WHO warns people about alternative medicine(!?!)

[Guest guest]

Please widely distribute this information. I am for global respect of most =

 

medical systems, and I believe they are all evolving, but the criminal brut=

ality

and social engineering which has become the daily dose of for profit

healthcare.

Western medicine and its brother Insurance, waits until the person is so

dangerously ill, that surgery and/or drugs seem to be miraculous..sometimes=

..

It is like firemen setting a fire to your city, then paying off legislators=

and

the media prostitutes to ignore the source of the problem, and even further=

,

making it illegal for anyone else to put the fire out .

The truth is very different from the glossy ads, and misleading mumbo-jumb=

o

representative of the evryday persons impressions of the Doctor Buisness.

Take the time to read this all the way through to get the whole picture of =

 

what is coming at us RIGHT NOW in our field---though of course it is only

the tip of the iceberg...

 

WHAT PHARMA DRUGS DO:

 

Street drugs kill only 10% as many people every year, as legal, prescriptio=

n

drugs (6-times more than those Americans killed in the Vietnam War). In

January, 1999, Business Week reported the fourth leading cause of

hospitalizations: damage from FDA-approved drugs, affecting 2.2 million

people a year at a cost of $5 billion. Americans are dying, one every three=

to

five minutes, from the effects of FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs, used a=

s

directed! http://www.tuberose.com/Drugs.html

And now the source of natural health remedies are being choked off ...

 

HERE THEY COME---OUT IN THE OPEN...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3831931.stm

WHO warns on alternative medicine

 

 

More and more people use herbal medicines

The World Health Organization warns the unregulated use of alternative

medicines can cause unpleasant or potentially dangerous reactions.

It has issued new guidelines advising consumers on therapies ranging from

acupuncture to herbal medicines and food supplements.

 

They are aimed at helping those who buy complementary medicines over-the-

counter and do not tell doctors.

 

The WHO said such medicines were not " good for everybody all of the time " . =

 

 

There are a lot of examples of people who not only suffer but die because=

of

drug interaction or non-proper use of traditional medicine

 

Vladimir Lephakin, World Health Organization

As increasing numbers of people in industrialised and developing countries =

use

alternative medicines, there are increasing reports of adverse and even fat=

al

reactions.

 

The WHO said that, although there were no global statistics on reactions to=

 

the medicines, individual countries were reporting problems.

 

It said that in China, there were 9,854 cases of adverse reactions were

reported in 2002 alone, more than double the number registered during all o=

f

the 1990s.

 

 

Xiaorui Zhang, WHO's coordinator for traditional medicines, said that

consumers often assumed that " natural means safe " , but lacked knowledge

about using such products properly.

 

She added: " Most countries have no regulations to control herbal products. =

 

More than 90 countries sell them over-the-counter. "

 

Some countries are taking steps to limit the risk to consumers. In December=

,

the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about dietary

supplements containing ephedra, also called Ma huang, a natural substance

used in China to treat people for coughs.

 

Sales of ephedra are already restricted in the UK.

 

'Lack of knowledge'

 

Vladimir Lephakin, WHO assistant director-general for health technologies

and pharmaceuticals, said: " It is not true that good, traditional medicines=

are

good for everybody, every time in big quantities. This is a big mistake "

 

He added: " There are a lot of examples of people who not only suffer but di=

e

because of drug interaction or non-proper use of traditional medicine. "

 

He said food supplements, which are not often regulated as medicinal

products, also lacked quality controls.

 

Mr Lephakin added some studies had found that some products in different

countries contained toxic heavy metals and in extreme cases there were

traces of narcotics to make the products addictive.

 

He said: " There is a need for strengthening control of food supplements in =

all

countries. "

 

An EU directive, due to come into force on 1 August 2005, will harmonise th=

e

rules on vitamins and food supplements across the European Union.

 

It includes a list of vitamins and minerals which can be used in food

supplements. It also includes upper limits on certain vitamins.

 

 

 

**********************************************************************

http://garynull.com/issues/codex/aboutcodex.htm

Health Freedom is Under Attack

 

Worldwide pharmaceutical interests have launched a secretive global attack =

to

limit access to information on health choices & restrict the right to obtai=

n

dietary supplements.

Pharmaceutical interests would gain financially if supplements are strictly=

 

controlled and so they are pushing for the US to adopt Codex Alimentarius, =

an

international code of standards that would force us to " harmonize " with

France & Germany's restrictive rules.

In Europe, The EU (European Union) Vitamin Directive threatens to destroy

consumer access to therapeutic doses of vitamins & minerals, except by

prescription.

In the U.S., Americans who write to Congress to demand an Oversight

Hearing on Codex are being told that a Federal Statute already protects the=

ir

rights. This is misleading.

Current pressure to set arbitrary " safety standards " for vitamins (UL's or =

 

Upper Levels) in the US could set the stage for harmonization. It has begu=

n...

Click here for Codex Overview-- " While Americans Slept "

Click here to find out what you can do to avert the threat.

Click here to sign the Petition on the La Leva Website

 

 

*******************************************************************

Diagnosing Infants With Depression

 

 

http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2004/record0001.html

 

Excerpt:

Survey Results From Express Scripts Inc.

Between 1998 and 2002 overall antidepressant use in children increased 49

percent.

The largest year-to-year increase occurred between 2001 and 2002.

Antidepressant use increased more among girls (68 percent) than among boys =

 

(34 percent).

The youngest age group (5 years old and younger) showed the largest

proportional increase.

In all five years, mind-altering selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (S=

SRIs)

were the most commonly prescribed antidepressants.

The prevalence of antidepressant use among girls increased 97 percent for

SSRIs.

The adjusted trend in use of antidepressants among children and adolescents=

 

increased at an annual rate of 9.2 percent.

 

But it's not just the children....

 

********

 

According to a recent British Medical Journal article:

BUSH PLANS TO SCREEN THE WHOLE U.S. POPULATION FOR MENTAL

ILLNESS

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458

 

Guess what comes after this?

 

Could it be forced medication??

 

AND

 

No access to natural herbs, supplements and vitamins??

 

ARE WE GETTING THE PICTURE YET?

(of course this is only one of the miriad ways we are under attack--but I w=

ant

to keep this simple)

****************************************

 

Big Pharma

ELI LILLY, ZYPREXA & THE BUSH FAMILY

The diseasing of our malaise

 

By Bruce Levine

 

More than one journalist has uncovered corrupt connections between the Bush=

 

Family, psychiatry, and Eli Lilly & Company, the giant pharmaceutical

corporation. While previous Lillygates have been more colorful, Lilly's

soaking state Medicaid programs with Zyprexa—its blockbuster, antipsychotic=

 

drug—may pack the greatest financial wallop. Worldwide in 2003, Zyprexa

grossed $4.28 billion, accounting for slightly more than one-third of Lilly=

's

total sales. In the United States in 2003, Zyprexa grossed $2.63 billion, 7=

0

percent of that attributable to government agencies, mostly Medicaid.

 

More at:

http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/the_pharmaceutical_business_with_deseas

e_eli_lilly_zyprexa_and_the_bush_family.html

 

oh yes and:

 

" ...Donald Rumsfeld is former CEO of the pharmaceutical giant acquired by

Pharmacia, G D Searle.

Rumsfeld has served on the boards of several companies including Eli Lilly =

 

partner Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences. "

 

(More:http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/09/10/washington_under

_the_pharma_lilly.htm)

 

and the list goes on....

 

Do you think there might be a connection?

 

Do you think Bush and the gang might be handing the American people's lives=

-

-lock stock and barrell over to the Pharma companies for profit---while

shutting off any avenues people might use to keep themselves healthy and th=

us

out of pharma's clutches?

 

(and of course the rest of the world is not far behind--in fact perhaps som=

e

even ahead)

 

WANT TO DO SOMETHING?

http://garynull.com/issues/codex/CodexPlanOfAction.htm

http://www.thenhf.com/

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/

 

Lots more at: http://friendsoffreedom.org/

 

 

***********************************************

***********************************************

More on Pharma:

 

http://www.tuberose.com/Drugs.html

Drugs

 

 

International Coalition for Drug Awareness Detoxification Kit Antibiotics =

 

Medical Issues Absurd Medical Assumptions Book

 

 

Prescription For Disaster

Since the ancient Greeks, humans have dreamed of medicines so powerful they=

 

could make illness vanish. This was how a daughter of the Greek god of

medicine came to be named Panacea. Three thousand years later, the public

still yearns for a panacea. The U.S. society has invested in developing

wondrous new pharmacologic therapies but has failed to invest adequately in=

 

their safe use. Forty-six percent of Americans take at least one prescripti=

on

drug daily. That's more than 128 million people. Most of these people are

taking medications long-term, so their exposures aren't brief. Twenty-five =

 

percent of Americans take multiple prescription drugs every day. In 1999,

Americans purchased 2,587,575,000 prescriptions--that's nine prescription

drugs for every person in America every day. Americans paid $125 billion fo=

r

these prescriptions--$50 per prescription on average. The public likes to

believe that our hospitals and medications are safe and that our doctors ar=

e

taking every reasonable precaution. However, prescription drugs pose one of=

 

the greatest human-created dangers outside of war and pose a major peril to=

 

public health. Fifty-one percent of approved drugs have serious adverse sid=

e

effects not detected prior to approval. More than half of our drugs, after =

being

deemed " safe " by the FDA and then prescribed to millions of people, are

subsequently detected to have previously unrecognized, medically serious si=

de

effects.

 

 

To rely on the drug companies for unbiased evaluations of their products

makes about as much sense as relying on beer companies to teach us about

alcoholism. Taking prescription drugs ranks as one of the most hazardous

activities of modern society. Because so many millions are exposed, drugs

have a potential for disaster that dwarfs most other risks of modern societ=

y.

In a prescription drug disaster, tens of thousands of people may die and

literally millions are placed at risk. In the hospital environment, multipl=

e drugs

are used in aggressive treatment--with a patient typically getting ten to

fifteen drugs during a hospital stay. The intravenous route of administrati=

on

of many of these drugs makes adverse effects occur more rapidly and with

greater severity. Street drugs kill only 10% as many people every year, as =

 

legal, prescription drugs (6-times more than those Americans killed in the =

 

Vietnam War). In January, 1999, Business Week reported the fourth leading

cause of hospitalizations: damage from FDA-approved drugs, affecting 2.2

million people a year at a cost of $5 billion. Americans are dying, one eve=

ry

three to five minutes, from the effects of FDA-approved pharmaceutical

drugs, used as directed!

 

 

 

 

Also, in 1999, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported tha=

t

the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. was side effects from properl=

y

administered, FDA-approved drugs. The report stated that 106,000 people die=

 

annually in American hospitals from medication side effects and tallied

2,216,000 severe medication reactions in U.S. hospitals annually. (The

authors didn't even try to count the largest category of all side effects

occurring in outpatients.) 106,000 deaths a year averages out to nearly 300=

 

deaths a day, every day. In comparison, about 85 people died from accidents=

 

linked to faulty Firestone tires. The Firestone deaths occurred over a peri=

od

of several years--medication reactions kill 300 people every day. Yet, it w=

as

the Firestone deaths that dominated the news for several weeks and drew

Congressional hearings. Deaths from all major airline crashes in the United=

 

States average less than 300 annually, but one airplane crash gets more med=

ia

attention and governmental scrutiny than the 300 medication-related deaths =

 

that occurred not only the same day as the crash, but also every day before=

 

and after for decades.

 

 

Of the 30 million individuals admitted to hospitals each year, approximatel=

y

10 percent or 3 million are admitted specifically because of adverse drug

reactions. Patricia Harris, past secretary of Health and Human Services,

stated that 6 million people in the U.S. are affected by adverse drug react=

ions

each year. The FDA's estimates are the same at 6 million per year. In one

large hospital, 25% of the deaths recorded came from adverse drug reactions=

..

Injury and disability are a much more common complication of prescription

drugs than death. Over a lifetime of drug taking, the average American has =

a

26% chance of being hospitalized from a drug injury. Long-term use of just =

 

one class of drugs--anti-inflammatory agents such as aspirin, Ibuprofen and=

 

Naprosyn--causes an estimated 70,000 hospitalizations every year. In fact, =

 

prescription drugs are ten times more likely to put you in the hospital tha=

n an

automobile accident. The incidence has remained stable over the last 30

years. These estimates do not include the millions of people who suffer

severe adverse reactions that do not require hospitalization but neverthele=

ss

cause major human suffering or permanent disability.

 

 

Deaths from medication reactions rarely look any different than natural

deaths. There's no visible wreckage to videotape, no crash sites to horrify=

 

and fascinate viewers. Medication deaths often occur quietly in hospitals, =

 

emergency rooms, and homes. How many decades did it take to recognize the

drunken driving problem; to bring the dangers of cigarettes to public

awareness; to mandate seatbelts in cars? Maybe with medication side effects=

 

it's the same--we'd rather not know. Nowhere else in professional lives are=

 

mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves. The result is that only one=

in

twenty side effects is reported to authorities. It might be different if a =

few bad

drugs caused the side-effect epidemic, but, the problem extends well beyond=

a

few. Instead, it involves hundreds of drugs including top-sellers like Viag=

ra,

Premarin, Prozac, Lipitor, Celebrex, and Motrin. Because the problem is so =

 

large and so many drugs are involved, blame is difficult to assess.

 

 

Premarin is perhaps the most prescribed drug ever; in 1999 alone, women

purchased more than 47 million prescriptions in the United States. Yet even=

in

2000, after Wyeth-Ayerst finally reduced its recommended starting dose for =

 

hot flashes to 0.625 mg, (down from 1.25 mg until 1999) this amount remains=

 

excessive for some women. Similarly, the recommended doses of Premarin

for preventing osteoporosis have been unnecessarily high for many women.

Estrogens like Premarin have been linked to increased rates of breast cance=

r-

-the higher the dose of estrogen, the greater the risk. The story is the sa=

me

with many drugs--not just obscure drugs, but many top-selling drugs. The

problem encompasses the entire field of medication therapy, as recognized

experts have attested. Prozac has been linked to an astounding 242 differen=

t

side effects, including 34 different medical problems in the genital and ur=

inary

tract alone. Over a ten-year period Prozac was associated with more

hospitalizations, deaths, or other serious adverse reactions reported to th=

e

FDA than any other drug in America. Two similar drugs for depression, Paxil=

 

and Zoloft, are of similar toxicity. Scientific record shows they have few =

 

equals in their capacity to produce unpleasant and sometimes dangerous

adverse effects. One of the most deadly poisons routinely available to the =

 

public can be found in any large supermarket among household goods. It is

closely related to a chemical called warfarin, and is used as rat poison. I=

t is

available in prescription form as DuPont's Coumadin. Each year it is used 3=

 

million times in office medical practice--more frequently than Valium or

Tagamet. It can cause gangrene, fatal internal hemorrhaging, hideous birth =

 

defects, and life-threatening allergic reactions.

 

 

There is no such thing as a safe drug. In a free market, where non-toxic

therapies can openly compete with toxic therapies, and information is not

suppressed, consumers will make informed choices. This is exactly what the =

 

pharmaceutical companies don't want. Dancing to their tune, the FDA

ferociously keeps off the market effective, nontoxic therapies that might

provide formidable competition for patented, and often toxic, pharmaceutica=

l

drugs. By keeping these therapies off the market, the FDA is not protecting=

 

the public from harm. It is protecting the pharmaceutical companies from

effective competition. With an average of 65% to 75% of FDA employees

working for drug companies upon their retirement, that's not surprising.

Lancet editor Richard Horton wrote, " The FDA is not only compromised

because it receives so much funding from industry but because it comes unde=

r

incredible Congressional pressure to be favorable to industry. That has led=

to

deaths. "

 

 

 

 

Television Programming

In all the publicity about fighting the war on drugs, and all the money spe=

nt on

special police " drug squads, " military intervention, on " drug summits, "

decreasing the supply and demand for drugs, etc., we hear no one address ho=

w

children learn to use drugs in the first place, nor has there been any effe=

ctive

remedial steps taken. More Americans are hooked on drugs from their

physicians, than from all the pushers on the street. Adults are misguided i=

n

their belief that young people begin using drugs because of peer pressure. =

 

Because our attention is being focused primarily on street drugs, we don " t =

 

notice the legal and accepted cause of drug addiction and dependency that i=

s

being ignored. The phrase " Just Say No " should apply to drugs dependency of=

 

all kinds, not only to illicit street drugs, but to prescription and over-t=

he-

counter drugs, caffeine and nicotine... Television commercials have helped =

to

make Americans the most drug-addicted people in the world. Drug companies

spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year trying to persuade American=

s

that the solution to every ailment from sniffles to sleeplessness can be fo=

und

in a pill. Many advertisements directed at mothers equate maternal love wit=

h

dispensing pills to children. When a child is continually given medicines

by " Dr. Mom " who tells them that " this is good for you " and " this will make=

 

you feel better " when they're not feeling well, while constantly being

bombarded with " plop-plop, fizz-fizz " on T.V., plus seeing that it's okay f=

or

Mom and Dad to take pills for everything, this sets the stage for using ill=

icit

street drugs...

 

 

One commercial for a multi-symptom cold medicine shows a young boy in

bed, surrounded by literally dozens of medications. He beams, " Whenever I

have a cold, my mother spoils me. Look at all these medicines! " Of course, =

he

points out, all he really needs is the one multi-symptom pill. But he fondl=

y

indulges his mother's foolishness because the purchase of all those medicin=

es

proves her love for him. Then his mother appears and says tenderly, " Got

everything you need, son? " It's clear she doesn't mean a back rub or extra =

 

pillows--just more drugs. When she leaves, the boy turns to the camera and =

 

says proudly, " She's terrific, isn't she? " There is much evidence that this=

 

equation of love with drugs has also contributed to the rising use of stree=

t

drugs. T.V. advertisers are teaching our children to use drugs. It seems th=

at

any child or emotionally immature adult subjected to the daily and incessan=

t

barrage of messages offering " fast, fast, fast " or " instant " relief from ev=

ery

care of life by simply swallowing pills would be tempted to try them, and, =

 

finding they do not live up to the glowing promises, would then resort to

stronger ones.

 

 

It is estimated that one billion prescriptions are written in the United St=

ates

every year. Today, hospital and drugstore sales of prescriptions amount to =

 

over $20 billion. Americans shell out up to $7.5 billion on nonprescription=

 

drugs with an estimated 40% of the U.S. population using an over-the-counte=

r

(OTC) product in any given 48 hours. This gives us a combined total

amounting to close to 600 pills per year for every man, woman and child. So=

 

many billions of pills are swallowed that the mind boggles. Dyazide and

Inderal are the two most commonly prescribed brand-name drugs in the U.S.

today. All drugs, after they leave the confines of the gut, are swept up by=

the

bloodstream which distributes them evenly throughout the circulatory system=

 

in about sixty seconds. The speed of dispersion is due to the action of the=

 

heart, which pumps about five quarts of blood each minute. Once they are in=

 

the body, drugs can wind up almost anywhere. Nicotine is often found in

breast milk. The active ingredient of marijuana, called THC, can be found i=

n

the liver, but also in the kidneys, spleen, lungs,and even in the testes.

Depending on its chemical makeup, a drug could be excreted in everything

from urine, feces, sweat, semen, and saliva, to exhaled breath.

 

 

For a drug to have its desired effect, though, it has to travel past the co=

nfines

of the capillaries, the microscopically thin blood vessels of the body and =

into

the tissues, for it is only at the capillaries that drugs are exchanged bet=

ween

the circulation and the rest of the cells of the body. For most drugs, that=

is

not really a problem. the cylindrical walls of the capillaries are only one=

-cell

thick and the cells are not tightly glued together. There are pores or spac=

es

between them. It is here, through these spaces, that drugs travel into the =

 

tissues. Drug molecules are smaller than the pores they have to travel

through. As a result, drugs are able to pass through the capillaries and in=

to

the tissues rather easily and quickly. The speed at which they do so depend=

s

on their concentration in the blood. The more concentrated a drug is in the=

 

bloodstream, the faster it will diffuse into the tissues of the body. In on=

e year,

the 50 most frequently prescribed medications account for more than 650

million bottles of medication, or almost three for every man, woman, and ch=

ild

in the United States. Among the 50 best sellers are 9 antibiotics, 8

antihypertensives, 6 painkillers, 5 hormones, and 5 for depression or anxie=

ty.

The list also includes drugs for ulcers, epilepsy, diabetes, heart disease,=

and

prostate problems. While a few--notably antibiotics and some painkillers--

are used for a short course of treatment, the large majority are intended t=

o be

taken for months, if not years on end. The U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration has flagged 7 of the top 50 drugs for their addiction and ab=

use

danger. They are subject to special government controls. They include

painkiller drugs containing Darvon or propoxyphene, codeine and other opium=

 

derivatives such as hydrocodone. The DEA drug list also includes the anxiet=

y

medication Xanax or its equivalent, alprazolam.

 

 

Fluorinated Drugs

Many medications are packing a potentially lethal hidden dose of fluoride. =

 

Over the past several years, numerous fluoride-containing medications have =

 

been pulled off the market for causing deaths and illness. Fluoride is high=

ly

toxic to the liver. In the liver all fluorides interfere with the metabolis=

m of

thyroid hormones, creating thyroid disorders and associated diseases, such =

 

as muscle diseases, heart disease, etc. Other effects can include a serious=

 

muscle disease that causes pain and weakness. Many psychoactive drugs are

fluorinated. The fluorine atom is attached to the active ingredients in man=

y

drugs in order to allow them to penetrate into the brain or other targeted =

 

organs more easily. Because the fluoride enhances the penetrating power of =

 

the active ingredient, less of the active ingredient needs to be made, and =

the

manufacturer can save money. But the side effects of all the fluoride-

containing medications is scarcely ever discussed as a general health issue=

..

 

 

It is now being revealed that siliconfluoride may have links to antisocial =

 

behavior in youth. Many psychoactive drugs are fluorinated. The fluorine

atom is attached to the active ingredients in many drugs in order to allow =

 

them to penetrate into the brain or other targeted organs more easily.

Because the fluoride enhances the penetrating power of the active ingredien=

t,

less of the active ingredient needs to be made, and the manufacturer can sa=

ve

money. But the side effects of all the fluoride-containing medications is

scarcely ever discussed as a general health issue. The primary ingredients =

of

most psychoactive drugs suppress enzyme production, and the fluorine ion is=

 

also an enzyme inhibitor. The one particular side effect common to almost a=

ll

fluorinated drugs, which is mentioned in the Physician's Desk Reference, is=

 

memory loss. These drugs, including Prozac (fluoxetene)--and Paxil--

antidepression drugs, contain three fluorine atoms in each molecule that

quickly kill the brain-issued enzymes that normally maintain mood stability=

..

