Safe Effective Healthcare

Archive for the ‘Natural Medicine’ Category

Ingesting artificial fluoride chemicals does not prevent tooth decay, but rather destroys your insides and leads to the development of cancer and other illnesses. These are the disturbing findings of an assessment recently compiled by award-winning chemist, author, and founder of ThePeoplesChemist.com, Shane Ellison.

Frustrating more than 50 years of bad science that has claimed the exact opposite, Ellison’s appraisal of fluoride’s negative effects on the body shows once again why removing fluoride from public water supplies is crucial to public health. And health freedom advocates must step up to be the educational catalyst for bringing about this change nationwide.

“Once ingested, fluoride compounds attack the structural integrity of our insides,” says Ellison. “Collagen, a web-like network connecting our skeletal system to muscles, is torn apart by fluoride. We feel it as joint stiffness, ligament damage, and aching bones. This same mechanism leads to browning of teeth, an outcome known as fluorosis.”

Ellison adds that laboratory studies dating back decades have shown that fluoride spurs the mutation of mammalian DNA cells, which can promote the growth of cancer cells. Various population studies, he says, have shown that fluoride ingestion can increase a person’s risk of developing bone cancer by as much as 700 percent.

And finally, fluoride has never been shown to actually prevent cavities, which is the excuse most often used to continue lacing public water supplies with this toxic poison. On the contrary, fluoride ingestion actually promotes tooth decay, and even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) admits that there is no verifiable, scientific proof that fluoride in any way prevents cavities.

So why does artificial water fluoridation continue to persist in many towns and cities today? A combination of ignorance and pride both appear to be factors, as the medical establishment largely refuses to accept modern science showing that fluoride is unsafe because it has been claiming for many decades that fluoride is safe.

John Garfield fromThe University Daily Kansan recently wrote his own assessment of the dangers of fluoride, noting that the best available science links fluoride consumption to thyroid disorders, endocrine disruption, reproductive damage, skin problems, brittle bones, immunodeficiency, premature puberty, and lowered IQ (http://www.kansan.com/news/2012/apr/26/water-fluoridation/).

The evidence is so strong against fluoride these days that nearly 40 U.S. communities stopped fluoridating their water in 2011 , and many more, including Albuquerque, N.M., Bolivar, Mo., and Myerstown, Penn., have ended water fluoridation in 2012.

To learn more about Shane Ellison’s work, visit:
http://thepeopleschemist.com/

To learn more about the dangers of fluoride, visit:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Sources for this article include:

http://thepeopleschemist.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shane167.htm

http://www.ewg.org/fluoride

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, this report is being touted mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”

The “60% effectiveness” claim is not supported by the study and is highly misleading. For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the flu.

Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

In reality — and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” — only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l…

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots.

When you have a closer look at  the actual numbers from the study the real effectiveness of these vaccines become apparent.

The “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the fluin the first place.

The “treatment group” consisted of adults who were vaccinated with atrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study,only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

So where does the 60% effectiveness come from?

This is called “massaging the numbers,” and it’s an old statistical trick that has been used in the past by those who wishes to hide the link between tobacco and lung cancer.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is “43% of 2.73,” and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a “57% decrease” in influenza infections. This then becomes a “57% effectiveness rate” claim.

The overall “60% effectiveness” being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy forchildren, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed anincreasein influenza rates in the second yearafter the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are “60% effective,” what they really mean is thatyou would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way,flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

So if you are considering getting a flu vaccination, you may wish to discuss with your healthcare professional if it worth taking a medicine that is only 1.5% effective.

The utter worthlessness of Big Pharma’s cholesterol drugs was demonstrated recently by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which showed that niacin (a low-cost B vitamin) out-performs Merck’s drug Zetia for preventing the build-up of arterial plaque, a symptom of cardiovascular disease.

As the study reveals, Zetia failed miserably. Patients taking niacin showed a “significant shrinkage” in artery wall thickness, while those on Zetia showed no such improvement. At the same time, the rate of “cardiovascular events” in the niacin group was only one-fifth that in the Zetia group, demonstrating that niacin is far more effective at preventing heart attacks and other similar events than Zetia.

But curiously, as soon as niacin started to show a real benefit over Zetia, researchers cancelled the study. The premature ending of the clinical trial stopped the process by which even more useful information about the benefits of niacin might have been learned.

5,800% higher price than niacin

Merck, the maker of Zetia, was likely horrified to learn that a low-cost B vitamin out-performed its blockbuster drug. Sales of its Zetia drug are reportedly over $5 billion. It’s no wonder: Zetia sells for as much as $3.89 per pill.

Niacin, on the other hand, costs as little as 6.7 cents per pill, even in a “no-flush” time-release formula from a quality source like the NSI brand from Vitacost: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-No-Flus…

These price differences make Zetia 5,800% more expensive than niacin. And yet niacin works better.

So if niacin works better, and if modern medicine claims to be serving patients instead of profits, why don’t doctors recommend B vitamins instead of expensive cholesterol drugs?

The next time you visit your doctor to get your chlesterol prescription renewed, perhaps you should ask him or her.

It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100…)

Business as usual in Big Pharma

Unfortunately, the drugs whose study data was fabricated have not been withdraw from the market. So you or someone you know could be taking one or more medicines that have never been tested for effectiveness or safety.

 

Privacy Preference Center

Close your account?

Your account will be closed and all data will be permanently deleted and cannot be recovered. Are you sure?