Sunday, November 2, 2008

Drugs and free speech

I will begin with the usual disclaimer - I am not a health care professional so what I have to say is therefore worth nothing.  I am only a person who can read and see and think, but nothing I say is of any value.  In this country, only those licensed by organizations which coincidentally have ties to the pharmaceutical industry are allowed free speech and only their words deemed to have value.  
http://www.honestmedicine.com/2008/08/financial-ties-between-big-pharma-and-the-medical-establishment-36-selected-articles-published-between-2005-and-2008.html

That said, I have been learning  a bit about heart medications lately.  It seems that the drugs people are being put on are causing heart problems and deaths.

It seems a mistake to take any statins (Lipitor and relatives of it) to lower cholesterol.  They pull cholesteroal out of the body but all muscle - including heart muscle - must have it to function.  



A good friend was given Lipitor and got extremely weak and had serious muscle pain in his arms and legs.  His doctor then prescribed more meds, this time for his pain 
So my friend stopped going to the doctor and got off the medications altogether.  It took a few weeks for the pain to stop and for his strength to come back.

Statins seem to be associated with ALS.  

What else are some people who don't know anything doing to lower cholesterol?

Seems blood pressure medicines are also a problem.   

It seems that Beta blockers work by slowing the heart down are associated with congestive heart failure, stroke and heart attack.  A family member was on BP meds and their heart was working so poorly their doctor was considering surgery to install a pace maker. Instead, the BP meds were cut back and their heart began working better and it turned out they didn't need a pace maker after all.

What else are some people using instead, then?

In terms of prostate cancer, it seems the NCI has a very interesting way of "doing" science when investigating the efficacy of natural means of treating people.  They start with a synthetic version of the natural substance - in this case, vitamin E.  It is a synthetic which they know ahead of time is wholly without anti-antioxidants and is just a coal-tar derivative.  Low and behold, they "discover" that it is doesn't work and then they then publish this information though it tells no one anything about vitamin E.  That nonsense is used to guide American doctors who then distrust vitamin E and are left with the heavily promoted, often dangerous, and always more expensive, corporate drugs.  

The medical establishment did a version of this "study and switch" with Linus Pauling and his attempt to inform the American public that vitamin C could be used as a safe, cheap and powerful chemotherapy.  The medical establishment, alledgedly interested in curing cancer, and though Pauling had won two Nobel prizes for his brilliance, conducted only one study and use what they had to have known going in was a vastly weaker protocol - only oral doses when Pauling's studies were all based on IV doses.  

When it comes to pain medications, the FDA seems to have a unique way of handling studies of natural substances and the people providing those substances and any chance for the public to know.  Cherries, it seems, based on peer reviewed studies, are potentially 10 times stronger than aspirin and ibuprofen (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or NSAIDs)
And cherries are not associated with deaths as the NSAIDs are.
http://www.cpmission.com/main/NSAIDs2.html

In terms of pain, turmeric seems to be especially good for arthritis and osteoporosis - based on study after study.  It seems it doesn't just help with pain, it reduces inflammation and stops damage.  But how good could it be if my doctor doesn't know anything about it yet?
But one can't help wondering how good it must be if corporations are stealing from India to patent it.
http://www.american.edu/ted/turmeric.html

It seems that fresh milk (straight from the cow with all bacteria still active), beef from grass-fed cattle, eggs from pasteured chickens, and organic vegetables, all contribute richly to good health.  Is it because the real stuff is loaded with Omega 3 and 6 and other nutrients of all kinds missing from processed food?

Is industrial food unhealthy because it lacks the good stuff that comes from grass and sunshine, and is industrial food also unhealthy because it doesn't lack unappealing "extras" - pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, steroids and heavy metals?  

Did you know you can't even absorb most of the minerals and nutrients in milk without the bacteria that is killed off by pasteurization?  

Did you know that the vitamin D in pasteurized "ordinary" milk (and if it is rBGH-milk, it is also strongly linked to breast cancer) has been removed and replaced by a synthetic vitamin D that doesn't work?  

Yet vitamin D is essential protection against a range of cancers, including breast cancer

and prostate cancer

and MS

and heart disease.

What are good sources of vitamin D for those who don't anything?
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html

Hope this helps the adults and all the little kids.

On the drug side, here are common medications long approved as safe by the FDA and given freely as OTC cough and sinus and cold meds, even to children, which are being recalled, 

Meanwhile, vitamin C seems good for colds 

and (organic) honey seems good for coughs. 

I have no professional license to speak about health.  Don't listen to me.  




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)