Modern Medicine's Deceit, and Why I Abandoned It

By Shane Ellison, M.Sc.

By education and by trade, I was a drug chemist. My passion for science motivated a successful career in drug design and synthesis - in both academia and industry. As a scientist, I witnessed firsthand the priorities of international pharmaceutical companies, which ranked wealth first and health a distant second.

My suspicion of modern medicine began while I was employed by Eli Lilly to design a new generation of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drugs. Such drugs include tamoxifen and raloxifene. Initially, these drugs were thought to block estrogen receptors (excess estrogen can initiate cancer growth) and thereby halt cancer. As time progressed, though, it was learned that they were also capable of activating estrogen receptors. The end result was a biochemical environment favorable to cancer growth among users.

The risk of cancer associated with HRT drugs had been obscured from doctors by drug companies. And it's easy to understand why the doctors themselves hadn't noticed the ability of these drugs to cause cancer - because their patients already had the disease.

At any rate, my task was made clear: Design HRT "knock-offs" that are effective without causing cancer.

My attempt to design safer alternatives was unsuccessful. And after one year, the project was ended. However, access to HRT drugs like tamoxifen was not. They remained on the market. (In fact, tamoxifen is still the gold standard used by doctors to treat breast cancer.)

The fuel driving the continued use of HRT drugs was disinformation via Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) advertising. Since 1962, monitoring DTC advertising has been the sole responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But in a ghastly conflict of interests, the FDA granted the duty of DTC advertising to the pharmaceutical companies in 1997. Officially, this was done as a means of "promoting health awareness to ensure health and safety." Unofficially, it was done to sell more drugs. DTC advertising dictated that all women over 50 should use HRT to remain healthy. Women scurried to their doctors and asked them to prescribe it. My suspicion grew into conflict.

The disinformation campaign behind HRT drugs is not an isolated case. I learned that drug advertising and science are frequently in direct opposition to each other. For example:

DTC advertising dictates that lowering cholesterol prevents heart disease. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that an aspirin a day will keep heart attack away. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that depression is a disease that must be treated with prescription drugs. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that ADHD is a disease and that our children must be treated with amphetamines. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that infants must be vaccinated to prevent childhood illness. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that blood pressure must be controlled via a lifetime of servitude to prescription drugs. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that chemotherapy is your first line of defense against deadly cancer. Science proves otherwise.

DTC advertising dictates that Type II diabetes must be treated with daily insulin use. Science proves otherwise.

By spreading the aforementioned health myths, DTC advertising forges a belief among the general public which asserts that drugs - not lifestyle habits and nutrition - confer health and longevity. And although, in reality, medicine is only necessary for sick people in times of emergency, DTC advertising has been wildly successful in convincing people that being healthy requires a lifetime of prescription drug use.

While it's true that the advertising usually mentions the potential side effects of drugs, doctors tend to discount them. They simply regurgitate the pharmaceutical-company line that "the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks." Don't believe it.

Western Medicine's plague of deception is deadlier than any virus, illicit drug, and terrorism combined. As has been well documented in scientific journals and reported by media outlets nationwide, FDA-approved drugs are killing an estimated 106,000 people every year. That equates to one individual dying every five minutes; 300 people dying every day. Which is twice as many deaths in a single year from "approved drugs" as the total number of U.S. deaths from the Vietnam War. Not to mention an estimated 2 million people who are victims of drug-induced illnesses that include obesity, cancer, kidney disease, autism, depression, and heart failure.

Hypnotized by DTC advertising, people are oblivious to the ill effects of prescription drug use. They drug their children, hop borders to smuggle inexpensive drugs back into the U.S., beg their congressmen for discounts, and pay a lifetime of insurance fees in order to snatch up these silent killers. The avalanche of DTC advertising has smothered common sense.

So step away from the drug ads, close the ghost-written medical journals, discard research studies dominated by statistical contortionists, and give yourself a reality check: Very few prescription drugs have any value outside of emergency medicine, and those that do can usually be replaced with safer and less expensive natural medicine. This was a troublesome lesson for me, as an aspiring drug chemist, to learn. I had to face the cold, hard facts: Western Medicine has become a billion-dollar empire - not out of keen science, but rather deceit. And this subjugation (see Word to the Wise, below) of science has set a standard in America that, by definition, is sick care disguised as health care.

Individuals outside the drug industry often question my conflict with Big Pharma. How can a single person denounce a philosophy adhered to by millions of medical doctors? That is simple: I ignore the majority thinking that is steeped in disinformation. I stand firm in science. Truth in science requires only one scientist to verify reproducible results in the face of pharmaceutical tyranny.

Science proves that healthy lifestyle habits, not drugs, prevent and eradicate disease. As more people obtain better health intelligence and learn the truth, drug use will recede. And I am confident that a new model of health care based on common sense, not profiteering, will emerge.

"SAFE" PESTICIDE IS HIGHLY TOXIC

Do you use Round-up? Do you eat fruits, vegetables or grains (corn bread, wheat/white bread, pasta foods) which have had round-up sprayed on them? Do you eat meat in which the animals have been fed round-up treated corn and grains? MOST LIKELY SO IF THEY ARE NOT ORGANIC!

Do you need to be concerned? NEW STUDIES: MONSANTO'S BEST SELLING "SAFE" PESTICIDE IS HIGHLY TOXIC
Two new peer-reviewed scientific studies have further confirmed the toxicity of glyphosate, the world's most commonly used herbicide. The June 2005 scientific journal "Environmental Health Perspectives" reports that glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the brand name "Roundup," damages human placental cells at exposure levels ten times less than what the company claims is safe. A study in the August journal Ecological Applications found that even when applied at concentrations that are one-third of the maximum concentrations typically found in waterways, Roundup still killed up to 71 percent of tadpoles in the study. Similar glyphosate studies around the world have been equally alarming. The American Academy of Family Physicians epidemiological research has now linked exposure to the herbicide with increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a life-threatening cancer, while a Canadian study has linked glyphosate exposure with increased risk for miscarriage. A 2002 study linked glyphosate exposure with increased incidence of attention deficit disorder in children. Despite these studies, Monsanto continues to advertise Roundup, sprayed heavily on 140 million acres of genetically engineered crops across the world, as one of the "safest" pesticides on the market.

Learn more & take action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html

[Monsanto also makes the drug to treat Hodgkin's... interesting....]

"There are two obstacles to vibrant health and longevity: ignorance and complacency." - World Health OrganizationLucretia Smith

Secrets of the FDA Revealed by Top Insider Doctor

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "Adverse drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death in America. Reactions to prescription and over-the-counter medications kill far more people annually than all illegal drug use combined."

Annually, drug companies spend billions on TV commercials and print media. They spend over $12 billion a year handing out drug samples and employing sales forces to influence doctors to promote specifically branded drugs. The drug industry employs over 1,200 lobbyists, including 40 former members of Congress. Drug companies have spent close to a billion dollars since 1998 on lobbying. In 2004, drug companies and their officials contributed at least $17 million to federal election campaigns.

To get a full diagnosis of this provocative story, highly acclaimed health guru Gary Null sent his lead investigator and director of operations, Manette Loudon, to Washington, D.C. to interview Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employee and Vioxx whistleblower Dr. David Graham. What you are about to read may leave you questioning the safety of all drugs, but it is a story that must be told. Unless Congress steps up to the plate and changes policy at the FDA, millions more will become unwitting victims of adverse drug reactions from unsafe drugs.

Loudon: Dr. Graham, it's truly a pleasure to have the opportunity to interview you. Let me begin by asking you how long you've been with the FDA and what your current position is?

Dr. David Graham: I've been with the FDA for 20 years. I'm currently the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety. That's my official job. But when I'm here today I'm speaking in my private capacity on my own time, and I do not represent the FDA.

We can be pretty certain that the FDA would not agree with most of what I have to say. So with those disclaimers, you know everything is OK.

Loudon: On November 23, 2004 (during the) PBS Online News Hour Program, you were quoted as making the following statement: "I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. Simply put, FDA and the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) are broken." Since you've made that statement, has anything changed within the FDA to fix what's broken and, if not, how serious is the problem that we're dealing with here?

Dr. Graham: Since November, when I appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and announced to the world that the FDA was incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs or from another Vioxx, very little has changed on the surface and substantively nothing has changed.

The structural problems that exist within the FDA, where the people who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them. They continue to let the damage occur. America is just as at risk now as it was in November, as it was two years ago, and as it was five years ago.

Loudon: In that same PBS program, you were also quoted saying, "The organizational structure within the CDER is currently geared towards the review and approval of new drugs. When a serious safety issue arises at post marketing, the immediate reaction is almost always one of denial, rejection and heat. They approved the drugs, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with it. This is an inherent conflict of interest."

Based on what you're saying it appears that the FDA is responsible for protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies and not the American people. Do you believe the FDA can protect the public from dangerous drugs?

Dr. Graham: As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured.

Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about 5 percent. The "gorilla in the living room" is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug. So you have that conflict as well.

Loudon: When did that go into effect?

Dr. Graham: The Prescription Drug User Fee Act came into play in 1992. It was passed by Congress as a way of providing the FDA with more funds so that it could hire more physicians and other scientists to review drug applications so that drugs would be approved more quickly.

For industry, every day a drug is held up from being marketed, represents a loss of 1 million to 2 million dollars of profit. The incentive is to review and approve the drugs as quickly as possible, and not stand in the way of profit-making. The FDA cooperates with that mandate.

Loudon: And what about those new drugs? Are they any better than what already exists on the market?

Dr. Graham: It's a myth that is promulgated not only by industry but also by the FDA itself. It's a misperception that our lawmakers in Congress have as well and they've been fed this line by industry.

Industry is saying there are all these lifesaving drugs that the FDA is slow to approve and people are dying in the streets because of it. The fact is that probably about two-thirds to three-quarters of the drugs that the FDA reviews are already on the market and are being reviewed for another indication.

So, for example, if I've got a drug that can treat bronchitis and now it's going to be used to treat a urinary tract infection, well, that's a new indication. But it's the same drug and we already know about the safety of the drug. There is nothing life-saving there. There is nothing new. There is nothing innovative.

A very small proportion of drugs represent a new drug that hasn't been marketed before. Most of those drugs are no better than the ones that exist. If you want to talk about breakthrough drugs -- the ones that really make a difference in patients' lives and represent a revolution in pharmacology -- we're talking about maybe one or two drugs a year. Most of them aren't breakthroughs and most of them aren't life-saving, but they get treated as if they were.

Loudon: Are you at liberty to discuss some of the problems your colleagues are finding with other drugs and if so, how widespread is the problem?

Dr. Graham: I'm really not at liberty to talk about things that pertain to my official duties at the FDA. I can talk in my private capacity, but I can't talk about material that would be confidential.

What I can say is that there are a number of other scientists within the FDA who have also worked with drugs that they know are not safe, even though the FDA has approved or allowed them to remain on the market. They face some of the same difficulties that I do. The difference is that either the problem isn't as serious in terms of the numbers of people that were injured or that it's a fatal reaction -- they're not willing to expose themselves to retaliation by the FDA -- and retaliation would surely follow.

Loudon would like to thank Manette Loudon and Pam Klebs for their help in putting this interview with Dr. David Graham together.

Loudon is a hard-hitting, in-depth health publication that cuts through the health lies that are so prevalent in our world today. Loudon is published every two months. To obtain a free sample or to subscribe to this one-of-a-kind publication, visit their Web site.

The Role Of Aspartame, MSG And Other Excitotoxins

The Role Of Aspartame, MSG
And Other Excitotoxins
By Russell L. Blaylock, MD

Over 460,000 people per year are now dying of a disorder called of sudden cardiac death according to CDC statistics.

This is a condition striking otherwise healthy people, who have experienced no obvious symptoms of heart disease prior to their deaths. An alarming number of these deaths are occurring in young athletes, both in high schools, colleges, as well as among professional athletes.

While cardiologists have found coronary disease and suspect previous scars from silent heart attacks in a number of these individuals, one mechanism is getting no attention at all, and that is excitotoxic damage caused by food additives and the artificial sweetener aspartame. This is despite growing evidence that the excitotoxic mechanism plays a major role in cardiac disease.

Previously, it was thought that excitotoxin food additives, such as monosodium glutamate and aspartic acid in aspartame, cause their damage in the cardiovascular centers in the brain stem and/or by over stimulating sympathetic centers in the hypothalamus of the brain. Both of these mechanisms have been shown to result in sudden cardiac death in experimental animals.

A particular deadly combination occurs in young athletes, which includes low magnesium intake, high calcium intake, low intake of omgea-3 fatty acids and excitotoxin food additives. Strenuous exercise- especially in extreme heat is known to deplete the body's magnesium stores, as is consumption of carbonated drinks and taking calcium supplements. In addition, adrenalin secretion, increased during exercise, increases heart muscle irritability and magnesium loss as well.

When calcium supplements are taken in the face of existing magnesium deficiency, both magnesium and calcium is driven into the bones, resulting in a sudden magnesium depletion crisis. Low magnesium is known to produce both seizures and cause sudden cardiac arrest. In a classic experiment, it was found that stressing animals who were magnesium deficient resulted in an almost 100% mortality from sudden cardiac arrest. Adding magnesium cut mortality dramatically.

A considerable amount of evidence has shown that low omega-3 fat intake significantly increases the risk and severity of cardiac arrhythmias, the main cause of sudden cardiac death. Likewise, a number of studies have shown that Americans are significantly deficient in these protective fats.

Finally, recent research has shown that the brain is not the only tissue having glutamate receptors.

Numerous glutamate receptors have been found within the heart's electrical conductions system, as well as heart muscle. When an excess of food-borne excitotoxins, such as MSG, hydrolyzed protein, soy protein isolate and concentrate, natural flavoring, sodium caseinate and aspartate from aspartame, are consumed, these glutamate receptors are over stimulated, producing cardiac arrhythmias.

When magnesium stores are low, as we see in athletes, the glutamate receptors are so sensitive that even low levels of these excitotoxins can result in cardiac arrhythmias and death. This is especially so when combined with the other factors mentioned. Under such condition, free radicals and lipid peroxidation products build up within the muscle cells, leading to the same outcome.

High consumption of aspartame adds an additional cardiac muscle toxin, methanol. A number of studies have shown that consuming aspartame and MSG (and similar excitotoxins) together greatly magnifies the toxicity. Young people live on junk foods, most of which contain a number of excitotoxin additives. Several studies have shown that the levels beings consumed by our youth equal those causing the damage in experimental animals. Humans are 5X more sensitive to these toxins than any animal.

These same factors operate in older individuals as well. Most over age 50 years are depleted of magnesium, have low omega-3 fat intakes, are under stress and take a number of medications that worsen nutrition, especially magnesium levels. Because they are more likely to also have coronary artery disease and other medical conditions, their risk of sudden cardiac death is even higher.

Both athletes and those over age 45 years should take magnesium supplements, antioxidants, omega-3 oils, eat more vegetables and avoid foods and artificial sweeteners containing excitotoxins such as aspartame and MSG. This will do a lot more than trying to rescue a person with an external defibrillator after the fact.
_____
Dr. Blaylock's web site is www.russellblaylockmd.com He is author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills and Health & Nutrition Secrets to Save Your Life. He can be seen in the movie, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World on aspartame.

New study on Echinacea faulty

Dr. Murray is a well-known expert in herbs and natural medicine - I
certainly concur with his opininon - we both agree that an herbal
substance has the synergy of many of the acitive components. The study that is
mentioned picked a single component of echinacea and excluded the other
natural elements found in the plant. This is DRUG MENTALITY in the
formation of the study - not a natural holistic mental.
Dr. Marcia Smith

--------------------------


New study on Echinacea is faulty-Company urges scientists to read earlier studies regarding the correct ratio of active compounds and proper dosing
Canada NewsWire
07-29-05
VANCOUVER, Jul 28, 2005 (Canada NewsWire via COMTEX) -- A new study which claims that Echinacea products work no better than a placebo on cold symptoms has been called faulty and inaccurate by the Canadian-based Company that produces a number of well known Echinacea-based products for consumers around the world.
According to Dr. Michael Murray, the Director of Education for Factors Group of Nutritional Companies, consumers should certainly not dismiss Echinacea as a cold remedy based on the results of this study alone.
Dr. Murray says that the most recent study, as reported in the New England Journal of Medicine this week, revealed that the study was incorrect on several different levels.
"What determines the effectiveness of any herbal product is its ability to deliver an effective dosage of active compounds. The specific components of Echinacea responsible for its immune-enhancing effects are the polysaccharides, alkylamides and the cichoric acid," says Dr. Murray. "While each of these components is effective alone, the greatest degree of effectiveness occurs when the three active components are combined and at a specific ratio."
Dr. Murray says that the current study's researchers made a mistake by not ensuring that the three active compounds which ensure the efficacy of any Echinacea product were utilized in an optimum ratio in this specific study. He says none of the three extracts used on the 399 study participants actually contained all of the three necessary compounds.
Dr. Murray also calls into question the study's dosing of study participants.
"According to the study, the patients were given 1.5 mL three times a day which represents 300 mg per dose or 900 mg per day. This is not an effective dose. The standard dosage for dried Echinacea angustifolia root is normally three grams per day or more and this study used less than one gram," says Dr. Murray.
Dr. Murray adds that even the National Health Products Directorate of Health Canada, which is known to be very conservative in the area of dosing, recommends a minimum dosage of three grams of Echinacea for therapeutic results.(1)
Roland Gahler, Executive Chairman of the Factors Group of Nutritional Companies says, "The real problem is that not all Echinacea products are equal. As Dr. Murray has so correctly pointed out, it has been clearly shown time and time again that the single most important aspect in getting results from an Echinacea product is to make sure that it can provide sufficient levels of all three classes of the key categories of active compounds in their proper ratio."
"The benefits of such a preparation have been clinically verified in a number of studies that the current study's researchers chose to ignore," says Mr. Gahler.
Factors Group developed its Echinacea-based products following years of collaboration with researchers at the University of Alberta, University of British Columbia and Dalhousie University in Canada, as well as Heinrich-Hein University in Dusseldorf, Germany and Karl-Franzens University in Graz, Austria. All products were subjected to rigorous clinical and laboratory testing.
Dr. Richard Barton, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of British Columbia and co-director of the Company's human clinical studies, says that there have been a lot of studies with Echinacea done before but, as usual, none utilize the proper ratio of active compounds. He says that, as a result, the research continues to be disappointing.
"In contrast, the research that we did on Echinilin(R) was triple- standardized (alkylamide, polysaccharide, cichoric acid). And, the randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled human studies showed it to be consistently effective in fighting off cold and flu viruses. We saw a sustained increase in natural killer cells (NK cells) in participants when they were given Echinilin which no doubt contributed to a more active immune system resulting in the destruction of virus-infected cells. The end result was a remarkably high reduction in both severity of symptoms and duration of the infection," says Dr. Barton.
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics published an article on Dr. Barton's study and described the findings as a breakthrough in the fight against viral infections such as the common cold and the flu in February 2004.(2)
Factors Group of Nutritional Companies includes Factors R & D Technologies Ltd., which is Canada's leading research organization in evidence-based phytopharmaceuticals. The Company's science team is comprised of international experts -- some of whom hold positions at the universities in Alberta, British Columbia, Dalhousie, Toronto and Graz (Austria). Factors R & D coordinates all research and development of the 500-plus products for the Factors Group. This includes its line of Med-Foods(TM), as wells as Echinilin(R) which has demonstrated its effectiveness as an immune system stimulant against upper respiratory illnesses in Phase II clinical trials. Research projects include the agronomy of herbal and other medicinal plants, organic farming methods, extraction processes, laboratory (in vitro) testing and studies, in vivo mammalian studies and human clinical trials.

(1) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/nhpd-dpsn/mono_echinacea_e.html

(2) V. Goel, et al., 'Efficacy of a standardized Echinacea preparation

(Echinilin(R)) for the treatment of the common cold: a randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial', published in the Journal of
Clinical and Pharmaceutical Therapeutics (2004), 29, 75-83
SOURCE: Natural Factors Nutritional Products Ltd.

Healing Human Breast Milk

This is definitely something that falls within Sane Vivere...human breastmilk is powerfully healthy and very healing. We know so many mothers that have used a squirt of breastmilk to soothe an irritated eye. It's healing properties are in the simple sugars it contains. Building block carbohydrates that facilitate cell-to-cell communications. While the author points out some potential moral aspects of buying and selling human milk, the benefits of this therapy is certainly something to think about.

-------------------------

Move to commercialise breast milk

Move to commercialise breast milk

A US firm is looking to commercialise breast milk by selling it to hospitals for the treatment of sick babies.

Prolacta Bioscience, a small company just outside Los Angeles, also wants to carry out research to develop breast milk-based therapies.

Breast milk, with its minerals, digestive enzymes and antibodies, has long been credited with keeping babies healthy and boosting intelligence.

But experts said it would put pressure on mothers to sell their milk.

Until now breast milk donation in the US and UK has largely been confined to a handful of non-profit milk banks that collect milk on a local basis to provide it to premature and sick infants whose mothers struggle to breast feed.

But Prolacta is aiming to buy donated breast milk from independent milk banks and hospitals across the US, pasteurise it and sell it back to hospitals to treat low-birth weight babies.
It is also looking to supply it for babies with heart defects, who need surgery and are at risk of infection, and children who are being given chemotherapy for cancer. And the firm wants to analyse the different components of breast milk - there are more than 100,000 although scientists only know what a few thousand do - to see if breast milk therapies can treat disease common to newborn babies.

Therapy

Prolacta chief executive Elena Medo said: "To our knowledge this is the first and only facility of its kind in the world.

"Human breast milk is really an incredible therapy. Let's try to develop processes where we can preserve every bit of its nutrients and the potent antiviral and all of its diseases fighting properties."

But the Human Milk Banking Association of North America questioned the "buying and selling" of human milk. It said introducing the profit motive might pressure women and medical institutions to provide milk to a bank regardless of the needs of their own babies.

Rosie Dodds, policy research officer at the National Childbirth Trust, said she could understand the concerns. But added: "There is a need for more mothers to come forward to give their milk, the whole issue needs to be valued more. I can see both sides of the argument.

"However, I don't think it would work in the UK as it would prove too expensive for hospitals."

Sane Vivere

Healthy living!! That is what Sane Vivere means. Why in Latin? Why not? For many years Latin was considered the Universal language. It is still considered the offical language of the Catholic Church, catholic meaning universal. Health itself ought to be not only a universal goal, but universal reality. This blog is intended to be a family's personal journey toward healthy living as well as our educational journey towards the life of true wellness!!

Thanks go to our friend Sela/Suzanne who walked us through gerunds, gerundives, nominatives and infinitives to help us change our grammatically incorrect sanus victus to our grammatically correct blog title! Thank you to our lovely linguist friends!!

We invite you to join us on the journey!!! May our paths meet, cross, empower, encourage and enlighten each other!

*hugs*