Nature or mainstream medicine - which is really safer and more effective?

January 9, 2010

Which is really safer or more effective – mainstream drugs or nature?

by Tony Isaacs

Are mainstream drugs really safer and more effective than natural alternative such as man has used for healing for thousands of years? We are constantly told by mainstream medicine that only their drugs have been thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness. Likewise, we are also told that herbs and other natural alternatives are unproven, usually of little or no value and often may be dangerous. But, does history and the record really support that?

Citing the lack of studies on herbs and natural alternatives brings two questions that may belie the idea of studies being a reliable guideline - namely how many studies are actually conducted on herbs and alternatives and how reliable are the studies conducted on mainstream drugs? By and large, most studies are conducted on patentable items that can be controlled and profited from. The only FDA approved medications are those owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies because no one can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something they can not uniquely control. It has been shown that studies tend to return positive results for the funders up to eight times more often than independent studies on the same item.A growing number of people believe that the system is both deeply flawed and rigged in favor of those who have the money. Despite all the claimed validity of mainstream studies, that did not prevent us from having rigged studies on Vioxx. Nor did it prevent rigged studies for decades on the safety and even claimed health benefits of smoking cigarettes. Those are just two examples in a very long list of drugs and other items mainstream science told us were safe but turned out to be anything but. Thalidomide, heroin, opium, cocaine, Avandia, Fosamax, Prozac, Paxil, Aleve, Bextra, Aspartame . . the list goes on and on.

Another problem with mainstream medical studies is the apparent lack of quality standards employed by pharmaceutical companies in selecting doctors who oversee drug testing. A New York times investigation in 2007 found that in Minnesota alone at least 103 doctors who had been disciplined or criticized by the state medical board received a total of $1.7 million from drug makers between 1997 to 2005. The median payment over that period was $1,250; the largest was $479,000.

One such doctor was Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, whom the Minnesota Medical board accused of a "reckless, if not willful, disregard" for the welfare of 46 patients, 5 of whom died in his care or shortly afterward. The board suspended his license for seven months and restricted it for two years after that. One of Dr. Abuzzahab's patients was David Olson, whom the psychiatrist tried repeatedly to recruit for clinical trials. Drug makers paid Dr. Abuzzahab thousands of dollars for every patient he recruited. In July 1997, when Mr. Olson again refused to be a test subject, Dr. Abuzzahab discharged him from the hospital even though he was suicidal, records show. Mr. Olson committed suicide two weeks later.The drug industry has been riddled with scandal again and again - including faked studies, rigged studies, hidden evidence of dangers, ghostwriten articles, fake medical journals, sex scandals, and much more. Merck, Vioxx. Pfizer, Avantis, GlaxoKilineSmith, Baxter Labs, the list goes on and on and on and leaves virtually no major pharmaceutical company untouched:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/07/research.health1 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7460/247 Look at all the hits and damning evidence you get when you search for "drug company scandals". Absolutely shameful!

The latest example:http://www.healthiertalk.com/pfizer-caught-faking-it-again-1280

Another problem with mainstream drugs is the influence peddling of the pharmaceutical companies to get doctors to prescribe their medicines. Many doctors receive incentives for prescribing drugs - such as honorariums, free lunches and other gifts, and even free massages and cruise trips, to name a few. There have been a number of scandals concerning drug companies essentially bribing doctors to prescribe their drugs and many cries for reform to insure that drugs are prescribed according to the patient's best interests and not the financial interests of doctors and drug companies.

Besides all the incentives, some doctors make profits directly from the drugs they prescribe, often with unhealthy consequences for their patients. In an article that appeared in the New York Times in May 2007 it was revealed that to of the world's largest drug companies are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may be unsafe at commonly used doses.

The same article noted that:

"Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay for drugs, … which they dispense in their offices as part of treatment. … Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors' purchase price."

See: http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/doctors-getting-paid-to-prescribe-drugs/ No wonder a Harris Poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that pharmaceutical companies are "generally honest and trustworthy." Over 95% of the 15,000 plus approved medicines have side effects and in many instance those side effects lead to further conditions requiring still more drugs with more side effects in a never ending cycle. As noted when millions of serious adverse reactions are reported each year and when over 140,000 deaths in hospitals and homes happen each year even when the drugs have been properly prescribed and administered? Risk versus reward? Yes, a reward in profits just like we saw the makers of Vioxx reap in billions of dollars while the body count piled up even higher than all the lives we lost in the Vietnam War. Just like has been happening and continues to happen with Paxil:/Depression_Drugs_Bare.htm Meanwhile, major side effects caused by natural herbs are rare and deaths almost non-existent.Often we see the supporters of mainstream medicine refer to natural healing as "woo" and sometime they liken belief in natural herbs as more akin to some kind of religion instead of "real science". Is that really true? True science is based on observation. Mankind has observed nature to work and has used nature for healing for thousands of years, just as most of the people in the world continue to do and as the majority of people in most countries continue to do. Among those countries are several countries ranked above the U.S. (the world's most medicated country) in health rankings, including two of the top three ranked countries. Despite all of the15,000 plus approved drugs, our life expectancy ranks below 40 plus other countries and is closer to that of Mexico than it is the top 10 countries.To claim that nature, from whence life itself came, is "woo" is patently absurd. Of course most of us would like to see scientific proof that anything we take is safe and effective, but when medical science has been sold off to the highest bidder far too often, I will choose what has been observed to work and what I myself have observed to work over and do my own homework before I accept anything that what medical science tells me will work and is safe.

When you combine the record of safety and effectiveness of approved drugs with the fact that history has taught us again and again that the science of today has but a fraction of the answers and is often overturned tomorrow, I would say that blind belief in mainstream medicine is far more of a religion than belief in nature.I readily agree that just because something is natural does not mean that it will work or that it is safe, but I like the comparative safety records of nature versus approved drugs. And when it comes to what really works or not, the pharmaceutical industry itself admits that most of its drugs do not work for most people. According to Doctor Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline and academic geneticist from Duke University, "The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people."

Despite the claims that herbs, natural remedies, vitamins and minerals have little or no effectiveness, one thing the studies do largely agree on: a great many of our health problems can be traced to vitamin and mineral deficiencies. On the other hand, no one ever became ill due to a deficiency in pharmaceuticals.

January 9, 2010

Well all I can say is that when Malcolm was on chemo he was doing really well.

He had next to no side effects and was still training and teaching classes but

when he stopped and tried the OPC and anti-cancer protocol he just went down

hill from then on and now he isnt here.

I was 100% behind him stopping the chemo and now I think I made the biggest

mistake of my life.

I trully believe if he had stayed on chemo he would have been here now as it was

so effective for him so now I have to live with the fact that the only reason he

came off the chemo is because he totally trusted me and everything I had read on

here.

Marie

oleander soup , "" wrote:

>

> Which is really safer or more effective – mainstream drugs or

> nature?

>

> by Tony Isaacs

>

> Are mainstream drugs really safer and more effective than natural

> alternative such as man has used for healing for thousands of years? We

> are constantly told by mainstream medicine that only their drugs have

> been thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness. Likewise, we are

> also told that herbs and other natural alternatives are unproven,

> usually of little or no value and often may be dangerous. But, does

> history and the record really support that?

>

> Citing the lack of studies on herbs and natural alternatives brings two

> questions that may belie the idea of studies being a reliable guideline

> - namely how many studies are actually conducted on herbs and

> alternatives and how reliable are the studies conducted on mainstream

> drugs? By and large, most studies are conducted on patentable items that

> can be controlled and profited from. The only FDA approved medications

> are those owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies because

> no one can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something

> they can not uniquely control. It has been shown that studies tend to

> return positive results for the funders up to eight times more often

> than independent studies on the same item.

>

> A growing number of people believe that the system is both deeply flawed

> and rigged in favor of those who have the money. Despite all the claimed

> validity of mainstream studies, that did not prevent us from having

> rigged studies on Vioxx. Nor did it prevent rigged studies for decades

> on the safety and even claimed health benefits of smoking cigarettes.

> Those are just two examples in a very long list of drugs and other items

> mainstream science told us were safe but turned out to be anything but.

> Thalidomide, heroin, opium, cocaine, Avandia, Fosamax, Prozac, Paxil,

> Aleve, Bextra, Aspartame . . the list goes on and on.

>

> Another problem with mainstream medical studies is the apparent lack of

> quality standards employed by pharmaceutical companies in selecting

> doctors who oversee drug testing. A New York times investigation in

> 2007 found that in Minnesota alone at least 103 doctors who had been

> disciplined or criticized by the state medical board received a total of

> $1.7 million from drug makers between 1997 to 2005. The median payment

> over that period was $1,250; the largest was $479,000.

>

> One such doctor was Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, whom the Minnesota Medical

> board accused of a " reckless, if not willful, disregard " for the

> welfare of 46 patients, 5 of whom died in his care or shortly afterward.

> The board suspended his license for seven months and restricted it for

> two years after that. One of Dr. Abuzzahab's patients was David

> Olson, whom the psychiatrist tried repeatedly to recruit for clinical

> trials. Drug makers paid Dr. Abuzzahab thousands of dollars for every

> patient he recruited. In July 1997, when Mr. Olson again refused to be a

> test subject, Dr. Abuzzahab discharged him from the hospital even though

> he was suicidal, records show. Mr. Olson committed suicide two weeks

> later.

>

> The drug industry has been riddled with scandal again and again -

> including faked studies, rigged studies, hidden evidence of dangers,

> ghostwriten articles, fake medical journals, sex scandals, and much

> more. Merck, Vioxx. Pfizer, Avantis, GlaxoKilineSmith, Baxter Labs, the

> list goes on and on and on and leaves virtually no major pharmaceutical

> company untouched:

>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/07/research.health1

> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/07/research.health1>

>

> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7460/247

> <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7460/247>

>

> Look at all the hits and damning evidence you get when you search for

> " drug company scandals " . Absolutely shameful!

>

> The latest example:

>

> http://www.healthiertalk.com/pfizer-caught-faking-it-again-1280

> <http://www.healthiertalk.com/pfizer-caught-faking-it-again-1280>

>

> Another problem with mainstream drugs is the influence peddling of the

> pharmaceutical companies to get doctors to prescribe their medicines.

> Many doctors receive incentives for prescribing drugs - such as

> honorariums, free lunches and other gifts, and even free massages and

> cruise trips, to name a few. There have been a number of scandals

> concerning drug companies essentially bribing doctors to prescribe their

> drugs and many cries for reform to insure that drugs are prescribed

> according to the patient's best interests and not the financial

> interests of doctors and drug companies.

>

> Besides all the incentives, some doctors make profits directly from the

> drugs they prescribe, often with unhealthy consequences for their

> patients. In an article that appeared in the New York Times in May 2007

> it was revealed that to of the world's largest drug companies are

> paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return

> for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may

> be unsafe at commonly used doses.

>

> The same article noted that:

>

> " Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe

> medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from

> pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay

> for drugs, … which they dispense in their offices as part of

> treatment. … Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs

> from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or

> private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors'

> purchase price. "

>

> See:

> http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/doctors-getting-paid-to-prescri\

> be-drugs/

> <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/doctors-getting-paid-to-prescr\

> ibe-drugs/>

>

> No wonder a Harris Poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that

> pharmaceutical companies are " generally honest and trustworthy. "

>

> Over 95% of the 15,000 plus approved medicines have side effects and in

> many instance those side effects lead to further conditions requiring

> still more drugs with more side effects in a never ending cycle. As

> noted when millions of serious adverse reactions are reported each year

> and when over 140,000 deaths in hospitals and homes happen each year

> even when the drugs have been properly prescribed and administered? Risk

> versus reward? Yes, a reward in profits just like we saw the makers of

> Vioxx reap in billions of dollars while the body count piled up even

> higher than all the lives we lost in the Vietnam War. Just like has been

> happening and continues to happen with Paxil:

>

> /Depression_Drugs_Bare.htm

> </Depression_Drugs_Bare.htm>

>

> Meanwhile, major side effects caused by natural herbs are rare and

> deaths almost non-existent.

>

> Often we see the supporters of mainstream medicine refer to natural

> healing as " woo " and sometime they liken belief in natural herbs as more

> akin to some kind of religion instead of " real science " . Is that really

> true? True science is based on observation. Mankind has observed nature

> to work and has used nature for healing for thousands of years, just as

> most of the people in the world continue to do and as the majority of

> people in most countries continue to do. Among those countries are

> several countries ranked above the U.S. (the world's most medicated

> country) in health rankings, including two of the top three ranked

> countries. Despite all of the15,000 plus approved drugs, our life

> expectancy ranks below 40 plus other countries and is closer to that of

> Mexico than it is the top 10 countries.

