|
Post by Master Kim on Dec 18, 2015 22:32:52 GMT -5
Chemtrail Influenza Sweeping America - beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/06/chemtrail-influenza-sweeping-america-videos-3172156.htmlThursday, June 18, 2015 7:03 “ The mainstream media is reporting that hospital emergency rooms are jammed with patients suffering from a bizarre upper respiratory infection that doesn’t quite seem like a virus”. ( N.Morgan) The Geoengineering program has been in full swing here in the United States since 2006. Many citizens complain of a strange, flu like illnesses after being exposed to Chemtrail spraying. Sneezing, itchy eyes, respiratory ailments. These strange symptoms boggle the minds of the mainstream medical community, who ignores the true cause of these reported illnesses. I myself experience these symptoms any time I am heavily exposed to Chemtrails spraying. It is also widely believed that these symptoms could lead to bigger health issues in the future. Symptoms include: • Headache • Brain fog • Fatigue • Low energy • Compromised immunity • Disorientation • Difficulty paying attention and concentrating • Sinusitis • Skin discomfort/irritation • Joint pain • Muscle pain • Asthmatic (Breathing difficulties) • Dizziness • Insomnia • Memory loss • Eye problems (blurred or fuzzy vision) • Nausea • Liver problems • Gallballder dysfunction • Tinnitus (distant ringing in ears or high pitched sound after spraying) • Neck pain • Scratchy throat • Allergy symptoms • Hay fever out of season • Flu-like symptoms • Susceptibility to colds • General weakness • Anxiety • Lightheaded or faint • Depression • Coughing • Sneezing • Shortness of breath • Vertigo • Anger/Rage/Frustration issues • MORGELLONS disease The mainstream media is reporting that hospital emergency rooms are jammed with patients suffering from a bizarre upper respiratory infection that doesn’t quite seem like a virus. They are reporting that it’s a “mystery” flu and that the flu vaccines are ineffective against it. “That’s all hogwash, bogus nonsense”, says Dr. Leonard Horowitz. “The fact of the matter is, we have seen this type of an epidemic since the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. People have been hacking and coughing with this bizarre illness that does not seem to follow any logical viral or bacterial onset and transition period. If it was a really bacterial or a viral infection, it would have caused a fever but it didn’t It lasts for weeks, if not months. Sinus congestion, sinus drainage, cough, fatigue, general malaise. People have been feeling “off”. The Armed Forces Research Institute of Pathology has registered a patent for the pathogenic micoplasma that is causing the epidemic. You can see the patent report in the book, Healing Codes for the Biblical Apocalypse. Micoplasma is not really a fungus, it’s not really a bacteria, it’s not really a virus. It has no cell wall. It goes deep into the cell nuclei thereby making it very difficult to mount an immune response against it. It’s a man-made biological weapon. The patent report explains how it causes chronic upper respiratory infections that are virtually identical to what’s going on right now.”
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Jan 30, 2016 23:21:37 GMT -5
These Kill Over 100,000 a Year! Are You Taking Them? Published on Jul 9, 2015 Dr. Isaac Eliaz talks about how different the goals are between the pharmaceutical industry and the dietary supplement industry. He also goes into how and why so many people are killed each year from taking properly prescribed medications.
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Jan 30, 2016 23:36:10 GMT -5
CAUGHT: Big Pharma Kills 100,000 Per Year. Doctors On Their Payroll!
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Feb 1, 2016 0:32:07 GMT -5
Doctor who gave hundreds of healthy patients chemotherapy jailed for 45 years after making millions from insurance companies - www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/doctor-who-treated-his-patients-like-profit-centres-jailed-for-45-years-for-giving-cancer-treatment-10382449.htmlAround 553 patients received unnecessary infusions or injections from Dr Farid Fata who gave out over 9,000 unnecessary injectionsby Alexandra Sims, Saturday 11 July 2015 Dr Fata's victims and their family members leave the court house after his sentencing Getty ImagesA doctor from Detroit, Michigan who misdiagnosed patients with cancer, giving them unnecessary chemotherapy treatment in order to claim millions in health insurance has been sentenced to 45 years in prison. Around 553 patients received unnecessary infusions or injections from Dr Farid Fata. In September, the 50 year old haematologist-oncologist pleaded guilty to giving cancer treatments to misdiagnosed patients, telling some that they had a terminal blood cancer called multiple myeloma. Feta also pleaded guilty to 13 counts of Medicare fraud, one count of conspiracy to receive payments and two counts of money laundering. He was forced to forfeit $17.6 million that he had amassed from Medicare and private insurance companies. Fata delivered an emotional apology in court as he was sentenced to over four decades in prison. According to CNN Fata turned to face those who were at his sentencing and apologized saying: “I have violated the Hippocratic oath and violated the trust of my patients. I do not know how I can heal the wound. I do not know how to express the sorrow and the shame.” Cheryl Blades, left, hugs a lady who was treated by Fata while she was pregnant twice and is still treated for an unknown condition.Federal prosecutors called the doctor the “most egregious fraudster in the history of this country” saying that for Fata “patients were not people. They were profit centres.” Fata, who lived in a large mansion in the upmarket area of Oakland Township ran seven clinics across Eastern Michigan. The court herd that Fata administered “stunning” doses of the strong and expensive drug Rituximab to his patients exposing them to life threatening conditions. According to Dr Dan Longo, a Harvard medical professor, the drug can weaken the immune system if overused. The drug, which is usually given up to eight times for aggressive lymphoma was given to one patient 94 times and another 76. Overall there Fata gave out over 9,000 unnecessary injections. Robert Sobieray, who was given chemotherapy treatments for two and a half years from Fata despite never having the form of rare blood cancer he was diagnosed with told NBC that the expensive treatments caused his teeth to fall out and his body to twitch uncontrollably. “I have so much hatred towards Fata. His name causes an instant headache,” he said, “He gets my stomach turning.” Geraldine Parkin, left, whose husband, Tim, is still alive after being over treated by Dr. Fata, hugs Cheryl Blades, center, whose mother, Nancy LaFrance, died of lung cancerOther victims developed brittle bones and fried organs, while others lost their homes and jobs and were forced into bankruptcy. Fata is expected to serve at least 34 years of his sentence, possibly in a low-security prison in Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Feb 8, 2016 13:13:45 GMT -5
The Exploding Autoimmune Epidemic - Dr. Tent - It's Not Autoimmune, you have Viruses
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Mar 16, 2016 23:46:01 GMT -5
Nursing Student Dismissed for Refusal to Lie about Vaccines Has Case Continue in Court - healthimpactnews.com/2016/nursing-student-dismissed-for-refusal-to-lie-about-vaccines-has-case-continue-in-court/Nichole Rolfe, formerly Nichole Bruff, was a nursing student at Baker College in Michigan who dreamt of being a nurse practitioner of midwifery before the nursing department’s director dismissed her–shortly before she was to graduate–after Rolfe questioned instructors who were teaching students to lie to patient’s in order to coerce them into getting vaccinated.Health Impact News Editor Comments In April of 2015, we reported here at Health Impact News that nursing student Nichole Rolfe, formerly Nichole Bruff, was dismissed from her nursing program shortly before graduation after she allegedly refused to commit fraud by lying to patients in order to coerce vaccine compliance, as directed by her instructors. Nichole fought back with a lawsuit against Baker College. See: Student Who Refused to Lie About Vaccines and was Kicked out of Nursing School Fights Back with LawsuitBaker College requested the case be dismissed, but Judge Joseph Farah denied the motion, and Nichole’s case will now be heard before a Genesee County jury. The case is set for trial in summer 2016. Nichole’s attorney, Philip L. Ellison, has issued the following Press Release. PRESS RELEASE: JUDGE DENIES BAKER COLLEGE’S DISMISSAL REQUEST IN VACCINE CASEFlint, MI – The Genesee County Circuit Court has denied the request of Baker College to dismiss or other highly restrict the lawsuit brought by a former nursing student who claims she was wrongly dismissed from the nursing program at Baker’s Owosso campus due to discussions involving vaccines. Nursing Students Instructed to Lie to Patients in Order to Get them VaccinatedNichole Rolfe is suing Baker College after she was dismissed from the school’s nursing program because she questioned when Baker College instructed students to misrepresent and lie to patients in order to get them vaccinated. The case stems from two separate classes held in 2013 by two different instructors who, within days of each other, instructed students who were in the midst of clinicals with real patients to threaten and panic patients into accepting immunizations. Threats included the withholding of state medical assistance payments, denial of access to newborns, and the giving of false information. Michigan Law Protects Patients’ Right to Informed ConsentUnder Michigan law, patients have the right to choose—and reject—any and all medical treatments offered by hospitals. During depositions, the Baker College instructors deny these instructions were given. Others in the room at the time have testified, under oath, such directives were taught. Rolfe, a student who has paid Baker College more than $40,000 in tuition and fees, merely asked both instructors, how can nurses do that? In the days following, the nursing department’s director decided to dismiss Rolfe at an impromptu meeting right before a scheduled class. Rolfe, in court documents, claims her dismissal was for simply questioning the illegal directions to the nursing students. Baker College argues her dismissal was for the “oppositional” and “aggressive” way Rolfe’s questions were asked. “Nurses Need to Obey the Patient’s Directives, Not Threaten or Lie”After pre-trial evidence exchanges, Baker College requested the Court to dismiss the case citing that Rolfe’s evidence, being audio-recordings of meetings with administrators while at Baker College, violated Baker College’s audio-recording policies. Baker College also sought to limit the amount of damages claimed by Rolfe. In an oral decision from the bench, Judge Joseph Farah denied the motions concluding that none of the arguments warrant dismissal or the placing of limitations on the case. The decision now permits the case to go before a Genesee County jury. Also at the hearing, Baker College additionally sought to preclude the release of certain emails between the nursing department’s director and an instructor about the case, and to prevent the last deposition of a key witness, another former nursing student. The judge denied both of Baker’s requests. The case is slated to head to trial in summer 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Apr 16, 2016 11:46:27 GMT -5
Research Center Tied to Drug Company - www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25psych.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FBiederman%2C%20Joseph&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection&_r=0By GARDINER HARRISNOV. 24, 2008 When a Congressional investigation revealed in June that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned child psychiatrist, had earned far more money from drug makers than he had reported to his university, he said that his interests were “solely in the advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective study.” But e-mail messages and internal documents from Johnson & Johnson made public in a court filing reveal that Dr. Biederman pushed the company to finance a research center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, with a goal to “move forward the commercial goals of J.& J.” The documents also show that the company prepared a draft summary of a study that Dr. Biederman, of Harvard, was said to have written. Dr. Biederman’s work helped to fuel a fortyfold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder and a rapid rise in the use of powerful, risky and expensive antipsychotic medicines in children. Although many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, Dr. Biederman has had a vast influence on the field largely because of his position at one of the most prestigious medical institutions. Massachusetts General said in a statement Monday that it took the accusations related to the research center “very seriously” and intended “to investigate these issues thoroughly.” Johnson & Johnson makes a popular antipsychotic medicine called Risperdal, or risperidone. More than a quarter of its use is in children and adolescents. Last week, a panel of federal drug experts said that medicines like Risperdal were being used too cavalierly in children and that regulators must do more to warn doctors of their substantial risks. Other popular antipsychotic medicines, also referred to as neuroleptics, are Zyprexa, made by Eli Lilly; Seroquel, made by AstraZeneca; Geodon, made by Pfizer; and Abilify, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Continue reading the main story Thousands of parents have sued AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson, claiming that their children were injured after taking the medicines; they also claim that the companies minimized the risks of the drugs. As part of the lawsuits, plaintiffs’ lawyers have demanded millions of documents from the companies. Nearly all have been provided under judicial seals, but a select few that mentioned Dr. Biederman became public after plaintiffs’ lawyers sought a judge’s order to require Dr. Biederman to be interviewed by them under oath. In a motion filed two weeks ago, lawyers for the families argued that they should be allowed to interview Dr. Biederman under oath because his work had been crucial to the widespread acceptance of pediatric uses of antipsychotic medicines. To support this contention, the lawyers included more than two dozen documents, among them e-mail messages from Johnson & Johnson that mentioned Dr. Biederman. A judge has yet to rule on the request. The documents offer an unusual glimpse into the delicate relationship that drug makers have with influential doctors. In a November 1999 e-mail message, John Bruins, a Johnson & Johnson marketing executive, begs his supervisors to approve a $3,000 check to Dr. Biederman as payment for a lecture he gave at the University of Connecticut. “Dr. Biederman is not someone to jerk around,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “He is a very proud national figure in child psych and has a very short fuse.” Mr. Bruins wrote that Dr. Biederman was furious after Johnson & Johnson rejected a request that Dr. Biederman had made for a $280,000 research grant. “I have never seen someone so angry,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “Since that time, our business became non-existant (sic) within his area of control.” Mr. Bruins concluded that unless Dr. Biederman received a check soon, “I am truly afraid of the consequences.” Court documents reveal that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a renowned child psychiatrist, pushed Johnson & Johnson to fund a research center whose goal was “to move forward the commercial goals of J&J.” Credit Massachusetts General Hospital A series of documents described the goals behind establishing the Johnson & Johnson Center for the study of pediatric psychopathology, where Dr. Biederman serves as chief. A 2002 annual report for the center said its research must satisfy three criteria: improve psychiatric care for children, have high standards and “move forward the commercial goals of J.& J.,” court documents said. “We strongly believe,” the report stated, “that the center’s systematic scientific inquiry will enhance the clinical and research foundation of child psychiatry and lead to the safer, more appropriate and more widespread use of medications in children. “Without such data, many clinicians question the wisdom of aggressively treating children with medications, especially those like neuroleptics, which expose children to potentially serious adverse events.” A February 2002 e-mail message from Georges Gharabawi, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said Dr. Biederman approached the company “multiple times to propose the creation” of the center. “The rationale of this center,” the message stated, “is to generate and disseminate data supporting the use of risperidone in” children and adolescents. Documents show that Johnson & Johnson gave the center $700,000 in 2002 alone. Massachusetts General said in its statement on Monday that grant agreements indicated the center “was for scientific and educational purposes only and not for purposes of promoting, directly or indirectly, the products of Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates.” A statement Monday from Janssen Pharmaceutica, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, said it helped finance the research center in 2002 “with an objective to conduct rigorous clinical trials to clarify appropriate use and dosing of Risperdal in children.” A June 2002 e-mail message to Dr. Biederman from Dr. Gahan Pandina, a Johnson & Johnson executive, included a brief abstract of a study of Risperdal in children with disruptive behavior disorder. The message said the study was intended to be presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. “We have generated a review abstract,” Dr. Pandina wrote, “but I must review this longer abstract before passing this along.” One problem with the study, Dr. Pandina wrote, is that the children given placebos and those given Risperdal both improved significantly. “So, if you could,” Dr. Pandina added, “please give some thought to how to handle this issue if it occurs.” The draft abstract that Dr. Pandina put in the e-mail message, however, stated that only the children given Risperdal improved, while those given placebos did not. Dr. Pandina asked Dr. Biederman to sign a form listing himself as the author so the company could present the study to the conference, according to the message. “I will review this morning,” responded Dr. Biederman, according to the documents. “I will be happy to sign the forms if you could kindly send them to me.” The documents do not make clear whether he approved the final summary of the brief abstract in similar form or asked to read the longer report on the study. Drug makers have long hired professional writers to compose scientific papers and then recruited well-known doctors to list themselves as the author. The practice, known as ghostwriting, has come under intense criticism recently, and medical societies, schools and journals have condemned it. In June, a Congressional investigation revealed that Dr. Biederman had failed to report to Harvard at least $1.4 million in outside income from Johnson & Johnson and other makers of antipsychotic medicines. In one example, Dr. Biederman reported no income from Johnson & Johnson for 2001 in a disclosure report filed with the university. When asked by Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is leading the Congressional inquiry, to check again, Dr. Biederman said he had received $3,500. But Johnson & Johnson told Mr. Grassley that it paid $58,169 to Dr. Biederman in 2001. A Harvard spokesman, David J. Cameron, said Monday that the university was still reviewing Mr. Grassley’s accusations against Dr. Biederman. Mr. Cameron added that the university had not seen the drug company documents in question and that it was not directly involved in the child psychiatry center at Massachusetts General. Calls to Dr. Biederman were not returned.
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Apr 16, 2016 12:00:42 GMT -5
Top Psychiatrist Didn’t Report Drug Makers’ Pay - www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/health/policy/04drug.htmlBy GARDINER HARRISOCT. 3, 2008 One of the nation’s most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators. The psychiatrist, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff of Emory University, is the most prominent figure to date in a series of disclosures that is shaking the world of academic medicine and seems likely to force broad changes in the relationships between doctors and drug makers. In one telling example, Dr. Nemeroff signed a letter dated July 15, 2004, promising Emory administrators that he would earn less than $10,000 a year from GlaxoSmithKline to comply with federal rules. But on that day, he was at the Four Seasons Resort in Jackson Hole, Wyo., earning $3,000 of what would become $170,000 in income that year from that company — 17 times the figure he had agreed on. The Congressional inquiry, led by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is systematically asking some of the nation’s leading researchers to provide their conflict-of-interest disclosures, and Mr. Grassley is comparing those documents with records of actual payments from drug companies. The records often conflict, sometimes starkly. “After questioning about 20 doctors and research institutions, it looks like problems with transparency are everywhere,” Mr. Grassley said. “The current system for tracking financial relationships isn’t working.” The findings suggest that universities are all but incapable of policing their faculty’s conflicts of interest. Almost every major medical school and medical society is now reassessing its relationships with drug and device makers. “Everyone is concerned,” said Dr. James H. Scully Jr., the president-elect of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, whose 30 members represent more than 500,000 doctors. Continue reading the main story Dr. Nemeroff is a charismatic speaker and a widely admired scientist who has written more than 850 research reports and reviews. He was editor in chief of the influential journal Neuropsychopharmacology. His research has focused on the long-term mental health risks associated with child abuse as well as the relationship between depression and cardiovascular disease. Dr. Nemeroff did not respond to calls and e-mail messages seeking comment. Jeffrey L. Molter, an Emory spokesman, wrote in an e-mail statement that the university was “working diligently to determine whether our policies have been observed consistently with regard to the matters cited by Senator Grassley.” The statement continued: “Dr. Nemeroff has assured us that: ‘To the best of my knowledge, I have followed the appropriate university regulations concerning financial disclosures.’ ” On Friday night, Emory announced that Dr. Nemeroff would “voluntarily step down as chairman of the department, effective immediately, pending resolution of these issues.” Mr. Grassley began his investigation in the spring by questioning Dr. Melissa P. DelBello of the University of Cincinnati after The New York Times reported her connections to drug makers. Dr. DelBello told university officials that she earned about $100,000 from 2005 to 2007 from eight drug makers, but AstraZeneca alone paid her $238,000 during the period, Mr. Grassley found. Then in early June, the senator reported to Congress that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a renowned child psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, and a colleague, Dr. Timothy E. Wilens, had reported to university officials earning several hundred thousand dollars each in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007, when in fact they had earned at least $1.6 million each. Then the senator focused on Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg of Stanford, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, whose $4.8 million in stock holdings in a drug development company raised concerns. Mr. Grassley has sponsored legislation called the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which would require drug and device companies to publicly list payments to doctors that exceed $500. Several states already require such disclosures. As revelations from Mr. Grassley’s investigation have dribbled out, trade organizations for the pharmaceutical industry and medical colleges have agreed to support the bill. Eli Lilly and Merck have announced that they would list doctor payments next year even without legislation. The National Institutes of Health have strict rules regarding conflicts of interest among grantees, but the institutes rely on universities for oversight. If a university fails, the agency has the power to suspend its entire portfolio of grants, which for Emory amounted to $190 million in 2005, although the agency rarely takes such drastic measures. Dr. Nemeroff was the principal investigator for a five-year $3.9 million grant financed by the National Institute of Mental Health for which GlaxoSmithKline provided drugs. Income of $10,000 or more from the company in any year of the grant — a threshold Dr. Nemeroff crossed in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, records show — would have required Emory to inform the institutes and take steps to deal with the conflict or to remove Dr. Nemeroff as the investigator. Repeatedly assured by Dr. Nemeroff that he had not exceeded the limit, Emory did nothing. “Results from N.I.H.-funded research must not be biased by any conflicting financial interests,” John Burklow, a spokesman for the health institutes, said in the kind of tough statement that in the past has rarely been followed by real sanctions. “Officials at Emory are investigating the concerns.” “Failure to follow N.I.H. standards” on conflict of interest, Mr. Burklow continued, “is very serious, and N.I.H. will take all appropriate action to ensure compliance.” In 2004, Emory investigated Dr. Nemeroff’s outside consulting arrangements. In a 14-page report, Emory’s conflict of interest committee detailed multiple “serious” and “significant” violations of university procedures intended to protect patients. But the university apparently took little action against Dr. Nemeroff and made no effort to independently audit his consulting income, documents show. Universities, too, can benefit from the fame and money the deals can bring — a point Dr. Nemeroff made in a May 2000 letter stamped “confidential” that he sent to the dean of Emory’s medical school. The letter, which was part of a record from a Congressional hearing, addressed Dr. Nemeroff’s membership on a dozen corporate advisory boards (some of the companies’ names have since changed). “Surely you remember that Smith-Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals donated an endowed chair to the department and that there is some reasonable likelihood that Janssen Pharmaceuticals will do so as well,” he wrote. “In addition, Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals has funded a Research Career Development Award program in the department, and I have asked both AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Meyers [sic] Squibb to do the same. Part of the rationale for their funding our faculty in such a manner would be