 

 

Prozac and Paxil contain the fluoride containing Fluorophenyl compounds and=

 

are also known to cause liver disease. Organic fluoride compounds undergo

extensive transformation in the liver, and in many instances the resulting =

 

metabolites may have higher activity and/or greater toxicity than the origi=

nal

compound. Prozac has caused hepatitis and has also been shown to promote

tumors in the liver. Rophypnol (flunitrazepam, or " Roofies, " )--the date rap=

e

drug--is fluorinated Valium, which is about 20-30 times more potent than

Valium alone. Phen-Fen (Fenfluramine) a weight-loss drug, fluorinated

corticosteroids and fluorinated psychoactive drugs all contain fluoride. In=

 

2000, a U.S. district judge approved a $3.75 billion national settlement of=

 

health claims stemming from Fen-Phen. More than 9,000 lawsuits have been

filed against American Home Products, maker of Fenfluramine. People taking =

 

such drugs might exceed 5 mgs. in just one prescribed application.

 

 

We are essentially putting psychoactive drugs into the water supply. If you=

go

in for surgery, you'll usually be given a fluoride-based anesthetic because=

 

fluoride is virulent enough to throw you into an immediate coma. Sevofluran=

e,

one of many fluorinated agents used in anesthesia, such as florinated

Halothane, is thought to be responsible for renal failure. Hydrogen fluorid=

e is

the only toxic element in the nerve gas Sarin (1500 times more poisonous

than cyanide) used in the Japanese subway attack. On August 8th, 2001,

Baycol--a cholesterol-lowering drug taken by 700,000 Americans--was

pulled off the market. It had been linked to 31 U.S. deaths. Bayer AG, the =

 

maker of the drug, would not disclose the total number of deaths worldwide.=

 

Scientists have found that all fluoride compounds interfere with thyroid

hormones. Numerous congenital abnormalities have been reported due to first=

 

trimester exposure to Fluconsazole, a systemic anti-fungal agent. There hav=

e

been numerous fluorinated drugs removed from the market recently. Most

have been shown to cause serious adverse cardiac effects, probably due to

fluoride's adverse effects on thyroid hormone activity.

 

 

Once-popular medicines now withdrawn due to safety concerns:

 

* Cisapride ( " Propulsid " ) was withdrawn because it caused severe cardiac si=

de

effects (2000);

 

 

* Mibedrafil ( " Posicor " ) was withdrawn after it was shown that patients wit=

h

congestive heart failure showed a trend to higher mortality (1998);

 

 

* Flosequinan was withdrawn in 1993 after it was shown that the beneficial =

 

effects on the symptoms of heart failure did not last beyond the first 3 mo=

nths

of therapy. After the first 3 months of therapy, patients on the drug had a=

 

higher rate of hospitalization than patients taking a placebo;

 

 

* Astemizole (allergy drug) was withdrawn in 1999 because it also became

associated with serious life threatening cardiac adverse events;

 

 

* Fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine were withdrawn in 1997 due to serious

cardiac adverse health effects; only the fluorinated compound ( " Fen " -

fenfluramine) was withdrawn, while Phentermine ( " Phen " ) was not pulled. "

 

 

* Tolrestat (anti-diabetic) was withdrawn in 1997 after the appearance of

severe liver toxicity and deaths;

 

 

* In 1992 Abbott withdrew the antibiotic Temafloxacin ( " Omniflox " ). The dru=

g

had caused deaths, liver dysfunction, etc.

 

 

* Grepafloxacin was removed from the market in 1999 because of serious

cardiac events.

 

 

One needs to look at the product insert to see if the actual chemical compo=

und

is described. It is usually listed as " fluoro " –something, or as " F " in the =

 

chemical formula. The best way is to go to one of the sites on the Internet=

 

listing product monographs, such as www.rxlist.com and to look up the

product in question. However, the fluoride often is hidden in another chemi=

cal

additive: gelatin made from cow-bones, or among phosphates. In essence, the=

 

consumer, taking medications because of illness, has almost no way to check=

 

out whether or not their pills contain a chemical that could potentially ma=

ke

them even sicker–or kill them.

 

 

Cancer

Cancer is the second safety concern for widely used drugs because drug

therapy involves the body absorbing relatively large amounts of a powerful =

 

chemical. There might be trace amounts of a suspected carcinogen in the

pesticide residue on an apple, possibly a little more in the burnt material=

on a

barbecued beefsteak. That exposure is tiny, compared to swallowing several =

 

pills a day for months or years on end. Among the top 50 drugs, human

evidence of cancer risk is reported for 4 drugs, animal evidence implicates=

 

another 12 drugs, and an additional 2 cause cell mutations. Among the best-=

 

selling drugs, 19 were apparently not tested for cancer risk. Therefore, 18=

of

the top 50 drugs have measureable cancer risks. Among the popular drugs

with one of the above-noted cancer risks are Premarin, Mevacor, Dilantin,

and Prilosec.

 

 

Safety

When we remove from the list of safe drugs those with either addiction

potential or positive evidence of cancer risk, just 24 of the original top =

50 are

left. Next, we will eliminate drugs that are unusually toxic, which include=

s any

drug that has been linked to more than 50 different side effects. To meet t=

he

unusually toxic title, these many adverse effects must also occur so

frequently that at least 10% of the patients discontinued the drug during

testing. This standard immediately claims the three most popular

antidepressants--Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil. Each causes more than 200

different adverse effects and is discontinued by about 15% of patients.

 

 

A drug also qualifies as unusually toxic if it can create a potentially lif=

e-

threatening medical emergency with little or no warning. This includes all =

 

antibiotics that are based on penicillin. Another potentially life-threaten=

ing

emergency comes from two asthma drugs on the list--Proventil and Ventolin. =

 

Instead of relieving the symptoms of an asthma attack, these drugs can

unexpectedly producing life-threatening bronchial spasm. The third and last=

 

test for unusual toxicity is if a small overdose could occur because a

consumer forgets and takes an extra pill, or because some other factor or

illness reduced the body's capacity to process or eliminate the drug--leadi=

ng

to a medical emergency of life-threatening crisis. This includes the popula=

r

antihistamine Seldane; the most widely used heart drug, Lanoxin,and

Coumadin, the drug that prevents blood clots. With all the unusually toxic =

 

drugs removed from the shrinking list, our search for a safe drug has now

narrowed to just 14. Finally, safe drugs ought to be free of adverse effect=

s on

the heart. This standard eliminates all but 4 of the 14 remaining drugs. In=

fact,

cardiac adverse effects are so widespread that this test would have elimina=

ted

25 of the drugs all by itself. If we tally up the risks of the top 50, we d=

iscover

that 7 can cause addiction, 18 have cancer risks, 18 are unusually toxic, a=

nd

25 have cardiac risks. Addiction, cancer risk, unusual toxicity, and cardia=

c

effects are reported for most drugs.

 

 

NSAIDs

The consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

including aspirin in our society is greater than any other drug class. NSAI=

Ds

are used by at least 13 million Americans with arthritic conditions, leadin=

g to

16,500 NSAID-related deaths annually (similar to the number of deaths from =

 

AIDS). Over 27 million pounds of aspirin (a toxic poison) are consumed by

Americans each year. Aspirin is a drug that most Americans take without

thinking twice. It's an over the counter drug considered by almost everyone=

to

be completely safe. Aspirin can interact with more than forty other drugs. =

 

Over ten thousand cases of serious aspirin overdose occur in this country

every year--many of the victims are children. As little as 10 grams (about =

 

20 " extra-strength " tablets, or about 30 regular aspirin) have been fatal i=

n

adults, and it takes far less in a child. A major concern with NSAID drugs,=

 

though, relates to their well-established ability to induce gastrointestina=

l

injury in the forms of erosion, bleeding, ulceration and perforation. NSAID=

use

increases the relative risk of serious gastrointestinal events three-to-

fourfold, and higher for the elderly. 30-60% of chronic NSAID users develop=

 

gastro-duodenal erosions; 5-30% of chronic users develop ulcers. One-third =

 

of patients over age 60 with bleeding from peptic ulcers are on NSAIDs. Two=

-

thirds of patients over age 60 with GI perforations are on NSAIDs. Over

100,000 people are hospitalized annually in the U.S. for serious GI

complications from NSAID use. The mortality rate for patients hospitalized =

 

for upper GI bleeding from NSAIDs is 5-10%. Advanced age is a primary risk =

 

factor for adverse GI events from NSAID use, and the risk increases steadil=

y

with age. This " silent epidemic " appears without symptoms in up to 40% of

cases of NSAID-induced erosive gastritis. While 10-20% of NSAID users

have dyspepsia (indigestion), this is not a reliable indicator of mucosal i=

njury.

 

 

Damage to the gastric epithelium begins within minutes of taking an NSAID, =

 

and hemorrhages and erosions follow within hours. In most people the gastri=

c

mucosa adapt over time, but studies show that 60-100% of patients on

NSAIDs for 1 to 2 weeks develop submucosal hemorrhage, superficial

erosions, erythema (mucous membrane inflammation), or blood in the stool.

NSAID toxicity extends to the small intestine and bowel, as manifested in

silent ulcerations, colitis-like conditions, and aggravation of inflammator=

y

bowel disease. Doses of aspirin as low as 30 mg. suppress the production of=

 

protective prostaglandins in the gastric mucosa. In addition, aspirin's dir=

ect

contact with the gastrointestinal tract interferes with the hydrophobic " no=

n-

wettable " properties that protect the underlying epithelium from gastric ac=

id

and other toxins and increase the tissue's susceptibility to the corrosion =

of

gastric acid.

 

 

After aspirin, sleeping pills are the most widely used drugs in the U.S. At=

a

cost of more than $175 million, over 1 billion sleeping pills are swallowed=

 

every year, enough theoretically to put every man, woman and child in the

nation to sleep for 200 hours. Doctors have been far too casual in the way =

 

they hand out such prescriptions and not informing patients about proper us=

e.

In one survey, less than 20% of the doctors knew the basic action and reaso=

n

for prescribing one of the most commonly written prescriptions in the U.S.-=

-

Valium, popularized even more by ex-first lady, Betty Ford. In one year, ov=

er

60 million prescriptions were written for Valium .

 

 

One out of eight prescriptions filled--1.5 billion prescriptions per year--=

is

for a drug not considered effective by the government's own standards.

Doctors are prescribing drugs by the truckload, but for the most part, they=

 

are keeping their patients in the dark about adverse reactions. Pollster Lo=

uis

Harris conducted a survey for the FDA and discovered that " Only about one

out of four patients recalls having been told of side effects by the physic=

ian or

someone in his or her office. " Because of intimidation, only 2% to 4% ask

questions in the physician's office. Two million elderly Americans become i=

ll

or die each year because of reactions to drugs often prescribed unnecessari=

ly

and sometimes taken in deadly doses. Elderly are given mind-altering drugs =

 

and thousands have died after getting wrong dosages and others were used as=

 

guinea pigs in drug experiments. Doctors are ignorant of the extent of

medication-related deaths partly because autopsies are rarely performed on =

 

the elderly, leaving physicians to guess the cause. Health Information

Systems, Inc., studying side effects of drugs, chose the twenty most

prescribed drugs and ascertained that, from that selected twenty, there had=

 

been reported a minimum of 121 different adverse reactions. All of those

drugs had at least three serious, undesired effects with some of the twenty=

 

having up to 12 health-destroying reactions. The very worst were those used=

 

in the treatment of hypertension. Tegretol, used to relieve pain and contro=

l

seizures, had the greatest number of adverse reactions.

 

 

Psychiatric Drugs

There is a growing movement within psychiatry to do more medicating of

children in the preschool years, and Prozac is joining Ritalin as the " drug=

of

choice. " Prozac is now the most frequently prescribed psychiatric drug.

Physicians, mostly non-psychiatrists, are now writing a million prescriptio=

ns

a month for Prozac, which retails in most areas for approximately $63 for a=

 

one-month, one-a-day, supply of 20 mg. capsules. Other newer drugs in this =

 

class are Zoloft, Paxil, and Luvox. At the same time, psychiatrists are mor=

e

often saying that adult patients should remain on drugs for many years and =

 

often for a lifetime.

 

 

Increasingly, the elderly are being treated for depression with drugs and

shock treatment, despite their obviousneeds for a place of greater meaning =

in

our society. Psychiatry, not society, is becoming our guardian from the

cradle to the grave. Ritalin is a powerful brain stimulant with effects sim=

ilar

to cocaine and the amphetamines. However, in children it has a calming effe=

ct.

Given Ritalin, children sit more calmly and quietly in class. They have les=

s

spontaneity in speech and thought, but focus better on assigned tasks. On

short-term measures of attention and retention, they do better. Enthusiasts=

 

for drug treatment claim hyperactivity in children is a " biochemical

imbalance, " apparently corrected by Ritalin, but researchers cannot identif=

y

which chemicals are involved, or find abnormal levels in the afflicted chil=

dren.

The chemical imbalance theory has not been established by scientific

evidence. The manufacturer declares, " The mode of action in man is not

completely understood. Ritalin presumably activates the brainstem arousal

system and cortex. " Translated into plain English, the manufacturer appears=

 

to have concluded that Ritalin " presumably " affects the brain. A drug whose=

 

chemical effects are uncertain is being given to children with a condition =

that

cannot be precisely defined and is of unknown cause. Ritalin is being given=

to

almost 10% of school-age boys for short-term control of behavior--not to

reduce any identifiable hazard to their health.

 

 

The first concern about Ritalin is serious or irreversible side-effects. Th=

e

best documented problem is a form of brain damage called Tourette's

syndrome. It causes tics, twitching, and abnormal sounds or movement,

sometimes of a bizarre nature. The manufacturer of Ritalin

declares, " Sufficient data on the safety and efficacy of long-term use of

Ritalin are not yet available. " The Drug Enforcement Administration has

publicized its growing concerns about the outright abuse of this now

universally available drug to get high. It is astonishing that an uncritica=

l nation

has so enthusiastically embraced a drug that can cause cancer in animals,

addiction in adults, brain damage in children, and whose long-term safety h=

as

not been established. The dangers of biopsychiatry for the individual and

society cannot be exaggerated. Beyond causing physical side effects, drugs =

 

almost always blunt and confuse our emotional responses--our internal

signal system. For the child or young adult, this means delaying and

ultimately stunting the process of psychosocial growth and development

during the years when self and identity are being formed. Our mettle is for=

med

in the heat of human emotion and conflict, and drugs dampen and put out the=

 

fire. This expanding use of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs means that many=

 

of our most creative young people will never approach the fulfillment of th=

eir

creative potential. Instead of struggling through the painful process of

working out their personal relationship with themselves and others, they wi=

ll-

-like the proverbial square pegs--be forced into round holes. Their edges w=

ill

be shaved smooth in the process, and with it their uniqueness will be

sacrificed. For any age person, taking psychiatric drugs causes a more

emotionally shallow life. It has been said that the unexamined life is not =

worth

living.

 

 

Industry Domination

The drug companies dominate the entire process of medication therapy--from =

 

early research to ultimate usage--as few other industries control their

products today. Drug company research and development often serves

marketing strategies more than sound science or patients' safety. Drug

companies choose research study designs that are more likely to produce

favorable results rather than designs that might provide more accurate

results. Drug companies can conduct multiple studies on new drugs, and then=

 

select and publish the most favorable ones while suppressing the rest. Drug=

 

company studies can measure a drug's effectiveness in multiple ways, then

select and publish only the best results. Sometimes these favorable results=

 

have little to do with whether the drugs will help patients. Drug companies=

 

hire professional writers to prepare articles according to company guidelin=

es,

using favorable phrases and terms selected by the companies. Drug companies=

 

hire high-profile experts to place their names on drug company-generated

articles, although the experts have not participated in the studies and the=

ir

financial connections with the drug companies are not disclosed. Drug

companies underwrite 70% of all medication research today. This gives the

pharmaceutical industry tremendous power over the entire medication

research effort, including the threat of lawsuits or loss of future funding=

for

physicians wanting to publish unfavorable findings. More and more, drug

companies are requiring researchers to sign confidential agreements before =

 

receiving any funding, giving the companies the power to suppress findings =

 

they don't like. The pharmaceutical industry's ability to amass wealth, whi=

le

hospitals and medical centers struggle financially, has allowed the drug

companies to intrude into the arena of independent academic medicine.

Academic medical institutions are themselves growing increasingly beholden =

 

to industry.

