FDA Approves Known Dangerous Drug for Use on Children

Federal regulators have pulled a lot of bizarre stunts over the years, but this one is a real head-scratcher. Just over a month ago, the manufacturer of an antidepressant drug called Lexapro (Forest Laboratories Inc.) was brought up on charges for illegally bribing pediatricians to prescribe it for children, for which it was not approved. So what does the FDA do? They announced last week that they had given the green light for Lexapro to be used on patients from 12-17 years of age. To make things even weirder, this ruling contradicts Forest Labs' own statement that Lexapro had not proven itself in studies to effectively maintain control of depression symptoms in adolescents.

The timing of this move makes absolutely no sense, and it screams of corruption and conflict of interest, something the FDA is no stranger to. The really odd thing about this all is that the FDA's ruling actually overrides Forest Labs' findings that Lexapro is ineffective for treating depressed children, and that it is highly dangerous for them as well -- even more so than for adults. If you visit Forest Labs' Lexapro website where their branding mantra is "POWER TO ENJOY LIFE", they have clearly posted an ominous warning right under their Big Announcement:

LEXAPRO is now approved for
acute and maintenance treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12-17.

"Antidepressants increased the risk, compared to placebo, of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders."

For the FDA to make the decision to legalize the prescriptions of Lexapro to children under any circumstances is highly questionable, but when it was done in the shadow of the indictment of Forest Labs, it becomes scandalous.

What Kind of Corruption is Going on Here?

The accusations against Forest Labs that were announced last month were the culmination of a five-year investigation by the Federal Department of Justice. Prosecutors found that executives in the company had told their sales and marketing people to push pediatricians to prescribe Lexapro and its chemically similar sister drug Celexa to children and adolescents, even though it had not received FDA clearance to do so. However, this is a common occurrence in the world of Big Pharma, and the practice is called "off-label" prescription and is not technically illegal. However, it is illegal for drug companies to urge physicians to do so.

Yes, it sounds unbelievable, but if a physician wants to use a drug for something other than what it is designed to do because he feels it may "help" his patient, he is legally free to do that in some cases. Where Forest Labs got themselves in trouble, is that they were caught pushing off-label use through illegal "marketing" methods such as offering bribes to doctors in the form of cash, tickets to sporting events and Broadway shows, fishing trips, spa visits, and other expensive perks. Employees of Forest Labs were also instructed to ignore studies that showed less than favorable results of these drugs on kids, and to highlight studies that gave the results the company was looking for. This cat and mouse game is also a very common practice in the FDA/Big Pharma network. Lexapro is Forest's biggest product ($2 billion in annual sales and number 15 on the list of all US drug sales), but apparently they weren't satisfied with that.

Just How Dangerous is Lexapro Anyway?

Many doctors, and thus their patients, have been told by drug company reps that Lexapro is "non-habit forming." However, the truth of the matter is that this toxic drug has over 250 known side-effects, either during use or when stopping use of the drug (withdrawal symptoms). Some of the major side effects include:

• Gastrointestinal: (cramps, diarrhea, constipation difficulty swallowing, vomiting)
• Cardiovascular: (irregular heartbeat, chest pain abnormal EKG, varicose veins)
• Muscle pain
• Aches and pains
• Joint pain
• Loss of balance
  Tremors
• Involuntary muscle contractions
• Psychiatric: (crying fits, auditory hallucinations, abnormal dreaming, depression -- the very thing it is supposed to treat!)
• Asthma and other allergies
• Acne and other skin disorders
• Shortness of breath

Experts also urge caution when withdrawing from Lexapro. Potential problems include many of those listed above, plus:

• Cardiac arrest
• Gastric ulcers
• Irritable Bowel Syndrome
• Increased psychiatric symptoms
• Kidney disease
• Vision problems: (macular degeneration, detached retina)

Google "Lexapro withdrawals" or "weaning off of Lexapro" and you will find literally hundreds of sites and forums of individuals trying to wean off of Lexapro. Drugs.com contains a discussion forum with 314 pages of posts devoted only to people trying who are trying to stop Lexapro. Evidently some have been trying to get off this "non-addictive anti-depressant" from 3 to 8 months, and yet are still having tremendous difficulties in accomplishing their goal.

Unfortunately, as you can see, you can't always trust what your doctor tells you and the FDA continues to show us over and over just how much they really do NOT care about our health and well-being. Be sober and wise about any drug that is prescribed for you or your loved ones. Research and do your "due diligence." For me, I will choose NOT to get my POWER TO ENJOY LIFE from a pharmaceutical drug.

Panic in Big Pharma Land

Today's article caught my eye because it is very representative of the type of pretzel logic used by drug firms, the FDA, and many conventional healthcare providers. I can almost picture executives and public relations people from the pharmaceutical companies huddled around a conference table to deal with this potentially disastrous crisis: "The public has too much information about the drugs we sell them!"

Almost 75% of Americans who were surveyed are concerned about the safety of prescription drugs, and the industry is scrambling before the bottom drops out of their cash cow. Perhaps one of the most telling revelations in the article below is the opinion of drug industry insiders that this lack of confidence in prescription drug safety is likely to be short-lived. How they could come to such a conclusion is anyone's guess, but I suppose with all their marketing gurus and plants in the media and Big Government, they are certain that people will once again come to their senses and line up passively for their medications without questioning why these toxic substances are ruining the health and even taking the lives of so many millions every year.

The reality is not that we have too much information, but rather not enough. The way drug studies are skewed and compromised by funding from questionable sources that scream conflict of interest, many hazards are hidden, and the ones that are disclosed are downplayed and minimized. Articles such as the one below are dispatched by the media in a deliberate attempt to scare the public into continuing consumption of pharmaceuticals despite the alarming statistics that prove they are extremely unsafe.


Wall Street Journal Examines Potential Harm in Providing Too Much Drug Safety Information

The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday examined how "consumers are receiving a flood of safety information about the drugs they take -- so much that it risks scaring some people."

According to the Journal, a recent "series of prescription medication scares" has prompted the media, consumer advocacy groups and FDA to release more information regarding the safety of prescription medications. However, the proliferation of such information "might overwhelm patients and raise undue alarm," according to some medical professionals. The Journal warns that patients "may forget about the benefits of a medication if they focus only on risk," and "the health consequences associated with stopping a medication ... may be far worse than the possibility of a side effect."

According to a Pfizer survey conducted in March of 300 medical professionals, 89% of respondents said they were at least somewhat concerned that patients would stop taking medications if potentially negative safety information was released too early. In addition, a 2008 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health and USA Today found that 27% of U.S. residents feel "very confident" in the safety of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. and a little more than half feel that drug companies do enough to test and monitor drug safety. However, drug industry officials say the skepticism regarding drug safety might only be temporary, the Journal reports.

Drug industry experts say that one potential problem is that many patients take "safe" to mean virtually no risk, Timothy Lesar, director of Clinical Pharmacy Services at Albany Medical Center and a member of FDA's drug safety advisory committee, said. He said, "There are no guarantees and there are always risks," adding, "If we're going to take risk, we need to make sure there are benefits here."

Efforts at Clarity
Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Wyeth and Johnson & Johnson are "ramping up efforts to be more open about drug safety," and FDA also is "taking steps to continue alerting consumers about drug-safety issues while trying not to cause unnecessary worry," the Journal reports. According to FDA drug safety official Paul Seligman, FDA intends to change its early notification letters about drug-safety concerns to list the number of adverse events that have occurred compared with the number of people taking the drug and post such concerns on WebMD.

Seligman said that the effects of providing more safety information are not yet clear, adding that FDA plans to study consumers' reactions and use of safety information. He said, "We're always aware and want to strive to make sure that this (safety) information is provided in a way that outweighs any unintended consequences" (Wang, Wall Street Journal, 12/9).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=55992

Big Pharma's "Marketing" Puts Organized Crime to Shame

Lest we give in to a bit of sentimentality as the holidays approach, more dirt surfaced this week regarding the unethical practices of an industry that is increasingly tainted by illegal and deceptive maneuvers that have put the lives of millions at risk worldwide. In this latest episode, as the article below details, a respected figure on Public Radio has been caught taking undisclosed "consultation fees" from pharmaceutical firms in return for promoting their drugs on and off his long-running radio program. GlaxoSmithKline was quick to put the responsibility for these legal bribes on Dr. Goodwin. As they say, there is no honor amongst thieves.

This scandal comes on the tail of a government investigation culminated this fall that found drug maker Cephalon guilty of serious false marketing practices and other charges such as urging physicians to prescribe certain drugs for unsafe and unauthorized applications, including their use on children and mentally ill patients. The bulk of evidence against Cephalon came from a sales rep that agreed to wear a wire tap during a company conference. It appears Big Pharma has more in common with the Mafia than the free enterprise system.

Let's hope that revelations such as these will infuriate and motivate the American people to demand changes in a system that allows for such corruption. In the meantime, if your doctor prescribes any medication for any reason, do not take it for granted that its use is safe or appropriate.


NPR doc didn't disclose pharma payments
By tracy
Created Nov 21 2008 - 12:25pm

We've heard about drugmaker's payments and grants to prescribing doctors, researchers, medical societies, teaching hospitals, CME companies... and now, a radio host. The psychiatrist and former NIMH director Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, whose radio program "The Infinite Mind" airs on NPR, collected some $1.3 million from drugmakers between 2000 and 2007. Goodwin never mentioned those payments to listeners, despite the fact that some of his programs dealt with subjects "important to the commercial interests of the companies for which he consults," the New York Times reports.

The payments have come to light as part of a Congressional investigation into drugmakers' potential influence on prescribing habits. For instance, Goodwin told listeners that children with untreated bipolar disorder could suffer brain damage (a view not universally shared in psychiatry). During the same program, Goodwin touted the safety and efficacy of treatments for the disease, particularly mood stabilizing drugs. And the same day, GlaxoSmithKline paid the psychiatrist $2,500 to give a promotional lecture for its mood stabilizer Lamictal, just part of the $329,000 he collected for promoting Lamictal that year, Congressional records show.

Goodwin told the NYT that the radio show's producer knew about his consulting with drugmakers, but that neither he nor the producer realized at the time that they should have disclosed the relationships. "In retrospect, that should have been disclosed," Goodwin told the paper. But the NPR producer told the paper that Goodwin had denied getting money from drugmakers. "The fact that he was out on the stump for pharmaceutical companies was not something we were aware of. It would have violated our agreements," producer Bill Lichtenstein said in an interview.

NPR now says it's pulling the program as soon as possible and that, had it been aware of Goodwin's financial relationships, it would not have aired "The Infinite Mind." A Glaxo spokesperson said that the responsibility for disclosing its payments to Goodwin lay with the doctor. "We continue to believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making disclosures to their employers and other entities, in this case National Public Radio and its listeners."

http://www.fiercepharma.com/node/10068/print

Drug Barons Falsify Research Studies

We have previously discussed on this blog how corrupt the drug company / FDA / academia network is, and today's article gives some fascinating details into how this whole system works for the benefit of all, except patients, of course. It is particularly interesting how research that supports nutritional therapies is suppressed in favor of the mass marketing of dangerous drugs that often do more harm than good and do little to heal or prevent illness.

No matter what one's opinion is regarding the outcome of the recent elections, let's hope that these cozy business relationships that are reaping windfall profits at the expense of the health and welfare of the American people can be shattered by the new administration. It's all about change, according to the Obama camp, so let's see if any long-overdue changes will occur in the disastrous health care system here in our country.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, November 5, 2008

Rigged Trials: Drug Studies Favor The Manufacturer

(OMNS, November 5, 2008) If you have often suspected that drug studies are rigged by the pharmaceutical manufacturer, you are right. "Drug studies skewed toward study sponsors," reported The Washington Post. (1) "Industry-funded research often favors patent-holders, study finds." Specifically, the American Journal of Psychiatry study authors said, "In 90% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. . . On the basis of these contrasting findings in head-to-head trials, it appears that whichever company sponsors the trial produces the better antipsychotic drug." (2)

Marcia Angell, MD, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, agrees. "Is there some way (drug) companies can rig clinical trials to make their drugs look better than they are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time." One "way to load the dice," she writes, "is to enroll only young subjects in trials, even if the drugs being tested are meant to be used mainly in older people. Because young people generally experience fewer side effects, drugs will look safer."

Another of the "common ways to bias trials is to present only part of the data - the part that makes the product look good - and ignore the rest." She adds, "The most dramatic form of bias is out-and-out suppression of negative results." (3)

You will rarely hear academia complain. Why? Because they are aboard the gravy train. Dr. Angell: "Columbia University, which patented the technology used in the manufacture of Epogen and Cerezyme, collected nearly $300 million in royalties" in 17 years. "The patent was based on NIH-funded research." That means you, the taxpayer, footed the bill. Harvard is in just as deep. In its own Faustian dealings with the drug companies, "a Harvard hospital has a deal that gives Novartis rights to discoveries that lead to new cancer drugs. . . Merck is building a twelve-story research facility next door to Harvard Medical School . . . In Harvard Medical School 's Dean's Report for 2003-4, the list of benefactors included about a dozen of the largest drug companies."

Clearly drug companies are more concerned with profits than with patients. The psychiatric drug market is a very big business. American doctors prescribe $10 billion worth of antipsychotic drugs every single year. The pharmaceutical industry, says Angell, is "primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit." Big pharma is "taking us for a ride." And it is no mere jaunt around the park. Total drug industry worldwide sales are in excess of $500 billion per year, half of which are in North America. Profit margins are typically 20 per cent, so high that "the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together."

But more cash does not buy more cures. In fact, said the Washington Post: "When the federal government recently compared a broader range of drugs in typical schizophrenia patients in a lengthy trial, the two medications that stood out were cheaper drugs not under patent." (1) It gets even more interesting when we broaden our list of treatment options to include nutrition. With the therapeutic use of vitamin supplements, the cost goes down much further, and the success rate goes way up. Orthomolecular (nutritional) therapy, says psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, is many times more effective than drug therapy. He says that niacin (vitamin B-3) in sufficiently high doses is the most effective, least expensive, and safest treatment for schizophrenia and a number of other very serious mental illnesses. Hoffer and colleagues demonstrated this decades ago when, in the early 1950s, they successfully conducted the very first double-blind, placebo-controlled nutritional studies i! n the history of psychiatry. (4)

Niacin is a clinically proven therapy for serious mental illness, and yet the medical profession has delayed endorsing it for over fifty years. Instead, drug treatments dominate. But drugs are not doing the job. A double-blind study of schizophrenics showed that three-quarters of them stopped taking pharmaceutical medication either because of intolerability or inefficacy. That means that either the drug side effects were unbearable, or the drug just plain did not work. (5)

Perhaps drugs are not the answer because mental illness is not caused by drug deficiency. But much illness, especially mental illness, may indeed be caused by nutrient deficiency or nutrient dependency. Only nutrients can correct this problem. This not only makes sense, it has stood up to clinical trial again and again. (6) Vitamins like niacin are cheap, safe and effective. Modern "wonder drugs" are none of those. But they do make money. Especially when the drug makers control the research, the advertising, and the doctors. No wonder which approach you've heard more about.

We've all been carefully taught that drugs cure illness, not vitamins. The system is remarkably well-entrenched. 2.3 million Americans per year serve as human subjects for pharmaceutical company drug testing. Pharmaceutical companies set up patient support or advocacy groups to attract specific subjects for their clinical trials. Doctors are paid an average of $7,000 per patient for every patient they enroll in a drug study. Drug companies pay nearly two-thirds of the costs of continuing medical education. While the pharmaceutical industry's reach into education is bad enough, its grip on research is scandalous. For example: Drug company "publications strategies" have them "sponsor minimal research, prepare journal articles based on it, and pay academic researchers to put their names on those articles." So bad is it that Dr. Angell wrote an editorial in NEJM (7) entitled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?" A reader wryly responded, "No. The current owner is very happy with i! t."

The result? "Bias is now rampant in drug trials. . . (Pharmaceutical) industry-sponsored research was nearly four times as likely to be favorable to the company's product as NIH-sponsored research." (3) Remember, "NIH-sponsored" means "taxpayer-funded." And then, when they need to use a drug, those same taxpayers pay again, and way too much, for the drug they already paid out grant money to develop, in a rigged trial, for a high-profit company.

What a sweet system for the pharmaceutical industry.

Medications Used for Acne -- and All Conditions -- Can Be Deadly

Our society has been so conditioned to popping a pill for any and all health problems that most of us do so without thinking twice. However, the fact is that literally all drugs have potentially serious side effects, and those that manufacture, sell, and regulate these concoctions know it. Today's post discusses an article highlighting the unfortunate death of a healthy teenager who used an antibiotic to "treat" his acne.

This tragic story brings several points to light. First off, the use of medications to treat acne does not address the true causes of this most common condition. Acne, as well as other skin conditions, in most situations, is a holistic concern that needs to be managed and prevented by pursuing a lifestyle that incorporates a natural and healthy diet, plenty of pure water, and proper cleansing of the intestinal tract, liver, and gallbladder. Proper attention should also be paid to hormonal balance. In addition, the skin should be kept clean using natural skin care products that are free of toxic chemicals and abrasives. Despite the many millions of dollars that are spent on acne treatments every year, both prescription and over-the-counter, the condition cannot be healed by these drugs, and the consequences of their use can be very serious indeed. The use of antibiotics to treat acne is quite common, but many in the health field are now stating that such practices can actually worsen acne because bacteria become stronger by building up a resistance to such drugs.

Whether its acne or any other health concern, do not casually use or give to your children any drug without thoroughly researching the potential side effects, or without determining if the concoction will actually help with healing or simply cover up the symptoms without addressing the core issues that are causing the condition. It is sad, but very true, that deaths such as those of this Welsh young man are not isolated. Thousands of people are killed or seriously affected by pharmaceutical drugs every year.


Teenager dies after suffering allergic reaction to acne tablets
Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian
Thursday October 30 2008

A 14-year-old boy has died after suffering an allergic reaction to the acne medication he was given by his doctor, his father said yesterday.

An inquest into the death of Shaun Jones, from Rhydyfelin in Pontypridd, south Wales, has been opened and adjourned while further inquiries are made. Jones was said to be a fit and healthy rugby player, but appeared to suffer a severe reaction on October 21 after taking the first dose of antibiotic tablets.

Graeme Jones, the boy's father, said nobody was to blame and it was just "one of those terrible things."

"He was popular with the girls and had a couple of spots, so the doctor gave him some antibiotic acne tablets. A lot of his friends are taking them," Jones told BBC online news.

"It was the first time he'd taken them and he developed breathing difficulties. We called 999 and he went to hospital - but it was too late. The doctors couldn't save him.

"The doctor that gave him the tablets is really upset, but we don't blame him. It was just one of those terrible things. We're still coming to terms with losing him. One minute he was here and now he's gone.

"Shaun's little sister is devastated. She can't bear to leave our sides because she thinks something will happen to us too."

Jones declined to name the tablets while inquiries are ongoing. Many antibiotics commonly used to treat acne do have warnings of the possibility of allergic reactions, which can cause breathing difficulties, but deaths are rare.

Teresa Bates, a local councillor and governor at Hawthorn high school, which Shaun attended, said: "I understand he had acne and was given medication and had a massive allergic reaction to it.

"I know his grandmother and the family is devastated. So is the whole community."

Shaun played for his village rugby club. Rhydyfelin coach Dai Watkins said: "He was an awesome player whose name was first on the teamsheet."

"The fact that he was so fit and strong makes it all the harder to take. He was so dedicated and talented."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/30/health-antibiotic

New Drugs Pose New Hazards

A very alarming new study has indicated that the risks involved with using many newer drugs may be even greater than feared. Big Pharma and conventional medicine had high hopes for next generation medicines known as biological drugs, which are supposedly composed of living materials rather than chemicals that are foreign to the body. Researchers are discovering that many of these drugs, which are often manufactured using genetic engineering and other artificial processes, have hidden hazards (such as suppressing the immune system, the one thing needed MOST when fighting disease) that are sometimes linked to life-threatening side effects including major infections and cancers. If these are the next generation of pharmaceuticals then I say, NO THANKS! Conventional medicine continues to head in the wrong direction.

The entire drug industry is based on the formation and sale of artificial substances that are designed to "treat" or cover up symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of illness. True healing can only occur when approaches are used that help to repair and support the body's natural healing mechanisms as contained in many herbs, organic foods and food-grade supplementation.

Today's post also shines some light on the ludicrous way that the FDA tests and approves drugs. They know that there are significant hazards associated with the vast majority of drugs -- these are dangerous chemicals that kill many people every year. Yet, the thinking is that these risks are just a necessary evil that must be tolerated for the greater good of mankind. The enormous amount of money involved in the pharmaceutical industry is a major factor that allows for this madness -- erroneously labeled 'medicine" -- to continue.


Safety a problem for new generation drugs, too
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
1 hr 8 mins ago

CHICAGO -- Nearly a fourth of widely used new-generation biological drugs for several common diseases produce serious side effects that lead to safety warnings soon after they go on the market, the first major study of its kind found.

Included in the report released Tuesday were the arthritis drugs Humira and Remicade, cancer drugs Rituxan and Erbitux, and the heart failure drug Natrecor. All wound up being flagged for safety.

That might surprise some doctors who may have thought that these new treatments might be safer than traditional chemical-based medicines.

Researchers found that most of the warnings came within five years after these biologicals won government approval in the United States and Europe between 1995 and 2007.

Many traditional medicines wind up with safety warnings too after they go on the market. But experts said there were no similar studies of older medicines that made it possible to compare safety issues between the two groups of drugs.

The new study, by Dutch researchers, is the first comprehensive examination of these newer medicines, a driving part of the biotech revolution.

The drugs are known as biologicals because they're made from living material and they typically affect the body's disease-fighting immune system. Many relieve severe symptoms by suppressing that system.

It's that same mechanism that can result in side effects often not seen with traditional chemical-based medicines, said Dr. Charles Bennett, a Northwestern University drug safety expert. These can include brain and fungal infections and cancer.

Many are genetically engineered and Bennett said that because they typically resemble naturally occurring proteins, many doctors have assumed they were safer than traditional chemical-based medicines. But he said the study shows that's not necessarily true.

"They have an important role," Bennett said. "They're really the next generation of pharmaceuticals."

He said the results simply show that doctors and patients should be aware that the drugs have many potential side effects that may not be listed on the label.

Among the drugs under examination are Genentech Inc.'s psoriasis drug Raptiva, which just last week the Food and Drug Administration warned may contribute to a life-threatening brain illness and infections; and Exubera, an inhaled insulin product, linked with lung cancer risks. Exubera was approved by the FDA in 2006 but Pfizer Inc. stopped selling it last year.

The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

It involved 136 biologics approved in the United States and 105 in the European Union between January 1995 and June 2007. A total of 41, or nearly 24 percent, got safety warnings issued through June 2008.

The results are a concern, and they underscore the need for closer scrutiny of drugs after their approval, said lead author Thijs Giezen of the University of Utrecht.

But he said the study also is reassuring because most problems showed up relatively soon after the drugs became available, which minimized the potential for widespread harm.

"If most issues are discovered within the first few years, then the system is working," Giezen said.

Bennett says it's unreasonable to think that the studied drugs' safety issues should have been discovered before they were marketed. That's because drug approval is based on relatively small studies with patients who generally are healthier than those in the general population. It often takes real-world experience for side effects to appear, he said.

Many biological drugs have advantages over conventional medicine, but the study shows their risks need to also be considered, said Thomas Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

For example, non-steroid arthritis medicines including ibuprofen can reduce pain by decreasing inflammation, but they can cause stomach bleeding.

Biologic rheumatoid arthritis medicines Remicade, Enbrel and Humira are designed to ease painful joints by keeping the body's immune system from attacking itself, the underlying problem in the disease. But they are much more expensive and have been linked with higher risks for potentially fatal infections. Also, the FDA is investigating possible cancer risks.

"My message to patients is that these biological products often can treat very difficult to treat diseases but may have very substantial risks and that you need to take extra care to educate yourself as to what those risks might be," Moore said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_he_me/med_biotech_drug_risks/print

The Real Drug Problem in America

Today's post presents a scathing indictment of the American medical system and its cohorts Big Pharma and the FDA. The over-medication of American children amounts to child abuse in one of its most damaging forms -- at the hands of trusted professionals (physicians) whose purpose is to allegedly help and heal, not to shamelessly push dangerous drugs on patients, young and old, who don't need them.

With ADD and ADHD at epidemic proportions and the mainstream offer of a "quick fix" solution of prescription drugs, certainly we must wonder "why" this is so much more prevalent now than ever before. It is prudent to take into account the junk-food diet of most children, the injection of toxic chemicals through vaccinations, toxic water and air, the adulteration of our food with hormones and chemicals, and the lack of nutrient dense fruits and vegetables (many are genetically modified) in our children's diets. The above combinations wreck havoc on the digestive tract (constipation is accepted as no big deal in conventional medicine) resulting in a very compromised immune system. Celiac disease is also rampant amount children and adults and often goes undiagnosed.

The article contrasts European practices with the atrocities done here in the US. Factors to blame for the excessive drugging of American kids include consumer advertising, cultural beliefs that encourage drug use, and a larger number of child psychiatrists who freely dispense medications to children, often more than one at a time.

We as parents need to be aware of these alarming trends and protect our children from this insanity. In many cases, the health care freedoms of families have been violated by forced medication of their children.


American Kids are the Most Medicated in the World

American children are about three times more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication than children in Europe. The differences may be a result of differing regulatory practices, along with cultural beliefs about the role of medication in emotional and behavioral problems.

A team of researchers from the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands investigated prescription levels in the three countries. Antidepressant and stimulant use was three or more times greater in the U.S. than in the Netherlands and Germany, while antipsychotic prevalence was 1.5 to 2.2 times greater.

The researchers pointed to different diagnostic classification systems, government cost restrictions in Europe, the larger number of child psychiatrists per capita in the U.S. and the use of two or more different psychotropic drugs in a single year in U.S. children as possible explanations. Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, which is common in the U.S., was also considered to be a likely reason for the difference.

Every year more than 200 million prescriptions are written for children and teenagers in the United States, according to California's Board of Pharmacy. That works out to more than three prescriptions per child, every year!

Meanwhile, in any two-week period in the United States, 13 million children take a prescription medication. Of them, over 6 million are taking them for chronic diseases, and the top five of these diseases that children take medications for are asthma, epilepsy, attention deficit disorders, arthritis and diabetes.

The amount of drugs being given to U.S. children is outrageous, and the extent of the problem becomes clear when you compare the statistics with other countries. U.S. children are getting three times more prescriptions for antidepressants and stimulants, and up to double the amount of antipsychotic drugs than kids from Germany and the Netherlands.

Isn't it ironic that children are urged not to take recreational drugs, then are readily supplied with a steady stream of FDA-approved prescription medications, some of them mind-altering? It is presumed that these prescribed drugs are somehow safer than the illegal variety, when in reality recreational drugs are less likely to kill you than prescribed drugs!

Of course I'm not promoting recreational drug use, only trying to point out the insanity. America's "war on drugs" is directed at the wrong enemy -- kids are taking prescription drugs at alarming rates, and for the sake of their very future, this needs to stop.

U.S. Culture Encourages Drugged-Up Children

From a very young age, sometimes even before they leave the hospital at birth, kids are given medicine. Antibiotics for colds and ear infections (even though they don't work for this purpose), pills for indigestion, fever, headaches, the flu, and in some cases even for simply acting out.

Kids are taught that in order to "feel better" they need to go to the doctor and get a prescription. Or they need to go to the corner drugstore and get some type of liquid gel-cap to "cure" them. To make matters worse, kids are exposed to TV commercials, some with animated characters and talking animals, pedaling drugs to their parents and sometimes directly to teens.

So widely accepted is the practice of drugging our children that state-mandated, forced medication has become a growing trend.

In one case, without the presence of a single doctor, a court decided to put a 6-year-old child with mild autism on five powerful anti-psychotic drugs, even though none of the drugs had been approved by the FDA for use in children, and despite the mother's adamant wishes not to do so.

Believe it or not, your child can actually be "diagnosed" with mental health "maladies" such as mathematics disorder, caffeine disorder, malingering, telephone scatialogia, and disorder of written expression. And if they can be diagnosed, you can bet that they can also be given a drug to "fix" the problem.

You Name an Ailment, There's a Drug to "Cure" It

Among the most disheartening of all of this are the vast numbers of psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs being given to children. The number of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children has more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. And psychotropic drugs like Prozac, Paxil, Ritalin, Zyprexa and Depakote, by definition, alter your mind, your emotions and your behavior.

These drugs, many of which are not even approved for kids, act on your central nervous system, reduce your mobility and lead to a dizzying array of side effects ranging from depression and anger to sleep disturbances and behavior problems.

These powerful drugs are even being prescribed for toddlers as young as 2, whose brains and bodies are not fully developed. Combine these drugs into hefty doses of two, three or more different meds, and the side effects are anybody's guess.

There may even be a chance that as these kids get older, the mind-altering drugs could lead to violent "hostility events" like those that occurred at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School.

Aside from mind-altering medications, young kids are also being prescribed a laundry list of other almost-always-unnecessary and typically dangerous drugs like:

-- Sleeping pills
-- Heartburn drugs
-- Statins to lower cholesterol

The saddest part is, none of these drugs ever address the cause of the problem. Most all of these ailments are easily overcome by leading a healthy lifestyle. It's too bad that doctors won't tell you that before pulling out their prescription pads, because a lot of unnecessary suffering could be prevented.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/16/american-kids-are-the-most-medicated-in-the-world.aspx

Big Pharma Criticized Again for Marketing Practices

Normally, if a company was called on the carpet for a questionable way of marketing their products, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and gather all the facts before condemning them. However, because of some of the shaky things the pharmaceutical industry has pulled in the past, the behavior covered in the article below is very suspect.

At best, giving out free samples of medications without complete safety measures and information accompanying them is irresponsible. However, as the article points out, it also prepares both parents and children for other suggestions from doctors and drug companies, that will typically include the use of additional drugs, thus making the consumption of medication seem a casual decision.

What really gets my gall is that this practice is obviously a way to get doctors and their patients to try and buy additional products, but they have the audacity to say that the primary reason is to help poor families who can't afford medication. Why do drugs have to be marketed in such dishonest and manipulative ways in this country? It gives the whole industry a bad name, and is more damning evidence that Big Pharma is a profit-driven industry whose main purpose is to generate vast amounts of income by plying the legal drug trade despite the risks to consumers. Time and time again they have proven that they cannot be trusted to ensure the welfare of any one or anything other than their own bank accounts.


Free Drug Samples May Not be a Great Deal
By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY

Free samples of prescription drugs may carry hidden costs for children and teens, researchers report today.

In what they say is the first study to examine the use of free drug samples in pediatric patients, the authors analyzed data on 10,295 U.S. residents under age 18 from a 2004 nationally representative survey about medical expenditures.

Among all U.S. residents under 18, one in 20 got at least one free drug sample in 2004, the authors write in Pediatrics. Counting just those who had been prescribed medication, one in 10 got at least one free sample.

In a statement responding to the study, Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry group, says free samples provide doctors with "valuable firsthand experience with new treatment options and can also play a valuable role in fostering the appropriate use of medicines."

But lead author Sarah Cutrona, an internist at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts, says giving out free samples "encourages a casual attitude toward medications."

Doing so bypasses pharmacists, who perform important safety checks, Cutrona says.

And, she notes, free samples lack childproof caps, instructions on what to do in case of an accidental overdose and information about kids' doses.

Of the 15 most commonly distributed free samples to children, Cutrona's study found, two are attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder medicines -- Strattera and Adderall -- and are controlled drugs because of their abuse potential.

And labels for those two, plus Elidel, for atopic dermatitis, and Advair, for asthma, received "black box" safety warnings -- the strongest possible -- between 2004 and 2007.

Previous research has shown that free samples lead doctors to prescribe drugs that might not be the best choice, says Cutrona, an instructor at Harvard Medical School.

For example, her new study found that some of the most widely distributed free samples were broad-spectrum antibiotics that aren't considered first-line treatments. Overuse of such drugs could contribute to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, she says.

The prescription drug industry says free samples fill an important role for poor or uninsured patients, but Cutrona's study
found few needy kids got them, because they didn't have access to the doctors who gave them out.

"While it is true that poor and uninsured patients are not the only recipients of drug samples," Johnson says, "a patient's financial situation is a factor physicians often consider when distributing such samples."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-05-drug-samples_N.htm

More Price-Gouging By Drug Firms

Last week on this blog, we discussed some of the unscrupulous ways certain pharmaceutical companies are profiting excessively off a loophole in Medicare that allows them to overcharge patients and insurers. (See post of July 25, 2008.) Well, according to the article below, apparently they are milking it for all they can by increasing the prices of some drugs by over 1000% or more, in certain cases. Unfortunately, according to AARP, many of these price jumps are tied to drugs that are most often prescribed to senior citizens.

I read a quote this week from a spokeswoman for Ovation Pharmaceuticals, a company that recently raised the price on its drug Cosmegen by an astounding 3400%. In defending this move, she stated: "These are not the big cancers that are going to yield huge profits." Here we have a representative of Big Pharma openly stating that they make the bulk of their money off of cancer. We know that's true, but rarely will a drug company admit to it. Maybe they need to invest some of their profits in a better public relations farm. At any rate, I'd like to see somebody run for office who would actually sic the Federal Trade Commission on the bad apples in this industry and put a stop to their outlandish behavior.


Prices for Some Drugs Skyrocket
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY

Drug companies are quietly pushing through price hikes of 100% -- or even more than 1,000% -- for a very small but growing number of prescription drugs, helping to drive up costs for insurers, patients and government programs.

The number of brand-name drugs with increases of 100% or more could double this year from four years ago, researchers from the University of Minnesota say. Many of the drugs are older products that treat fairly rare, but often serious or even life-threatening, conditions.

Among the examples: Questcor Pharmaceuticals last August raised the wholesale price on Acthar, which treats spasms in babies, from about $1,650 a vial to more than $23,000. Ovation raised the cost of Cosmegen, which treats a type of tumor, from $16.79 to $593.75 in January 2006.

The average wholesale price of 26 brand-name drugs jumped 100% or more in a single cost adjustment last year, up from 15 in 2004, the university study found. In the first half of this year, 17 drugs made the list.

"This does drive up the price of health care," says Alan Goldbloom, president of Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota. "Hospitals are either eating the cost or passing it along to insurers, so you and I are paying it in increased premiums."

Some of the drugs are administered in hospitals, which bill insurers, patients or government programs for them. Insured patients pay either a flat dollar amount, such as $20, or a percentage of the drug's cost.

Last year, prices rose about 7.4% on average for 1,344 brand-name drugs, according to Express Scripts, which manages drug benefits for large employers and insurers.

Reasons for the larger increases are varied, researchers say.

"There's no simple explanation," says Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota, which studies drug industry economics. "Some companies seem to figure no one is watching so they can get away with it."

The price increases are drawing legal and political scrutiny:

* In a decision awaiting approval by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, drugmaker Abbott agreed last week to pay up to $27.5 million to settle a lawsuit over a 400% price increase on its HIV/AIDS drug Norvir. The price did not change.

* Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the Government Accountability Office last week to investigate large price hikes. Klobuchar asked the Federal Trade Commission in April to investigate Ovation Pharmaceuticals, which raised prices on four drugs in 2006 by up to 3,437%.

Drug companies say the price hikes cover the costs of keeping the drugs on the market. They say the drugs are often less costly than alternative treatments, such as surgery or newer, high-tech medicines.

Questcor says on its website that it had to raise Acthar's price after struggling for years to "keep (it) financially viable."

Ovation says it needed to cover its 2005 purchase of the drugs and facility upgrades. "We feel we made an important investment in keeping these older products alive," says spokeswoman Sally Benjamin Young.

EXAMPLES OF RISING DRUG PRICES

Researchers found a growing number of drugs with one-time price increases of 100% or more. Some examples based on average wholesale prices:

Cosmegen from Ovation, treats Wilms' tumor, Increased from $16.79 to $593.75 (3,436%)

Indocin IV from Ovation, treats heart problem in premature babies, Increased from $136.10 to $1,875 (1,278%)

Acthar from Questcor, treats infantile spasms, Increased from $1,650 to $23,269 (1,310%)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2008-08-07-costlydrugs_N.htm

Merck Behind Anti-Vitamin Campaign

It's undeniable that the objectivity of major media outlets has been compromised by loyalty to advertisers, many of their biggest customers being companies in the pharmaceutical industry. The following article is a clear-cut example of how Big Pharma's financial prowess can cause the truth to be distorted to the American people.

The greed of powerful drug companies such as Merck is combined with strong political ties that make for a shameful display of racketeering-like behavior that should not exist in a free country. It seems that some companies in the drug industry will stop at nothing when it comes to discrediting natural, drug-free health initiatives such as vitamin supplementation. This is not free enterprise, but rather bold-faced abuse of the American system that seems to be largely overlooked by or even enabled by governmental regulatory agencies. When you follow the trail of money and connections, such behavior mimics the tactics of underworld organizations such as the Mafia. This is a gross violation or our rights to seek out and practice healthcare freedoms in this country.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service,
August 7, 2008

AOL Shills For Big Pharma

(OMNS, August 7, 2008) Drug Company Propaganda on AOL's Health Page
"AOL's Dangerous Vitamins" (1) is loaded with much more than your recommended daily dose of misinformation. "Medical experts are concerned that you may be at risk for vitamin overload"! "Be wary of high doses"! "Increased risk of all-cause mortality"!

Yes, AOL surely wants you to stop taking vitamins. Dangerous, they say. Overdoses, they say.

Baloney. Where are the bodies? According to 24 years of nation-wide data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there is not even one death per year from vitamin "overdosing." (2) Half of the population takes them, and the more they take, the healthier they are. (3) Vitamins have long been proven exceptionally safe, even in high doses. (4)

How come AOL does not know that vitamin supplements are safe and effective? Or do they? Let's take a closer look. A small webpage note indicates that the "Dangerous Vitamins" article is "presented by Journey for Control." Say, guess who "Journey for Control" really is? Click the link and see for yourself: "Journey for Control is a trademark of Merck & Co., Inc." Yes, that is indeed the huge drug conglomerate. How about that: an anti-vitamin article promoted by a drug company.

One word question: Why? One word answer: Cash. At the Merck website, you can get a load of their dollar-driven agenda. Merck is on a "journey for control," to be sure. They want information control to consumers. For instance, Merck believes that "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising contributes to greater public awareness about conditions and diseases, as well as available treatments." And as for lobbying, Merck believes it just fine "where government initiatives to control health care costs and regulate the health care system will directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation."

Note that telling last phrase, "directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation." The biggest threat to big pharma profits is a healthy populace that does not use their expensive drugs. People who take more vitamins are healthier than people than people who take too few: it is just that simple. Thousands of peer-reviewed research studies show this over and over again: Vitamin therapy is very safe and very effective. Merck Pharmaceutical and their mercenary information-puppet AOL don't much like it.

Conspiracy thinking, you say? Unfortunately, no. The US Food and Drug Administration, whose task is supposedly to regulate the drug industry, agrees that high-dose vitamin preparations are direct competition for their pet clients, the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing new there. FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy David Adams, at the Drug Information Association Annual Meeting, back in July 12, 1993, said:

"Pay careful attention to what is happening with dietary supplements in the legislative arena... If these efforts are successful, there could be created a class of products to compete with approved drugs. The establishment of a separate regulatory category for supplements could undercut exclusivity rights enjoyed by the holders of approved drug applications."

And the FDA Dietary Task Force Report, released June 15, 1993, said:

"The task force considered many issues in its deliberations including to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development."

This is the real reason Merck Pharmaceutical seeks shills to generate anti-vitamin propaganda. Since Merck Pharmaceutical can't get this control without media help, they get AOL's editorial staff to do their work for them. There is no mistake about it: the author of "Dangerous Vitamins" is Caroline Howard, who, says her AOL bio, is a "senior editor on AOL's Health site." Neither her previous job experience "as photo editor for the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, AP, and the Village Voice," nor her bachelor's degree in social science and photography, nor even her master's in journalism especially qualify her as a nutrition expert. And yet there it is; nutritional nonsense online for millions to see. "Dangerous Vitamins" is crude vitamin-bashing, written by AOL, bankrolled by Merck, and read by you. And your friends and your family.

It is time to say it out loud: AOL is on the take. Now you know. Click away from AOL. Get your nutrition news elsewhere, somewhere where the "information" is not bought and paid for by big pharma.

References:

(1) http://www.aolhealth.com/healthy-living/nutrition/vitamin-safety? [be sure to include the question mark in the link]

(2) Annual Reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning and Exposure Database (AAPCC), 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Ste. 330, Washington, DC 20016. Download any report from1983-2006 at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NationalPoisonDataSystem/AnnualReports/tabid/125/Default.aspx free of charge. The "Vitamin" category is usually near the end of the report.

(3) http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n11.shtml Block G, Jensen CD, Norkus EP, Dalvi TB, Wong LG, McManus JF, Hudes ML. Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2007 Oct 24;6(1):30

(4) http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/index.shtml

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org/

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
Damien Downing, M.D.
Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.
James A. Jackson, PhD
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D.
Erik Paterson, M.D.
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D.
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person.
Email: omns@orthomolecular.org

Big Pharma Profiteers from Medicare

A committee in the House of Representatives is looking into allegations that pharmaceutical companies are reaping windfall profits at the expense of US taxpayers. Unlike Medicaid, a program designed to assist impoverished Americans, drugs in Medicare Part D that are sold to the government directly (and consumers indirectly) are not discounted. Medicare serves primarily senior citizens and the disabled.

This conflict is being raised in light of a larger issue, that of the privatization of government programs such as Medicare. Any way you slice it, this is a sweet deal for the drug companies and their bottom lines. I was always under the impression that privatization increases competition, thus reducing costs -- or at least it should. With everyone struggling during these tough economic times (especially those on fixed incomes), it would seem that price controls on drugs would be appropriate on all medications sold to the government regardless of the particular program they are attached to. However, it really should come as no surprise that this deal was cut. The FDA and other government agencies have always had a cozy relationship with Big Pharma. Add to this the fact that pharmaceutical companies spend a small fortune on political contributions, and it is very plain to see why the madness -- companies selling hazardous chemicals to people at exorbitant profits that are supposed to improve their health, but often only make them sicker -- continues year after year.


Medicare Part D a boon for drug companies, House report says
Taxpayers pay up to 30% more for prescriptions under the privately administered program than under Medicaid, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform finds.

By Nicole Gaouette
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 25, 2008

WASHINGTON -- U.S. drug manufacturers are reaping a windfall from taxpayers because Medicare's privately administered prescription drug benefit program pays more than other government programs for the same medicines, a House committee charged in a report Thursday.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that taxpayers are paying up to 30% more for prescription drugs under Medicare's privatized Part D program for seniors and the disabled than under the government's Medicaid program for the poor.

"Medicare Part D has given the major drug companies a taxpayer-funded windfall worth billions of dollars," said committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills).

Waxman said he would introduce legislation to guarantee that federal taxpayers would not be charged higher prices under Medicare Part D than under Medicaid.

"This is an enormous giveaway. And it has absolutely no justification," he said.

Under Medicaid, drug companies have to sell prescription drugs to the government at discounted prices. When Medicare Part D was enacted in January 2006, drug companies were no longer obliged to cut rates for their products.

In the two years Medicare Part D has been in effect, drug manufacturers have taken in $3.7 billion more than they would have through prices under the Medicaid program, committee investigators found.

"The drug companies are making the same drugs. They are being used by the same beneficiaries. Yet because the drugs are being bought through Medicare Part D instead of Medicaid, the prices paid by the taxpayers have ballooned by billions of dollars," Waxman said.

He said Bristol-Myers made an additional $400 million from higher prices for a single drug, the stroke medication Plavix.

The committee's report and a hearing on Thursday echoed the battle over a Medicare bill last week. That debate centered, in part, on privatization of the Medicare system, which many Republicans support and many Democrats oppose.

The privatization of programs such as Medicare has emerged as an issue in the presidential campaign, with Republican candidate John McCain calling for a change in the way Social Security is funded.

Congress last week overwhelmingly overrode President Bush's veto of the Medicare bill, which will take funds from private insurers that run Medicare Advantage plans to reimburse doctors who see Medicare patients.

On Thursday, the ranking Republican on the oversight committee, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, said that the cost of Medicare Part D had come in nearly 40% lower than original estimates and that seniors using the program were satisfied.

"More economically disadvantaged seniors have access to the drugs their doctors prescribe than ever before in American history," Davis said in a statement. "They've learned to love Part D."

A report by the committee's Republican staff said Democrats were asking the wrong questions about Medicare Part D. Federal price controls for Medicaid result in prices below those available in the free market, but the difference does not amount to a "windfall" for drug companies, Republicans said.

Richard Smith, a vice president with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the leading drug industry group, warned in a statement to the committee against government interference in Medicare Part D.

"It is primarily the effective operation of the competitive market that has driven down Part D costs for beneficiaries and taxpayers compared to previous estimates," Smith said.

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-medicare25-2008jul25,0,1950084.story

Big Pharma and FDA Seek to Eliminate Vitamin B6 Sales

In another frightening example of pretzel logic that is the unfortunate trade mark of the FDA and Big Pharma conglomerate, a plan is in the works to make it illegal to manufacture or distribute one of nature's many powerful and beneficial substances known as vitamin B6. This would be bad enough if it were an isolated incident, but it is just one of many cases that have surfaced in recent decades that demonstrate the hostile attitude of the powers that be towards those who seek to treat and prevent disease naturally rather than through the use of hazardous chemicals produced by the pharmaceutical industry.

As we discussed earlier this week here on the blog, freedoms of all types, including the freedom to choose how we manage the health or our families, are in serious peril in this land. Perhaps it will get to the point where we will be forced to go "off the grid," so to speak, and remove ourselves from any activity or association with conventional medicine or any type of health insurance. The only way to beat the forces that seek to squeeze us into their mold may be to quit using their services altogether and take care of our own doctoring the way it was done in centuries past. The only other route would be a revolution in this country that restores the rights of us all to practice health care as we best see fit without being persecuted and harassed by ridiculous policies instituted by authorities who are driven and influenced by profits instead of the welfare of the public.


Health Freedom Warning: Drug Company Seeks to Outlaw Vitamin B6 to Protect Pharma Profits
by Mike Adams


(NaturalNews) Big Pharma is constantly finding new ways to destroy the natural supplements market, in much the same way that the American Medical Association once sought to destroy the chiropractic industry (for which it was later found guilty of conspiracy in U.S. courts, by the way). The latest attack against vitamins comes from an FDA petition filed by Medicure Pharma, Inc., which has astonishingly asked the FDA to ban the sale of Vitamin B6!

Vitamin B6, of course, is a naturally-occurring nutrient found in numerous vegetables, nuts and whole grains. Its natural form is called pyridoxal 5'-phosphate or P5P for short. It's an essential nutrient for expectant mothers, growing children and anyone who wishes to be healthy. It's absolutely crucial for healthy blood cell function, and it's used in over 100 enzymatic reactions involving protein metabolism.

So why would a pharmaceutical company petition the FDA to outlaw the sale of this essential nutrient? It's simple: Because Big Pharma wants to market its own form of Vitamin B6 and call it a "drug."

Medicure Pharma, Inc., has been studying the clinical effects of Vitamin B6 (which they call "MC-1") on humans. This is part of a process for receiving FDA approval on MC-1 as a "drug," and then marketing this drug through the conventional medical system (and selling it at markups that can reach 500,000% over the cost of the actual ingredients).

This issue was reported by the Alliance for Natural Health, an outstanding health freedom organization that deserves your support. You can read about this Vitamin B6 issue (along with links to the petition) at: http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/hand-ph...

Obviously, it is in the financial interest of Medicure Pharma, Inc. to not only receive FDA approval for their "MC-1" version of Vitamin B6; it's also crucial to eliminate the competition. After all, if people knew MC-1 was just Vitamin B6, they could go out and buy it on their own, for a fraction of the price of a prescription drug. This is most likely why Medicure Pharma petitioned the FDA to outlaw Vitamin B6 supplements: It's the simplest and easiest way to eliminate the competition and guarantee profits!

Screwy logic, biopiracy and Big Pharma scams
So what's the logic behind banning Vitamin B6? It's simple: Medicare Pharma wants the FDA to declare Vitamin B6 to be "adulterated" because it contains a drug. Which drug does it contain? Well, MC-1, of course!

Do you see the circular reasoning here? Vitamin B6 is a naturally-occurring vitamin, but if a drug company gets FDA approval on Vitamin B6 (with a different name), then that very same drug company can petition the FDA to ban Vitamin B6, claiming it contains their drug!

I know this sounds incredibly stupid. And it is. But it isn't unprecedented. In fact, the very same thing happened with red yeast rice.

A few years ago, drug companies discovered that red yeast rice (a natural supplement) contained powerful, natural compounds that balance cholesterol levels. These compounds are called lovastatins (sound familiar?)

Drug companies ripped off the lovastatin molecules from red yeast rice, then patented them. Once they achieved FDA approval for their "statin drugs," it was easy to file a petition requesting the outlawing of red yeast rice, claiming the supplement was "adulterated" with drugs! Which drugs? Statin drugs, of course -- the very same drugs that were isolated from red yeast rice in the first place!

This is why the FDA has been on a terror campaign to outlaw red yeast rice supplements. They've sent warning letters to online retailers and threatened numerous companies with legal action. The point of all this is to eliminate red yeast rice from the marketplace because it competes with statin drugs. And it's the exact same strategy now being following by Medicure Pharma in its attempt to get the FDA to ban Vitamin B6.

Was it a move out of financial desperation?
Medicure Pharma, by the way, is losing its shirt. It recently received notice from the American Stock Exchange that it would be "delisted" because it no longer meets the minimum requirement for shareholder equity vs. ongoing fiscal losses. In other words, the company is losing too much money and has too little shareholder equity to even stay listed in the American Stock Exchange.

This might explain its decision to petition the FDA to outlaw the sale of Vitamin B6 (P5P). If consumers were unable to buy the vitamins, many would have no choice but to seek out the company's own patented, high-profit MC-1 version of the vitamin, and that would generate a windfall of profits!

Making money in the pharmaceutical industry, you see, is not about helping people in any real way; it's about limiting their options, controlling the marketplace, and forcing people to buy products from you at monopoly prices.

This is, in fact, the underlying business model of the entire pharmaceutical industry: Selling drugs at monopoly prices while outlawing competing products. Any approval by the FDA is, in effect, a license to engage in monopolistic market practices. And remarkably, the FDA even enforces this monopoly by threatening, intimidating and raiding the warehouses of competing product companies, especially if they're in the "natural" products industry.

Even more remarkably, the FTC, which claims to protect fair market practices in the United States, has utterly ignored the monopoly practices of Big Pharma. Yes, the same government office that went after Microsoft for creating a "monopoly" user interface in Windows seems to have no interest whatsoever in going after drug companies engaged in widespread, fraudulent monopoly marketing practices that are bankrupting the entire nation! (How's that for selective enforcement of trade practices?)

We must either stop the FDA, or lose all access to herbs and supplements
Do you see where all this is ultimately headed? If the FDA is allowed to keep banning nutritional supplements while promoting the very same drugs synthesized from those natural sources, it could allow Big Pharma to commit widespread biopiracy, stealing all the good medicine from nature, claiming patent protection on the useful molecules, and getting the FDA to outlaw virtually all the natural substances from which those medicines were first derived.

It's not a particularly brilliant strategy, but it is exceedingly effective at defrauding the public out of trillions of dollars in dishonest profits. And the fact that this is going on today gives additional support to something I've proposed for quite some time: Ending all patent protection on medicines, genes and seeds.

I say, there should never be a financial incentive for corporations to deny the People access to information and products that could halt disease, end suffering, and enhance their health. And yet today's conventional medical system is set up precisely to profit from the ongoing disease of the People.
It is a system that offers no cures, no education and no honest information to the public about real health solutions. It only offers a lifetime of ever-more-expensive patented pharmaceuticals that lead to a downward spiral of bad health and bad debt until more and more American families are left diseased and penniless, victims of a profiteering system of medicine that trades lives for profits as the foundation of its business model.

It is time for radical -- revolutionary, in fact! -- changes to our system of medicine, and I believe that begins by ending all patent protection for medicines, genes and seeds. These things belong to ALL the People, not just the rich, white fat cats who take home $300 million annual salaries by fraudulently selling dangerous prescription medications to people who are only harmed by them.

Watch NaturalNews tomorrow, for I'll be publishing a grassroots action article that dares to call for revolutionary action designed to rebuild a new health care system following the coming collapse of the American Empire.
You sense it coming, don't you? A year ago, you were skeptical, but now you know it's true: Skyrocketing fuel prices, hiking food prices, collapsing real estate bubbles, the demise of the U.S. dollar in international markets, failed wars and massive inflation caused by the Fed's bailout of rich white bankers... these are all signs of a modern Roman Empire that's about to collapse under the weight of its debt, disease and disastrous war mongering.

The end of American as we know it is coming. And it will be replaced by a new nation, built upon the ideas of people like you and me (those of us who can still think clearly because we're not all drugged out on Ambien...)
So read NaturalNews tomorrow to learn about what we need to do after the coming collapse of the U.S. government to rebuild a nation based in individual liberties, Free Speech, true health and respect for nature.
In the mean time if you want to send your comments to the FDA on this Vitamin B6 petition, the web page for you to file a comment on this Vitamin B6 issue is located here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c...

To file a comment, you have to click the little text balloon beside the phrase "Add Comments." It's difficult to find on the page, which just goes to show you that the FDA isn't really interested in people adding comments in the first place.

Be sure to also visit the Alliance for Natural Health at www.ANHcampaign.org

http://www.naturalnews.com/023514.html

Children on Statins for High Cholesterol?

It appears Big Pharma and the established system of conventional medicine is not satisfied with the millions of adults that are prescribed statin drugs every year, but are now going after the children's market. Despite the known, but often underplayed, hazards of statin use in adults, a leading pediatrician's organization is now recommending cholesterol testing for children as young as 2, and the administration of statin drugs to children as young as 8. The article below includes an astounding statement by a supporter of these plans, admitting that there is little research on the effects of these drugs on children, but that they are considered "generally safe." Well, we've certainly heard those words before!

The obesity epidemic amongst American kids is being used to justify the use of these toxic drugs. Here again we have classic AMA thinking that seeks to throw toxic pharmaceuticals at a health problem instead of addressing the real cause behind the alarming rates of heart disease in this country. Pediatricians, of all people, should be standing up and declaring that our children must be taught to eat real, whole foods instead of the steady diet of pre-packaged junk and fast-food that most consume, along with a lifestyle that encourages lots of physical activity. Instead, they are telling parents to give dangerous drugs to their children, drugs that will only harm them and not help reduce their risk of disease. A quick fix, if you will. Such foolishness as this only robs physicians of the little integrity they have left in the eyes of many these days. It is a travesty that one must question every recommendation given by doctors, as many of them are blinded to the truth by the propaganda put out by Big Pharma and the "researchers" they fund.

Artificial Symptom Relief Does Not Equal Health


Cholesterol Drugs for Kids
July 7, 2008, 12:15 am

The nation's pediatricians are recommending wider cholesterol screening for children and more aggressive use of cholesterol-lowering drugs starting as early as the age of 8 in hopes of preventing adult heart problems.

The new guidelines were to be issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday. The push to aggressively screen and medicate for high cholesterol in children is certain to create controversy amid a continuing debate about the use of prescription drugs in children as well as the best approaches to ward off heart disease in adults.

But proponents say there is growing evidence that the first signs of heart disease show up in childhood, and with 30 percent of the nation's children overweight or obese, many doctors fear that a rash of early heart attacks and diabetes is on the horizon as these children grow up.

Previously, the academy had said cholesterol drugs should be considered in children older than 10 if they fail to lose weight after a 6- to 12-month effort. The academy estimated that under the current guidelines, 30 percent to 60 percent of children with high cholesterol were being missed. And for some children, cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins, may be their best hope of lowering their risk of early heart attack, proponents said.

"We are in an epidemic," said Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the academy's nutrition committee who is a professor and chief of neonatology at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. "The risk of giving statins at a lower age is less than the benefit you're going to get out of it."

Dr. Bhatia said that although there was not "a whole lot" of data on pediatric use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, recent research showed that the drugs were generally safe for children.

Surprisingly, the paper published in the medical journal Pediatrics that explains the new guidelines notes that among adolescents, average total cholesterol levels as well as LDL and HDL cholesterol have remained stable, while triglyceride levels have dropped, based on data collected from 1988 to 2000.

It is not clear how many children would be affected by the new guidelines. The recommendations call for cholesterol screening of children and adolescents, starting as early as the age of 2 and no later than the age of 10, if they come from families with a history of high cholesterol or heart attacks before 55 for men and 65 for women.

Screening is also recommended for children when family history is unknown, or if they have other risk factors, like being at or above the 85th percentile for weight, or have diabetes.

If the child's cholesterol level is normal, retesting is suggested in three to five years. Although lifestyle changes are still recommended as the first course of action, drug treatment should be considered for children 8 years and older who have bad cholesterol of 190 milligrams per deciliter and who also have a family history of early heart disease or two additional risk factors, the new recommendations say.

The guidelines give no guidance on how long a child should stay on drug treatment. But they do say the first goal should be to lower bad cholesterol levels to less than 160 milligrams or possibly as low as 110 milligrams in children with a strong family history of heart disease or other risk factors like obesity.

Because statins have been around since only the mid-1980s, there is no evidence to show whether giving statins to a child will lower the risk for heart attack in middle age.

The academy also now recommends giving children low-fat milk after 12 months if a doctor is concerned about future weight problems. Although children need fat for brain development, the group says that because children often consume so much fat, low-fat milk is now appropriate.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/cholesterol-drugs-for-kids/

Common Acne Drug Can Trigger Serious Depression

A recent study has found that the use of Accutane, one of the largest selling acne drugs, may lead to depression and suicidal behaviors in patients who take this toxic substance at the advice of their physician. As with most pharmaceuticals, this drug can result in a number of significant side effects. Even if a person using Accutane does not suffer from depression, the chemical make up of this foreign substance can wreak havoc in the body, and as the article below points out, Accutane actually includes an ingredient that was originally designed as a chemotherapy drug!

Once again, we see that the pharmaceutical companies are not practicing full disclosure when it comes to the dangers involved with using this substance. Accutane, in particular, is prescribed so often because it has such a high success rate at improving (temporarily) the effects of acne. It is critical that we learn about any drug that is prescribed to us, as we will most likely not be told the whole story by our health care providers. Many doctors prescribe drugs for their patients based solely on the numbers or supposed effectiveness of the drug. Americans want quick results, but as is the case with this kind of "doctoring," the issues that are causing the underlying health problems are not dealt with, and the "cure" can often be worse than the "cause." Choosing a lifestyle that pursues wellness will do much more to treat and prevent disease than any amount of dangerous drugs, which only tend to expose the patient to additional risks.


The Acne Drug Accutane More Than Doubles Your Depression Risk
by Seppo Puusa

(NaturalNews) More evidence has come in on the dangerous side effects of Accutane, the powerful acne drug, that is also known as Roaccutane in Europe. A Canadian study confirms that Accutane increases depression risk. The study found that Accutane more than doubles the risk of depression.

The study is the first controlled investigation to find a statistically substantiated link between isotretinoin (the active ingredient in Accutane) and depression, Dr. Anick Berard, from CHU Sainte-Justine Research Centre in Montreal, and colleagues stated in a report in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

The researchers studied 30,496 people from Quebec who had at least one prescription of Accutane between 1984 and 2003. Among these people, 126 had a reported depression case. The researchers looked for Accutane use five months before the reported depression case (risk period) and compared it to a five-month control period. After adjusting for potential risk factors for depression, the study found that exposure to Accutane increases the risk of depression by 2.6 times.

The research report finishes by recommending that "current guidelines should possibly be modified to include psychiatric assessments of patients prior to and during isotretinoin therapy."

There are two known pathways Accutane can lead to depression: lower availability of serotonin and decreased brain activity in the areas that mediate depression.

Earlier research has shown that Accutane reduces the availability of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonin is also known as the "feel good" hormone. Low levels of serotonin have been linked consistently to many psychiatric symptoms, such as aggression, anxiety disorders, and suicidal ideation. Naturalnews reported about the study here: Suicide Link to Acne Drug Officially Established.

Among other side effects, Accutane increases sensitivity to sunlight. And dermatologists advice patients to avoid sunlight while on Accutane treatment. Sunlight is known to increase serotonin levels, and avoiding sunlight may further increase the problem with serotonin levels.

Another study, published at the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2005, found that Accutane was associated with decreased brain metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex. Orbiofrontal cortex is the brain area known to counter symptoms of depression.

Once you understand the history of Accutane, these side effects shouldn't come as a surprise.

Chemotherapy drug for acne

Accutane is a cancer drug. Bet you didn't know that.

Isotretinoin, the active ingredient in Accutane, was originally developed as a chemotherapy drug. During the chemotherapy trials doctors noticed patients' acne clearing.

What do we know of chemotherapy drugs?

They are among the most dangerous poisons. Chemotherapy treatment often does serious damage to the body. And, if the patient is lucky, may have a little effect on cancer.

In this context it's no wonder the list of Accutane's side effects looks truly frightening. Ranging from chapped lips to heart attacks, serious organ damage and suicides.

A Miracle Drug?

Do the benefits of Accutane warrant such risks?

The fact remains that only a small percentage of the patients treated with Accutane develop severe side effects. Still, just because you don't develop acute symptoms from Accutane doesn't mean Accutane is safe for you. It causes damage to everybody who takes it. But in many cases the body can handle it in a way that doesn't produce immediate symptoms.

Accutane is often dubbed as the "Miracle Drug" because it works where no other (allopathic) acne treatment does. It is said to work up to 85% of the cases.

As dermatologists often argue, in the balance sheet of tragedy, Accutane has the least awful bottom line -- it saves more lives than it costs.

This might be true, if Accutane had no effective alternatives and would permanently cure acne. If this were the case, many acne victims would agree to face the risk. Because acne, though not fatal, can have serious psychological effects and devastate a person's self-esteem and social life.

But there are alternatives. Acne, like being overweight, is a lifestyle problem. And it responds quickly to dietary and lifestyle changes.

Dietary and lifestyle changes are the holy grail of acne treatments. They can give you the permanent freedom you are looking for. And in the process profoundly increase the quality of your life. Something that Accutane or other prescription drugs can never do.

And many acne victims find their new found, Accutane-given freedom much too temporary. Often acne returns as quickly as six months after the treatment.

In the end you are left with one question. How much are you willing to risk for temporary freedom?

http://www.naturalnews.com/z023519.html

Can You Trust Your Doctor?

The following insightful article is a must read for everyone who is concerned about their own health and welfare and the integrity of the American medical system. It addresses some of the key issues that were brought to the forefront by the sudden death of popular newsman Tim Russert last week. It appears that Mr. Russert was following the advice of his medical providers to the tee, trusting that his best interests were at heart. Perhaps his doctors even believed that he was getting the best possible care, for it is sad but true that most physicians are taught that the use of pharmaceutical drugs, despite their sometimes deadly risks, still provides the best options for patients.

The author of this article points out some practical steps, such as dealing with obesity, which may have saved Russert's life, and may also save your life or that of someone you love. He also clearly reveals one of the major dilemmas of modern medicine: Physicians who are taught to treat "numbers" rather than people. Tim Russert's death is an indictment against a system that is fueled by the profits of Big Pharma, and one that thus seeks to "treat" disease rather than provide wellness. Radical changes are needed in American healthcare, and it behooves each and every one of us to take it upon ourselves to be thoroughly educated and involved in all decisions regarding the care of ourselves and our families. It is tragic that in many cases one can end up sicker and at greater risk for an untimely death after seeking out the care and advice of a healthcare professional in this country.


Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN

The shocking death of Tim Russert last Friday has left an entire nation wondering what happened. He was a model patient, doing everything his doctors asked. All major media have run articles trying to explain the nuances and difficulties in treating coronary artery disease. These articles find little fault in Russert's care, trying to create the idea that his heart attack was just too hard to predict and that all that could have been done for him was done. I beg to differ. His death represents the failure of standard medical care to produce a positive result -- an occurrence that is all too common in today's world.

Talk show hosts lament the death of Russert as the death of an icon and one of the last men of news not suffering from flagrant political bias. His piercing, accurate, and fair questions often got to the source of many issues and exposed the truth for what it was. Now that he is gone who is left to ask the questions -- even about his death?

Russert's doctor, Michael Newman, has not disclosed his medication list or any specific changes in medication doses in the past year. Why? What is he trying to hide? Russert's death is a matter of tremendous public interest, partly because the man was admired by so many and partly because there are millions of men out there wondering if they are the next Tim Russert. There is no excuse for anything but full disclosure of his health issues so that a proper public dialogue can take place that may help many others.

A Glaring Omission of the Facts

The most glaring omitted information from Russert's doctor is telling us what diabetes medication he was taking. I am willing to bet that he was taking Avandia, the drug the FDA should have pulled off the market because it causes a whopping 43% increased risk of a sudden heart attack, information the FDA actively sought to sequester during that drug's approval process. Why do I think that? Because in the scant health data his doctor is giving out he has stated that Russert had high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol -- the exact metabolic profile that Avandia is supposed to treat. When a treatment has death as a common side effect it can hardly be considered a treatment.

Could it be that Russert is a casualty of one of the great Big Pharma/FDA scams currently going on? How ironic, since all news programs are sponsored by this industry's ads and the media fought tooth and claw in the past year to ensure that dangerous drug ads could continue to run non-stop during all news programs -- exposing millions of Americans to drug-induced injury (while they got their billions in ad revenues). I am stunned that no reporter interviewing his doctor seems to be able to ask such an obvious question.

Russert's Doctor Failed Him

Russert was significantly obese and had been for many years. Any doctor that couldn't guess his coronary arteries were full of plaque is not very bright. Once a man's waistline passes 40 inches you can rest assured plaque is forming in his arteries -- you don't need a test. The longer you are in this condition the worse the plaque buildup is going to be. This is not rocket science. His autopsy showed a number of significantly clogged arteries which seemed to surprise his doctor and other "experts." Apparently they forgot to take Plaque 101 in medical school.

By the time Russert's weight problem had progressed to the point of diabetes a major intervention should have been done. He should have been read the riot act. He should have been told that his higher blood sugar would now be caramelizing (cementing) his arteries and vital organs, like spilling sugary syrup on the counter and letting it turn hard -- and that sooner or later something would certainly break.

He should have been told that his excessive abdominal fat clearly predicts that his liver and kidneys look more like a piece of bacon than lean beef. He should have been told that his low HDL cholesterol was due to free radical damage, meaning his lipids were being oxidized in his blood from some form of toxin or stress (such as oxidized adrenaline). He should have been told that this same problem will "cook" the fat that is marbleizing his liver and eventually make it look like a piece of overcooked meat.

He should have been told that his fat stomach was now his worst enemy, cranking out more inflammatory signals on a daily basis than any other stress he was under. He should have been told that the outsides of his arteries were also getting fat, and this excess fat was recruiting macrophages to the outer lining of his arteries that were in turn forming abnormal inflammatory gangs along his arteries that were going to drastically alter the function of his arteries.

His doctor should have scared the hell out of him because behavior changes in men seldom take place unless there is adequate pain. And then he should have given him the facts of the simple solution "Tim, all you have to do is get in a healthy pattern where you lose 20% of your weight, at which point your risk factor for a heart attack drops to close to zero. Then, if you keep losing 1-2 pounds a month you will maintain this very low risk pattern while you are getting back in shape. In fact, by losing the weight you can go a long way towards reversing all of these problems."

He should have been told that his real risk for a heart attack was based on his overall inflammation burden (wear and tear), and that if he managed this trend well he would have much less risk of any problem. He needed to start by managing his weight, because that was a major source of inflammation. He needed to make sure he got enough sleep at night to recover from wear and tear. And he really needed to watch his work load as pushing himself into the ground was no longer a safe option.

Of course I do not know what conversations took place between Russert and his doctor, but considering that his doctor is also overweight it probably wasn't anything like the above and it certainly wasn't effective. What Russert's doctor did was what virtually all doctors do in this country; they pull out the Big Pharma tool box and begin aggressively treating numbers on paper instead of the patient in front of them.

Sure we can say that Russert's problems were self inflicted. But why then do we need doctors? Don't doctors have an obligation to do everything in their power to help a person get well? Or are doctors nothing more than part of the Big Pharma drug cartel?

The Cardiovascular Drug Quagmire

Drugs buy you time if you are lucky. The problem with cardiovascular drugs that make numbers look better on paper is that they make your health worse the longer you use them -- and your Big Pharma-trained doctors expect you to use them forever. It was quite clear back in February of this year, when the ACCORD trial turned in dismal results, that the greater the number of cardiovascular drugs given to a diabetic to manage his condition the more likely he was to die.

Russert's doctor said he was taking a statin even though his cholesterol wasn't high. Yes, this is now standard medical care. Anyone at risk gets their cholesterol system placed in a statin straightjacket. This is one of the dumbest things you would ever want to do, since cholesterol synthesis is the foundation of survival in your body. The American Heart Association actively promotes this fraud at considerable profit for its bedfellows with consequent death for many Americans.

Tim Russert is a great example proving that statins are useless -- and likely dangerous. Statins are now proven to activate a gene called atrogin-1, a gene that is abnormal to activate and directly damages muscle. This reduces the effectiveness of muscles to perform exercise, reducing Russert's chance of losing weight. The heart is also a muscle, meaning that statins can induce direct heart damage via atrogin-1 activation. Statins also reduce the production of coenzyme Q10, leading to cardiac malfunction.

Russert's autopsy showed his heart was enlarged, meaning it was structurally abnormal and headed in the direction of failure. This finding surprised his doctor, apparently meaning that this change in his heart was recent. Was this simply a progression of his condition or was this caused by statins? Nobody really knows, but rest assured his doctor and the general statin-prescribing community will blame his underlying health when in fact the accelerated deterioration of the heart often happens after starting statin therapy or when statin doses are raised. This is why the public needs to know what kind of statin Russert was on, what was the dose, and had it been raised in the past year. The simple fact of the case is that Russert's heart was not working well prior to the arterial clot that caused his fatal heart attack -- and this means that he had less of a chance of surviving the heart attack. There is a high likelihood this handicap in heart function was the result of the statin he was taking.

There is also the plain observation that Russert did not have high cholesterol in the first place, yet his autopsy showed that he had a number of coronary arteries full of plaque. What does that say for the cholesterol theory of heart disease? It means that cholesterol numbers on paper are a near useless marker of actual health. It means that taking statins didn't make any difference to Russert at all, except in a likely adverse way. And it means that nothing effective was actually done to help him. In other words, the theory of statins and trying to lower cholesterol to abnormally low levels to prevent a heart attack, as clearly exposed by the massive Vytorin drug fraud, is a 20-billion-dollar a year racket. It is propped up by groups like the American Heart Association who will do almost anything to maintain their grip on public health, power, and money -- regardless of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who die each year while receiving such treatment.

Russert was being treated for coronary artery disease, which involves the use of blood pressure medications such as beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. These medications put Russert's heart in a medical wheelchair. Maybe one day doctors will learn there is a huge difference between having good blood pressure because you are healthy and having good blood pressure numbers because you are taking medication.

Blood pressure medication restricts cardiovascular function, which means by definition that circulatory pressure and thus circulation to small blood vessels and numerous end points of circulation throughout your body is reduced. This means that nutrients and oxygen do not reach many cells and organs appropriately; creating acid pH and inflammation as an undesirable side effect. This causes many people taking these medications to become fatigued and gain weight or not be able to lose weight, a problem that is generally ignored yet directly makes the underlying cardiovascular problem worse.

In Russert's case his doctor has not disclosed his exact blood pressure medications, other than to say his blood pressure had risen recently. This likely meant he increased the dose of medication. Thus, in the months leading up to his death Russert was going all out trying to cover the elections while at the same time he was taking higher amounts of anti-energy blood pressure drugs that increased fatigue and wear and tear.

The Long Plane Flight

The straw that broke the camel's back was most likely the long plane flight Russert took as he and his family returned from a vacation to Italy the day before his death. The low cabin pressure for an extended period of time, combined with the lack of movement, places significant stress on both the circulatory and lymphatic systems. This subjected Russert to a low-oxygen pro-inflammatory stress that is known to be associated with increased clotting risk -- especially in somebody who is at risk in the first place. The pro-clotting strain of that flight would persist for the next several days, at least.

Russert had a combination of factors that were not working in his favor. He had just been through months of grueling wear and tear covering the elections. Tom Brokaw reported that Russert had pushed himself too exhaustion a number of times. This means he had created a baseline of wear and tear that was pushing the inflammatory limits, a problem that tends to congest his lymphatic trash removal processes. At the same time, flying in an airplane is always a challenge to anyone's lymph system, based on changes in pressure. If there is already pre-existing lymph stagnation from wear and tear -- a long airplane flight can be a real problem.

It is worth noting that blood pressure medication, especially if the dose is too high, is a significant handicap in terms of being able to tolerate the pressure changes and lower oxygen problem of a long plane flight. This is because the forced reduction in pressure by the medication causes the lymph system to lose "tone," in turn promoting even further lymph stagnation.

These problems were compounded by Russert's high level of triglycerides, which are fat blobs just sitting in his circulation. These are like Mack trucks reducing the flow of traffic -- significantly compounding the pressure problem of stagnation induced by the flight along with the other wear and tear factors.

Thus, after his plane flight Russert was left in a significant pro-inflammatory and pro-clotting state. If he would have taken a few days off to rest and recover he may well be alive today. But no, he dragged his jet-lagged body out of bed, put it on a treadmill for a while (inducing further wear and tear considering the circumstances), and then went off to work. He was never to return.

The Tim Russert tragedy does have a take home message for men -- wake up.

http://www.wellnessresources.com/content/printable/western_medicine_fails_tim_russert/