my service on these boards.” Universities once looked askance at professors who consulted for more than one or two drug companies, but that changed after a 1980 law gave the universities ownership of patents discovered with federal money. The law helped give birth to the biotechnology industry and led to the discovery of dozens of life-saving medicines. Consulting arrangements soon proliferated at medical schools, and Dr. Nemeroff — who at one point consulted for 21 drug and device companies simultaneously — became a national model. He may now become a model for a broad reassessment of industry relationships. Many medical schools, societies and groups are considering barring doctors from giving lectures on drug or device marketing. For all his fame in the world of psychiatry, Dr. Nemeroff has faced ethics troubles before. In 2006, he blamed a clerical mix-up for his failing to disclose that he and his co-authors had financial ties to Cyberonics, the maker of a controversial device that they reviewed favorably in a journal he edited. The Cyberonics paper led to a bitter e-mail exchange between Dr. Nemeroff and Claudia R. Adkison, an associate dean at Emory, according to Congressional records. Dr. Adkison noted that Cyberonics had not only paid Dr. Nemeroff and his co-authors but had also given an unrestricted educational grant to Dr. Nemeroff’s department. “I can’t believe that anyone in the public or in academia would believe anything except that this paper was a piece of paid marketing,” Dr. Adkison wrote on July 20, 2006. Two years earlier, unknown to the public, Emory’s conflict of interest committee discovered that Dr. Nemeroff had made more serious blunders, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest in trials of drugs from Merck, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson. His continuing oversight of a federally financed trial using GlaxoSmithKline medicines led Dr. Adkison to write Dr. Nemeroff on July 15, 2004, that “you must clearly certify on your annual disclosure form that you do not receive more than $10,000 from GSK.” In a reply dated Aug. 4, Dr. Nemeroff wrote that he had already done so but promised again that “my consulting fees from GSK will be less than $10,000 per year throughout the period of this N.I.H. grant.” When he sent that letter, Dr. Nemeroff had already earned more than $98,000 that year from GlaxoSmithKline. Three weeks later, he received another $3,844.56 for giving a marketing talk at the Passion Fish Restaurant in Woodbury, N.Y. From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents. Sarah Alspach, a GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman, said via e-mail that “Dr. Nemeroff is a recognized world leader in the field of psychiatry,” and that the company requires its paid speakers to “proactively disclose their financial relationship with GSK, and we believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making those disclosures.”
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Aug 18, 2016 15:11:33 GMT -5
Why ‘Useless’ Surgery Is Still Popularwww.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/upshot/the-right-to-know-that-an-operation-is-next-to-useless.html?_r=1Before a drug can be marketed, it has to go through rigorous testing to show it is safe and effective. Surgery, though, is different. The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate surgical procedures. So what happens when an operation is subjected to and fails the ultimate test — a clinical trial in which patients are randomly assigned to have it or not? The expectation is that medical practice will change if an operation turns out not to help. If only. It looks as if the onus is on patients to ask what evidence, if any, shows that surgery is better than other options. Take what happened with spinal fusion, an operation that welds together adjacent vertebrae to relieve back pain from worn-out discs. Unlike most operations, it actually was tested in four clinical trials. The conclusion: Surgery was no better than alternative nonsurgical treatments, like supervised exercise and therapy to help patients deal with their fear of back pain. In both groups, the pain usually diminished or went away. The studies were completed by the early 2000s and should have been enough to greatly limit or stop the surgery, says Dr. Richard Deyo, professor of evidence-based medicine at the Oregon Health and Sciences University. But that did not happen, according to a recent report. Instead, spinal fusion rates increased — the clinical trials had little effect. Continue reading the main story Spinal fusion rates continued to soar in the United States until 2012, shortly after Blue Cross of North Carolina said it would no longer pay and some other insurers followed suit. “It may be that financial disincentives accomplished something that scientific evidence alone didn’t,” Dr. Deyo said. Other operations continue to be reimbursed, despite clinical trials that cast doubt on their effectiveness. Continue reading the main story In 2009, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published results of separate clinical trials on a popular back operation, vertebroplasty, comparing it to a sham procedure. They found that there was no benefit — pain relief was the same in both groups. Yet it and a similar operation, Kyphoplasty, in which doctors inject a sort of cement into the spine to shore it up, continue to be performed. Dr. David Kallmes of the Mayo Clinic, an author of the vertebroplasty paper, said he thought doctors continued to do the operations because insurers pay and because doctors remember their own patients who seemed better afterward. “When you read a study, you reflect on whether it is representative of your patient population,” Dr. Kallmes said. “It is easy to conclude that the answer is ‘no.’ The mean age in the study is different or ‘I do it differently.’” Surgery is sometimes no better than alternative nonsurgical treatments. Credit Molly Riley/Associated Press “I think there is a placebo effect not only on patients but on doctors,” Dr. Kallmes adds. “The successful patient is burned into their memories and the not-so-successful patient is not. Doctors can have a selective memory that leads them to conclude that, ‘Darn it, it works pretty well.’” The latest controversy — and the operation that arguably has been studied the most in randomized clinical trials — is surgery for a torn meniscus, a sliver of cartilage that acts as a shock absorber in the knee. It’s a condition that often afflicts middle-aged and older people, simply as a consequence of degeneration that can occur with age and often accompanying osteoarthritis. The result can be a painful, swollen knee. Sometimes the knee can feel as if it catches or locks. So why not do an operation to trim or repair the torn tissue? About 400,000 middle-aged and older Americans a year have meniscus surgery. And here is where it gets interesting. Orthopedists wondered if the operation made sense because they realized there was not even a clear relationship between knee pain and meniscus tears. When they did M.R.I. scans on knees of middle-aged people, they often saw meniscus tears in people who had no pain. And those who said their knee hurt tended to have osteoarthritis, which could be the real reason for their pain. Added to that complication, said Dr. Jeffrey N. Katz, a professor of medicine and orthopedic surgery at Harvard Medical School, is the fact that not everyone improves after the surgery. “It is not regarded as a slam-dunk,” he said. As a result, he said, many doctors have been genuinely uncertain about which is better — exercise and physical therapy or surgery. That, in fact, was what led Dr. Katz and his colleagues to conduct a clinical trial comparing surgery with physical therapy in middle-aged people with a torn meniscus and knee pain. The result: The surgery offered little to most who had it. Other studies came to the same conclusion, and so did a meta-analysis published last year of nine clinical trials testing the surgery. Patients tended to report less pain — but patients reported less pain no matter what the treatment, even fake surgery. Then came yet another study, published on July 20 in The British Medical Journal. It compared the operation to exercise in patients who did not have osteoarthritis but had knee pain and meniscus tears. Once again, the surgery offered no additional benefit. An accompanying editorial came to a scathing conclusion: The surgery is “a highly questionable practice without supporting evidence of even moderate quality,” adding, “Good evidence has been widely ignored.” So what should patients be told? Should they even be offered the surgery? Patients should be told that physical therapy is a good first-line therapy for pain relief, Dr. Katz said, but that surgery also relieves pain. Pain relief can take longer with physical therapy, he says. With surgery, he said, patients have to recover from the operation but are likely to be back at work within two weeks. “At the end of the day,” he said, “patients ought to choose.” Of course, how they choose might depend on how the choice is presented. Here’s how Dr. Gordon H. Guyatt, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who wrote the editorial in The British Medical Journal, would deal with the clinical trial data: “I personally think the operation should not be mentioned,” he says, adding that in his opinion the studies indicate the pain relief after surgery is a placebo effect. But if a doctor says anything, Dr. Guyatt suggests saying this: “We have randomized clinical trials that produce the highest quality of evidence. They strongly suggest that the procedure is next to useless. If there is any benefit, it is very small and there are downsides, expense and potential complications.” Hearing that, he says, “I cannot imagine that anybody would say, ‘Go ahead. I will go for it.’”
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Aug 20, 2016 22:54:53 GMT -5
90% Of Prescriptions Exposed As A Scam, Massive Corruption Uncovered Between Doctors & Big Pharmaby Brent Lambert • January 12, 2014 A massive corruption ring of unprecedented proportions has been uncovered between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. The Senate Finance Committee has discovered a massive network of collusion between countless doctors across America and around the world being paid billions of dollars in bribes by pharmaceutical giants to write prescriptions for drugs which are illegal under FDA guidelines. The tip of the iceberg began to emerge when it was learned that some doctors have been diagnosing children as young as two-years-old with bipolar disorder and treating them with a cocktail of powerful drugs which are illegal under federal law to prescribe to anyone under the age of 10. The SFC has exposed the enormous “prescription corruption” ring in nearly every branch of medicine, from psychiatry to cardiology, and beyond. Doctors are paid hundreds of thousands, often millions of dollars each, by the pharmaceutical giants in the form of cash, paid “speaking engagements”, lavish gifts, trips, and much more — all in exchange for a vast bounty of kickbacks in the form of prescriptions which add billions of dollars to the bottom lines of the big pharma corporations each year, as well as significant stock price increases. Marcia Angell of The New York Review of Books writes: “In addition, drug companies subsidize most meetings of professional organizations and most of the continuing medical education needed by doctors to maintain their state licenses. No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.” “Because drug companies insist as a condition of providing funding that they be intimately involved in all aspects of the research they sponsor, they can easily introduce bias in order to make their drugs look better and safer than they are. Before the 1980s, they generally gave faculty investigators total responsibility for the conduct of the work, but now company employees or their agents often design the studies, perform the analysis, write the papers, and decide whether and in what form to publish the results. Sometimes the medical faculty who serve as investigators are little more than hired hands, supplying patients and collecting data according to instructions from the company.” “In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published.* But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to shift the focus from the drug’s intended effect to a secondary effect that seems more favorable.” In her book Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial, Alison Bass discovered that GlaxoSmithKline concealed evidence that its bestselling drug, Paxil, was both ineffective and potentially devasting if taken by children and adolescents. GlaxoSmithKline was eventually charged with fraud for promoting the fake drug. Recently, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, four researchers were given access to FDA reviews of every placebo-controlled clinical trial for the top 6 antidepressant drugs between the years 1987-1999. Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Serzone, and Effexor were all found to be almost exactly as effective as the placebo. “The difference between drug and placebo was so small that it was unlikely to be of any clinical significance. The results were much the same for all six drugs: all were equally ineffective. But because favorable results were published and unfavorable results buried (in this case, within the FDA), the public and the medical profession believed these drugs were potent antidepressants.” The Senate investigation also discovered that cholesterol-lowering drugs are also a massive fraud. “In 2004, after the National Cholesterol Education Program called for sharply lowering the desired levels of ‘bad’ cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.* Of the 170 contributors to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM), ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.* Perhaps most important, many members of the standing committees of experts that advise the FDA on drug approvals also have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.” The investigation also discovered how pharmaceutical corporations have engaged in the creation of fictitious diseases in order to profit from what are known as “blockbuster drugs” (drugs with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion). “We are now in the midst of an apparent epidemic of bipolar disease in children (which seems to be replacing attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder as the most publicized condition in childhood), with a forty-fold increase in the diagnosis between 1994 and 2003.