>

> To claim that nature, from whence life itself came, is " woo " is patently

> absurd. Of course most of us would like to see scientific proof that

> anything we take is safe and effective, but when medical science has

> been sold off to the highest bidder far too often, I will choose what

> has been observed to work and what I myself have observed to work over

> and do my own homework before I accept anything that what medical

> science tells me will work and is safe.

>

> When you combine the record of safety and effectiveness of approved

> drugs with the fact that history has taught us again and again that the

> science of today has but a fraction of the answers and is often

> overturned tomorrow, I would say that blind belief in mainstream

> medicine is far more of a religion than belief in nature.

>

> I readily agree that just because something is natural does not mean

> that it will work or that it is safe, but I like the comparative safety

> records of nature versus approved drugs. And when it comes to what

> really works or not, the pharmaceutical industry itself admits that most

> of its drugs do not work for most people. According to Doctor Allen

> Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline and

> academic geneticist from Duke University, " The vast majority of drugs -

> more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people. "

>

> Despite the claims that herbs, natural remedies, vitamins and minerals

> have little or no effectiveness, one thing the studies do largely agree

> on: a great many of our health problems can be traced to vitamin and

> mineral deficiencies. On the other hand, no one ever became ill due to

> a deficiency in pharmaceuticals.

>

January 9, 2010

Marie -

I am so sorry to hear that. Though I do not like chemo and it most often does not have good results along with having bad side effects, I never encourage anyone to stop a treatment that is working for them, especially when there are no bad side effects.

Nevertheless you did your best and though you may think otherwise Malcolm may well not have made it any further with chemo. Statistically people who opt for chemo only live 2 to 3% longer than those who opt to not undergo chemo and that includes people who do nothing at all to fight their cancers. Chemo can often be effective for awhile as it kills the most easily defeated cancer cells and has initial tumor reduction and then have the tide reversed completely when the most difficult cancer cells remain and begin to mulitply inspite of the chemo.

I wish things had turned out differently. I hate to ever lose anyone and it is a terrible pain whenever that happens - though I don't dare suggest it is anywhere near what you have had.

All the best and I hope that you fare well and put your loss behind you as best you can.

Tony--- On Sat, 1/9/10, infomcf <infomcf wrote:

infomcf <infomcf Re: Nature or mainstream medicine - which is really safer and more effective?oleander soup Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 5:02 PM

Well all I can say is that when Malcolm was on chemo he was doing really well. He had next to no side effects and was still training and teaching classes but when he stopped and tried the OPC and anti-cancer protocol he just went down hill from then on and now he isnt here. I was 100% behind him stopping the chemo and now I think I made the biggest mistake of my life. I trully believe if he had stayed on chemo he would have been here now as it was so effective for him so now I have to live with the fact that the only reason he came off the chemo is because he totally trusted me and everything I had read on here.Marieoleander soup, "TonyI" @. ..> wrote:>> > Which is really safer or more effective

â€“ mainstream drugs or> nature?> > by Tony Isaacs> > Are mainstream drugs really safer and more effective than natural> alternative such as man has used for healing for thousands of years? We> are constantly told by mainstream medicine that only their drugs have> been thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness. Likewise, we are> also told that herbs and other natural alternatives are unproven,> usually of little or no value and often may be dangerous. But, does> history and the record really support that?> > Citing the lack of studies on herbs and natural alternatives brings two> questions that may belie the idea of studies being a reliable guideline> - namely how many studies are actually conducted on herbs and> alternatives and how reliable are the studies conducted on mainstream> drugs? By and large, most studies are conducted

on patentable items that> can be controlled and profited from. The only FDA approved medications> are those owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies because> no one can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something> they can not uniquely control. It has been shown that studies tend to> return positive results for the funders up to eight times more often> than independent studies on the same item.> > A growing number of people believe that the system is both deeply flawed> and rigged in favor of those who have the money. Despite all the claimed> validity of mainstream studies, that did not prevent us from having> rigged studies on Vioxx. Nor did it prevent rigged studies for decades> on the safety and even claimed health benefits of smoking cigarettes.> Those are just two examples in a very long list of drugs and other items>

