Rent Digital Stream Online Now: VAXXED: From Cover-Up To Catastrophe

The TRUTH Can't Be Killed:

Rent the Digital Stream - Vaxxed

... And The Crowd Goes Wild!!!

In The 1930's Dr. Royal Rife's Oscillating Rife Beam Destroyed Cancer. And, The AMA Destroyed Dr. Rife

Did YOU Know...
A Proven Cure For Cancer Was Discovered in the 1930's?

Dr, Royal Rife's "most controversial claim was that his device could kill the virus-like organisms responsible for cancer. Rife and his team claimed to have cured 15 "hopeless" cancer patients after 60 days' treatment.

Rife's ray tube system was installed in several clinics and his results were corroborated by numerous scientists and doctors. In 1939 he was invited to address the ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, which had a APPROVED his FINDINGS, and he subsequently formed the Rife Ray Beam Tube Corporation, to build models for hospitals and clinics.

But with the death of one of his key supporters, Rife found himself under sudden and prolonged assault from the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (Dun-Dun-Duuuuunnnn!), who banned use of his beam ray to treat patients.

Within a year the dream was over, Rife a broken man.

To this day it remains unclear why the AMA turned on Rife, a pharmaceutical conspiracy being an obvious, if paranoid conclusion."

"... it remains unclear why the AMA turned on Rife..."?  Er, not so much.

The TRUTH: It's 'Sandbox' Simple: Follow The Money:

Just Ask Yourself:

1.) Who Had The Most To GAIN If Cancer was Cured?  And...

2.) Who Had The Most To LOSE If Cancer Was Cured?

Answer: Cancer Treatment is a multi-billion dollar business.

And, those for-profit, multi-national pharmaceutical companies making billions of dollars manufacturing cancer-drug TREATMENTS wouldn't make a DIME if Cancer were CURED.

Dr Royal Rife's Cancer-Killing Oscillating Beam Ray

Prescription for Addiction: Tens of $Milllions in Advertising, Test Results Approved By Spin Doctors and 2 Lobbyists Per Congressperson.

"Spare any Change?"...

Utter those three, innocuous, little words - here in San Francisco, anyway - and you risk getting written up by the local beat cops for what is called "Aggressive Panhandling".

"Buds?"...
Of course, offering to sell people street drugs might get you three hots and a cot with a view of the cell facing yours.

But, if you happen to be aggressively selling pharmaceutical drugs...

Well, then there's quite a different outcome...

If you're an American pharmaceutical company, you need never fear being sent to prison for spending millions of dollars enticing citizens of all ages - via an endless barrage of flashy tv commercials and magazine ads - to take drugs that they not only do not need... but to pay exorbitant prices for and to take drugs that may not work... or, if they do have effects... some turn out to be much worse than the initial issue that they are taking the drug for.

Did you know that it's only in America and New Zealand that drug companies are allowed to do DTC advertising ("Direct-To-Consumer").

I used to get annoyed at the endless barrage of car commercials...
But, they were for cars... and I skateboard, the S.F. Bay Area has an extensive public transit system and tooting your horn about your cars getting a whopping 30mpg is not impressive nor toot-worthy... it's tragic and disappointing.

I haven't done a scientific survey...
But, I'm pretty sure that those glossy, smiling, happy, warm-fuzzy, drug-dealing, big Pharma ads are aiming to outnumber car ads 2-to-1.

Listening to the dialogue being uttered in them, I want to scream. I find them sneaky and misleading. What is actually said in the ads and what it sounds like they are saying are very different things. It also bothers me that they give out a grocery list of symptoms, so that you are now well-informed and can go report these symptoms to your doctor and possibly get a Rx written whether or not you really have them. Then, there's the laundry list of possible side-effects, which is as long as the rest of the commercial, but is squeezed into and speed-read in less than four seconds.

There's one that is utterly mind-boggling to me and, apparently, not many others since it's still on the air. It's for a product called "Humira", I believe. Something marketed as being used to affect symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. Anyway, one of the many possible and horrible side-effects associated with this medication is lymphoma...

That's LYMPHOMA, people... Cancer of the Lymph Glands!... A "possible Side-Effect"?
I don't know about you... but I'd rather deal with sore joints and take Advil or get Acupuncture... than deal with CANCER.

I often have said... and still stand behind my statement that, "The FDA is NOT Your Friend." And, sadly, Congress is, thus far, too well-lobbied to take action to make measureable changes in how Big Pharma does its drug-testing and dealing.

Thankfully, there are Real People who are looking out for your health and mine... and they aren't dressed in white lab coats and wearing stethoscopes...
Former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen has written a thoughtful, well-researched and very timely book on the subject: Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books).

I recommend it. Some of what she reveals might make you angry, but, at least you'll be better informed... and that alone is empowering.

Peace.
And Here's to Your Informed, Good Health.
L.

(From: www.huffingtonpost.com/.)
Our Daily Meds: Navigating the Polypharmacy
Derek Beres
Posted April 17, 2008 | 12:21 AM (EST)



In the 1970s, Professor J. Scott Armstrong put forth a conundrum to close to 2,000 business school students and executive trainees. Intrigued by the corporatizing of the pharmaceutical industry, he created a scenario (based on an actual 1969 incident) in which a company has a new drug with a projected $20 million profit. The catch: For each million the company nets, there is one death from side effects. The first twenty million meant twenty deaths, and so on thereafter.

Students and trainees were given five options, ranging from immediately pulling the drug from shelves--regulators stated cheaper, more effective pills without such grave side effects exist--to downplaying risks and promoting the drug heavily, creating a media-driven whitewash in which consumers could not discern problems, and therefore readily open their pockets.

The results? Zero took the first option; 79% chose the latter. As former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen writes in her new book, Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books), "For these students and trainees, who were playing the roles of the executives they would soon become, profits took precedence over patients."

As one can imagine by the book's subtitle, the above is not an isolated case study. In fact, it shows how the drive to maximize profits at any expense is built into the educational system by which students become executives. Petersen spends the majority of her book citing such examples, moving from hard facts and statistical data to personal interviews with people who have fallen victim to the marketing of pharmaceutical companies or, worse, have lost loved ones during the same process.

The varied and often disguised layers of pharmaceutical marketing and maneuvering begin at the outset, when Petersen reminds us that Americans spent $250 billion in 2005 on prescription drugs -- twice as much as we paid for higher education or new cars. This total is also greater than the population of "Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina combined." Sadly, this is due in part because our federal government is the only office in the developed world that does not control prescription drug prices. It leaves that to the companies themselves, a process that belittles the integrity of the medical profession--which is supposed to be about healing--by sticking to the idea that "the few the options, the higher the price; the greater the desperation, the greater the suffering, the higher the price."

Even more depressing are corporate payouts to doctors, the men and women who are supposed to represent the pinnacle of the healthcare profession. Petersen cites numerous examples of doctors receiving payola for prescribing certain drugs, like Dr. B.J. Wilder, who received a $401,350 check from Warner-Lambert to send himself and 125 medical residents to a luxury resort in Florida, or Dr. Ilo Leppik, who received a stipend of $303,600 to publish his book on epilepsy. Both were awarded those sums for the support they gave to Neurontin -- a drug that Pfizer (which came to own Warner-Lambert) had to pay $430 million in court fees for illegally marketing. An estimated 90% of prescriptions of the drug were for uses that the drug was not approved to treat, including attention deficit disorder and sexual dysfunction. Originally developed to combat epilepsy (and even then, not very well), it became a hit for the company for a variety of other "illnesses" which it did nothing for.

Again, this is not an isolated case by any means. Buying off doctors to promote prescriptions -- a practice which takes numerous forms, including "scientific" reports written by marketing companies and signed off by supposedly respected professionals, as well as partnering with them to help create diseases that don't necessarily exist--affects the majority of the industry. As Petersen often reminds us, paying off DJs to play music was regulated thanks to governmental intervention. When dealing with substances that can, and are, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans (the healthcare industry is the third biggest killer in the country, behind heart failure and cancer), however, the government and FDA remain mute.

I found myself getting angry at each page I turned. Yet it was an empowering rage, one based in knowledge. The book is like lifting the veil of ignorance that hangs over a country inundated with bright, colorful advertisements with perky stuffed animals and light violet skies promising us peace, equanimity and fun. The reality is anything but. In 2003, an executive from GlaxoSmithKline said that more than 90% of drugs "only work in 30 or 50 percent of the people," and their own tests found that certain drugs were only 25% effective. To maximize profits, though, they've encouraged the creation of a polypharmacy, where a person is on multiple prescriptions.

Often people are given one drug to battle one problem, and then another to counter the side effects of the first pill, and so on. This is bad enough when pushed on seniors, who rely on their doctors to help them enjoy their later years in as good of health as possible (and who, by the way, Petersen points out, are rarely if ever tested clinically when companies are trying out new drugs; these tests are almost always on young and healthy men and women). When our children became the focus of such marketing--between 2000-2004, prescriptions for sleeping pills in children age 10-19 increased 85% -- it is inexcusable.

Tragically, a drug often works no better than a sugar pill, yet the pharmaceutical industry is driving -- let's make that dominating -- our economy. Petersen projects that by 2015 one in every five dollars we earn will be feed back into healthcare. This might be justifiable if it meant that our health was getting better. To the contrary, we're actually declining in health as a nation, as our life expectancy rates have fallen far from the top of the list of "developed" worlds. How developed a nation can be when a small percentage of business executives is knowingly and purposefully promoting drugs that are killing fellow humans remains a question that Petersen does not, and cannot, answer. Thankfully, with this elucidating book, we can take that question into our own hands, and decide for ourselves how hooked on their tether we remain.

From the "...Now they tell us."-Files.
My non-medical-but-intelligent-and-intuitive-opinion is this:
Do Not give kids Tamiflu - or take it yourself, for that matter - Unless you are facing life-threatening flu Sx (Symptoms)... *Of course, check with your physician regarding any health or drug-related issues*. I'm no doctor. But I know better than to blindly trust the FDA or the Pharmaceutical industry!
* There's a second article included, published in 2004(!), that brought up a possible link between Tamiflu and bizarre behaviour - leading to some deaths - in children... Where the FDA basically pooh-poohed people's concerns. My question... Are there any former heads of Roche (manufacturer of Tamiflu) on the Label Board of the FDA??!


*Psst! Here's a little known Fact: Tamiflu Patent Holder is Gilead Corporation: Whose former executive and still major shareholder is...
Donald Rumsfeld! (Yes, THAT Donald Rumsfeld.)
What a Coincidence! ( - i don't believe in coincidence.)
Talk about creepy!
-L



FDA Proposes 'Abnormal Behavior' Warning for Tamiflu Label
BY ANDREW BRIDGES

WASHINGTON Nov 13, 2006 (AP).. Doctors and parents should watch for signs of bizarre behavior in children treated with the flu drug Tamiflu, federal health officials suggested Monday in citing an increasing number of such cases from overseas.

Food and Drug Administration officials still don't know if the more than 100 new cases, including three deaths from falls, are linked to the drug or to the flu virus or a combination of both. Most of the reported cases involved children.

Still, FDA staff suggested updating Tamiflu's label to recommend that all patients, especially children, be closely monitored while on the drug. They also acknowledged that stopping treatment with Tamiflu could actually harm influenza patients if the virus is the cause of delirium, hallucinations and other abnormal behavior, such as aggression and suicidal thoughts.

The FDA's pediatric advisory committee is to discuss the recommendation Thursday. The FDA isn't required to follow the advice of its outside panels but usually does. An FDA spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The meeting comes a year after the same panel of outside experts rejected linking Tamiflu to reports of 12 deaths in Japanese children since 2000 and voted against changing the drug's label to suggest any such concern. At that time, however, the committee did recommend that the FDA continue to monitor the drug's safety and return a year later with an update.

The panel's decision after reviewing the new update is likely to be closely watched, since Tamiflu could play an important role in an outbreak of bird flu. The drug doesn't prevent flu but can reduce the length and severity of its symptoms.

Most of the 103 new cases of bizarre behavior are from Japan, where the number of Tamiflu prescriptions is about 10 times that in the United States, with more than twice the population.

The new cases occurred during a 10-month period, between Aug. 29, 2005, and July 6, 2006. The tally marks a sharp increase to the 126 similar cases logged over the more than five years between the drug's approval in 1999 and August 2005, the FDA said.

The Japanese Tamiflu label now warns that disturbances in consciousness, abnormal behavior, delirium, hallucination, delusion and convulsion may occur. It also recommends patients be carefully monitored and the drug stopped if any abnormality is observed.

Even though severe cases of the flu can spark those conditions, the number and nature of the cases along with comments from doctors who believe the abnormal behavior was associated with the drug keep the FDA from ruling out Tamiflu as the cause, according to agency documents.

For that reason, the proposed changes would bring the U.S. label more in line with the Japanese one, and warn of abnormal behavior and recommend that patients, especially children, be closely monitored. However, the proposed U.S. version would recommend treatment be stopped only on a doctor's advice.

FDA staff called the proposed changes "prudent," since U.S. Tamiflu use could jump to Japanese levels. The current U.S. label mentions only "seizure and confusion" seen in some patients.

Tamiflu is made by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche Holding AG. A Roche spokesman did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Previously, Roche has cited studies from the United States and Canada that show the death incidence rate of influenza patients who took Tamiflu was far below those who did not.

Tamiflu is one of the few drugs believed effective in treating bird flu, which health officials fear could spark a pandemic should it mutate into a form easily passed from human to human.


The following article was published 2 years ago... alarms should have been sounded! -L.
From: Science News, on Monday, November 24, 2004.(Two Years Ago!)

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

"What, Us Worry?"

What, Us Worry?


The FDA says don't sweat the reports from Japan (*Update* And now, in 2006, cases of bizarre behaviour in children, induced by Tamiflu, are being reported from Europe.) linking Tamiflu with serious side effects in a small number of children:"Kids die of influenza, both in Japan and the United States, and if you give a drug to people who are at risk of dying, there will be people who die who got the drug," said Dr. Robert Nelson, chairman of the FDA's Pediatric Advisory Committee. "There is no signal the drug is doing it, as opposed to the disease."

The committee, which often meets in obscurity, found the world watching as it conducted a routine review of a drug that could play an important role in a pandemic caused by bird flu.The committee, in a unanimous vote, said not to worry. At the same time, though, it said it would continue to monitor reactions to the drug.

There's just one problem. The kids in Japan in didn't die from influenza. They died from hallucination-induced bizarre behavior.

THE antiviral drug Tamiflu, being stockpiled by governments around the world as a defence against bird flu, is believed to have caused the deaths of two Japanese teenagers. According to Health Ministry and other medical sources, it appears that the drug induced hallucinations and dramatic shifts in behaviour in the boys, which led them to commit suicide. Rokuro Hama, the doctor who made the connection, is the head of the Japan Institute for Pharmacovigilance and gave details of the incidents at a medical conference at the weekend.

Dr Hama believes that Tamiflu was linked to a third case in which a teenage girl was narrowly prevented from jumping from a window two days after starting a course of the drug.

Let's hope the FDA took a closer look at the evidence than the public statement of one member seems to indicate.

The safety of Tamiflu in children has been questioned before, and there's at least some reason to be on the lookout for central nervous side effects - especially in children, a population that doesn't see a lot of heavy Tamiflu use.

Based on the Japanese experience, I'd be reluctant to use it in a child. The Japanese have the highest rate of Tamiflu use in the world. A rare side effect would be more likely to reveal itself there than here. Unless there was an extremely virulent strain of influenza going around, it might not be worth the risk.

UPDATE: Looks like the FDA did a decent job of considering the possibilities behind the Japanese teenage Tamiflu deaths: Initially, it was not clear why the neuropsychiatric adverse events and deaths were reported almost entirely in Japanese children. The FDA receives adverse event reports from all over the world and usually adverse events are roughly the same from different reporting countries. The reports of death and neuropsychiatric events associated with Tamiflu, almost entirely from Japan, was unusual enough to prompt further evaluation. The FDA requested additional information from both Hoffman-La Roche, the pharmaceutical company which produces Tamiflu, and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. FDA then evaluated several possible explanations for the neuropsychiatric adverse events.Was it possible that Japanese patients metabolize Tamiflu differently than American or European patients or have higher levels of the drug in their bodies? There is no scientific evidence that this is true and Japanese dosing recommendations are very similar to U.S. and European recommendations.

Was it possible that these events were an unusual manifestation of influenza infection? There is good evidence that neuropsychiatric events can occur with influenza, in the absence of Tamiflu or other treatment. Beginning in the mid-1990s, there have been many reports in the pediatric scientific literature describing a syndrome of influenza-associated encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) or encephalopathy. These reports originated primarily from Japan where pediatricians described a pattern of rapid onset of fever, accompanied by convulsions and altered level of consciousness, progressing to coma within a few days of the onset of flu symptoms. This syndrome frequently resulted in death or significant neurologic sequelae. These reports prompted nationwide surveillance of influenza-associated encephalopathy in Japan. This syndrome was described and the surveillance in Japan was in progress before Tamiflu was approved for the treatment of influenza.

Was it possible that the large number of adverse events from Japan was because the Japanese use more Tamiflu? Is it possible that we may see more U.S. cases as use of Tamiflu increases in this country? Partly because of the awareness in Japan of influenza-associated encephalopathy, the Japanese health service will pay for rapid diagnostic testing for influenza in children and subsequent treatment. Japan currently uses the majority of the world's supply of Tamiflu distributed for seasonal influenza. It is possible that some of these events might be observed in the U.S. population if the use of Tamiflu increases substantially.

Finally, was it possible that the neuropsychiatric events reported from Japan reflect different methods and requirements for adverse event reporting? Both the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and Roche confirmed that Japanese regulators require an intensive period of active adverse event reporting for 6 months after a product is approved.

When Tamiflu was approved for prophylaxis of influenza in Japan, Roche and its Japanese pharmaceutical affiliate actively solicited adverse event reports from 70,000 institutions and physicians in Japan. These adverse event reports included the 2003-04 flu season and were subsequently reported to the FDA and are included in the BPCA safety review.

It is particularly difficult to assess the relationship of Tamiflu to the reported pediatric deaths. It is known that young children (less than 2 years of age) are hospitalized more often for influenza-associated illness than older children and young adults. Infants and the elderly are known to have higher influenza-associated death rates than other age groups.

However, in the U.S., influenza deaths in children were not among the events requiring reporting to public health departments and the CDC until the 2004-05 flu season.Review of the available information on the safety of Tamiflu in pediatric patients suggests that the increased reports of neuropsychiatric events in Japanese children are most likely related to an increased awareness of influenza-associated encephalopathy, increased access to Tamiflu in that population, and a coincident period of intensive monitoring adverse events.

Based on the information available to us, we can not conclude that there is a causal relationship between Tamiflu and the reported pediatric deaths. MedPundit 04:00 Nov-21,2004