YouTube is blocking his potentially life-saving information so that the major pharmaceutical companies (aka Big Pharma) and Chemical Medication companies make more money, profiting off of your prolonged suffering which eventually leads to death.
He is also being blocked in Germany as well as the USA. The powers that be do not want this information released. Patients that can heal themselves are no longer patients, they are simply healthy people.
Dr. H. Crone Medical Director IBMS University and MTC Europe
Most doctors are wonderful people and consummate professionals who truly want the best for their patients. But a recent study suggests much of the blame for the opioid crisis lies squarely on the shoulders of doctors who write prescriptions for hard-hitting opioids when other simpler pain-relieving methods would suffice.
The study shows that as recently as 2015, doctors were still prescribing the addictive and potentially deadly painkillers even for minor injuries in great numbers.
Researchers wrote in the Annals of Emergency Medicine that 1/4 of patients treated for ankle sprains between 2011 and 2015 were prescribed an opioid to deal with the pain.
For the study, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania analyzed private insurance claims filed by nearly 31,000 patients who had been treated in the emergency room for a sprained ankle. The patients were over the age of 18 and had not been prescribed an opioid in the 6 months prior to their injury.
Researchers looked at prescriber habits shortly before 2016, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelinesurging doctors to only prescribe opioids in dire situations and the federal government announced it would limit the length of first-time opioid prescriptions. 
Study leader Kit Delgado, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, said:
“There was this leap to opioids, either in perception of patient expectations or to meet patient expectations.”
The team found that:
- Overall, 25.1% of the patients studied received an opioid prescription.
- Most of the opioid prescriptions were for short-term use – about 15 pills (enough for 3 days) and low-dose. However, a small number of patients received a prescription equivalent to more than 30 tablets of medium-strength oxycodone – a drug with “high potential for abuse,” according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
- Nearly 5% of patients who received a mid-strength opioid prescription progressed to prolonged opioid use, compared to about 1% of patients who were given a more moderate prescription, and 0.5% of patients who did not receive an opioid prescription.
Where a patient lived played a significant role in whether or not they would be prescribed one of the powerful analgesics. In Arkansas, 40% of patients left the ER with an opioid prescription, compared to just 3% of patients in North Dakota. All but 1 of the 9 states that recorded above-average opioid prescribing is in the South or Southwest.  
Above-average prescribing was documented in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arizona. 
Fortunately, during the study period, overall prescription rates fell from 28% of patients in 2011 to 20.4% in 2015. 
Most opioid prescriptions are written by primary care physicians; emergency room doctors are a blip on the entire map. Overall, there were about 215 million prescriptions for the painkillers in 2016, according to the CDC. 
In light of the opioid epidemic that wipes out thousands of lives a year in the U.S., why did doctors prescribe such addictive drugs in such large amounts and doses to so many people? There are 4 possible explanations.
Freebies and Financial Perks
No one likes to think their doctor is prescribing them a drug because he or she stands to gain from it, but the disturbing reality is that it happens all the time.
In 2014 and 2015, opioid makers had no problem paying doctors 6-figure sums for speaking, consulting, and other services. The companies paid thousands of other dollars $25,000 sums during that time. 
Doctors who hocked the most pain pills to their patients were the most likely to bring in big bucks. It’s not hard to imagine how tempting a 6-figure sum could be to someone with a prescription pad. It’s also not hard to imagine how a doctor would feel beholden to a pharmaceutical company after being paid such exorbitant amounts.
You could almost say the drug companies were the drug kingpins, the doctors were the dealers, and in tragically too many cases, the patients became – unwittingly – the junkies. And if the dealers wanted to get paid, they had to keep moving the kingpins’ product.
It’s possible that some of those doctors during the study period offered more opioids because they lacked the medical training to know the full addictive nature of the drugs. 
It is a doctor’s job to ease suffering, after all, and physicians have been taught to aggressively treat pain.
In 1980, a 101-word letter written by Boston University Medical Center researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, served as the foundation for doctors’ opioid prescribing habitsfor decades.
In the letter, the scientists claimed that “despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction.”
Based on these promises of safety, opioid prescriptions exploded.
The scientists went on to say in the letter that in a review of 11,882 hospitalized patients treated with narcotics, they found “only four cases of reasonably well-documented addiction.”
That letter went on to be cited in hundreds of reputable medical journals.
Doctors don’t always know how many pills to prescribe in individual cases. 
A Yale University study found that hospitals were able to successfully decrease opioid prescriptions by going into electronic medical records and lowering default settings for pill limits.
Previous studies show that when surgeons have specific guidelines for how many pills they should prescribe after common procedures, opioid use decreased sharply.
Yet other studies show that long-time use may partly depend on whether an individual was treated by a “low-intensity” or a “high-intensity” prescriber in the ER.
Anyone can go online and give a doctor a positive or negative review. Delgado and his colleagues believe that in some cases, doctors prescribe more opioids in pursuit of glowing reviews.
Author: Julie Fidler
Originally posted: http://naturalsociety.com/study-shows-doctors-fueled-opioid-epidemic-9413/
Harvard analysis determines: Doctors who prescribe opioids receive HUGE kickbacks from pharma corporations
The opioid epidemic seems to be on everyone’s minds these days, with the Trump administration having recently declared it to be a major “public health emergency,” and one supposedly caused by “drug traffickers” – for which President Trump himself wants to see harsher penalties against “dealers.” But a recent study out of Harvard University reveals that open borders and street hustlers, which the President has repeatedly insinuated are responsible for the opioid crisis, aren’t actually to blame.
In truth, Big Pharma and its prolific network of white-coat pharmacists and physicians – the “legal” drug dealers of our land – are the primary culprits in the opioid epidemic. Many of them, shocking new research has found, routinely accept huge financial kickbacks in exchange for peddling as many opioids as possible, which has led to widespread addiction and abuse.
Researchers both from Harvard and CNN uncovered damning evidence showing that between the years of 2014 and 2015, thousands of doctors from all over the country were paid well over $25,000 each from opioid manufacturers, while hundreds of others were awarded individual six-figure sums, simply for prescribing more opioids. In fact, the more opioid prescriptions these doctors issued, the study found, the more money they were given by the FDA-sanctioned opioid cartel.
“It smells like doctors are being bribed to sell narcotics, and that’s very disturbing,” stated Dr. Andrew Kolodny, executive director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, in response to these eye-opening findings.
Data shows that the top five percent of opioid prescribing doctors in terms of overall volume were paid twice as much money from opioid manufacturers as other doctors. Even more disturbing was the top one percent of opioid prescribing doctors, which were paid up to four times as much for their services. And the top tenth of one percent? Their bribery payments from Big Pharma were increased nine-fold.
“What’s amazing about the findings is not simply that money counts, but that more money counts even more,” commented David Rothman, director of the Center on Medicine as a Profession at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Opioid dealers at doctors’ offices and pharmacies especially love to bilk the Medicare program
The channel through which much of the kickback money seems to be flowing is Medicare, a government healthcare program intended primarily for people 65 years of age and older. As many as 54 percent of doctors who wrote prescriptions for Medicare patients, the study found – which numbers at least 200,000 – received direct payments from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture opioids.
What this suggests is that the elderly and those on disability, many of whom are prime candidates for opioids due to their health issues, are being preyed upon by unscrupulous practitioners of medicine who know they can basically siphon their Big Pharma briberypayments through the sieve of a widely abused government social program.
While it’s technically illegal for doctors to prescribe drugs in exchange for compensation from drug corporations, laundering them through systems like Medicare makes it difficult to prove any wrongdoing. Still, it’s obvious, based on the data that this cozy financial relationship between pill-pushing doctors and amoral drug companies exists, and is massively contributing to the massive increases in opioid overdoses and deaths.
“It’s not proof positive, but it’s another very significant data point in the growing evidence base that marketing payments from drug companies are not good for medicine and more good for patient care,” says Dr. Daniel Carlat, former director of the Prescription Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts.
In some instances, doctors involved with this criminal opioid racket have actually become belligerent when their patients have tried to opt for safer alternatives. One woman says that after suffering “zombie-like” side effects from taking Subsys, an opioid drug that’s said to be up to 100 times more powerful then morphine, she attempted to switch to something safer, only to be told by her pill-pusher that it was “Subsys or nothing.”
Sources for this article include:
Drug companies don’t need to give doctors thousands of dollars in kickbacks to sway them to prescribe their medications and implant their devices. A new study published online in JAMA Internal Medicine shows that doctors who received a free meal from a pharmaceutical company were more likely to prescribe the drug the company was promoting than doctors who received no such meals.
The findings of the study were based on an analysis of U.S. government data which tracked both industry payments to doctors and physicians’ from ‘Medicare Part D’ and prescriptions of drugs. Researchers analyzed payments and prescriptions in 2013 associated with 3 brand-name cardiovascular drugs and 1 antidepressant, The Wall Street Journal reports. All of the drugs had lower-cost alternatives.
Drug companies regularly shower doctors with not only free food, but all kinds of trinkets, cash, and all-expenses paid vacations to exotic locations. In 2008, so many complaints had been lodged about the industry’s efforts to influence doctors with gifts that the industry voluntarily gave up a lot of the items they offered to doctors, ranging from pens bearing a company’s name, to expensive equipment. However, attractive-looking drug reps still hand out gifts to doctors, even if it’s in the form of a pizza.
Just 1 Meal is Enough to Sway
The study found that doctors who received just 1 meal, which often costs less than $20 on average, were up to 2 times more likely to prescribe a brand-name drug promoted by a company than a cheaper generic alternative, compared with physicians who did not accept a meal.
The team wrote:
“Furthermore, the relationship was dose dependent, with additional meals and costlier meals associated with greater increases in prescribing of the promoted drug.
Although voluntary guidelines from the American Medical Association and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America allow meals and gifts to physicians of up to $100 in value, our findings indicate that even payments of less than $20 are associated with different prescribing patterns.
Small payments and meals should continue to be monitored in the United States.” 
Doctors who received multiple free meals were as much as 3 times more likely to prescribe promoted brand-name drugs.
Study author Colette DeJong, a research fellow at University of California San Francisco’s (UCSF) Center for Healthcare Value, told HealthDay News:
“To my surprise, tiny, tiny payments are associated with big differences in prescribing.”
Additional meals – and pricier ones – were linked with even higher prescribing rates of promotional drugs. DeJong added:
“So whether you get zero, one, two, three or four meals has a step-wise increase in the prescribing of the brand-name drug that’s being promoted, and that has huge implications for Medicare and huge implications for patients.”
The American Medical Association and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has established guidelines which allow companies to give doctors meals and gifts worth up to $100.
Doctors Feel in Debt After Receiving Gifts
Senior study author Dr. Adams Dudley, director of UCSF’s Center for Healthcare Value, said the low-cost meals offered by pharmaceutical companies give doctors a sense of indebtedness. He explained that it’s not the value of the gift driving doctors’ prescribing patterns; it’s “feeling like you owe the drug rep something.”
The majority of Medicare beneficiaries are in prescription drug plans where the median copay is $1 for generics, and $40 to $80 for brand-name drugs. It’s easy to see how financially-devastating that could be for Medicare patients who take multiple medications.
PhRMA spokeswoman Holly Campbell found the findings to be biased. She told HealthDay News:
“This study cherry-picks physician prescribing data for a subset of medicines to advance a false narrative.”
It’s common for drug companies to engage with doctors to share information concerning drug safety and efficacy, Campbell said, as well as new indications for approved medicines and potential side effects.
The study’s authors say the results do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. It could be that doctors attend industry events where information is provided on drugs they already prefer.
 NBC News
Author: JULIE FIDLER
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/free-meals-from-drug-companies-influence-how-doctors-prescribe-drugs-6282/#ixzz4CJ19dPxg
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
Big Pharma and Medical Industry Dole Out $3.5 Billion in Kickbacks to Doctors and Teaching Hospitals
The U.S. federal government has released disturbing data about the profiteering nature behind our medical system. Namely, a staggering 4.4 million payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals by medical device and pharmaceutical companies.
According to officials from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), during the last five months of 2013, big pharma and medical companies paid a total of $3.5 billion in kickbacks to 546,000 physicians and 1,360 teaching hospitals.
If you believe pharmaceutical and medical corporations hold the health of the general public in high regard, it’s time to reconsider.
Bringing Transparency to the Medical Establishment — Somewhat
Launched in 2014, the Open Payments website was created — in accordance with the Affordable Care Act — to document payments by private companies to doctors and hospitals in a move towards transparency. Unfortunately, the site is far from perfect.
The platform isn’t easy to navigate and users are forced to wade through seemingly endless reams of data to glean practical information. Even searching for a specific physician is near impossible. Adding to the confusion, a percentage of drug and device companies attributed payments to multiple subsidiaries, instead of assigning them to a single parent company. Take Johnson & Johnson, who posted payments under a minimum of 15 subsidiaries, while device maker Medtronic and pharmaceutical company Novartis both used six.
Fortunately, Charles Ornstein, a senior reporter at ProPublica, has decoded a good portion of the data and found the following:
The top three categories for payments include royalty or license, promotional speaking and consulting fee. Next were food and beverage, travel and lodging, grant and education. Followed by honoraria, gift, non accredited training and ownership or investment interest. And lastly, space rental or facility fees, accredited training, charitable contribution and entertainment.
More data was edited, censored or obscured before publication than the government had claimed there would be.
Due to irregular data and other issues, CMS hasn’t released about a third of the data for the period between August and December 2013.
Companies lavish an enormous amount of money on royalty payments.
Royalty and licensure payments to doctor and hospital inventors totaled $976 million. “Genentech Inc. alone paid $122.5 million in royalties in the last five months of last year. Depuy Synthes Sales Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, spent $35.9 million in royalties,” writes Ornstein in Our First Dive Into the New Open Payments System.
Medical doctors and teaching hospitals ranked highest of those who received the most money.
Companies are required by law to report payments to medical doctors, teaching hospitals, osteopaths, dentists, chiropractors, optometrists and podiatrists. According to the data, medical doctors received an astounding 69% of payments, with teaching hospitals coming in second at 25%. A mere 6% of the payments went to the remaining groups.
Doctors travel a lot, thanks to drug and device makers.
“Doctors were paid for more than 200,000 trips by companies in the last five months of the year. The most common domestic destinations: Chicago, Dallas, New York, Atlanta and Philadelphia. Fewer doctors left the country, but when they did, their top destinations were Toronto, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris and Barcelona. Drug and device makers paid for doctors to travel to about 80 countries in all,” notes Ornstein.
Business as Usual
The findings by Ornstein shouldn’t be all that surprising since pharmaceutical companies especially are known to be rife with corruption.
Cortland Pfeffer (with Irwin Ozborne) writes about this lack of ethics in Licensed to Kill: Psychiatry, Big Pharma and the State-Sanctioned Drug Cartel:
“Upon learning more about this dark side of psychiatry, I literally grew nauseous. I started to examine this psychiatrist’s charts to find that nearly every one of his patients was prescribed Abilify. In comparison, other providers prescribed Abilify only 4% of the time… compared to his rate of 75%. Then, of course, he is also married to the pharmacy representative for this company. For each prescription he writes, she gets paid a commission. She also gets paid for talking to doctors because of her free pass into the clinic. He also is funded by the same company to give speeches on this drug, and for signing off on peer-reviewed articles and studies on these drugs – again 100% funded by drug companies. They are making exuberant amounts of money by medicating people with a drug that in their own words “doesn’t really work.”’
Needless to say, Big Pharma has a less than stellar track record where principles are concerned. Another example is pharmaceutical giant Merck. The company harassed scientists who criticized their drugs, produced a fake ‘peer reviewed’ journal and “published an entirely ghostwritten journal article and had a doctor sign his name to it, even though a Merck employee felt the data presented was “wishful thinking.”’ [Source]
But it isn’t just Merck, many pharmaceutical companies fall into the same fraudulent category. Reports BBC News:
“Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas, although the practice is now generally frowned upon and illegal in many places. GSK was fined $490m in China in September  for bribery and has been accused of similar practices in Poland and the Middle East.
The rules on gifts, educational grants and sponsoring lectures, for example, are less clear cut, and these practices remain commonplace in the US.
Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs.”
As outrageous as the pharmaceutical industry has proven itself to be, a quote comes to mind by Ogden Nash:
“How are we to survive? Solemnity is not the answer, any more than witless and irresponsible frivolity is. I think our best chance lies in humor, which in this case means a wry acceptance of our predicament. We don’t have to like it but we can at least recognize its ridiculous aspects, one of which is ourselves.”
In the same way, John Oliver acknowledges the absurdity of bought and paid for physicians in the following clip, using humor to drive the point home.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors (HBO)
Author: Carolanne Wright
This story is just as important today as it was when originally shared back in January. Since that time even more have died.
VaxTruth and the #CDCwhistleblower community of parents would like to offer our most sincere condolences and prayers to the families of Kiera Driscoll, Katherine McQuestion, Ayzlee McCarthy, Amber Gray, Kristie Green, Kaylynne Matten, Christopher Kanervisto, Chandler Webb, Ronan Burgess, and Patty Methot.
Kiera’s father, Patrick, said his daughter developed a cough and fever Sunday. On Monday, she was taken to a clinic, and prescribed steroids and a nebulizer. She collapsed later that day, and his wife performed CPR on Kiera until paramedics arrived. Kiera later died.
Patrick Driscoll said that Kiera had been vaccinated against the flu. He said doctors confirmed that Kiera had contracted the same strain for which she had been vaccinated.
McQuestion’s mother said her daughter was healthy, beautiful and smart. She married in September, and her funeral was held on Tuesday. McQuestion’s mother said her daughter was required to and had received a flu shot, but it didn’t keep her from becoming sick.”
Ayzlee McCarthy, 3, was buried New Year’s Day in Elk Horn… she died Monday morning at Blank Children’s Hospital in Des Moines not even 72 hours after she started showing flu like symptoms.
“She was completely healthy, nothing wrong with her. Yeah just a healthy typical 14-year-old girl which makes what happens to her that much more shocking.”
Kristie Green died the day after Christmas… Green’s daughter says she can’t believe her mother is gone.
Kiera, Ayzlee, Amber, and Kristie had two things in common. They all got this year’s flu shot. They all were diagnosed with Type A Influenza, which is one of the Influenza strains contained each year in the flu shot, regardless of which version is given. Influenza Type B is also contained in yearly flu shots. Ayzlee was diagnosed with both Type A and Type B Influenza. Because of her age, it is likely that Ayzlee received the Flu Mist vaccine – a live virus vaccine. We do not know for sure which vaccines they received. All we know is that each of these formerly healthy, vibrant individuals got the flu shot. They (or their parents) thought they were protected and now they are gone.
The CDC has stated that this year’s flu shot is less effective than most yearly flu shots because the virus has mutated. That happens. Viruses mutate and change (so do bacteria). They do so in order to avoid eradication. The viruses are trying to survive and the more we try to wipe them out, the more likely they are to mutate. This may be happening with the flu viruses in part as a result of the increase in vaccination of children and young adults. In the not-so-distant past, deaths from flu were nearly unheard of in children and young adults. They were far more likely to occur in the aged – those past the age of 65. That was during the time (prior to 2004-2009) when basically the only people who were pressured to get yearly flu shots were people over the age of 65.
We all need to be informed. We all need to make educated decisions. Many of us turn to the CDC for advice when we don’t know what to do.
Why is the CDC pushing this year’s flu shot when it is ineffective against this year’s strain of flu? It is difficult to say, but one possible reason may be related to finances. The CDC receives money for each vaccine that is sold.
When we are seeking unbiased advice about decisions that carry life and death consequences, maybe we shouldn’t be asking for it from those who have a financial stake in the outcome of our decisions.
In their push to get every man, woman and child to get this year’s flu shot, the CDC and the mainstream media reports have repeatedly stated that everyone should still get it, even though it is “less effective” than usual, because getting the flu shot will provide some sort of “cross-over protection” and may make flu symptoms less severe. I haven’t seen ANY proof of those statements and they really just don’t make sense. A vaccine for one virus works against different viruses? If getting a vaccine for chickenpox worked against measles, why do we need both?
I really would like to see the data the CDC is using to base its claim that getting the vaccine lessens symptoms of flu. As this excellent article indicates, research strongly suggests the opposite is true and that getting the flu vaccine actually makes flu symptoms worse. Judging from the increasing number of deaths among children and young adults who have received the flu vaccine, and using a little common sense… the CDC’s claims don’t really resonate with me. And then there’s some very compelling evidence from the Cochrane Collaboration, one of the world’s most prestigious independent research groups. (Independent meaning unlike The CDC, they don’t receive any money from the sale of vaccines.)
The Cochrane Collaboration has this to say about the CDC’s claims:
The CDC authors clearly do not weight interpretation by quality of the evidence, but quote anything that supports their theory.” – from the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review of Influenza Vaccine Efficacy & Safety Studies
The Cochrane Collaboration’s research on the flu vaccine is very important reading for anyone who wants an unbiased, well-researched opinion. After studying the published research dating back to the 1960s, on flu vaccine efficacy and safety, the Cochrane Collaboration researchers found that the makers of the flu vaccine actually hit their mark about 10% of the time. So this year’s flu vaccine fiasco is nothing new. Ninety percent of the flu vaccines made since the 1960’s have been ineffective. In a “good year,” when the vaccine actually targets the strain of flu that is circulating, the effectiveness varies, depending on the age and immune status of the recipient. Efficacy at preventing flu ranges from about 30% to about 1% in healthy adults. The researchers found no effect on flu vaccination when it comes to preventing hospitalizations, preventing the spread of influenza-like-illness, or preventing serious complications from flu. You can read more about the Cochrane Collaborations flu research here.
When attempting to make informed decisions about health care, we need to not only consider if a proposed intervention works (the benefit); we also must consider the potential harm of the intervention (the risks). This is what is known as the Risk-Benefit Analysis. With regard to the flu vaccine, assessing the risk is difficult because we don’t have accurate data. The best we have is VAERS – Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System; a database maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unfortunately, because VAERS is a voluntary reporting system and there are no consequences to doctors, nurses or pharmacists for failing to report adverse reactions to vaccines, the AMA estimates that less than 10% of reactions is ever reported, and the number may be as low as 1-2%. This makes it very difficult to assess whether any benefit of flu vaccine outweighs the risks. What we do know is that in the last few years, the number of serious reactions reported to VAERS from flu vaccines has been steadily increasing. We also know that adverse events from flu vaccines are now the most frequent cases being filed with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Go here for more information.
As we are grieving the loss of increasing numbers of children and young adults, the goal of this post is two-fold: It is my most sincere prayer that the families of Ayzlee, Amber, and Kristie know how much we mourn the loss of their precious family members. Our prayers, our sympathy, and our love go out to you. As painful as this is, it is also our goal to educate others and to hopefully prevent more lives being lost.
Please. Educate before you vaccinate.
These are just four of the most recent deaths of which we have become aware. There are others.
Nicole and Justin Matten of Barton have lived every parent’s worst nightmare. On December 2 their 7-year-old daughter, Kaylynne, visited her physician for an annual checkup. She got a flu shot. The next day, she developed a bad headache and fever. On December 6, the normally happy and healthy girl, who had no previous history of chronic health problems or adverse reactions to vaccines, turned blue, stopped breathing and died in her mother’s arms.”
We finally received the autopsy results in mid-February 2010. Cause of death: Viral Myocarditis. The medical examiner said it was the “flu” he had in October. I reminded her he had not had the flu; it was the vaccine he had in October… In Christopher’s case I believe it was the vaccine that triggered the Myocarditis… I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, he was my little boy.”
A doomed man pleaded with his doctors to save him as he slipped into a coma last month — a coma he never woke up from…Now Lori Webb says the death of her son, Chandler Webb, 19, was caused by a flu shot he received the week before he was rushed to the hospital.”
Calandra (Ronan’s mother) told our reporters that Ronan received the nasal flu vaccine in November. “All three of my children had the nasal spray. My other two kids didn’t get sick at all,” said Burgess.
Calandra hopes Ronan’s death will help others learn about the flu vaccine.
“It gives his life meaning. And it gives his death meaning. That’s the only way I can look at it,” Calandra said.
VaxTruth notes that when interviewed after Ronan’s death, his mother did not believe the vaccine was a contributing factor. Sadly, she blamed herself. She stated she and her husband had not been vaccinated and they contracted the flu. Mrs. Burgess expressed her feelings of guilt and urged others to ensure they were vaccinated. We wanted to include Ronan among those we honor in this post because we feel it is important to report the truth. There is no way to know if the vaccine contributed to his death, or if he would have become ill even if his parents had not. FluMist is a live virus vaccine and can cause infection in those who receive it. FluMist recipients can also spread the flu to others for up to a month after vaccination, as the manufacturer’s insert states (see Table 5, page 14). We pray you Rest In Peace, Ronan, and we pray blessings for solace to your family.
Patty Methot developed pneumonia and a blood infection after being diagnosed with H1N1, Giusti said. She said Methot died with family members by her side, including her husband and Kelsey (her 10 year-old daughter).
Neither antiviral medication nor vaccination was able to save Patty Methot’s life, Giusti said.
“That’s the kicker of the whole thing. She had the flu shot — we all did,” Giusti said.
Sadly, we know there are many we haven’t heard about yet, and many more to come. Please help us spread the word, so other families are able to make informed decisions.
Additional research regarding FluMist:
Following infection with an influenza virus, infected or recently recovered individuals become transiently susceptible to excess bacterial infections, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. Indeed, in the absence of preexisting comorbidities, bacterial infections are a leading cause of severe disease during influenza epidemics. While this synergy has been known and is well studied, what has not been explored is the natural extension of these interactions to live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs). Here we show, in mice, that vaccination with LAIV primes the upper respiratory tract for increased bacterial growth and persistence of bacterial carriage, in a manner nearly identical to that seen following wild-type influenza virus infections. Importantly, LAIV, unlike wild-type virus, did not increase severe bacterial disease of the lower respiratory tract. These findings may have consequences for individual bacterial disease processes within the upper respiratory tract, as well as bacterial transmission dynamics within LAIV-vaccinated populations.
GMO House members who voted in favor or DARK Act to block GMO labeling received windfall payouts from Big Food
Everyone knows that money talks in D.C. But most people probably aren’t aware of just how loudly it speaks, greatly influencing policy decisions like the recent passage of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, known as the “DARK” Act by its critics. This nefarious bill aims to bar states from passing their own laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).
America’s corrupt politicians only seem to make important decisions when their pockets are first lined in accordance with their respective financial lusts. This is exactly how the DARK Act was passed, it turns out, with nearly $30 million being dumped by Big Food into the greasy pockets of these amoral traitors, who quite clearly don’t give a hoot about you or your family’s health.
Details of the financial contributions made to the 275 politicians who voted in favor of the DARK Act have emerged, and the picture is ugly. Among the 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats who supported the bill, Big Ag and Big Food interests contributed a whopping $29.9 million during the 2014 campaign cycle to seal the deal.
As explained by Alex Lazar, writing for the OpenSecrets Blog, Representatives Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), the two original cosponsors of the DARK Act, received heavy payouts from the anti-labeling Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) to introduce the bill. Likewise, the bill’s cosponsors have been exposed for accepting six-figure bribes from Big Ag in exchange for their resultant yes votes.
These cosponsors include Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Mike Conaway (R-Tex.), and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). Other cosponsors not on the agricultural committee, including Reps. David Valadao (R-Cal.), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.), Devin Nunes (R-Cal)., and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), also accepted payouts from industries fighting against food labeling transparency.
“All told, the 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats who voted to pass the bill collectively received over $29.9 million from the agribusiness sector and food and beverage industry during the 2014 cycle, or about $108,900 per member,” writes Lazar. “That’s nearly three times as much as the average $38,977 per lawmaker drawn by the 138 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting nay. Their cumulative contributions from the interests came to $5.8 million.”
“For all the election cycles since 1990, more than $115.1 million has gone to those who voted for the legislation this week (with an average of $418,644 per member), compared to almost $25.8 million for those who voted against it ($171,785 per member).”
Your views no longer matter in the District of Criminals unless you can pay up
At the helm of GMA’s push to block state-level GMO labeling bills like those already passed in Connecticut and Vermont are none other than PepsiCo Inc. and Monsanto Co., two of GMA’s most prominent members. These two poison manufacturers contributed $2.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively, towards anti-labeling lobbying so far this year.
And their efforts haven’t been in vain, as the DARK Act seems to be moving through Congress with flying colors, despite overwhelming support among average Americans for mandatory GMO labeling, or even a full-scale ban on GMOs in food. So what makes Pepsi and Monsanto’s position against GMO labeling more important than the 300 million-or-so odd Americans who support it? Money, of course, which is the root of all evil in the District of Criminals.
“The basic problem that our nation faces is that our original constitutionally limited representative democracy has died an ugly death,” wrote one OpenSecrets Blog commenter. “We presently are in the hands of professional politicians (all flavors) who diligently respond to the one-% money with which they are showered, not to the people whom they nominally represent.”
“The outlook for the future is extremely grim.”
Find all the unfiltered and breaking stories on GMOs at GMOFood.news
Research GMOs and why they are being pushed on the American people at TruthWiki.org
Sources for this article include:
Author: Jonathan Benson
Farid Fata has a long stay in jail ahead of him. The doctor, a hematologist-oncologist that once worked in the suburbs of Detroit was just sentenced to 45 years in prison for running a fraud scheme in which he prescribed unnecessary chemotherapy and other cancer treatments to patients that didn’t need it.
Some of Fata’s patients were even misdiagnosed with cancer, and others were told they needed chemotherapy when it wasn’t needed in order to scam Medicare and private insurance companies for more than $34 million in false claims.
Fata was also the head of Michigan Hematology Oncology, one of the state’s largest private cancer networks.
The ‘chemo mill’ as one of his whistle-blowing nurses, Angela Swantek, called his oncology practice was very busy. She observed up to a dozen patients getting chemotherapy treatments at any one time.
Swantek filed a complaint with the Michigan licensing regulators, but the state later determined that nothing was out of compliance.
It took three years and an FBI investigation to blow the lid of off Fata’s chemo fraud.
The FBI received a tip from George Karadsheh of Crittenton Cancer Center in Rochester Hills. He had heard from other doctors that Fata often insisted on aggressive chemotherapy for his patients, even when they sometimes did not require it.
Fata was arrested in 2013. He pled guilty to 13 counts of healthcare fraud which included money laundering and accepting kickbacks from Guardian Angel Hospice and Guardian Angel Home Health Care.
U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan says that no other case has been as egregious as Dr. Fata’s; however, individual doctors, through the persuasion of drug companies have been known to reward doctors who prescribe chemotherapy drugs.
For detailed information about the dollar amounts Fata will forfeit due to his criminal activity, visit healthcarefinancenews.com.
1 in 5 nursing home residents still prescribed dangerous antipsychotic drugs despite $2.2 billion legal settlement
More than one out of every five nursing home residents is still being given powerful antipsychotic drugs despite a growing consensus that they are inappropriate and often dangerous. These drugs frequently are given to “calm” dementia patients even though many are approved only for the treatment of diseases such as schizophrenia.
Despite a federal initiative, a $2.2 billion legal settlement by a major drugmaker earlier this month, and the support of many nursing home and consumer organizations, it has been extremely difficult to reduce the overuse of these drugs.
In March, 2012, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services kicked off an effort aimed at reducing nursing home use of antipsychotic drugs from nearly 24 percent to about 20 percent by the end of that year. When it missed the target, CMS pushed back the goal to the end of 2013. Usage is declining, but the agency says that more than 21 percent of long-stay nursing home residents are still getting these drugs. A coalition of patient advocates estimates that represents more than 300,000 residents.
The settlement by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson JNJ +0.31% earlier this month has again focused the spotlight on this problem. On Nov. 4, J&J agreed to a $2.2 billion settlement of civil and criminal charges with the U.S. Department of Justice for its aggressive off-label marketing of drugs, including Risperdal, to nursing homes. The government charged that from 1999-2005 a J&J subsidiary called Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. aggressively marketed Risperdal to control behavior in dementia patients even though the Food & Drug Administration rejected the drug as a treatment for dementia, and in fact found it increased the risk of stroke in elderly patients.
The settlement was just the latest in a series of similar agreements reached over the past few years. Previously, the government settled with Eli Lilly over marketing of Zyprexa, AstraZeneca AZN -0.17% over its sales of Seroquel, and Abbott (now AbbVie ABBV -1.05%) for Depakote.
The issue of off-label drug use is a controversial one. Medications are often used with some success to treat certain conditions such as some cancers even though they have not been approved by the FDA for those diseases. And sometimes,antipsychotics may be necessary to reduce agitation in people with dementia. But that’s very different from their almost-routine use in many facilities.
It is not illegal for physicians to prescribe medications for unapproved use, however it is against the law for drug makers to market them for those purposes. Medicare will sometimes pay for off-label drug use though often it will not.
However, the root problem may be with nursing homes themselves. Many find it easy to manage anxiety, confusion, or behavioral issues of their residents with drugs. It is, for too many facilities, a convenient solution even though most research shows few benefits for residents and many risks.
However, there are alternatives. Residents are often agitated because they are in pain or discomfort. Facilities need to make the effort to identify those causes and address them. In addition, a growing body of research suggests that well-targeted non-drug therapies, such as touch, music, and aromatherapy may help reduce certain behavioral issues of dementia patients. The jury is still out on most of these but they are often worth trying, especially when compared to the risks and costs of the off-label drugs now available.
Source: http://www.sott.net Author: Howard Gleckman