Friday, September 28, 2012
Drones - Instruments Of State Terror
A new report jointly prepared by Stanford University's International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (SU) and New York University School of Law's Global Justice Clinic (NYU) is titled "Living Under Drones."
Part one discusses strikes on rescuers, funerals, and other civilian targets. Part two examines surveillance, the effects of drones overhead, and how their use creates fear and distrust. Part three considers the economic and impoverishment hardships families and communities sustain.
Overall SU/NYU examines key aspects of the CIA's drone policy. It exposes facts political Washington and media scoundrels suppress.
The dominant narrative claims drone strikes are precise and effective. They involve "targeted killings." Terrorists are assassinated with "minimal downsides or collateral impacts." As a result, America is much safer.
"This narrative is false." It's a bald-faced lie. Drone strikes are indiscriminate. Mostly noncombatant civilians are killed. The SU/NYU report followed nine months of intensive research.
They included two investigations in Pakistan. Over 130 interviews were conducted with victims, witnesses, and experts.
Thousands of pages of documentation and media reports were reviewed. This report "presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of" America's drone-strike policy.
Firsthand evidence confirms it. So-called benefits don't exist. Civilians sustain enormous harm. "Living Under Drones" exposes what official accounts won't say.
Reevaluating Washington's drone policy is urgently needed. Civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged. Significant evidence proves they're commonplace.
US officials claim "no" or "single digit" civilian casualties alone. They lie. Coverup is policy.
At the same time, "it's difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan."
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) provides best available aggregate public data. Last February, TBIJ published a report titled "Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals," saying:
Predator drones sanitize killing on the cheap. Currently about one-third of US warplanes are drones. One day perhaps they'll all be unmanned. Secrecy and accountability aren't addressed. Aggressive killing is official policy. Little about it gets reported.
Part one discusses strikes on rescuers, funerals, and other civilian targets. Part two examines surveillance, the effects of drones overhead, and how their use creates fear and distrust. Part three considers the economic and impoverishment hardships families and communities sustain.
Overall SU/NYU examines key aspects of the CIA's drone policy. It exposes facts political Washington and media scoundrels suppress.
The dominant narrative claims drone strikes are precise and effective. They involve "targeted killings." Terrorists are assassinated with "minimal downsides or collateral impacts." As a result, America is much safer.
"This narrative is false." It's a bald-faced lie. Drone strikes are indiscriminate. Mostly noncombatant civilians are killed. The SU/NYU report followed nine months of intensive research.
They included two investigations in Pakistan. Over 130 interviews were conducted with victims, witnesses, and experts.
Thousands of pages of documentation and media reports were reviewed. This report "presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of" America's drone-strike policy.
Firsthand evidence confirms it. So-called benefits don't exist. Civilians sustain enormous harm. "Living Under Drones" exposes what official accounts won't say.
Reevaluating Washington's drone policy is urgently needed. Civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged. Significant evidence proves they're commonplace.
US officials claim "no" or "single digit" civilian casualties alone. They lie. Coverup is policy.
At the same time, "it's difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan."
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) provides best available aggregate public data. Last February, TBIJ published a report titled "Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals," saying:
Predator drones sanitize killing on the cheap. Currently about one-third of US warplanes are drones. One day perhaps they'll all be unmanned. Secrecy and accountability aren't addressed. Aggressive killing is official policy. Little about it gets reported.
Confirmed Again: Statin Drugs Calcify The Coronary Arteries
A new study published in the journal Atherosclerosis found that statin use is associated with a 52% increased prevalence and extent of coronary artery plaques possessing calcium.[i] This study, published on August 24th, was preceded only three weeks earlier by one in the journal Diabetes Care, which found that coronary artery calcification "was significantly higher in more frequent statin users than in less frequent users," among patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced atherosclerosis.
Coronary artery disease is one of the primary risk factors for heart attack and cardiac mortality, and calcification marks the end-stage of atherosclerosis, the gradual plaque-driven narrowing of the arteries, as the lumen (opening of the artery) can no longer compensate for the obstructive build-up of plaque by expanding, once the calcification process has taken place.
Statins are increasingly recognized to have profound cardiotoxic properties, despite their widespread use in the prevention and treatment of heart disease.
Here are several ways in which this chemical class of cholesterol-lowering drugs adversely affects heart health:
Statin drugs deplete the heart muscle of coenzyme Q10, a fundamental cofactor for mitochondrial energy production (the heart muscle cells have one of the highest mitochondrial densities (approximately 5,000 mitochondria per muscle cell, versus 50 for skeletal muscle), and therefore are most susceptible to statin-induced coenzyme Q10 depletion, and subsequent mitochondrial dysfunction.
Statins increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, a condition whose hallmark pathology is high blood sugar-induced endothelial dysfunction, which is the beginning stage of cardiovascular disease, as it leads to damage in the arteries, only after which cholesterol-containing plaques form.
Statin drugs are muscle-damaging (myotoxic) and nerve-damaging (neurotoxic). The heart is a highly innervated muscle (densely packed with nerves), indicating that statin drugs are uniquely toxic to heart tissue.
Statin use is associated associated with an increased prevalence of microalbuminuria, a well-known marker of vascular dysfunction, affecting both cardiovascular and kidney disease risk.
Unfortunately, cardiotoxicity is only the tip of a massive iceberg of statin-induced poisoning. There are over 300 known adverse health effects of statin drugs in the biomedical literature. Click the link to view the research on statin drug poisoning.
Coronary artery disease is one of the primary risk factors for heart attack and cardiac mortality, and calcification marks the end-stage of atherosclerosis, the gradual plaque-driven narrowing of the arteries, as the lumen (opening of the artery) can no longer compensate for the obstructive build-up of plaque by expanding, once the calcification process has taken place.
