They – the health experts tell you: Eat anything you like, food has nothing to do without your cancer or any of your illness. You buy that? What many don’t learn in school is that those animals (even fish) that you eat are often “laced or fed” with antibiotics … you eat them and you also eat the antibiotics. As simple as that!
Read more: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/09/what-state-uses-more-antibiotics-on-livestock-than-entire-us-on-humans.aspx
According to the article in the New York Times:
Every year in the United States, 325,000 people are hospitalized because of food-borne illnesses and 5,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s right: food kills one person every two hours.
Perhaps the most disgraceful aspect of our agricultural system … is the way antibiotics are recklessly stuffed into healthy animals to make them grow faster.
The Food and Drug Administration reported recently that 80 percent of antibiotics in the United States go to livestock, not humans. And 90 percent of the livestock antibiotics are administered in their food or water, typically to healthy animals to keep them from getting sick when they are confined in squalid and crowded conditions.
Do you ever learn such thing in school? I did when I was in Universiti Malaya. In our animal husbandry course, we were taught how to formulate animal feed. The essential ingredients would be to add antibiotics and growth supplements into the feed – who cares what happens after that, provided the animals grow faster and don’t fall sick.
To make sure that we students get this into our head, question on feed formulation is always a “sure” question in our final exam!
A new report finds that U.S. doctors are too quick to prescribe drugs, and often give little thought to side effects and non-drug alternatives.
Overprescription is rampant, according to experts. Nearly half of all Americans have used at least one prescription drug in the past month. Many are being exposed to side effects, sometimes fatal ones, even though they are receiving few or no benefits from the drugs.
According to MSNBC:
“Yet many doctors are quick to prescribe a drug, partly because they have limited time to deal with individual patients or because they and their patients have been bombarded with ads from the pharmaceutical industry.”
Read more: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/02/new-study-finds-doctors-are-massively-overprescribing-drugs.aspx
Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.
This documentary takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.
Dr. Burzynski resides and practices medicine in Houston, Texas. He was able to initially produce and administer his discovery without FDA-approval from 1977-1995 because the state of Texas at this time did not require that Texas physicians be required to adhere to Federal law in this situation. This law has since been changed.
As with anything that changes current-day paradigms, Burzynski’s ability to successfully treat incurable cancer with such consistency has baffled the industry. Ironically, this fact had prompted numerous investigations by the Texas Medical Board, who relentlessly took Dr. Burzynski as high as the state supreme court in their failed attempt to halt his practices.
To watch the movie: http://vimeo.com/24821365
Read more: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
Note: My wife and I had a wonderful opportunity to meet Dr. Burzynski and his wife (also a doctor) when we visited Houston, Texas, two years ago.
A recent study published by the Journal of General Internal Medicine reported a 10 percent spike in teaching hospital deaths during the month of July due to medical errors. We call this spike “The July Effect” and we attribute it to the influx of new interns and residents.
Typically, medical students graduate in June and begin their first year of residency training — internship — in July. This group of eager new interns invades the hospital to learn, care for patients, and make medical decisions. One problem. They don’t know what they’re doing.
The Economist of 26 May 2011 had an article entitled: The costly war on cancer – New cancer drugs are technically impressive. But must they cost so much? http://www.economist.com/node/18743951?story_id=18743951
The article says:
- CANCER is not one disease. It is many. Yet oncologists have long used the same blunt weapons to fight different types of cancer: cut the tumour out, zap it with radiation or blast it with chemotherapy that kills good cells as well as bad ones.
- The snag, from society’s point of view, is that all these drugs are horribly expensive.
- Not all these new drugs work.
- In December the FDA said that Avastin’s side effects outweighed its meagre impact on breast cancer.
- More generally, some people reckon that new cancer drugs offer small benefits at an exorbitant price.
- Provenge (for advanced prostate cancer) costs $93,000 for a course of treatment and extends life by an average of four months.
- Yervoy (for melanoma, a kind of skin cancer) costs $120,000 for three-and-a-half months. Some patients live much longer, which fuels demand for the drugs. But others spend a lot and get little.
- Who will reform this unsustainable system?
- Last year Gleevec grossed $4.3 billion. Roche’s Herceptin (the HER2 drug) and Avastin did even better: $6 billion and $7.4 billion respectively.
My comment: At the end of it all – it is about making huge profit at the expense of helpless cancer victims.
See also this article:
Dissecting Chemotherapy Part 4: How Much Is Life Worth? Erbitux for Lung Cancer
Only dead fish flow with the stream
In this world we see many fish. Most of what we see or know of are dead fish. Dead fish don’t flow against the current. They just float down with the stream. Drs. Graeme Morgan, Robyn Ward and Michael Barton of Australia (see Part 2 & 3 of this article) are no dead fish – they flow against the stream. I salute them for having the guts to speak up.
Drs Tito Fojo and Christine Grady in the USA appear to swim against the current too. They wrote an interesting paper: How much is life worth: Cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer and the $440 billion question. The first author is from the Medical Oncology Branch of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA, while Dr. Grady is from the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Read more: http://cancercaremalaysia.com/2011/05/27/dissecting-chemotherapy-part-4-how-much-is-life-worth-erbitux-for-lung-cancer/
Mobile phone users may be at increased risk from brain cancer and should use texting and free-hands devices to reduce exposure, the World Health Organisation’s cancer experts said.
Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by such devices are “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced at the end of an eight-day meeting in Lyon, France.
Experts “reached this classification based on review of the human evidence coming from epidemiological studies” pointing to an increased incidence of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, said Jonathan Samet, president of the work group.
Two studies in particular, the largest conducted over the last decade, showed a higher risk “in those that had the most intensive use of such phones,” he said in a telephone news conference.
Some individuals tracked in the studies had used their phones for an average of 30 minutes per day over a period of 10 years.
“We simply don’t know what might happen as people use their phones over longer time periods, possibly over a lifetime,” Samet said.
There are about five billion mobile phones registered in the world. The number of phones and the average time spent using them have both climbed steadily in recent years.
A posting in Dr.Mecola’s website …
Is it Time to Boycott This ‘Anti’ Cancer Charity?
The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
It is riddled with conflict of interest.
And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.
The report states, in part:
“The ACS … [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as ‘blame the victim,’ … Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated
The report that you can download: http://www.preventcancer.com/documents/ACS.pdf