cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Pharmageddon
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:38 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/...n-us-adult-prescription-drug-use/
Study: Alarming Increase in US Adult Prescription Drug Use
12/1/15

We Take Too Many Prescription Drugs

by Dr. Brownstein
Holistic Medicine

We take too many prescription drugs.  A study in JAMA(2015:314(17):1818-31. Nov. 3, 2015) was titled, “Trends in prescription drug use among adults in the U.S. from 1999-2012.”  The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which included 37,959 adults.  The authors found an increase in overall use of prescription drugs among US adults between 1999 and 2012.

In 1999, 51% of U.S. adults reported using any prescription drugs and 59% reporting use in 2012.  That  is a 16% increase.  The prevalence of polypharmacy (>5 prescription drugs) increased from 9.2% in 1999 to 15% in 2012—a 64% increase.  The prevalence of drug use increased in 11 drug classes included cholesterol-lowering agents, antidepressants, and prescription-proton pump inhibitors.

Comment:  There are two major reasons we are experiencing an increase in prescription drug use.  The first is direct-to-consumer advertising.  These are the drug ads we all see on television and in print.  We are only one of two countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising.  Studies have shown that the marketing of drugs to consumers results in more prescriptions and greater profits for Big Pharma.  Direct-to-consumer advertising should be stopped.

The second reason we are seeing a marked increase in prescribing patterns is due to how doctors are educated.  In medical school, when evaluating a patient, I was trained to make a diagnosis and prescribe a drug (or drugs) to treat that diagnosis.  I was taught that nearly every complaint could be managed with a drug.  That would be fine if the drug treated the underlying cause of the illness.  However, the opposite is true:  Most drugs—over 95% (my estimate)–do not treat the underlying cause of an illness.  Nearly all prescription drugs treat the symptoms of a disease.

The most upsetting part of this study was the polypharmacy aspect.  The researchers reported that 15% of Americans use at least five prescription drugs.  Folks, this is a disaster.   Where are the studies that show it is safe to take five or more prescription medications at one time?  There aren’t any.

Perhaps the increased use in prescription medications resulted in better health outcomes.  If you believe that, I may have some swampland in Florida for you!  In every health indicator the World Health Organization tracks we finish last or near last among every Western country.  We don’t live as long as other Western people and we have more chronic illness.   Things are getting worse for us, not better.  And, we spend nearly 20% of our GNP on health care–over two-fold higher than any other Western country.

Clearly taking more drugs is not the answer.

What is the answer?  The answer is to educate yourself before taking a prescription medication.  Ultimately, you are responsible for every drug you put in your body.   The patients that get the best results are the patients who take an active role in their health care decisions.  You should study how the drug works and see if there are natural alternatives available to you.   I feel that it is best to work with a holistic health care practitioner who is knowledgeable about drug and non-drug therapies.

I wrote my book, Drugs That Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do, to educate the reader about the problems with the most commonly prescribed prescription medications and what natural therapies may be used instead.  The classes of medications that I cover in this book include:

Antacid Drugs (Proton Pump Inhibitors)
Antidepressant Drugs
Anti-inflammatory Drugs
Cholesterol-lowering Drugs
Diabetes Drugs
Osteoporotic drugs
Synthetic Hormones
If you are taking too many drugs, don’t allow yourself to feel overwhelmed.  Start to educate yourself about the drugs and see if they are right for you.  Most of all, ask questions about any drug therapy you are prescribed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CJ
Site Admin


Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32226



PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big Pharma's Dirty Secret Finally Goes Mainstream
Drug firms have to stop paying doctors
Drug industry critics celebrated last month when Pro Publica announced a new searchable database called "Dollars for Docs."

No longer will worried patients have to rely on reporters to expose doctors on the payroll of the drug industry. Now patients can do it themselves. With a few simple keystrokes, anyone with a computer can search the "Dollars for Docs" database to see how much money their doctor is getting from pharma.

For decades pharmaceutical companies have given doctors gifts and money as ways of getting them to prescribe their drugs. During the flush 1990s, companies began ramping up these gifts dramatically -- entertaining doctors at expensive restaurants, sending them to conferences in exotic locations, even writing checks disguised as "unrestricted educational grants."

When PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry trade group, began cracking down on these gifts in 2002 in response to public criticism, the influence game began to take another shape. Today, pharmaceutical companies influence doctors by inviting them to be paid speakers or consultants -- or as the companies call them, "thought leaders."

The amount of money paid to a thought leader can be considerable. For example, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, the former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Emory University, earned $2.8 million as a speaker and consultant for drug companies from 2000 to 2007. Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard University earned $1.6 million during the same period, and failed to disclose most of it to Harvard officials.
Drug companies corrupting physicians?

  * Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
  * ProPublica
  * Health Care Issues
  * Emory University
  * Prescription Drugs

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant," the pharma critics say, arguing that everyone has a right to know if a drug company is paying a doctor. For once, everyone seems to agree. Doctors, legislators, medical schools, even pharmaceutical industry executives are lining up behind "transparency" and "disclosure" as the preferred solution for conflicts of interest. In 2013, a national sunshine law will require all drug companies to report all their payments to physicians.

There is just one problem. Here in Minnesota, we have had a sunshine law on the books since 1993, and it hasn't exactly been the win-win solution that everybody assumes. In fact, Minnesota has emerged as a national hot spot for conflict-of-interest scandals, and it is not just because the scandals are easier to dig up. Disclosure may actually make the problem worse.

First, while accepting drug industry money might seem shameful to outsiders, within the world of academic medicine it is often just the opposite. Paid consulting for the drug industry is a mark of status. "You're thinking, you're in with the big guys now," one physician told me for my book, "White Coat, Black Hat." "You're in with the senior figures in the field."

Money is not the only incentive here. The drug industry can transform doctors into academic stars. Drug companies may offer physicians authorship on journal articles, make them investigators on clinical trials, promote them in the media and fly them around the country to give lectures and conference presentations.

"At meetings they get big fancy badges, like generals with their medals," a medical writer told me. Asking these doctors to disclose their corporate perks and payments is like asking a decorated officer to display his honors and awards.

Second, sunshine laws may actually encourage doctors to enter into financial relationships with the drug industry by revealing how commonplace these relationships are. Psychologists call this the "principle of social proof." When we're unsure of what to do in ambiguous situations, we look around to see what other people are doing.

This is why theaters plant employees in the audience to laugh and clap; it is also why coffee shop barristas add large bills to the tip jars on the counter. If people believe that others are doing something, they are more likely to do it themselves. For this reason, disclosure requirements may backfire. Once doctors see how many other doctors are taking drug company money, they may simply assume it is the accepted practice.

Third, many people wrongly assume that disclosure is a remedy for the bias that money can produce. They believe that once we know how much money a doctor is getting from pharma, we can simply make up our own minds about whether that doctor is giving us biased advice. But in fact, research produced by a team of behavioral economists led by Daylian Cain at Yale University suggests just the opposite: Disclosure actually worsens the problem of bias. This appears to happen in a couple of ways.

First, when people listen to experts who disclose their payments, they are -- paradoxically -- more likely to believe what the experts say. (Perhaps they think, "He has been open with me, so he must be trustworthy.")

Second, according to the research by Cain and his colleagues, experts who disclose their payments appear to be more likely to give biased advice than those who keep them secret. As they write, "Disclosure leads advisers to feel morally licensed and strategically encouraged to exaggerate their advice even further." (It is as if the expert thinks, "Well, I've revealed my biases, so all bets are off now.") The disturbing upshot is that disclosure leads to more biased advice, and as Cain and his colleagues write, can "hurt exactly the people it is intended to protect."

Does all this mean we should abandon sunshine laws and "Dollars for Doc" databases? No, not exactly.