Statins are increasingly recognized to have profound cardiotoxic properties, despite their widespread use in the prevention and treatment of heart disease.
Here are several ways in which this chemical class of cholesterol-lowering drugs adversely affects heart health:
Statin drugs deplete the heart muscle of coenzyme Q10, a fundamental cofactor for mitochondrial energy production (the heart muscle cells have one of the highest mitochondrial densities (approximately 5,000 mitochondria per muscle cell, versus 50 for skeletal muscle), and therefore are most susceptible to statin-induced coenzyme Q10 depletion, and subsequent mitochondrial dysfunction.
Statins increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, a condition whose hallmark pathology is high blood sugar-induced endothelial dysfunction, which is the beginning stage of cardiovascular disease, as it leads to damage in the arteries, only after which cholesterol-containing plaques form.
Statin drugs are muscle-damaging (myotoxic) and nerve-damaging (neurotoxic). The heart is a highly innervated muscle (densely packed with nerves), indicating that statin drugs are uniquely toxic to heart tissue.
Statin use is associated associated with an increased prevalence of microalbuminuria, a well-known marker of vascular dysfunction, affecting both cardiovascular and kidney disease risk.
Unfortunately, cardiotoxicity is only the tip of a massive iceberg of statin-induced poisoning. There are over 300 known adverse health effects of statin drugs in the biomedical literature. Click the link to view the research on statin drug poisoning.
Story and Sources Here
How the Flu Vaccine Causes Narcolepsy
Recent horrifying news has shown that influenza vaccinations in Sweden and Finland cause narcolepsy in children. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has done an in-depth and very cautious study of the outbreak and reports that it is, indeed, a result of the vaccine.
Two factors are significant in explaining why these two countries had such serious outbreaks of narcolepsy. One is that their vaccination coverage in children was exceptionally high—significantly higher, in fact, than for any other European country. The other is that the brand used was Pandemrix, made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
Narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder. It’s caused when the immune system turns on hypothalamus cells that excrete the hormone hypocretin, which helps control wakefulness and sleep.
Pandemrix contains the adjuvant AS03. The active ingredient in AS03 is squalene. It is known to cause autoimmune disorders when injected.
Squalene
Squalene sounds innocuous, and therein lies its danger. You can eat it with no harm resulting. You can slather it on your skin with good effect. It acts as an antioxidant and is a precursor to another critical substance, cholesterol. It may even help prevent cancer.
Squalene is found in many foods, including super-healthy olive and palm oils, amaranth, and shark liver oil. However, it is this friendliness that makes it so dangerous when injected.
That vaccines are injected is no accident. The act of injection is an injury, and the body responds to injuries rapidly, both to heal and to address foreign substances. The problem is that virtually anything injected can be seen as a foreign substance, including things that are normally found in the body.
The very fact that squalene is a normal body substance is the problem. By injecting it, the immune system sees it as an enemy and treats it as an antigen. Therefore, squalene can trigger a process that results in creating antibodies to it.
When the immune system creates antibodies to a substance that normally exists in the body, that substance will be attacked and destroyed. That is the definition of an autoimmune disease. Squalene is seen as the enemy, but this enemy exists throughout the body and is a critical component involved in many functions.
That the particular effect of narcolepsy in children would be the first autoimmune disorder noted as a result of its injection with the swine flu vaccine wasn’t predictable. However, the fact that there is an autoimmune disorder should not be a surprise. It was a virtual certainty. The only real question now is just how much more autoimmune disease will be seen.
A Macchiavellian Approach to Vaccines
In Gary Matsumoto’s book,Vaccine A, on the autoimmune diseases caused by injection of squalene with an experimental anthrax vaccine during the first Gulf War, a compelling tale is told of both the devastation wrought on unwitting soldiers and the Macchiavellian thinking that went into it.
The dangers of squalene are well known. In fact, they’ve been known for decades, ever since Freund’s adjuvant was developed.
An adjuvant’s purpose in a vaccine is to increase the activity of the immune system so that a strong enough response to a weak antigen can be developed, thus creating antibodies to the antigen. Freund’s adjuvant is highly effective at doing that. However, it’s also highly effective at causing antibodies to be created against itself. The problem is that the primary ingredient of Freund’s is an oil that’s also found in the human body. As a result, a large and terrible array of autoimmune disorders can result, including rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, allergic aspermatogenesis (blocking sperm formation, resulting in sterility), allergic neuritis, and allergic uveitis (resulting in blindness).
Therefore, it was quickly realized that Freund’s adjuvant had only one valid purpose: the creation of autoimmune disorders in animals so that they can be used in laboratory testing. This is, in fact, how autoimmune disorders are routinely created to study methods of treatment. However, the misery and suffering that animals undergo has also resulted in recognition that it’s unacceptable cruelty to put them through it—though it continues to happen.
The fact that it’s an oil like much of what’s found in the body is what makes Freund’s so devastating. Squalene is also an oil. In early testing, squalene was found, like Freund’s, to be exceptionally good at triggering an immune response. However, just as Freund’s also proved to trigger the development of antibodies to itself, so did squalene. In fact, it may even be more dangerous than Freund’s!
However, there is a significant problem in vaccine development, and this problem is overcome through the use of a strong adjuvant. Aluminum has been used for decades, but cannot compare with the action of squalene, or of Freund’s, for that matter. Until the last few years, all vaccinations were made from either killed bacteria or viruses, or from live attenuated (weakened) ones. Both approaches, though, are time consuming, expensive, and risky, making vaccines a less-than-effective method of making profits.
Recombinant DNA technology—genetic engineering—changed that picture dramatically. By using it, massive amounts of antigens could be created both quickly and cheaply. Instead of using entire viruses or bacteria as antigens, just bits of them could be used. The disadvantage, though, was that these vaccines tend to be ineffective. Therefore, they require strong adjuvants. But there aren’t many available. Freund’s is not allowed. Aluminum works, but not well enough for most of this technology. The only thing that works and is allowed is squalene.
Therefore, Big Pharma wants squalene. And that’s why it was used in the swine flu vaccines, GSK’s Pandemrix and Novatis’ Focetria. Pandemrix is the one that was used in Sweden and Finland. On top of that, those two countries had high rates of coverage among children—significantly more than other European nations.
Gulf War Syndrome
The result of squalene in Pandemrix is now known, an epidemic of the autoimmune disorder narcolepsy in children. However, we must ask whether this is merely the first round of autoimmune diseases that these children will be suffering. Autoimmune disorders can take time to manifest.
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, a new and devastating syndrome developed among huge numbers, possibly tens of thousands, of American and British soldiers, including those who deployed to Iraq and those who remained stateside. Many fell ill rapidly, but symptoms developed over years. As described in Vaccine A, these autoimmune disorders were devastating. Lupus erythematosus, which is a system-wide attack of connective tissues such as the skin, was a focus. In one case described by Matsumoto, the young man died because his own skin was seen as the enemy and attacked to the point that virtually none was left. Another young man’s cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls muscles was attacked by his autoimmune system, causing it to shrink drastically, with associated loss of his ability to function. These, though, were not the only problems or diagnoses, but they all had one thing in common: they were the result of the autoimmune system attacking squalene-like particles in the body.
Pandemrix contains squalene. We now know that it has caused an outbreak of narcolepsy in Sweden and Finland, the likes of which has never before been seen. Where will it end? What other disorders could develop? What will become of the children given this devasatingly poisonous substance?
We don’t know. The only thing that’s sure is that we will find out—just as we have learned with Gulf War Syndrome. Governments, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine will surely try to cover it up, just as they are still doing with Gulf War Syndrome. But the truth will eventually come out. The only questions are the exact form of autoimmune dysfunction and how many people’s lives will be devastated.
Two factors are significant in explaining why these two countries had such serious outbreaks of narcolepsy. One is that their vaccination coverage in children was exceptionally high—significantly higher, in fact, than for any other European country. The other is that the brand used was Pandemrix, made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
Narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder. It’s caused when the immune system turns on hypothalamus cells that excrete the hormone hypocretin, which helps control wakefulness and sleep.
Pandemrix contains the adjuvant AS03. The active ingredient in AS03 is squalene. It is known to cause autoimmune disorders when injected.
Squalene
Squalene sounds innocuous, and therein lies its danger. You can eat it with no harm resulting. You can slather it on your skin with good effect. It acts as an antioxidant and is a precursor to another critical substance, cholesterol. It may even help prevent cancer.
Squalene is found in many foods, including super-healthy olive and palm oils, amaranth, and shark liver oil. However, it is this friendliness that makes it so dangerous when injected.
That vaccines are injected is no accident. The act of injection is an injury, and the body responds to injuries rapidly, both to heal and to address foreign substances. The problem is that virtually anything injected can be seen as a foreign substance, including things that are normally found in the body.
The very fact that squalene is a normal body substance is the problem. By injecting it, the immune system sees it as an enemy and treats it as an antigen. Therefore, squalene can trigger a process that results in creating antibodies to it.
When the immune system creates antibodies to a substance that normally exists in the body, that substance will be attacked and destroyed. That is the definition of an autoimmune disease. Squalene is seen as the enemy, but this enemy exists throughout the body and is a critical component involved in many functions.
That the particular effect of narcolepsy in children would be the first autoimmune disorder noted as a result of its injection with the swine flu vaccine wasn’t predictable. However, the fact that there is an autoimmune disorder should not be a surprise. It was a virtual certainty. The only real question now is just how much more autoimmune disease will be seen.
A Macchiavellian Approach to Vaccines
In Gary Matsumoto’s book,Vaccine A, on the autoimmune diseases caused by injection of squalene with an experimental anthrax vaccine during the first Gulf War, a compelling tale is told of both the devastation wrought on unwitting soldiers and the Macchiavellian thinking that went into it.
The dangers of squalene are well known. In fact, they’ve been known for decades, ever since Freund’s adjuvant was developed.
An adjuvant’s purpose in a vaccine is to increase the activity of the immune system so that a strong enough response to a weak antigen can be developed, thus creating antibodies to the antigen. Freund’s adjuvant is highly effective at doing that. However, it’s also highly effective at causing antibodies to be created against itself. The problem is that the primary ingredient of Freund’s is an oil that’s also found in the human body. As a result, a large and terrible array of autoimmune disorders can result, including rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, allergic aspermatogenesis (blocking sperm formation, resulting in sterility), allergic neuritis, and allergic uveitis (resulting in blindness).
Therefore, it was quickly realized that Freund’s adjuvant had only one valid purpose: the creation of autoimmune disorders in animals so that they can be used in laboratory testing. This is, in fact, how autoimmune disorders are routinely created to study methods of treatment. However, the misery and suffering that animals undergo has also resulted in recognition that it’s unacceptable cruelty to put them through it—though it continues to happen.
The fact that it’s an oil like much of what’s found in the body is what makes Freund’s so devastating. Squalene is also an oil. In early testing, squalene was found, like Freund’s, to be exceptionally good at triggering an immune response. However, just as Freund’s also proved to trigger the development of antibodies to itself, so did squalene. In fact, it may even be more dangerous than Freund’s!
However, there is a significant problem in vaccine development, and this problem is overcome through the use of a strong adjuvant. Aluminum has been used for decades, but cannot compare with the action of squalene, or of Freund’s, for that matter. Until the last few years, all vaccinations were made from either killed bacteria or viruses, or from live attenuated (weakened) ones. Both approaches, though, are time consuming, expensive, and risky, making vaccines a less-than-effective method of making profits.
Recombinant DNA technology—genetic engineering—changed that picture dramatically. By using it, massive amounts of antigens could be created both quickly and cheaply. Instead of using entire viruses or bacteria as antigens, just bits of them could be used. The disadvantage, though, was that these vaccines tend to be ineffective. Therefore, they require strong adjuvants. But there aren’t many available. Freund’s is not allowed. Aluminum works, but not well enough for most of this technology. The only thing that works and is allowed is squalene.
Therefore, Big Pharma wants squalene. And that’s why it was used in the swine flu vaccines, GSK’s Pandemrix and Novatis’ Focetria. Pandemrix is the one that was used in Sweden and Finland. On top of that, those two countries had high rates of coverage among children—significantly more than other European nations.
Gulf War Syndrome
The result of squalene in Pandemrix is now known, an epidemic of the autoimmune disorder narcolepsy in children. However, we must ask whether this is merely the first round of autoimmune diseases that these children will be suffering. Autoimmune disorders can take time to manifest.
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, a new and devastating syndrome developed among huge numbers, possibly tens of thousands, of American and British soldiers, including those who deployed to Iraq and those who remained stateside. Many fell ill rapidly, but symptoms developed over years. As described in Vaccine A, these autoimmune disorders were devastating. Lupus erythematosus, which is a system-wide attack of connective tissues such as the skin, was a focus. In one case described by Matsumoto, the young man died because his own skin was seen as the enemy and attacked to the point that virtually none was left. Another young man’s cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls muscles was attacked by his autoimmune system, causing it to shrink drastically, with associated loss of his ability to function. These, though, were not the only problems or diagnoses, but they all had one thing in common: they were the result of the autoimmune system attacking squalene-like particles in the body.
Pandemrix contains squalene. We now know that it has caused an outbreak of narcolepsy in Sweden and Finland, the likes of which has never before been seen. Where will it end? What other disorders could develop? What will become of the children given this devasatingly poisonous substance?
We don’t know. The only thing that’s sure is that we will find out—just as we have learned with Gulf War Syndrome. Governments, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine will surely try to cover it up, just as they are still doing with Gulf War Syndrome. But the truth will eventually come out. The only questions are the exact form of autoimmune dysfunction and how many people’s lives will be devastated.
Story and Sources Here
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Chart De Jour Confirming US Dumbification
Confirming what was long feared, Americans are becoming evermore stupefied in the midst of the most advanced technological era in history.
30 Examples of Why America Is No Longer a Free Country
Here are just a selection of stories from scores of recent examples illustrating how America is ‘land of the Free, home of the brave’ no more.
- Parents across the country are being arrested for letting their children play outside. A stay at home mom in Texas was held in jail for 18 hours for allowing her children to ride on scooters while she was watching them from her home. A mother in Virginia was also harassed by social services and police for the egregious crime of allowing their children to play outside in another example of how the nanny state is running wild in America.
- The war on lemonade stands, traditionally viewed as a quaint example of America’s entrepreneurial spirit, has intensified in recent months with cops slapping parents with fines for letting their kids run “unlicensed” lemonade stands in three separate incidents over the last year alone. A map of restrictions on child-run concession stands illustrates how there have been dozens of examples of police interference across the country.
- After an 11-year battle with the state of Oregon, landowner Gary Harrington was found guilty under a 1925 law and sentenced to spend 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater in three “illegal reservoirs” despite the fact that they are on his property.
- Americans are being harassed by utility workers who are trespassing on private property and forcibly trying to install “smart” energy meters which spy on homeowners.
- Cities are passing ordinances that makes recycling compulsory from, with those who fail to comply under threat of fines up to $2500 dollars. In Cleveland, people who fail to recycle are flagged by the RFID chip embedded in their trash can, added to a database and then targeted by green cops who are dispatched to intimidate homeowners.
- The Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals has ruled that private contractors operating toll roads on behalf of the state have the power to detain and store records on motorists who pay by cash at toll booths – another example of how using cash is increasingly being treated as a suspicious activity.
- Earlier this year we reported on how the FBI was telling businesses to treat people who use cash to pay for a cup of coffee as potential terrorists.
- We also recently highlighted the case of Texas resident Julia Garcia, who was falsely imprisoned and harassed by Wal-Mart employees for attempting to buy goods with a $100 dollar bill the Wal-Mart cashiers erroneously claimed was fake.
- Earlier this year a Tennessee man was charged and jailed by police after using an old $50 bill to pay for goods at a Quik Mart store which turned out to be genuine.
- A DOJ-funded police training manual tells cops to treat people who have a political opinion that “represents a fairly popular point of view” or those who display a political bumper sticker supporting the bill of rights as terrorists.
- The Obama administration has successfully reinstated the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, which allow American citizens to be kidnapped and held without charge.
- The TSA has expanded its grope-down checkpoints beyond the airports to highways, political events and even school prom nights.
- The TSA is kicking Americans off flights for having a “bad attitude” and refusing to obey bizarre orders quickly enough.
- A teenager was recently visited by FBI special agents who grilled him over the content of a political You Tube video.
- Americans are being harassed and having their Fourth Amendment rights violated at so-called “border checkpoints” which are actually hundreds of miles within the border.
- The EPA is using spy drones to monitor farms as police use Predator drones to hunt down Americans for the crime of allowing cows to wander onto their land.
- Parents are being harassed and investigated by Child Protective Services and police for feeding his daughters organic food, refusing to make them drink fluoride-poisoned tap water and not having them injected with mercury-laden vaccines.
- Police arrested Napa Creek resident Amy Larson for writing “9/11 truth now” in chalk on a sidewalk.
- A Texas police officer shot 45-year-old double amputee Brian Claunch dead after he threatened officers with what turned out to be a ballpoint pen.
- While the government stockpiles ammo in the billions, Americans like Brian Loftus are being questioned by police for buying a couple of boxes of bullets at their local gun store.
- Americans like James Ian Tyson are being put on terror watchlists in response to traffic violations in order to prevent them from attending protests.
- Students in schools across the country are being indoctrinated to accept their treatment as prisoners on parole by being forced to wear RFID tracking chips.
- Police departments are attempting to secure approval to spy on Americans with drones as well as surveillance blimps that hover 400 feet above a city and report on “suspicious activity.”
- The Californian city of Lancaster will be the first to experience a “new era in law enforcement surveillance” with residents set to be watched by a permanent eye in the sky which will beam constant video footage back to police headquarters including crimes in progress as well as “scenes of mundane day-to-day life.”
- The National Security Agency is storing all electronic communications and analyzing them in real time in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Facebook is spying on people’s private conversations for “suspicious behavior” and reporting them to police.
- Former Marine Brandon Raub was kidnapped from his home by police, FBI and Secret Service agents and forcibly incarcerated in a psychiatric ward by authorities in Virginia in response to political Facebook posts.
- Veterans across the country are being declared “mentally defective” on a whim by the state and having their firearms seized.
- The federal government is officially backing Al-Qaeda fighters in Syria while declaring conservative Americans to be extremists and terrorists if they are “reverent of individual liberty.”
Land of the free, home of the brave?
Most of the these stories are just from the last few months alone.
America is no longer a free country.
The state has declared war on the American people.
Sources in above Statements
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GMO corn
By now, nearly everyone interested in healthy living is aware of the recent research linking Monsanto's GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. News of the research is spreading like wildfire across the 'net, and support for Proposition 37 -- which seeks to label GMOs in foods -- is growing by the day.
But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto's genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.
According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.
The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.
Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.
Frosted Flakes and Honey Graham Oh's
Honey Nut Chex and Kashi Heart to Heart
Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Kellogg's Corn Pops
Kix and Barbara's Bakery Puffins Peanut Butter
If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don't want to eat Monsanto's GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature's Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company.
Many "natural" brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, "Barbara's Bakery" cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto's Roundup.
You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children's cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known.
What we do know is that rats fed this very same Monsanto GM corn developed shockingly large cancer tumors.
The photo released by the French research team, showing large cancer tumors growing at a strongly heightened risk in rats fed a "lifetime" of Monsanto's GM corn, is shown below. According to that study, 70% of females died prematureand showed significant damage to their liver, kidneys and other organs.
Pretty crazy, huh?
Story and Sources Here
But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto's genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.
According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.
The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.
Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.
The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GM corn
Cocoa Puffs and Corn Chex Frosted Flakes and Honey Graham Oh's
Honey Nut Chex and Kashi Heart to Heart
Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Kellogg's Corn Pops
Kix and Barbara's Bakery Puffins Peanut Butter
Which cereals contain no GMOs? Nature's Path
There is only one brand of breakfast cereal I know of that's 100% non-GMO and 100% organic across their entire product line. That company is Nature's Path:If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don't want to eat Monsanto's GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature's Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company.Many "natural" brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, "Barbara's Bakery" cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto's Roundup.
You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children's cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known.
What we do know is that rats fed this very same Monsanto GM corn developed shockingly large cancer tumors.
The photo released by the French research team, showing large cancer tumors growing at a strongly heightened risk in rats fed a "lifetime" of Monsanto's GM corn, is shown below. According to that study, 70% of females died prematureand showed significant damage to their liver, kidneys and other organs.
Pretty crazy, huh?
Story and Sources Here
Antibiotics infused into processed meats promotes growth of deadly bacteria
Health conscious individuals know that processed meats in the form of sausage, bologna and pepperoni contain chemical preservatives called nitrites that have been shown to promote cancer growth, and avoid these manufactured foods entirely. Unfortunately, millions of unsuspecting children and adults eat an estimated 50 pounds of processed meats each year, significantly raising the risk of many forms of cancer and bacterial infection as well.
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark have published the result of a study in mBio, the journal of the American Society for Microbiology that explains how antibiotic residues in uncured pepperoni or salami meat are potent enough to weaken helpful bacteria that processors add to acidify the sausage and make it safe for consumption. Processed meat manufacturers commonly infuse meats such as sausage with lactic-acid producing bacteria to control fermentation and increase acid content of the meat.
In an effort to control bacteria that may have existed in the original raw meat, manufacturers also kill any beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogenic bacteria strains to proliferate. Consumption of these processed meats can significantly increase the risk of bacterial infection, especially in the young and elderly populations, as well as those individuals with compromised immune systems.
Consumption of processed meats greatly increases risk of bacterial infection
The study authors commented "We can have a situation where residual antibiotics in the meat can prevent or reduce fermentation by the lactic acid bacteria, but these concentrations do not effect survival or even multiplication of pathogens." Antibiotics used to promote growth or to treat disease in livestock can eventually end up in processed meats and ultimately pass to humans where they wreak metabolic havoc and promote the overgrowth of bacterial strains in the digestive tract.
To validate their theory, researchers added two commonly used antibiotics to meat inoculated with lactic-acid-producing bacteria and several strains of pathogens frequently encountered in the unprocessed meat. They followed the progress of the fermentation and tracked the survival of the pathogens. The scientists determined that several different starter cultures of lactic-acid-producing bacteria were sensitive to these antibiotics and did not acidify the sausage meat effectively. They noted the results could explain why people sometimes get sick from eating fermented sausage.
The study team concluded their results show antibiotics can potentially have a "paradoxical effect that would increase the risk of food borne illness: antibiotic residues reduce the effectiveness of bacteria that should make the sausages safe but don't affect the bacteria that can cause illness." This research provides sufficient evidence that processed meats must be avoided entirely to avoid significantly increased risk of digestive cancers and bacterial infection.
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark have published the result of a study in mBio, the journal of the American Society for Microbiology that explains how antibiotic residues in uncured pepperoni or salami meat are potent enough to weaken helpful bacteria that processors add to acidify the sausage and make it safe for consumption. Processed meat manufacturers commonly infuse meats such as sausage with lactic-acid producing bacteria to control fermentation and increase acid content of the meat.
In an effort to control bacteria that may have existed in the original raw meat, manufacturers also kill any beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogenic bacteria strains to proliferate. Consumption of these processed meats can significantly increase the risk of bacterial infection, especially in the young and elderly populations, as well as those individuals with compromised immune systems.
Consumption of processed meats greatly increases risk of bacterial infection
The study authors commented "We can have a situation where residual antibiotics in the meat can prevent or reduce fermentation by the lactic acid bacteria, but these concentrations do not effect survival or even multiplication of pathogens." Antibiotics used to promote growth or to treat disease in livestock can eventually end up in processed meats and ultimately pass to humans where they wreak metabolic havoc and promote the overgrowth of bacterial strains in the digestive tract.
To validate their theory, researchers added two commonly used antibiotics to meat inoculated with lactic-acid-producing bacteria and several strains of pathogens frequently encountered in the unprocessed meat. They followed the progress of the fermentation and tracked the survival of the pathogens. The scientists determined that several different starter cultures of lactic-acid-producing bacteria were sensitive to these antibiotics and did not acidify the sausage meat effectively. They noted the results could explain why people sometimes get sick from eating fermented sausage.
The study team concluded their results show antibiotics can potentially have a "paradoxical effect that would increase the risk of food borne illness: antibiotic residues reduce the effectiveness of bacteria that should make the sausages safe but don't affect the bacteria that can cause illness." This research provides sufficient evidence that processed meats must be avoided entirely to avoid significantly increased risk of digestive cancers and bacterial infection.
Story and Sources Here
QE4? The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Complaining That QE3 Is Not Enough
QE3 has barely even started and some folks on Wall Street are already clamoring for QE4. In fact, as you will read below, one equity strategist at Morgan Stanley says that he would not be "surprised" if the Federal Reserve announced another new round of money printing by the end of the year. But this is what tends to happen when a financial system starts becoming addicted to easy money. There is always a deep hunger for another "hit" of "currency meth". Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was probably hoping that QE3 would satisfy the wolves on Wall Street for a while. His promise to recklessly print 40 billion dollars a month and use it to buy mortgage-backed securities is being called "QEInfinity" by detractors. During QE3, nearly half a trillion dollars a year will be added to the financial system until the Fed decides that it is time to stop. This is so crazy that even former Federal Reserve officials are speaking out against it.
For example, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker says that QE3 is the "most extreme easing of monetary policy" that he could ever remember. But the big Wall Street banks are never going to be satisfied. If QE4 is announced, they will start calling for QE5. As I noted in a previous article, quantitative easing tends to pump up the prices of financial assets such as stocks and commodities, and that is very good for Wall Street bankers. So of course they want more quantitative easing. They always want bigger profits and bigger bonus checks at the end of the year.
But at this point the Federal Reserve has already "jumped the shark". If you don't know what "jumping the shark" means, you can find a definition on Wikipedia right here. Whatever shreds of credibility the Fed had left are being washed away by a flood of newly printed money.
Those running the Fed have essentially used up all of their bullets and the next great financial crisis has not even fully erupted yet.
So what is the Fed going to do if the stock market crashes and the credit market freezes up like we saw back in 2008?
For example, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker says that QE3 is the "most extreme easing of monetary policy" that he could ever remember. But the big Wall Street banks are never going to be satisfied. If QE4 is announced, they will start calling for QE5. As I noted in a previous article, quantitative easing tends to pump up the prices of financial assets such as stocks and commodities, and that is very good for Wall Street bankers. So of course they want more quantitative easing. They always want bigger profits and bigger bonus checks at the end of the year.
But at this point the Federal Reserve has already "jumped the shark". If you don't know what "jumping the shark" means, you can find a definition on Wikipedia right here. Whatever shreds of credibility the Fed had left are being washed away by a flood of newly printed money.
Those running the Fed have essentially used up all of their bullets and the next great financial crisis has not even fully erupted yet.
So what is the Fed going to do if the stock market crashes and the credit market freezes up like we saw back in 2008?
Story and Sources Here
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Flu vaccine shot recipients MORE likely to catch influenza
New information has emerged concerning the Great Swine Flu Hoax of 2009 and the mass vaccination hysteria that accompanied it. As it turns out, the seasonal influenza vaccine that was pushed on everyone as an added preventive measure against H1N1 appears to have been responsible for actually inducing more cases of H1N1 infection, this according to shocking new data procured by an influenza expert at Canada's B.C. Centre for Disease Control.
Dr. Danuta Skowronski from the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently observed as part of a comprehensive analysis that individuals who received an annual flu shot during the 2008-09 winter season had a disproportionately higher risk of developing H1N1 infection than individuals who were not vaccinated. Confirming earlier suspicions, Dr. Skowronski and her colleagues observed after recreating the phenomenon in a group of ferrets that the annual flu shot from that year was definitively linked to higher rates of H1N1 infection.
Presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in San Francisco, the study included evaluating 32 ferrets, half of who received the 2008-09 seasonal flu shot, and the other half of who received a placebo shot. The researchers did not know which ferrets received which vaccine until the end of the study.
Upon conclusion, all the ferrets ended up developing H1N1, but the ferrets from the vaccinated group were the first to get it. The vaccinated group also became much sicker than the unvaccinated group, and appears to have very likely infected the unvaccinated group. These findings match up with those of five other Canadian studies conducted in other provinces outside British Columbia where elevated rates of H1N1 infection were also observed among individuals who had received their annual flu shot.
"The findings are consistent with the increased risk that we saw in the human studies," said Dr. Skowronski to the Vancouver Sun.
What this all goes to show, of course, is that not only was the seasonal flu shot a failure at preventing H1N1, but it was also apparently a cause of H1N1 infection. If the seasonal flu shot had been properly tested, which it most definitely was not, it would have become apparent that the shot was not only ineffective at preventing H1N1, but also a definitive cause of H1N1 infection.
Dr. Danuta Skowronski from the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently observed as part of a comprehensive analysis that individuals who received an annual flu shot during the 2008-09 winter season had a disproportionately higher risk of developing H1N1 infection than individuals who were not vaccinated. Confirming earlier suspicions, Dr. Skowronski and her colleagues observed after recreating the phenomenon in a group of ferrets that the annual flu shot from that year was definitively linked to higher rates of H1N1 infection.
Presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in San Francisco, the study included evaluating 32 ferrets, half of who received the 2008-09 seasonal flu shot, and the other half of who received a placebo shot. The researchers did not know which ferrets received which vaccine until the end of the study.
Upon conclusion, all the ferrets ended up developing H1N1, but the ferrets from the vaccinated group were the first to get it. The vaccinated group also became much sicker than the unvaccinated group, and appears to have very likely infected the unvaccinated group. These findings match up with those of five other Canadian studies conducted in other provinces outside British Columbia where elevated rates of H1N1 infection were also observed among individuals who had received their annual flu shot.
"The findings are consistent with the increased risk that we saw in the human studies," said Dr. Skowronski to the Vancouver Sun.
What this all goes to show, of course, is that not only was the seasonal flu shot a failure at preventing H1N1, but it was also apparently a cause of H1N1 infection. If the seasonal flu shot had been properly tested, which it most definitely was not, it would have become apparent that the shot was not only ineffective at preventing H1N1, but also a definitive cause of H1N1 infection.
Story and Sources Here
Government Bullies
Bully. (bul-ly) Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm, intimidate or manipulate those who are weaker.
To me, the government bullies are the worst.
Under the threat of violence, they tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what size your toilet can be, what kind of plant you can grow and consume, and what kind of tax penalty you’ll have to pay for doing absolutely nothing. They read your emails, monitor your bank accounts, fly drones everywhere imaginable, drop bombs on people around the world and claim the power to indefinitely detain you without due process.
Even the worst bullies in all the other categories can’t get away with these kinds of things on such a grand scale.
These politicians are nothing more than the mafia – with tax revenue to pay their expenses – which actually makes them worse.
To me, the government bullies are the worst.
Under the threat of violence, they tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what size your toilet can be, what kind of plant you can grow and consume, and what kind of tax penalty you’ll have to pay for doing absolutely nothing. They read your emails, monitor your bank accounts, fly drones everywhere imaginable, drop bombs on people around the world and claim the power to indefinitely detain you without due process.
Even the worst bullies in all the other categories can’t get away with these kinds of things on such a grand scale.
These politicians are nothing more than the mafia – with tax revenue to pay their expenses – which actually makes them worse.
Story and Sources Here
Appeals Court Rules Drivers Can be Detained Indefinitely for Paying Tolls with Cash
In one of the more insane rulings recently – the appeals court decision to block the judge’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Obama administration’s indefinite detention notwithstanding – a federal appeals court ruled that motorists can, essentially, be held indefinitely at toll booths if they pay the toll with a large denomination bill.
The ruling (PDF courtesy of The Newspaper) came down in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, on September 19, 2012 in the case of Chandler v. FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation).
The chandler family, consisting of Joel Deborah and Robert Chandler, filed the lawsuit last year in which they argue that they were “effectively being held hostage by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the private contractor in charge of the state’s toll road, Faneuil, Inc.”
The FDOT policies at the time dictated that any driver who paid with a $50 bill, or, as The Newspaper reports, “occasionally even $5 bills,” was not to be given permission to proceed until the toll collector completed a so-called “Bill Detection Report.”
These reports include data about the driver’s vehicle and details obtained from their driver’s license as well.
Obviously these reports completely nullify the privacy protection offered by opting to pay with cash instead of installing a “SunPass” transponder on their vehicle which records their travels for later retrieval.
Indeed, detailed papers have been written in an effort to preserve driver privacy when using these toll collection technologies in order “to resolve the tension between the desire for sophisticated road pricing schemes and drivers’ interest in maintaining the privacy of their driving patterns.”
“Many of those who chose to pay cash did so to avoid the privacy implications of installing a SunPass transponder that recorded their driving habits,” reports The Newspaper.
It is hardly surprising to learn that these same drivers who opted to use cash for privacy reasons were unwilling to provide their personal information to the toll collector.
The drivers were then essentially forced to give the toll collector their private information because the barrier in the toll booth would not be raised until the driver complied with the Bill Detection Report.
The drivers would then be in quite a pickle since FDOT policy does not allow anyone to exit the vehicle. Similarly, backing up is illegal and usually a physical impossibility due to the presence of other vehicles.
The ruling (PDF courtesy of The Newspaper) came down in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, on September 19, 2012 in the case of Chandler v. FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation).
The chandler family, consisting of Joel Deborah and Robert Chandler, filed the lawsuit last year in which they argue that they were “effectively being held hostage by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the private contractor in charge of the state’s toll road, Faneuil, Inc.”
The FDOT policies at the time dictated that any driver who paid with a $50 bill, or, as The Newspaper reports, “occasionally even $5 bills,” was not to be given permission to proceed until the toll collector completed a so-called “Bill Detection Report.”
These reports include data about the driver’s vehicle and details obtained from their driver’s license as well.
Obviously these reports completely nullify the privacy protection offered by opting to pay with cash instead of installing a “SunPass” transponder on their vehicle which records their travels for later retrieval.
Indeed, detailed papers have been written in an effort to preserve driver privacy when using these toll collection technologies in order “to resolve the tension between the desire for sophisticated road pricing schemes and drivers’ interest in maintaining the privacy of their driving patterns.”
“Many of those who chose to pay cash did so to avoid the privacy implications of installing a SunPass transponder that recorded their driving habits,” reports The Newspaper.
It is hardly surprising to learn that these same drivers who opted to use cash for privacy reasons were unwilling to provide their personal information to the toll collector.
The drivers were then essentially forced to give the toll collector their private information because the barrier in the toll booth would not be raised until the driver complied with the Bill Detection Report.
The drivers would then be in quite a pickle since FDOT policy does not allow anyone to exit the vehicle. Similarly, backing up is illegal and usually a physical impossibility due to the presence of other vehicles.
Story and Sources Here
The drugs don't work: a modern medical scandal
Reboxetine is a drug I have prescribed. Other drugs had done nothing for my patient, so we wanted to try something new. I'd read the trial data before I wrote the prescription, and found only well-designed, fair tests, with overwhelmingly positive results. Reboxetine was better than a placebo, and as good as any other antidepressant in head-to-head comparisons. It's approved for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA), which governs all drugs in the UK. Millions of doses are prescribed every year, around the world. Reboxetine was clearly a safe and effective treatment. The patient and I discussed the evidence briefly, and agreed it was the right treatment to try next. I signed a prescription.
But we had both been misled. In October 2010, a group of researchers was finally able to bring together all the data that had ever been collected on reboxetine, both from trials that were published and from those that had never appeared in academic papers. When all this trial data was put together, it produced a shocking picture. Seven trials had been conducted comparing reboxetine against a placebo. Only one, conducted in 254 patients, had a neat, positive result, and that one was published in an academic journal, for doctors and researchers to read. But six more trials were conducted, in almost 10 times as many patients. All of them showed that reboxetine was no better than a dummy sugar pill. None of these trials was published. I had no idea they existed.
It got worse. The trials comparing reboxetine against other drugs showed exactly the same picture: three small studies, 507 patients in total, showed that reboxetine was just as good as any other drug. They were all published. But 1,657 patients' worth of data was left unpublished, and this unpublished data showed that patients on reboxetine did worse than those on other drugs. If all this wasn't bad enough, there was also the side-effects data. The drug looked fine in the trials that appeared in the academic literature; but when we saw the unpublished studies, it turned out that patients were more likely to have side-effects, more likely to drop out of taking the drug and more likely to withdraw from the trial because of side-effects, if they were taking reboxetine rather than one of its competitors.
I did everything a doctor is supposed to do. I read all the papers, I critically appraised them, I understood them, I discussed them with the patient and we made a decision together, based on the evidence. In the published data, reboxetine was a safe and effective drug. In reality, it was no better than a sugar pill and, worse, it does more harm than good. As a doctor, I did something that, on the balance of all the evidence, harmed my patient, simply because unflattering data was left unpublished.
Nobody broke any law in that situation, reboxetine is still on the market and the system that allowed all this to happen is still in play, for all drugs, in all countries in the world. Negative data goes missing, for all treatments, in all areas of science. The regulators and professional bodies we would reasonably expect to stamp out such practices have failed us. These problems have been protected from public scrutiny because they're too complex to capture in a soundbite. This is why they've gone unfixed by politicians, at least to some extent; but it's also why it takes detail to explain. The people you should have been able to trust to fix these problems have failed you, and because you have to understand a problem properly in order to fix it, there are some things you need to know.
Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion.
But we had both been misled. In October 2010, a group of researchers was finally able to bring together all the data that had ever been collected on reboxetine, both from trials that were published and from those that had never appeared in academic papers. When all this trial data was put together, it produced a shocking picture. Seven trials had been conducted comparing reboxetine against a placebo. Only one, conducted in 254 patients, had a neat, positive result, and that one was published in an academic journal, for doctors and researchers to read. But six more trials were conducted, in almost 10 times as many patients. All of them showed that reboxetine was no better than a dummy sugar pill. None of these trials was published. I had no idea they existed.
It got worse. The trials comparing reboxetine against other drugs showed exactly the same picture: three small studies, 507 patients in total, showed that reboxetine was just as good as any other drug. They were all published. But 1,657 patients' worth of data was left unpublished, and this unpublished data showed that patients on reboxetine did worse than those on other drugs. If all this wasn't bad enough, there was also the side-effects data. The drug looked fine in the trials that appeared in the academic literature; but when we saw the unpublished studies, it turned out that patients were more likely to have side-effects, more likely to drop out of taking the drug and more likely to withdraw from the trial because of side-effects, if they were taking reboxetine rather than one of its competitors.
I did everything a doctor is supposed to do. I read all the papers, I critically appraised them, I understood them, I discussed them with the patient and we made a decision together, based on the evidence. In the published data, reboxetine was a safe and effective drug. In reality, it was no better than a sugar pill and, worse, it does more harm than good. As a doctor, I did something that, on the balance of all the evidence, harmed my patient, simply because unflattering data was left unpublished.
Nobody broke any law in that situation, reboxetine is still on the market and the system that allowed all this to happen is still in play, for all drugs, in all countries in the world. Negative data goes missing, for all treatments, in all areas of science. The regulators and professional bodies we would reasonably expect to stamp out such practices have failed us. These problems have been protected from public scrutiny because they're too complex to capture in a soundbite. This is why they've gone unfixed by politicians, at least to some extent; but it's also why it takes detail to explain. The people you should have been able to trust to fix these problems have failed you, and because you have to understand a problem properly in order to fix it, there are some things you need to know.
Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion.
Story and Sources Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)