Big pharma ‘research’ suggests all people over 50 should take statins every day for life

Big pharma propaganda has reached a new height in the UK this week, with the release of a new study that appears to show the benefits of taking statins. The report goes on to claim that everyone over 50 years of age should be taking the drug on a daily basis, for the…

Big Pharma wants you hooked on these six pharmaceuticals for life

It is a known fact that the drug industry makes a whole lot more money on pharmaceuticals that patients must take perpetually for chronic conditions, rather than on those they take occasionally for isolated illnesses. This is why Big Pharma has worked hard over the years…

ATM (Zithromax) For Sale

ATM (Zithromax) For Sale, Beginning March 1, 2012, the controversial painkiller drug OxyContin (oxycodone) will no longer be available for prescription in Canada. Numerous media sources report that Health Canada has officially nixed the drug, ATM (Zithromax) no rx, Australia, uk, us, usa, which is an opioid-based drug similar to heroin, because.., ATM (Zithromax) alternatives. ATM (Zithromax) from canadian pharmacy,

See the original post:
Health professionals anticipate extremely dangerous mass withdrawals as Canadian OxyContin ban takes effect
. Buy ATM (Zithromax) without a prescription. ATM (Zithromax) class. Buy generic ATM (Zithromax). Where to buy ATM (Zithromax). Discount ATM (Zithromax). ATM (Zithromax) from mexico. ATM (Zithromax) forum. Buy ATM (Zithromax) from canada. ATM (Zithromax) without a prescription. ATM (Zithromax) used for. Where can i cheapest ATM (Zithromax) online. ATM (Zithromax) street price. Effects of ATM (Zithromax). ATM (Zithromax) schedule. ATM (Zithromax) interactions. Herbal ATM (Zithromax). Buy ATM (Zithromax) online no prescription. Comprar en línea ATM (Zithromax), comprar ATM (Zithromax) baratos. Online buying ATM (Zithromax). Is ATM (Zithromax) safe. ATM (Zithromax) recreational. Online ATM (Zithromax) without a prescription. Order ATM (Zithromax) online overnight delivery no prescription. ATM (Zithromax) samples. Order ATM (Zithromax) from mexican pharmacy. Cheap ATM (Zithromax). Purchase ATM (Zithromax) online. Buy ATM (Zithromax) no prescription. About ATM (Zithromax). Order ATM (Zithromax) online c.o.d. Where can i order ATM (Zithromax) without prescription.

Similar posts: Buy Azibiot (Zithromax) Without Prescription. Prosteride (Propecia) For Sale. Finara (Propecia) For Sale. Finara (Propecia) use. What is z-pak (Zithromax). Purchase Actimoxi (Amoxicillin).
Trackbacks from: ATM (Zithromax) For Sale. ATM (Zithromax) For Sale. ATM (Zithromax) For Sale. Purchase ATM (Zithromax) online. ATM (Zithromax) cost. Purchase ATM (Zithromax).

Woman disabled by antibiotic taken for a simple chest infection

A patient suffering from a chest infection, and given antibiotics, claims she is now incapacitated due to the side effects of the drug that should have cured her condition. Within three days of being prescribed ciprofloxacin the housewife complained of extreme tightness…

Want to end Mexican drug gang violence? Legalize drugs and the cartels will collapse

Rather than curb their prolific use and propagation around the world, the global “war on drugs” has actually made the drug problem worse. According to the latest statistics, drug use around the world is on the rise in almost every category, despite the numerous anti…

FDA withdraws approval for breast cancer drug Avastin after declaring it medically useless, but says doctors can still prescribe it

(NaturalNews) Several years after declaring it to be not only medically useless but also dangerous, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has officially withdrawn approval for the $100,000 breast cancer drug Avastin. In a statement, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said that Avastin has never been proven to be safe or effective, but also in the same breath noted that doctors can still prescribe the drug if they feel like it. “FDA recognizes how hard it is for patients and their families to cope with metastatic breast cancer and how great a need there is for more effective treatments,” Hamburg is quoted as saying by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review . “But patients must have confidence that the drugs they take are both safe and effective for their intended use.” After being rapidly approved for use by the FDA back in 2007, Avastin quickly generated more than $1.7 billion for its producer Genentech within the first year. When the FDA finally got around to actually reviewing the drug after approving it, though, the agency discovered that Avastin does not lengthen the lives of breast cancer patients, and that it carries with it severe side effects that include death (http://www.naturalnews.com/023524_drug_avastin_cancer.html). In her 69-page report on Avastin, Hamburg wrote that Avastin’s side effects include high blood pressure, bleeding, heart attack or heart failure, and the development of perforations in the nose, stomach and intestines. In at least one case, a patient taking Avastin has died from infection. But the way the FDA is handling the situation shows how blatantly biased it is towards the drug industry. Avastin was proven dangerous and ineffective several years ago, but the FDA allowed it to remain on the market. Now, it has decided to withdraw approval for Avastin, but is still allowing it to remain on the market. If Avastin had been a dietary supplement in the same predicament, the agency would have immediately withdrawn its approval (if it would have approved it in the first place), and demanded that it be removed from the market. The agency likely would have also shut down Avastin’s manufacturer, as it has done a lot worse to supplement companies that produce safe and effective natural treatments. Sources for this article include: http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=11921&Section=Disease

FDA withdraws approval for breast cancer drug Avastin after declaring it medically useless, but says doctors can still prescribe it

(NaturalNews) Several years after declaring it to be not only medically useless but also dangerous, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has officially withdrawn approval for the $100,000 breast cancer drug Avastin. In a statement, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said that Avastin has never been proven to be safe or effective, but also in the same breath noted that doctors can still prescribe the drug if they feel like it. “FDA recognizes how hard it is for patients and their families to cope with metastatic breast cancer and how great a need there is for more effective treatments,” Hamburg is quoted as saying by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review . “But patients must have confidence that the drugs they take are both safe and effective for their intended use.” After being rapidly approved for use by the FDA back in 2007, Avastin quickly generated more than $1.7 billion for its producer Genentech within the first year. When the FDA finally got around to actually reviewing the drug after approving it, though, the agency discovered that Avastin does not lengthen the lives of breast cancer patients, and that it carries with it severe side effects that include death (http://www.naturalnews.com/023524_drug_avastin_cancer.html). In her 69-page report on Avastin, Hamburg wrote that Avastin’s side effects include high blood pressure, bleeding, heart attack or heart failure, and the development of perforations in the nose, stomach and intestines. In at least one case, a patient taking Avastin has died from infection. But the way the FDA is handling the situation shows how blatantly biased it is towards the drug industry. Avastin was proven dangerous and ineffective several years ago, but the FDA allowed it to remain on the market. Now, it has decided to withdraw approval for Avastin, but is still allowing it to remain on the market. If Avastin had been a dietary supplement in the same predicament, the agency would have immediately withdrawn its approval (if it would have approved it in the first place), and demanded that it be removed from the market. The agency likely would have also shut down Avastin’s manufacturer, as it has done a lot worse to supplement companies that produce safe and effective natural treatments. Sources for this article include: http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=11921&Section=Disease

Online database lets you research the side effects of common psychiatric drugs

(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen a commercial for a pharmaceutical drug, you are probably familiar with the long list of dangerous side effects that are rattled off in the last five seconds of the advertisement, just after viewers are told how Drug “X” is going to save their lives, improve their memories or give them unlimited energy. What was that? Did he just say that pill might cause bleeding out of my eyes? Drug companies do a great job – and spend a lot of money – to ensure that most consumers aren’t aware of the harmful side effects of common drugs prescribed for conditions like depression, heart disease, arthritis, ADHD or high blood pressure. Unfortunately, the result of this has created a society where the average person with a health problem is captivated by the promises delivered in clever advertising. There is a drug for everything? All I have to do is talk to my doctor? How convenient. But what if there was a way to take back control of our lives and our health? What if, despite talking to your doctor, you still have questions or concerns about the safety of a drug? The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) has a database that allows you to do just that. It’s called the Psychiatric Drug Database, and it allows consumers to research the potential side effects of common psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin or Wellbutrin. While the database is limited to psychiatric drugs, this type of public information portal represents a significant step in the right direction to help patients find unbiased information and make informed decisions about their health. The database allows you to search by drug and will retrieve information about adverse reactions reported by patients who have taken the drug, international warnings and studies that have been done on the drug and what side effects different age groups or genders have experienced. For example, a search of the effects of Ritalin on 18-30 year old women retrieved 89 reported cases of adverse side effects. These effects including anxiety, fatigue, hypertension, tremors, chest discomfort, nausea, panic attacks, cardiac murmurs, aggression, suicide attempts and completed suicides. The results are broken down by case and list specific symptoms and reactions caused by the drug in each reported case. Another search of Zoloft and its effects on young children included cases of cerebral disorders, upper respiratory tract infections, sleep disorders, vertigo, hallucinations, psychomotor hyperactivity and suicidal ideation. The database only includes information on cases that were actually reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System between 2004 and 2008. Based on the FDA’s own estimates, only about 1 to 10 percent of adverse drug side effects are even reported to the FDA. The CCHR’s database, therefore, represents only a small margin of the population that has been affected by adverse side effects of pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs. Visitors to the site will also notice an interesting anecdote that describes how the definition of poison – a substance that causes death or harm when consumed by a living organism – clearly characterizes the drugs listed in the database. Consumers are encouraged to research potential problems of a drug before agreeing with their doctors to start a course of therapy. To find more information about a particular drug, visit www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers Sources for this article include http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/

Former TSA agent pleads guilty to assisting criminals in smuggling cash, drugs through security

(NaturalNews) A 43-year-old former US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent who was arrested back in March on charges of aiding a drug smuggling ring has pleaded guilty, according to reports. Minetta Walker says she knowingly assisted criminals in evading airport security, and helped them sneak drug money onto flights. Walker worked as a TSA “behavioral detection officer” at Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BNIA) until March 1, 2011, when she was arrested on suspected drug activity. As a behavioral detection officer, Walker was in charge of monitoring the airport and looking for suspicious activity, and was allowed unrestricted access to all areas of the airport (http://www.naturalnews.com/031614_TSA_drug_smuggling.html). As it turns out, Walker was the embodiment of the very criminal activity that she was tasked with monitoring, having admitted in a federal court that she assisted 30-year-old Derek Frank in avoiding naked body scanners, pat downs, and other airport security protocols that might have exposed his drug activities. According to a recent report in the UK’s Daily Mail , Frank has been accused of regularly flying from Buffalo to Arizona to purchase marijuana, where he sent it back to Buffalo to be sold. While traveling, he carried with him large sums of drug money. However, Frank has pleaded not guilty to these charges. The only reason Walker’s participation in such illegal activities was even brought to light in the first place was due to a drug monitoring program that had been established a year earlier, which effectively traced the movements and mobile phone activities of the drug ring back to Walker’s airport shenanigans. Reports indicate that Walker has been charged with conspiring to defraud the United States and evading airport security requirements. She could face up to five years in prison if convicted, and Frank could face 20 years to life if convicted. Sources for this story include: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031282/Female-TSA-agent-repeatedly-helped-drug-dealer-sneak-security.html

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg pushing to eliminate conflict of interest laws, allow paid drug company shills to fill advisory positions

(NaturalNews) At a time when drug industry corruption is reaching a pinnacle of public exposure, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actually proposing eliminating one of the few pseudo-effective measures in place that restricts the agency from becoming a full-blown Big Pharma “rubber stamp” consultant. In a recent announcement, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg stated that the agency may next year loosen certain conflict of interest restrictions that prevent scientists with financial ties to the drug industry from becoming members of FDA advisory panels. There are 45 different FDA advisory committees that, according to the FDA’s own website, are supposed to obtain “independent expert advice on scientific, technical, and policy matters.” In other words, these panels are purportedly to be composed of objective, unbiased individuals that do not have financial or other ties to the very companies about which they are advising. Makes sense, right? Well, in the eyes of Commissioner Hamburg, these common sense restrictions, which at least give the illusion that the FDA conducts honest regulatory work on behalf of the people, are unreasonable and must be eliminated. Hamburg apparently believes that drug industry-funded “scientists” are vital to the FDA’s work, having stated publicly that allowing Big Pharma shills to serve on advisory committees is essential if the agency is to get the information it needs to make decisions. “We have to be sure that FDA has subject-matter experts that we need for our important decision making,” stated Hamburg. But expecting to receive “independent expert advice” from industry-sponsored consultants posing as scientists rather than actual independent scientists, however, is the epitome of inane — and this is precisely what Hamburg is suggesting as a correct form of FDA policy. Does the FDA have the power to change its own regulatory restrictions? Aside from Hamburg’s senseless and illogical opinions about how best to obtain crucial decision-making information, the other glaring elephant in the room is the fact that the FDA can apparently change its own regulatory restrictions at will. What is the point of an agency having conflict of interest restrictions placed on it when that very same agency can simply change them when they are no longer convenient? Last time we checked, Congress was still in charge of creating and passing laws, not the FDA. But Commissioner Hamburg seems quite sure of herself, presumably because of expressed congressional support, that the FDA’s conflict of interest laws will soon be history. And it appears, based on the FDA’s released draft guidance, that the FDA is actually the one in charge of amending its own policies (http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126832.htm). The FDA claims that it needs to loosen or eliminate the conflict of interest policies from its advisory committee procedures because it is unable to find enough members to serve on its committees. According to a recent Bloomberg report, only 77 percent of FDA advisory committee positions were filled as of March 2011, which leaves 138 vacant positions out of 608 total. But if the FDA is having a hard time filling these positions, perhaps it would do best to begin looking for eligible candidates in other places. And Robert Weissman, president of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, agrees, having stated that the rules should not change because the FDA is unable, or unwilling, to find independent scientists to fill its ranks. “We need strong protection rather than less,” state Weissman, following Hamburg’s statements to his group about needed to relax or change the law. A study published back in March by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine discredits the FDA’s claim, having found that about 44 percent of cardiologists have no ties to the drug industry. Eric Campbell, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and one of the study’s authors, stated that the study “flat out dismisses this idea that there are no experts who don’t have relationships,” a claim being made by the FDA in support of its proposed new guidelines (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-fda-bias-idUSTRE7703R320110801). “There are lots of people out there who are smart and who don’t have conflicts of interest,” said Sid Wolfe, also with Public Citizen. “It just takes much more work for the FDA to find them. But the result is you have much less tainting of the panel discussion.” Tell the FDA to do its job, not tailor laws to suit the agenda of special interests According to the FDA’s draft guidance, the agency published a final rule on February 2, 1998, requiring clinical investigators who submit marketing applications for drugs or medical devices to also disclose whether or not they have financial ties to the companies who make the products they reviewed. Current guidelines also limit who can serve on advisory committee positions. Both of these policies can work, at least as long as the FDA is willing to put in the work necessary to find qualified individuals who are not on the payrolls of drug and medical device companies. But the agency is demonstrating a pure unwillingness to do this, and instead is planning to cave to the drug industry and to certain lawmakers who are pushing to have the law amended instead. Though the official comment period for the FDA’s proposed new guidance for financial disclosure by clinical investigators ended on July 25, it is still crucial to contact the FDA and tell it to stop catering to special interests, and to leave be the conflict of interest policies that help preserve what little integrity remains in the agency’s advisory committee process. You can contact the FDA to oppose the new draft guidance by writing to: Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 10-61 Rockville, MD 20857 Or calling: (888) 463-6332 Be sure to reference Docket No. FDA-1999-D-0792 To contact FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg directly, you can call her: (301) 796-5000 Or email her: Office: Margaret.Hamburg@fda.hhs.gov Personal: margaretahamburg@aol.com You can also contact your representatives by visiting: http://www.congress.org Sources for this story include: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/24/2011-12623/draft-guidance-for-clinical-investigators-industry-and-fda-staff-financial-disclosure-by-clinical http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/conflict-of-interest-rules-may-be-relaxed-in-2012-hamburg-says.html

Next Page »