* These children are often treated with multiple drugs off-label, many of which, whatever their other properties, are sedating, and nearly all of which have potentially serious side effects.” According to IMS the global pharmaceutical industry will reach an annual revenue of $1.1 trillion by the end of 2014, with the United States accounting for more than a third of the global pharmaceutical market. Nearly every single pharmaceutical company has been convicted of fraud in recent years. As the population grows increasingly aware of the fraud and corruption of the pharmaceutical and prescription industries, a greater appreciation and understanding is being accorded to healthy diets as a natural treatment for all diseases. One of the most extraordinary organizations at the forefront of exposing the fraud of big pharma, and the benefits of healthy eating is the team at FOOD MATTERS who explain: “Medicine is not healthcare — food is healthcare. Medicine is sickcare. Let’s all get this straight, for a change.” In explaining the toxic state of corruption and fraud in modern medicine, Dr. Andrew Saul perhaps explained it best when he said: “Good health makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t make a lot of dollars.” To learn more about the unprecedented level of fraud within the pharmaceutical industry you can read “Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud?” by visiting Forbes.com. You can also read a vast number of articles related to big pharma fraud at NaturalNews.com, and be sure to read these stories from CBS NEWS, PharmaFraud News, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. SEE ALSO: Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly ScamSEE ALSO: FRONTLINE Doc “Hunting The Nightmare Bacteria” Will Scare You ShitlessSEE ALSO: The Case For Treating Big Finance Like Big Pharma: Test New Financial Products Like New DrugsSEE ALSO: “HUNGRY FOR CHANGE” Exposes Dirty Secrets Of Food, Weightloss & Diet IndustriesSEE ALSO: Lesley Stahl’s Explosive “60 Minutes” Report On The Antidepressant Placebo EffectSEE ALSO: New Proposal By American Psychiatric Association Would Allow Grief To Be Diagnosed As Mental Disorder
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Oct 22, 2016 10:57:23 GMT -5
Dirty hospitals: Hidden camera investigation (CBC Marketplace)
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Oct 27, 2016 15:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Feb 3, 2017 13:17:14 GMT -5
More Doctors Confessing To Intentionally Diagnosing Healthy People with Cancer to Make Moneyglobalhealthyunited.com/index.php/2016/11/06/doctors-confessing-intentionally-diagnosing-healthy-people-cancer-make-money/Doctors are fraudulently diagnosing healthy patients with cancer more often than you can imagine. The reason is obvious – to make a fast buck from kickbacks on chemo poisons. Cancer is an entire industry, so why shouldn’t they lie? Cancer societies throughout the world invest far more on radiation and chemotherapy research than on cancer prevention techniques. If you think about it, treating disease makes money, not preventing it. One example is the prominent cancer doctor Dr. Farid Fata. One year ago, he admitted in court to wrongfully and intentionally diagnosing healthy patients with cancer in Michigan. He wanted to make profit by giving them chemotherapy drugs. You can imagine how shocked his patients were by discovering that a doctor can fake diagnosis to make a profit. Unfortunately, this happens not only with cancer, but with a lot of other diseases that doctors can make profit through commissions and kickbacks based on the number of patients treated with specific drugs. One retired oncologist, Dr. Sayed Mohammed, explains he noticed the trend more than ten years ago. He says the combination of health and trust put in the hands of doctors, is especially dangerous when money is involved. Some of them become businessmen, more than they are doctors. Dr. Farid Fata admitted he has been prescribing numerous medications on number of patients over the years, although he knew they were medically unnecessarily. He explains this as his own choice. He was charged with running a $35 million Medicare fraud scheme that started back in 2009. The scheme involved billing the government for hematology and oncology treatments which were medically unnecessarily. He run the scheme through Michigan Hematology Oncology Centers, with offices in Bloomfield Hills, Clarkston, Sterling Heights, Lapeer, Oak Park, and Troy. The government says the patient load of Dr. Farid was 1,200 people, and he got 62 million dollars from Medicare. He billed for over 150 million dollars. Barbara McQuade is an U.S. attorney for whom this case is the most shocking her office has seen. She plans to seek life in prison for the doctor without conscience. Not only that he bilked the government, but he also harmed his patients. Lying with StatisticsOne of the most common false diagnosis doctors give, is prostate cancer. High levels of the protein produced by the prostate gland, determined by a PSA test, are related to prostate cancer. However, the problem here is that this relation is not always correct, and when it is, it doesn’t always mean that the cancer is deadly. Prostate cancer is the cause of death to just 3% of all men. The blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen usually leads to biopsies and treatment which can cause incontinence and impotence. Frequent biopsies can spread cancer cells into the needle-formed track, or by spilling cancer cells directly into the lymphatic system or bloodstream. Most of the doctors who encourage treatment of prostate cancer will get a commission from all of the treatments the patient receive. Biopsy-discovered prostate cancer in men was the topic of many large studies. The results showed that in 97 percent of them, the cancer has never spread outside the prostate gland to harm the patient, or the patient dies of something different before there’s cancer spreading outside of the gland. The rest three percent had aggressive cancer already spread before been discovered, which means surgery can’t help them either. Unfortunately, for many doctors, the welfare of their patients is not their primary concern. Their quest for more money often harms the patient. Many women are encouraged to do hysterectomy as a way to cure their cancer, or other disease. However, researches have proven that this treatment is unnecessary, as hysterectomy showed no improvement in survival. Moreover, breast cancer screenings fail to address prevention and increase the breast cancer mortality. The recommendation for regular periodic mammography and screening have never been supported by any evidence. Still, the Society of Breast Imaging and the American College of Radiology recommend that women should begin these screenings at the age of 40, or even in their 30s if they have higher risk of breast cancer. These recommendations were published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology. In 2009, the rate of advanced breast cancer in American women between the ages of 25 to 39 was almost twice the one fin 1976. This huge difference is more about diagnoses than just a matter of chance. The New England Journal of Medicine has published the results of a shocking study, according