 

 

Some academic institutions have entered into partnerships with drug

companies to set up research centers and teaching programs in which

students and faculty members essentially carry out industry research. When =

 

the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as =

 

they now are, the business goals of industry influence the mission of the

medical schools in multiple ways. The influences of the marketplace should =

 

not become woven into the fabric of academic medicine. For-profit businesse=

s

are pledged to increase the value of their investors' stock. Drastic reduct=

ions

in insurance and Medicare payments have placed great pressure on medical

institutions and research physicians to accept the money--and terms--of the=

 

drug companies. At the same time, the drug companies spend billions

targeting office physicians, as well as new interns and residents, with gif=

ts,

free meals, travel subsidies, and subsidized symposia, presenting the drug =

 

companies' spin on their medications.

 

 

Deep Pocket Diplopia

New reports on the large number of deaths attributable to a common pain

reliever have some health experts accusing the Food and Drug Administration=

 

(FDA) of engaging in a double standard when it comes to dietary supplements=

..

The FDA is now facing an over-the-counter product that every year kills at =

 

least 100 people and sends another 56,000 to emergency rooms?I

style= " mso-bidi-font-style: normal " >acetaminophen, the active ingredient in=

 

Tylenol and some other non-prescription and prescription drugs.

 

 

The FDA, the agency responsible for protecting the people are not advocatin=

g

a ban on Tylenol like a number of herbs and vitamins, but are merely seekin=

g

to " educate?the public about it.

 

 

In January, 2004, the FDA halted the sale of ephedra products. The ban on t=

he

herb is based on claims the dietary supplement was possibly related to two =

 

deaths over the last 10 years. An FDA-commissioned study, performed by the =

 

RAND Corporation, considered every recorded adverse reaction through

2002. However, researchers could only identify 20 cases of serious

symptoms among ephedra users where there was an attempt to rule out

alternative explanations.

 

 

The serious symptoms included two deaths, " four myocardial infarctions,

nine cerebrovascular accidents, one seizure and three psychiatric cases.?

However, even the FDA noted that these accounts " do not prove that ephedra =

 

caused the adverse event…Other unmeasured factors may have contributed, and=

 

such serious adverse events are likely to happen among the millions of user=

s

of ephedra anyway.?/STRONG>

 

 

Even those critics of ephedra who have accepted all reports of a death " l

inked?to the herb, believe there have been only 155 ephedra-related deaths.=

 

However, when theh fact that an estimated 12 to 17 million Americans have

taken somewhere around 3 billion doses annually is taken into consideration=

,

even that questionable number seems remarkably low.

 

 

Health experts are now wondering why ephedra was banned on the basis of

questionable evidence while Tylenol is allowed to continue unabated despite=

 

overwhelming evidence. When users of the 600 or so drugs that contain

acetaminophen follow directions, they are urged to read the small print lis=

ting

side effects?/FONT>the most prevalent of which is liver damage.

 

 

The contrasting attitude dealing with pharmaceuticals as opposed to dietary=

 

supplements is most clearly illustrated by the media's treatment of two

recent tragedies. The media went into a frenzy over reports that Baltimore =

 

Orioles' pitcher Steve Bechler died of heat stroke that had been widely

attributed to his use of ephedra. However, Bechler—though physically health=

y

—had a history of hypertension and liver abnormalities and had been on a di=

et.

The coroner's office said a combination of all these factors likely led to =

 

Bechler's death. However, the media laid the blame squarely on ephedra.

 

 

On the other hand, acetaminophen is one of the leading substances involved =

in

drug overdose, reports the Institute of Medical Education , a medical think=

 

tank established by a health insurance company. In 2001, there were more

than 29,000 exposures to acetaminophen reported to U.S. poison centers and =

 

63 deaths associated with acetaminophen overdose.

 

 

In 2002 the FDA's scientific advisors urged the agency to require that brig=

ht,

bold warnings be placed directly on the front labels of Tylenol warning of =

 

overdose. That advice was not implemented. When a 23-year-old Florida man

died due to unintentional overdose of Tylenol following a wrist injury, no =

 

headlines showed up across the nation.

 

 

Critics say that this double standard has nothing to do with Americans?heal=

th

and everything to do with economics. Surely those in the media can see what=

 

's going on.

 

 

Promotions

The drug industry spends more than $10 billion a year to promote drugs to

doctors and consumers alike. An army of drug salesmen daily plies doctors

with free samples, gifts, and snappy brochures touting drug benefits.

Newspapers and television news are filled with direct-to-consumer

advertising. National medical specialty meetings are important for the

continuing education of U.S. physicians.

 

 

The pharmaceutical industry recognizes the importance of these meetings and=

 

has devoted increasing amounts of financial support to help underwrite them=

;

in the process they set up exhibits, usually in a large hall near the meeti=

ng

rooms. At a recent Senate labor committee hearing on marketing and

promotion practices, it was revealed that the pharmaceutical industry spent=

 

more than $85 million in one year on various symposia, including those

sponsored at such meetings. An additional $24 million were spent on gifts

distributed to physicians, and $54 million were spent on various reminder

items designed to enhance the image of a pharmaceutical company and its

products. The bottom line of $163 million represents an increase of more th=

an

500% over the amount spent in ten years earlier. How safe is a system that =

 

can't even count the deaths and serious injuries, let alone operate effecti=

ve

programs to prevent them? How sane is a system that provides mind-altering =

 

drugs to millions for decades without first establishing the long-term safe=

ty

and benefits?

 

 

Beyond these direct influences, drug companies exert broad influence over t=

he

drug information received by doctors and consumers. The vast majority of

everything physicians and consumers read and know about medications comes

from the drug companies. Medication package inserts, drug advertising

toward physicians and consumers, and the information in the ubiquitous

Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) come directly from the drug companies.

Where do most doctors turn for medication and dosage information? To the

PDR, to drug company representatives who make the rounds of doctors'

offices, and to advertising in medical journals. Yet, the medication inform=

ation

offered by these drug company-supported sources is often biased,

incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate.