Do You Know The Eight Drugs Doctors Would Never Take??? You Should!!!

spoonful of drugsWould doctors take the medications they prescribe to their patients? Not necessarily, as it was reported in a recent article in Men′s Health, June 22, 2008. A number of physicians were asked which drugs they themselves would refuse to take.

And it may surprise you especially if you are currently taking one of these drugs, but here is their list:

  • Asthma drug Advair
  • Diabetes drug Avandia
  • Pain reliever Celebrex (a relative of the infamous Voixx)
  • Antibiotic Ketek
  • Heartburn medication Prilosec
  • Heartburn medication Nexium
  • Eye drops Visine Original
  • Decongestant Pseudoephedrin

The doctors questioned also suggested alternative treatments. Unfortunately, all they could come up with were other drugs! You have to understand that is all they are trained in at medical school…You can find their recommendations in the original article in Men’s Health.

Here is a portion of a commentary by Dr. Mercola on this very subject:

Seemingly positive and helpful articles like these really highlight how pervasive the conventional drug culture is. Although these drugs are exposed as being dangerous and best avoided at all costs, the writer failed miserably in providing ′healthier′ alternatives; in all cases but two, merely citing alternative drug treatments …”

Actually it was the doctors who failed miserably; the writer just quoted the doctors′ recommendations. Mercola then goes on to comment on three of the drugs on this list — the asthma, diabetes and heartburn/acid reflux medications — and suggests non-pharmaceutical alternatives. This would be a good time for me to restrict my own comments to Avandia. But it should be mentioned that there is a reason lawyers are targeting people who have had adverse reactions to this drug.

In May of 2007 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety alert on Avandia:

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of a potential safety issue related to Avandia (rosiglitazone), a drug approved to treat type 2 diabetes …”

The agency goes on to say that safety data from some controlled clinical trials showed a potential increase in the risk of heart attacks, but other data provided contradictory evidence. The agency then issues this warning to patients on Avandia:

“Patients who are taking Avandia, especially those who are known to have underlying heart disease or who are at high risk of heart attack should talk to their doctor about this new information as they evaluate the available treatment options for their type 2 diabetes.”

Why didn′t the FDA just mandate the removal of the drug from the market?

“FDA′s analyses are ongoing. FDA has not confirmed the clinical significance of the reported increased risk in the context of other studies. Pending questions include whether the other approved treatment from the same class of drugs, pioglitazone, has less, the same or greater risks. Furthermore, there is inherent risk associated with switching patients with diabetes from one treatment to another even in the absence of specific risks associated with particular treatments. For these reasons, FDA is not asking GlaxoSmithKline, the drug′s sponsor, to take any specific action at this time.”

If changing treatments poses such a significant health risk, why advise patients to talk to their doctors about their available treatment options, i.e. about switching drugs? And exactly what was the information available to the agency that made it so difficult for them to make a decision?

“Recently, the manufacturer of Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline) provided FDA with a pooled analysis (meta analysis) of 42 randomized, controlled clinical trials in which Avandia was compared to either placebo or other anti-diabetic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. The pooled analysis suggested that patients receiving short-term (most studies were 6 months duration) treatment with Avandia may have a 30-40 percent greater risk of heart attack and other heart-related adverse events than patients treated with placebo or other anti-diabetic therapy. These data, if confirmed, would be of significant concern since patients with diabetes are already at an increased risk of heart disease.”  FDA approval for Avandia was given May 1999 and this safety alert wasn’t issued by the FDA until May of 2007. My question is-What took so long to issue the Risk Warnings of serious cardiovascular complications after most of these studies that were conducted over a short 6 month period of time? It sure is odd that it took 8 years to issue this safety alert, in my opinion!

Of significant concern? Can you imagine a natural health product remaining on the market with a rap sheet like that. Does the pharmaceutical industry control the FDA, or what?

The sad thing about all of this is that type 2 diabetes is considered a life style disease that is both preventable and reversible. The American Diabetes Association readily admits this:

“People with diabetes have the same nutritional needs as anyone else. Along with exercise and medications (insulin or oral diabetic pills), nutrition is important for good diabetes control. By eating well-balanced meals in the correct amounts, you can keep your blood glucose levels as close to normal (non-diabetic level) as possible.”

Pharmaceutical intervention shouldn′t even be necessary in type 2 diabetes. Yet the drug peddling continues, with the active participation of the medical establishment.

It is a shame that every Healthcare Provider isn’t required by law to learn what Nutraceutical options exist…but we have to remember who has the greatest influence in a medical doctors education and training-it’s not the nutraceutical companies!

Advertisements

Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines???

Some people have asked if some vaccines have components derived from human fetuses.

In fact, some vaccines are grown in cell cultures that were originally obtained from two human fetuses. In addition, the rubella virus used to make rubella vaccine was isolated from a third human fetus. Now that this most recent info is out it opens up the argument that has raged for years about the correlation between vaccines and autism.

It has been documented that a sharp incline in autism was observed about the time the pharmaceutical world started introducing aborted fetal DNA in their vaccines.

And as usual…the FDA still denies any connection!

Click here to read about the aborted fetal DNA and vaccines…

Can We Trust WebMD???

WebMD is the second most visited health website on the net next to the National Institutes of Health. The major question that needs to be addressed is;  “Is it a truly independent and objective online health information resource”?

Like many web sites, WebMD’s main source of income and information comes from advertisements that appear on the site. An online depression screening test advertised in a WebMD TV commercial was surprisingly sponsored by drug company Eli Lilly which directed its viewers to Lilly’s antidepressant Cymbalta.

Although the tests are openly sponsored by Eli Lilly we need to be concerned that many people would automatically assume that this publicized test offered on one of the most visited health sites on the web would give them an entirely false result. This could give the appearance of pushing even the most well-balanced individual into considering taking an antidepressant based on these false test results. There is a fine line between using authority for one’s health and misleading for the purpose of financial gain.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition (DSM-IV) is a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers all mental health disorders for both children and adults. DSIM-IV provides the basis for psychiatric diagnoses and lists nine possible symptoms of depression.

WebMD’s depression screening test lists 10 – the last one being “frequent headaches, stomach problems, muscle pain, or back problems” which have mysteriously appeared out of… how knows where?

Cymbalta is marketed as an antidepressant that treats both depression and physical pain. In effect, the WebMD depression screening test is a “Try Cymbalta Test.”

Promoting Wealth Instead of Health

As you can see by the online depression screening test, big pharmaceutical companies wield their influence on WebMD and other sites in promoting their specific patented drugs. These sites give you the illusion of an independent, objective third party that conveniently promotes drugs as the best answer to your health issues. Keep in mind it is illegal for anything other than a drug to lay claim to treat or cure any type of condition.

Eli Lilly was one of WebMD’s original partners and investors, along with Microsoft, DuPont, News Corp, and Silicon Graphics. WebMD is also the first private company to become a partner of the FDA. For every ailment that WebMD presents, you get the corresponding pharmaceutical option that the FDA wants you to take. You will be hard pressed to ever see an alternative treatment being recommended or even a positive mention of it on their site. Therefore safe, inexpensive alternatives and strategies that can help improve your health are ignored.

Is it possible for WebMD to be independent and objective if one of its investors is a major drug company and there’s government influence exerted?

I personally have my opinion which I’m sure you’re aware of, but will let you draw your own conclusion. It is a shame that for all those who rely on WebMD to give them the best Optimal Health Choice only to find out that it may not be in their best health interest.

FDA Targets Supplement Manufacturers, Falsely Accuses Them of Selling Drugs…

In the eyes of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there is no difference between a legitimate, scientifically-backed health claim, and a phony, made-up claim, as it concerns food and dietary supplements. Only FDA-approved drugs, you see, provide real health benefits, according to the agency. And in its continued assault against health freedom, the FDA has sent warning letters to five different companies that produce natural treatments and cures for sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) because those companies dared to make unauthorized health claims, many of which are backed by peer-reviewed, journal-published scientific studies.

What is worse, though, is the fact that the FDA has decreed that any food or dietary supplement that provides any sort of health benefit is automatically a “drug.” Ordinary foods like almonds, cherries, or walnuts literally become recategorized as drugs when accompanied by claims that they cure, heal, or prevent disease– and this is currently the law of the land in the US.

Click here to see the full article and to see what Supplement companies the FDA has targeted…

Do You Know What Interesterified Oils Are??? YOU SHOULD!!!

We all  need to be aware that Food companies are now calling “Trans Fats” Interesterified Fats to fool educated consumers. It has been very popular for consumers to avoid or eliminate Trans fats from our diets over the past several years which has hurt the food manufactures where it really hurts the most. However they are getting around the trans fat labeling by mixing small amounts of fully hydrogenated oil with liquid polyunsaturate oils and calling it “Interesterified Oil.” They claim that fully hydrogenated oil is healthier. Since there is less trans fat, they can sell this product to food manufacturers for use in commercial dressings, baked goods, candies and anything else that used to have partially hydrogenated oil in the ingredient list.

We should also be aware that a food with under 0.5g of trans fat is allowed to be labeled as “Trans-Fat-Free” in the US. So, when reading food labels…”Trans-Fat-Free” doesn’t mean it has no trans fats within it! Now we need to spread the word that once again the Big Food Industry and it’s partner the FDA has changed the rules in the middle of the game and allowed another toxic ingredient into our food known as INTERESTERIFIED OILS or FATS…

Click here to read the full article on further deception by the food companies…

Groups Sue FDA Over Use of Certain Antibiotics in Animal Feed

Last week, a coalition including consumer groups such as Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council and several more filed a law suit against the FDA for failing to take action regarding the overuse of human antibiotics in animal feed. The groups assert that knowledge of the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria in people consuming such animal products existed as early as 1977. The FDA failed to act on those conclusions and failed to protect public safety. The question remains…Who is the FDA protecting??? It certainly doesn’t look  like it is the general public which was the intended purpose!

The FDA gives mixed messages to farmers when it sometimes emphasizes that farmers use fewer antibiotics to keep drug resistance minimal yet also adhering to longstanding regulations about using said drugs for animal disease control. With a lawsuit pending, the FDA might be more accountable and be compelled to take a step in either direction.

Click here to read the full article from the Wall Street Journal…

%d bloggers like this: