Sleeping pills linked to 460 percent increase in sudden death

If you take pharmaceutical sleeping pills to help alleviate insomnia, you are very likely putting yourself at serious risk of developing cancer or even dying. A new study published in BMJ Open, an open-access journal that is part of the British Medical Journal family…

BMJ admits antipsychotic drugs kill far more people than terrorism

Based on the facts, U.S. Transportation Security Administration pat-downs and naked body scans belong at drug company factories, doctors’ offices, and drug stores, rather than at American airports. A new report published in the British Medical Journal has found that…

Busted! Scientists leave out data to produce bogus findings

Clinical trials of drugs and other medical therapies are carefully carried out and are the very gold standard of scientific proof, right? According to an in-depth review of this question just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ,) the answer is no. In fact,…

Chocolate and cocoa polyphenols vindicated in the war against heart disease

(NaturalNews) Researchers from the University of Cambridge in England have finally published solid evidence to demonstrate the consumption of chocolate is associated with improved heart and vascular health. Writing in the prestigious BMJ (British Medical Journal) , Dr. Oscar Franco and his team determined several factors including diet, exercise, body weight control and lifestyle changes could help reduce the risk of heart disease, a condition expected to claim the lives of nearly 24 million people worldwide by the year 2030. The study authors found that the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of cocoa from chocolate consumption could reduce heart disease risk by one-third and could also reduce the risk of sudden death from a heart attack and stroke incidence. The study included an analysis of seven detailed research bodies that included more than 114,000 participants. All studies independently pointed to the conclusion that different levels of chocolate consumption were associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of cardio-metabolic disorders. Researchers found that the flavonoids passed to chocolate from the cocoa bean have a positive impact on health and were found to regulate insulin sensitivity and maintain blood pressure in the normal range. Researchers ranked chocolate consumption among participants in the seven studies from highest to lowest to determine the effect of the cocoa flavanols on human health risk factors. Five of the seven studies showed that eating the highest amount of chocolate significantly reduced the number of cardiac events. In particular they found those who ate the most chocolate had a 37% lower risk of having a cardiovascular incident compared to those who ate the least. When assessing other risk factors, the study authors found that the highest chocolate consumers had a 29% lower incidence of stroke compared to the lowest chocolate eaters. Interestingly the researchers found that high levels of chocolate consumption specifically lowered the risk of a cardiac or stroke event but did not impact heart failure, another very serious form of heart disease and death. The studies examined did not differentiate between milk and dark chocolate, and included chocolate desserts, biscuits, chocolate bars and drinks. Prior research has indicated maximum benefit from eating dark, bitter chocolate with a high cocoa content. The authors did provide a word of caution regarding excess consumption of chocolate particularly because commercially available chocolate is very caloric and eating too much of it could in itself lead to weight gain, risk of diabetes and heart disease. They concluded, “Based on observational evidence, levels of chocolate consumption seem to be associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of cardio-metabolic disorders.” Individuals looking to take advantage of the health benefits of chocolate may want to use a cacao bean extract supplement (25 to 50 mg per day) to reap the cardiovascular and stroke risk reduction benefits. Article References: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-08/esoc-io082811.php http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4488 http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Systematic-review-Chocolate-can-reduce-heart-disease-risk-by-a-third/ http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/233486.php

Scientists announce amazing findings: chocolate offers huge protection from heart disease and stroke

(NaturalNews) All regular readers of NaturalNews know that researchers have discovered chocolate (especially the organic, not junked up with additives and sugar type) contains phytochemicals which appear to promote good health. But no one has had much of a clue about the specifics of some of those benefits on the cardiovascular system — until now. Scientists at the European Society of Cardiology Congress currently underway in Paris just announced that chocolate provides huge protection from heart disease as well as stroke. That’s great news because, despite the billions of dollars spent on mainstream medicine’s drugs and surgical interventions, the battle against cardiovascular disease obviously needs some serious help. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) predicts that by 2030 nearly 23.6 million people will die yearly from heart disease. So just imagine the fluttering of hearts in Big Pharma offices if they found a no side effect, easy to produce drug that actually worked to lower the risk of developing heart disease in the first place by almost 40 percent. The demand and profits to be made would be enormous. While there is no such medication, it turns out that eating chocolate regularly appears to accomplish what pills can’t. For a new study, which was just published in the online version of the British Medical Journal , Dr. Oscar Franco and colleagues from the University of Cambridge carried out a large scale investigation of existing research on chocolate. In all, they looked at research involving over 100,000 participants with and without existing heart disease. Then the scientists evaluated the effects of eating chocolate on cardiovascular events including heart attacks and stroke. For each of seven studies that were analyzed, the research team compared the group with the highest chocolate consumption against the group with the lowest consumption (to minimize bias, they factored in differences in the way each study had been designed). Bottom line: the highest levels of chocolate consumption were associated with an astounding 37 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease and an almost 30 percent reduction in stroke compared with lowest levels of chocolate eating. The studies did not differentiate between dark or milk chocolate and included consumption of chocolate bars, drinks, biscuits and desserts — which raises an obvious question not answered by the new research analysis. Would the cardiovascular protection be even more pronounced if the chocolate didn’t include extra sugars, unhealthy fats or chemical additives found in many chocolate drinks and candy bars? The authors of the study did warn their findings need to be interpreted cautiously because commercially available chocolate products are often loaded with calories, so eating too much of these can lead to weight gain and be harmful to health in general. However, in a statement to the media, they concluded that given the health benefits of eating chocolate, “initiatives to reduce the current fat and sugar content in most chocolate products should be explored.” For more information: http://www.bmj.com/ http://www.naturalnews.com/chocolate.html

Rival journal attacks Lancet for publishing Wakefield MMR study

(NaturalNews) Efforts to discredit and destroy the work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the man responsible for raising awareness about the dangers of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) combo vaccine via the study he published in the late 1990s, continue with attacks now coming from rival medical journals. According to MedPage Today , the British Medical Journal (BMJ) recently went after The Lancet for ever publishing Wakefield’s work in the first place, even though such work was peer-reviewed and was conducted in a sound, scientific manner. Wakefield’s study on the correlation between the MMR combo vaccine and high cases of both gastrointestinal disorders and various autism-related symptoms was never well-received by the medical elite and the drug companies that control them. So over the years, these groups have worked not only to destroy Wakefield’s credibility by claiming he committed fraud, but also by targeting his entire career, which eventually led to the revocation of his medical license. Now, BMJ is accusing The Lancet of dragging its feet in investigating the claims made against Wakefield by Brian Deer, the now-infamous reporter from the U.K. Sunday Times that aggressively went after Wakefield’s work. According to the accusations, The Lancet allegedly failed to investigate the situation sooner and retract the paper in a timely manner. But if anything, the The Lancet began the retraction process too soon, having initiated a partial retraction less than three weeks after Deer’s abrupt accusations came forward. And recent documents have revealed that Deer’s accusations against Wakefield were false to begin with, and that Wakefield’s work had been verified and replicated by two other researchers more than a year before it was even published (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html). But the actual facts seem to be of little importance to the medical organizations and mainstream media outlets involved in the raging attack against Wakefield. Rather than carefully examine Wakefield’s study and the issues he raised, as well as the safety of the MMR combo vaccine and the implications of its widespread use, these agenda-driven groups continue to falsely slander him. To hear the truth for yourself, be sure to catch Mike Adams’ exclusive interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield that is soon to be posted at www.NaturalNews.tv. Sources for this story include: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/24411

False Foundations of Science: Can Vaccine Studies Be Trusted?

