Is the US government good for our health?

[Truthseeker]

If people are falling over from their blood pressure medication making their blood pressure too low, then it means their doctor is not prescribing the right dose. And there are lot's of blood pressure medications out there. If someone has a bad reaction to one, their doctor can prescribe others. No one medication will be 100% effective for all patients. Everyone is different and react differently to various drugs, whether prescribed or homeopathic. That is what doctors are for, to help guide the patient to the correct medication.

Yet instead, you and those quacks just take some anecdotal stories and build another conspiracy around it.

If the bad reaction is death, too late. If the bad reaction requires hospitalization for more than a few days, I don't know if Sparko would still be that cavalier or nonchalant. If so, why should I bother with answering his posts any more? Otherwise his sentences are not really exceptionable. However, he really fails to address my main contention that the US government is so politics-driven that it does more harm than good. For example, consider this sentence: "That is what doctors are for, to help guide the patient to the correct medication." One issue here is which doctors are bad and which others are good? Are doctors who slavishly follow US government guidance and recommendations better on the balance than the rest of doctors?

Sparko dismisses my presentations of what I believe to be evidence of US government misfeasance as "some anecdotal stories." I can see no way to answer that except to continue to look for yet more evidence of government misfeasance and let the readers of this thread judge for themselves the relevance and truthfulness of that. Sparko, you are not going to stop me with mere gibes and japes.

[Sparko]

If the bad reaction is death, too late. If the bad reaction requires hospitalization for more than a few days, I don't know if Sparko would still be that cavalier or nonchalant. If so, why should I bother with answering his posts any more? Otherwise his sentences are not really exceptionable. However, he really fails to address my main contention that the US government is so politics-driven that it does more harm than good. For example, consider this sentence: "That is what doctors are for, to help guide the patient to the correct medication." One issue here is which doctors are bad and which others are good? Are doctors who slavishly follow US government guidance and recommendations better on the balance than the rest of doctors?

Sparko dismisses my presentations of what I believe to be evidence of US government misfeasance as "some anecdotal stories." I can see no way to answer that except to continue to look for yet more evidence of government misfeasance and let the readers of this thread judge for themselves the relevance and truthfulness of that. Sparko, you are not going to stop me with mere gibes and japes.

The incidence of people dying from NOT taking high blood pressure medicine when they need it, is much higher than having a bad reaction to the medication. In fact, my dad had a stroke because he wouldn't take his HBP meds and nearly died. So please, tell me more about being cavalier and nonchalant. I dare you.

[Truthseeker]

MSG isn't something for folks 50 years or more old. They must stay away from taking it as much as they can. So, Zostavax, Merck's vaccine against chicken pox, is not for such people because it contains MSG, right? They must avoid getting a Zostavax shot, yes?

The FDA approved Zostavax all the way back in 2006 and to date has yet to order taking it off the market. Why? Incompetent? Lazy? Or just plain evil? My vote's for the latter.

"The risks associated in ingestion of (or even contact with) monosodium glutamate and other ingredients that contain MSG are simple and straightforward" Truth in Labeling Campaign, truthinlabeling.org

Label Zostavax (Zoster vaccine live), merck.com

[Thanks, Jenny Thompson, HSI]

[Truthseeker]

The incidence of people dying from NOT taking high blood pressure medicine when they need it, is much higher than having a bad reaction to the medication. In fact, my dad had a stroke because he wouldn't take his HBP meds and nearly died. So please, tell me more about being cavalier and nonchalant. I dare you.

I cannot reply not knowing what alternatives your dad had to his meds. I would venture a guess, though, that you or your dad sees no better alternative than those. If so I will not argue with you anymore.

[Truthseeker]

Dr David Eifrig warns that products with green-tea extract may cause liver damage or even complete failure. I don't yet know what the full story is, but do avoid green-tea-extract products for now.

But green tea drinks seem OK. That's a reason why I don't think we are getting the whole story. Again, avoid the extract products for now, though.

[Truthseeker]

Another warning from Dr Eifring. Generic meds. Some of you may know that Obamacare is pushing people and businesses to shift to buying more generics. For reasons that Eifrig gave, the question of whether a generic performs the same as its respective name-brand med becomes even more important. Unfortunately, in some cases the generic may be less effective. In other cases, less safe. In yet other cases, less both (effective and safe). It does not help at all that the FDA refuses to release data on some of the differences between the generic and the name-brand med for all generics (I think?). Look for the term "bioequivalence."

You know what, it's still very much this: Buyer beware!

[Truthseeker]

The cut-poison-burn (surgery-chemo-radiation) approach has now lasted for decades. Except for detecting cancer earlier, we should not be surprised that "cure" rates are roughly the same over that span of time.


Why no breakthroughs in that time? I ask you to suppose the FDA is in cahoots with Big Medicine to maintain the cut-poison-burn approach because they prefer profits to cures. So, if indeed there have been some breakthroughs, the FDA and other government agencies are probably actively suppressing and burying the breakthroughs, as many people are saying. For example, using tricks to keep potential breakthroughs from entering Phase III trials. Then people could say there is yet no evidence that a given breakthrough works.

[Truthseeker]

Dr. Bill Sardi came up with zingers.

Hailed as a new treatment of cancer, drugs are being developed to inhibit an enzyme called MTH1. Why!? Lycopene, the red pigment in tomatoes, completely inhibited the enzyme. That effect was discovered in 2011.

Researchers crowed that they may have found the "'Achilles heel of the influenza virus." They are close to getting a drug ready that inhibits a protein called PGE2. Ho hum. Resveratrol already does that.

Recent headlines screamed that an "astonishing new cancer drug could extend the lives of terminally-ill patients . . . " It's supposed to inhibit Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase. Well, golly wolly! Resveratrol inhibits tyrosine kinase.

Bill wrote, "The game of Big Pharma is to hide these discoveries and replace them with synthetic [molecules] that can generate billions [of dollars] in profits."

sardi20140414lrc

[Truthseeker]

Zohydro ...

Testimony and evidence against Zohydro, the painkiller now being denounced by many people as a people killer. The FDA went against the thumb-down by its own advisory board, which voted 11-2 against Zohydro, and recommended its use.

Andrew Koldny, MD, in Huffingtonpost.com (Science) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew...b_4855964.html

... is back in the news and what a zinger this time

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s..._ban_on_p.html

That, I submit, is more evidence the USFG is a pox on America's health. A ban by a state governor is suspended by a federal judge.

[Truthseeker]

Have you heard that the number of autism cases is up 30% in the past 24 months? All the toxins in our environment, water, and food! Including the metals in our vaccines (mercury, aluminum, and other metals). Can we depend on the EPA? The CDC? The FDA? I guess not. I guess your answer is no, too.

[Truthseeker]

Yet another reason not to rely on the FDA to keep you safe. So many plants (or factories if you will) have sprung up around the world that the FDA can't inspect them all. If you want horror stories, just ask. The factories can and do produce stuff for export into the USA.

[Truthseeker]

You have cancer. All the time. So, why do some people get into trouble with cancer but not others? The latter have immune systems that kill cancer cells before they become more than very minor problems. So, to prevent cancer or eliminate it, you need to do all you can to make your immune system the best it can be. The best way is a great diet. First, fresh plant parts--fruits and vegetables, nuts, seeds. The Mediterranean diet. What people in Sardina eat.

[Truthseeker]

I was reading what Dr Mark Stengler wrote about "the deadly toll of hospital infections" when I realized something. You probably know about deaths that are blamed on the flu. I said something about immune-system weakness being a factor in the deaths. One whose immune system is strong is much less likely to die with the flu (not "from the flu") than one whose immune system is weak.

What if one is doing so poorly with the flu that he is taken to the hospital. First, before getting the flu, his immune system is likely to be weak already. Then the flu makes it even more weak. So he is that much more prone to getting a deadly infection.

Maybe his death does not get blamed on the flu, because the infection is not pneumonic, it's something else. But what if it's pneumonic, then maybe the flu is listed as the cause of death, when it's really one of several factors in the death.

[Epoetker]

The cut-poison-burn (surgery-chemo-radiation) approach has now lasted for decades. Except for detecting cancer earlier, we should not be surprised that "cure" rates are roughly the same over that span of time.

Why no breakthroughs in that time?

You just had to ask a guy who might know...

I ask you to suppose the FDA is in cahoots with Big Medicine to maintain the cut-poison-burn approach because they prefer profits to cures. So, if indeed there have been some breakthroughs, the FDA and other government agencies are probably actively suppressing and burying the breakthroughs, as many people are saying. For example, using tricks to keep potential breakthroughs from entering Phase III trials. Then people could say there is yet no evidence that a given breakthrough works.

Oh ye of little faith. Here's how the collective thought process actually works out in practice:

The model which frequently has been offered up for our consideration, as we contemplate the workings of such a non-death-panel, is the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or NICE.

This being the case, it might be instructive to examine the preliminary decision made by NICE last week to disallow the use of the new antiarrhythmic drug, dronedarone (Multaq, Sanofi-Aventis) for British patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Dronedarone is a long-awaited drug, painfully developed and tested over a very long period of time, as a potential replacement for the drug amiodarone (which, despite its many drawbacks, is the most commonly prescribed antiarrhythmic drug for AF)....

...The reason amiodarone has become the most commonly used antiarrhythmic drug for AF is that it is measurably more effective than any of the other drugs, and better yet, tends not to cause proarrhythmia.

However, if Satan had wanted to invent an antiarrhythmic drug, he would have invented amiodarone. There are at least three features of amiodarone that render it diabolical.

First, as mentioned, the drug is obviously far more effective than other antiarrhythmic drugs, and does not cause proarrhythmia. So on its face, like most entrapping vices, it spins a certain appeal, one that lures doctors into using it far more blithely than they should.amiodarone has a unique and disturbing toxicity profile. Because it is stored in essentially every organ of the body, its side effects can affect almost any organ. And because amiodarone continues accumulating in your body as long as you continue taking it, the side effects can develop weeks, months, or even years after you begin the stuff....this is not how a Clinical Effectiveness Tribunal like NICE works.despite their breathing difficulties, unsteady gaits, inability to see at night, and severe skin photosensitivities which preclude their Florida or Arizona vacations, at least their anguish over not being allowed a viable and available alternative will be temporary. For the drug companies, seeing how a Posse of Clinical Excellence operates, will take the only logical business step remaining to them and severely curtail their development of drugs aimed at offering incremental improvements over the current choices.

There will be no alternatives to agonize over, and everyone will be happy. This, DrRich thinks, is the plan.

Drugs are difficult to make and humans are complicated to deal with. However, in this instance, the ones who make it most difficult to advance medical science are precisely the medical review boards, hospital administrators, and other 'democratic' oversight committees whose qualifications to judge and actual medical experience is minimal.

Some of them might actually even think in terms of MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER IF WE JUST FUND THE RIGHT THINGS! This is popular nonsense divorced from clinical experience, but in a democracy, sadly, people believing in and willing to exploit that attitude can easily rise to the top without consulting an actual doctor once. The actual doctors who do prescribe amiodarone in this excerpt aren't so much IN CAHOOTS WITH BIG PHARMA as they are activating their only options with mechanical regularity, because fighting your Founding Funders becomes more and more suicidal as you advance in your career, und zhey have vays of making you cooperate, whether its the business-side efficiency reports or the government-side lawsuits and fraud accusations.

And they'll certainly get away with it, too, if you continue to believe in and grant legitimacy to distance experts instead of actual practitioners of the art. To turn your greatest ire and suspicion against practicing doctors and the FDA, an agency which actually has done quite a bit of legitimate work in drug regulation, and to trust blindly in 'experts' who have far less skill, reason to care about you, and ability to do so, is a neat trick, almost like how that Winter Soldier movie stirs up fears of an alternate history of sinister order-loving Nazis infiltrating the Defense Department instead of the actual history of chaos-loving Communists ruling the State Department. If you do in fact speak truth, you will rid yourself of these easily-swallowed leftist lies and their promulgators first.

[Truthseeker]

What is the FDA doing with the massive use of antibiotics in the USA, now that The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has ruled that antibiotic resistance by microbes is a worldwide major threat to public health ( http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-anti...-documents.asp ) and Denmark is banning the use of antibiotics in its pork industry ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...e-animals.aspx )?

Not much. The FDA's December edict has so many serious problems that one would suspect the FDA is once again safeguarding Big Farm's profits even at the expense of public health ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...c-overuse.aspx ).