The Health Plus Letter - Special Health Freedom Issue
December 1, 2004, Vol. 2, No. 38
By Larry Trivieri, Jr. – founder & publisher,
http://www.1healthyworld.com
If you prefer to read this issue online, you can read it, along with all other back issues, at http://www.1healthyworld.com/ezine.
Table Of Contents
What’s New
Quote of the Day
Fast Fact
Special Health Freedom Section
Recommendations
Unabashed Plug
Amazon.com continues to offer my newest book, Health on the Edge: Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium at a healthy discount. To order it, visit http://www.amazon.com. In it, you will learn:
How to quickly and easily restore relaxation throughout your body using hand warming, an easily mastered biofeedback technique you can do without any equipment.
How to increase your IQ by 20 points or more in less than a week’s time.
How to permanently eliminate long-standing fears, phobias, and traumas using energy psychology.
How to create a bioscalar energy wave within your body for rapid healing.
Take the next step in your healing, and order Health on the Edge today.
What’s New
This week I’m changing tack for a bit to bring you a number of articles illustrating how out of control the medical cartel is in this in other countries. By medical cartel, I am of course referring to Big Pharma and its unethical relationship with the government agency charged with regulating and protecting us from it. Something the FDA almost ne/ver does, due to the fact—and it is a fact—that the FDA has ignored its mission statement for decades in order to serve Big Pharma’s monied interests. Which include attacking whene/ver and wherever it can anything to do with viable, nondrug-based alternative treatments. The articles speak for themselves, so I am running them without comments. In doing so, I am once more indebted to investigative journalist Jon Rappoport,. All but the last article I’m included below were originally posted by Jon at his website, http://www.nomorefakenews.com. Jon pulls no punches, and his writing style can be vitriolic at times. Which, to me, is understandable, given the topics he investigates.
Next issue, I’ll be back with more health care tips and other articles devoted to healing. But in order to fully ensure your health and that of your loved ones, you need to know what is occurring in the world that threatens your ability to do so. Hence this issue.
As always, please continue to send me your comments and suggestions. And please spread the word about The Health Plus Letter by passing it along to your friends and inviting them to subscribe.
Quote Of The Day
“Keep your face to the sunshine and you cannot see the shadows.”
-- Helen Keller
Fast Fact
None of the 153 deaths attributed by the FDA to the use of supplements containing ephedra have ever been conclusively found to have in fact been caused by said supplements.
Medical F/r/e/edom Alert
Our health f/r/e/edom remains under siege. Please support the following organizations, which are at the forefront of those working to protect our rights:
Citizens for Health - http://www.citizens.org (Sign their online petition to safeguard health supplements.)
Institute for Health F/r/e/edom – http://www.ForHealthF/r/e/edom.org
International Advocates for Health F/r/e/edom (IAHF) – http://www.iahf.com
Health Lobby (Monica Miller) – http://www.healthlobby.com
To stay info/rmed of other developments related to medical f/r/e/edom, please visit http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org the website of Dr. Mattias Rath, a leading crusader for medical f/r/e/edom.
To see to what depraved lengths people will go to persecute practitioners of alternative medicine in the U.S., please read the following report by noted medical f/r/e/edom advocate Tim Bolen at http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/Suster2.htm
And to learn how corrupt and extensive Big Pharma’s monopoly is, visit http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/index.html the website for the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research. In particular, read their in-depth report The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket that you will find th/e/re.
Unabashed Plug
Learn the Truth about Heart Disease, Stroke and Hypertension. Most of what conventional medicine has to offer for treating these conditions is based on faulty and potentially dangerous assumptions. Discover the real causes behind these diseases and learn what you can do today to prevent and reverse them using safe and natural alternatives that have been scientifically proven to be effective. Read the critically-acclaimed eBook Burton Goldberg’s Definitive Guide to Heart Disease, featuring the contributions of Dr. Garry Gordon, Dr. Stephen Sinatra, and many other leading heart specialists. To order or to find out more about this potentially lifesaving guide, visit http://www.1healthyworld.com/ebooks/Heart-Book-Info.cfm.
Special Health Freedom Section
Analyzing Medical/Media/Pr Fraud by Jon Rappoport
November 30, 2004. This morning, I found a good example of medical writing for analysis.
Why bother?
Because, over the long-term, medical writing about research tends to be PR, and PR is effective for planting ideas and images in the minds of both the public and the medical professionals.
These ideas then substitute for facts.
So you get people saying, "Well, they just made a breakthrough in depression. See, it's really all about brain chemistry."
You might think, "Well, of course it's about brain chemistry. Everyone knows that."
Yeah, well, everyone knows it because that idea has been pounded into our heads through articles and ads over the last 20 years.
The example I'm using today comes from an MSNBC article about bipolar disease, otherwise labeled manic-depression. Like all other so-called mental disorders, bipolar has ne/ver been proven to exist as a distinct disease or disorder entity. No common root chemical or biological cause has been identified for bipolar.
Which is why researchers keep looking for one---although they would ne/ver admit bipolar is so far just a fiction and a hope and a maybe.
The first thing to look at in the MSNBC article is the admission that the chemical brain abnormalities found by researchers may be the pot of gold they are looking for. May be. Suggests. Could be.
Then you ask yourself, what other group could get such an article in the mainstream press? If a group of nutritional doctors from Nevada---instead of the Mayo Clinic cited by MSNBC---said a vitamin B deficiency may be the key contributor to anxiety disorder-----would the pronouncement get printed?
Certain medical centers and government medical spokespeople have a monopoly on may be and suggests and could be and hope so.
That's pretty fantastic, when you think about it. How would you like to be able to get your ideas trumpeted by NBC on the basis that you believe they're true?
Next, the article states that the Mayo Clinic researchers found, not one, but five different brain chemicals in a small group of people previously diagnosed with bipolar disease---five chemicals whose levels differed from those in people not diagnosed with bipolar.
So there are five variables. That's obviously not a breakthrough or anything close to it. It's not even significant. It's another may be.
Next, look for where this study was published. Oh, wait. It was delivered by Mayo Clinic researchers as a report at a medical conference.
Where will it be published, if anywhere? No details on that.
So there was no outside review of the data or the procedures used before this report was made at the conference.
Science is supposed to work by multiple confirmations (or rejections) of the results obtained by the original researchers. Obviously, this has not happened. Science is based on distrust not trust of original findings.
Science is not groveling before an oral report delivered by the Mayo Clinic team.
Finally, we get a pearl about how many Americans suffer from bipolar disease, according to the US government National Institute of Mental Health. A whopping 2.3 million. How was that arrived at? There is no lab test for bipolar, so 2.3 million is an extrapolation from eyeball/interview diagnoses laid on by psychiatrists. About as reliable as inferring the number of auto accidents in America on a given day by sitting above the Indy Speedway and counting dings and bumps.
However, the PR thrust of the MSNBC piece is effective. Subliminally, more people will n/o/w assume that researchers have a good handle on the brain-chemical cause of something called bipolar disease.
Underlying this whole mess is the presumption---driven home by countless press releases and articles and TV interviews---that mental disorders are all the result of brain malfunctions.
That's the big PR op.
Well, it sort of fits, doesn't it? Mental disorder. Brain. The brain is a mental organ.
It fits until you see a very jittery child who was diagnosed with ADHD get better after the kid stops eating foods laced with dyes and food colorings and preservatives.
My goodness. You mean? The cure had nothing to do with giving a drug aimed at reconfiguring a brain neurotransmitter?
Here is the MSNBC piece:
Study shows chemical abnormalities visible in victims' brains
Nov. 30, 2004
Chicago - Bipolar disorder, a sometimes misdiagnosed mental illness characterized by wide emotional swings, may be identifiable by chemical abnormalities visible in victims’ brains, researchers said on Tuesday.
Detailed brain scans perf/o/r/med on 42 adults, half of whom had been previously diagnosed as bipolar, showed consistently different levels of five chemicals in areas of the brain that control behavior, movement, vision, reading and sensory inf/o/r/mation, they said.
The Mayo Clinic study used a high-power magnetic resonance imaging scanner that had twice the magnetic field strength of scanners previously used to examine the brains of bipolar patients.
“Bipolar disorder is challenging to diagnose because individuals can cover up the symptoms of the illness or may recognize only their depression, not the manic phase of the disorder,” Mayo Clinic radiologist John Port said in a report delivered to the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.
“The psychiatric community clearly needs a tool to help diagnose bipolar disorder,” he said.
The types of therapy used with bipolar disorder differ from those employed to fight depression, so a correct diagnosis is important, Port said. Most diagnoses are made based on conversations with the patient.
Roughly 2.3 million Americans suffer from bipolar disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.
end of MSNBC article
Alliance For Human Research Protection (AHRP)
Promoting Openness and Full Disclosure
www.ahrp.org
The Food and Drug Administration is the epicenter of a collision between medical officers in the drug safety office and senior officials in managerial positions whose focus is on facilitating new drug approvals. Officials at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are obstructing the release of safety inf/o/r/mation about lethal drug side-effects. This contentious debate has spilled into the public arena due largely to the courageous stand taken by two senior medical officers in the drug safety division, Dr. Andrew Mosholder and Dr. David Graham, who would not keep silent about widely marketed drugs that kill.
FDA’s credibility has been badly undermined by senior FDA officials who turned a blind eye to evidence of fatal risks linked to drugs the agency approved as safe and exacerbated by their attempts to muzzle, intimidate and discredit senior medical officers. The boiling point came following Dr. Graham’s compelling testimony before the Sen/ate Finance Committee on November 21. He testified how the FDA, as currently constituted, is “virtually incapable” of protecting the public from hazardous drugs: “The catastrophe of Vioxx, a pain-reliever estimated to have caused fatal heart attacks in 55,000 people, is only a "symptom of a broken regulatory system that is currently incapable of preventing further such tragedies.” [1]
He further testified that five currently marketed drugs needed closer review because of safety issues. He named: Crestor, AstraZeneca's cholesterol drug); Bextra, Pfizer's pain drug similar to Vioxx; Meridia, Abbott’s obesity treatment; Serevent, GlaxoSmithKline's asthma drug; and Accutane, Roche's severe acne treatment. Of note, FDA ‘s MedWatch received the greatest number of suicide reports involving children under 18, were attributed to accutaine.
In the course of Dr. Graham’s 20 year career at the FDA he had recommended that 12 drugs be taken off the market because they harmed people. He valiantly fought with FDA officials and did get 10 of these drugs removed: among them, the diabetes drug Rezulin, the diet pills Fen-Phen and Redux, the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol, the heartburn remedy Propulsid, and the antihistamine Seldane. [2, 3, 4]
The latest maneuvers include le/gally questionable actions, such as: anonymous pho/ne calls by high ranking FDA officials who pretended to be whistleblowers, made false accusations in a malicious effort to discredit Dr. Graham. These maneuvers were reported by Jeanne Lenzer in the British Medical Journal, followed by The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today. Senator Charles Grassley has called upon the Inspector General to investigate the charges that high ranking FDA officials have attempted to discredit Dr. Graham: "it appears that these activities may have been coordinated by FDA management and may have involved the misuse of government resources, including government property and time." [5]
AHRP has also learned that Dr. Graham is being threatened with exile from his field of expertise in the division of drug safety—FDA managerial officials would transfer him to a bureaucratic job in the commissioner’s office with no access to safety data.
The harassment began when the findings of Dr. Andrew Mosholder’s embargoed report linking antidepressants to an increased suicide risk for adolescents, reached the public (February 1, 2004). At that time, senior FDA officials initiated an ille/gal criminal investigation naming Dr. Mosholder and Dr. Graham.
On October 9, Dr. Paul Seligman, FDA’s deputy director of CDER admitted under oath at a Congressional hearing before the subcommittee on oversight and investigations of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, that he and Dr. Steven Galson, CDER director, had discussed the criminal investigation, apparently supporting it. This ille/gal investigation was stopped when Senator Grassley intervened.
Following the November Sen/ate hearing, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of FDA’s office of new drugs, defended the benefits of Vioxx on National Public Television. Dr. Kweder claimed that the deaths linked to Vioxx are “not real deaths.” [6] Furthermore, she stated: “You can't just look at the cardiovascular risks of this drug. One has to look at the full spectrum of risks and potential benefits.” [6] Merck’s decision to withdraw its drug from the market is an indication that company executives disagreed with Dr. Kweder’s judgment.
FDA officials whose decisions are contradicted by the scientific evidence have made false allegations and tried to block Dr. Graham from publishing his scientific findings about the lethal cardiac risks posed by Vioxx. His articles were accepted by two major medical journals—The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Galson publicly accused Dr. Graham of engaging in “junk science” while FDA officials continued to claim that Vioxx was safe up until Merck’s withdrawal of the drug, conceding the cardiac risk. One wonders what science these senior FDA officials relied on when they claimed Vioxx was safe.
Another major blow to FDA’s credibility was time delivered by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). A highly critical editorial--Postmarketing Surveillance—Lack of Vigilance, Lack of Trust-by JAMA’s editor in chief and two deputy editors, echoes Dr. Graham’s testimony before the Sen/ate assessing the FDA’s broken regulatory system. Their review underscores the credibility of Dr. Graham. Other independent analysts who conducted a cumulative metaanalysis of randomized trials of rofecoxib (Vioxx) against control groups found that “by the end of the year 2000, the relative risk for cardiovascular events among those taking rofecoxib was 2.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-4.33; P=.01). Yet, more than 3 years later, when the cardiovascular risks of rofecoxib were documented by FDA researchers several months before the data that ultimately led to removal of the drug from the market became publicly available, FDA officials allegedly attempted to “suppress” the conclusions of the report.” [7]
Industry’s corrosive effect on the integrity of the scientific process and the culture at the FDA high level FDA officials resort to unseemly cut throat maneuvers, clearly demonstrate the need to erect an impenetrable fire wall between scientists and industry. Indeed, JAMA editors call for a separation of the pre-and post-marketing surveillance systems for prescription drugs and independent drug approval and monitoring f/r/e/e of pharmaceutical industry influence. The editorial notes that the pharmaceutical industry provided $825 million in user fees to the FDA and spent $4.9 million to lobby the FDA.
In press reports Catherine DeAngelis asked: “Why are they allowed to lobby the FDA?" She noted that the current self-regulating system is “like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. It has to be a separate unit responsible for the post-marketing, f/r/e/e of any influence of the people who approved it in first place."
Among Dr. Graham’s attackers are senior FDA officials who are officers in the Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps (one of 7 unif/o/r/med services of the US). If PHS officers have engaged in covert, underhanded, possibly criminal maneuvers aimed at discrediting a highly respected scientist whose track record of weeding out lethal drugs has earned him the respect and admiration of both scientists and the public, their actions will add fuel to discredit the agency and its leadership.
FDA officials must not be allowed to abuse their authority by retaliating against a scientist who takes FDA’s mission seriously—i.e., protecting the public from unsafe drugs and inf/o/r/ming the public about evidence of hazards linked to marketed drugs. Dr. Graham must be allowed to analyze drug safety data within the office of drug safety.
References:
1. Anna Wilde Mathews and Heather Won Tesoriero “Medical Journal Seeks FDA Overhaul” The Wall Street Journal November 23, 2004; Page A6
2. Jeanne Lenzer “Public interest group accuses FDA of trying to discredit whistleblower.” British Medical Journal, Nov. 24, 2004 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7476/DC2?ehom .
3. Marc Kaufman “Attempt to Discredit Whistle-Blower Alleged.” Washington Post, November 24, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8715-2004Nov23.html
4. Denise Grady F.D.A. “Employee Seeks Le/gal Help From Whistle-Blowers' Group” The New York Times November 24, 2004 A-21
5. Shankar Vedantan, Probe Urged of Allegations Against FDA, Washington Post, November 25, 2004. A-15.
6. Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD Drummond Rennie, MD Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH Postmarketing Surveillance— Lack of Vigilance, Lack of Trust. JAMA, December 1, 2004—Vol 292, No. 21
7. NewsHour DRUG FAILURE, Public Broadcasting Station.
November 18, 2004. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec04/vioxx_11-18.html
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7476/DC2?ehom
British Medical Journal
Public interest group accuses FDA of trying to discredit whistleblower
November 24, 2004
New York
Jeanne Lenzer
A public interest group that aims to protect whistleblowers claimed last week that an attempt had been made by a member of staff at the Food and Drug Administration to discredit Dr David Graham, the FDA executive who testified to the US Sen/ate committee on 18 November.
Dr Graham, associate director in the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, had carried out a study with Kaiser Permanente of northern California that looked at the cardiovascular risks in patients taking rofecoxib (Vioxx). He had submitted the results of the study to the Lancet. Dr Graham withdrew the study, however, after getting a warning from his supervisor about publication.
The FDA issued a statement after the Sen/ate hearing last week, claiming that Dr Graham had failed to adhere to agency protocol when he submitted his data to the Lancet.When the BMJ inquired about the FDA’s statement and the possible publication of the rofecoxib study in the Lancet, Dr Graham referred the BMJ to his attorney, Tom Devine, for comment.
Mr Devine, le/gal director of the Government Accountability Project—a public interest group based in Washington, DC, that helps whistleblowers in order to promote governmental and corporate accountability—said Dr Graham, fearing for his job, had sought the group’s help in connection with the rofecoxib study about a month ago. The group’s decision on whether to provide le/gal counsel for Dr Graham was delayed after it received another request for aid from someone claiming to be an anonymous whistleblower at the FDA who was being “bullied” by Dr Graham.
The anonymous caller also said that Dr Graham’s study could reflect scientific misconduct.
After some investigation the project found out that the “anonymous” charges actually came from FDA management, which, according to Mr Devine, had “full control” over Dr Graham.“We made demands to call whichever side was bluffing,” said Mr Devine. “The FDA flunked every test of credibility, while Dr Graham passed all of them. The FDA was employing a classic law of whistleblower reprisal—the smokescreen syndrome—which shifts the spotlight from the message to the messenger.
“The agency attempted to discredit Dr Graham rather than provide any scientific evidence contradicting his conclusions.” Mr Devine said the FDA’s attacks on Dr Graham’s credibility were implausible. His scientific findings about the dangers of 12 drugs, including troglitazone (Rezulin), concomitant fenfluramine and phentermine (Phen-fen), and temafloxicin (Omniflox), were upheld when the agency withdrew 10 of the12 drugs from the market.
Many whistleblowers, said Mr Devine, find themselves isolated and shunned at work. It was some measure of the esteem with which Dr Graham is regarded by his colleagues that when he returned to work on Friday after his Sen/ate testimony his colleagues greeted him with applause.
The FDA’s statement after the hearing alleging that Dr Graham did not adhere to agency protocol on the Kaiser Permanente study can be found at www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01136.html
washingtonpost.com
Attempt to Discredit Whistle-Blower Alleged
Group Says His FDA Colleagues Made Calls
By Marc Kaufman
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Managers at the Food and Drug Administration last month anonymously called a group that protects whistle-blowers in an attempt to discredit an outspoken agency safety officer who was challenging the FDA's drug safety policies, the le/gal director of the whistle-blower group said yesterday. Tom Devine of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (GAP) said the anonymous callers did not identify themselves but he is "100 percent positive" they were managers at the FDA because of their pho/ne numbers and other identifying inf/o/r/mation. He said he initially took the callers' concerns seriously but later came to see the calls as an effort to smear the whistle-blower, Associate Director David J. Graham of the Office of Drug Safety.
Last week, Graham, a 20-year FDA veteran, said at a Sen/ate hearing that FDA policies have left the American public "virtually defenseless" against the kind of safety problems that led to the abrupt withdrawal in September of the popular arthritis drug Vioxx.
He named five other prescription medications that he said pose serious safety risks that are not being adequately addressed by the FDA. Although the FDA initially sharply criticized Graham's testimony -- one top official called him "irresponsible" and a practitioner of "junk science" -- the agency yesterday tightened the restrictions on one of the five drugs Graham had criticized, the acne medication Accutane.
In a statement regarding the GAP allegations, the FDA said yesterday that it "acknowledges the right of its employees to raise their concerns to oversight groups." The agency said that it had no prior knowledge of any employee's contact with the whistle-blower group and that it is working to improve a process for ensuring that internal differences of scientific opinion are fully incorporated into its decision-making. "The agency promotes vigorous debate of the tough scientific quest/ions it confronts every day," the statement said.
The allegation that the FDA used deceptive practices against Graham came two days after the Government Accountability Project agreed to take him on as a client. Devine said Graham had asked five weeks ago for advice about overcoming his supervisors' opposition to the publication of his critical findings about Vioxx. The anonymous calls followed several weeks later, Devine said.
"The calls came under the guise of being anonymous whistle-blowers," Devine said. "They were clearly working together and shared allegations -- mostly that Dr. Graham's research was unreliable and that there were serious quest/ions of possible scientific misconduct with his study. They said Graham wouldn't address their concerns, and that he was a demagogue and a bully."
Devine said that after several conversations, he persuaded the callers to provide documents to support their accusations, and Devine then challenged Graham based on what was provided. "It became clear to me that Dr. Graham could reasonably explain any quest/ions about the research, and that the callers were trying to smear him," Devine said. "After that, I called their bluff for more inf/o/r/mation and that was the end of it. It was all a red herring, and it made me believe Dr. Graham far more."
Devine said that, under his organization's rules, he could not identify the callers because they initially contacted GAP as whistle-blowers themselves. But he said he is certain they were supervisors at the FDA because of the details of the arguments they made and the pho/ne numbers from which they called. In addition, he said that, after identifying the callers to his satisfaction, he referred to them by name during subsequent pho/ne conversations. He said the callers were surprised by his identifications but did not tell him he was wrong...
1. No, Really, The Sky Is Falling by Jon Rappoport
November 29, 2004. I may have to lug out all my past articles on SARS and bird flu and re-post them. Because the World Health Organization is starting a new round of fear-mongering.
WHO specializes in this kind of thing. Dire pronouncements based on nothing.
"This (millions of deaths) could happen, and if that happens, this will happen.
If virus A merges with virus B and they mutate to f/o/r/m C, then everybody will die.
Unless they don't.
Beyond all the pro/fits to be made from vaccines and drugs, and beyond the hopes for promotions and prizes and prestige and job security, and even beyond the obvious current need to pump up the role of drug companies when these companies are getting slammed from all sides over the cheating and lying and concealing they're doing while they push severely toxic drugs---beyond all this is the op to control populations.
One part of that op involves casting such a gloom over the planet, people everywhere will bow down to rules and reg[ulation]s governing travel and the right to assembly and f/r/e/e speech (aimed at the lies of WHO and the drug companies)---people will grovel when huge quarantines are announced and businesses are ordered closed down.
It's called medical fascism.
As for the new fear-pump by WHO, it concerns bird flu and also SARS, and it's the most patent bullshit I've come across in some time.