to which millions of women who have done mammography in the past 3 decades as their main strategy in the combat against breast cancer, have actually done more harm than good for their health. Chemotherapy Slowly Destroys the Body Instead of Healing ItThe sad truth is that chemo boosts the growth of cancer and increases the long-term mortality rates. It increases neuro-cognitive decline, destroys the immune system, disrupts the function of the endocrine system, and causes metabolic and organ toxicities. Most patients who undergo chemotherapy either die or are plagued with disease within ten to fifteen years after the treatment. The cancer fabrication promotes their expensive, patented and toxic remedies that cause much more harm than good, while marginalizing the effective and safe ones. The reason is the same – to make money! So far, no independent investigators have conducted a study on the chemotherapy contribution to cancer survival. The only studies available are from industry funded scientists and institutions which didn’t quantified the following important variables: impact on the immune system, cost-effectiveness, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. If they did, they would have shown the world that chemotherapy doesn’t contribute to the cancer survival. Once again, the reason behind all this is making money. The powerful cancer industry must hide the truth when it comes to treating cancer in order to gain profit. There’s no governing body that can protect people from being exposed to these harmful therapies, or even from the carcinogens found in our environment and food. Therefore, they make cannabis and other powerful anti-carcinogenic plants illegal as they effectively kill cancer without any side effect. The U.S. government has patented cannabinoids in 2003, which shows their extreme efficiency. The medical community leaders are not interested in finding a magic bullet that will achieve 90 percent true cure rate. Finding a cure for cancer will cost the pharmaceutical companies hundreds of billions of dollars, leading to less hospitalized patients and less doctor visits. If you mention DMSO to any oncologist who keeps saying a cancer patient has only 3% chances of survival, s/he won’t like to talk about it. The reason is because DMSO is a natural tree product that can’t be patented as it is produced in tons in the wood industry. Such product can’t be made profitable. There are thousands of doctors and oncologists like Dr. Farid Fata in the U.S. and abroad. But they are never caught because they fly below the radar. People will continue to die of cancer, and doctors will keep on gaining profit up to the last day of their patients. Every once in a while, doctors like Dr. Fata will be caught, but there will be thousands of other doctors prescribing unnecessary medications to healthy patients. It’s really mind blowing that we can judge and legally prosecute doctors who prescribe unnecessary medications or poisons to a healthy person for gaining profit, but we accept those who prescribe poisons to sick people for money. Source: www.healthandlovepage.com
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Feb 9, 2017 16:02:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Feb 24, 2017 16:16:53 GMT -5
If Chemotherapy Fails 97% Of The Time, Why Do Doctors Recommend It? Source: www.getholistichealth.com/46674/if-chemotherapy-fails-97-of-the-time-why-do-doctors-recommend-it/By john Reeves Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. According to the National Institute of Health, around 1,658,370 new cases will be diagnosed and 589,430 people will die from cancer in 2015. While most conventional cancer treatments revolve around a mix of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, some people question their efficacy — particularly chemotherapy. In these videos two naturopathic doctors make the argument that in many cases, chemo does more harm than good. In the first video, Peter Glidden, BS, ND, brings up the relationship between cancer and monetary profit. Glidden, author of The MD Emperor Has No Clothes, cites a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which found that over a 12-year period, chemotherapy did not cure adult cancer 97 percent of the time. “Why is it still used? There’s one reason, and one reason only,” Glidden says in the video. “Money.” He points out that while doctors don’t get direct kickbacks for prescribing most medications, chemo drugs are unique in that the doctors purchase them from the pharmaceutical company and then sell them to patients at a profit. “Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of,” Glidden says. “The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it — period. It doesn’t work 97 percent of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97 percent of the time, would they still be in business?” he asks. “No.” An Australian study looking at the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival rates in adults with malignancies found that the “overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” In their conclusion, the researchers stated: “it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival.” He cites this issue as just one example of a so-called healthcare system that prioritizes profits over human wellness. “This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us,” says Glidden. “Medicine in the United States is a for-profit industry. Most people are unaware of this, and most people bow down to the altar of MD-directed high-tech medicine.” In the second video, naturopathic doctor Leonard Coldwell shares a similar perspective, calling chemotherapy “the Agent Orange of the medical profession.” “If you have a garden with flowers and bushes and trees and grass, and some weeds, you come with Agent Orange and kill it all off, and now it’s all dead, and you hope only the good stuff is coming back,” Coldwell says. “They bombard the entire system and then they say the cancer is in remission.” He notes that statistics on the effectiveness of cancer cures refer to survival rates after five years. “You killed basically every bioelectrical and biochemical function in the body,” he says. “Since nothing works anymore, for three years, you have no cancer, you’re cured. You’re just dead in five years.” Coldwell claims that radiation can cause similar harm. “It’s an assault with a deadly weapon,” he says. “When you radiate someone, it’s causing scars. A scar can never turn back into healthy tissue.” The problem, he says, is the way doctors are trained. “No medical doctor ever learns about curing anything,” says Coldwell. “They learn about chemical intervention or surgery to suppress symptoms. They don’t go for the root cause.” He points out that doctors have high rates of suicide as well as alcohol and drug abuse. “These poor guys figure out over time that they have no tools and that they are murdering, and [have] murdered, their patients,” Coldwell says. “You go into the medical profession, the first year, the first two years, you’re really excited, you’re really in it, you’re giving your all, until you find out no matter what you do the patient gets worse, or they cure themselves.” “These poor doctors figure out they cannot help,” he says. “The medical profession is a religion.”
|
|
|
Post by Master Kim on Mar 2, 2017 20:52:47 GMT -5
|
|