-
Why is there a Gardasil ad on my coffee cup?
I stopped in to Amer’s Deli tonight (on State Street in Ann Arbor) for a sandwich, and discovered they are hawking Gardasil for Merck now.
Naturally I was curious how this ad was placed there so I asked what the deal was. He said they get the cup insulators for free and they have ads on them. I informed him that some people, especially in Ann Arbor might be offended by this and he might want to think about the content of these ads, and whether it’s actually going to result in any savings. He was quite aggravated.
So let’s just look at the numbers. Personally, after the way that manager-ish guy barked at me that “Well you’re always going to offend someone” I’m less inclined to go there for the 2-3 sandwiches (conservatively) per month I have at Amers. So let’s say they lose my business alone, and no one else’s. That’s about $20/month lost revenue. So that’s 2000 cents. let’s also say these cup holders cost 1 cent each. Do they sell 2000 cups of coffee a month? Maybe. But remember that is just 2 fewer sandwiches per month. Who knows how many Big-Pharma-hating customers like myself might be deterred from purchasing their food.
This idea makes no financial sense and is just plain annoying. So hey– big shot Amer’s manager that thought he was saving $20 a month or whatever you saved on the insulators… you just lost it all because I’m going to the other Amer’s next time. (Unfortunately Amer’s sandwiches are quite good. I’ll see if the other one also has Big Pharma ads on the coffee.)Why might a customer might be offended by an advertisement for a vaccine on their coffee? Well first of all it contains all kinds of nasty stuff, including aluminum and sodium borate, and has caused at least 50 deaths and thousands of adverse events so far- according to the CDC’s own stats (reality is probably much higher).
As of May 31, 2010, approximately 29.5 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States.
ok, DISTRIBUTED, but how many of those have actually been used? This is ambiguous. But for the sake of argument let’s assume they’ve all been administered.
As of May 31, 2010, there were 16,140 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the United States. Of these reports, 92% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 8% were reports of events considered serious.
8% of 16,140 is 1,291. So there are 1,291 “serious” adverse events in their database.
VAERS defines serious adverse events as adverse events that involve hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, and death.
So where is the evidence that this vaccine is actually going to prevent cancer? Where are the 20-year clinical safety trials? Is this vaccine even necessary? We have the evidence that the vaccine is harming thousands of girls, yet no evidence at all that it prevents cancer. And now they’re advertising the stuff on my coffee cup!
Someone please prove to me that this vaccine has reduced cervical cancer in the ~ 5 years it’s been on the market
Related video here: In Lies We Trust – Dr. Leonard Horowitz
-
Busted: Wyeth Used Ghostwriters To Place Over 40 “Scientific” Articles In Medical Journals
(NaturalNews) Documents unsealed as part of a lawsuit against drug giant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals reveal that the company used ghostwriters to prepare at least 40 medical journal articles promoting the use of its hormone-replacement drug Prempro.
Hormone replacement therapy drugs such as Premarin and Prempro were widely popular in the 1990s among women seeking to avoid the symptoms of menopause. The drugs became some of Wyeth’s best sellers, raking in more than $2 billion for the company until a 2002 study showed that they significantly increased women’s risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. Later research also implicated the drugs in an increase dementia risk among the elderly.
Use of hormone replacement therapy plummeted, with a corresponding drop in breast cancer rates. Since then, approximately 8,400 lawsuits have been filed against drugmakers Wyeth and Pfizer by more than 10,000 women affected by side effects. More than 8,000 of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, before U.S. District Judge William Wilson in Arkansas.
Wilson ordered Wyeth’s ghostwriting documents unsealed in response to a request by the defendants, the journal PLoS Medicine and the New York Times. The documents reveal that between 1997 and 2005, Wyeth paid medical communications firms to ghostwrite at least 40 articles that promoted hormone replacement for treatment of not just menopause symptoms, but also other conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. These articles, many of them reviews of prior studies, played up the benefits of the hormone drugs while downplaying their risks. The communications firms also secured doctors to put their names on the studies as authors.
The articles were published in 18 different medical journals. Neither Wyeth nor the studies’ purported authors informed the journals that the company had funded the studies and employed their writers.
The case of DesignWrite Inc. is indicative of Wyeth’s larger ghostwriting practices. Wyeth hired the firm in 1997, at which time DesignWrite proposed a two-year plan to promote the company’s hormone drugs by securing the publication of 30 different articles.
In 2003, the company drafted a 14-page outline of one article, with the author listed as “to be determined.” This outline was sent to Dr. Gloria Bachman of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in July, and she agreed to put her name on the study. She was sent a draft of the completed article in September and replied, “I had only one correction which I highlighted in red.”
The article, which was published in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine in 2005, disparaged non-hormonal treatment for hot flashes, referring to hormone replacement therapy as the “gold standard.”
Wyeth paid DesignWrite $25,000 for the production of the article.
The Prempro case is not Wyeth’s first ghostwriting scandal; the company was previously forced to pay $21 billion in lawsuits over the diet drug fen-phen, which was also marketed using ghostwriters. Indeed, the new documents suggest that ghostwriting journal articles is a standard practice for many pharmaceutical companies, raising concerns that doctors might have their prescribing habits influenced by articles that were actually produced as part of corporate marketing campaigns.
“The filter is missing when the reader does not know that the germ of an article came from the manufacturer,” said attorney James Szaller, representing many of the plaintiffs.
Medical journal publisher Elsevier has announced an investigation into ghostwriting practices, and some journals have started requiring full disclosure of each author’s role in producing a paper, as well as any conflicts of interest. Many journals, however, do not require this disclosure, and the extent of ghostwriting practices remains unknown.
“It’s almost like steroids and baseball,” said Joseph S. Ross, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine. “You don’t know who was using and who wasn’t; you don’t know which articles are tainted and which aren’t.”
Sources for this story include: www.philly.com; www.nytimes.com.
-
How Corrupted Drug Companies Deceive and Manipulate Your Doctor
Mercola.com | May 18 2010
Dr. Beatrice Golomb, Associate Professor of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, masterfully exposes the corruption that has metastasized like a tumor throughout the pharmaceutical and medical industries, in the video above.
If you have any doubt about drug companies being riddled with conflicts of interest, those doubts will be shattered after seeing the evidence she presents.
The corruption has become so prolific that it has literally debased medical science.
In the above linked Chicago Breaking News article, Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is quoted as saying:
“Science is not a democracy where people’s votes decide what is right. Look at the data, look at science and make a decision based on science that has been published.”
What he is really advocating is for you to blindly believe in “facts” that may have been produced in the midst of MASSIVE conflicts of interest.
Before you assume the science in medical journals is credible, let’s take a look at what is going on behind the scenes of editing and publishing in medical science.
Bias #1: Unwanted Results are Not Published
In order for scientific studies to happen, someone has to pay for them.
The top funder for any drug trial is the pharmaceutical company that makes it, since the manufacturer is most invested in “proving” how spectacular its drug is. Dr. Golomb uses the case of statins as an example, stating that all of the major statin studies have been funded exclusively by the drug industry.
The second-highest funder of drug studies is the National Institute of Health (NIH), which is not the group of neutral government experts you may have assumed them to be. In fact, NIH accepts a great deal of money from Big Pharma and is deeply enmeshed with the industry.
But drug companies publish only a fraction of the studies they fund — the ones that promote their drugs.
If a study does not have findings that are favorable to its product, it is unlikely it will ever make it into a journal for publication.
In contrast, studies that have favorable findings almost always make the cut.
There are simply thousands of scientific studies out there that have never been seen by you or your physician because they have been screened out by editors and reviewers who are being paid to uphold an industry agenda.
Published studies overwhelmingly favor the funding company’s drug. Whichever drug is manufactured by the study sponsor is the drug that comes out on top, 90 percent of the time!
Given this, how can medical journals be considered unbiased?
Bias #2: Bad Results are Submitted as Good
When a scientific study has findings that cast doubt on the efficacy of a drug, oftentimes the negative findings are morphed into positive ones.
For example, in 2008, FDA officials analyzed a registry of 74 antidepressant trials, which included trials that were published and those that were not. The FDA’s findings were then written up in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine1.
This is what they found:
- 38 of the trials reported positive results, and 37 of the 38 were published.
- 36 trials had negative or questionable findings. Of the 36, 22 were not published at all, and 11 were published in a way that conveyed the results as though they were positive.
So, if you just went to the published literature, it would look like 94 percent of the studies were positive, when in reality only about 50 percent were positive … equivalent to a coin toss.
For statins, the odds that the funding company’s drug will come out on top are staggering1:
- The odds that the funding company’s statin drug will come out looking better than anyone else’s statin in the “results” section of the article are 20:1.
- The odds that the funding company’s statin will come out on top in the “conclusions” part of the article are 35:1.
So, even if they can’t make the results look good, they can often find a way to twist the conclusions so that their drug appears favorable.
Selectively omitting negative trial results can be devastating to your health, as Merck & Co. proved when they concealed the fact that three patients suffered heart attacks from Vioxx during clinical trials. They conveniently omitted this data (along with other relevant findings) from the copy of the study they submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for publication.
The omissions were uncovered years later during the 7,000 Vioxx lawsuit litigations.
Bias #3: A Favorable Study is Submitted Multiple Times
When a study yields positive results, it is often submitted multiple times in a way that the reader doesn’t realize it’s the same study, obscured by different author lists and different details. Analyzers have had to look very carefully to determine which studies are actually duplicates because they are so cleverly disguised.
Not surprisingly, trials reporting greater treatment efficacy were significantly more likely to be duplicated, according to Dr. Golomb’s reporting.
In one analysis of the published reports about ondansetron (an anti-nausea drug), the same study was published 5 times. This duplication of data led to a 23 percent overestimation of ondansetron’s effectiveness when a meta-analysis was performed.2
Talk about good mileage!
Bias #4: Follow-Up Reviews Done by Biased Experts
The editorials that follow from a study, submitted by so-called unbiased experts and then published in reputable journals, are often done by non-neutral parties who have a financial tie to the drug maker.
Dr. Golomb uses the case of calcium channel blockers (a type of heart medication) as an example. The connection between authors declaring their support for calcium channel blockers and those not in support of them was highly statistically tied to their affiliation with the drug manufacturer — in fact, the odds that their opinion was NOT due to their affiliation was more than 1,000:1.
Bias #5: Ghostwriting
Many of the articles that appear in medical journals purportedly written by well-known academics are actually written by unacknowledged ghostwriters on Big Pharma payroll.
Consider the example of Parke-Davis and their drug Neurontin.
Parke-Davis contracted with a “medical education communication company,” or MECC, which is a company paid almost exclusively by pharmaceutical companies to write articles, reviews, and letters to editors of medical journals to cast their products in a favorable light.
In this case, MECC was paid $13,000 to $18,000 per article. In turn, MECC paid $1,000 each to friendly physicians and pharmacists to sign off as authors of the articles, making the material appear independent.
This was also done by Pfizer as a strategy for marketing Zoloft. A document was written that included 81 different articles promoting Zoloft’s usefulness for everything from panic disorder to pedophilia.
The only problem was, for some articles, the name of the author was listed as “to be determined,” even though the article was listed as already completed. They weren’t helping out an existing team of scientists who happened to be talentless at writing — Pfizer wrote the article, and then shopped around for scientists willing to claim authorship, to give it a veneer of credibility.
Wyeth-Ayerst employed a similar ghostwriting tactic to promote its “fen-phen” diet drug, Redux.
Bias #6: Journal Bias
Medical journals are generally considered by medical practitioners to be a source of reliable information. But medical journals are also businesses.
Three editors, who agreed to discuss finances only if they remained anonymous, said a few journals that previously measured annual profits in the tens of thousands of dollars now make millions annually.
The truth is that Big Pharma has become quite adept at manipulating and brainwashing practitioners of conventional medicine. They influence the very heart and center of the most respected medical journals, creating dogma and beliefs that support the drug paradigm because it is blessed by the pinnacle of scientific integrity: the prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal.
Peer-reviewed medical journals contain advertisements that are almost exclusively for drugs, amidst articles that are biased toward promoting those drugs. If you have looked through a medical journal lately, you’ll see full-page Pharma glossies, cover to cover.
Pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on marketing as they spend on research!
In 2003, drug companies spent $448 million dollars on advertising in medical journals2. It has been calculated that the return on investment on medical journal ads is between $2.22 and $6.86 for every dollar spent, with larger and older brands at the higher end.
Long-term returns may be even higher when you consider that one ad viewed by a physician could result in hundreds or even thousands of drug purchases, based on the prescriptions he or she writes.
The term “peer-review” has come to imply scientific credibility. But the fact is that many of the peer-reviewers are on the drug company’s payroll, and those who are not are unlikely to detect flawed research or outright fraud.
Medical journals are the number one source of medical information for physicians. In fact, nearly 80 percent of physicians use medical journals for their education, which exceeds information from any other source3.
Do you really want to blindly take the advise of a physician whose only source of medical information is a medical journal engaged in such profound conflicts of interest?
Advertisements for drugs focus the “latest and greatest” drugs to hit the market, drugs which may not be superior to existing, less expensive alternatives. So physicians are seduced into prescribing the newest, most expensive drugs, which drives up your healthcare costs.
An excellent article in PLoS Medicine regarding drug advertising in medical journals concludes4:
“The scholarly nature of journals confers credibility on both articles and advertisements within their pages. By exclusively featuring advertisements for drugs and devices, medical journals implicitly endorse corporate promotion of the most profitable products. Advertisements and other financial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies compromise the objectivity of journals.
The primary obligation of industry is to make money for its stockholders. The primary obligation of journals should be to physicians and their patients, who depend on the accuracy of information within these publications. Medical journals should not accept advertisements from pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, or other industries ‘relevant to medicine.’”
In 2004, Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, wrote, “Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”5
Bias #7: Drug Companies Masquerading as Educators
The education of medical students and residents also comes through the filter of the drug industry, which seeks to groom them before they even finish medical school.
According to Dr. Golomb’s data, Big Pharma now spends $18.5 billion per year promoting their drugs to physicians. That amounts to $30,000 per year for every physician in the U. S.!
And drug companies are allowed to develop their own education curriculum for medical students and residents, lavishing them with gifts, indirectly paying them to attend meetings and events where they promote the company’s products.
Why is the Accrediting Commission for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) so permissive with industry involvement?
Almost half of the members are representatives of Big Pharma or are consultants for businesses that work directly with it to prepare these educational programs. Only a few represent academic CME institutions.
Any discussion of physician “seduction” would be incomplete without the mentioning of the 100,000 drug reps, who are groomed and trained to wine and dine and otherwise shower physicians in sweetness until they are handing out prescriptions like candy.
Reps are even taught tactics for manipulating doctors for industry benefit, as a standard part of their training.6
Hell Hath No Fury
What happens if a physician or other person speaks up about these conflicts of interest? What happens to the proverbial whistle-blower?
Intimidating phone calls and direct threats, for starters.
In one case, Dr. Buse, an endocrinologist who is the incoming president of the American Diabetes Association, presented data in 1999 about his concerns about the risks of Avandia. Dr. Buse was intimidated with multiple phone calls by drug company officials. They suggested he could be financially liable to the company for $4 billion in lost revenues due to his “unscrupulous remarks.”
Other truth-tellers have had their reputations trashed or job offers rescinded for speaking the truths that Big Pharma works so hard to keep under wraps.
“Too Big to Nail”
An individual truth-teller might be vulnerable to the wrath of an angry drug company, but drug companies are unlikely to suffer much of a consequence for their crimes.
A CNN report from April 2, 2010 reveals the truth about how shielded these huge drug companies really are.
Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, engaged in illegally promoting their drug Bextra for off-label use, despite their knowledge that it was associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack.
Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005, but not before many people were damaged by its use. When Federal prosecutors realized that convicting Pfizer would likely be a corporate death sentence (as any company convicted of major health care fraud is excluded from Medicare and Medicaid), they cut Pfizer a deal. Just as the big banks on Wall Street were deemed “too big to fail,” Pfizer was deemed “too big to nail.”
Why?
Prosecutors claimed to be concerned about the loss of jobs by Pfizer employees and financial losses to Pfizer shareholders as a result of being excluded from the Medicaid/Medicare programs.
So the prosecutors charged a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., instead. In fact, this particular subsidiary company was created specifically for this purpose, as a sacrificial lamb, having been incorporated the very same day its lawyers filed a “guilty” plea in another case involving kick-backs, leaving Pfizer with the penalty equivalent of being sent to bed without supper.
In the end, all Pfizer lost was about three month’s profit, but all contracts, including those with Medicaid and Medicare, were spared.
This is just one more example of your federal government failing to protect you, and opting to protect big business’ interests instead.
The bottom line is, the drug companies aren’t going to protect you.
The government won’t protect you.
And it is unlikely that your physician can protect you either — even a well-meaning one — when he or she is operating within a system that has become RIGGED for Big Pharma profit.
Only you can protect yourself.
So, until real systemic change takes place, your best health strategy is quite simply to employ and maintain a naturally healthy lifestyle that will optimize your body’s innate healing abilities and minimize your need for the drug companies’ latest concoctions.
Sources:
Chicago Breaking News Center April 8, 2010 -
New Study Finds ‘Regular’ Flu Shots Were Associated With An Almost 70% Increased Risk of Getting H1N1 in 2009
(HealthDay News) The traditional seasonal flu vaccine may have increased the risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 swine flu, according to the results of four new studies by Canadian researchers.
In one study, the researchers used an ongoing sentinel monitoring system to assess the frequency of prior vaccination with the seasonal flu vaccine in people diagnosed with H1N1 swine flu
in 2009 compared to people without swine flu. The researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 68 percent increased risk of getting swine flu.The other three studies included additional case-control investigations in Ontario and Quebec, as well as a transmission study in 47 Quebec households that were hit with swine flu. In these studies, the researchers found that seasonal flu
vaccination was associated with a 1.4- to 5.0-times greater risk of having swine flu.The studies, published April 6 in the online journal PLoS Medicine, don’t show whether there is a true cause-and-effect relationship between seasonal flu vaccination and subsequent swine flu illness, or whether the association was possibly due to a common factor among the people in the study, said principal investigator Danuta Skowronski, of the British Columbia Center for Disease Control in Vancouver, and colleagues.
However, the findings may raise questions about the biological interactions between pre-existing and new pandemic influenza strains.
The researchers noted that the World Health Organization has recommended that protection against pandemic swine flu be included in future seasonal flu vaccines. This will provide direct protection against pandemic swine flu and eliminate any risk that may have been due to the 2009 seasonal vaccine, which did not include protection against swine flu.
Article Posted Here:
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cold-and-flu/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100256716
-
Psych doctor wrote 1,000 prescriptions a week for psychotropic drugs
Saturday, March 27, 2010 by: E. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is reporting that a Miami psychiatrist has prescribed nearly 14 million pills to Medicaid patients since 2004. According to the report, Fernando Mendez-Villamil wrote about 285,000 prescriptions in just six years with a total taxpayer cost of $43 million.The astounding find is part of an investigation into the legitimacy of Mendez-Villamil’s practice; after all, the numbers suggest that he would have had to prescribe about 4,000 prescriptions a month, or 1,000 a week, in order to achieve the large total.
Mendez-Villamil is already recognized as the most profuse drug prescriber in the state of Florida. Prior to the state’s implementation of new computer tracking protocols around 2007, Mendez-Villamil’s prescription rate was at its highest; after those measures began taking effect, his prescription rate slowed by almost 33 percent.
Mendez-Villamil’s highest year was 2004 when he issued over 62,000 prescriptions totaling $12.2 million. The numbers averaged out to almost 2,700 patients that year who all received roughly 23 prescriptions each. When all was said and done, each patient received an average of 1,200 pills in 2004.
Senator Don Gaetz (R-Niceville) instigated the AHCA review into Mendez-Villamil, alleging that he is taking advantage of the system and wasting taxpayer money for illegitimate purposes. Sen. Gaetz is citing the case as evidence that better oversight of the Medicaid system is needed. In response to a freedom-of-information request, the in-depth review he requested was published in Health News Florida.
When recently contacted about the issue, Mendez-Villamil refused to speak to the media. His attorney made a statement in his defense, insisting that all such numbers are normal for the volume of patients seen by the doctor. Mendez-Villamil did personally speak to the media back in December, however, where he explained that he typically sees patients for about 10 minutes every few months which allows him to see a large number of patients. Most of these patients, he said, are on four or five drugs each, all of which he says are necessary.
According to the report, Mendez-Villamil often prescribes some of the most expensive psychotropic drugs to his patients, including Zyprexa which costs about $840 for a 30-day supply. Other common prescriptions include Abilify at over $630 a month and Seroquel at $430.
In 2007, the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity received a complaint about Mendez-Villamil which it handed over to the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The investigation is still in progress but, since receiving more intense scrutiny, Mendez-Villamil has reduced his number of patients by 25 percent.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.healthnewsflorida.org/in…
-
Proposed “Dietary Supplement ‘Safety’ Act” major threat to health freedom
A dangerous new piece legislation submitted by Critter John McCain threatens to restrict US citizens’ access to dietary supplements at the discretion of the FDA. Where are the standards by which this is measured? We already have laws on the books preventing adulteration of any consumable food with contaminants. There is more to this. The wording of this bill is purposefully vague and could effectively put an end to all medicinal herbs being sold in the US, when the big pharma lobbyist puppet-masters pay the FDA off to eliminate their competition.
(A) IN GENERAL- If the Secretary finds there is a reasonable probability that a dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death, or is adulterated or misbranded, the Secretary shall issue a cease distribution and notification order requiring the person named in the order to immediately–
(i) cease distribution of such dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement;
(ii) notify distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers of the order; and
(iii) instruct those distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers to cease distributing, importing, selling, and using the dietary supplement.
Can the FDA be trusted to rule make an impartial ruling on whether a dietary supplement is misbranded or adulterated? This is the same FDA that approved unlabeled Monsanto abominations like rBGH and pesticide-expressing, herbicide-resistant crops that now infect the gene pool; bacteriaphage virus spray for meats; ammonia treatment of beef for school lunches. The FDA has just decided to allow the re-labeling of toxic Aspartame as a natural sweetner. Is this the same FDA we want deciding which vitamins and herbs we can use?
How much bribe money will it take to get my plant sterol prostate health supplement designated as “misbranded,” in an effort to get me on the teat of big pharma? I could tell you that plant sterols can be very effective in treating benign prostatic hypertrophy in men, if making such a statement were legal.
Big pharma sees the threat that natural supplements pose to their profit margins and they’re moving to neutralize it. In the coming months we’re likely to see a lot of manipulative news stories about how herbal supplements can contain toxic chemicals as the corporate media attempts to drum up support for this freedom-killing legislation. But they dare not compare it to the > 200,000 yearly deaths in the US due to iatrogenic disease – medical errors and adverse reactions
Here’s a great video from Gary Null about that very issue …
-
Former head of CDC lands lucrative job as president of Merck vaccine division
(NaturalNews) You’ve heard it before, how the pharmaceutical industry has a giant “revolving door” through which corporations and government agencies frequently exchange key employees. That reality was driven home in a huge way today when news broke that Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, landed a top job with Merck, one of the largest drug companies in the world. Her job there? She’s the new president of the vaccine division.
How convenient. That means the former head of the CDC was very likely cultivating a relationship with Merck all these years, and now comes the big payoff: Heading up a $5 billion division that sells cervical cancer vaccines (like Gardasil), chickenpox vaccines and of course H1N1 swine flu vaccines, too.
So what’s the problem with all this? The problem is that private industry and government health offices such as the CDC or FDA should never be so cozy. When they are, it creates an environment of collusion between Big Government and Big Pharma. We’ve already seen this with the government-led push for swine flu vaccines that are manufactured (and sold) by drug companies like Merck.
You might even say that the CDC already functions as the marketing division of the pharmaceutical industry. It was the CDC that pushed so hard for swine flu vaccines, even amid the obvious realization that swine flu was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. To this day, the CDC still hasn’t bothered to recommend vitamin D for the prevention of either seasonal flu or swine flu. It remains heavily invested in the lucrative vaccine approach — an approach that just happens to financially benefit the very corporations that are hiring ex-CDC employees like Dr. Gerberding.
How to triple your salary by selling out to industry
Getting a job offer from Big Pharma, by the way, is one of the most-desired career paths for many CDC employees (and FDA workers, for that matter). It’s easy to accomplish it, too: Just operate in your government position as if you were a Big Pharma lackey. If you produce enough good business for the drug industry, sooner or later they’ll offer you a lucrative position that doubles or triples your government salary (or even better).
-
Nano silver shown to have anti-clotting effect on blood
Colloidal, nano-particulate silver has been shown to have significant anti-clotting properties in a new study published in the medical journal ACS Nano.
Current drugs used to treat clotting disorders such as stroke and thrombosis can have serious side effects. Contaminated batches of Chinese-made Heparin (an anti-clotting drug often used in stroke patients) was recently recalled by the FDA. Even when not contaminated, Heparin can have some nasty side effects, including bleeding out of body orofices, confusion, vision problems, vomiting, and swelling.
Since metals can not be patented, it’s unlikely the pharmaceutical industry will show interest in this, other than to prevent its use. But for people with stroke or other clotting disorders, this information could be valuable.
Characterization of Antiplatelet Properties of Silver Nanoparticles [pdf]
Latest tweetsArchaeologist: Reptoid Rapture Delayed (Washington's Blog) http://t.co/wFGZl0d4
China Launches Campaign to Eradicate House Churches (New American) http://t.co/zWiqUEjQ
IRS Pays out >$4b/yr in tax credits to illegals claiming dependent children living in other countries http://t.co/A1Ilkk65 #fraud #taxes
Add qbit.cc as a friend on facebook
Avoid Google's IP tracking and ISP snooping with...
Scroogle SSL Search Proxy
-
Enter your
Google
search terms:
Whitelist scripts and plugins running in Firefox with
NoScript extension
Interesting Visitors
navy.mil (US Navy)disa.mil (US Defense Info Sys) af.mil (US Air Force) army.mil pentagon.mil centcom.mil (Central Command) usdoj.gov (US Dept of Justice) cceeg.dec.uwi.edu (UNESCO?)
lmco.com (Lockheed Martin)
dhs.gov (US Homeland Security)
faa.gov (US Federal Aviation Admin)
alaska.gov
Water Filtration
Crystal Quest Thunder 1000CP Reverse Osmosis Ultrafiltration System
I installed one of these under my sink and have been thrilled with the quality of the water. Reverse Osmosis filtration is the most efficient and effective form of filtration available. Removes fluoride and other hard-to-filter contaminants. The water tastes amazing!
Royal Berkey Water Filter
with 2 Black Filters and 2 Free PF-2 Fluoride Filters Gravity fed, no electricity or water pressure required. Filter stagnant pond water to drinkable in an emergency. Stainless steel- won't leach BPA or pthalates. Removes fluoride and arsenic unlike Brita and other fridge filters.
Berkey Black Replacement Filters
These are carbon filters that remove organic contaminants. They do not remove fluoride. PF2 or PF4 post-filters remove fluoride and arsenic
Berkey Replacement PF-2 Fluoride/Arsenic Filters
These are aluminum oxide filters that reduce fluoride and arsenic.
Berkey Ceramic and PF-4 Replacement Filters
2 Big Berkey 9" Ceramic Replacement Filters & 2 PF-4 Fluoride Filters
Berkey KDF Shower Filter
Reduces free chlorine to protect skin and lungs. Installs on any standard shower fitting with no tools. (Pliers may be required to get your old shower head off). Optionally can be used with your own shower head.
3M Filtrete high performance air filters.
I use these in my home HVAC system, running 24x7.
Honeywell Enviracaire HEPA + Carbon filter.
I have one of these in my office and one at home. Nuclear contamination, chemtrails, incinerated trash, vehicle exhaust, indoor dust and plastic fumes, you name it, it's in the air. Not filtering indoor air is insane.
Outdoor/Survival Products
Pocket Fresnel lens
A great firestarter for camping or emergency use. Unlimited source of ignition using direct sunlight. Lightweight, cheap and fits in a wallet!
Israeli Civilian Gas Mask
Includes Nato Filter. Think of it like a fire extinguisher, or car insurance. You hope you never have to use it but if you do, you'll be glad you have it.
Israeli Military Gas Mask
Includes Nato Filter. Think of it like a fire extinguisher, or car insurance. You hope you never have to use it but if you do, you'll be glad you have it.
Israeli CHILDRENS Civilian Gas Mask
Includes Nato Filter. Think of it like a fire extinguisher, or car insurance. Don't forget about the kids!
Replacement NATO Cartridge For Israeli Gas Mask
One cartridge may not be enough. A biological or nuclear attack is not the only situation some extra filters might be useful. Chemical spills, industrial accidents, riots, natural disasters, who knows. Better to have it and not need it.
Anti-Radiation Potassium Iodate Tablets
Protects the thyroid from uptake of radioactive iodine. Iodate is more stable than iodide. KIO3 170 mg
iOSAT Potassium Iodide Tablets, 130 mg (14 Tablets)
Protects the thyroid from uptake of radioactive iodine.
Trifield 100XE EMF Meter
The TriField Meter is the only EMF meter which offers magnetic, electric, and radio/microwave detection in one package. Note: does not detect nuclear radiation. (A Geiger counter does this)
Terra-P Geiger Counter
Gamma, beta sensitive. Automatic setting of measurement intervals and ranges. Audio signal for each detected gamma-quantum and beta-particle. Digital display. Variable alarm threshold. Do not wait til the next nuclear accident because thse will be difficult to obtain and the prices will skyrocket. This device gives you the ability to make an informed decision about whether to remain in an area with radioactive contamination. It's about the size of a cell phone and easy to use.
Dietary Supplements
Herb Pharm Saw Palmetto 4 Oz
Saw palmetto oil may support healthy prostate function and protect tissues such as prostate and hair follicles from damaging effects of DHT (di-hydroxy testosterone).
Gaia Herbs Oil of Oregano
Traditional anti-microbial oil. I take one capsule 3x/day any time I start to feel a respiratory infection. Supercritical co2 extracted (no petroleum solvents used)
Sovereign Silver Colloidal Silver
Silver is a natural anti-viral/anti-microbial, and anti-coagulant. Safe and well tolerated when used in moderation.
Pomology Prostate PM
Phytosterol supplement helps support healthy testosterone metabolism in men. Contains immune-boosting vitamin D.
Recommended Media:
You can't suppress this information. Ideas are bulletproof.
QR Code link to this page
See also:
