Posts Tagged big pharma

Why Americans and Europeans may soon start dying of infections like it’s 1905 again · by Gwynn Guilford · November 18, 2013

Antibiotics aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do anymore. You know, kill infections. Since Alexander Fleming invented penicillin 75 years ago, nearly all bacteria have mutated into strains impervious to antibiotics. Those souped up bacteria now kill hundreds of thousands of people, at a minimum, each year. And according to a new issue of medical journal The Lancet focused on antibiotic-resistant bacteria, things could soon get a whole lot scarier.

“Rarely has modern medicine faced such a grave threat. Without antibiotics, treatments for minor surgery to major transplants could become impossible…,” argue a team of UK medical experts in one article in a series on antibiotic resistance (paywall) in The Lancet. ”Infection-related mortality rates in developed countries might return to those of the early 20th century,” they say.

The reason antibiotics are no longer doing what they’re supposed to is mainly that they’re being given to the wrong patient. Instead of people with severe infections or risk of infection, the majority of antibiotics are consumed by animals and people who aren’t sick enough to justify their use.

Pigs, chickens, cows, fish and other animals consume the majority of the 100,000-200,000 tonnes (110,000-220,000 tons) of antibiotics manufactured each year, as farmers try to keep growing large and healthy animals under unsanitary conditions. The bacterial strains created in these conditions can spread to humans.

At the same time, perverse incentives in poor countries encourage overuse. People often take antibiotics available over-the-counter, says The Lancet’s report on global resistance, and self-medication by consumers is common. The lack of sound medical care in some areas means that pharmaceutical companies are the chief source of information on when to take antibiotics and in what dose.

Meanwhile, financial kickbacks in India and China spur overprescription. The Lancet cites one study showing that antibiotics sales generated one-quarter of revenue from two Chinese hospitals. That explains why the average Chinese person takes 10 times more antibiotics than the average US patient does.

Even in the US and other rich countries, health care systems commonly overprescribe antibiotics for upper respiratory infections, says The Lancet report.

The more people and animals consume antibiotics—and the more they do so in an uncontrolled way—the greater the likelihood of generating resistant bacteria, or “superbugs,” as they’re often called.

People who need them aren’t getting them. More than 25% of the 6.6 million children who died before the age of five in 2012 succumbed to preventable infectious diseases like pneumonia and infant sepsis, according to another article (paywall) in The Lancet. For parents of some of these babies, the prices of fancier antibiotics—drugs that are able to fight these bacteria—are far out of reach.

What can be done? There are two obvious starting places. Use of antibiotics among animals, except in therapeutic situations, must end, says the report. It also recommends that in all but the poorest countries, over-the-counter sales of antibiotics must be banned. We also need pharmaceutical companies to develop more antibiotics, though that will take time.

And that’s just a start, says Dr. Otto Cars, a professor at Uppsala University and lead author of The Lancet report. “Addressing these problems will require nothing less than a fundamental shift in how antibiotics are developed, financed and prescribed,” Cars says. · by Gwynn Guilford · November 18, 2013


Article taken from:

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Always Question This Advice – Facts Which Will Make Your Blood Boil

By Dr. Mercola

The headlines tell it all. One day they’re announcing how great a drug is, and the next thing you know, they’re saying it’s not so great after all. In this world of mass media and constantly-changing health information, people are confused about the paradoxical health information they’re getting, and they’re fed up

It’s gotten so bad that the North Carolina Time-News says a growing number of cynical patients are refusing to take their medicine. But is that such a bad thing?

Prescribing Drugs is what Doctors Do

Just what is it that doctors do, anyway? During your last appointment with a physician of any sort, specialist or primary care, what happened?

  • Did you have a chat about diet, exercise, nutrition, eating plans, or stress management?
  • Were you cautioned not to consume too much refined sugar or flour?
  • Were yougiven advice on natural supplements or lifestyle changes that can help you achieve optimal health?

Or did the entire appointment simply address the symptoms you came in with or a screening for an illness you might have? And did it end with the doctor giving you a prescription?

Unless your physician specializes in nutrition or holistic medicine, the prescription was probably the main focus of your appointment. That’s because treating symptoms and diseases – and prescribing drugs for them – is what modern doctors do.

I know this because I was a physician who used to do just that. Literally thousands of my patients walked out of every appointment with me with a drug prescription in hand, before I learned how to effectively use natural life style modifications that I review in my book, Take Control of Your Health.

But don’t just take my word for it.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) describes doctors’ jobs on its website. And what the BLS says doctors “do” is diagnosis illnesses and prescribe treatments. It also mentions counseling patients on such things as diet, hygiene, and preventive health care – but when was the last time your doctor did that?

Why Don’t Doctors Spend More Time on Preventive Care?

A 1984 survey of primary care physicians in New York found that 87 percent agreed that they should add preventive medicine in the form of health promotion and disease prevention to their patient care.

There were three reasons they didn’t:

  • Lack of time
  • Inadequate reimbursement by insurance
  • An unclear idea of how to define preventive medicine, or what kinds of preventive recommendations they should make.

The study concluded that physicians need more training and education in disease prevention and health promotion.

Nearly 30 years later, it appears that nothing’s changed. With an average of 15 minutes (if you’re lucky) scheduled per patient, physicians still don’t have time for much of anything but writing prescriptions and ordering tests. They’re still limited to insurance incentives that pay for tests and treatments rather than disease prevention counseling. And they still are unable to define preventive care properly, because whether it’s the Department of Health and Human Services or health care analysts, preventive care is still considered screening for diseases, rather than teaching patients how to prevent them.

Granted, med students now have an option of adding a year or two to their 12 to 16 years of college by enrolling in a residency specializing in preventive medicine. But unless they specialize in holistic or alternative health care when they get through with their education, they still have to practice within the conventional paradigm.

Where Do Doctors Get Their Information From?

So in the absence of time, money and preventive care recommendations, what doctors still do best is prescribe drugs – to the tune of an expected $880 billion in sales, worldwide in 2011. And where do you suppose they get the information to do all that prescribing?

Mostly, from the drug companies themselves.

That’s right. Your doctor relies on drug company sales representatives – who work on commission– for information about what a drug is used for and what its adverse reactions might be.

The obvious problem with this is that when you’re working on commission, you don’t have a lot of incentive to kill sales with information on little things like side effects or disclosures that the only difference between the product you’re selling and an old one is that the new one’s got a higher price tag.

The fatal flaw with this system is two-fold. First, it assumes that physicians will take the time to read all the prescribing information about a drug before they give it to their patients. Second, it presumes that he will also keep up with any subsequent information, good or bad, that might come out about the drug later. Aside from wondering how many doctors actually have time to read all the fine print accompanying a drug, the more dangerous issue is that more and more clinical studies validating the drugs your doctor prescribes aretainted by bias and conflicting interests that sway product test results. For example, in one study of 111 final applications for approval:

  • 42 percent lacked adequately randomized trials
  • 40 percent had flawed testing of dosages
  • 39 percent lacked evidence of clinical efficacy
  • 49 percent raised concerns about serious adverse events

Recent information about Avandia and Avastin highlight how biased and poor trials like this make it to market, according to Science Daily. But they are not isolated incidents. Many drugs that tend to offer less benefit and more harm to patients than the old stand-bys are making their way to your doctors’ prescription pads. One of the reasons for this is because sales reps’ salaries are tied to how many high-cost, new drugs they can sell, thus making their Big Pharma bosses happy.

The drug industry’s propaganda to sell these drugs are easily recognized , and include:

  • Giving guidelines that have no proven end points for the drugs, but imply that they are needed or could be useful
  • Exaggerating safety and efficacy claims
  • Creating a disease out of something not previously considered a disease
  • Encouraging off-label, unapproved uses for their drugs

Follow the Money – If You Can

Recent news has been full of reports of physicians who accept speaking fees from pharmaceutical companies and prescribe massive numbers of the drugs they promote.

But the most scandalous investigation came from ProPublica, which showed that hundreds of doctors on Big Pharma’s speakers’ payrolls – the peers your physicians trust to “educate” them at drug seminars – had been accused of professional misconduct, were disciplined by state boards, or lacked credentials as researchers or specialists.

Granted, not all of the drug industry’s propaganda promoters are in professional trouble. Many have unblemished records, and take their roles as teachers seriously. But how do you know whom to trust when high-profile figures like ABC Medical News contributor Marie Savard fail to disclose that drug companies pay them to say what they’re saying? Savard has been a Merck spokesperson for their HPV vaccine, Gardasil, for at least five years, and accepted nearly $21,000 from Merck in 2009 alone (the first year speakers’ compensation has been available). You may remember when she appeared on the Oprah show in 2007, pushing Gardasil and assuring parents it was safe. The one thing she didn’t say was that Merck paid her to say that.

When you consider that Savard sits on the University of Pennsylvania’s Board of Trustees, and that Merck has endowed UPenn’s vaccinology department with a $1.5 million chair, it’s easy to follow the money and understand where her loyalties lie – and why.

But Savard isn’t alone in conflicts of interest. The truth is medical professionals are literally inundated on all sides with biased information given by symposia presenters and public speakers with conflicts of interest.

From nurse practitioners and physician assistants to medical students and medical school faculty, to dental professionals andpracticing physicians who simply want to attend a continuing education class, Pharma’s got your doctors covered, teaching them everything the drug industry wants them to know.

In other words, it’s the best science money can buy – with no end in sight.

Fear and Hope: Pharma’s High Stakes Mission

With a record number of block-buster drugs going off-patent and very few promising new ones in the pipeline, Big Pharma is relying on an old stand-by to boost the bottom line: fear of disease and hope for a cure with new uses for old drugs.

Nobody wants to be sick. But sickness is what keeps Pharma going. Whether it’s a pain medication, a vaccine, or a pill for erectile dysfunction or acne, Pharma not only needs you to want their drugs, but needs you to need them.This is where disease-mongering comes in – in other words, creating new diseases, inciting fear of the new diseases, and then selling you the perfect fix. This is done through Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) marketing. And it works.

From Viagra on NASCAR, to Gardasil screaming one less on TV, to actress Sally Fields promoting Boniva, Big Pharma has made a science out of making you think you need what they sell. Research shows that prescription drugs promoted directly to you quickly become best-selling drugs – and celebrity names speed up the game. As a test to see just how far this type of propaganda reaches, the New York Times picked two websites to study and compare for the information they offer: the Mayo Clinic and WebMD.They found that if you’re looking for a pill or a new disease or disorder for a symptom or feeling you have, Mayo Clinic’s cautious, health-promoting site may leave you hanging.

But WebMD gets right to the target with banner ads for a plethora of drugs for whatever ails you – as well as for things that COULD ail you, once you figure out you need them. The drug pushing is so blatant that the New York Times minced no words in describing it:
“WebMD is synonymous with Big Pharma Shilling. A February 2010 investigation into WebMD’s relationship with drug maker Eli Lilly by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa confirmed the suspicions of longtime WebMD users. With the site’s (admitted) connections to pharmaceutical and other companies, WebMD has become permeated with pseudomedicine and subtle misinformation.”

Picking Profits over Patients = Death by Propaganda

In 2004 it was estimated that 57 million working-age adults were living with chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, or depression. There’s no question that even when they have insurance, these adults have higher out-of-pocket costs than well persons. Factor in major medical expenses, and the toll is so high that economists have spent years suggesting ways to reel these costs in.

The problem is that all of the cost-lowering ideas center on things like cost-sharing and higher deductibles – measures that are central to President Obama’s new health care law. Granted, these ideas spread total health care costs over a broader group of people, thereby (hopefully) lowering overall costs. But they do nothing to stem the root cause of sickness and disease.

It’s a paradoxical paradigm that just doesn’t make sense – unless the only way you profit is through sickness, rather than wellness. You and I know that the real way to stem disease and curb illness is to take control of your own health before you get sick.

Awareness Gives You New Options

Generally used to control the outcome of group thinking, a strategy called the Delphi Technique is oftentimes used to discredit people like you and me. One Delphi Technique used to suppress people who don’t go along with the program is name-calling.

It’s a strategy that can work quite well, although it loses some of its impact once you’re aware of why it’s done. In her book, Death by Modern Medicine, Dr. Carolyn Dean offers three counter-strategies to dampen those put-downs:

  1. Be charming, courteous and pleasant, and always keep smiling as you stand your ground.
  2. Stay focused and don’t allow name-calling or ridicule to get you off-track. Instead, gently but firmly guide the topic back to your original stance.
  3. Be persistent. Instead of getting defensive when your doctor or a drug company tells you you’re nuts for wanting to try healthful eating and a better lifestyle instead of pills to cure what ails you, guide the conversation right back to your original plan – healthful living for preventive care.

The key is to never, ever become angry as you pursue this goal, Dr. Dean says. They say knowledge is power. So I encourage you to take this knowledge and forge your own path toward better health, and to be one less death caused by drug propaganda .

Stand firm, and vow to fight for your right to live a healthful, natural lifestyle.

If your doctor won’t break the mold and help you with this, then maybe it’s time to find a new doctor.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tamiflu anti-viral drug revealed as complete hoax; Roche studies based on scientific fraud

(NaturalNews) When it comes to selling chemicals that claim to treat H1N1 swine flu, the pharmaceutical industry’s options are limited to two: Vaccines and anti-virals. The most popular anti-viral, by far, is Tamiflu, a drug that’s actually derived from a Traditional Chinese Medicine herb called star anise.

But Tamiflu is no herb. It’s a potentially fatal concentration of isolated chemical components that have essentially been bio-pirated from Chinese medicine. And when you isolate and concentrate specific chemicals in these herbs, you lose the value (and safety) of full-spectrum herbal medicine.

That didn’t stop Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, from trying to find a multi-billion-dollar market for its drug. In order to tap into that market, however, Roche needed to drum up some evidence that Tamiflu was both safe and effective.

Roche engages in science fraud

Roche claims there are ten studies providing Tamiflu is both safe and effective. According to the company, Tamiflu has all sorts of benefits, including a 61% reduction in hospital admissions by people who catch the flu and then get put on Tamiflu.

The problem with these claims is that they aren’t true. They were simply invented by Roche.

A groundbreaking article recently published in the British Medical Journal accuses Roche of misleading governments and physicians over the benefits of Tamiflu. Out of the ten studies cited by Roche, it turns out, only two were ever published in science journals. And where is the original data from those two studies? Lost.

The data has disappeared. Files were discarded. The researcher of one study says he never even saw the data. Roche took care of all that, he explains.

So the Cochrane Collaboration, tasked with reviewing the data behind Tamiflu, decided to investigate. After repeated requests to Roche for the original study data, they remained stonewalled. The only complete data set they received was from an unpublished study of 1,447 adults which showed that Tamiflu was no better than placebo. Data from the studies that claimed Tamiflu was effective was apparently lost forever.

As The Atlantic reports, that’s when former employees of Adis International (essentially a Big Pharma P.R. company) shocked the medical world by announcing they had been hired to ghost-write the studies for Roche.

It gets even better: These researchers were told what to write by Roche!

As one of these ghostwriters told the British Medical Journal:

“The Tamiflu accounts had a list of key messages that you had to get in. It was run by the [Roche] marketing department and you were answerable to them. In the introduction …I had to say what a big problem influenza is. I’d also have to come to the conclusion that Tamiflu was the answer.”

In other words, the Roche marketing department ran the science and told researchers what conclusions to draw from the clinical trials. Researchers hired to conduct the science were controlled by the marketing puppeteers. No matter what they found in the science, they had already been directed to reach to conclusion that “Tamiflu was the answer.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but where I come from, we call this “science fraud.” And as numerous NaturalNews investigations have revealed, this appears to be the status quo in the pharmaceutical industry.

Virtually none of the “science” conducted by drug companies can be trusted at all because it really isn’t science in the first place. It’s just propaganda being dressed up to look like science.

Sadly, even the CDC has been fooled by this clinical trial con. As stated by author Shannon Brownlee in The Atlantic:

“…the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appears to be operating in some alternative universe, where valid science no longer matters to public policy. The agency’s flu recommendations are in lockstep with Roche’s claims that the drug can be life-saving — despite the FDA’s findings and despite the lack of studies to prove such a claim. What’s more, neither the CDC nor the FDA has demanded the types of scientific studies that could definitively determine whether or not the company’s claims are true: that Tamiflu reduces the risk of serious complications and saves lives. Nancy Cox, who heads the CDC’s flu program, told us earlier this year she opposes a placebo-controlled study (in which one half of patients would be given Tamiflu and the other half would be given placebo), because the drug’s benefits are already proven.”

Did you catch that last line? The CDC isn’t interested in testing Tamiflu because “the drug’s benefits are already proven.” Except they aren’t. But this is how the pharmaceutical industry operates:

Step 1) Fabricate evidence that your drug works.
Step 2) Use that fraudulent evidence to get your drug approved.
Step 3) Use fear to create consumer demand for your drug (and encourage governments to stockpile it).
Step 4) Avoid any actual scientific testing by claiming the drug has already been proven to work (and cite your original fraudulent studies to back you up).

This is the recipe the CDC is following right now with Tamiflu. It’s a recipe of scientific stupidity and circular logic, of course, but that seems to be strangely common in the medical community these days.

Even the FDA says Tamiflu doesn’t work

The FDA, remarkably, hasn’t entirely given in to the Tamiflu hoax. They required Roche to print the following disclaimer on Tamiflu lables — a disclaimer that openly admits the drug has never been proven to work:

“Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza.”

Even further, an FDA spokesperson told the British Medical Journal, “The clinical trials… failed to demonstrate any significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or mortality in patients receiving either Tamiflu or placebo.”

It’s the same message over and over again, like a broken record: Tamiflu doesn’t work. And the “science” that says Tamiflu does work was all apparently fabricated from the start.

The Tamiflu stockpiling scandal

Junk science, though, is good enough for the U.S. government. Based on little more than fabricated evidence and Big Pharma propaganda, the U.S. government has spent $1.5 billion stockpiling Tamiflu. This turned out to be a great deal for Roche, but a poor investment for U.S. citizens who ended up spending huge dollars for a medicine that doesn’t work.

As is stated in the Atlantic:

“Governments, public health agencies, and international bodies such as the World Health Organization, have all based their decisions to recommend and stockpile Tamiflu on studies that had seemed independent, but had in fact been funded by the company and were authored almost entirely by Roche employees or paid academic consultants.”

Even if Tamiflu did work, there are Tamiflu-resistant strains of H1N1 are now circulating (…).

The upshot of all this is that governments around the world are flushing billions of dollars down the drain stockpiling a drug that doesn’t work — a drug promoted via propaganda and scientific fraud.

This isn’t the first time your government has wasted taxpayer dollars, of course (it seems to be what the U.S. government does best), but this example is especially concerning given that this was all done with the excuse that natural remedies are useless and only vaccines and Tamiflu can protect you from a viral pandemic.

But as it turns out, vaccines and Tamiflu are useless and only natural remedies really work. That’s why so many informed people around the world have been stocking up on vitamin D, garlic, anti-viral tinctures and superfoods to protect themselves from a potential pandemic that most world governments remain clueless to prevent.

I find it fascinating that the governments of the world are stockpiling medicines that DON’T work, while the natural health people of the world are stockpiling natural remedies that DO work. If a real pandemic ever strikes our world, there’s no question who the survivors will be (hint: it won’t be the clueless chaps standing in line waiting for their Tamiflu pills…).

Which remedies really do work to boost immune function and protect the body from infectious disease? I’ve actually published a special report revealing my top five recommended remedies:…

In addition to the remedies mentioned in that report, I also recommend high-dose vitamin D as well as the Viral Defense product from

I have no financial ties to any of the companies whose products are recommended here, by the way. Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, I don’t operate purely for profit. My job is to get valuable information out to the People — information that can help save lives and reduce suffering. This is the job the FDA and CDC should be doing but have long since abandoned in their betrayal of the American people.

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

Sources for this story include:…


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breakthrough documentary "House of Numbers" challenges conventional thinking on HIV, AID

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Canadian filmmaker Brent Leung isn’t winning any friends in the pharmaceutical industry these days. His breakthrough documentary “House of Numbers” features jaw-dropping interviews with doctors, researchers and even the co-discoverer of HIV himself (Luc Montagnier), all of whom reveal startling information calling into question the “official” explanation of HIV and AIDS.

An exclusive trailer from House of Numbers is now available on YouTube:…

More information about the film is available at

The film isn’t publicly available yet, as it’s been screened in film festivals around the world. Check the available screening events at the film’s website:

Because of the game-changing statements heard from numerous health authorities in this film, it threatens the very foundations of the HIV / AIDS industry. Pharmaceutical companies are fronting a specific mythology about AIDS that maximizes their profits from AIDS drugs and (failed) vaccines, but that mythology is about to be dismantled when House of Numbers is released in theaters nationwide over the next few months.

This could be the documentary that shatters Big Pharma’s false paradigms about HIV and AIDS.

The AIDS testing hoax

In the film, Brent Leung subjects himself to an HIV test and discovers that a “diagnosis” of being HIV positive has more to do with the answers you provide to lifestyle questions than any specific microbe appearing in your blood. The diagnosis of AIDS — as well as the very definition — is also apparently so wishy-washy that increasing numbers of well-trained scientists are now questioning whether AIDS exists at all.

“The presently available data does not prove the existence of HIV,” says one health expert interviewed for the film. Another expert says, “The more diseases they could lump into these AIDS categories, the more patients they could catch.”

“I think HIV totally has turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be!” says another interviewee.

“We can be exposed to HIV many times without being … infected,” says Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV. “Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

The documentary film exposes the sharp contradictions in current scientific opinion about HIV / AIDS. “As I started questioning scientists and delving further into testing protocols and statistical modeling and science, I began to see a lot of the contradictions that they had amongst themselves,” said filmmaker Brent Leung. “One of the things that became apparent to me is how important it is to question everything that we’re told and not automatically accept any fact as truth.”

One bizarre thing the film exposes is the ever-shifting definition of “AIDS.” In the United States, the official definition has been rewritten three times, and definitions vary widely around the world. AIDS isn’t simply the presence of the HIV virus; it’s a fictitious disease label that’s attached to a list of symptoms that continues to expand as the drug companies attempt to ensnare yet more victims into the AIDS label trap.

The experts sound off

House of Numbers is not a “fringe” film featuring dissenting opinions from conspiracy theorists. Rather, it is a lucid, intelligent collection of conversations with some of the world’s top virologists and Nobel prize-winning scientists, including former experts from the CDC, the WHO and UNAIDS. Many are speaking out against the conventional AIDS mythology for the first time on camera.

Those interviewed for the film include Dr. Robert Gallo, Dr. Luc Montagnier, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, Dr. Joe Sonnabend, Dr. Kary Mullis, James Curran, Dr. Peter Piot, Dr. James Chin, Dr. Peter Duesberg and many others.

The film has already received “Best Documentary” and other awards from the many film festivals where it has been featured. Momentum is building for the film, and mainstream distribution looks like a healthy possibility for 2010.

“My main hope is that it educates people about the fact that this isn’t a clear cut issue,” says Leung. “I also hope it empowers people – that it causes them to question not just HIV and AIDS, but all facets of issues which impact our lives. I think we should further explore what we don’t know, and to welcome further discussion, because that will help us to know more and become more informed.”

Learn more at

My take on the film

I’ve served as the editor of NaturalNews for six years, and in that time, I’ve watched the pharmaceutical industry engage in rampant disease mongering in order to push their high-profit pills. They’ve done it with psychiatric disorders, high cholesterol and many other conditions. I’ve also watched how the cancer industry is based entirely on lies about some search for a “cure” even while most of the industry continues to push mammograms that actually cause cancer.

The AIDS industry has a lot in common with the cancer industry, in fact. They’re both based on scientific quackery. They both demand the dogmatic worship of a particular set of completely non-scientific “truths” that cannot be challenged, and they both focus on generating pharmaceutical profits at the expense of human health.

Also, both industries depend entirely upon the continuation of the disease they claim to treat. Where would Big Pharma be without cancer, AIDS and vaccines? Profits would fall sharply. So diagnosing as many people as possible with AIDS (and cancer) is an important strategy for boosting Big Pharma’s annual revenues.

After reading books on AIDS by Dr. Gary Null and others, I’m convinced that the official mythology about AIDS is a cruel hoax perpetrated by the drug companies. That doesn’t mean there aren’t people suffering from very real immune suppression disorders, but I believe it is far too simplistic to explain the root causes as being solely due to HIV. The entire HIV explanation is just a clever way to shift control over AIDS patients into the hands of drug companies where highly toxic chemicals are sold at ridiculous profits to people who are rarely helped by them.

The collection of immune suppression symptoms typically labeled “AIDS” could be far more effectively treated with naturopathic health strategies, including aggressive detoxification strategies, the removal of heavy metals, the avoidance of environmental synthetic chemicals (in foods, drugs, personal care products, homes and offices) and the addition of powerful immune-boosting herbs, foods and superfoods.

Essentially, AIDS can be cured in much the same way cancer can be cured: By radically altering food intake and lifestyle decisions to support a vibrant, healthy immune system.

Remember what Dr Luc Montagnier said in the film: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being … infected. Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

In other words, AIDS exposure is not a death sentence (as Big Pharma would have you believe). It’s like many other viruses: A weakened, suppressed immune system gives it the opportunity to wreak havoc throughout your body, but a strong immune system allows you to overcome AIDS and build up your own immunity in a few weeks.

Essentially, being labeled “HIV-positive” is a tactic being used around the world to scare people into buying more high-profit AIDS drugs. But HIV-positive isn’t a death sentence, either. With the right immune-supporting solutions in place, even people who carry the HIV virus can live out a full life without any symptoms of AIDS.

What’s fantastic about House of Numbers is that it has the courage to challenge the status quo with much-needed critical thinking about HIV and AIDS. As such, House of Numbers is a daring yet brilliant foray into the realms of contradictory medicine where myth trumps science… and profits win out against human compassion. For such a powerful film to have been created by such a young filmmaker is remarkable in itself; and for any film to so courageously challenge the broken mythology of the AIDS industry is an accomplishment for which any filmmaker — at any age — should be widely recognized.

House of Numbers will rock the AIDS establishment and cause a whole new generation of thinkers to start critically questioning HIV / AIDS mythology (and the for-profit corporations that push it).

The AIDS myth – what the experts say

To provide more information on this topic, we’ve pulled together a collection of statements about HIV and AIDS from our library of top health books. We’re including a few quotes here, and you can read the full collection (7 pages of quotes) at:…

The renaming of old diseases as AIDS further supports the hypothesis that the AIDS syndrome is never found in anyone without presence of HIV. By definition, there is no AIDS without HIV, regardless how many non-HIV people may die from the very same symptoms. Accordingly, anything that even remotely resembles immune deficiency plus HIV now counts as an AIDS disease, despite the fact that AIDS patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma have been reported to have normal immune systems. It has been argued that wherever there is HIV, AIDS will be the consequence. However, this argument is heavily flawed.
- Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz

He sees AIDS as a sort of catch-all term that “spuriously links 29 (at last count) old and extremely heterogeneous AIDS indicator diseases together with a presumption of HIV infection.” Those who believe in AIDS as a new syndrome, he says, would have a case if, indeed, it were “a serious disease of acquired immune deficiency without preexisting or induced immune deficiency.” The problem is that “in all verifiable cases, demonstrable immune-suppressive disease and/or treatment have always preceded” the onset of AIDS.
- AIDS: A Second Opinion by Gary Null, James Feast

In fact, he showed that HIV alone could not cause AIDS. Increasing evidence indicates that AIDS may be a toxicity syndrome or metabolic disorder that is caused by immunity risk factors, including heroin, sex-enhancement drugs, antibiotics, commonly prescribed AIDS drugs, rectal intercourse, starvation, malnutrition, and dehydration. Dozens of prominent scientists working at the forefront of AIDS research now openly question the virus hypothesis of AIDS.
- Cancer Is Not A Disease – It’s A Survival Mechanism by Andreas Moritz

Another report also noted low serum zinc levels in those with AIDS but not other stages of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection. A child with AIDS was found to have all the signs and symptoms of a zinc-deficiency disorder. It is still unclear why these AIDS patients have low serum zinc levels. What is clear is that this aspect of the AIDS problem should be vigorously pursued. These exciting findings justify further clinical trials to determine the effects of supplementary zinc on the immune system and in the treatment of immune disorders such as AIDS.
- The Doctor’s Vitamin and Mineral Encyclopedia by Sheldon Saul Hendler

Read the rest of these quotes about the AIDS mythology at:…

Watch the trailer for House of Numbers here:…

Here’s another fascinating trailer from the movie, which I call the “There’s no profit in nutrition” trailer:…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Children and Pregnant Women Targeted in U.S. Swine Flu Mass Vaccination Program

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The U.S. government is about to unleash a sweeping new vaccination program that claims to protect people from swine flu. The vaccines, which are of course completely useless against any mutated strain of the H1N1 influenza virus, are nevertheless quite useful at suppressing the immune function of those who receive them. Well-designed medical studies conducted over the years have consistently shown that the people who catch the flu (influenza) with the greatest frequency are precisely those who get the most flu shots.
To those who know anything about the immune system, vaccines and influenza, it may seem shocking to learn that the U.S. influenza vaccine program will first target those with the weakest immune systems to begin with: Toddlers as young as six months old, pregnant women and adults with degenerative disease. This is precisely what Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today. (…)

Click ‘Read Full Article’ below if story ends here

Why is the swine flu vaccine targeting those least likely to need it?
It’s all quite fascinating from a public health point of view, of course, especially since the U.S. government already announced the swine flu was “mild” and that it only really attacked those with healthy immune systems, not weak immune systems. So why is the first wave of vaccines now targeting the very children and adults who are least likely to be impacted by swine flu infections in the first place?
The answer, of course, is that swine flu vaccines have nothing to do with public health and everything to do with generating billions of dollars in profits for Big Pharma. For the drug companies to rake in all this money manufacturing vaccines, they obviously have to give the shots to somebody — just to create the illusion that something productive might be going on in order to justify the government expenditures. It’s a lot like war budgets: You gotta drop bombs on somebody in order to justify making new ones.
So the vaccines are dropping little viral bombs on precisely those citizens least able to fend for themselves: Children, pregnant women, senile seniors and adults suffering from chronic disease… these are the new “targets” of the U.S. government’s mass vaccination program.
Note that they have deliberately avoided targeting the people most capable of speaking out and saying no to dangerous vaccines: Healthy young couples and middle-aged individuals who aren’t victims of modern medicine.

Baxter inserts live flu viruses into vaccine materials
Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical factories are churning out huge doses of the swine flu vaccine: 100 million doses will reportedly be available for injection into victims by mid-October.
Curiously, one of the companies being contracted to manufacture this vaccine is Baxter International, the very same company that was caught late last year inserting live influenza viruses into vaccine materials distributed to 18 countries. Apparently, this company has already perfected the techniques for infecting vaccines with live viruses, and now the U.S. government has contracted with Baxter to help manufacture hundreds of millions of doses of swine flu vaccines to be injected into infants, pregnant women and chronically diseased adults.
For the more conspiratorially-minded thinkers out there, it’s not difficult to put the pieces of this puzzle together: This fall’s mass “vaccination” program might actually be a mass inoculation program designed to expose the population to a new wave of live viruses, thereby furthering the spread of swine flu in order to accomplish a number of nefarious aims such as global population reduction and a windfall of new profits for Big Pharma.
But wait, the skeptics ask: Modern medicine would never intentionally harm people for profit, would they?

Harming people for profit
Think again: Harming people for profit is, in fact, the foundation of modern medicine’s business model. How else do you explain drug companies buying off generic drug manufacturers in order to prevent lower-priced drugs from entering the market and destroying their monopoly profits? How do you explain all the false positives from “free” cancer screening programs that are really only designed to recruit patients into unnecessary medical procedures? How do you explain sweeping Medicare and Medicaid fraud perpetrated by clinics and doctors, the price fixing by drug companies who defraud states out of billions of dollars each year, the adulterated clinical trials that are distorted to produce false results, the use of third-world children as human guinea pigs for drug trials, the dumping of antibiotics into rivers by pharmaceutical factories… need I go on?
Big Pharma is an industry steeped in corruption, fraud and criminal behavior. Injecting a hundred million people with a live influenza virus is no big deal to these people, as long as it earns them a profit. In the pharmaceutical industry, ethics never get in the way of making another few billion dollars.

Natural remedies for swine flu
It’s already obvious to regular NaturalNews readers that receiving a swine flu vaccine injection is perhaps the single dumbest medical act in which any person could engage. I wish I could bring you interviews from those doctors and nurses in Mexico City who received various vaccine injections during the early days of the swine flu outbreak, but they’re already dead, having expired within days of receiving the shots.
The real solution for beating swine flu, of course, is to strengthen your defenses with Mother Nature’s medicine. I’ve published a free online report revealing the five most powerful anti-viral remedies and nutritional supplements available today. It’s a really solid report, and we’ve received an enormous amount of positive feedback on it. Read the full report at no charge right here:
Many contagious disease experts are predicting that swine flu could reignite this fall, sweeping through the world’s population and killing millions. They may be right: The fall and winter months are precisely those months in which most first-world populations are chronically deficient in vitamin D due to lack of sunlight exposure. This is why influenza historically strikes in the winter — because that’s when people have no vitamin D and are immunologically vulnerable.
Even then, it seems that the natural spread of H1N1 isn’t enough — the U.S. government appears determined to accelerate the spread by injecting influenza viral fragments (and perhaps even live viruses) into one-third or even one-half of the U.S. population.
I can tell you this with great confidence: If a new wave of swine flu begins killing people, those who die first will almost certainly be those who received the Swine Flu vaccinations. A few months later, it will likely be announced that Baxter (or some other company) “accidentally” inserted live viruses into the vaccines, and fifty million people (or more) were “accidentally” exposed to live H1N1.
Just another Big Government / Big Pharma snafu.

Blanket immunity for drug companies and their deadly vaccines
Note, carefully, that federal law already grants drug companies complete immunity from any liability for the damage caused by their vaccines. This blanket immunity is already in place, and it means that drug companies could literally inject people with almost any chemical or virus and then disclaim any responsibility from the inevitable resulting deaths.
The U.S. government has, in this way, set the stage for a massive medical catastrophe whereby drug companies get paid billions of dollars to manufacture vaccines that “accidentally” kill people, and then they get away with the whole thing through existing legal immunity laws.
And since there are no repercussions for harming or killing patients, what’s the incentive for drug companies to exercise any quality control over the manufacture of these vaccines in the first place?
There is no incentive. These vaccine manufacturing drug companies get paid the same amount of money whether patients live or die. As long as people are being injected, Big Pharma is making big bucks. If people happen to die in the process, well, that’s their own problem.
To conclude this article, let me republish a few words from a March, 2009 article that documents the Baxter snafu that resulted in the contamination of vaccine materials with live avian flu viruses:
Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc. has just been caught shipping live avian flu viruses mixed with vaccine material to medical distributors in 18 countries. The “mistake” (if you can call it that, see below…) was discovered by the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada. The World Health Organization was alerted and panic spread throughout the vaccine community as health experts asked the obvious question: How could this have happened?
The shocking answer is that this couldn’t have been an accident. Why? Because Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) – a set of laboratory safety protocols that prevent the cross-contamination of materials.
As explained on Wikipedia (…):
“Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone. All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features.”
Under the BSL3 code of conduct, it is impossible for live avian flu viruses to contaminate production vaccine materials that are shipped out to vendors around the world.
This leaves only two possibilities that explain these events:
Possibility #1: Baxter isn’t following BSL3 safety guidelines or is so sloppy in following them that it can make monumental mistakes that threaten the safety of the entire human race. And if that’s the case, then why are we injecting our children with vaccines made from Baxter’s materials?
Possibility #2: A rogue employee (or an evil plot from the top management) is present at Baxter, whereby live avian flu viruses were intentionally placed into the vaccine materials in the hope that such materials might be injected into humans and set off a global bird flu pandemic.

U.S. government chooses Baxter to make more vaccines
Now, don’t you find it more than a bit curious that the U.S. government selected this particular company to manufacture swine flu vaccines? Of all the companies available to manufacture vaccines, why would the U.S. government choose the one company that accidentally inserted live avian flu viruses into vaccine materials, in direct violation of its own BSL3 safety guidelines?
The likely answer, of course, is because the U.S. government wants this company to insert live viruses into the vaccines. And now they’ve proven they can do it.
That’s the conspiracy theory of it, anyway. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. But only a sucker would agree to be jabbed in the arm with a needle containing an immune-suppressing liquid made by a company that has already been caught inserting live avian flu viruses into its globally-distributed vaccine materials. If the U.S. government had any sense at all, it would exclude Baxter from its list of possible vaccine manufacturers due to the company’s frightening lack of quality control standards.

Taken from:

Tags: , , , , , ,