I am aware that it is politically correct to trust the power of large industry and to be suspicious of rather unknown ancient sciences such as aromatherapy, but you have to understand one fact:  today, your health weighs nothing in front of the millions of profits to be made by Big pharma. At least this is what a bunch of French scientists write in a natural health journal…and I cannot resist but translating it here.

 

“Here are 4 big scams created by the pharmaceutical industry that work only with the active complicity of the health authorities. Doctors, themselves, participate without being aware of it.

The chemo that maintains tumors
An article published in late November 2012 in the journal Nature Medicine by the Inserm team led by François Ghiringhelli (Inserm Unit 866 “Lipids, Nutrition and Cancer”) in Dijon, France said that two chemotherapy drugs commonly used to treat cancers can promote the development of cancerous tumors [1] !!!

Both drugs are 5-fluorouracil and gemcitabine used in the treatment of colon, breast and pancreas cancer.

The tumor stimulation mechanism is the following:

First, they activate a protein complex called the “inflammasome NLRP3” within certain cells of the immune system.

Then, this activation results in the release by these cells of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, interleukin IL-1beta.

Finally, this cytokine induces the production of another cytokine (IL-17 cytokine) that has protumorales properties promoting tumor angiogenesis, that is to say the tumors’ vascular irrigation.

The longer you take these drugs, the more your tumor is irrigated by blood vessels. Well fed, it grows faster. All this is written in black and white on the Inserm website referenced.

Yet, what is the researchers’ conclusion? Perhaps “urgently stop using this “anti-cancer”medicine that actually develops cancer”?

No, not at all: according to a systematic medical principle, it is necessary, according to them, to find a new drug to give patients on top of these chemo Products:

“Our results have identified that the activation of the inflammasome limits the antitumor efficacy of chemotherapy. The challenge was then to see if we could prevent the activation of the inflammasome, “explained François Ghiringhelli.

So, instead of removing a drug, they choose to give the patients an second drug, to offset the negative effects of the former. Translation: “how to provide new revenue for the pharmaceutical industry”

 

Inventing new diseases

“Dermatology is the best business of all: there was never an emergency, customers do not die, and they will never heal. »

This medical joke has been understood by the laboratories: rather than chasing the miracle pill that cures patients, and is therefore used only once, it is better to market drugs that patients will consume their entire lives.

Hence the invention of a new kind of medicine, the one we take “just in case” to delay a clinical process whose maturity is absolutely unknown.

An example: Alzheimer’s. Some very expensive drugs exist, which are assumed to slow the progression of the disease. However, placebo trials have shown that their efficiency is almost zero (a few percent of favorable findings and more in the treated group).

However, the side effects are themselves well measurable. Should we then stop these treatments?

Absolutely not, exclaim neurologists, because “even if the drug itself is not very effective, simply to take and monthly check is a psychological remedy that improves patients’. There is no better ways to define a placebo effect that costs 2500 euros per year to insurances …

Another example is screening prostate “cancer”, while it is an adenoma, which, with age, may become cancerous, and will in almost all men after 80 years without threatening their lives.

Until recently, one was a more or less inconsequential sectarian grouch if one dared criticizing this system of “PSA-excisional biopsy” that has crippled so many patients. And in country after country, news piled up to show that frenzied prevention had meaning only in a well defined population niche.

It is the same for HPV vaccine against papilloma virus (pre cancerous cells on the cervix) , and for generalized mammograms, whose dangerousness is finally beginning to be very timidly recognized by the official press.

 

Lower alert standards

When symptoms are inadequate or non-existent, the easy thing to do is to simply lower the alert organic standards and automatically create millions of patients allegedly threatened. These questionable “standards” are also regularly reviewed, to the chagrin of prescribing doctors who do not know where to turn anymore.

This is the case of cholesterol, which no one knows exactly at what actual level it would be problematic, despite the invention of a clever (and misleading) distinction between “good” and “bad” cholesterol.

And what about the multiplication of psychiatric drug prescriptions, directly related to the rapid increase of new “disorders” or “syndromes” that did not exist 20 years ago?

Note that, in their book “The 4000 guide to useful drugs, useless or dangerous,” Pr. Debré and Dr. Even highlight the “desert” in new and effective pharmacological molecules of this class, the “new” being copies of copies of remedies that are now 30 years old, but simply three or four times more expensive …

 

Avandia: the programmed disaster


The Washington Post did publish a lengthy summary about a rather huge medical scandal (83 000 deaths or heart attacks), regarding these diabetics treated with Avandia, which tells how a dangerous drug can be voluntarily released worldwide.

The facts: In 2006, an article appears in the reference journal NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine), a journal in which each item is husked before publication by a panel of “independent” experts.

In the article, admirable results for Avandia compared with two competing drugs.

At the time, the “experts” did not have to report their relationships with companies affected by their expertise. Had this been the case, we would have known that each of the 11 experts had been gratified by the laboratory GSK defray fees. And 4 of them were downright employees of the firm, and held shares.

Once the authorization is obtained to market the drug, the lab launches Avandia and prescriptions soar.

In the medical field, a nagging question rises: is it normal that the treated diabetics saw their levels of “bad cholesterol” fly so high? For cardiacs, it would be at least a contra-indication.

Even within the lab, officials started asking questions. As well as the FDA, which required GSK to launch a study on the subject. The lab did so but puts forward actually biased studies since heart patients, those who could demonstrate measurable disorders, were excluded from the study …

A conventional method of “bias” very difficult to disentangle by not too fussy experts, but not immune to Steven Nissen, a doctor who had shown his determination and qualities of pharmacologist in the drama of Vioxx (40 000 deaths suspected). He gets more data, this time on broader populations, called a meta-analysis.

The results are published in record time by the same NEJM, whose editors are frightened by the numbers: “If these calculations are correct, there are thousands of patients who are in danger!

In France, more than 200,000 diabetics have taken Avandia for two to three years, in perfect silence by a press still traumatized by the Mediator case.

Conclusion

In the jungle of drugs, it is better not get sick ….

A healthy lifestyle, good and quality food, well-informed decision, supplements, relaxing activities and happiness are a necessity to minimize the risk of being a victim of the thousands of abuses pharmaceutical companies create regularly along with those who’s income depends on other people being sick”.

Do you agree? Does it make you react? If it does, share it in the comment blocks, right here.