HealthBeat News

Category: Health Freedom

  • Seven Inconvenient Truths About the 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic

    Seven Inconvenient Truths About the 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic

    by Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    “Selective reporting” about the H1N1 virus and vaccine make it sound like getting a vaccination for the “pandemic flu” is a no-brainer. Thinking men and women should know the under-reported scientific conclusions and plain vanilla government statistics concerning this year’s “Panic-Demic” before making this seemingly simple but potentially life-threatening decision.

    To that end I present these “inconvenient truths” (fully referenced) for your consideration. Please note that it is extremely politically incorrect to question the value of the flu vaccine.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Seven Inconvenient Truths About the 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic

    by Dr. Dana Myatt

    1.) What is a “Phase Six” Pandemic? (Probably NOT what You Think)

    Contrary to popular thought (and most dictionaries), “pandemic” does not mean “large numbers” in WHO / CDC language. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Phase Descriptions, “pandemic” refers to distribution, not numbers or severity. Here is the WHO criteria for pandemics:

    • A “Phase 4” pandemic means only that a virus is transmissible between humans.
    • A “Phase 5” pandemic means only that one viral disease has been seen in two countries.
    • A Phase 6 pandemic means only that one viral disease has been seen in three or more countries.

    Again, the term “pandemic” does NOT refer to numbers of people affected or severity of the disease. (1)

    For perspective, The WHO announced as of 20 September 2009 that there have been 3917 total deaths worldwide from H1N1, on par with world-wide mortality from any seasonal or other flu for this time of year. (2) Malaria kills an average of 3,000 people every day in southeast Asia. (3)

    2.) Is The H1N1 Flu Really a Danger to the U.S.?

    Of less than 4,000 flu-related deaths world-wide, only 211 have occurred in the US as of August 2009. (4) This represents a death total lower than from seasonal flu for years 2005 through 2008 in the U.S. (5)

    Adding H1N1 and seasonal flu together, flu-related deaths are still lower this year compared to previous “non-pandemic” years.

    Not only is the total flu rate lower this year in the U.S., but the H1N1 flu has been much milder than predicted here and abroad. (6-10)

    According to the WHO, most H1N1 infections are mild, occurring in numbers comparable to seasonal flues, with fast recovery and mostly without need for medical care. Mortality rates so far have been only a fraction of the number of those reported each year from seasonal flu. WHO also acknowledges that “Large outbreaks of disease have not yet been reported in many countries…” (11)

    Harvard researcher Mark Lipsitch, PhD, explained at an Institute of Medicine meeting that on a 1 to 5 scale — with 5 being a 1918-like pandemic — this swine flu pandemic is a 1. Deputy Director of the CDC’s flu division, Daniel Jernigan, MD, concurs. “We are likely to have numbers that look very similar to what Dr. Lipsitch had,” Jernigan said. (12)

    3.) Why H1N1-related deaths are actually smaller than reported in the U.S.

    As of August 2009, ALL flu-associated deaths in the U.S. are being reported together. H1N1, seasonal flu and “influenza-like illness” (ILI) are added together to give the “flu mortality rate.” Reported illness and death totals, now include “influenza-like illness” (ILI) that in some cases may not be any form of flu at all. (13)

    Other reports concede that a portion of reported H1N1 deaths have actually been caused by pneumonia, not the H1N1 virus itself. (14)

    Because the new reporting system tallies deaths from all types of flu, the reported numbers of total flu deaths are not all attributable to H1N1. This means the true H1N1 mortality rate is only a portion of the total reported. Remember that deaths from all types of flu added together are lower in the U.S. this year than from the four previous “non pandemic” years before. (5,13)

    3.) Flu vaccines provide little or no protection from the flu.

    Vaccination is claimed to prevent the spread of influenza, protect individuals from acquiring the disease, and do so to a high degree of efficacy. Unfortunately, the majority of scientific studies do not support these claims. In fact, meta analyses (“master studies”) that look at large numbers of scientific studies and their outcomes, show the opposite. Influenza vaccine is minimally or not at all effective for most age groups. Here is how the numbers break down.

    In children under two:

    In children under the age of two, influenza vaccines are no more effective than placebo. (15)

    One meta analysis evaluating fifty-one published studies with 294,159 observations found “no efficacy” in children under the age of two. (16) The authors conclude that “It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada.”

    Simply put, the authors question why the U.S. is targeting children under the age of two for vaccination when the studies show the vaccine to be ineffective in this age group.

    In children over two:

    The same meta analysis found influenza vaccines effective 33% of the time in children over the age of two. (16) Followed to it’s logical conclusion, this means the flu vaccines are ineffective 67% of the time in children over the age of two.

    Another study found influenza vaccine ineffective up to age 5. (17)

    In healthy adults:

    A meta analysis evaluating 25 studies conducted on 59,566 adults age 14-40 found a mere 6% decrease of clinical influenza in those vaccinated. The conclusion: “Universal immunization of healthy adults is not supported by the results of this review.” (18)

    The recent update to this study, pooling 38 published studies encompassing 66,248 healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years, found that “serological flu” (lab numbers) were reduced but actual cases of flu were not reduced. This meta analysis concluded that improvements in overall flu rates in those vaccinated “was extremely modest.” (19)

    In seniors:

    Seniors over age 70 account for 75% of all flu-related deaths. Since 1980, the vaccination rate in seniors has increased from 15% to 65% but the death rate from flu has not declined. The authors conclude that “the evidence is insufficient to indicate the magnitude of a mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination program.” (20)

    Contrary to popular belief, studies have found that secondary pneumonia in seniors is not decreased by flu vaccination, and that reduction of mortality through influenza vaccination has been greatly overestimated in this age group. (21,22)

    5.) “Fast track” approval of flu vaccines, especially H1N1, leaves safety questions unanswered.

    “Fast track” approval means that influenza vaccines do not have to go through the normal regulatory procedures. The H1N1 vaccine approval was especially fast because of the “pandemic” designation. One of the approved 4 vaccines was approved after testing in only 221 people for 21 days. (23) Another was approved after testing on 175 adults for 21 days. (24).

    The World Health Organization (WHO) admits that people who get vaccinations will be the “field testers” of their safety. From the WHO website:

    “Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun. (Author’s italics)

    … On the positive side, mass vaccination campaigns can generate significant safety data within a few weeks. (Author’s italics) (25)

    In other words, we won’t know the safety of these vaccines until we vaccinate millions of people (45 million is the U.S. “target” for October) (26,27); the side effects experienced by those vaccinated will be the “safety data.”

    The U.S. Government conferred immunity from prosecution to drug manufacturers of the H1N1 vaccine in July 2009. (28)

    6.) Vaccines May Be More Dangerous than the Flu Itself.

    In 1976, 200 soldiers at Fort Dix were stricken with the flu, with one reported death. A pandemic was declared and nearly 40 million people in the U.S. received the 1976/H1N1 vaccine before the campaign was stopped due to an increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralytic autoimmune disease. (29)

    More than 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome were reported, 25 of which resulted in death. This “pandemic that wasn’t” never spread beyond Fort Dix. (30)

    In a recent statement by the The American Academy of Neurology, experts said they don’t expect the 2009 H1N1 vaccine to increase risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome or other autoimmune disease but they acknowledged that this is a concern with any pandemic vaccine. (31)

    Mild short-term reactions to the vaccine can include soreness, redness, or swelling at vaccination site, low grade fever, runny nose, headache, chills, tiredness/weakness and body aches and pains. (32) These symptoms are very much like the flu itself.

    Life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a paralytic autoimmune disease) can also occur. (33)

    These short-term side effects of influenza vaccination are easier to observe because of their close proximity to vaccination, beginning within minutes to several weeks. Long-term and/or cumulative effects of vaccinations are more difficult to monitor, and questions remain about the long-term safety of vaccines.

    For example, the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in adults and autism in children has skyrocketed in the last several decades. These rates are continued to increase. (34,35)

    The cause of these increases is not known. Some camps maintain that these neurological disease escalations may be caused by vaccinations, especially since many vaccines still contain mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other neurotoxic compounds. (36-39)

    The US government, CDC, FDA, and drug manufacturers claim there is no correlation between vaccines and these diseases, (40-43) although many question the quality of evidence used to draw this conclusion. (44,45)

    7.) “Herd Immunity” Remains Speculative

    “Herd immunity” (community immunity) is the belief that if a portion of society gets vaccinated, weaker members of “the herd” who do not respond satisfactorily to the vaccine (children under two and seniors over 65) will be protected from the flu because those around them have been vaccinated. Much evidence contradicts the concept of “herd immunity.” (46-49)

    If healthcare workers get vaccinated, they purportedly decrease the risk of influenza in their high-risk patient, hence the “heavy push” that borders on mandate for health care workers to receive the vaccine. One large meta analysis found “no high quality evidence that vaccinating healthcare workers reduces the incidence of influenza or its complications in the elderly in institutions.” (50)

    Conclusions

    My purpose in presenting these statistics and studies is to assist the reader in drawing independent conclusions about the true risk of H1N1 flu and advisability of vaccination for same.

    We are each responsible for our own “due diligence” when making decisions concerning our health, although many people defer to the media and government for their directives.

    Here are the points I see from these studies and statistics:

    1. The safety and effectiveness of H1N1 vaccines has not been proven.
    2. The transmissibility of H1N1 flu is small and the severity mild compared to seasonal flu.
    3. My risk of getting the H1N1 flu is small; my risk of dying from this flu is quite small and no greater than for any seasonal flu.
    4. Flu vaccines confer little if any protection from influenza viruses in my age group.
    5. There is much conflicting “proof” that by getting a vaccination, I help make others around me safer through “herd immunity.”
    6. There are known short-term and possibly unknown long-term side effects from vaccines.

    All things considered, I’m going to pass on the H1N1 flu vaccine. I believe there are far safer, better-proven methods to increase my resistance to H1N1 and make sure I have a mild case of it (as most cases are) if I do contract the flu.

    If you’d like to see what natural measures I am personally taking, please subscribe to HealthBeat News here.

    My plan for increasing natural resistance to the H1N1 and other flues will be in next week’s online edition of HealthBeat News.

    The fully referenced version of this article with links to government websites can be viewed here.

  • More Concerns About H1N1 And Vaccines – Dr. Crafton Warns Us…

    Doctor Denham B Crafton III, a good friend and dentist now practicing in Vermont, sends us information and updates about dentistry and the health impacts of mercury – a special interest for him – from time to time. This morning he sent us this cautionary note regarding mercury in H1N1 vaccines and about the grim specter of “enforced isolation” for persons exhibiting symptoms that could possibly be related (or not!) to infection with a viral illness.

    Here is Dr. Denny’s note, as we received it, with minor edits for clarity and formatting:

    As a concerned Health Care Practitioner, I have been following the “news” about H1N1 / (not) Swine flu  closely…thus far, the mortality rate is lower than last year’s flu, which essentially means it isn’t terribly consequential, despite what the “mainstream media” would have you believe.

    Last week the Federal government authorized the use of 4 different “Swine Flu Vaccines”… all 4 have never been tested on humans.   This is extremely poor thinking on behalf of the Federal Government (gee, what’s new?)  Of course, the manufacturers cannot be sued for negligence / malpractice under existing Federal legislation.

    Making matters even worse, most of these vaccines are actually produced in China… if that doesn’t raise your index of suspicion, it should. Chinese products over the past few years, especially in critical medical components, have  become increasingly suspect – from ethylene glycol in toothpaste to seriously contaminated Heparin (imported by Baxter Pharmaceuticals) last year… in short, this is very bad policy.

    Now, making things even worse, the standards relating to the presence of toxic materials in vaccines are being suspended.

    You read that right: suspended [see below] Only Plutonium is more toxic than mercury.

    Personally, I am refusing any vaccinations and I am strongly recommending against any vaccinations for H1N1. The H1N1 virus is obviously a laboratory product – and what hasn’t been widely reported is that many of the deaths associated with Swine Flu appear to be directly associated with Vitamin D deficiency.

    Making matters worst of all, the “government” has targeted pregnant women and children under age 3 as being “high risk” for flu and consequently, these groups are targeted for vaccination.

    Do your own research, be suspicious of anyone recommending any vaccination for this flu – most likely the death toll from the vaccine will be higher than the flu itself.

    The CDC has composed a draft for an “isolation order” as a template for state and local officials to impose quarantines. According to the document officials are able to impose a quarantine without a definite confirmation or evidence that the person in question is even ill. According to the CDC a person who has the H1N1 virus will exhibit symptoms of a “fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue.” Under the order, anyone who is suspected to be exposed or is reasonably suspected to be exposed with H1N1 can be quarantined. This broad definition could apply to anyone and exposes this power grab for what it is.

    Click here for more information >>> CDC Drafts “Isolation Order” for H1N1

    Washington’s Secretary of Health, Mary Selecky, is temporarily suspending the limit of the amount of Mercury allowed in the H1N1 vaccine in an effort to ensure the highest risk residents of Washington (pregnant women and children under three) get vaccinated when it becomes available.

    Secretary Selecky states that she does not want anything in the way of protecting people if the mercury-free vaccines run out of stock. The suspension is to last six months, effective through March 23, 2010, and it only applies to the swine flu vaccine currently in production. The law, however, still requires that any pregnant or lactating women or guardians of children under 18 be told that they are receiving a vaccine with more mercury than is usually permitted, while the limits are suspended. As of now, vaccination remains on a voluntary basis.

    Click here for more information >>> Mercury Limits Suspended for H1N1 (Swine Flu) Vaccine to Improve Access

  • Protect Your Family From The Flu – Without Drugs Or Shots

    By Nurse Mark

    The Sky Is Falling!

    The CDC, as of this writing in the afternoon of April 29th, 2009, has elevated it’s "warning level" to "phase 5" on it’s scale of one through six.

    The television news networks are gratefully running nonstop "breaking news" coverage of what they are calling an "epidemic". Obviously, REAL news had been a little slow…

    Google, the internet giant, has jumped onto the bandwagon with a map where the truly swine-flu-obsessed can track suspected and confirmed cases.

    Big Pharma, with visions of sugar plums — and major profits — dancing in it’s eyes is rubbing it’s hands with glee and hoping that no-one will notice that out of the one hundred forty eight or so people known to be infected with this influenza worldwide, only one outside of Mexico – a Mexican toddler with "underlying health issues" who was visiting family (or had come seeking American health care) in Brownsville, Texas – has died.

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
    Rahm Emanuel – chief advisor to President Barack Obama

    A public health emergency has been declared in the U.S. to free up resources to deal with the swine flu, Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said at a White House briefing. President Obama has requested $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress.

    The government is releasing nearly 13 million doses of antiviral medications to stem the spread of swine flu, Napolitano said.

    "The national stockpile has 50 million courses, and we are releasing 25 percent of the state portion already," Napolitano told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which convened to discuss the federal response to the swine flu outbreak.

    Could enforced vaccination be part of our new reality? Could travel restrictions – both international and even internal – be considered?

    I can certainly envision a scenario where the CDC, the DHS, and Big Pharma combine forces to require that proof of vaccination be shown by anyone wanting to travel… I can’t help but notice that there is an awful lot of fear-mongering going on right now, and a lot of "experts" being called upon to pontificate and "prepare" us for the draconian measures must come next if "our government" is to successfully "battle" the "looming and deadly epidemic" – measures like enforced vaccinations, travel restrictions, perhaps even people rounded up and quarantined en masse.

    Could it really happen here? This is the United States of America, after all you say. I sure hope not, but…

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
    Rahm Emanuel – chief advisor to President Barack Obama

    Is It Really That Serious?

    "Seasonal flu each year causes tens of thousands of deaths in this country — on average, about 36,000 deaths — and so this flu virus in the United States, as we’re looking at it, is not acting very differently from what we saw during the flu season." Dr. Richard Besser, acting CDC chief. (Please note: Dr. Myatt told you this last year in Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark? )

    So, according to the CDC this particular flu is pretty much like every other flu – many people will get it, most will have the usual ugly week of feeling lousy, some will feel really ugly, and a few more will develop secondary infections and die.

    Thus far we have less than two hundred people sick with this flu around the world, and a handful of people (eight, as of this writing) dead. Despite the panicked reporting of the News Industry and the fervent hopes of a pharmaceutical industry hit by global recession this is not an epidemic.

    So far, the people who have died have been Mexican – in a country with third-world health care and fourth-world sanitation. Yes, I know that the tourist areas are showcases of gleaming modernity and cleanliness – but they are tiny oases in a sea of squalor that is the bulk of that country. Remember, Mexico is a country where people die of simple diarrhea…

    So – What Can YOU Do to Protect Yourself and Your Family?

    Maybe you should stock up on the new wonder-drug Tamiflu, right? Sure – it is said to shorten the duration of an influenza by a whole day or so, and the side effects aren’t all that bad: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, fatigue, cough… uh, wait a second here – aren’t those the symptoms we are trying to avoid?

    OK, so maybe Tamiflu isn’t such a good idea. How about the other wonder-drug, Relenza – you know, the stuff you snort? Well, according to drug-maker GlaxoSmithKline;

    "In studies, the most common side effects with RELENZA have been headaches; diarrhea; nausea; vomiting; nasal irritation; bronchitis; cough; sinusitis; ear, nose, and throat infections; and dizziness. Other side effects that have been reported, but were not as common, include rashes and allergic reactions, some of which were severe." They go on to say: "This list of side effects is not complete."

    Uh, oops, that doesn’t sound like a winner either. In fact, that sounds like "Swine Flu Plus".

    Well, then how about just getting a flu "shot" – a vaccination? Folks, I want you to go back and re-read Dr. Myatt’s recent article Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark? – this should be required reading for anyone thinking about being subjected to Big Pharma’s foolish experiments, and should probably be required reading for any doctor who is recommending that you be vaccinated. As Dr. Myatt says:

    "Flu vaccines only protect against a small number of viruses, are effective 39% or less of the time and work even less well in people who need it most, the elderly and immune-weakened folks. I’d say the flu vaccine is a real shot in the dark. Worse than ineffective or benign, the influenza vaccine is still preserved with thimerosol (mercury), a known neurotoxin."

    Alrighty then! I need to preserve whatever brain cells I have left – I’ll not willingly be injected with any vaccine, especially one so ineffective…

    So is all hope lost? Are we all doomed to catch swine flu and die?

    Not likely!

    Here’s The Scoop:

    Please re-read Dr. Myatt’s HealthBeat News articles Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark? and ‘Tis the season… for Colds and Flu! and her webpage The Flu Can Be A Brutal Enemy – where you will find some simple, effective strategies to help you and your family avoid the flu and avoid the drugs and vaccinations that are certain to be pushed upon you.

    As you re-read those articles you will note that Dr. Myatt has made a really crazy money-back guarantee: She guarantees that if you follow her recommendations you will not catch a flu! Will your local doctor promise if you get a flu shot you wouldn’t get the flu or your money back? See Dr. Myatt’s "No Flu for You" Guarantee here Because last year, this year, pseudo-"swine flu epidemic" or whatever, folks, this guarantee still stands!

    Now, here’s the short course, for those who don’t have the time to read those earlier articles:

    How to Make Yourself Flu-Proof:

    1.) Eat an Immune-Boosting Diet. The two major dietary causes of immune suppression are sugar intake and food allergies.

    2.) Practice simple home and hygiene techniques.

    • Wash your hands frequently. You don’t need expensive "hand sanitizers" – simple, pure soap is fine.
    • Cover your mouth and nose — preferably with a tissue — when you sneeze or cough.
    • If you are sick take the day off!
    • Keep your house humid.
    • Get regular exercise – it stimulates the immune system.

    3.) Strengthen your immune system with supplements.

    • Take an optimal potency vitamin/mineral supplement every day.
      Here are the nutrients of particular immune-enhancing importance, and they should all be found in a good multiple nutrient formula:
      * vitamin C
      * vitamin E
      * beta carotene
      * vitamin A
      * vitamin D
      * zinc
      * selenium
      (Please Note: These nutrients and more are found in optimal amounts in Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi vitamins)
    • Supplement with additional immune-boosting herbs including Echinacea, astragalus, medicinal mushrooms (Maitake, Shiitake, Reishi), Ligustrum, Goldenseal and Garlic. Learn more about Dr. Myatt’s Immune Support formula .

    If you do catch something, start Dr. Myatt’s Acute Immune Protocol right away.

    For More Information Read Dr. Myatt’s HealthBeat News articles:

    Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark?

