Children, coughs and colds, and ConMed drugs

I hope no-one believes their children are safe from Conventional Medical drugs. In the USA, in 2007, the drug manufacturers agreed to withdraw from the market certain 'over-the-counter' drugs for coughs and colds for children under two years of age - because (in the words of the FDA they caused "serious and potentially life-threatening side-effects". Have a look at this article.

http://www.NaturalNews.com/030496_cough_medicines_children.html

And whilst doing so, ask yourselves these questions.

1. If these drugs, sold without doctor prescription, are dangerous to children under two years old, are they really safe for children aged 3, or 4, or 5? Or for adults, for that matter!
2. If the drug company accepted they were unsafe (they did so by withdrawing them) why did they continue to sell them to patients in other parts of the world? Are they only unsafe in the USA? Are we in the UK protected in some way?
3. Why have people in the UK not been told about this in our mainstream media? Why do the NHS not tell us? Why do doctors not tell us? The silence in deafening.
4. If "emergency rooms have seen 50% less visits from injured or killed babies and toddlers" in the USA have babies and toddlers in the UK continued to appear in our hospitals?
5. If our drug regulator, the MHRA have said these drugs were not safe, why are they allowing them to be sold? Why have they not been withdrawn, as in the USA?

So in one short article we see the problem, and the dangers we face from the NHS-ConMed Establishment. They simply don't tell us the truth. They don't act to protect us. And they don't do so even when they know there is a serious problem. And the UK media are equally quiet.

This is why I say that it is best to avoid all ConMed drugs, and seek safer medical therapies. It seems to be the case that Big Pharma is too big to control; and to corrupt to act in the best interests of patients - even when those patients are babies and children.

Homeopathy and Prostate Cancer

A research study in 2007 has confirmed what homeopaths have known for some time in clinical practice; that the remedy, Sabal Serrulata, has an positive impact on Prostate Cancer cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101766

The study is doubly interesting in that two other remedies, Thuja and Conium, were tested alongside this remedy, and were found not to be effective.

This demonstrates what homeopaths have been saying now for over 200 years. That homeopathy is a safe and effective form of treatment for any illness or disease - providing the correct remedy - the homeopathic remedy - is found.

For denialists, it would also demonstrate that homeopathy is not 'placebo' (if they had open minds, of course); not least because the study was conducted on mice; but also because the study demonstrates that remedies don't work when they are not correctly chosen.

It is commonly said that Prostate Cancer is not a virulent form of cancer; that most men develop the condition as they grow older, but will die of natural causes before the cancer kills them. It is also known that when ConMed treats the condition with its toxic drugs and radiotherapy that more people die of the treatment than the disease!

Homeopathy is clearly a positive alternative for men diagnosed with this condition.

Patient Choice. To take the medication? Or not?

Increasingly people are becoming aware that ConMed drugs are dangerous. So what do you do when your GP says you should take them? The first response should be to do some research, and ask a couple of important questions.

* What are the side-effects of the drug? And think of them not so much as side-effects, but 'disease-inducing-effects' (DIEs)?
* Are there alternative ways of treating my illness that are safer, and more effective?

This is what JT did recently, following a comment I made on Facebook about Statin drugs. This is what she wrote to me.

My husband was prescribed (Statins) a year ago. On reading up on the side effects he decided not to bother and he just spent 20 mins on the phone yesterday trying to convince the doctor that he was wasting his time trying to punt them - conversation went something like this:

Doctor "We're very worried about your cholesterol levels"

Husband "I'm very worried about your statins!"

Doctor "We have a range of different types you can try!"

Husband "If it's a choice between statins and cholesterol I'll keep the cholesterol, thanks!"... so proud of him! But we are going to cut out the dumplings etc as well!


JT's husband has therefore made a personal choice, an informed choice, an important choice for himself, and for his future health. He has decided to deal with his cholesterol problem through diet; and there is plenty of evidence that this approach is more effective, and certainly safer, than filling the coffers of Big Pharma by taking their drugs.


If we all want safer medical treatment, more of us are going to have to start saying  'No' to anyone, including GP's, who want us to take drugs, without telling us about their DIEs.

HRT increases risk of ovarian cancer by 29%

More bad news about HRT? Or just more of the same? Hormone replacement therapy causes not only heart disease and breast cancer, researchers have now discovered it increases the risk of ovarian cancer - by as much as 29%.

Researches from Oxford University have made this, the most recent discovery that this drug, once said to be 'entirely safe', is dangerous. They said that if you must take HRT, take it for only a limited time! 

I would suggest that the most sensible course of action was not to take it at all. Apparently, the risk was found to disappear once women actually stopped taking it.

Sources: 

* WDDTY 16th November 2010.

* Proceedings of the ninth annual AACR Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research Conference, Philadelphia, November 7-10, 2010

Statins: making well people sick!

Are you well? Yes? Good. 

Well take this drug anyway, and damage your kidneys, or your liver and or perhaps your brain. Seems a good deal for drug companies!


http://www.naturalnews.com/030438_statin_drugs_heart_disease.html


The drug companies are primarily interested in drug sales, not patient health. So if the ConMewd Establishment can now persuade well people to take Big Pharma drugs that makes for bigger profits. Then, of course, once you are ill, you can be encouraged to take even MORE ConMed drugs.


It's a great business plan - unless and until people find out.

Dirty Medicine and Martin J Walker

Martin J Walker's book, Dirty Medicine, first awakened me to the full horrors of Conventional Medicine. It was first published in 1993. Since that time, Martin has published many more books that delve into the indescribably dirty world of conventional medicine.

If you want fully to open your eyes to the lengths Conventional Medicine will go to deceive governments, national health services, and millions of patients, Martin's books should be your first port of call. It took me months to find a copy of Dirty Medicine. Fortunately, they are now more easily available through Martin's website, where his books are listed. Go to:

http://www.slingshotpublications.com/books1.html

How spin takes the science out of medicine

Conventional Medicine prides itself on being an "evidence-based" science. Yet most studies on which doctors rely have been created by marketing companies, who are working for Big Pharma.

So says the Magazine 'What doctors don't tell you', usually shortened to WDDTY, is excellent for doing just that - it tells you what you GP does not usually, or willingly tell you. This particular piece can be found at WDDTY Vol 21 No 8. Page 7-8, and examines why it is that for decades we have been led to believe in conventional medicine, and its ability to cure disease.

          "Around 90,000 so-called 'scientific' drug trials, published over the past 10 years in journals, have  been nothing more than public relations (PR) dressed up as research".


WDDTY calls this a scam, that makes a mockery of the idea that conventional medicine is 'scientific', and describes principally the activities of the drug company, Wyeth. Wyeth is being sued by 14,000 women who developed breast cancer after taking its HRT drug, Prempro. They have been forced to reveal 'secret' documents that have shown just how 'scientific' ConMed is.

Yet, as the report says, the Wyeth documents are "but the tip of the iceberg of a practice carried out by most drug companies".

I have written about this before, in The Failure of Conventional Medicine, or more specifically at Medical Science. The failure to protect, where the use of 'cheque-book science', 'ghost' writing, and much more, is described in some detail.

The fact is that ConMed drugs are no more than a confidence trick, a massive deception on patients who are not told the truth, but Government, the NHS, our doctors, and the mainstream media. The dangerous failure of a succession of pharmaceutical drugs, over the last 50-60 years in particular, demonstrates they have no 'evidence base' whatsoever.

The evidence that patients look for is that treatment is effective, and safe. Medical Science has proven itself to be totally ineffective in safeguarding our health; indeed, it has contributed to our ill-health. It is outcomes that are important:

I am ill; I am treated; I get better

It is homeopathy, and other natural CAM therapies, that have provided patients with good outcomes - and this is why so many people are turning to medical therapies that have such an evidence base.

A healthy child, vaccination, a damaged child, homeopathy, a child getting better

This video tells a story. Starting with a healthy child, who is vaccinated, who becomes autistic, who is treated with homeopathy, and is beginning to get better.

Please, watch this video; it covers everything in 9 minutes; the dangers of ConMed, the potential destruction of a child's life, a family's sorry and anguish, and how homeopathy is helping the child to recover. With film of the child at every stage.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1390762414/from-within-without-a-documentary-about-homeopathy

A Novel Treatment for Brain Cancer?

Research undertaken in 2003, and published in the International Journal of Oncology (23: 975-982, 2003) found that Ruta 6 (homeopathy remedy at 6c dilution) "selectively induces cell death in  brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes" and described the remedy as "a novel treatment for brain cancer".

You can see the full paper at http://www.virtualtrials.com/pdf/ruta6.pdf

How strange that little more has been heard of this! Perhaps there is no profit for drug companies in diluting Ruta Grav.

Shuuusss. No-one is supposed to know that homeopathy works .......

Homeopathy. 70% report positive health changes

70.7% of patients using homeopathy reported positive health changes, with 50.7% recording their improvement as 'better' or 'much better'.

You can find this study at
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/export/sites/bha_site/research/JACM_11_5_p793-798.pdf

The study sought to assess health changes observed following routine homeopathic care for patients with a wide range of chronic conditions. It was a large observational study of 6,544 patients taken over a 6-year period.

Epilim; a dangerous drug, but no legal redress for families

Dozens of families who blame an epilepsy drug, Epilim, for causing birth defects in their children (see information on FACs) say they are devastated that legal aid to sue its maker has been withdrawn. So says a BBC report at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11707386

What is important in this story is not just that no patient is safe taking ConMed drugs, but that drug companies don't admit that their drugs have done anything 'wrong', and, in the UK, the government does not enable families to take such matters to the courts. There is little justice.

So it would seem that UK patients have to be even more careful than those in the USA. In the USA, 'class actions' against drug companies are regularly passing through the legal system, so at least those who have suffered disease and death have some access to justice, and drug companies have been forced to pay many $billions in compensation for the suffering and distress they cause.

The families concerned have children that have suffered because Epilin by the mother during pregnancy. This has caused their children to be born with spina bifida, heart damage and learning difficulties. Their lives have been devastated by ConMed drugs.

And it would appear that in the UK the drug companies, the government, and the NHS are not prepared to take any responsibility.

Multaq is a dangerous drug

Multaq has been around a couple of years now. Initially it was supposed to show such fantastic results the FDA in the USA 'fast-tracked' it for approval. Then, of course, after 1000s, millions of patients suffer, the truth begins to trickle out. The drug is dangerous. It causes disease, and death.

But nothing is done, immediately, of course. The evidence of harm has to be more extreme, or experienced over a longer term. Patients are not told anything other than that "the benefits outweigh the disadvantages".

Pharmalot has now outlined the short history of the drug at  http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/11/heartstopping-news-more-multaq-safety-signals/

" Since its approval last year, the Sanofi-Aventis Moltaq heart drug has been controversial. For instance, a study published last spring found the pill is only modestly effective and has not clear safety benefits and more recently, questions were raised about the study that led to FDA approval.

Now, a new analysis of FDA adverse event reports indicate Multaq may cause or worsen heart failure, trigger potentially lethal irregular heartbeats and impair kidney function. There is also a glaring discrepancy between the language in the Med Guide given docs and patients, and the warning label about pregnant patients. And the findings led The Institute for Safe Medicine Practices, which conducted the analysis, to conclude that “we have seldom seen a drug with so many issues in so many areas of its safety profile.”

Why? The non-profit points out that development stopped several years ago after a study of patients with severe heart failure found the drug doubled the risk of death; other data found signals of cancer and birth defects in animals; there are potentially serious interactions with other drugs used to treat atrial fibrillation, and Multaq causes new heart rhythm disturbances in some patients.

The report goes into more detail about the findings, but what is important is what this story tells patients. This is a relatively 'new' drug, so 'good' that the FDA wanted you to have it as quickly as possible. Within less than 2 years, serious disease-inducing-effects (DIEs) have been reported.

But patients will not be told. Nor will the drug be withdrawn, at least not yet. It might take a decade for this to happen. Big Pharma is the only industry allowed to peddle dangerous merchandise to customers which are unsafe, and are given the benefit of the doubt. They may purchase 'scientists' to provide spurious evidence of safety. The medical science never protects patients from these drugs.

Imagine what would happen to a car company if they produced a succession of cars that proved to be unsafe! The company would be in big trouble. People would not buy their cars. The mainstream media would publicise the dangers, and warn the public. The government would demand action.

But none of this happens as far as Big Pharma drugs are concerned. Their products are considered 'safe' until they are proven to be dangerous. They are treated in exactly the opposite way to any other industry.

AND IT IS OUR HEALTH THAT IS AT STAKE HERE!

This blog will keep an eye on the future of this drug, which if it takes a normal course will end in the drug company withdrawing it, or the FDA banning it. 

Yet for many patients, this will be too late. So anyone who knows about these 'early' problems should take sensible precautionary action now. I suggest that they tell their doctors they are not prepared to take the drug, and demand to be told the whole truth!

BMJ say Statin drugs cause liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts

Statins? That's the drug doctors have been telling us is so safe everyone should be taking, isn't it? Now, the BMJ have published evidence that admits that it causes disease!

Well, better late than never. But even better if it was 'never'. What this proves is that you cannot trust ConMed medication. You cannot trust medical professionals who tells you they are safe. The government, the NHS, Big Pharma are not prepared to tell you UNTIL it is proved that people have suffered. And unfortunately, our doctors are quite prepared to go along with this charade.

Natural News published this on 7th November 2010, where fuller information can be found, with references. The research was done at Nottingham University using data from more than 2 million patients taking Statin drugs.

There are safer ways of protecting yourself from heart disease, and this includes homeopathy; not to mention a sensible exercise regime, and a good diet. Statins are useful mainly for the profits accrued by the drug companies. As the piece concludes, these profits are not going to be compromised!

Although sales of the blockbuster drugs are unlikely to be reduced as a result of the study, the researchers encouraged closer monitoring of patients for side effects and said their findings "would tend to support a policy of using lower doses of statins in people at high risk of the adverse events."

In other words, we are expected to just keep on taking the drugs!

Why Celebrities choose homeopathy

This is a simple video that outlines why a large number of celebrities have used homeopathy for their conditions and ailments in recent years. It shows the variety of conditions homeopathy can treat, and the success it can achieve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR7E7FbGpEA

Of course, this is only a selection of such 'celebrities'. More can be found in Dana Ullman's book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why famous people and cultural heroes choose Homeoapathy.

Higher US drug spending has not improved health

This should be no surprise. ConMed drugs actually cause illness and disease, so the more spent on them, the unhealthier a nation is likely to become. It is the same in the UK. Drugs are the cause of the epidemic of chronic disease in the last 60 years, or so, during which time ConMed drug consumption has increased rapidly.

US healthcare spending is higher than that of most other developed nations - totaling roughly $7,290 per person according to Natural News.

http://www.NaturalNews.com/z030324_drug_spending_health.html


But this has not translated into better health, according to two new studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that higher spending on drugs can actually spur doctors to over-prescribe drugs to patients who do not need them.


The question is, perhaps, who does need them!
Yuting Zhang and her colleagues from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health did not observe a connection between higher spending on drugs and improved care. As she said, 

"Higher spending can be justified if it's for drugs that are necessary and appropriate and improve patients' health." But much of the time, higher spending actually causes more problems.

I would only disagree with the first sentence, not the second. I put forward this idea, quite tentatively in my ebook, The Failure of Conventional Medicine. 

But there is now so much evidence that being 'tentative' is no longer necessary. Big Pharma drugs cause illness and disease. So spending money to increase consumption is bound to make us less healthy.

The threat of homeopathy to the Conventional Medical Establishment

I have long since argued that homeopathy was under attack because it was effective, and therefore constituted a threat to Conventional Medicine, and Big Pharma companies in particular. What is being demonstrated day-after-day is that Conventional Medicine is in crisis. They are not only useless, in most cases, they are positively dangerous. And as people realise this, they look for safer, and more effective medical therapies. Homeopathy is the most prominent of these therapies.

I have argued this in my e-book, and should you want to see the whole argument, this is available (free of charge) at The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

For a shorter, but equally powerful version of the argument, do look at John Benneth's blog, which can be found at http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/the-threat-of-homeopathy/

Homeopathy and Dengue Fever

Dengue fever is an acute, and severe febrile disease, transmitted by mosquitos. The main symptoms are prostration, chills, intense frontal headache, muscular and joint pains, nausea and vomiting, sore throat and rashes. Death is rare in the common form, but some patients go on to developed Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever, where mortality can be high, especially in children. The acute symptoms can last about a week, but the disease can leave the patient with weakness, malaise and anorexia for several weeks.

Dengue occurs over large parts of the world, mostly tropical countries like India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico and Brazil. But it has also been known in areas of Europe over the last 200 years. In the past 30 years, the frequency of Dengue epidemics throughout the world have increased greatly.

Conventional medicine has no solutions for Dengue. The best it can do is to give advice about how to avoid it (which is sensible), and how to reduce epidemics from spreading once they begin. They have no vaccines. Anti-pyretics can be given to control temperature but they are largely ineffective. Advice about drugs is NOT to take them! Drugs such as aspirin, and other NSAID painkillers, is that they increase the risk of the more dangerous ‘hemorrhagic’ form of Dengue. Otherwise, it is drink plenty of water, and get plenty of rest.

In Brazil, homeopathy has in recent years played a part in its prevention and treatment, and what evidence there is suggests that homeopathy can play an important part in dealing with the disease. There were serious epidemics in 1986, 1995, and 2002.

The use of homeopathy in Brazil is reported in the paper “Homeopathy and Collective Health: The Case of Dengue Epidemics”, in Int J High Dilution Res 2008; 7(25): 179-185. This paper can be found at 

http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/viewFile/312/373 

This is the Abstract of the Paper.

“This paper describes experiences of the use of homeopathy in the prevention and treatment Dengue fever in São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. May 2001, a single dose of the homeopathic remedy Eupatorium perfoliatum 30cH was given to 40% of residents of the most highly affected neighborhood. Thereafter, Dengue incidence decreased by 81.5%, a highly significant decrease as compared with neighborhoods that did not receive homeopathic prophylaxis (p<0.0001). Between April and September 2007, a homeopathic complex composed of Eupatorium perfoliatum, Phosphorus and Crotalus horridus 30cH, given to 20,000 city residents. This trial was aborted prematurely due to national political intervention; therefore, only partial and isolated data could be recorded. However, the results suggest that homeopathy may be effective in the prevention and treatment of Dengue epidemics.

The Epilogue said this of the brief experiment in 2007.

The use of the homeopathic complex was restricted to one single week in March 2007 due to a disagreement between the State and Municipal Secretaries of Health giving rise to a serious institutional crisis widely reported by Brazilian media, creating feelings of doubt and confusion among the population. This situation also seriously impeded our research, limiting us to a small sample and inadequate controls. In spite of this, we were able to collect interesting data that may contribute to the ongoing efforts to control Dengue in Brazil. Unfortunately, in the 2007 outbreak of Dengue in São José de Rio Preto, a consensus in April 15th among representatives of the National Health Ministry, the State Health Secretary and the Municipal Health Secretary suspended prophylactic administration of the homeopathic complex, a decision upheld by the Ministry of Justice.

It is a pity that ‘political intervention’ allowed only ‘partial and isolated data’ but this has become all too typical in the history of homeopathy, and its success in the treatment of acute epidemics of this sort. It has happened throughout the 19th Century.

In 2008, over 230,000 Brazilians contracted Dengue Fever between the months of January and April. The drug toll was over 100, mainly children under 15 years of age. Brazil’s health minister conceded that it had ‘lost its war’ against the disease, and said that people would have to ‘co-exist’ with the disease in future.

So much for political interference!

Yet the Brazilian experience is not the only evidence we have. Homeopaths have long known that homeopathy provides effective prevention and treatment for both forms of Dengue Fever. Homeopathy has at least 20 remedies in our Materia Medica that have been shown to be effective, at the various stages of the disease. Boerricke, who wrote his MM in the 1920’s, mentioned 12 remedies : aconite, arsenicum, belladonna, bryonia, cantharis, china, eupatorium-per, gelsenium, ipecac, nux-vomica, rhus-tox and rhus-v. To that, other remedies can now be added, like Phosphorus, Ledum and Cratalus.

And there are other trials too, like in India in 1996 (Central Council of Research in Homeopathy. CCRH News. 1996-1997). In this trial, the Dengue Fever nosode (a remedy made from diseased material) in 30c potency was administered to people in the Delhi area during an epidemic of Dengue haemorrhagic fever. 39,200 people were given the nosode; 23,520 were successfully followed up, and only 5 people had developed symptoms. This is an infection rate of 0.125%, compared to what is normally expected, about 50%.

How Scientific is Conventional Medicine?

The main relationship between ConMed and Science is that Big Pharma has bought it! The more news that emerges about the lengths drug companies will go to sell drugs just confirms that their only interest in science is to pay for it, and use it to deny patients to have an insight into just how dangerous their drugs can be. This article by Dr Mercola expresses this view.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/05/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science.aspx

The sad fact is that the mainstream media is not telling people the truth. The ConMed drugs have more to do with the profits of drug companies than the health of patients.

Proof for homeopathy

Can I encourage those people who are looking for why homeopathy is such a powerful, effective and safe medical therapy to look at John Benneth's blog, and particularly, this one which discusses the 'proof for homeopathy'.

http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/about/

One of John's major interests is the investigation into the science behind this amazing medical therapy, and this is a particularly interesting blog.

You might also like to look at this,

Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970092

to confirm that serious scientists are trying to explain what is happening in homeopathy. They are 'real' scientists, as opposed to the homeopathy denialists (who litter this blog too often) who just lazily state that 'there is no evidence'.

Statins; useless for over 80's!

ConMed have told us for years that these drugs were so effective (and safe) everyone should take them. Now, the truth begins to emerge! ConMed drugs have little or nothing to offer anyone!

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4127555&cid=Latest_headlines_2_011110&sp_rid=NDE0NjI1MDQzMgS2&sp_mid=35938648

Antibiotics cause IBS (Irritable Bowel Disease).

Hands up if you thought antibiotics were safe. Clearly they are not. They destroy good bacteria, especially in the gut; so the only surprise about this announcement is that it has taken this long for Conventional Medicine to admit the association!

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4127549&cid=Latest_headlines_4_011110&sp_rid=NDE0NjI1MDQzMgS2&sp_mid=35938648

Even the greatest success story Conventional Medicine has is failing! IBS follows on from the creation of superbugs, like MRSA, of course.

Meridia (Reductil). Another dangerous drug.

So, you are overweight, and the GP gives you a drug. That drug increases your risk of heart disease and stroke. Is that a good deal?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/30/drug-meridia-yanked-from-market.aspx

So another pharmaceutical drug hits the buffers. Meridia (known as Reductil in the UK, I believe), presumably tested to the satisfaction of the FDA (and the MHRA) to be effective and safe, it has been given to 8 million patients throughout the world; and 13 years have elapsed before 'medical science' eventually decided that it wasn't safe because it caused a 16% increase in heart attacks and stroke.

So the ConMed farce goes on. The drug Reductil has been withdrawn in the USA' and was banned in Europe in January 2010. No doubt the drug will continue to be sold anywhere the drug companies can make a profit on it, at the expense of patients.

And do we hear about it from the government, the NHS, or the mainstream media? Do a web search! The usual silence remains. Drug company profits must not be affected. And to hell with the patient!

Radiation Therapy. Is it safe?

My blog often highlights ConMed drugs because they cause disease and kill. But what about other ConMed 'therapies'? Radiation therapy is increasing, for a variety of testing and treatments. Are they safe? I have recently come across this - from the New York Times, giving access to a variety of articles examining the issues that are arising from the increasing use of medical radiation, and the technologies that deliver it. It makes frightening reading. 


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/radiation_boom/index.html?ref=health

Topics include:
After stroke scans, patients face serious new health risks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html?_r=1&ref=radiation_boom
Radiation faces new cures, and new way to harm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom
As technology surges, radiation safeguards lag
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom

To support these growing concerns, and to show that they are not new, this is an extract from Kevin Morris's book, called "It's only a disease; how I fought terminal cancer and won" which features the history of the treatment of cancer with radiotherapy.

"The story of radiotherapy's rise to prominence as a cancer treatment is 
a fascinating one. James Douglas of the Phelps-Dodge copper mining 
company, set up the National Radium Institute in 1913. At the same time, 
he made a massive, one hundred thousand- dollar gift to Memorial 
Hospital in the United States. As the hospital was in serious financial 
difficulties, Douglas' gift was most welcome, but it came with several 
strings attached. He insisted that the hospital only treat cancer 
patients, that it routinely offer radium treatment, and he also 
installed his friend as chief pathologist and later as medical director. 
The Memorial went on to become one of the main cancer research and 
treatment centres in the States and radiation treatment was on offer 
there from the beginning. Douglas' shrewd moves placed the Memorial 
Hospital in the position of being a distribution centre for the radium 
produced by his mining interests.

In 1902, the first incidence of a human cancer brought about by 
X-radiation was noted and in 1906 it was suggested that exposure to 
radiation from radium could cause leukaemia. By 1911, 94 cases of 
radiation induced cancer had been reported, more than half of them in 
doctors or technicians. In 1911, 94 cases of cancer caused by radiation 
had been noted. Despite these serious cautions, doctors appeared to be 
swayed into using it by the profit motive. In 1914, one doctor told the 
New York Times that,

"Something is created which kills many patients. I cannot tell, nobody 
can tell, for four or five years just what the results will be. I simply 
feel that I've shoved these patients over a little quicker." /The sting 
in the tail came in the doctor's comment that '/I can double my money in 
a year while charging 4 cents per milligram per hour.' New York Times, 
January 27 1914.


What Kevin suggests here is that the concerns about radiation have been around for a long time - and that ConMed does not seem to learn from its many, regular mistakes that put patients at risk.