Secrets of Natural Healing

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/europe-to-ban-hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-2171781.html

Europe To Ban Hundreds of Herbal Remedies in 4 Months

Hundreds of herbal medicinal products will be banned from sale in Britain next year under what campaigners say is a "discriminatory and disproportionate" European law.

With four months to go before the EU-wide ban is implemented, thousands of patients face the loss of herbal remedies that have been used in the UK for decades.

From 1 May 2011, traditional herbal medicinal products must be licensed or prescribed by a registered herbal practitioner to comply with an EU directive passed in 2004. The directive was introduced in response to rising concern over adverse effects caused by herbal medicines.

Herbal practitioners say it is impossible for most herbal medicines to meet the licensing requirements for safety and quality, which are intended to be similar to those for pharmaceutical drugs, because of the cost of testing.

According to the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), which represents herbal practitioners, not a single product used in traditional Chinese medicine or ayurvedic medicine has been licensed. In Europe, around 200 products from 27 plant species have been licensed but there are 300 plant species in use in the UK alone.

The ANH estimates the cost of obtaining a licence at between £80,000 and £120,000 per herb. They say this is affordable for single herbal products with big markets, such as echinacea, a remedy for colds and flu, but will drive small producers of medicines containing multiple herbs out of business.

Under EU law, statutorily regulated herbal practitioners will be permitted to continue prescribing unlicensed products. But the Coalition Government and the previous Labour administration have delayed plans to introduce a statutory herbal practitioner register.

This means thousands of patients who rely on herbal treatments face being denied access to them. Medical organisations, including the MHRA, have warned the measures may drive patients to obtain herbal medicines over the internet – where risks are much greater.

Dr Rob Verkerk, of the ANH, said: "Thousands of people across Europe rely on herbal medicines to improve their quality of life. They don't take them because they are sick – they take them to keep healthy. If these medicines are taken off the market, people will try and find them elsewhere, such as from the internet, where there is a genuine risk they will get low quality products, that either don't work or are adulterated."

Helpful Links:

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Gardasil Researcher Drops a Bombshell; Shocks Doctors Attending Medical Conference

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates.

What’s more, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4.

Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that “four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.”

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, “If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them.”

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, “There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years.”

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”

At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”

“It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls,” she said at the time. “There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night.”

Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way.

To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here.

Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation.

Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly:

"The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper’s candor. “I think she’s a scientist, a researcher, and she’s genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her.”

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. “For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women.”

Prefer Safe, Natural Remedies Instead?

Then try these links…

Jubilee 3: Repairing Arthritic Joints, Naturally

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Big Pharma Stands Exposed and Naked to the World

A spate of recent news articles have shown Big Pharma to be the most crooked, deceitful, self-serving, fraudulent money-hungry bunch of lying hypocrites the world has ever seen.

But as more and more people begin to learn about Big Pharma’s corrupt nature, the medical paradigm crumbles. May it die the ignoble death it so richly deserves…

The orthodox medical model -- based upon fraud, deceit, and the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar at any cost -- is slowly crumbling.

It’s a slow motion disintegration. Nevertheless, as more and more news emerges revealing the true face of the Big Pharma…

…and making people ever-the-more aware that they’re being taken for a deadly ride in one of history’s greatest frauds, and by some of history’s greatest psychopaths…

…the end of the current medical paradigm continues to come more fully into focus. And if you’re anything like me, it’s an end you’ve been waiting to see for a long, long time.

What am I talking about?

Big Pharma Exposed

Let's see, in just the last few weeks alone we've learned in the news:

· Big Pharma has moved the bulk of Its clinical drug trials overseas in order to get potentially dangerous drugs approved easier: (See this link)

· As much as 90% of published research that doctors rely upon for prescribing drugs is horrifically (and in some cases, fatally) flawed: (See this link)

· The number of drug recalls due to potentially deadly side effects has skyrocketed beyond anything seen in history: (See this link)

· Antidepressant drugs – already shown to be largely ineffective – are now known to raise the risk of fatal heart attacks. (See this link)

· Flu vaccines are a complete fraud, as well as Big Pharma’s much-touted theory of “herd immunity.” (See this link)

Isn't that swell? Doesn’t that boost your confidence in Big Pharma?

Here’s one more. It's an oldie, but a goodie:

· Big Pharma exec admits publicly that "most of our drugs don't work for most people." (See this link)

Imagine that. Drugs don’t work.

Voting With Their Wallets

The public is finally catching on to one of the greatest deceptions of modern times.

And that’s why tens of millions of Americans now vote with their wallets by spending billions of dollars every year on safe, effective natural remedies.

Most doctors, of course, go bonkers every time you mention natural remedies. “Unproven! they yell. “Untested!” “Ineffective!” “Dangerous!”

If you didn’t know better, you’d swear they were talking about the very drugs they so cavalierly prescribe.

Learn More About Natural Remedies

You can learn more about some of the most popular and effective natural remedies at the links below…

…escape the insidious grip of Big Pharma’s Prescription Drug and Premature Death Show…

…and help hasten the collapse of the modern drug paradigm.

May it die the ignoble death it so richly deserves -- the sooner, the better!

Do You Prefer Safe, Natural Remedies Intead? Then check these out...

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1340299/Why-taking-statins-pointless--bad-you.html

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Why Taking Statin Drugs May Be Pointless – Even Bad For You

A few years ago many people would never have heard of statins. Now more than five million Britons take the cholesterol-lowering drugs every day to prevent heart attacks and strokes.

But do they actually work for many of us? A new study has raised serious questions about whether they do — meanwhile, other new evidence has linked statins with severe depression and suicide.

Statins have been hailed as ‘wonder pills’ by doctors and drug companies. They are prescribed to anyone in Britain who is believed to have more than a 20 per cent chance of having a heart attack or stroke over the next ten years. It is hoped that, by lowering their cholesterol, the patients’ death risk will drop significantly.

The trend for believing that any cholesterol at all is automatically bad has intensified to the point where growing numbers of patients are being prescribed statins even if their cholesterol levels come into the traditional categories of ‘normal’ or even ‘low’.

A new study by a prestigious U.S. university calls all this into question. The research suggests a great many people may not get any benefit from taking statins — that’s because it’s our calcium levels, not cholesterol, that really matter, claim the researchers.

The study of 950 men and women found that statins may only help patients if they have a calcium build-up — calcification — in their blood vessels. Calcium makes arteries harden and increases the risk of high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke.

Scientists believe calcification is primarily caused by a combination of genes and ageing, along with poor lifestyle such as lack of exercise, bad diet and smoking. It’s not clear why these cause a build-up of the mineral — though calcium in the diet is not to blame.

The researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, found that in the group of 950 healthy people, half had calcium build-up; they suffered 95 per cent of all the heart attacks, strokes or heart-related deaths seen in the five-year study.

The other half of the group did not have any calcium build-up and, tellingly, they suffered only 5 per cent of the heart problems that occurred. If calcium, not cholesterol, is the real issue, this might explain why 75 per cent of people who suffer heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels.

But the more immediate message, says Dr Michael Blaha, who led the study, is that patients with no calcium build-up would be very unlikely to get any benefit from swallowing preventative statins.

‘Our results tell us that only those with calcium build-up in their arteries have a clear benefit from statin therapy,’ he told a conference of the American Heart Association earlier this month.

He says instead of handing out statins to increasing numbers of patients, doctors should first measure patients’ coronary artery calcium deposits using a CT scanner (a kind of X-ray machine) and give the drugs only to those with high levels.

There are compelling reasons why we should be wary of swallowing ever more statins — as many as 5 per cent of people develop serious side effects.

Numerous studies have suggested we need a certain level of cholesterol in our bodies to remain healthy. People with low cholesterol levels have higher risk of suicide, Parkinson’s disease and some forms of stroke.

Why suicide? A new Swedish study of 42 people who had attempted to kill themselves suggests that when our level of blood cholesterol drops, so, too, does our level of the ‘feel good’ brain chemical, serotonin.

There are other ‘new’ side-effects that have been added to the warning lists published with the packaging on statins. These include muscle problems, sleep disturbance, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, depression and a potentially lethal lung disease.

Overall, the rate of side-effects is low but, given the huge number of users, this adds up to many thousands of patients being affected.

Nevertheless, drug companies are intent on selling ever more statins, which are already the world’s top-selling prescribed drugs. The drug makers would like statins to be prescribed more widely to people with normal and even low cholesterol.

Their case seems to be backed by results of a study called Jupiter, which involved more than 2,000 UK patients. The research, paid for by AstraZeneca, claimed that the statin rosuvastatin significantly cut deaths from heart attacks and strokes in men and women who had normal cholesterol levels.

The trial was scheduled to run for four years, but after nearly two years, the scientists running it declared that the early results were so strongly positive that they should stop testing and move on to publicising the good news so that everyone could benefit.

The study, published in 2008, is being seen as a good reason for giving statins to a wider group of people, not just those deemed at 20 per cent risk of heart attack.

Statins should even be put in the water supply, according to one of Britain’s leading heart experts, Dr Mahendra Varma, who is vice-chairman of the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association.

But a big scientific row has broken out this year over the Jupiter study. According to three expert articles in the journal, Archives of Internal Medicine, the Jupiter trial was deeply flawed.

Close analysis of the figures by French doctors found that statins did not actually achieve any real reduction in deaths, and the figures had been warped by commercial interference. Nine of the 14 Jupiter researchers had financial ties with AstraZeneca.

Cambridge University doctors who examined the study said the fact that it had been stopped early meant the results could be cherry-picked to make them look favourable before any longer-term problems emerged. The journal’s experts added that, overall, the best evidence shows that statins do not, in fact, help people who have no evidence of heart disease.

Despite this, the British Heart Foundation says it continues to support the widespread use of statins. Judy O’Sullivan, Senior Cardiac Nurse at the BHF, says: ‘It is unusual in this country for statins to be given preventatively to people with normal cholesterol levels. We think that statin drugs are useful for the vast majority of people taking them.’

And she adds: ‘We don’t think that screening patients for calcium build-up before prescribing them statins would be helpful, as the test would be expensive and expose people to radiation.’

But some doctors are sceptical of preventive statin treatment. Dr Matt Hughes, a GP and hospital practitioner in cardiology in Cardiff, said recently doctors should be very cautious about prescribing statins for people as ‘treatment for a disease they don’t have yet’.

Writing in the GPs’ newspaper, Pulse, he said the best scientific evidence shows statins do not even benefit people who are considered at high risk of developing heart disease.

Dr Malcolm Kendrick, a Cheshire GP and outspoken critic of widespread statin use, says despite all the negative clinical evidence, prescription levels of statins are still rising considerably, so most people over 65 are taking them.

‘Such widespread use is a tribute to the persuasiveness of the drug companies. It does not mean statins work preventively — they don’t,’ he adds.

Do You Prefer Natural Healing? See Links Below...

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions