Tag Archives: Big Pharma


Cancer classification guidelines putting countless in harms way

Sayer Ji | Infowars.com – APRIL 7, 2016 44 Comments

Millions Wrongly Treated for 'Cancer,' National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms


A devastating report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.

See the exclusive cancer documentary premiere for Infowars readers the mainstream media refused to air. Click here to view it completely free.
If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with thedark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.

A National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’

There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:

  • Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?
  • Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.
  • The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked ‘breast cancer awareness’ industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of ‘cancer.’

As reported by Medscape:

The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.

Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”

Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.

Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected ‘cancers’ are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.

As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to ‘detect early,’ and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.

What this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not ‘cancer’ in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.

Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that “attacks” us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.

When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.

The NCI panel report opined:

“The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime.”

For more details on what our founder Sayer Ji calls the “Cancer Malignancy Meme,” see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the ‘Rise of Biomedicine’ within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.

We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a ‘false positive’ diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had ‘cancer’ and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel’s recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.

So, what’s the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do  in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.

For related research read ‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About

GMO Insulin Causes Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 Diabetics, Study Finds

GMO Insulin Causes Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 Diabetics, Study Finds Posted on: Saturday, June 28th 2014 at 7:00 am Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder GMO Insulin Causes Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 Diabetics, Study Finds
A groundbreaking new study finds synthetic (GMO) insulin is capable of rapidly producing type 1 diabetes in type 2 diabetics.
Last year, we reported on the dangers of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetics, following the publication of a study comprised of almost 85,000 type 2 diabetic patients that found insulin monotherapy doubled their risk of all-cause mortality, in addition to significantly increasing their risk for diabetes-related complications and cancer. Insulin monotherapy resulted in:

  • 2.0 times more myocardial infarctions.
  • 1.7 time more major adverse cardiac events
  • 1.4 time more strokes
  • 3.5 times more renal complications
  • 2.1 time more neuropathy
  • 1.2 times more eye complications
  • 1.4 times more cancer
  • 2.2 times more deaths

Now, a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism titled, “Insulin administration may trigger type 1 diabetes in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients with type 1 diabetes high-risk HLA class II and the insulin gene VNTR genotype,” is shedding light on a possible explanation for why insulin treatment may accelerate morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetics. The study revealed that giving genetically susceptible type 2 diabetes patients recombinant insulin can trigger their bodies to target their own insulin producing cells for autoimmune destruction, effectively producing ‘double diabetes’: type 1 and type 2, as a result.
The Japanese study took 6 patients (4 men and 2 women) with type 2 diabetes, none of whom had previously received insulin therapy nor had markers for autoantibodies to their own insulin (e.g. GAD65). All patients were found to have the type 1 diabetes susceptibility gene known as type 1 diabetes high risk HLA class II (IDDM1), which is considered to play a role in up to 50% of type 1 diabetes cases, and the insulin gene VNTR genotype (IDDM2), believed to play a key role in susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.
After recombinant insulin administration their blood glucose control deteriorated, and their own insulin producing beta cells – as measured by declining C-peptide levels (a marker for the production of natural insulin) – decreased insulin production to a deficiency levels commonly found in type 1 diabetes patients. The average time it took for the patients to develop full blown type 1 diabetes was 7.7 months, with one patient developing the condition within 1.1 months.
Further tests revealed that the patients had antibodies against their own pancreatic islet cells (the cells responsible for producing insulin), insulin allergy or increased levels of insulin antibody. Additionally, 2 of 4 cases were found to have GAD-reactive and insulin peptide reactive Th1 cells, typical markers of autoimmunity induced type 1 diabetes.
The researchers concluded from their findings:

“The findings suggest that insulin administration may have triggered TIDM in patients with T2DM. IDDM1 and IDDM 2 as well as autoreactive T cells may contribute to the development of T1DM. Developing insulin-triggered T1DM if a patient’s blood glucose control acutely deteriorates after insulin administration should be carefully considered.”

The researchers also pointed out that there are a number trials underway to produce vaccines containing insulin intended to induce a ‘tolerogenic immune response’ and therefore ameliorate autoimmune type 1 diabetes.[1] Clearly, however, their findings run contrary to this expectation, revealing that it is possible that introducing exogenous forms of insulin may stimulate the opposite reaction and induced autoimmunity against the hormone, or the cells in the pancreas responsible for producing it.

Discussion: GMO Insulin Not the Same As Animal Derived Insulin

A possible explanation for these results lies in the difference between today’s synthetic insulin and insulin purified from animals such as pigs (porcine insulin), which is no longer available in countries like the U.S.
Insulin was actually the first protein to be synthesized with recombinant DNA (GMO) technology in the late 1970s,[2] and today, products like Lantus (insulin glargine [rDNA origin] injection) dominate the market. According to Sanofi, Lantus’ manufacturer their form is produced “by recombinant DNA technology utilizing a non-pathogenic laboratory strain of Escherichia coli (K12) as the production organism.” Synthetic insulin is classified as an insulin analog that differs significantly from human insulin in its primary amino acid structure: “Insulin glargine differs from human insulin in that the amino acid asparagine at position A21 is replaced by glycine and two arginines are added to the C-terminus of the B-chain.”  Lantus’ formulation also contains various ‘inactive ingredients,’ such as:

  • hydrochloric acid
  • sodium hydroxide (lye)
  • zinc
  • m-cresol (a coal tar derivative)
  • glycerol
  • polysorbate 20

The simultaneous injection of these antigenic ingredients along with synthetic insulin could be responsible for hypersensitizing the immune system against insulin in the same way that inactive and adjuvant ingredients in vaccines induce exaggerated immune reactions against the ‘active’ vaccine antigen (e.g. the viral or bacterial antigen) which sometimes results in the immune system attacking self-structures (autoimmunity).

[The structure of insulin. The left side is a space-filling model of the insulin monomer. On the right side is a ribbon diagram of the insulin hexamer (6 insulin molecules conjoined), believed to be the stored form. Source: Wikipedia]

According to a 1993 paper on recombinant human insulin, “Bacterially expressed proteins normally lack any secondary structure or post-translational modifications” – a highly significant fact, considering that complex proteins such as hormones actually have four levels of folding complexity: primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary, all of which together determine the protein’s natural structure and therefore its function.  In fact, this complexity is so immense that Levinthal’s paradox states a fully folded protein (i.e., one that has attained its native conformation) must pass through such a large number of degrees of freedom to reach its native state that there is not enough time in the universe for it to move through all possible configurations to the one it was designed by nature to assume. Obviously, if synthetic insulin is not capable of obtaining the same 3-dimensional structure as natural insulin, nor is modified post-translationally through epigenetic regulatory processes, it cannot behave in the same way as natural insulin in the body, and would likely be identified as ‘other’ by the immune system, if not also cellular insulin receptors.

Research dating back to the early 1980s compared synthetic E. Coli derived insulin with porcine (pig) derived insulin in diabetic children and found that porcine insulin was more effective at lowering HbA1 values (a marker of damage associated with elevated blood sugar), superior at reducing fasting glucose concentrations, and less antibody reactive to insulin than synthetic insulin. [3]  While pig derived insulin has its limitations, especially considering there are limits to how much can be produced, clearly it is more appropriate than synthetic versions if it is true that the latter is incapable of reproducing the same therapeutic outcome for diabetics.

Natural Approaches To Diabetes Prevention and Treatment are the Future

In a previous article on natural interventions for type 1 diabetes, 10 Natural Substances That Could Help Cure Type 1 Diabetes, we focused on the biomedical literature supporting the role of beta cell (insulin producing cell) regenerating foods and natural substances in addressing one of the root causes of type 1 diabetes.

The future of medicine will look to identifying and removing the causes of conditions like diabetes, instead of employing patented synthetic drugs and synthetic replacement therapies (which feed the deficiency), palliatively — especially considering the new research indicating they actually make the patient far worse. Also, diet is the #1 factor in the pathogenesis of most chronic conditions that afflict the modern world; more specifically, the consumption of foods or food-like products that deviate from our ancestral diets generate the physiological conditions that produce disease in the first place. Addressing the dietary causes and incompatibilities and many ‘diseases’ decelerate and may even regress.

For additional research on the topic of regenerative medicine and diabetes you can consult the articles 6 Bodily Tissues that Can Be Regenerated Through Nutrition and Diabetes: An Entirely Preventable and Reversible Disease. Or, visit our Health Guide on Blood Sugar Disorders.

Also, if you missed the author’s presentation on “What Medical Science Says About Reversing Diabetes” for the Reversing Diabetes World Summitthe all access digital package is still available here.


[1] Harrison LC, et al Antigen-based vaccination and prevention of type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep . 2013;13:616–623.

[2] Beta Cell Biology Consortium, The Structure of Insulin

[3] N P Mann, et al  Human insulin and porcine insulin in the treatment of diabetic children: comparison of metabolic control and insulin antibody production. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). Nov 26, 1983; 287(6405): 1580–1582.

via GMO Insulin Causes Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 Diabetics, Study Finds.

Tamiflu: A High Cost of Ineffectiveness?


image source: AP via The Sydney Morning Herald

Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post
Recently, information began surfacing again about the antiviral drug Tamiflu® that has to get healthcare consumers questioning its effectiveness, if not the advertising spin used to promote its intended sales market and branding.
As a result of the Cochrane Collaboration and British Medical Journal (BMJ) review published early in April 2014, there is “…no good evidence that the drugs prevented the spread of the virus between people, or any of its serious consequences, such as infections. It found Tamiflu increased the risk of psychiatric disturbances, renal problems, nausea, vomiting and headaches.” [1]
Two antiviral drugs were reviewed after four years of trying to get the full records of more than 24,000 research participants from 20 trials of Tamiflu® made by Roche and 26 Relenza® (made by GlaxoSmithKline) trials.
According to The Boston Globe,

They found that compared with a placebo, Tamiflu shortened the duration of flu symptoms by a little less than a day on average – from 7 to 6.3 days – but led to more side effects. These included nausea and vomiting and, in those who took the drugs for weeks to prevent the flu, headaches, kidney problems, and psychiatric conditions such as depression or confusion, according to the findings published Wednesday in the British Medical Journal. Relenza, which is inhaled, had a similar effect on shortening symptoms, with no increased risk of side effects. [2]

Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ who worked with the Cochrane group to procure full release of the manufacturers’ trial data, had this to say:

This is a situation where the effectiveness of the drugs have been overplayed and the harms underplayed. [2] [CJF emphasis added]

However, Dr. Godlee, if we want to be objective about Big Pharma products, these two antiviral drugs’ effectiveness overplayed and harms underplayed is not an anomaly. It happens all the time, and especially with vaccine trials, I contend. What went on with approving the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines needs not only a review but an investigation, I contend. Will you and the Cochrane Collaboration please obtain the research and trial data for both Gardasil® and Cervarix® and see what you come up with? The results, I predict, could be shocking.
The unfortunate part about those two antiviral drugs reviewed is that governments worldwide bought Big Pharma propaganda, ‘science’, advertising, and branding information “hook, line, and sinker”—that is, they went all out to stockpile them to the tune of billions of dollars. For example: “The US spent $1.3 billion on its stockpile of antivirals, while Britain spent £424 million on Tamiflu alone.” [1] “…Australia had spent on Tamiflu and Relenza, but the current value of the stockpile, which includes those drugs as well as other products, was $192 million.” [1]USA Today, April 10th edition online, has this to say:

“Peter Doshi, an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and a co-author of the Cochrane review, says the team focused on the 20 trials because it was more interested in the more rigorous randomized, placebo-controlled research. “Many of these 77 trials did not meet that criteria,” he says.

“I’m not interested in health scares,” Doshi adds. “What we’ve found here are statistically significant increases. Do I know absolutely for certain, without a shadow of a doubt, that Tamiflu is responsible for these (negative effects), based on the trial methodology? No. But what I’m seeing here are clear reasons to be concerned and to look into it further.” [3]

Readers may want to make certain to view the embedded video and interview with Dr. Thomas Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration on the USA Today webpage. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/09/tamiflu-relenza-study/7478287/
Another of the reviewers, Chris Del Mar, Professor of Public Health at Bond University, Australia, had this to say:

What we did that’s unusual in this review is we didn’t just rely on published data, we realised that this could be biased… that the less good data were being withheld in some way. [1]

Furthermore, in his paper “The Tamiflu Saga Shows Why All Research Data Should Be Public,” Professor Del Mar makes some important remarks regarding pharmaceuticals, the review process, and that often it’s “a war of words with lots of public relations.” Below are some of Del Mar’s sentiments.

  • Roche performed trials and the results were used to get approval from different regulatory authorities for it to be used routinely. The agencies include the US FDA (Federal Drug Administration), Europe’s EMA (European Medicines Authority), and Australia’s TGA (Therapeutic Drug Administration). 
  • The FDA approved Tamiflu for shortening the illness, but not for preventing complications. “Complications” means secondary (bacterial) infections, such as pneumonia. The EMA and TGA approved it for both indications.
  • The approval process is secret, ostensibly for “commercial interests”, although what these are at this stage of the drug’s development (testing how effective the drug is) remains unclear. Still, we often don’t know outside the closed doors what issues are raised in the clinical study reports.

Probably the most remarkable statement Professor Del Mar made in his paper is this:

The whole rigmarole has two implications.

First, we still remain in some doubt about the effectiveness of Tamiflu for preventing influenza complications. This matters because it was the prime reason the world armed itself with warehouses of Tamiflu under the threat of pandemic influenza in 2009.

Roche sold literally billions of dollars worth of Tamiflu for this singular reason. But has the world been sold a pup? Until the trials are openly released for scrutiny, it’s impossible for us, the world, the purchasers of this drug, to know.

Second, the implications are far beyond just Tamiflu. Until recently, the world had adopted the randomised controlled trial as the benchmark test for treatments. But there are clearly some problems with this.

One of these problems is the partial release of trial data (effected [sic] by selective publishing) that will help the sales of a commercial drug or device.

We are concerned that this might have happened in this instance, even though the drug company in question had declared (several times, including originally in 2009) that it will provide all the data we need. [4]

Professor Del Mar contends the above scientific sinfulness can be corrected by mandating that all clinical trials be registered. There’s a campaign to do just that; it’s called Alltrials http://www.alltrials.net/.
What this writer would like to point out in view of the above information, is that selective publishing and other ‘tricks’ are employed to get pharmaceuticals approved, especially vaccines which are ‘sacred cows’ no one seems to want to investigate.
Additionally, there is another ‘sacred cow’; it’s in the chemical industry – specifically GMOs, genetically modified organisms, which have become food crops. Monsanto, Dow, Pioneer, Aventis, Mycogen, and Syngenta produce Bt-crops, in particular, that have been designated by the U.S. EPA as PESTICIDES! Humans and animals eat those crops and their byproducts as supposedly ‘healthful’ food and/or food processing ingredients. Don’t believe that? See this EPA listing PIP [Plant Incorporated Protectants / Pesticides] Registrations http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/biopesticides/pips/pip_list.htm Furthermore, there’s an unanswered question regarding Bt-GMOs. Can – or do – humans grow Bacillus thuringiensis in their intestinal tracts after eating fresh Bt-corn-on-the-cob!
Moreover, Professor Del Mar went on to say, “Cochrane reviews are helpful to clinicians, especially when different trials on the same topic provide different answers.” However, that does not hold true for the U.S. FDA, which, in this writer’s opinion, disregards most of what Cochrane reviews find and point out.
FDA carelessly sticks with U.S. Big Pharma’s fudged science, I contend. Tamiflu should be another wakeup call that, apparently, everyone in federal health agencies has tendencies to ignore. That has to be stopped by the U.S. Congress who has oversight over the FDA.
Tamiflu and Neuropsychatric Disturbances in Adolescents
The British Medical Journal published a paper with that title in June of 2007 wherein a report was made that Japanese health authorities had advised against prescribing oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) to adolescents ages 10 to 19 years due to two 14-year-olds who jumped to their deaths with taking the antiviral drug. Furthermore, 52 other deaths, including 14 children or adolescents, also were associated with that same drug.
I should note that Japan recently has gone on record as not recommending the HPV vaccines and that further investigation is needed before it can. Japan has invoked and used the Precautionary Principle [5] in both cases, something USA health agencies dismiss totally, in my opinion, as they consider vaccines as dogmatically safe.
Other adverse effects from oseltamivir include: raised liver enzymes, hepatitis, serious skin reactions, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome [6], and erythema multiforme [7].
Oseltamivir Side Effects
According to the maker of Tamiflu, Genetech/Roche [8], here’s important information to know about the antiviral drug, which readers ought to save.
Note that changes in behavior, especially children, such as confusion, speech problems, shaky movements, seizures, hearing voices or seeing things that are not there (hallucinations) after taking Tamiflu need to be reported to your doctor immediately and stop taking the antiviral drug.
Here is other important information for healthcare consumers to know about Tamiflu that indicate you may not be a candidate for taking Tamiflu:

  • Have kidney problems.
  • Have a history of fructose (fruit sugar) intolerance. Tamiflu contains sorbitol and may cause stomach upset and diarrhea in people who are fructose intolerant.
  • Are pregnant or plan to become pregnant. It is not known if Tamiflu will harm your unborn baby. 
  • Are breastfeeding or plan to breastfeed. It is not known if Tamiflu passes into your breast milk. You and your healthcare provider should decide if you will take Tamiflu while you are breastfeeding. [8] [Shouldn’t that be studied and known before releasing the drug onto the market?]

Pandemic Pandemonium
Readers undoubtedly will recall that the 2009 Swine flu (H1N1) pandemic did not pan out; it was a dud, despite all the fear-mongering about it. According to Gretchen Michael of the U.S. Health and Human Services, here’s the official HHS word in response to The Boston Globe’s inquiry:

In future pandemic responses, HHS purchases of antiviral drugs and vaccines will be based on risk-benefit analyses using all product safety and efficacy and disease severity and transmission data available at that time. [2]

Sounds like nothing new or an anticipated change as a result of the latest information from the Cochrane Collaborative and the BMJ. Just like I said earlier, FDA tends to disregard the Cochrane reviews.
What’s a Person to Do?
There are other resources for dealing with the flu bug.
First and foremost, eat healthfully and get rid of all junk foods, sweets, candy, sodas, and starchy edibles from your dietary. Disease organisms latch on to and thrive in an acidic inner-body environment. The edibles just mentioned turn to an acidic ash when eaten/digested so that’s a big clue about how to keep from catching colds and the flu.
Second, know that there are homeopathic remedies that deal effectively with flu. Become acquainted with them and get in a fresh supply. Check out this resource and become acquainted.
Third, consider Nature’s equivalent to Tamiflu: Elderberry extract. For starters, check out “Elderberry Trumps Tamiflu for Flu Remedy.”
Another natural remedy is star anise that can be made into tea. According to National Geographic, star anise is used to make Tamiflu! Who knew?

The eight-pointed seedpods are harvested and dried before Roche’s extraction process yields shikimic acid for Tamiflu. Just 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of acid is produced from every 66 pounds (30 kilograms) of pods, according to Roche’s Web site. [9]

The antiviral drugs that were reviewed should be a wakeup call for every healthcare consumer, healthcare safety advocate, Big Pharma, its scientists and researchers, the U.S. HHS/CDC/FDA, and Congress.
Vaccine safety advocates have been trying to warn everyone, but no one wants to listen and face the music that Big Pharma produces pseudoscience, which CDC and FDA gobble up like ice cream on a stick. The really sad part is that Congress goes along with it.
The take-away lesson from all this is that healthcare consumers truly need to stop believing advertising and public relations campaigns in the media, including “paid Pharma shills,” and investigate the real science about anything you put into your body as food, water, medicine, vaccines, and recreational drugs. There are consequences.

[1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antiviral-drug-stockpile-a-waste-of-money-says-study-20140410-zqt3i.html#ixzz2yTdatXah
[2] http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/04/09/evidence-that-anti-viral-drugs-for-flu-prevent-serious-complications-deaths/sSpMLDjRhGwSexWYk2kzWO/story.html
[3] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/09/tamiflu-relenza-study/7478287/
[4] http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-june-2013/tamiflu-saga-shows-why-all-research-data-should-be-public.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
[6] http://www.dermis.net/dermisroot/en/30254/diagnose.htm
[7] http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1122915-overview
[8] http://www.tamiflu.com/side-effects
[9] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1128_051128_star_anise_2.html
BMJ Group Blogs
What does Tamiflu do, and how will we know?
Japan issues Tamiflu warning after child deaths. Times 21 March 2007
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Pediatric safety update for Tamiflu. Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting, 18 November 2005.
Is Swine Flu a Marketing Exercise for Tamiflu?
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

Tamiflu: A High Cost of Ineffectiveness?
Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:58:00 GMT