote liver function (fat burning organ of the body), you are helping to flush these toxins out of your system by breaking down the fat to release the toxins into the bloodstream. After the fat has been broken down, and the toxins released into the bloodstream, then the kidneys may filter the blood, and remove the toxins via the urine. That is science; not some pipedreams and snake oil from charlatans...

Promed exists for the financial benefit of the pharmaceutical industry.. It is antithetical to their purpose to create products which actually heal and treat patients, rather than giving treatment or relief to their symptoms.. They make billions on the suffering and illness of sick patients; no sick people = no money = no job = no nice car = no unsightly mansion, and so forth. I think you get the idea. Promed is not about making people better, but about making these companies profit; the very opposite of Altmed.. And please do not throw some charlatans at me as proof that they want money. Personally, I am Altmed, but whenever I have helped treat or cure somebody's condition I did it out of my own pocket or told them specifically what to get to alleviate the condition.. What an abomination huh? Using my own money to treat sick people instead of exchanging one pain for another or allowing them to find what they needed on their own, and creating nothing of profit for myself.. How... selfless..

Big Pharma Profits Over 700B In 10 Years

Toxins Stored In White Adipose Tissue & Cells (Citations are at the bottom as well)

How Liver Detoxifies The Body (Cornell Edu)

Why Liver Is Important

edit on 1-2-2014 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Don't kid yourself.

Alternative therapy (I won't call it medicine as that would be a misnomer) is worth over $50 billion dollars per year in the USA alone.
(Talking of mansions, have you seen Mercola's? Have a search on Google.)

Not bad considering it doesn't have to prove itself in any way, shape or form and it's virtually unregulated.


And I'm afraid your altruistic testimonial of yourself is as worthless as the testimonials found on the alt sites.
Sorry.

And thus begins my rant....

Shots: we all know them and love them.

Let's talk flu shots. I have not had one since 1998. The flu shot has become a meme within the US these days. Even the local grocery store has signs saying "Get your Flu Shot Here." The news is awash with H1N1 new and whatever the flu-de-jour is today. However, since stopping the flu shot I have.....wait for it....not suffered the flu. Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming I have never been sick. I have merely not had any catastrophic flu diseases. I would get an "icky" feeling from time to time which would last a day or so and I would recover. Perhaps my immune system is better than 99.999% of the population? Perhaps it is because I am not intentionally injecting myself with a "mutated" virus and whatever additives go along with it? I joke yearly with my employees who routinely get the flu shot when it is offered for "free" in the office. I recount the fact that I have not had one in 14 years and I am fine and kind of challenge them to test their mettle and face the flu head-on. They get it anyhow. This year has been particularly bad for them. Some have been out of work for weeks at a time. With the "flu." The very disease they were inoculated against. Some would be throwing up; others would have diarrhea; others would get such a bad throat infection that they couldn't speak. In fact, most would eventually have all of these symptoms; albeit not all at the same time. They would come into my office, as recently as last Thursday, and complain of aches and pains and other maladies and request time off; which I grant of course. They would hack around my office space and touch my things; which I would later touch. Yet I am not sick. I chide a few of them (we are all pretty good friends) that they had better get the flu shot; to which they would reply that they did; and I would smile knowingly and they would sheepishly leave the office and take the sick days they requested.

America's infatuation with the flu is a joke in the rest of the world. I have lived on a number of continents and during the H1N1 scare of yester-year the Europeans would laugh at us and our vaccines. We even shipped over 10s of thousands of doses of the vaccine which mostly went to waste (except for those taken by US expats) while the Europeans laughed their way to work while we were sick.

I could go on and on about how dumb the idea of a flu shot is but many of us here already understand that intentionally injecting yourself with a virus and whatever "preservatives" that come with it is just plain dumb. And for you "herd immunity" people who rail against those of us that are against taking these types of things; please perform some self reflection and realize how dumb your argument is. Let us say--for argument's sake--that the flu shot works. If it were to work and you get it then my not having it is irrelevant. You couldn't possibly get the flu from me because you are inoculated. The mere fact that you are afraid of me--and people like me--who do not get the shot gives evidence that you are either 1) an idiot or 2) an idiot who gets the shot but still believes that people can give them the flu; meaning you don't believe in the shot but got it anyhow.

A great many medicines--flu shot included--are just a tool of big pharma to make a bagillion dollars. They could care less if it works. They just want your money. Example

Another example of such stupidity is the medicine Remicade. I have a child with colitis. It is a horrible affliction. While living in Europe she was placed on an old, and cheap by comparison, medication which has been around since the 60s I believe. It worked like a champ. The docs there told me that if/when I return to 'Merica that the docs in the US would have an issue with it and that they loved this Remicade. Well, I have returned, and they did have an issue with it. The first doc we saw dismissed us as idiots for taking this tried-and-true med and stated, with a wave of his hand with his back turned, that he "always prescribes Remicade" to his patients. So, he was fired. We went to another doc and another who continued to give us grief about the medication we requested, which worked by the way, in favor of Remicade. We even went to Mayo. At Mayo they "allowed" us to continue, for a while, to use our chosen, and working, course of medication; however, a day came when we saw our GP and asked for an updated Rx of the med (he fullfilled our meds in conjunction with consultation with Mayo). He said he had received an email from Mayo stating he was no longer allowed to fullfill those Rxs. When I confronted the Mayo doc about it she played coy and stupid, which she was, and suggested moving to Remicade.

Remicade, for those that don't know, costs almost $8k a dose (infusion) and you have to get them every couple of weeks to start and then routinely thereafter. There is only a "few" problems. 1) it is only 40% "effective" 2) it "may" cause anaphylactic shock but that may not happen until later infusions and may cause you to die 3) it will eventually fail to work and require the use of.......the same med my child was on to help it!!!!! The reason is that Remicade is a biologic. It is a fake man-made antibody designed to actually fight natural antibodies to suppress the symptoms of the disease. Yeah, fake antibodies to fight antibodies. Sounds great eh? Well, eventually your good 'ol body will figure this out and create antibodies to fight the fake antibody fighting antibodies. So, you will need an immunosuppresant to fight the body's antibodies which fight their fake antibodies which fight the body's antibodies. Here enter's problem 4) The BIG ONE

The BIG ONE: It seems that when you combine immunosuppresants with the antibody fighting antibodies that there is a pretty good chance you will develop a rare and very aggressive and non-curable form of lymphoma. Oh yea. Good stuff. Oh, and this can occur at any time and since the meds have only been around, in test, since the late 90's and in use for colitis since the mid-2005 era no one knows exactly what will happen in 30 or 40 or 60 years from now; regardless of whether or not you have continued to take the meds (which you can't because they would have failed within a few years anyhow as shown by the numerous studies on the medication).

So, here we have a massively expensive medication which will try to kill you when you get it and if that doesn't work it will either 1) fail or 2) fail and kill you or 3) just kill you. And this is what they want everyone to take.

We do not take it.

It has been over 3 years now and we have avoided taking this med. We have conducted independent reserch on the interwebs and found alternatives, which the docs hate, but still work. We are using much older medicines which cost $5 each in combination with a strict dietary regimen and vitamin supplements. Works pretty darn well. It isn't a cure, but it has held off the disease better than the 40% "success" rate Remicade has; well, 40% success until it fails or you die.

The end of this rant is this; docs are in the pocket of big Pharma. They push drugs, regardless of the potential side-effects, based on their grants and payouts from these companies; be they flu shots or more invasive meds like Remicade. They will ignore medicines which are cheap and which have proven track records of many decades in favor of these high paying meds. They will ignore simple things which can help a disease, such as diet restrictions on a gastrointestinal disorder (duh), and say diet has no effect (how dumb is that, especially when EVERYONE with the disease says diet control helps, yes I do mean EVERYONE). They will ignore to the greatest extent possible alternatives like fecal transplant therapy and dismiss it as kooky medicine from those wacky naturalpaths. Even though it works. They will refuse to administer this therapy, even though it has a great track record and minimal side-effects; especially compared to their preferred course of action--which has potential to kill you.

The state of medicine is broken. It is an assembly-line designed to move your around in it and ensure the highest payout possible; not to "cure" anything. The follow-ups for things like flu shots or remicade is MORE shots or surgery or ICU or whatever. Those things are EXPENSIVE.

Medicine is a business these days and curing people or providing them with the right treatment, even if it is just a few dollars, is not within the business plan.

You, and your life, are just a statistic; a $ number on a spreadsheet.

reply to post by Bakatono


Couldn't seem to edit my prior post so:

ETA -- in support of prior posts here is a little story.

While I was at Mayo with my child waiting for one of the dozens of tests my child underwent we were watching television in the waiting room. There was an advert on for some anti-depression meds. The commercial was a great and cute cartoon showing some woman who was depressed but was now out-and-about having a great 'ol time. At the beginning of the commercial they talked about how their medicine could help with depression. This was about 5 seconds of the 30 second spot. For the remainder of the commercial someone talked real fast about all the potential side-effects and when you should "contact your doctor." These side-effects were all over the place: liver failure, migraines, ear problems, kidney issues, vision problems, numbness, tingling, heart attack, shortness of breath, seizures, death and.....wait for it.... DEPRESSION AND THOUGHTS OF SUICIDE!!!!!!!

Man, that sounds like good medicine!

reply to post by Pardon?


Why is it worthless, because I'm just somebody on the internet, and you have no proof that it's true? The only reason you should have to doubt me is if you believe I would purposely deceive and lie to people, which ultimately boils down to an erroneous lack of trust... I see now... Alternative medicine doesn't make 50 billion for just any single one company though; Big Pharma is multiple corporations but who are ultimately of the same family.

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Why is it worthless, because I'm just somebody on the internet, and you have no proof that it's true? The only reason you should have to doubt me is if you believe I would purposely deceive and lie to people, which ultimately boils down to an erroneous lack of trust... I see now... Alternative medicine doesn't make 50 billion for just any single one company though; Big Pharma is multiple corporations but who are ultimately of the same family.

It's nothing to do with trust per se.
I don't know you from Adam and anyone can write anything on the internet.
The difficult part is proving it and testimonials aren't worth the bytes they take up.

Who cares whether the money made by alt therapy isn't all for one company (although I'd wager that Mercola and (un)NaturalNews) take a fair chunk between them)?
The fact is between them it's worth a hell of a lot for doing very little indeed.
And you need to take your conspiracy hat off if you think all pharma is owned by the same family.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


In another thread you were bashing the OP because (in your words) anecdotal reports are worthless. So... it's only worthless when it's contrary to your opinion? The hypocrisy is strong in this one.

reply to post by GetHyped


I did not bash him over anecdotal reports, however, I was using the typical 'anecdotal argument' against him out of spite.. The article he posted was nothing but propaganda, some random lady's story with no evidence whatsoever, and he was parading it around as if it was irrefutable evidence... Call it childish, but it got the point across. Apparently I'm a hypocrite for it, but you aren't... That's some kind of logic right there..

If I believe in anecdotal evidence I'm wrong..

But when you believe in it; it's right...

Double standards, eh?

I would also like you to quote where I said that anecdotal reports was worthless, because I don't remember saying that at all. In fact, this is what I actually said, which was almost a direct quote by some of you pro-pharma people on this website..

I would also like to point out that the entire article in the OP is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and is NOT a scientific study. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I said it should be taken with a grain of salt; not that it was completely worthless, merely that it as a single piece of testimony is unreliable.

I think it's ridiculous that you guys turn your noses up at people who make money from alternative medicine, but Big Pharma who has been known to outright lie, deceive, and manipulate scientific data to benefit their own commercial revenue is not at all the same scenario? Yeah right.. Get the f... out of here with that nonsense.. You can't claim that the opposition is the devil for doing certain things when your side is doing the exact same thing you are decrying if not worse..

reply to post by Pardon?

And you need to take your conspiracy hat off if you think all pharma is owned by the same family.

And you need to not take everything so literally. That's not what I was insinuating.. The 'family' was more like an analogy for a group of aligned pharmaceutical corporations.. Not corporations all owned by the same family..

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

And you need to take your conspiracy hat off if you think all pharma is owned by the same family.

And you need to not take everything so literally. That's not what I was insinuating.. The 'family' was more like an analogy for a group of aligned pharmaceutical corporations.. Not corporations all owned by the same family..

You made a statement, there was no insinuation.
Helpful hint, when on the internet trying to converse with someone you don't know, write exactly what you mean as that wasn't one of your best back-tracks.

reply to post by Bakatono


high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

reply to post by Pardon?

Big Pharma is multiple corporations but who are ultimately of the same family.

I said they are of the same family; not owned by the same family. Reading comprehension is key to any debate. It helps to reduce strawman arguments.