    ‘Tis the season… for Colds and Flu!

    The Flu Can Be A Brutal Enemy

    What’s the Bottom Line?

    We believe, after intense research, that this "new flu" is a complete hoax, no bigger or badder than any other year’s flu (and the acting CDC chief agrees). It’s a money-making opportunity for Big Pharma in cahoots with a spendthrift government eager to flex it’s muscle and advance it’s agendas, as shown by the words of Presidenet Obama’s right-hand man Rahm Emanuel.

    We believe there is NO BIGGER DANGER THIS YEAR FROM FLU than any other year. This is a fabricated problem, designed to lure an unsuspecting and uneducated populace into further dependence on "help" from Big Government and salvation from Big Pharma. Forget it. Neither Big Pharma nor Big Government can save us from the flu any more than they can save us from the common cold.

    Forget the flu shot. Follow the simple recommendations given here. Eat well, take supplements to support an otherwise decent diet. Exercise a bit, think good thoughts and pray for the continued survival of our freedoms.

    Yes, this flu is likely to return in the fall flu season as some "experts" are warning.  So don’t stop – keep eating well, exercising, taking your vitamins and immune support and you’ll be just fine.

    That’s how it looks to Dr. Myatt and Nurse Mark from Snowflake, AZ, after a hard, critical look into this current "non-crisis."

  • Is There Any Wonder That People Become Confused?

    Dr. Myatt is currently deep in research for an upcoming paper on an increasingly common modern disease, hepatitis C. In this research she reviews hundreds of papers and references and studies – some of them big name scientific studies, some of them anecdotal reports, some of them promoting natural therapies, many more promoting allopathic Big Pharma drug offerings.

    There is a lot of misinformation out there – much of it promulgated by Big Pharma and Big Medicine who really don’t have a workable solution for hepatitis C, but don’t want to give any ground to the possibility that there might be natural alternatives to their often-toxic drug treatments.

    As an example, Dr. Myatt came across this article in the government’s National Library of Medicine PubMed service – the place where your allopathic doctor goes for his information (if your doctor bothers to research at all). This study was published under the heading of "Hepatology" (the study of diseases of the liver) and titled Herbal product use by persons enrolled in the hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment Against Cirrhosis (HALT-C) Trial.

    I’ll include the text of the abstract at the end of this article, but here is the short course:

    • The authors / researchers looked at the herb silymarin (milk thistle) use by hepatitis C patients
    • The authors / researchers found that no beneficial effect of silymarin was found on hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA levels
    • The authors / researchers conclude that only a well-designed prospective study can determine whether silymarin provides benefit to persons with chronic hepatitis C

    Whew! Heady stuff! Almost anyone quickly reading this brief abstract would be compelled to conclude that milk thistle has virtually no benefit or place in the treatment of hepatitis C. But wait – let’s read the authors words a little more carefully for when we do we begin to recognize a classic example of obfuscation and doublespeak:

    Univariate analysis showed significantly fewer liver-related symptoms and better quality-of-life parameters in users than nonusers, but after reanalysis adjusted for covariates of age, race, education, alcohol consumption, exercise, body mass index, and smoking, only fatigue, nausea, liver pain, anorexia, muscle and joint pain, and general health remained significantly better in silymarin users. In conclusion, silymarin users had similar alanine aminotransferase and HCV levels to those of nonusers but fewer symptoms and somewhat better quality-of-life indices.

    Translation please? Here it is…

    "We found that milk thistle helped patients feel better – so we re-worked the analysis to try to juggle the numbers the way we wanted them to be, and even after working hard to show otherwise we had to admit that it looks like milk thistle has a beneficial effect in hepatitis C patients"

    At no time, in the 2000 years or so of the recorded use of milk thistle has anyone ever claimed it to be an "anti-viral" herb. Immune enhancing, yes. Liver protective, yes. But not antiviral. So why look for an antiviral effect? Perhaps so that they could then say that "it doesn’t work"?

    Folks, if these results had been obtained with a prescription drug Big Pharma would be shouting it from the very rooftops and pressing for it to be added to drinking water like their favorite toxin fluoride. It would be in the nightly news and on the front pages of major newspapers. But it’s just a lowly and unpatentable and unprofitable natural herb that must be discredited at any cost – even if that "cost" is scientific and medical honesty. Even if that "cost" is the quality of life enjoyed by hepatitis C sufferers.

     

    Here is the full text of the abstract – judge for yourself:

    Herbal product use by persons enrolled in the hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment Against Cirrhosis (HALT-C) Trial.

    Authors: Seeff LB, Curto TM, Szabo G, Everson GT, Bonkovsky HL, Dienstag JL, Shiffman ML, Lindsay KL, Lok AS, Di Bisceglie AM, Lee WM, Ghany MG; HALT-C Trial Group.

    Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

    Herbal products, used for centuries in Far Eastern countries, are gaining popularity in western countries. Surveys indicate that persons with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) often use herbals, especially silymarin (milk thistle extract), hoping to improve the modest response to antiviral therapy and reduce side effects. The Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment Against Cirrhosis (HALT-C) Trial, involving persons with advanced CHC, nonresponders to prior antiviral therapy but still willing to participate in long-term pegylated interferon treatment, offered the opportunity to examine the use and potential effects of silymarin. Among 1145 study participants, 56% had never taken herbals, 21% admitted past use, and 23% were using them at enrollment. Silymarin constituted 72% of 60 herbals used at enrollment. Among all participants, 67% had never used silymarin, 16% used it in the past, and 17% used it at baseline. Silymarin use varied widely among the 10 participating study centers; men were more frequent users than women, as were non-Hispanic whites than African Americans and Hispanics. Silymarin use correlated strongly with higher education. No beneficial effect of silymarin was found on serum alanine aminotransferase or hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA levels. Univariate analysis showed significantly fewer liver-related symptoms and better quality-of-life parameters in users than nonusers, but after reanalysis adjusted for covariates of age, race, education, alcohol consumption, exercise, body mass index, and smoking, only fatigue, nausea, liver pain, anorexia, muscle and joint pain, and general health remained significantly better in silymarin users. In conclusion, silymarin users had similar alanine aminotransferase and HCV levels to those of nonusers but fewer symptoms and somewhat better quality-of-life indices. Because its use among these HALT-C participants was self-motivated and uncontrolled, however, only a well-designed prospective study can determine whether silymarin provides benefit to persons with chronic hepatitis C.

    PMID: 18157835 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

  • Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?

    Nurse Mark note: We have long warned of the effect that Big Medicine and Big Pharma have on such organizations as those purporting to be seeking a "Cure for Cancer". Indeed, we have gone as far as to say that the "War on Cancer" has been lost. This well-written and well-researched article provides some interesting insight. It is very true that there is nothing so noble that it cannot be perverted for profit by these mighty chemical, pharmaceutical, and medical cartels.

    Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?

    by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

    "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." – Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

    Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?

    Cancer Is Increasing

    Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1) By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2) The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.

    The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed

    "My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."

    A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4)

    Most Cancer IS Preventable

    According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer "…80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." (5) Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)

    Prevention – Not Profitable to Industry

    According to Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the ‘market’ showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug industry thrives on the ‘pill for every ill’ mentality, so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)

    Desired: A State of No Cure?

    In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, "a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." (8) Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which were ‘blacklisted’ by the major cancer organisations.

    Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Author G.Edward Griffin explains ". . . let’s face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else. . . [I]t’s obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel’s medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn’t mean somebody blew the whistle and said "hey, don’t research nutrition!" It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9) This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer: "Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it." (10)

    Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?

    A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies." (11)

    In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, "Their constant consumption is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments . . . which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)

    Imagine What Could Be Achieved

    The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others, as a complete fraud. If you would like to make a difference, inform these organisations that you won’t donate to them until they change their approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.

    Return to the Top

    Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

    This article may be copied or distributed, provided the copyright and disclaimer messages are clearly attached.

    Disclaimer: This article is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional or medical advice. CAFMR disclaims all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from the use of the information provided.

    References:
    1. d’Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33
    2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1
    3. Dr. Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as quoted in Bette Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives – Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer, NZAVS, 1993, p.132
    4. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47
    5. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47
    6. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress – the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77
    7. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65
    8. as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66
    9. Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette) American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.
    10. Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.
    11. Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179
    12. Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.