Guest guest Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 News content FOOD ALERT: 3 million chickens for sale in the USA contaminated by glue chemical DTP VACCINATION: Was it the unsuspected killer in the tragic Sally Clark case? CAN YOU `CATCH' CANCER? No, not even from a blood transfusion AVANDIA: So. . .how exactly did it get approved in the first place? BULLY BOYS: Doctors continue to push homeopathy out of the NHS ************************************************* FOOD ALERT: 3 million chickens for sale in the USA contaminated by glue chemical Around 3 million chickens that are currently being sold in stores and supermarkets across America have been contaminated by the chemical melamine. Melamine is used in industrial glues, fire retardants and fertilisers, and has so far killed a dozen cats and dogs that have eaten contaminated pet food. The chemical has entered the human food chain because scraps of the pet food were added to the animal feed given to several thousand pigs and millions of chickens. US health inspectors have traced the contamination back to Chinese suppliers, who added it to the pet food to make it appear their products contained more protein than they actually did. Only 345 hogs that ate the contaminated feedstuff went to market, but inspectors fear that up to 3 million chickens may currently be for sale in the shops. Inspectors stress that the contaminated meat poses a very low health risk to humans, but this will do little to assuage a public that believes there are too few controls on what is put into our food. The Food and Drug Administration has responded by appointing a special commissioner on food protection, a move that has been met by equal measures of scepticism and disinterest. Former FDA commissioner David Kessler points out that the FDA lacks teeth when it comes to food safety. " The fact is that the federal government has more authority to halt the distribution of dangerous toys than it has over unsafe food products, " he said. (Source: The Lancet, 2007; 369: 2575). DTP VACCINATION: Was it the unsuspected killer in the tragic Sally Clark case? Sally Clark was imprisoned for three and a half years after being found guilty of smothering to death her two children. She was released when new evidence came to light that suggested the two children had a common bacterial infection. It came too late for Mrs Clark, who sadly died last March at the age of 42, and many of her friends believed it was from a broken heart. But there is a more sinister twist, and one that suggests a cover-up about the safety of childhood vaccines. The original judge and jury that imprisoned Mrs Clark were never told that just five hours before his death, baby Harry had been given a DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) and Hib vaccine, and an oral polio vaccine. Witnesses at the time said that Harry was uncharacteristically sleepy from the time of the jabs until his death. The full facts were never released to the trial because the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, a witness for the prosecution, assured everyone that there was no possible connection. It's a cavalier view that flies in the face of the facts. The DTP vaccine can cause life-threatening reactions in susceptible babies, as was made clear in a paper prepared by Dr Gordon Stewart, emeritus professor of public health at the University of Glasgow. Dr Stewart's report has never been published. (Source: The Spectator, 19 May, 2007). DON'T WAIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL YOU THE REAL FACTS ABOUT VACCINATIONS… Everything you need to know about the proven health risks of all the childhood vaccines have been uncovered by WDDTY's team of researchers. We were pointing out the possible autism risks six years before it became international news – and we've discovered a whole lot more than that. We've bundled together all our research into `The Vaccination Pack', which includes our best-selling book, The Vaccination Bible, together with two special reports that every concerned parent – and grandparent – should read. To order your pack, please http://www.wddty.com/05594365903060172361/special-vaccination- pack.html CAN YOU `CATCH' CANCER? No, not even from a blood transfusion Can you `catch' cancer from the blood of someone who is precancerous? Implausible as it sounds, some doctors suspected that several cancers, and especially non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, could be transmitted via blood transfusion. But after analysing the progress of 12,012 individuals who had received blood from pre-cancerous donors, researchers discovered that it is just another medical myth. The recipients were no more likely to develop cancer than those who had a transfusion from healthy donors. The results were the same even when the researchers factored in the number of transfusions, the age and the gender of the recipient, and the type of cancer the donor had. As it stands, cancer victims – and survivors – are not allowed to give blood. Judging by what they've gone through, that's the last thing they should be thinking about anyway, even if they can't `give' it to someone else. (Source: The Lancet, 2007; 369: 1724-30). AVANDIA: So. . .how exactly did it get approved in the first place? The sudden safety alert from America's drugs regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), about the diabetes drug Avandia leaves two vital questions unanswered. The alert follows a study that has discovered that Avandia (rosiglitazone) increases the risk of heart attack by 45 per cent. Why, in the first place, did the drug get approved? It is part of a family of drugs known as thiazolidinediones, which were discredited in the earliest stages of their development. Another thiazolidinedione, muraglitazar, was withdrawn from the licensing process after early trials found it increased the chances of heart attack. On hearing the news, other drug manufacturers abandoned the development of their own thiazolidinedione. So how did GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia slip through the net? The second question concerns ongoing safety checking. It's well known that diabetics are much more prone to heart disease; it's also known that the thiazolidinediones increase that risk further. So why is it that in the eight years since approval, GSK has not undertaken a major study into Avandia's safety? In the event, it took two researchers from the Cleveland Clinic to review 42 small studies to come up with the alarming – but hardly surprising – conclusion about the drug's dangers. Avandia is one of the most popular of the drugs for treating type II diabetes. It's not known exactly how many prescriptions have been written for the drug, but GSK reveals that the drug's quarterly sales stand at £414m, or £1.65bn a year, so it's reasonable to assume that millions of tablets have been swallowed. This beggars a third and final question: just how many people have died because of Avandia, and all the time the doctor was blaming the diabetes? (Source: New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2007, published online as: 10.1056/NEJMoa072761). BULLY BOYS: Doctors continue to push homeopathy out of the NHS A small but vociferous group of doctors and scientists seems determined to remove homeopathy from the National Health Service. The group has written to all the primary health care trusts (PCTs), which govern medical provisions in their area, urging them to stop supplying access to homeopathy, which it describes as `crack-pot medicine'. A similar letter was sent last year by another group, which included a Nobel prize winner and six fellows of the Royal Society. This war of attrition seems to be working. Several PCTs were convinced by the arguments in the first letter and have stopped offering homeopathy, while the London Homeopathic Hospital says it may have to close because of a downturn in the numbers of NHS patients it's seeing. It can hardly be an issue of cost. One PCT spent a mere £60,000 on homeopathy a year before dropping it as an option, while two in London – Hammersmith and Fulham PCTs – between them spent £300,000 on homeopathy last year. These two have also been convinced by the letters, and are planning to remove homeopathy as an option. Aside from the dubious science the letters' signatories use, these bully-boy tactics go against the founding spirit of the NHS. In the original blueprint for a free health service, it states that homeopathy should be made available while there are people who want it, and there are doctors who can practise it. Both of these remain the case. Bullies and myopics, who refuse to consider that any medicine other than theirs could work, are removing consumer choice – and nobody is saying a word because, of course, they are doctors and scientists. (Source: The Guardian, 23 May 2007). ---- -------- Help us spread the word If you or a friend would like to see a FREE copy of our monthly health journal What Doctors Don't Tell You, please e-mail your, or their, full name and address to: info. Please forward this e-news on to anyone you feel may be interested; better yet, get them to themselves by clicking on the following link: http://www.wddty.com/Registration/register.aspx? ReturnUrl=/ Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.