Here are two clips from the AP and Reuters today. Read, in particular, the death figures these two phony diseases have scored, worldwide. In other words, more people have been croaking from red toasters made in Nome and then falling out of fifth-floor apartments from Zanzibar to Tierra del Fuego to Paris to Fiji than have been croaking from SARS plus bird flu.
From AP:
"The girl’s [bird-flu] death brought to 11 the number of human fatalities in Thailand, which went on high alert last week after reporting its first probable case of human-to-human transmission of the disease. In Vietnam, the only other country to suffer human cases of the [bird-flu] virus, 20 people have died."
From Reuters:
"Hong Kong - The bird flu virus is far more lethal than the SARS virus that struck Asia last year and could unleash a pandemic that could kill as many as 50 million people, a World Health Organization official said Monday.
A WHO estimate last week that H5N1 [bird flu] could infect up to 30 percent of the world’s population and kill between two and seven million people was a conservative estimate, said Shigeru Omi, regional director of WHO’s Western Pacific Regional Office.
“The maximum range is more ... maybe 20 to 50 million people,” Omi said in a speech in Hong Kong.
“It will be incomparable to SARS,” he said, referring to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome epidemic that killed 800 people around the world in 2003.
end of Reuters excerpt
31 plus 800.
But be my guest. Quake in your boots. See, if SARS and bird flu combine and then incorporate the polio thingo and then the malaria thingo and f/o/r/m a super-duper vast thingo, with six hundred teeth and claws and poison fangs and cosmic-beam eyes, and if under a full moon fourteen people eat pig meat mixed with elephant stew, in a certain spot in Nigeria, it's the end for all of us.
"What do you want to be when you grow up, Freddy?"
"I want to be a doctor and work for WHO and write copy that scares people so bad they cry urine."
"Good boy. You'll go far."
2. Medical Research Fraud by Jon Rappoport
November 29, 2004. Here is a release from the watchdog group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection. It spells out one method whereby research fraud infects the whole process of drug approval and paints a false picture of what's really going in the lab.
The release also points a finger at the n/o/w-notorious Texas child-drugging program that is the model on which Bush's national screening (for mental disorders) plan is based.
The corporate (drug-company) invocation of "it's proprietary inf/o/r/mation" is mentioned. This is the cover behind which drug companies can pay for drug studies and then suppress the results, if they don't like the outcomes.
Alliance For Human Research Protection (AHRP)
Promoting Openness and Full Disclosure www.ahrp.org
I. A front page article in the New York Times focuses on academia’s role (culpability) in keeping mum about the unpublished antidepressant clinical trial results. The unnamed focus of the article is the industry-supported American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) whose members—leading academic psychiatrists—have been caught aiding and abetting industry’s concealment of negative test findings. One of the major players in the pediatric antidepressant debacle is Univer/sity of Texas child psychiatrist, Dr. Karen Wagner (who refused to be interviewed by the Times).
The Times reports: “Over the last decade, Dr. Wagner has led or worked on some 20 studies published in medical journals, and the government has financed her work. She has attracted a large number of industry-financed studies.”
“In her Zoloft study, Dr. Wagner acknowledged that she had received 'research support' over the years from several drug manufacturers including Pfizer, which paid $80,000 to the Galveston center in connection with the Zoloft test. But she did not state that she also received sizable payments from the company for work she did related to the test.”
Barry Meier shines a light on the financial stake that these academic researchers and medical centers have in suppressing scientific negative findings that contradict the claims made about the safety and effectiveness of antidepressants. Major academic medical centers and researchers f/r/e/ely signed corporate contracts prohibiting researchers from publishing their findings until their corporate sponsors give the O.K.
Those institutions willingly signed contractual agreements with drug manufacturers agreeing to prohibit medical scientists from carrying out their professional and moral responsibility toward their human subjects, the medical community, and public—whose taxes pay most of their salaries.
“Academic institutions and researchers are widely viewed as the impartial, independent heart of the system this country uses to test drugs and medical devices. But that independence often comes with strings attached, sometimes making academic institutions and their researchers obstacles to the exchange and discussion of test results.”
“All the pediatric antidepressant studies were run in part [sic] at medical schools, and in many cases the tests were led by academic scientists. But while one study of the drug Paxil, which showed positive results in depressed children, was published, another study showing that it was ineffective was not submitted to a medical journal. Studies of the other antidepressants like the drugs Remeron and Serzone were also not published. However, there are few, if any, indications that the academic researchers involved in those trials pushed for their publication or widespread distribution.”
In their pact with industry, academic institutions have made a mockery of “academic f/r/e/edom”: they have become active participants in research fraud and deception.
“Drug companies say that because they pay for the trial they own the data it generates.”
Really? Would a realtor who paid for the construction of a building get away with concealing evidence that the building is unsafe for habitation ?
II. A year long series of investigative reports by Nancy Wilson, Keye News (Texas CBS-affiliate) has uncovered who the beneficiaries are of a hugely profitable market that has led to abusive prescribing of psychotropic drugs for children. On Nov 24, the focus was on Dr. Graham Emslie of the Unviersity of Texas in Dallas, the leading investi/gator in numerous pediatric antidepressant drug trials. When asked if he knew about the data recently analyzed by the FDA showing the drugs to have serious adverse side effects and that the drugs were no more effective than a sugar pill, Dr. Emslie admitted: “I already knew the data…but because of proprietary …” he didn’t tell.
See: http://keyetv.com/investigativevideo/
Dr. Emslie and Dr. Wagner were hired by the state of Texas to make recommendations to the state mental health department for the treatment of depressed children. They recommended using the very drugs they knew to have serious risks without a demonstrable benefit greater than a sugar pill for children—as first line treatment in state funded facilities.
Both Dr. Emslie and Dr. Wagner served on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) panel whose treatment recommendations are not borne out by the scientific evidence.
TMAP was financed by the manufacturers of psychotropic drugs—in states that have adopted TMAP as their guideline, its list of recommended drugs is mandated by state mental health agencies. TMAP recommendations are not based on scientific evidence—but rather the consensus of the panel who was financed by psychotropic drug manufacturers.
The national media has yet to pick up the national trail that begins in Texas.
3. The Gene Hustlers Strike Again by Jon Rappoport
November 29, 2004. MSNBC reports on a new study that claims genes play a major role in female infidelity.
What's next? The po/rn gene?
Genetic researchers and their PR machine continue to assert lar/ger and lar/ger numbers of human traits and behaviors are caused by the action of genes.
Based on, at best, shoddy evidence.
But hey, biotech companies have mon/ey to raise from investors, and government researchers need to be included in Congressional budgets, and univer/sity researchers must publish or perish. So they have to fabricate a steady stream of "advances."
As in the TV biz, the worst sin is dead air. Better keep the chatter going.
This latest excuse for a study of course covers its ass by saying that upbringing and environment also play a role in later infidelity. That's called hodge-podge causation.
"The driver of the car in the accident was drunk. Also, there was no sign posted on the curve where he crashed. He was on his cell pho/ne at the time, and one of his headlights was burned out. It was raining, and he had just been told he was fired from his job. His father was known to get into car accidents, and he was genetically predisposed to incautious driving..."
I love the conclusion of the study authors that attributes about a 40% influence to genes in female infidelity. How do they know that?
"We have to say something. Fifty percent? Eighty percent? Hell, let's go with forty."
Which gives you a ludicrous vector-map, where one arrow leading to infidelity "comes from" upbringing (say 20%) and another arrow "comes from" environment (say 40%), and the third arrow is genes (40%). But where is this map, except in the minds of the researchers?
And oh yes. The study authors suspect that a number of genes may be involved. Ah. They haven't really isolated any specific genes in this project. It's just PR masquerading as science.
Finally, the underlying assumption in this hash of nonsense is, infidelity (or any other behavior---fill in the blank yourself) is predetermined. In other words, no one makes a choice. Choice is out. Choice would mean the researchers don't have a role and don't get mon/ey. Because if a person has the f/r/e/edom to be fidel or un-fidel, there is no scientific model. It's outside the boundaries of locked-down causative factors. Very, very bad for business.
I can imagine the geniuses behind this study discussing parameters before they began to work.
"Should we do this project on women or men?"
"Hmm. Women, I think."
"Why?"
"Because with men, we already know that infidelity is the result of the d*&k factor."
Genes may play key role in female infidelity
Upbringing, environment also factors, researchers say
Updated: 2:37 p.m. ET Nov. 24, 2004
Genetic factors influence female infidelity and the number of sex/ual partners women have, British scientists said on Wednesday.
They studied the responses of 1,600 pairs of identical and non-identical twins in a confidential survey to look at the impact of genes on behavior.
“We found that around 40 percent of the influence on the number of sex/ual partners and infidelity were due to genetic factors,” Professor Tim Spector, director of the Twin Research Unit at St Thomas’ Hospital in London, told a news conference.
But he added that environment and upbringing also play a part in explaining the variation in infidelity between women.
“The fact that psychosocial traits such as number of sex/ual partners and infidelity appear to behave as other common complex genetic traits in humans ... lends support to evolutionary psychologists’ theories on the origin of human behavior,” Spector said.
The scientists questioned the twins about their sex/ual behavior, total number of partners and their attitudes about infidelity. Twenty-two percent admitted that they had been unfaithful.
Genetic factors did not appear to influence the women’s attitudes to infidelity. Many of the women in the study, even those who admitted being unfaithful, said they thought it was wrong.
The average age of the women was 50. A quarter were divorced. Women who had been faithful had about four sex/ual partners, compared to eight in the infidelity group.
“More than 90 percent of the women admitted to having had thoughts of infidelity at some time,” said Spector, who reported the findings in the journal Twin Research.
The scientists suspect that many genes could be associated with sex/ual behavior. They believe genes on chromosomes 3, 7 and 20 could be involved.
end of MSNBC article excerpt
Copyright (C) 2004 by Jon Rappoport www.nomorefakenews.com
All rights reserved.
FDA Admits Genetically Engineered Crops Contaminate the Food Supply But Fails to Address the Problem in its New Proposed Guidance
Statement of Kerry-Ann T. Powell, U.S. Public Interest Research Groups Food Safety Advocate
Washington -- November 29 -- As Americans get ready for Thanksgiving meals around the country, the Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged that contamination of the food supply by genetically engineered crops is inevitable, but its new proposed guidance to the industry does little to protect consumers. The FDA draft guidance published today in the Federal Register simply encourages producers of new genetically engineered crops to voluntarily consult with the agency earlier in the process of development.
Simply encouraging a developer of a genetically engineered crop to voluntarily consult with the agency a little earlier in the process does nothing to address the fact that genetically engineered crops that are field-tested in the open will inevitably contaminate conventional and organic food crops through wind and insect dispersal of pollen. The FDA continues to offer ineffective solutions to the serious risks that agricultural biotechnology poses to the safety of our food supply.
The voluntary nature of the draft guidance is a significant problem that permeates FDA oversight of genetically engineered foods overall. In the notice, the FDA admits that many producers will indeed determine, on their own, that they need not follow the guidance and will not consult with the FDA. Furthermore, the draft guidance will likely result in a decrease in FDA safety consultations that come closer to commercialization of genetically engineered crops.
This type of administrative response is like encouraging a child to talk about the eggs he plans to drop off the roof of a 20-floor building on unsuspecting pedestrians before he drops them. The FDA should get serious about protecting our food supply because the American consumer is depending on it.
U.S. PIRG is the national advocacy office for the state Public Interest Research Groups. State PIRGs are non-partisan, non-profit public interest advocacy organizations. Visit their webiste at http://uspirg.org
Unabashed Plug
Discover and Gain Control of Your Human Energy Field. Read Dr. Valerie Hunt’s Mind Mastery Meditations: A Workbook for the “Infinite Mind,” the empowering guide created by one of the world's foremost researchers into the human energy field, energy medicine, and the relationship between consciousness and health. Each of the meditations this eBook contains is designed to give you mastery of your mind and to empower you to discover the answers to why you are the way you are, your soul's needs, your unique talents and capacities, and your self-designed destiny. By practicing and mastering these meditations, you will become able to live your life with greater ease and success, speed your self-healing, and dramatically increase your ability to manifest your deepest goals. To order this life-changing guide, visit
http://www.1healthyworld.com/ebooks/Mind-Mastery-Book-Info.cfm.
Recommendations
Website
http://www.literacysite.com- Simply by visiting this site, you can enable underprivileged children to receive f/r/e/e books. Please bookmark it and go there each day to help them achieve their mission.
Book
Third Opinion, 4th edition by John M. Fink. I receive a lot of requests for inf/o/r/mation regarding viable alternative cancer treatments and the doctors and centers that are providing them. This excellent reference guide provides detailed listings of the best such sources, both h/e/re in the U.S. and abroad. Though the entries Fink includes are not in-depth, he provides readers with the inf/o/r/mation they need to make inf/o/r/med choices. Very highly recommended.
That’s all for this week.
Health and Blessings!
Larry Trivieri, Jr. (larry@1healthyworld.com)
Disclaimer: The Health Plus Letter is a weekly eZine published by Larry Trivieri, Jr. and Library of Health, LLC (dba www.1healthyworld.com) 1514 Genesee Street, Suite 52, Utica, NY 13502. It is made available without charge for info/rmation purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for medical care. If you are experiencing a health problem, seek prompt medical attention.
The Health Plus Letter is fully compliant with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.
Le/gal Notice: The info/rmation in this eZine may be f/r/e/ely and widely disseminated so long as full attribution is made as follows: The Health Plus Letter, December 1, 2004, Vol. 2, No. 38. Copyright © 2004 by Larry Trivieri, Jr. All rights reserved.
To Subscribe Or Unsubscribe to The Health Plus Letter, please visit http://www.1healthyworld.com/lists