Disclosure serves a valuable purpose, especially for investigative reporters and attorneys. But the real problem of pharmaceutical industry gifts and payment to doctors is not secrecy, but influence. Doctors who take money or gifts from a pharmaceutical company are more likely to prescribe that company's drugs, write favorable journal articles about the drugs, give lectures recommending the drugs and suggest adding the drugs to a hospital formulary. That influence does not disappear when the payments are disclosed. To fix that problem, the payments must be eliminated.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/1...liott.doctors.drug.pay/index.html

* BA, moved here from an isolated thread
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CJ
Site Admin


Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32226



PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feds fund new lab for drug companies
The feds are setting up an expensive new taxpayer-funded facility that will develop and research new drugs — but it won’t be for your benefit.
No, this one’s a gift for Big Pharma, more welfare for some of the world’s most profitable companies.

The billion-dollar new facility, to be called the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, will do all the early research — including the identification of chemicals that could turn into treatments, animal tests to ensure they’re safe, and even human clinical trials to prove they’re effective (as safe and effective as drugs usually are, anyway).

Put it all together, and that’s the most difficult and expensive part of the drug-development process… all being done on your dime, even as your taxes rise to obscene new levels.

And once that promising new treatment makes it through those early tests and trials, the feds plan to giftwrap it, put a bow on it, and deliver it right to the front door of your favorite drug company.

It’s a billion dollar present — out of your pocket and into theirs, plus they get to keep the patent and the profits.

And I’ll bet they won’t even send you a thank-you card.

The feds say the new facility is necessary because drug makers have been too slow to develop new treatments, especially in the field of mental health.

But get this: Even some Big Pharma insiders think this plan is totally bonkers.

Dr. William Potter, former vice president of translational neuroscience at Merck, says we still don’t even know what causes many mental health problems — and that makes it impossible to find new treatments.

“We still don’t even understand how lithium works,” Dr. Potter told the New York Times. “So how do people think we can find drugs systematically for mental illness?”

I’m guessing his former employer wasn’t too happy to hear him say that — but since Merck enjoyed nearly $13 billion in profits (just profits!) in 2009 alone, somehow I don’t think they really need your billion dollars anyway.
But you can bet the company’s greedy little hand will be out just the same.
http://douglassreport.com/2011/02/14/feds-fund-new-lab

* BA, moved here from an isolated thread

Twisted Evil   IGNORE EMBEDDED ADS!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bin...verweight-control-185518308.html#
7/4/16
America's hidden epidemic: food addiction

Katie Couric hosts a panel on food addiction with tennis champion Monica Seles, interventionist Brad Lamm and Yahoo Finance Markets Correspondent Nicole Sinclair


You may have heard the word "bingeing" used casually. People binge on food, alcohol, or even a series on Netflix (NFLX). But Binge Eating Disorder, or B.E.D., is the most common eating disorder in the US. It impacts almost 3 million Americans, making it more common than anorexia and bulimia combined.

And it may be vastly underreported.

B.E.D. was only recognized as an official disorder in 2013, which is when it was added to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

For years, eating disorders were classified into one of three groups—anorexia, bulimia, and “eating disorder not otherwise specified,” making it difficult for individuals with B.E.D. to seek treatment covered by insurance.

B.E.D. includes bingeing on average at least once a week for three months and feeling that one’s eating is out of control during a binge. Individuals with B.E.D. don’t routinely try to “undo” their excessive eating with extreme actions like throwing up or over-exercising.

While the exact cause of B.E.D. is unknown, certain theories suggest that adults with the disease may have differences in brain chemistry that could reduce activity in impulse control-related parts of the brain, increasing the “wanting”of a particular food. There is evidence that family history and certain life experiences may also play a role.


The food industry—including names like Mondelez (MDLZ), Coca-Cola (KO), and General Mills (GIS)—has come under fire for the role it plays in making food more addictive as well, including investing in recipes that keep consumers wanting more.

On Thursday, Philadelphia passed a sugar tax. Several studies have related sugar addiction to more commonly-discussed addictive substances, including cocaine. But analysts have included that sugar taxes wouldn’t impact the overall growth of the sugar industry, especially from developing regions with growing middle classes, like Brazil and China.

B.E.D. has also received more focus in recent years, especially as one-third of Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Global News Anchor Katie Couric hosted a panel on B.E.D. to discuss some of the most important aspects of the disease.

Monica Seles became the youngest number 1 tennis player in the world at age 17 and won 9 Grand Slam championships throughout her career, yet she struggled with binge eating disorder over the course of her career. She’s been outspoken about her struggles with binge eating disorder throughout her successful tennis career and joined Couric to discuss her journey.

ABC News Correspondent Mara Schiavocampo also shared her story on her struggle with B.E.D. before losing 90 pounds.

Brad Lamm, an interventionist who founded one of the few treatment clinics for the disorder, Breathe Life Healing Centers, discussed the scope of the disease and treatment remedies.

And I discussed how the industry may have contributed to the problem and the role insurance companies are playing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-massive-attack-on-supplements/
FDA: Massive Attack on Supplements
8/15/16

The long-awaited revision of FDA guidance rules for new supplements is finally here. It is very bad news. Highest-level Action Alert!

We normally publish our newsletter on Tuesday, but are sending out this issue today because of its urgency.

What we are dealing with here is whether the supplement industry is allowed to innovate and create new supplements. The FDA, working as usual on behalf of the drug industry, says no. We need your help to stop this right now. It will take a huge effort on all of our parts and we need to start immediately.

Over the last few years, one of the biggest issues facing the supplement industry has been the confusion over how to comply with the new dietary ingredient (NDI) provisions contained in the landmark Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the main law governing supplements. For the layman, “new dietary ingredient” is usually just government jargon for “new supplement.”

Under DSHEA, any dietary supplement introduced to the market in the US after 1994 is considered “new” (an NDI) and the manufacturer must notify the FDA at least seventy-five days in advance of marketing the product.

In 2011, the FDA released a draft guidance setting forth the agency’s thinking on how companies should comply with DSHEA’s NDI requirements: how and when a NDI notification should be submitted, what information should be included, what is or is not considered an NDI, etc.

The 2011 draft guidance was a massive broadside aimed at crippling—if not eliminating—the supplement industry. An economic analysis at the time by an Emory University professor estimated that the FDA’s outrageous interpretation of the DSHEA-mandated NDI notification language would have meant:

   the elimination of tens of thousands of supplements from the market;
   an industry-wide cost of between $2 billion and $165 billion in animal and human product safety studies to comply with the FDA’s NDI notification protocols; and
   the loss of between 55,270 and 104,475 jobs in the supplement industry.

ANH-USA and others submitted detailed comments to the FDA concerning its deeply flawed guidance document, and ANH-USA members flooded the agency with comments. After a major backlash of 146,000 pages of comments, Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) stepped in and said the FDA had reversed the intent of DSHEA, which was meant to expand, not restrict, consumer access to supplements.

ANH-USA and our partners were then able to persuade Congress to add language to an appropriations bill urging the FDA to go back to the drawing board, and the agency eventually agreed. We have been waiting for the agency’s updated draft ever since.

We need to keep in mind some history about this and in particular why DSHEA was passed in the first place. In 1992, the FDA published its Task Force Report on Dietary Supplements. It included the statement that dietary supplements represented a “disincentive for patented drug research.”

This report, plus the news that the clinic of Dr. Jonathan Wright had been raided at gunpoint (later referred to as “The Great B Vitamin Bust”), sent shockwaves through every integrative doctor’s office and every health food store in America.

News of this raid turned out to be the shot heard ’round the world for health freedom. Everybody got organized and started to fight back.

By 1994, over two million letters went to Congress, which led to the passage of DSHEA. Congress for the first time began to have an inkling that diet mattered greatly for health and that dietary supplements could make a great deal of difference in our diet. When President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, he stated that it represented “common sense.”

The draft of regulations governing new dietary supplements under DSHEA, arriving twenty-two years after the passage of the legislation, and further delayed after the disastrous first draft in 2011, was finally published last Friday. It is a little better in some respects, but the biggest problems remain. It represents a dire threat to the supplement industry and, by extension, consumer access to supplements.

First, the improvements. In the original guidance, the FDA had said that all dietary ingredients contained in supplements sold before 1994, but not marketed as a standalone dietary supplement, required a NDI notification. So if a green tea supplement marketed before 1994 also contained other natural dietary ingredients, the green tea would be grandfathered and not require a NDI, but the other ingredients would—an absurd stance that has been corrected in the new guidance. Now, dietary ingredients that were marketed as or were contained in dietary supplements before 1994 are grandfathered.

The FDA’s new guidance also allows the submission of “NDI master files,” which contain specifications and other information needed to completely describe an ingredient. If a company wants to make several products with the same ingredient but at different dosages or concentrations, this could save a lot of time. These master files can also be shared with other companies to avoid excessive duplication.

There is still no authoritative list of “grandfathered” ingredients that do not need to submit NDIs, but FDA has said in the new guidance that it is willing to develop such a list based on independent and verifiable data. This appears to be just another stalling tactic after twenty-two years of stalling. We can be sure that the agency will keep the list as short as possible.

Unfortunately, that is the extent of the improvements in the new guidance versus the first draft. Most of the other problems that were in the original guidance remain in the updated draft.

The guidance imposes safety requirements on new supplements that are not even expected of drugs! The FDA describes how to determine what kind of safety studies to submit with an NDI notification. Note that safety studies in the past have been required of drugs, not of supplements. In addition the agency states that additional safety studies may be needed if the target population changes. For example, if a history of safe use has been established with adults, but a substance will be used in a dietary supplement marketed for young children, the FDA would require another NDI notification.

Are other drugs—even dangerous antipsychotics, antidepressants, and stimulants—subject to similar requirements when they are used on children? The answer is a resounding No. In the FDA’s own words, “Most drugs prescribed for children have not been tested in children.” The same is true for use with elderly people. The drugs have almost never been tested on elderly people. This makes the FDA’s new position on supplements especially hypocritical.

The section on investigational new drugs (INDs) also remains. These provisions could destroy the future availability of many supplements. The jargon used here in the guidance is confusing, probably intentionally so, but bear with us.

Remember that an IND refers to a new drug, while an NDI refers to a new supplement. Under current law, if an IND application is filed for an ingredient—that is, an ingredient is being studied for use as part of a new drug—that ingredient can no longer be produced or included in a supplement if a NDI has not previously been accepted. This has already happened to pyridoxamine, a form of vitamin B6, even though in the end it resulted in this valuable form of natural B6 being no longer available either as supplement or drug.

Apparently the FDA couldn’t care less that this form of natural B6 is no longer available in any form. Indeed it has been considering a petition to ban the only remaining natural form of B6, the most important form of all, because all B6, synthetic or natural, must be converted to it in order for our bodies to use it.

In this guidance, the FDA explicitly states that even when an IND is rescinded or does not lead to a new drug, the supplement form is still banned. Well, at least they admit what they are doing!

But just imagine the mischief this could cause when some enterprising drug company decides to corner the market on a whole list of ingredients to keep them out of the hands of supplement formulators forever more. This could very easily be done under this guidance. Remember that it is not always clear what counts as a NDI or what has been grandfathered, so drug companies can use this confusion to claim that supplements which have been around for decades have been sufficiently “altered” that they can be claimed as drugs.

The agency has also kept intact its ridiculous position that synthetic botanical ingredients are, for the most part, not dietary ingredients. This would likely remove many products from store shelves, such as vinpocetine, which is needed to keep our brains healthy. There is an exception for synthetic botanicals that are lawfully used as an ingredient in the conventional food supply, such as vanillin. What makes this even more confusing is that the FDA has already accepted NDI notifications for vinpocetine from a number of supplement producers. Note that in most cases, the FDA does not ever have to resolve the status of NDI notifications.

The FDA is also broadening the group of substances that must submit NDIs by adopting a loose definition of what it means for a supplement to be “chemically altered.” If a post-DSHEA ingredient has been present in the food supply and has not been chemically altered, it is exempted from submitting a NDI notification. The problem is that the FDA’s definition of “chemically altered” is so broad that only the most basic manufacturing methods would not “chemically alter” an ingredient. This language will stifle innovations in manufacturing and ignores the fact that new and more effective ways of producing supplements have arisen in the last twenty-two years since DSHEA passed. It appears that this is quite intentional. The aim is to destroy supplement innovation in the hope that this will eventually destroy the supplement industry.

It’s the same old story. The agency, under the guise of protecting us, is really just protecting its funder, the drug industry, and is throttling any chance of innovation and improvement in supplements. This is so corrupt that it is hard to understand how Congress can continue to turn a blind eye to it, but of course Big Pharma funds political campaigns as well.

Probiotics—the “good” bacteria which our bodies, and in particular, our immune systems, absolutely depend on—could also be on the chopping block. The agency cites risks for these supplements which are purely theoretical and have never posed a problem. Is it a coincidence that Big Pharma is now very interested in producing its own versions of this product? Having probiotics subject to prescription—or costing $100 a bottle—will be a disaster for the health of Americans.

This is pure nonsense. Why would the FDA do this? Clearly these are the actions of an agency looking to restrict the supplement market and remove as many products as possible in as many ways as possible—even thought it openly defies the intent of Congress in passing DSHEA, which was meant to expand consumer access to dietary supplements.

Over the coming weeks we will continue to dissect the guidance and strategize about the best way to overturn this guidance in order to protect consumer access to dietary supplements. But right now, we need to send messages to the FDA but especially to Congress. We need to immediately register our opposition and dismay at what the FDA is, once again, trying to do in its relentless war against dietary supplements.

By now, it should be clear that the FDA cannot provide credible oversight of the supplement industry. Another regulator is needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.spring.org.uk/2016/05/empathy-killed-popular-painkiller.php
Empathy Is Killed By Popular Painkiller Found In 600 Different Drugs

Every week almost one-quarter of Americans use this drug.

Acetaminophen — commonly known as Tylenol in the US and paracetamol elsewhere — reduces people’s empathy for the pain of others, new research finds.

Acetaminophen is an ingredient in over 600 different medications, including being the main constituent of Tylenol.

The ubiquitous painkiller does not just kill pain, it also kills our fellow-feeling.

Dr Dominik Mischkowski, the study’s first author, said:


“These findings suggest other people’s pain doesn’t seem as big of a deal to you when you’ve taken acetaminophen.

Acetaminophen can reduce empathy as well as serve as a painkiller.”

Previous research has also found that the drug can reduce the positive emotions of those taking it.

Dr Baldwin Way, a study co-author, said:

“We don’t know why acetaminophen is having these effects, but it is concerning.

Empathy is important.

If you are having an argument with your spouse and you just took acetaminophen, this research suggests you might be less understanding of what you did to hurt your spouse’s feelings.”

The research was carried out on 80 college students.

Half were given a dose of 1,000mg of acetaminophen and the other half a placebo.

They then read a series of stories about people who had been hurt and were asked to rate their pain.

The results showed that those who had taken the acetaminophen consistently gave lower pain ratings for the people in the story.

The researchers carried out a couple of other variations to test people’s’ empathy for physical and social pain.

Dr Way explained the results of the experiment on social pain:


“In this case, the participants had the chance to empathize with the suffering of someone who they thought was going through a socially painful experience.

Still, those who took acetaminophen showed a reduction in empathy.

They weren’t as concerned about the rejected person’s hurt feelings.”

The researchers are now moving on to ibuprofen to see if the findings are the same.

The study was published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (Mischkowski et al., 2016).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.naturalnews.com/054388...ugs_medical_myths_Big_Pharma.html
Big Pharma suffers another major blow as study debunks high cholesterol myths, admitting statins are totally worthless

Friday, June 17, 2016 by: Julie Wilson staff writer

(NaturalNews) It's been a tough few weeks for Big Pharma, as three major studies have now completely disproved the effectiveness of its most profitable drugs. Last week, a huge study published in The Lancet admitted that the risks of antidepressants in children and teens far outweigh the benefits, as the drugs routinely increase suicidal behavior. Out of 14 antidepressants, only one was shown to improve depression better than the placebo.

Now, scientists are reporting that cholesterol drugs, which 15 million Americans are prescribed, are also completely worthless. A group of international researchers published a study in the BMJ Open journal that found no link between what's known as "bad" cholesterol and death as a result of heart disease in individuals over 60 years of age.

In fact, the results found that 92 percent of people with high cholesterol actually lived longer. The best way to achieve and maintain good heart health is not through medications but through healthy lifestyle habits.

"Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life," said vascular and endovascular surgery expert Professor Sherif Sultan from the University of Ireland.

'Lowering cholesterol with medications is a total waste of time'
Study co-author Dr. Malcolm Kendrick said their findings show "that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called 'bad' cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease."

The revelations are sure to have huge implications for the pharmaceutical industry, as the cholesterol drug Lipitor is the most profitable meditation of all time – raking in more than $140 billion in sales, according to Health Impact News.

The guidelines for preventing heart disease and the buildup of plaque in the arteries need to be re-evaluated, said the study authors, adding that "the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated."

But the truth is that the benefits of statins haven't just been exaggerated, but 100 percent fabricated, as well as the "research" supporting other drugs such as antidepressants and vaccines.

Natural News reported in 2013 that the push to get even more U.S. adults on statins was facilitated by doctors tied to the industry. Physicians with the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology issued new guidelines three years ago calling for one-third of all adults to consider taking statins – a push proven to be extremely lucrative for Big Pharma.

When questioned about the conflict of interest, the response was: "Ties between heart doctors and Big Pharma are so extensive that it is almost impossible to find a large group of doctors who have no industry ties."

more
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.anh-usa.org/new-drug-resistant-killer/
New Drug-Resistant Killer

By anh-usa on August 30, 2016 One Big Fix For Healthcare

No, not bacteria this time, but still deadly. It has been killing two-thirds of all who contract the infection. Action Alert!

There are ways to protect yourself. You need to know about them.

Once again, US public health officials have issued a warning concerning a multiple drug-resistant infection, but this time, it isn’t bacteria that are the problem—it’s yeast. Yeasts are single-celled fungi which have been used from time immemorial to ferment foods, but some strains are pathogens that cause infections in humans. The emerging strain of yeast, Candida auris, has been found in nine countries and possibly the US, and has sickened hundreds of people.

Fungal infections aren’t a new problem, but this particular strain is especially deadly, with only one-third of patients surviving the infection. The resistant yeast can also jump from patient to patient within a hospital.

Nor is this the only drug-resistant fungal threat: before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) heard reports about the threat of C. auris, the agency had been tracking a different drug-resistant yeast species, C. glabrata.

Researchers say that drug-resistant fungi have arisen largely as a result of the use of fungicides on crops. Bacterial resistance is usually attributed to the use of antibiotics on farms and their overuse by doctors. Scientists should be researching whether the widespread spraying of herbicides and pesticides contributes to antibiotic bacterial resistance as well.

Drug-resistant yeast pose a familiar problem. There are only a small number of anti-fungal medications. C. auris is resistant to every class of drug in the conventional doctor’s tool chest. Researchers also think this resistant yeast strain may be a new species, meaning very little is known about it—how well it adheres to the skin, how it colonizes the gut, where it comes from in the environment, etc. The unfamiliarity and uncertainty also make it hard for physicians to identify it.

There are, of course, natural treatments for yeast. Many in the natural health community know of the numerous health benefits of supplementing with bacterial probiotics—beneficial organisms that aid in the health and diversity of the gut microbiota, and compete with both bad bacteria and yeast. Just as important to health are yeast probiotics, such as Saccharomyces boulardii and S. cerevisiae (brewer’s yeast, which is also used in baking bread). These can be very useful in warding off harmful fungi and pathogenic yeasts. This is especially important if you’ve recently taken antibiotics, which kill off bacteria but not yeast, so the yeast population can explode.

Yeast in the gut is typically kept in check by other organisms in the gut microbiota, but when that balance is thrown off by a course of antibiotics or other causes, bad yeast can get out of control and cause serious health issues. Probiotics, including yeast probiotics, can help keep this in check and impart other health benefits to boot. S. boulardii is a non-colonizing yeast, meaning it won’t take up permanent residence in your gut, but it will stimulate your gut’s production of an immune molecule that makes it difficult for “bad” yeast to stick to your gut wall.

For the same reason that you won’t hear the government suggest herbs, plant extracts, essential oils, or colloidal silver to combat antibiotic resistant bugs, you aren’t likely to hear that probiotic yeasts can help keep drug-resistant yeast in check. Why? Because, like other natural products, these are substances that cannot be patented and thus cannot make money for the drug companies—or, by extension, the government.

This could be changing, but not in a good direction. In our coverage of the FDA’s new guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDIs), we noted that the FDA appears to be moving against probiotic supplements with the goal, we suspect, of handing over these products to the pharmaceutical industry. It’s unclear whether probiotic yeasts would be affected by this language, but if they are, it would be one further assault on natural health.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17194



PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.naturalnews.com/051636...ns_drug_scam_premature_aging.html
Statin scam exposed: Cholesterol drugs cause rapid aging, brain damage and diabetes

Monday, September 28, 2015 by: Jennifer Lea Reynolds

(NaturalNews) Statins, the widely prescribed class of drugs said to lower "bad" cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart problems, has recently come under fire after a study revealed that they destroy human health more than they work to improve it.

Sadly, many people take statin drugs, which are commonly known by brand names including Lipitor, Crestor and Zocor. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. shot up to about $374 billion in 2014, representing the highest level of spending since 2001. Statins undoubtedly made up a significant portion of this spending, and now consumers who take such drugs have much more to worry about than the dent it's making in their wallets.

The study, which was published in the American Journal of Physiology, states that statins' "...impact on other biologic properties of stem cells provides a novel explanation for their adverse clinical effects." Specifically, the study states that such adverse effects include advancing the "process of aging" and also notes that "...long-term use of statins has been associated with adverse effects including myopathy, neurological side effects and an increased risk of diabetes." Myopathy refers to skeletal muscle weakness.

Statins make cells unable to repair properly, create nerve problems and destroy memory
Experts involved in the study suggest that the health problems associated with statins have likely been downplayed through the years. In reality, those taking such cholesterol-lowering drugs have been experiencing cataracts, fatigue, liver problems, muscle pain and memory loss. Simply put, the drugs have been found to tamper with cells in such a way that their primary purpose of reproducing and helping the body repair is thwarted. With that comes the onset of terrible health issues or the worsening of existing ones.

Professor Reza Izadpanah, a stem cell biologist and lead author of the published study, says, "Our study shows statins may speed up the ageing process. People who use statins as a preventative medicine for [health] should think again as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems and joint problems."

Despite health problems linked to statin drugs, FDA says people shouldn't be scared of them
While the FDA notes on its web site that "Cognitive (brain-related) impairment, such as memory loss, forgetfulness and confusion, has been reported by some statin users" and that "People being treated with statins may have an increased risk of raised blood sugar levels and the development of Type 2 diabetes," they also maintain its safety and effectiveness. The site directs people's attention to the advice of Amy G. Egan, M.D., M.P.H., who is the deputy director for safety in the FDA's Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products (DMEP). She says, "This new information should not scare people off statins. Their benefit is indisputable, but they need to be taken with care and knowledge of their side effects."

Indisputable? Especially after this latest study, we beg to differ. What's beneficial about accelerated aging, cells that don't properly function, muscle weakness and memory loss?

The need to continually assess prescription drugs and older studies that tout their benefits
This finding demonstrates the importance of revisiting the so-called benefits of prescription drugs, something that hopefully continues so consumers can be fully informed and kept in the best health possible.

A similar eye-opening study involving the adolescent antidepressant Paxil recently made headlines when a reanalysis of an original study exposed errors and incomplete information. In reality, the drug was found not to be safe and effective for its intended demographic after all, a finding that Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, says "signals that the community is waking up, checking its work and doing what science is supposed to do — self-correct."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum