HPV vaccines (Gardasil) now pushed onto boys in Canada

There is still a whole lot of money to be made from pushing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines on young people around the world. But in order to accomplish this, the market for the vaccines, which include Merck & Co.’s Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix, must be…

Fiji government bans all non-fluoridated toothpastes, threatens legal action against anyone who violates new restrictions

Health freedom in the South Pacific nation of Fiji has taken an extreme turn for the worst with newly enacted government legislation that has banned the market and sale of any toothpastes that do not contain added fluoride chemicals. The Fiji Times reports that, effective…

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it to be not only medically useless but also dangerous, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has officially withdrawn approval for the $100,000 breast cancer drug Avastin.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

Wall Street trader stuns world by telling the truth about coming economic collapse

(NaturalNews) In a BBC interview aired last week, Wall Street trader Alessio Rastani stunned the world by actually telling the truth. Notice that he hasn’t been asked back for any interviews? Watch the full interview on NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5EB5AE1587E1511154FCBF8366BD15EC Here’s the complete transcript: Alessio Rastani: : …it’s gonna crash and it’s gonna fall pretty hard. Because markets are ruled right now by fear. Investors and the big money, the smart money …I’m talking about the big funds, the hedge funds, the institutions, they don’t buy this rescue plan. They basically know that the market is toast. They know that the stock market is finished, the Euro as far as they’re concerned they don’t really care, they’re moving their money away to safer assets like Treasury bonds, 30 year bonds, and the US dollar. So it’s not gonna work. Maxine Croxall: : We keep hearing that whatever the politicians are suggesting — it’s all been rather wooly — isn’t right. Can you pin down exactly what would keep investors happy, make them feel more confident? Alessio Rastani: : Ah, that’s a tough one. Personally, it doesn’t matter. I’m a trader, I don’t really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that. So for most traders we don’t really care that much how they’re going to fix the economy, how they’re going to fix the whole situation. Our job is to make money from it and personally I’ve been dreaming of this moment for three years. Personally, I have a confession to make, I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. I dream of another moment like this. Why? Because people don’t seem to maybe remember, but the ’30′s depression, the Depression of the ’30′s wasn’t just about a market crash. There were some people who were prepared to make money from that crash and I think anybody can do that. It isn’t just for some people in the elite, anybody can actually make money, it’s an opportunity. When the market crashes, when the Euro and the big stock markets crash, if you know what to do, if you have the right plan to set up you can make a lot of money from this. For example, hedging strategies is one, then investing in bonds, Treasury bonds that sort of stuff. Maxine Croxall: : If you could see the people around me, jaws have collectively dropped at what you’ve just said. I mean we appreciate your candor, but it doesn’t help the rest of us does it, or the rest of the Eurozone. Alessio Rastani: : I will say this, listen. I would say this to everybody who’s watching this, this economic crisis is like a cancer. If you just wait and wait thinking this is going to go away, just like a cancer it’s gonna grow and it will be too late. What I would say to everybody is get prepared. This is not a time right now to wishful think that the Government is going to sort things out. The Governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world. Goldman Sachs does not care about this rescue package neither does the big funds. So actually, I would actually tell people, I want to help people. People can make money from this, it isn’t just traders. What they need to do is learn about how to make money from a downward market. The first thing people should do is protect their assets, protect what they have because in less than 12 months, my prediction is that savings of millions of people is gonna vanish and this is just the beginning . So I would say, be prepared and act now. The biggest risk people can take right now is not acting. Maxine Croxall: : Alessio Rastani thank you very much for talking with us. Watch the full interview at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5EB5AE1587E1511154FCBF8366BD15EC

US to break record number of solar panel installations in 2011

(NaturalNews) Solar technology has made tremendous advances in recent years, which has in turn prompted significant growth in commercial and residential photovoltaic (PV) panel installations. And for the first time in history, the US solar panel market will exceed one gigawatt (GW) in new PV energy production during a single year, according to recent report by Greentech Media . In 2010, the US reached 887 megawatts (MW) in new PV panel installations. But that rate is expected to more than double by the end of 2011. Forecasts project that a whopping 1.8 GW in new PV panel installations will have taken place by the start of 2012 — and by the end of 2012, that amount is expected to more than double again, topping four GW of new PV installations. “On the whole, the US is currently the PV industry’s most attractive and stable growth market,” said Shayle Kann, Managing Director of Solar at GTM Research, which publishes the quarterly Solar Market Insight Report that unveiled the new data. “This is reflected in our report’s quarterly market data and in the comments from global suppliers, distributors, and developers, all of who see the US positioned to nearly double its global market share in 2011 and support a greater diversity of installation types than has previously been seen in any leading demand center.” Germany and Italy are currently the world leaders in solar energy production, but the US is quickly shaping up to earn a spot in this top tier of alternative energy-producing countries as well. And with advances being made to reduce overall production and maintenance costs of PV cells, more homeowners than ever will be able to afford them. Back in 2010, for instance, researchers from the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) developed a new type of PV solar panel that performs at roughly 90 percent quantum efficiency. And because the technology uses only two percent semiconductors (the most expensive aspect of solar panels) and 98 percent plastic, the new panels are set to cost far less than those currently on the market (http://www.naturalnews.com/028691_solar_cells_efficiency.html). Also in 2010, scientists from the University of Southern California developed flexible, “organic” solar cells that cost less to produce than traditional solar cells, and that can be used in a wider variety of applications thanks to their pliable design (http://www.naturalnews.com/029347_organic_solar_cells.html). Sources for this story include: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/America-Finally-Joins-the-1-Gigawatt-PV-Club/

FDA approved Big Pharma drugs without effectiveness data

(NaturalNews) Consumers constantly are told how complicated it is to get a new drug on the market. After all, researchers have to jump through all sorts of hoops to assure safety before new therapies are approved for the public, right? It turns out they may be missing some of those hoops or not jumping through some of the most important ones. In fact, huge red flags are being raised about how drugs are tested and approved in two new studies, including one just published in the May 4th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ). A case in point: it turns out that only about half of the new prescription medications pushed onto the market over the last decade had the proper data together for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – yet the FDA approved them anyhow. The information in question is known specifically as comparative effectiveness data . And it is – or should be – a very big deal when it comes to deciding whether a drug should be approved and sold to the public. According to the Institute of Medicine, comparative effectiveness data is defined as the “generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care.” In other words, how does a new drug stack up against other treatments – is it more beneficial, safer, or does it have more potential dangers? Comparative effectiveness information on drugs is especially important when doctors are making decisions about whether to prescribe a med, and to whom, soon after a drug is approved. That’s because when Big Pharma medications first hit the market, physicians are relying on what drug companies and the FDA tell them about a medication. It takes a while for real life reports to come in as people report reactions, side effects (including deaths related to a drug) to become clearer. Also, there are usually not data from large head-to-head trials comparing multiple treatments available when a medication first hits the marketplace. “Comparative effectiveness is taking on an increasingly important role in U.S. health care, yet little is known about the availability of comparative efficacy data for drugs at the time of their approval in the United States,” according to background information in the new JAMA study. It’s not like there’s not money to come up with this information, either. In 2009, Congress allocated $1.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to comparative effectiveness research. For the JAMA study, researcher Nikolas H. Goldberg and colleagues from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, investigated the proportion of recently approved drugs that had comparative efficacy data available at the time they were authorized by the FDA to be sold in the U.S. They also examined the availability of this information over time and by therapeutic indication by checking out approval packages publicly available through the online database of drug products (dubbed new molecular entities, NMEs, for short) approved by FDA between 2000 and 2010. The researchers found that only about half of 197 eligible approved NMEs between 2000 and 2010 had comparative efficacy data available at the time they were approved to be marketed. Meanwhile, another recent study throws needed light on the limited data behind the safety and effectiveness of some Big Pharma drugs. Research led jointly by Alexander Tsai of Harvard University and Nicholas Rosenlicht of the University of California San Francisco just published in PLoS Medicine zeroed in on the medication aripiprazole, which is prescribed treating bipolar disorder. How was this powerful drug deemed safe and effective? Amazingly, the research team found the only evidence for the use of this medication came from a single trial. And, as they described in their paper, the scientists found key limitations of the drug study that clearly skewed the findings so they appear to support the use of aripiprazole for bipolar disorder. Did this stop the FDA from approving the drug? No way. And neither did the fact that this single, poorly designed trial was sponsored by the drug manufacturer who produces aripiprazole. For more information: http://www.plos.org/ http://pubs.ama-assn.org/

GSK study suggests its antidepressant drugs cause suicidal tendencies

(NaturalNews) A new study released by drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) suggests that its very own antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is linked to an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and tendencies among adult patients. The findings appear to confirm those of previous studies and cases that have linked selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) like Paxil to suicides, suicide attempts, and even murders (http://www.naturalnews.com/019342.html). Published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry , the GSK study reveals a nearly sevenfold increase in suicide attempts among those taking Paxil versus those taking a placebo. In clinical trials, 0.34 percent of participants taking Paxil attempted suicide, while only 0.05 percent of those taking a placebo did. Besides increasing the risk of suicidal tendencies, a GSK study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in early 2010 showed that Paxil does not even appear to work as intended in patients with varying levels depression (http://www.naturalnews.com/027962_Paxil_antidepressants.html). Combine this with the fact that Paxil technically makes depression symptoms worse by causing more suicides and suicide attempts, and you are left asking how or why this drug ended up on the market in the first place. GSK has known since at least 2006 that Paxil is linked to increased suicide risk, and yet the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to allow the ineffective, harmful drug to remain on the market. Sure, the agency has upped its warning labels over the years, but based on the drug’s safety and performance record, is there any legitimate reason for it to even be on the market in the first place? The FDA first modified warning labels for Paxil in 2004 after suicide rates among children taking the drug was found to be twice as high as it was among those not taking Paxil. In 2006, the FDA extended the warning to include adults up to age 25. Today, the drug carries a “black box” warning for everyone that says it may increase risk of suicide. A 2009 study published in the online journal PLoS One revealed that among 832 different drugs, which represent 99 percent of the total suicide-related events reported in the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS), Paxil was the worst of all. Among the 27,012 adverse events reported for suicide attempts between 2004 and 2008, 1,323, or 4.9 percent, were linked to Paxil (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007312). Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-suicidal-thoughts-antidepressants-idUSTRE72U4EW20110331

The market for organic food products in Europe

The market for organic food products in Europe The market for organic food products in Europe List Price: Price: 199.0

Monsanto’s super GMO corn fails

(NaturalNews) The tides may be turning for agri-giant Monsanto, the multi-national company most recognized for the propagation of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) around the world. According to a recent New York Times article, Monsanto’s new “SmartStax” variety of GMO corn has failed miserably, and the company’s stock prices have plummeted by nearly 50 percent since the beginning of 2010. Until recently, Monsanto’s stock value had been steadily rising since 2008, but as its new GMO varieties have failed to live up to expectations, share prices and profits have been plummeting. SmartStax corn, which is far more expensive than previous GMO varieties, has failed to achieved desired yields, as has the company’s newer variety of GMO soybeans. Both failures have led not only to major price reductions for seeds, but also far less overall sales by farmers. Monsanto’s strategy has been to continually insert increasing amounts of new genes into seeds to make them perform better, and subsequently increase prices for farmers. But that predatory strategy has failed, as farmers are less willing these days to buy such seeds, especially at premium prices. And many farmers simply no longer trust Monsanto. Sales of Monsanto’s RoundUp formula have also plummeted, due in part to the fact that cheaper generics have started to penetrate the market, and because the formula simply is not working like it used to. New RoundUp-resistant “superweeds” are emerging that have rendered the product largely useless. You can find out more about Monsanto by visiting: http://www.naturalnews.com/Monsanto.html Unfortunately, Monsanto is not the only player in the GMO game. And rather than regress back to non-GMO seeds, some farmers are simply purchasing GMO seeds from other companies like DuPont that have seen their market share grow as Monsanto’s has decreased. But as the public wakes up to the truth about the dangers of GMOs, perhaps the entire GMO industry will eventually wither and die, much like the weeds and pests that it claims to eliminate.

Next Page »