(NaturalNews) Many “scientific” studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218,28] published a paper showing that one-third of “highly cited original clinical research studies” were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded, or were exaggerated. It is not unusual for the “science” of today to degenerate into tomorrow’s fiction. Vaccine studies are often funded by vaccine manufacturers. The lead authors of important studies that will be used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is an acceptable practice, condoned by the CDC and FDA. Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines “resulted in a significant positive association with tics” and “increased risks of language delay.” In other words, babies that received two or more vaccines containing mercury showed signs of neurological damage. This crucial information can be found in the body of the study. However, the authors concluded that “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” Sadly, the media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions. Often, important information is missing from a study. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine [2007;356:1915-27] published a paper on the HPV vaccine. It concluded that the vaccine “was highly effective” even though data in the study showed that vaccine efficacy was just 17% against high-grade cervical lesions. However, truly vital information that would help families to make informed vaccine decisions was never mentioned in the paper. A secret FDA study [VRBPAC Meeting: May 18, 2006] had already found that the HPV vaccine may “enhance cervical disease” in girls who are sexually active prior to vaccination. In other words, the vaccine seems to work best in virgins and may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer if she was previously exposed through sexual intercourse to HPV strains included in the vaccine. In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public. At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia [June 2000], CDC and FDA authorities knew that mercury in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof: a comprehensive study conducted by the CDC itself. However, instead of making this important information public, they hatched a plan to produce additional “studies” that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in some of these papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn’t hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is nonsense. Numerous real studies document mercury’s destructive effect on brain development and behavior. Another ploy used by vaccine proponents is to design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people. Honest studies would compare them to an un vaccinated population. In addition, vaccine control groups rarely receive a true placebo, which should be a harmless substance. The scientific method has always been predicated upon removing all potentially confounding influences. However, many vaccine studies do not conform to this integral component of valid research. This is an important concept to grasp. For example, when a new vaccine is being tested for safety, one group may receive the new vaccine which contains an attenuated virus and an aluminum adjuvant while the “control” group receives an injection of aluminum as well (rather than water or another harmless substance). When vaccines are compared in this way, that is, to other substances that are capable of causing adverse reactions, the vaccine appears safer than it really is. Whenever this deceptive tactic is utilized, officially acknowledged adverse reactions to a vaccine may represent only a fraction of the true potential risks to the recipient. It should also be noted that some clinical studies that are used to license vaccines exclude people in certain groups. For example, they may be too young, too old, pregnant, ill, or have other preexisting health ailments. However, once the vaccine is licensed, it may be recommended for people in these groups. Much like using false placebos, this unethical practice artificially inflates the vaccine’s safety profile and places more people at risk for adverse reactions. Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal [1999;319:1133.] and Autoimmunity [2002;35(4):247-53] published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barre syndrome — a serious paralytic disease — is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. These are just a few of the many scientifically documented correlations between vaccines and incapacitating ailments that I will discuss in upcoming articles. To learn more about vaccines, read the Vaccine Safety Manual : www.VacBook.com and visit the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute: www.ThinkTwice.com

New animation reveals the truth about statin drugs and their dangerous side effects

(NaturalNews) We’ve just released a new, short animation exposing the truth about the dangers of statin drugs. Called “The Truth About Statin Drugs,” this public service announcement animation quotes research published in the British Medical Journal which reveals that statin drugs cause liver dysfunction, acute kidney failure, cataracts and extreme muscle weakness, among other serious side effects. The animation video is available on www.NaturalNews.TV at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=2D691570EF29BA0517C767D6ED6667C0 I created this public service video with the help of a voice talent professional who did the narration voiceover. The character “hmmm?” sound effect is actually my own voice. This was animated by our in-house animator who also animated the Vaccine Zombie music video (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6D05173308E7F4169D7259EB85CDF522). People don’t realize how dangerous statin drugs can really be The reason I chose to produce this animation is because so many people are on statin drugs and yet they have no idea how harmful they are . I work out quite a bit, and recently at the gym, I saw three guys working out in a mini boot camp style, and one of the guys just couldn’t hack it. Even though he looked fit, he was completely fatigued after just a few minutes of exercise, he collapsed onto the floor, exhausted. I immediately suspected this was a statin drug reaction, so I walked over to the guy and asked him if he was taking statins for high cholesterol. He look at me with bewilderment, and then answered, “Yes, I’m on a prescription recommended by my doctor.” To that, I asked, “Are you aware that the statin drugs are most likely the cause of your fatigue and exhaustion? They cause extreme muscle weakness as one of their side effects.” The guy seemed astonished. He had never heard that before. Most people have never heard that. Doctors have rarely heard it , too. (They don’t often know the side effects of the drugs they prescribe!) That’s the point of this animation: To get people to think about what they swallow . Gulping down synthetic chemicals is not the pathway to health. It’s actually a pathway to ongoing disease and medical victimization by Big Pharma and the conventional medical industry. High cholesterol can be very easily normalized through simple changes in diet and exercise, with no dangerous chemical medications needed! Please share this animation with others. Spread the word about the dangers of statin drugs, and help encourage people to use healing foods , not dangerous chemicals, to support their health. We have more animations on the way from NaturalNews! And thank you for your continued support of our website, our store and our sponsors. It is your support that allows us to hire an in-house animator and produce these kinds of public service announcement animations. Lots more to come!

Statin drugs cause liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts, says BMJ

(NaturalNews) Cholesterol-lowering statin drugs significantly increase a person’s risk of cataracts, muscle weakness, liver dysfunction and kidney failure, according to a study in the British Medical Journal . The study also confirmed that the drugs lower the risk of heart disease and esophageal cancer, but claims of other health benefits were unsupported. Researchers from Nottingham University in the United Kingdom examined data on more than 2 million patients between the ages of 30 and 84, seen at 38 different general practices, who had been prescribed the cholesterol-lowering drugs. More than 70 percent were taking simvastatin (Zocor), 22.3 percent were taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), 3.6 percent were taking pravastatin (Pravachol, Selektine), 1.9 percent were taking rosuvastatin (Crestor) and 1.4 percent were taking fluvastatin (Canef, Lescol, Lochol, Vastin). The researchers confirmed prior data suggesting that statins increase patients’ risk of cataracts, liver dysfunction, kidney failure and a form of muscle weakness known as myopathy. They found that for every 10,000 women treated with the drugs, 23 would develop acute kidney (renal) failure, 39 would develop myopathy, 74 would develop liver dysfunction and 309 would develop cataracts. Men suffered an even higher risk of myopathy, but their risks of the other three conditions were similar to those suffered by women. Putting it in different terms, the researchers found that only 434 people would need to be treated with the drugs for five years for one case of acute renal failure to develop. It would take only 136 treated for each case of liver dysfunction and 33 for each case of cataracts. Among women, 259 would need to be treated for each case of myopathy; among men, the number was only 91. The risk of developing all conditions was highest during the first year of treatment, but continued throughout the course of the study. Risk of liver and kidney problems increased proportionally with the dose of statins being taken. All drugs appeared to pose a similar risk of all conditions, with the exception of fluvastatin, which increased the risk of liver dysfunction more than its competitors. Men taking fluvastatin were twice as likely to develop liver dysfunction as those not taking statins, while women’s risk increased by 2.5 times. The researchers did find, however, that the risk of cataracts returned to normal within one year of stopping statin treatment, while the risk of liver and kidney problems returned to normal within one to three years. Additionally, they found no connection between statin use and the risk of dementia, osteoporotic fracture, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis or venous thromboembolism. Examining the purported benefits of the drugs, researchers found that they did in fact lower the risk of heart disease, averting 271 cases for every 10,000 high-risk patients treated. Put another way, 33 high-risk men or 37 high-risk women would need to be treated with the drugs to avert one case of the disease. Although advocates of the drugs have claimed that they may also reduce the risk cancer, the researchers found almost no data supporting these claims. The study “largely confirmed other studies that reported no clear association between statins and risk of cancers,” the researchers wrote. The only cancer-fighting effect uncovered in the study was a slightly lower risk of esophageal cancer, with eight cases averted for every 10,000 high-risk women treated. In other words, 1,266 high-risk women or 1,082 high-risk men would need to be treated with the drugs to prevent one case of esophageal cancer. Although sales of the blockbuster drugs are unlikely to be reduced as a result of the study, the researchers encouraged closer monitoring of patients for side effects and said their findings “would tend to support a policy of using lower doses of statins in people at high risk of the adverse event.” Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J7B820100520; http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Atherosclerosis/20232.

Metformin causes vitamin B12 deficiency

(NaturalNews) Long-term use of the popular diabetes drug metformin (originally marketed as Glucophage) may cause patients to develop a steadily worsening vitamin B12 deficiency, Dutch scientists have found. “Our study shows that this decrease is not a transitory phenomenon, but persists and grows over time,” wrote the Maastricht University Medical Center researchers in the British Medical Journal . This is an issue of particular concern given the prevalence of diabetes and the popularity of metformin as a treatment. “Metformin is considered a cornerstone in the treatment of diabetes and is the most frequently prescribed first line therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote. “In addition, it is one of a few … associated with improvements in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which is a major cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes.” Earlier, short-term studies had found that use of the drug might lead to insufficient levels of the vitamin in the body. The new study confirmed this trend over the long term. “Metformin does … induce vitamin B12 malabsorption, which may increase the risk of developing vitamin B12 deficiency — a clinically important and treatable condition,” the researchers wrote. The researchers assigned 390 Type 2 diabetes patients at the outpatient clinics of three nonacademic hospitals to take either metformin or a placebo pill three times per day for more than four years. The average study participant had been diagnosed with diabetes 13 years prior and had been undergoing insulin treatment for seven years. Average participant age was 61. Among those taking metformin, vitamin B12 levels began to steadily drop relative to those who were taking a placebo pill. The biggest drop occurred in the first few months, but the decrease continued over the course of the study. After four years, participants in the metformin group had undergone a 19 percent relative reduction in their levels of the nutrient. They were 11.2 percent more likely than placebo participants to suffer from B12 insufficiency and 7.2 percent more likely to suffer from deficiency. For every 8.9 patients treated with metformin, one would develop insufficient vitamin B12 levels. This increased risk remained after researchers adjusted for other risk factors including age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, sex, smoking status and previous treatment with metformin. “Our study shows that it is reasonable to assume harm will eventually occur in some patients with metformin-induced low vitamin B12 levels,” the researchers wrote. The researchers found that metformin seems to inhibit the intestine’s absorption of vitamin B12. Fortunately, calcium supplements appear to reverse this effect. Vitamin B12 is critical for maintaining nerve and red blood cell health. It can be found in animal products, nutritional yeast and fortified breakfast cereals. Symptoms of deficiency include anemia, fatigue, nerve damage and cognitive changes. Because similar symptoms often occur in diabetics and the elderly, deficiency may be hard to detect in such populations. Yet while B12 deficiency can carry severe consequences, it is relatively easy to correct with supplementation. The researchers suggested that all patients taking metformin have their vitamin B12 levels tested regularly to avoid potentially severe consequences. “Vitamin B-12 deficiency is preventable; therefore, our findings suggest that regular measurement of vitamin B-12 concentrations during long-term metformin treatment should be strongly considered.” the researchers wrote. Nearly 11 percent of the U.S. population, or 24 million people, suffer from diabetes. Of these 5.7 million are undiagnosed. In addition, 57 million people in the United States alone are estimated to be pre-diabetic, or at imminent risk of developing the disease. Worldwide, an estimated 246 million people suffer from the disease. Prevalence is only expected to increase as the spreading Western diet and lifestyle lead to increasing rates of obesity. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J7BF20100520; http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722267; http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/20220.

Next Page »