Indigestion? Don't take pharmaceutical drugs!

Beware, anyone taking acid reflux and heartburn drugs, and thinking they are safe. They may be popular. You may not have been told they can be dangerous. But even the FDA (the US Food and Drugs Administration - the body supposed to protect us from dangerous medical drugs) now admits that they are more dangerous than we have been told.

"Detailed View: Safety Labelling Changes Approved By FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) – May 2011" FDA, fda.gov


The drugs are otherwise known as 'proton pump inhibitors' - yes, another 'inhibitor' that seeks to change the way our body functions, and therefore, causes such harm. They may cause some relief; but at what cost? The Health Sciences Institute gives two reasons why they are dangerous.

     1. Contrary to what you have been led to believe, stomach acids are not there just to make your life miserable - they are responsible for digesting food.

     2. Stomach acids perform other important tasks, such as protecting your stomach from C-Diff (Clostridium Difficile), a bacterium that can trigger severe digestive inflammation and diarrhoea.

The HSI newsletter goes on to explain that the drugs can cause hypo-magnesia; and state that the FDA is refusing to recognise it. Magnesium deficiency can, of course, ultimately lead to Osteoporosis, and other bone disease.

So, as they say, stomach acid is our friend, not our enemy. And yet Big Pharma wages a drug war against it. The 'war' against on part of our bodily functions causes damage to another part. But then, of course, there are more profitable drugs to wage war on this - causing problems elsewhere.

Pharmaceutical drugs cause disease, not 'side-effects', or 'adverse reaction' - but disease. So for temporary relief from indigestion, we may end up getting osteoporosis.

Conventional Medicine is never a good deal!

Big Pharma targeting teenagers with their dangerous HPVGardisil vaccine

The Health Sciences Institute is new to me, but I now receive their regular newsletter. For those of you who would like to subscribe, write to them at dailyhealth@agorapub.co.uk


This is one of their newsletters, copied here in full....


"This is a warning for all parents and grandparents: Drug giant Merck wants to inject every one of your young girls and boys with Gardasil (Cervarix in the UK), the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. 

It's controversial, of course, because it's been shown to prevent a few types of human HPV, but it certainly is not a "cervical cancer vaccine," as it's sometimes touted.

In addition, the total reported adverse side effects (including deaths) linked to the vaccine are staggering.

But all those drawbacks don't bother the mainstream media. Not a bit! It's like major media outlets are playing whack- a-mole — always on a worldwide lookout for the slightest shred of good news about these HPV vaccines to pop up, and then...WHACK! they hit us over the head with it.

Spanning the globe 

Starting down under...

In a new Australian study, researchers found that Gardasil use helped reduce the number of cervix abnormalities in young girls by "as much as 50 per cent."

That sounds pretty impressive. But buried in a lower paragraph is the laughably unimpressive truth: Among vaccinated girls, the rate of high-grade cervical abnormalities was 0.42 per cent. Among unvaccinated girls: 0.8 per cent.

The difference was just a few tenths of a single percentage point! And yet when you twist the maths, it comes out like a great headline and a big win for these vaccines.

In another recent study, Austrian researchers tested more than 100 men for HPV infection and found that about 10 per cent had high-risk HPV, but none showed clinical symptoms of infection.

CNN, a global news channel based in the US — one of the media's most generous Gardasil enablers — reported on the research, and offered this quote from the vice chair of the urology department at the University of Kansas: "Not only girls, but boys should be vaccinated because of these findings."

Wow — that's a huge jump to THAT conclusion! The study didn't involve vaccinations in any form. And yet based on the results of his very small study, he's ready to vaccinate every boy.

Of course, CNN's report doesn't let out a peep about the avalanche of daunting side effects linked to these vaccines that were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The same was true earlier this year when CNN covered a Gardasil study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In that study — partly designed and funded by Merck — results showed that Gardasil was about 60 per cent effective in preventing HPV genital warts in young men.

Now, you expect trials like this to have the drug company's fingerprints all over it. But CNN didn't mention anything about the study authors and their significant Merck affiliations:

* Seven authors were employees of Merck and owned Merck stock or stock options * Five authors received Merck grant support * Five authors received speaking fees or fees for board membership from Merck * Six authors received travel reimbursement from Merck * One author had "an approved, filed, or pending patent" related to subject matter discussed in the NEJM article

Well it's just one big happy Merck family, cranking out a study with (surprise!) wonderful results for the Merck product.

"HPV vaccine effective in men" was the no-grey-areas CNN headline.

Now for the reality check

About 2,000 boys and young men received a Gardasil vaccine, and about 2,000 did not. Three years later, 36 in the Gardasil group had external genital lesions, and 89 had the same in the placebo group.

That's a difference of only 53 cases, which is pretty insubstantial given the total number of subjects and the fact that we have no way of comparing the levels of sexual activity of the two groups.

Meanwhile, at some point, 36 men must have said something like, "Wait, I got the vaccine and STILL got genital warts? What's up with that?"

Good question, Merck. What's up with that?

Mothers and fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers – don't be fooled by the media's ridiculous whack-a-mole game. This vaccine is in no way worth the risk for your young boys and girls.

Big Pharma companies - top list for government fraud

The Health Sciences Institute (HSI) have recently announced that Big Pharma companies are up to a variety of "underhand fraudulent activities". Their newsletter said that in a recent 'Public Citizen' report, in the US, it was revealed that drug companies have drawn False Claims Act penalties of nearly $20 billion - the vast majority occurring in the last five years. 

They said that the biggest culprit was Pfizer, who had to pay up a settlement of more than $2 billion for one infraction, the illegal marketing of Bextra, their now-defunct painkiller.

However, three other companies joined Pfizer in what HSI described as 'the elite upper echelon of the Big Pharma Fraud Club', which paid out a combined $10.5 billion in in fines over just 20 years.

* Eli Lilly

* GlaxoSmithKline

* Schering-Plough. 

Apparently, one common swindle involved Big Pharma overcharging cash-strapped state funded pharmaceutical suppliers as much as 12 TIMES the cost of a drug. 

Yet given the wealth of Big Pharma companies, these financial penalties are relatively small. The risk of getting caught is soon repaid by the huge level of drug company profits. So big are these profits, raising the fines substantially will probably not act as a deterrent against fraud of this kind.

HSI suggest that Big Pharma fraud, in all its manifestations, should be dealt with through criminal law because, as it says, these practices put everyone at risk - but 'does a great job of boosting drug company profits.

But in the name of profit, Big Pharma CEOs, and senior executives, have been putting us all at risk long enough. And as HSI say, what they are doing is criminal - and they get off by writing relatively small cheques from the company's account.

So if any reader is still taking pharmaceutical drugs, please consider. Are you taking them for your health? Or in order to boost the profits of wealthy drug companies?