Science and Technology news... :: View topic - "Alternative Health" quackery causes brain damage

Jan Drew · Guest

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:

[ ]

Nothing but insults.

Jan Drew · Guest

*Yeah - the indons really missed a chance to give those cunts a taste
of their own medicine.*
---------------------------------------------

Nuff said.

Jan Drew · Guest

NaturalNews.com
Originally published October 29 2008
http://www.naturalnews.com/024632.html

Drugs Kill More People Than Ever, Report Finds
by Ethan Huff

(NaturalNews) The 2008, first quarter report of deaths and serious
injuries associated with drug therapy was recently released by The
Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit organization
whose stated goal is to educate the healthcare community and consumers
about safe medication practices. The findings of this report are
astounding.

According to the information gathered from data submitted to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration during the first quarter of 2008, there
were 20,745 reported serious injuries associated with drug therapy, up
34% from the previous quarter, and up 38% from last year`s average.
Even more eye-opening than the number of serious injuries is the
number of reported deaths - 4,824 people were reported killed from
pharmaceutical drugs in the first quarter of 2008, a 2.6 fold increase
from the previous quarter. This figure represents the highest number
of patient deaths ever reported in a single quarter as a result of
drug therapy. It also accounts for more deaths than those due to
homicide during the same period.

It is important to keep in mind that these figures represent quarterly
findings. Given the upward trend in both serious injuries and deaths
over the past several years due to pharmaceutical drugs, these numbers
are expected to continue their rate of increase in quarters and years
to come.

Even if the numbers were to remain the same for the rest of 2008, the
total number of reported serious injuries would total 83,000 while the
total number of reported deaths would reach nearly 20,000. Again, this
is assuming the first quarter findings remain constant - the report
emphasizes that the trend has continued to veer upward, indicating
that future reports will most likely contain even higher numbers.

What is more striking than these numbers is the fact that they
represent only the adverse events that were reported to the FDA during
this time period. Since the reporting system is voluntary and almost
85% of the reports come from the pharmaceutical companies themselves,
it is obvious that these numbers represent only a miniscule percentage
of the total adverse events that are actually occurring. Numerous
published scientific reports on adverse event reporting accuracy,
including reports from the Journal of the American Medical Association
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have concluded
that no more than 10% and in some cases as little as 1-2% of adverse
events caused by drugs are even reported to the FDA. Thus, based upon
the first quarter data, the actual number of adverse events from drug
therapies in the first quarter of 2008 could be anywhere from 207,000
to over 2,000,000 with roughly 23% of these representing deaths.

While the report goes on to outline, in detail, most of the culprit
drugs, including varenicline, heparin, oxycodone, and even
acetaminophen (the active drug in Tylenol), its "bigger picture"
discovery remains blatantly obvious. Assuming a best case scenario of
only a 10% reporting rate, this report essentially spells out the fact
that at least 830,000 cases of serious injury or death occur every
year in America due to the harmful effects of pharmaceutical drugs,
with possibly a quarter of these cases resulting in death.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about
2.5 million people die every year in the United States. Assuming a 10%
reporting rate of adverse events to drug therapy based on Q1, 2008
data, it can be concluded that about 8% of the deaths that occur every
year in America are due to complications with pharmaceutical drugs.
Assuming only a 1% reporting rate, that percentage increases to over
77%. Thus, it can be estimated that the number of people that die
every year in the U.S. from adverse drug effects is anywhere from
about 192,000 to almost 2,000,000.

To put these numbers into perspective, the National Center for Health
Statistics reports that in 2006, 44,572 people died in car accidents,
18,029 from homicide, and 560,102 from all forms of cancer.

It becomes abundantly clear from this report that no one knows for
sure exactly how many people are negatively affected by pharmaceutical
drugs, but that the number is quite large and is getting increasingly
larger. Even on the low end of the estimate spectrum, the data
elucidates the obviously prodigious danger of pharmaceutical drugs and
the inadequate work being performed by the FDA in protecting the
public from dangerous drugs.

Considering the scrutiny with which other industries are regulated and
controlled by the FDA, it is shocking that, with even a conservative
estimate of about 200,000 yearly deaths related to pharmaceutical
drugs, the FDA is hardly phased. The agency continues to pander to
pharmaceutical interests, including its support for the industry`s
immunity from being held accountable for these "adverse events" under
the law.

Perhaps as this type of data becomes more mainstream, the public will
forcibly hold the drug cabal accountable for the destruction it is
inflicting on American society, and the regulatory agencies
accountable for turning a blind eye to the damage being perpetrated
against the very people it is supposed to be representing and
protecting.

About the author
Ethan Huff is a freelance writer and health enthusiast who loves
exploring the vast world of natural foods and health, digging deep to
get to the truth. He runs an online health publication of his own at
http://wholesomeherald.blogspot.com.

Jan Drew · Guest

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:

[quote]"Dr." Cee
[/quote]
Is not the subject.

Jan Drew · Guest

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote:

[ ]

Nothing but insults.

D. C. Sessions · Guest

marcia wrote:

[quote]So, I could have just said, "Have you ever heard of hyponatremia?" and
been done with it? There aren>t any readers to the group who would
believe a real medical explanation? That>s scary.
[/quote]
Lots of us -- but we>ve all heard of hyponatremia, too.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+

marcia · Guest

On Nov 20, 7:09 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]"Richard Schultz" <schu...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:

He has a Ph.D

Off topic.
[/quote]
Wrong. Goes to credibility.

Original post On Topic.

D. C. Sessions · Guest

drceephd@insightbb.com wrote:

[quote]I really have to wonder how increasing your water intake and
decreasing one>s salt intake could lead to a "fit" which could result
in brain damage.
[/quote]
Translation: "I utterly refuse to believe it and don>t want to
be bothered with facts."

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+

marcia · Guest

On Nov 21, 4:14 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
[quote]marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:10 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"marcia" <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ ]

Diversions. Off topic.

I have NO CLUE which post you>re responding to,
making yours the most superfluous post in the thread.

Off topic.

It>s obvious. The topic is related to hyponatremia, and therefore
linked to osmosis. This is MHA. These two statements lead to the
following:

1) The words "hyponatremia" and "osmosis" do not appear in the title,
therefore they are off-topic under the rules of JanTalk(tm).

2) The words "hyponatremia" and "osmosis" have precise scientific
meaning and therefore may be beyond the comprehension of many people
who read MHA, even those with PhDs from foreign planets.

3) This is MHA, where facts are per se and ipso facto off-topic. (I
apologise to Jan for the Popish Latin.)
[/quote]

Heh. I was thinking it was off-topic because the words "hyponatremia"
and "osmosis" weren>t in Jan>s vocabulary which makes them de facto
insults, especially if directed at Alties.

marcia · Guest

On Nov 21, 5:43 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]true.blue.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0a41de52-65a6-46c1-921b-a6c1bb685e66@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Ah, "Vitamin C cures...", eh? And your published data to support this
is....where exactly?

1,200 peer review citations collated by Dr Levyhttp://whale.to/a/levy4.html

chew on that asshole
[/quote]

Yet not a single one of those articles appears on PubMed. Why is that?

marcia · Guest

On Nov 21, 6:46 pm, MothWrangler <mothwrang...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]marcia wrote:
On Nov 21, 5:43 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

true.blue.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0a41de52-65a6-46c1-921b-a6c1bb685e66@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Ah, "Vitamin C cures...", eh? And your published data to support this
is....where exactly?

1,200 peer review citations collated by Dr Levyhttp://whale.to/a/levy4.html

chew on that asshole

Yet not a single one of those articles appears on PubMed. Why is that?

Well, goodness, Marcia, I guess you haven>t been reading MHA long enough
to know the answer to that.

The articles aren>t published in PubMed because there>s a world-wide
conspiracy involving science-based medicine and pharmaceutical companies
that supresses any information which would attest to the efficacy of
alternative treatments of any kind.

And, yet, despite this vast international conspiracy that keeps all of
this information super-secret, somehow, many of the pro-alt posters on
MHA seem to know a great deal about these proven alternative treatments.
[/quote]

LOL. Is this another post about osmosis?

rpautrey2 · Guest

marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Yet not a single one of those articles appears on PubMed. Why is that?
[/quote]
Marcia,
Are you really so lacking,
that you don>t know?
Give Me A Break?

Paul

On Nov 21, 5:14 pm, marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 21, 5:43 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

true.blue.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0a41de52-65a6-46c1-921b-a6c1bb685e66@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com....

Ah, "Vitamin C cures...", eh? And your published data to support this
is....where exactly?

1,200 peer review citations collated by Dr Levyhttp://whale.to/a/levy4.html

chew on that asshole

Yet not a single one of those articles appears on PubMed. Why is that?[/quote]

marcia · Guest

On Nov 21, 7:16 pm, rpautrey2 <rpautr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yet not a single one of those articles appears on PubMed. Why is that?

Marcia,
Are you really so lacking,
that you don>t know?
Give Me A Break?

Paul
[/quote]

Pssst. Is it because of The Conspiracy?

There must be SOME logical reason none of those 1,200 "peer reviewed"
papers written by an M.D. appear on PubMed. Can you explain why one of
Dr. Levy>s papers on dental amalgams was allowed to slip through? Did
QuackWatch screw up?

And why was Mark Thorson seen running backward through a California
train station? The world may never know.

rpautrey2 · Guest

marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Pssst. Is it because of The Conspiracy?
[/quote]
I never said anything about a conspiracy.
Don>t put words in my mouth.
Vitamin C can>t be patented.
Money for indepth studies!

I do not agree that vitamin c can cure
all of the diseases listed at Whale.

There are surely numerous variables.

It absolutely cures scurvy.

There are many vitamin c papers at Pubmed!

On Nov 21, 6:41 pm, marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 21, 7:16 pm, rpautrey2 <rpautr...@gmail.com> wrote:

marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yet not a single one of those articles appears on PubMed. Why is that?

Marcia,
Are you really so lacking,
that you don>t know?
Give Me A Break?

Paul

Pssst. Is it because of The Conspiracy?

There must be SOME logical reason none of those 1,200 "peer reviewed"
papers written by an M.D. appear on PubMed. Can you explain why one of
Dr. Levy>s papers on dental amalgams was allowed to slip through? Did
QuackWatch screw up?

And why was Mark Thorson seen running backward through a California
train station? The world may never know.[/quote]

marcia · Guest

On Nov 21, 8:06 pm, rpautrey2 <rpautr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]marcia <marcia1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pssst. Is it because of The Conspiracy?

I never said anything about a conspiracy.
Don>t put words in my mouth.
Vitamin C can>t be patented.
Money for indepth studies!

I do not agree that vitamin c can cure
all of the diseases listed at Whale.

There are surely numerous variables.

It absolutely cures scurvy.

There are many vitamin c papers at Pubmed!
[/quote]
Exactly.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Medicine Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 4 of 7