 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008- Number of people killed by adverse reaction to medication in the USA: 100,000
Statistics for 2006: - Number of people killed in automobile accidents in USA: 43,000 - Number of people killed in terrorist attacks in USA: 0 - Number of people killed from gun violence in the USA: 29,000 - Number of people killed by adverse reaction to medication in the USA: 100,000 Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? Wow! Shocking. PA > Statistics for 2006: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? > Statistics for 2006: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - Number of people killed by adverse reaction to medication in the > USA: 100,000 Yes, don't use major medications lightly, no matter how hard drug companies may push them. The same applies to herbs and supplements, only more so, since the strategy of that industry is to get everyone taking them whether they need them or not. PM > > Statistics for 2006: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PM Uhmmm, Petey the Moron, I think you are confused once again. The strategy of the drug companies is to push the use of prescription drugs whether you need them or not. Secondly, the push is to use the poisons so that more poisons ( drugs) can be prescribed for the unavoidable side effects. Why is it so hard for you to see the truth? Have you not outlived your initial indoctrination and brainwashing to the point that you can now think logically or are you still drinking too much flourine in your water? DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly ( I have no license to maim or kill) > Uhmmm, Petey the Moron, I think you are confused once again. Ah, projection. I remember cogent arguments like that -- from third grade. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > In message > <1b0ef984-f750-4afe-b596-0b9ee7f8d313@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > >> Uhmmm, Petey the Moron, I think you are confused once again. > > Ah, projection. ZZzz. Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 276 for Mark Probert projection . -- >> Statistics for 2006: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PM Proof please. Didn't happen to me. > > Statistics for 2006: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, don't use major medications lightly, no matter how hard drug companies > may push them. But there's no proof that pharmaceutical drugs improve outcomes any more than nutritional products. All drugs do is suppress symptoms which then go on to create more insidious diseases in the body. This was proved by hahnemann is his study of chronic diseases, some people even died shortly after the suppression of some skin condition with drugs. See The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homoopathic Cure. by Dr Samuel Hahnemann at http://www.minimum.com > The same applies to herbs and supplements, only more so, since the strategy > of that industry is to get everyone taking them whether they need them or > not. No Peter, that's the goal of the pharmaceutical cartel to get everybody taking drugs whether they need them or not. That's why there is a huge number of kids on ritalin rather than looking at their diets and eliminating artificial additives. Herbs have been around for centuries and used by the common folk routinely. However, you should read The Rockefeller Drug Empire by Hans Ruesch, available online which demonstrates the corruption of medicine by huge donations to influence medical schools. Carole www.cellsalts.net > PM : But there's no proof that pharmaceutical drugs improve outcomes any more : than nutritional products. If we could only get her to say her name backwards, then maybe she'd return to whichever bizarre dimension it is that she came from. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > : But there's no proof that pharmaceutical drugs improve outcomes any more > : than nutritional products. > > If we could only get her to say her name backwards, then maybe she'd return > to whichever bizarre dimension it is that she came from. There is no proof because pharmaceutical companies compare their products to previous versions of the same product rather than alternative remedies. http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Approval.html Chapter 5: The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs Increased Survival Time But let's suppose that this particular drug had "increased the survival time" of the patients in a study. Finally, you say, proof that chemotherapy works, I can get back to my chemotherapy. Not so fast. What does it mean to say that a chemotherapy drug "increased the survival time?" It means that it increased the survival time of patients relative to some other chemotherapy drug or some other combination of chemotherapy drugs!! In other words, to my knowledge, never in the history of medicine has a drug company proven that their drug extends the life of a patient relative to the avoidance of all chemotherapy drugs! "Survival time" is only measured by comparing one or more chemotherapy drugs to one or more other combinations of chemotherapy drugs. In other words, this corrupt government agency, allows the B companies approval of their cars as long as they can prove their car model is better than a car model from another B company! In other words, the B companies don't have to compare their cars to one of the G company models, only to B company models. If a Company B2 model has a better rear view mirror than a Company B4 model rear view mirror, then it can get approved by the government agency. Likewise, chemotherapy drugs only have to be compared to other chemotherapy drugs. They do not have to be compared to "no treatment" or "treatment refused" patients, only to other chemotherapy drugs. Nor do they have to be compared to alternative treatments for cancer, such as the Kelley Metabolic therapy. Study this next quote carefully! "We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison." --Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist In other words, all "scientific evidence" for chemotherapy drugs is to compare them to each other or to see if a tumor shrinks or to see if some benchmark changes. Never is chemotherapy compared to alternative treatments nor is it ever compared to no treatment at all. This type of deception is designed to give the public the impression that chemotherapy drugs are constantly improving and soon chemotherapy drugs will actually cure cancer. Nonsense, the chemotherapy drugs are only being compared to each other. What is getting better over the years is their techniques of deception. "If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient." --Ralph Moss Carole www.cellsalts.net >> > Statistics for 2006: >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > No Peter, that's the goal of the pharmaceutical cartel to get everybody > taking drugs whether they need them or not. Possibly so, but that is not the view of the medical profession, which controls public access to most types of pharmaceuticals. <That's why there is a huge > number of kids on ritalin rather than looking at their diets and > eliminating > artificial additives. Do you think most of the mothers of kids on these drugs have not already looked at that? There is, in any case, not much profit in such an old off-patent drug. > Herbs have been around for centuries and used by the common folk > routinely. So it is said, with llittle evidence that folk use mimics what modern herb manufacturers choose to push them for. It is only since doctors have been asked to report possible adverse effects of herbs, that we have started to uncover them. I suspect many herbal preparations are safe simply becasue they contain negligible active ingredients . Others are dangerous because of herb substitution and contminants. PM > However, you should read The Rockefeller Drug Empire by Hans Ruesch, > available online which demonstrates the corruption of medicine by huge [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> PM > > Herbs have been around for centuries and used by the common folk > > routinely. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > PM So you are admitting that modern docs report 1% or less of adverse vaccine effects and, possibly none of the adverse drug events, while trying to report 100% of any possible adverse herbal event. Now, just who and what corporate group does that action benefit? DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly ( I have no license to maim or kill) > So you are admitting that modern docs report 1% or less of adverse > vaccine effects and, possibly none of the adverse drug events, while > trying to report 100% of any possible adverse herbal event. > > Now, just who and what corporate group does that action benefit? You have a good point there: the manufacturers should be required to report adverse events themselves. Giving them an exemption was bad law. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > >> "Kevysmom" <bluebunny8@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c2d18731-9ad6-473d-b4cd-d7a7b066cb0b@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > >> > Statistics for 2006: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Possibly so, but that is not the view of the medical profession, which > controls public access to most types of pharmaceuticals. The view of the medical profession is tainted by bribes and gifts. > <That's why there is a huge > > number of kids on ritalin rather than looking at their diets and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > looked at that? There is, in any case, not much profit in such an old > off-patent drug. Its only through exposure of the ill effects of mind altering drugs that things are beginning to change. The pharmaceutical cartel has no conscience and is driven purely by profits. > > Herbs have been around for centuries and used by the common folk > > routinely. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they contain negligible active ingredients . Others are dangerous > because of herb substitution and contminants. The people don't need to be spared from the possible harmful effecs of drugs, but rather the pharmaceutical cartel who are driven purely by profits. They are in the business of disease, they like to keept he people sick because they get more profits. If they knew how to cure a disease they would keep it quiet because it would cost them money and profits. They don't need defending. They spend enough money on bribes to doctors and politicians, and putting out propaganda against alternative medicine, without having you defend them as well. Carole www.cellsalts.net > PM > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > >> PM >Statistics for 2006: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >- Number of people killed by adverse reaction to medication in the >USA: 100,000 What is the source for that last number? Please do not cite an anti-medicine web site. >Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why?  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>Statistics for 2006: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What is the source for that last number? Please do not cite an > anti-medicine web site. The first three are from that lacky of the Illuminati-Controlled Drug Industry, the CDC. The last doesn't match. > >Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? The auto industry, hands down. The NRA is high on the list, but nothing remotely close. Not mentioned are the Trial Lawyers' Association. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > > >Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? > > The auto industry, hands down. Try again! Drug companies spend the most money lobbying the US Congress Source: Inpharma, Volume 1, Number 1431, 2004 , pp. 4-4(1) Publisher: Adis International Keywords: Health-policy; Healthcare-expenditure; Healthcare-news; Pharmaceutical-industry Document Type: Short communication Links for this article http://www.ingentaconnect.com/adis/inp/2004/00000001/00001431/art00008 http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article&issn=1173-8324&volume=1&issue=1 431&spage=4&epage=4 http://dx.doi.org/NO_DOI > In message <v4psq3t2qle57fn98fu7ves34j044vn...@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but trywww.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >> > >Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Links for this article Apparently you were counting on everyone else being as disinclined to check facts as you are: > http://www.ingentaconnect.com/adis/inp/2004/00000001/00001431/art00008 404 > http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article&issn=1173-8324&volume=1&issue=1 431&spage=4&epage=4 The full text article is available for purchase $34.95 plus tax > http://dx.doi.org/NO_DOI Error - DOI Naming Authority [NO_DOI] Not Found And the information is just as good as your previous claim that the pharmaceutical companies make more profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined -- despite the fact that a quick check would show that GE *ALONE* makes more profit annually than all of the pharmaceutical sector, by your own quoted numbers. Pull the other one, it's got bells on. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ You are lazy....This is the last time I do any homework for you! Drugmakers go furthest to sway Congress http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2005-04-25-drug-lobby-cove r_x.htm Case study shows drug companies are top health care lobbyists http://www.case.edu/news/2004/3-04/lobbyists.htm Drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry between 1998 and 2005 -- $900 million http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011102081.html I can keep going, But I think you get *it* now? > In message <64b87bb0-6304-44d1-9fec-5fcb94ac0...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Kevysmom wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > In message > <64b87bb0-6304-44d1-9fec-5fcb94ac09ca@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Pull the other one, it's got bells on. DRUG Pusher > > >Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? > > The auto industry, hands down. Try again! Drug companies spend the most money lobbying the US Congress Source: Inpharma, Volume 1, Number 1431, 2004 , pp. 4-4(1) Publisher: Adis International Keywords: Health-policy; Healthcare-expenditure; Healthcare-news; Pharmaceutical-industry Document Type: Short communication Links for this article http://www.ingentaconnect.com/adis/inp/2004/00000001/00001431/art00008 http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article&issn=1173-8324&volume=1&issue=1 431&spage=4&epage=4 http://dx.doi.org/NO_DOI On Feb 9, 9:50 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > In message <v4psq3t2qle57fn98fu7ves34j044vn...@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >>- Number of people killed by adverse reaction to medication in the > >>USA: 100,000 They knew that >>>Statistics for 2006: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not mentioned are the Trial Lawyers' Association. OH yea! lets steer it away from death by drug/doctor. CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously injure an additional 2.1 million each year, researchers say. Such reactions -- which do not include prescribing errors or drug abuse -- rank at least sixth among causes of death in the United States, behind heart disease, cancer, lung disease, strokes and accidents, according to a report published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association. The report was based on an analysis of existing studies. "Serious adverse drug reactions are frequent ... more so than generally recognized," the researchers said. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/ > >Statistics for 2006: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- >counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/ Hmmm. Ten years old and debunked countless times. Got any better evidence? >> >Statistics for 2006: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> >Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Debunked by whom, YOU??? LMAO!!! Show me a peer reviewed study that debunks this Peter? > >CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- > >counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Debunked by whom, YOU??? LMAO!!! > > Show me a peer reviewed study that debunks this Peter? Waste of time, as you would not understand it. > > >CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- > > >counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 9, 10:27 pm, Kevysmom <bluebun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Debunked by whom, YOU??? LMAO!!! > >> Show me a peer reviewed study that debunks this Peter? >Waste of time, as you would not understand it. Translation: None can be shown. Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 989 for Mark Probert would not understand >>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Got any better evidence? "Better evidence" would imply that there was evidence in the first place, instead of a WAG. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >>>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/ >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"Better evidence" would imply that there was evidence in the first >place, instead of a WAG. Point taken. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/ >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Got any better evidence? Still pushing those drugs huh? > >>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/ > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Better evidence" would imply that there was evidence in the first > place, instead of a WAG. More like w.nk. Carole www.cellsalts.net > -- > | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | > | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >> In message <tersq3lrut6tfok1c32f2dfs04304e2v7r@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > More like w.nk. You see, we CAN agree on things. | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >>CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- >>counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Got any better evidence? IDIOT!!! > >CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- > >counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Got any better evidence? How can you debunk 100,000 deaths per year and who debunked it ...the pharmaceutical cartel? If it was one death through a vitamin or minerals it would be headlines in the illuminati controlled mass media. Carole www.cellsalts.net >> >CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- >> >counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >How can you debunk 100,000 deaths per year and who debunked it ...the >pharmaceutical cartel? The number is false. The debunking took the form of demonstrating its falsehood. >If it was one death through a vitamin or minerals it would be headlines in >the illuminati controlled mass media. > >Carole >www.cellsalts.net SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >> >CHICAGO (CNN) -- Adverse reactions to prescription and over-the- > >> >counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The number is false. The debunking took the form of demonstrating its > falsehood. Its only to be expected that the pharmaceutical cartel would counter this claim. They know how to spin anything. What do you think all those marketing courses are all about? They can make black look white and vice versa. "Now don't go saying its black, just say its non-white". Carole www.cellsalts.net > Its only to be expected that the pharmaceutical cartel would counter this > claim. > They know how to spin anything. Carole, try this simple question: What would it take to make you change your mind? | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ > > Its only to be expected that the pharmaceutical cartel would counter this > > claim. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What would it take to make you change your mind? About what? Unfortunately DC you've snipped the bit that went before and I don't know what you want me to change my mind about. Carole www.cellsalts.net >>Statistics for 2006: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What is the source for that last number? Please do not cite an > anti-medicine web site. http://www.tga.gov.au/adr/aadrb.htm http://www.tga.gov.au/alerts/index.htm#medicines >>Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? >>Statistics for 2006: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What is the source for that last number? Please do not cite an > anti-medicine web site. Peter, surely you do not expect a medical or pharmaceutical site to quote the number of deaths from adverse drug reactions. To do so would be an admission. You only have to look at the "class" payouts to realise that something is seriously wrong. I would think the figure of 100,000 is ultra conservative and perhaps you may care to elaborate on how many deaths you believe are caused by adverse reaction to medication and how you support that number given all the class actions. Don't forget to allow for the Silent Majority whom may well say "Well they died but we cannot afford to question the Doctors" or "We know what happened but cannot afford to pay for investigation or legal action" or "sh.t happens, lets read the will". I suspect the Silent Majority deaths outnumbers any recorded deaths from adverse reaction to medication. Cheers Rod >>Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? >>Statistics for 2006: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >>Who spends the most money lobbying congress? I wonder why? IDIOT!!!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.