mainstream science told us were safe but turned out to be anything but.> Thalidomide, heroin, opium, cocaine, Avandia, Fosamax, Prozac, Paxil,> Aleve, Bextra, Aspartame . . the list goes on and on.> > Another problem with mainstream medical studies is the apparent lack of> quality standards employed by pharmaceutical companies in selecting> doctors who oversee drug testing. A New York times investigation in> 2007 found that in Minnesota alone at least 103 doctors who had been> disciplined or criticized by the state medical board received a total of> $1.7 million from drug makers between 1997 to 2005. The median payment> over that period was $1,250; the largest was $479,000.> > One such doctor was Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, whom the Minnesota Medical> board accused of a "reckless, if not willful, disregard" for the> welfare of 46 patients, 5 of whom died in his

care or shortly afterward.> The board suspended his license for seven months and restricted it for> two years after that. One of Dr. Abuzzahab's patients was David> Olson, whom the psychiatrist tried repeatedly to recruit for clinical> trials. Drug makers paid Dr. Abuzzahab thousands of dollars for every> patient he recruited. In July 1997, when Mr. Olson again refused to be a> test subject, Dr. Abuzzahab discharged him from the hospital even though> he was suicidal, records show. Mr. Olson committed suicide two weeks> later.> > The drug industry has been riddled with scandal again and again -> including faked studies, rigged studies, hidden evidence of dangers,> ghostwriten articles, fake medical journals, sex scandals, and much> more. Merck, Vioxx. Pfizer, Avantis, GlaxoKilineSmith, Baxter Labs, the> list goes on and on and on and leaves virtually no

major pharmaceutical> company untouched:> > http://www.guardian .co.uk/uk/ 2002/feb/ 07/research. health1> <http://www.guardian .co.uk/uk/ 2002/feb/ 07/research. health1>> > http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ extract/329/ 7460/247> <http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ extract/329/ 7460/247>> > Look at all the hits and damning evidence you get when you search for> "drug company scandals". Absolutely shameful!> > The latest example:> > http://www.healthie rtalk.com/ pfizer-caught- faking-it- again-1280> <http://www.healthie rtalk.com/ pfizer-caught- faking-it- again-1280>> > Another problem with mainstream drugs is the influence peddling of the> pharmaceutical companies to get doctors to prescribe their medicines.> Many doctors receive incentives for prescribing drugs - such as> honorariums, free lunches and other gifts, and even free massages and> cruise trips, to name a few. There have been a number of scandals> concerning drug companies essentially bribing doctors to prescribe their> drugs and many cries for reform to insure that drugs are prescribed> according to the patient's best interests and not the

financial> interests of doctors and drug companies.> > Besides all the incentives, some doctors make profits directly from the> drugs they prescribe, often with unhealthy consequences for their> patients. In an article that appeared in the New York Times in May 2007> it was revealed that to of the world's largest drug companies are> paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return> for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may> be unsafe at commonly used doses.> > The same article noted that:> > "Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe> medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from> pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay> for drugs, â€¦ which they dispense in their offices as part of> treatment. â€¦ Doctors

receive the rebates after they buy the drugs> from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or> private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors'> purchase price."> > See: > http://news. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 05/09/doctors- getting-paid- to-prescri\> be-drugs/> <http://news. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 05/09/doctors- getting-paid- to-prescr\> ibe-drugs/>> > No wonder a Harris Poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that> pharmaceutical companies are "generally honest and trustworthy. "> > Over 95% of the 15,000 plus approved medicines have side effects and in> many instance

those side effects lead to further conditions requiring> still more drugs with more side effects in a never ending cycle. As> noted when millions of serious adverse reactions are reported each year> and when over 140,000 deaths in hospitals and homes happen each year> even when the drugs have been properly prescribed and administered? Risk> versus reward? Yes, a reward in profits just like we saw the makers of> Vioxx reap in billions of dollars while the body count piled up even> higher than all the lives we lost in the Vietnam War. Just like has been> happening and continues to happen with Paxil:> > http://www.tbyil. com/Depression_ Drugs_Bare. htm> <http://www.tbyil. com/Depression_ Drugs_Bare.

htm>> > Meanwhile, major side effects caused by natural herbs are rare and> deaths almost non-existent.> > Often we see the supporters of mainstream medicine refer to natural> healing as "woo" and sometime they liken belief in natural herbs as more> akin to some kind of religion instead of "real science". Is that really> true? True science is based on observation. Mankind has observed nature> to work and has used nature for healing for thousands of years, just as> most of the people in the world continue to do and as the majority of> people in most countries continue to do. Among those countries are> several countries ranked above the U.S. (the world's most medicated> country) in health rankings, including two of the top three ranked> countries. Despite all of the15,000 plus approved drugs, our life> expectancy ranks below 40 plus other

countries and is closer to that of> Mexico than it is the top 10 countries.> > To claim that nature, from whence life itself came, is "woo" is patently> absurd. Of course most of us would like to see scientific proof that> anything we take is safe and effective, but when medical science has> been sold off to the highest bidder far too often, I will choose what> has been observed to work and what I myself have observed to work over> and do my own homework before I accept anything that what medical> science tells me will work and is safe.> > When you combine the record of safety and effectiveness of approved> drugs with the fact that history has taught us again and again that the> science of today has but a fraction of the answers and is often> overturned tomorrow, I would say that blind belief in mainstream> medicine is far more of a religion than

belief in nature.> > I readily agree that just because something is natural does not mean> that it will work or that it is safe, but I like the comparative safety> records of nature versus approved drugs. And when it comes to what> really works or not, the pharmaceutical industry itself admits that most> of its drugs do not work for most people. According to Doctor Allen> Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline and> academic geneticist from Duke University, "The vast majority of drugs -> more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people."> > Despite the claims that herbs, natural remedies, vitamins and minerals> have little or no effectiveness, one thing the studies do largely agree> on: a great many of our health problems can be traced to vitamin and> mineral deficiencies. On the other hand, no one ever became ill

due to> a deficiency in pharmaceuticals.>

January 9, 2010

Tony,

How can I put my lose behind me? Have you ever lost your best friend, your

soulmate, your partner??

I just don't know how to live without him

Marie

oleander soup , Tony Isaacs wrote:

>

> Marie -

> Â

> I am so sorry to hear that. Though I do not like chemo and it most often does

not have good results along with having bad side effects, I never encourage

anyone to stop a treatment that is working for them, especially when there are

no bad side effects.

> Â

> Nevertheless you did your best and though you may think otherwise Malcolm may

well not have made it any further with chemo.Â Statistically people who opt for

chemo only live 2 to 3% longer than those who opt to not undergo chemo and that

includes people who do nothing at all to fight their cancers.Â Chemo can often

be effective for awhile as it kills the most easily defeated cancer cells and

hasÂ initial tumor reduction and then have the tide reversed completely when the

most difficult cancer cells remain and begin to mulitply inspite of the chemo.

> Â

> I wish things had turned out differently.Â I hate to ever lose anyone and it

is a terrible pain whenever that happens - though I don't dare suggest it is

anywhere near what you have had.

> Â

> All the best and I hope that you fare well and put your loss behind you as

best you can.

> Â

> >

> --- On Sat, 1/9/10, infomcf <infomcf wrote:

>

> infomcf <infomcf

> Re: Nature or mainstream medicine - which is really

safer and more effective?

> oleander soup

> Saturday, January 9, 2010, 5:02 PM

>

> Â

>

> Well all I can say is that when Malcolm was on chemo he was doing really well.

He had next to no side effects and was still training and teaching classes but

when he stopped and tried the OPC and anti-cancer protocol he just went down

hill from then on and now he isnt here.

>

> I was 100% behind him stopping the chemo and now I think I made the biggest

mistake of my life.

>

> I trully believe if he had stayed on chemo he would have been here now as it

was so effective for him so now I have to live with the fact that the only

reason he came off the chemo is because he totally trusted me and everything I

had read on here.

>

> Marie

>

> oleander soup, "" @ ..> wrote:

> >

> > Which is really safer or more effective â€ " mainstream drugs or

> > nature?

> >

> > by Tony Isaacs

> >

> > Are mainstream drugs really safer and more effective than natural

> > alternative such as man has used for healing for thousands of years? We

> > are constantly told by mainstream medicine that only their drugs have

> > been thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness. Likewise, we are

> > also told that herbs and other natural alternatives are unproven,

> > usually of little or no value and often may be dangerous. But, does

> > history and the record really support that?

> >

> > Citing the lack of studies on herbs and natural alternatives brings two

> > questions that may belie the idea of studies being a reliable guideline

> > - namely how many studies are actually conducted on herbs and

> > alternatives and how reliable are the studies conducted on mainstream

> > drugs? By and large, most studies are conducted on patentable items that

> > can be controlled and profited from. The only FDA approved medications

> > are those owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies because

> > no one can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something

> > they can not uniquely control. It has been shown that studies tend to

> > return positive results for the funders up to eight times more often

> > than independent studies on the same item.

> >

> > A growing number of people believe that the system is both deeply flawed

> > and rigged in favor of those who have the money. Despite all the claimed

> > validity of mainstream studies, that did not prevent us from having

> > rigged studies on Vioxx. Nor did it prevent rigged studies for decades

> > on the safety and even claimed health benefits of smoking cigarettes.

> > Those are just two examples in a very long list of drugs and other items

> > mainstream science told us were safe but turned out to be anything but.

> > Thalidomide, heroin, opium, cocaine, Avandia, Fosamax, Prozac, Paxil,

> > Aleve, Bextra, Aspartame . . the list goes on and on.

> >

> > Another problem with mainstream medical studies is the apparent lack of

> > quality standards employed by pharmaceutical companies in selecting

> > doctors who oversee drug testing. A New York times investigation in

> > 2007 found that in Minnesota alone at least 103 doctors who had been

> > disciplined or criticized by the state medical board received a total of

> > $1.7 million from drug makers between 1997 to 2005. The median payment

> > over that period was $1,250; the largest was $479,000.

> >

> > One such doctor was Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, whom the Minnesota Medical

> > board accused of a " reckless, if not willful, disregard " for the

> > welfare of 46 patients, 5 of whom died in his care or shortly afterward.

> > The board suspended his license for seven months and restricted it for

> > two years after that. One of Dr. Abuzzahab's patients was David

> > Olson, whom the psychiatrist tried repeatedly to recruit for clinical

> > trials. Drug makers paid Dr. Abuzzahab thousands of dollars for every

> > patient he recruited. In July 1997, when Mr. Olson again refused to be a

> > test subject, Dr. Abuzzahab discharged him from the hospital even though

> > he was suicidal, records show. Mr. Olson committed suicide two weeks

> > later.

> >

> > The drug industry has been riddled with scandal again and again -

> > including faked studies, rigged studies, hidden evidence of dangers,

> > ghostwriten articles, fake medical journals, sex scandals, and much

> > more. Merck, Vioxx. Pfizer, Avantis, GlaxoKilineSmith, Baxter Labs, the

> > list goes on and on and on and leaves virtually no major pharmaceutical

> > company untouched:

> >

> > http://www.guardian .co.uk/uk/ 2002/feb/ 07/research. health1

> > <http://www.guardian .co.uk/uk/ 2002/feb/ 07/research. health1>

> >

> > http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ extract/329/ 7460/247

> > <http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ extract/329/ 7460/247>

> >

> > Look at all the hits and damning evidence you get when you search for

> > " drug company scandals " . Absolutely shameful!

> >

> > The latest example:

> >

> > http://www.healthie rtalk.com/ pfizer-caught- faking-it- again-1280

> > <http://www.healthie rtalk.com/ pfizer-caught- faking-it- again-1280>

> >

> > Another problem with mainstream drugs is the influence peddling of the

> > pharmaceutical companies to get doctors to prescribe their medicines.

> > Many doctors receive incentives for prescribing drugs - such as

> > honorariums, free lunches and other gifts, and even free massages and

> > cruise trips, to name a few. There have been a number of scandals

> > concerning drug companies essentially bribing doctors to prescribe their

> > drugs and many cries for reform to insure that drugs are prescribed

> > according to the patient's best interests and not the financial

> > interests of doctors and drug companies.

> >

> > Besides all the incentives, some doctors make profits directly from the

> > drugs they prescribe, often with unhealthy consequences for their

> > patients. In an article that appeared in the New York Times in May 2007

> > it was revealed that to of the world's largest drug companies are

> > paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return

> > for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may

> > be unsafe at commonly used doses.

> >

> > The same article noted that:

> >

> > " Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe

> > medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from

> > pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay

> > for drugs, â€¦ which they dispense in their offices as part of

> > treatment. â€¦ Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs

> > from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or

> > private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors'

> > purchase price. "

> >

> > See:

> > http://news. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 05/09/doctors- getting-paid-

to-prescri\

> > be-drugs/

> > <http://news. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 05/09/doctors- getting-paid-

to-prescr\

> > ibe-drugs/>

> >

> > No wonder a Harris Poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that

> > pharmaceutical companies are " generally honest and trustworthy. "

> >

> > Over 95% of the 15,000 plus approved medicines have side effects and in

> > many instance those side effects lead to further conditions requiring

> > still more drugs with more side effects in a never ending cycle. As

> > noted when millions of serious adverse reactions are reported each year

> > and when over 140,000 deaths in hospitals and homes happen each year

> > even when the drugs have been properly prescribed and administered? Risk

> > versus reward? Yes, a reward in profits just like we saw the makers of

> > Vioxx reap in billions of dollars while the body count piled up even

> > higher than all the lives we lost in the Vietnam War. Just like has been

> > happening and continues to happen with Paxil:

> >

> > http://www.tbyil. com/Depression_ Drugs_Bare. htm

> > <http://www.tbyil. com/Depression_ Drugs_Bare. htm>

> >

> > Meanwhile, major side effects caused by natural herbs are rare and

> > deaths almost non-existent.

> >

> > Often we see the supporters of mainstream medicine refer to natural

> > healing as " woo " and sometime they liken belief in natural herbs as more

> > akin to some kind of religion instead of " real science " . Is that really

> > true? True science is based on observation. Mankind has observed nature

> > to work and has used nature for healing for thousands of years, just as

> > most of the people in the world continue to do and as the majority of

> > people in most countries continue to do. Among those countries are

> > several countries ranked above the U.S. (the world's most medicated

> > country) in health rankings, including two of the top three ranked

> > countries. Despite all of the15,000 plus approved drugs, our life

> > expectancy ranks below 40 plus other countries and is closer to that of

> > Mexico than it is the top 10 countries.

> >

> > To claim that nature, from whence life itself came, is " woo " is patently

> > absurd. Of course most of us would like to see scientific proof that

> > anything we take is safe and effective, but when medical science has

> > been sold off to the highest bidder far too often, I will choose what

> > has been observed to work and what I myself have observed to work over

> > and do my own homework before I accept anything that what medical

> > science tells me will work and is safe.

> >

> > When you combine the record of safety and effectiveness of approved

> > drugs with the fact that history has taught us again and again that the

> > science of today has but a fraction of the answers and is often

> > overturned tomorrow, I would say that blind belief in mainstream

> > medicine is far more of a religion than belief in nature.

> >

> > I readily agree that just because something is natural does not mean

> > that it will work or that it is safe, but I like the comparative safety

> > records of nature versus approved drugs. And when it comes to what

> > really works or not, the pharmaceutical industry itself admits that most

> > of its drugs do not work for most people. According to Doctor Allen

> > Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline and

> > academic geneticist from Duke University, " The vast majority of drugs -

> > more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people. "

> >

> > Despite the claims that herbs, natural remedies, vitamins and minerals

> > have little or no effectiveness, one thing the studies do largely agree

> > on: a great many of our health problems can be traced to vitamin and

> > mineral deficiencies. On the other hand, no one ever became ill due to

> > a deficiency in pharmaceuticals.

> >

>

January 9, 2010

Yes Marie, I lost my best friend, soulmate, and partner back in 1981. I know the unbearable pain and the feeling of not being able to go on very well. Please don't do what I did. I became very ill which took 10 years out of my life. It grieves me to see you suffer in this way. I wish there was a way that I could make it okay. I feel your anguish deep in the recesses of my heart and at this point words fail me. I am so very sorry for your loss and I'm afraid that anything I say right now will not comfort you. But please know that you are very much in my thoughts and prayers.My heart does indeed go out to you.

January 10, 2010

Dear Marie.

Please dont blame anybody for what happen to Malcom, specially not your self.

If Malcom did not believe that the natural cancer protocol could help him, he would have said no to your suggestion as therapy for his cancer, but he din't, so that means he made his own desition like so many people in the world do.

You say you where the reason Malcom come off chemo, and you have to live with that fact. I on the other hand say i'm the reason my husband died because i took him to hospital, when he specificaly had ask me not to.

so Marie as you can see now, there is no right answer with cancer, damn if you have chemo and damn if you follow the natural protocol, cancer is a killer and we can only try to help ourselfs as best we can.

I just hope with time you will find yourself out of this painful tunnel you are in at the moment.

Hugs Mary