5 prescription drugs doctors had no idea could hurt their patients
Most fine doctors like Dr. Ben Goldacre like to have all the available facts about a prescription drug before prescribing it. However, when it comes to pharmaceutical medicines, it’s nearly impossible to find real data, so doctors really never know the true dangers about the drugs they use.
Not only are they not sure about the side effects and the possibility of death but they are also not sure whether or not the drug will help the patient at all. In short, modern medicine is based on research fraud and we find doctors and medical officials, including the FDA, abandoning their public health mission by revolving everything they do and promote around pharmaceutical interests. Anything non-pharmaceutical in nature is patently condemned.
In a study published in Nature in March 2012, researchers tried to replicate the results of 53 basic preclinical cancer studies. Of those 53 studies, only six were replicable. In his new book, Bad Pharma, Dr. Goldacre sounds a warning bell on the fact that drug manufacturers are the ones who fund trials of their own products. One of the most widely recognized and true tests of scientific proof is when these studies showing positive results can be and are replicated by independent researchers (not researchers chosen or paid by the drug manufacturer providing the original finding).
“Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analyzed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. “When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects.”
This dishonest, inaccurate and incomplete representation of many of the pharmaceutical drugs coming to market is what most doctors are basing their holy allopathic medical practices on. What kind of medical science do we have when negative scientific information is not published, not accessible to practitioners, denied, repressed and simply not included in medical conclusions?
This is a systematic flaw in the core of medicine.
Dr. Ben Goldacre
Erick Turner did a survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, of all the antidepressant trials filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration. There were 38 studies that produced positive results and 36 that produced negative results. Of the positive-result group, 37 of the studies were published. Of the negative results group, only three were published.
Almost every day we are hearing medical horror stories that should completely frighten the public away from their doctors’ offices. The latest scare was in October of 2012 where U.S. health officials ramped up warnings about a Massachusetts specialty pharmacy linked to a widening outbreak of a rare kind of meningitis, urging doctors and hospitals not to use any products from the company.
Investigators found contamination in a sealed vial of the steroid at the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass., according to Food and Drug Administration officials. Tests are under way to determine if it is the same fungus blamed in the outbreak that has sickened 35 people in six states. Five of them have died. All received steroid shots for back pain. Almost everyday we hear another grim report of another death.
Medical and pharmaceutical science should be able to identify an appropriate mechanism and what the active ingredient might be for each drug that doctors are supposed to use. The problem is that they cannot do this without their fraudulent research, clinical trials and even FDA approval.
Orthodox Cancer Treatments Don’t Treat Cancer
I have always said that orthodox oncologists use treatments and diagnostic procedures that cause cancer to treat and diagnose cancer. A perfect example is mammography. Every mammogram a woman gets increases her risk of breast cancer by 5%, due to the radiation involved and mammograms frequently lead to over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment.
Most people sense that modern oncology is very dangerous. What is most terrible about it though is that treatments are in no way intended to target the cause or causes of cancer so even though the cancer industry is constantly talking about finding the “cure,” that’s the last thing on their agenda. The only treatments oncologists have to offer are therapies that do not treat cancer but rather make the person sicker and ultimately die a more horrible death.
Various analyses show that past media coverage often gave incorrect messages about the complexity of breast cancer, the age at which women are at highest risk, the progress made and the importance of early detection.
Fran Visco, the president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, believes the solution lies in science—specifically, in studying how breast cancer develops and metastasizes. “We get sidetracked by efforts to focus on getting every woman a mammogram,” she recently told The Daily Beast. “We could screen every woman in the world, and we would not have stopped breast cancer. I am not saying to stop funding for screening; however, we cannot afford to make it a main focus.”
Recent research indicates that the cause of cancer has very little to do with genetics. We know some basic things about why cancer starts. We know it is initiated under low-oxygen conditions. We know that it is initiated also by trauma and especially by inflammation. We know with low-oxygen conditions and inflammation we have infectious agents running around out of control.
So we have low O2, low CO2, low pH (acidity) and low cellular energy; we have infection hordes fighting for their existence. Mix in some inflammation, heavy-metal and chemical contamination and nutritional deficiency (along with some genetic disruption) and we have the recipe for CANCER—a beast that is eating the human race alive starting with the old but now increasingly working its way down to the young and very young where death should not be lurking.
Does chemotherapy or radiation treat this condition? Does it treat cancer? Does it kill cancer when it provokes more of it? There is nothing real about orthodox oncology. How such inaccurate ideas like those of modern oncology could be born in an intelligent race of beings is beyond comprehension.
A new MIT study offers a comprehensive look at chemical and genetic changes that occur as inflammation progresses to cancer. One of the biggest risk factors for liver, colon or stomach cancer is chronic inflammation of those organs, often caused by viral or bacterial infections.
In 2008 researchers in France found that one in six cancers are caused by treatable infections. Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B and C viruses, and human papillomaviruses were responsible for 1.9 million cases, mainly gastric, liver, and cervix uteri cancers. In women, cervix uteri cancer accounted for about half of the infection-related burden of cancer; in men, liver and gastric cancers accounted for more than 80%. Around 30% of infection-attributable cases occur in people younger than 50 years.
The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine tells us that, “Tumor promotion and progression are dependent on ancillary processes provided by cells of the tumor environment but that are not necessarily cancerous themselves. Inflammation has long been associated with the development of cancer. This review will discuss the reflexive relationship between cancer and inflammation with particular focus on how considering the role of inflammation in physiologic processes such as the maintenance of tissue homeostasis and repair may provide a logical framework for understanding the connection between the inflammatory response and cancer.”
“It is believed that cancer is caused by an accumulation of mutations in cells of the body,” says Dr. Carlo M. Croce, professor and chair of molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics. “Our study suggests that miR-155, which is associated with inflammation, increases the mutation rate and might be a key player in inflammation-induced cancers generally.” This and many other studies show how inflammation can help cause cancer. Chronic inflammation due to infection or to conditions such as chronic inflammatory bowel disease is associated with up to 25% of all cancers.
Chemotherapy and radiation only make inflammation worse! These are not instruments of cancer treatment and everyone knows that they have nothing to do with cancer cures, which are illegal anyway. The best they can say is that these treatments can extend your life beyond their predictions of what would happen to you if you did not treat it in any coherent way.
“Pre-malignant tumors are ‘wound-like’. Such tumors are similar to healing or desmoplastic tissue in many ways, such as the presence of activated platelets. As described by Coussens and Hanahan, tumor growth may be ‘biphasic’. In the first phase, the body treats early tumors as wounds. This phase is characterized by tumor growth mediated by the actions of the stroma ‘indirect control’ as occurs in physiologic tissue repair.”
Are chemotherapy and radiation appropriate treatments for wounds? The most amazing thing about these treatments is that many do survive these treatments, showing us how resilient the human body really is.
Cancer Cures vs. Cancer Death
Doctors rarely talk about “curing” cancer. Instead, the success of treatment is judged on whether a patient is alive five, 10 and 15 years after diagnosis. It is amazing that, after all the slashing, burning and poisoning that oncologists do, survival rates are actually up a little. For instance at the turn of the decade the statistics for England and Wales show that the five-year survival rate for all cancers in men is 31%, while for women the survival rate is 43%. The figures are similar for Scotland. Today though still dismal, they are somewhat better.
But are they really better? Certainly they would like us to think so but one of the reasons for this is statistics. As Mark Twain said: “There lies, damned lies and statistics.” The statistics look better because they don’t put down that the person has died of cancer when they have died of the side effects of radiation and chemotherapy. “Recently a friend of mine died from rectal cancer and his wife was stunned to see that the cancer was the third cause of death on the death certificate after the infection and other problems caused by the treatment,” wrote one of my readers.
This would not have been counted as a cancer death. Also when a person is treated for breast cancer and it moves from the breast to another area, but they live five years after the breast cancer has been diagnosed, it is recorded as a survival from breast cancer.
 The Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X Rays and Atomic Bomb Spectrum Radiation; G. J. Heyes1 and A. J. Mill; RADIATION RESEARCH 162, 120–127 (2004)
 One percent of American women carry a hard-to-detect oncogene, which is triggered by radiation; a single mammogram increases their risk of breast cancer by a factor of 4-6 times. “The usual dose of radiation during a mammographic x-ray is from 0.25 to1 rad with the very best equipment; that’s 1-4 rads per screening mammogram (two views each of two breasts). And, according to Samuel Epstein, M.D., of the University of Chicago’s School of Public Health, the dose can be ten times more than that. Sister Rosalie Bertell-one of the world’s most respected authorities on the dangers of radiation-says one rad increases breast cancer risk one percent and is the equivalent of one year’s natural aging. “If a woman has yearly mammograms from age 55 to age 75, she will receive a minimum of 20 rads of radiation. For comparison, women who survived the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki absorbed 35 rads. Though one large dose of radiation can be more harmful than many small doses, it is important to remember that damage from radiation is cumulative.”
 Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2008: a review and synthetic analysis. Catherine de Martel MD,Jacques Ferlay ME,Silvia Franceschi MD,Jérôme Vignat MSc,Freddie Bray PhD,David Forman PhD,Dr Martyn Plummer PhD The Lancet Oncology – 1 June 2012 ( Vol. 13, Issue 6, Pages 607-615 )