Renewable Revolution

Freedom & Democracy => Who CAN you trust? => Topic started by: AGelbert on December 14, 2013, 12:29:41 am

Title: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2013, 12:29:41 am

"Statins for Everyone, and Forget Supplements!” (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)
 


December 10, 2013

Dangerous new heart health guidelines could put millions at risk. Action Alert!  :o


For years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended statins for children as young as 8. Recently, the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) issued new cholesterol guidelines and an online risk calculator that may make 33 million healthy Americans dependent on statins.

That same day, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) declared there is “insufficient” evidence that nutritional supplements can help prevent heart disease. Coincidence?

The message from powerful, monopolistic medical organizations is loud and clear: “preventive” heart health should come from an expensive prescription bottle. Unfortunately, the AHA and ACC’s new guidelines are based on a flawed understanding of the role of cholesterol in overall health. They champion the overuse of a damaging (but lucrative) class of drugs.


Even within the conventional medical community, the new guidelines are extremely controversial. Many doctors—including the ACC’s own past president—are calling for the delay of their implementation and the shutdown of AHA’s online risk calculator, which may overestimate a patient’s risk for heart attack or stroke by 75% to 150%! Top heart researchers warned AHA over a year ago that their calculator was fundamentally flawed, but the AHA claims they never received the researchers’ critiques.

As illustrated by the AHA’s risk calculator, the focal point of the new guidelines is to put millions more Americans on statins. Statins, the most widely prescribed class of drug in the world, are supposed to reduce LDL levels, which mainstream medicine has deemed “bad cholesterol” and the main cause of heart disease. However, as we detail below, there is an abundance of strong evidence to the contrary.

The guidelines recommend that those with a risk level of even 7.5% for either heart disease or stroke should take statins as a “precaution.” Translation: under the new guidelines, patients should be prescribed statins—drugs designed to reduce cholesterol—whether or not they actually have high cholesterol. This ignores evidence that statins not only fail to reduce the risk of death, but fail to reduce even some patients’ chance of getting heart disease.

Worse, statins are an incredibly dangerous class of drugs that should not be prescribed lightly: their side effects are well documented, to the extent that the FDA requires they be disclosed in labeling.

They can cause memory loss, significantly increase your risk of type 2 diabetes, block the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, and cause serious muscle aches and pains that can make it impossible to sleep. We don’t always realize how critical good sleep is to our health.

Additionally, statins should not be used as a “precaution” when non-drug interventions may be more effective in preventing heart disease. For example, the Lyon Diet Heart Study found that the Mediterranean diet was three times more effective than statin drugs in preventing recurrent heart disease. This is because a holistic approach, such as a change in diet, addresses heart disease and its contributing factors. (Please see our “Natural Ways to Support Heart Health” article for more information.)

The Lyon study also supports the idea that the very premise on which statins are based—“LDL bad, HDL good”—is a gross oversimplification. In fact, LDL has some crucial health benefits—it can even provide protection from cancer. In addition, studies show that lower levels of LDL don’t necessarily lessen your risk of heart disease, and high cholesterol may not cause it:

In 2008, a major study showed that lowering LDL levels doesn’t necessarily decrease the risk of having a heart attack. Another study, released in 2011, shows that raising HDL levels does not always translate into a healthier heart.

As noted in an article by Dr. Mark Hyman, as many as 75% of people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.

One rigorous study showed that patients treated with two drugs that successfully lowered cholesterol did not have a reduced risk of heart attack.

Cholesterol is found everywhere in the body. As medical chemist Shane Ellison explains, if high levels of cholesterol truly caused plaque (the fatty substance that causes heart attacks and strokes) rather than simply being a component of plaque, plaque blockages would be found not just in the heart and brain, but everywhere in the body, too. This could be why there are no studies proving that high cholesterol causes heart plaque. Meanwhile, low total cholesterol has its own documented health risks, including depression.

So if there’s significant evidence that statins are neither safe nor effective, what’s behind the AHA’s new guidelines? It seems simple to us: Big Pharma’s statin industry is valued at $29 billion—and the drug industry is a major funder of the AHA. That may not be the whole story, but it is enough to warn all of us. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

A glance at AHA’s 2011-2012 fiscal year shows that 25% of the AHA’s budget came from corporations—with $15,369,726 coming from Big Pharma, medical device manufacturers, and health insurance providers. Additionally, of the fifteen panelists who authored the new guidelines, six reported ties to drug makers that sell or are developing cholesterol drugs. (http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg)

With the recommendations of major medical associations—and, therefore, the decisions of physicians—being influenced if not dictated by the pharmaceutical industry, it is vitally important that natural health practitioners and organizations are standing up for patients. Mainstream medicine is awash in a sea of cash-fueled “guidelines” that fail to consider even the basic science behind heart health.

Action Alert! Ask the AHA and ACC to revise their guidelines!

http://www.anh-usa.org/statins-for-everyone-and-forget-supplements/
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2013, 12:58:14 am
DNA Testing: Do You Have a Right to Test Your Own DNA? FDA Says No!  :o  >:(

December 10, 2013

There’s a reason your government is whittling away at your healthcare options and driving costs out of control—and not a good one.

America spends over $2.6 trillion a year (18% of our GDP) on healthcare. At the same time, government is tightening the regulatory reins on nutritional and natural methods to support health—an approach that isn’t lowering healthcare spending, but raising it!

On November 22, the FDA sent a warning letter to 23andMe.com to stop its inexpensive ($99 per test) “do-it-yourself” genetic testing service for health screening and ancestry purposes, because consumers could be “misled” and harm themselves by “self-treating.” For example, the FDA posits that an individual who learns they have a predilection for cancer would, as a result, undergo unnecessary preventive surgery, chemotherapy, and other “morbidity-inducing actions.” (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)


The FDA’s argument is, quite clearly, a straw man: of course patients have to obtain medical advice before making major health decisions—it’s not as if consumers can go under the knife without significant medical consultation! The FDA’s true message is clear: because individuals can’t be trusted to make sound health decisions, they don’t have a right to private information on their own DNA.  (http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif)


It’s also worth noting that FDA action against 23andMe was sparked, in part, by a complaint by UnitedHealth Group, the largest publicly traded health insurer. UnitedHealth isn’t exactly an unbiased observer—they want access to information about your DNA. After all, if individuals were allowed to keep their DNA test data private, they wouldn’t have to share their results with insurers who, for example, could use an inherited health risk to deny insurance or charge exorbitant rates. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)

The FDA’s stance on DIY genetic testing could very well drive up healthcare costs. Besides premiums being raised on those forced to report DNA results to insurance companies, in-office testing is far more expensive. As tests are priced anywhere from $300 to $3,500, this could significantly add to the overall cost of healthcare. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201604.png)



http://www.anh-usa.org/do-you-have-a-right-to-test-your-own-dna/
Title: Doctored: The Disillusionment of an American Physician Book Review
Post by: AGelbert on August 16, 2014, 09:06:29 pm
Doctored: The Disillusionment of an American Physician

Sandeep Jauhar

Farrar, Straus and Giroux

EXCERPT

ONE

Awakening



A young doctor means a new graveyard.


—German proverb


Snippet:

It was a few minutes past seven-thirty when I arrived at the hospital, and I was late for morning report. I pulled into the attending physicians’ lot and parked between two cars whose license plates read “BEAN DOC” and “GAS MD.” At the sliding glass doors leading into the lobby, two patients in teal hospital gowns were leaning on their IV poles, sucking hungrily on cigarettes. I skipped down a concrete stairwell to the basement. The corridors were deserted, save for a tardy first-year fellow racing ahead of me.

When I walked into the conference room, a fellow was presenting a case from overnight. About a dozen fellows and a half-dozen faculty members were there. The fellows rotated each month through the various cardiac subspecialties: electrophysiology (which focuses on arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disturbances), echocardiography (cardiac ultrasound), nuclear stress testing (which uses radioactive tracers to noninvasively detect coronary disease in hearts under stress from exercise or certain drugs), cardiac catheterization (Rajiv’s specialty), heart failure, the general consultative service, and the cardiac care unit (where the most critically ill patients of any subspecialty usually ended up). As faculty members we were responsible for teaching the fellows: scrubbing in with them on procedures, going on rounds with them, and instructing them over discussions at morning report or noon seminar. In the conference room, Rajiv and two of his interventional colleagues were sitting together, arms folded, legs crossed, in purple scrubs, like some sort of academic tribunal. My brother looked at me sharply, glanced at a phantom wristwatch, and winked. I quietly took a seat in the back.

The fellow was trying to explain his management of a critically ill patient the previous night. “The patient’s pulmonary artery saturation was in the mid-forties, so I ended up putting him on some dobutamine and gave him a little fluid back,” the fellow said. “He started putting out some urine, and his blood pressure went up. Over the next twelve hours, his oxygenation improved dramatically.”

Dr. Morrison, one of the interventional cardiologists, demanded to know why the fellow had given the patient intravenous fluid.

“At that point his central venous pressure was two,” the fellow said defensively, describing a state of dehydration. “His pulmonary artery diastolic pressure was six, and his wedge pressure was like eight.”

“And you’re sure the transducer was zeroed and level?” Morrison pressed him. “We see this a lot with the residents. They look up at the monitor and quote a pressure, but it’s just garbage.”

The fellow hesitated. “When we first put in the catheter, the wedge pressure was in the thirties—”

“Well, see, that’s what I’m saying,” Morrison interjected, as if the fellow had just made his point. “This guy wasn’t dehydrated! He was in florid heart failure. This is a textbook case of acute heart failure, from the frothy sputum to the missed myocardial infarction.”

“Anyway, good case,” the chief fellow said, trying to move things along.

“What this patient really needs is a doctor,” Dr. Morrison added caustically.

“As opposed to a plumber like us?” Rajiv shot back, coming to the fellow’s defense.

“Exactly,” Morrison replied, laughing. (Interventional cardiologists who relieve coronary obstructions with stents are often disparagingly referred to as plumbers.)
Full Excerpt (http://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9780374141394)

Review

In his acclaimed memoir Intern,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcdDLRUJ5k8&feature=player_embedded
http://www.sandeepjauhar.com/
Sandeep Jauhar chronicled the formative years of his residency at a prestigious New York City hospital. Doctored, his harrowing follow-up, observes the crisis of American medicine through the eyes of an attending cardiologist.


Hoping for the stability he needs to start a family, Jauhar accepts a position at a massive teaching hospital on the outskirts of Queens. With a decade’s worth of elite medical training behind him, he is eager to settle down and reap the rewards of countless sleepless nights. Instead, he is confronted with sobering truths. Doctors’ morale is low and getting lower, and when doctors are unhappy, their patients are apt to be unhappy as well. Blatant cronyism determines patient referrals, corporate ties distort medical decisions, and unnecessary tests are routinely performed in order to generate income. Meanwhile, a single patient in Jauhar’s hospital might see fifteen specialists in one stay and still fail to receive a full picture of his actual condition.


Unwilling to accept the prevailing norms, Jauhar fights to keep his ideals intact. But he, too, finds himself ensnared in the system. Struggling to pay back student loans and support a wife and son on his hospital salary, he resorts to moonlighting for a profit-driven private practice that orders batteries of tests just to drum up fees and ward off malpractice lawsuits.


Provoked by his unsettling experiences, Jauhar has written an introspective memoir that is also an impassioned plea for reform. With American medicine at a crossroads, Doctored is the important work of a writer unafraid to challenge the establishment and incite controversy.

http://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374141394

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2014, 06:44:28 pm
BREAKING: CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement (http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistleblower_public_confession_Dr_William_Thompson.html)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on November 27, 2014, 02:09:03 am
MORE PROOF that CNN is a FASCIST CORPORATE PROPAGANDA OUTLET: 
(http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsLuR3X6cpg&feature=player_embedded

Multiple SHORT AUTISM from vaccine U-tube videos at link below:  (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WsLuR3X6cpg&list=PLJpPObXpZncOfT0bG2ghgkVb2Nxjd_bNe

Next World Health TV

How CNN Caused A Vaccine Story It Tried To Crush To Instead Go Viral   ;D
 
"Hear This Well" Project

One After Another After Another After Another  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif) 


 In August of 2014, Autism Media Channel published bombshell recordings of a CDC autism researcher who blew the whistle on systemic fraud and data-tampering inside the CDC. The main stream media, months later, kept a near total silence on the explosive story.

 But when CNN's health reporter condescended to parents of autistic children by insisting "vaccines do not cause autism" and adding, "some people don't hear this well," she accidentally triggered a social media video revolution. Parents began recording one minute videos documenting that their children were developmentally normal until they got a certain round of vaccinations.

 This is the channel where all the "Hear This Well" videos are gathered, now numbering in the hundreds. They tell the true story  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif) of vaccines and autism the mainstream media refuses to tell.  >:(
I wrote about this when it first happened:

 http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/933954-autism-parents-reply-to-cnn-hear-this-well/


--Celia Farber


 Celia Farber is an investigative science reporter and cultural journalist who has written for several magazines including Harper’s, Esquire, Rolling Stone, SPIN and more. She is the author of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS” (Melville House Press/ Random House). Known for bold exposes of the pharmaceutical industry and related media cover ups, Celia Farber shines a spotlight on the very subjects that have been taboo for too long: What is Cancer? Does HIV cause AIDS? Do Vaccinations Cause Brain Damage? And many more...


 Visit her website at www.truthbarrier.com
- See more at: http://www.nextworldhealthtv.com/videos/vaccination/how-cnn-caused-a-vaccine-story-it-tried-to-crush-to-instead-go-viral-.html#sthash.Es6WVADj.dpuf
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 20, 2015, 04:03:33 pm

Please Allow 88 Year-Old, Dr. Carrol Frazier Landrum, to keep his Mississippi medical license  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)

author: Jennifer "Jenny" Speir Wilson, Kathy Speir Martin
target: Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure


Quote
A. G.,

The state of Mississippi wants to stop one of the few doctors in a poor, rural town from providing care to his patients, simply because he uses his car for an office! Sign my petition to make sure Dr. Landrum can keep caring for the health of his poor patients.

Growing up, my family was always proud of my second cousin, Dr. Carroll Frazier Landrum. As a child, I spent many summers with his family. I vividly recall what a genuinely caring soul he had, and those summers spent with his family are my most fond and cherished memories from my childhood. In the evenings I would see him drive up, go into his house with his briefcase in tow; then further dedicating his life to the care of his elderly mother and family.

One of the only doctors in the rural, poor town of Edwards, MS, Cousin Frazier was doing important work for folks with few healthcare options. When gun violence outside his clinic's front door forced him to lock up for good, his patients had nowhere else to go, and pleaded with him to continue caring for them. So, he started working from his car in order to continue in his dedication of providing health care to his needy patients.

But now the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure is trying to stop him! No one has complained about the care they have received, but because of his unconventional practice, the board has requested he surrender his medical license. This World War II veteran who has always sought to serve his country and his fellow man is now being forced to defend his most modest and humble work.

Dr. Landrum will have to appear before a hearing of the Mississippi State Board soon, so I started this petition to show the state what Dr. Landrum means to the community, and how important it is that he be allowed to continue to care for his patients.

Sign my petition and tell Mississippi: Let Dr. Landrum keep providing care for the rural poor in Edwards.
  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/computer3.gif)(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300614160245.gif)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/113/603/550/please-petition-88-year-old-dr-carrol-frazier-landrum-to-keep-his-mississippi-medical-license/

Thank you,

Jennifer "Jenny" Speir Wilson
 Florence, MS
 Care2 member


Agelbert NOTE: I signed with this comment: Dr. Carrol Frazier Landrum understands that health care is a VOCATION, not a business! It's time our greed poisoned country (AND BIOSPHERE POISONED TOO!) realized it as well.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/420/529/456/demand-liberty-from-fossil-fuels-through-100-renewable-energy-wwii-style-effort/

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2015, 12:55:04 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QZHHBGFwcs&feature=player_embedded

Documentary Reveals Shocking Extent of Government-Big Business Collusion to Eradicate Freedom of Choice


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/21/freedom-from-choice-documentary.aspx

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210215010009.jpeg)
Monsanto Government Revolving Door Corruption
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2015, 10:08:28 pm
Is Scurvy the New Diabetes? (https://medium.com/matter/is-scurvy-the-new-diabetes-27e99d679f53)

(https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*xt0dRaY7CW3SgWfY8EbeqQ.jpeg)

It’s horrible, deadly — and insanely easy to fix. But America’s troubles with food insecurity means millions are closer to the scurvy zone than we admit.[/b]

By Leigh Cowart

Right now, there’s about a cup of orange juice in my gut, sloshing around and mingling with my stomach acid as it delivers all the vitamin C that I require for the day. I’ve got some major bruises on my knees, and so once the essential nutrient hits my body’s internal transport system, the orange juice that I just drank will play an important role in wound healing, preventing future capillaries from bleeding too easily, and with any luck helping me perform enough sweet, sweet collagen synthesis to make it look like I sleep regularly. Vitamin C may be the most important water-soluble antioxidant in human plasma, and is required for all plants and animals. But while most other animals can synthesize their own supply, humans — along with other primates, guinea pigs, capybaras, some fish, and some bats — have to get theirs elsewhere. Hence the orange juice.

The problem is that not everyone gets enough. And when vitamin C goes missing from a diet for long enough, the results can be explicitly unpleasant: scurvy.

We act like scurvy is long left behind, a throwback disease, forgotten and dust-covered and banished to antiquity. But this scourge of sailors is, in fact, not something that humanity has outgrown. It still happens, and probably more than you realize.

[float=left](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/634/1*WQ4eAZ861phpkZuuU9F5kA.png)[/float]

Scurvy, the most extreme result of prolonged lack of vitamin C, is, in a word, unpleasant. In three, it’s “fatal if untreated.” The disease kicks off with the universal symptoms of “ugh”: low-grade inflammation, fatigue, bleeding gums, and swollen joints. Vitamin C is absolutely necessary for healthy collagen, which matters greatly because it makes up one fourth to one third of all of the protein that makes up you. It’s in your skin, your tendons, your bones, your gut, and your blood vessels, just to name a few. Your body is forever making more of it, knitting yourself together with a kind of sticky meat yarn. Without enough vitamin C, the collagen is made poorly and is therefore unstable: capillaries burst, wounds remain open, and, since your body is constantly replacing the collagen in scar tissue, old scars can reopen. As the owner of a C-section scar, I find this possibility very distressing.

If you think of your body like a car or a building, collagen is doing a hell of a lot of the upkeep. But no vitamin C means no collagen, means no upkeep, means open, suppurating sores that will never heal, means the kind of sores that do not smell okay. Scurvy can also loosen the teeth, which is a literal nightmare I have at least twice a year.

A diet devoid of vitamin C is always fatal, if left untreated; without it, you basically just fall apart because your body can’t make the collagen that keeps you glued together.

The exact details of scurvy eluded explorers for centuries. It was hard to keep a boat full of sailors alive at sea by feeding them stale carbs, salted meat, and booze, but then again, it was pretty hard to keep a boat full of sailors alive in general. Of course, just because humans didn’t always fully understand the disease doesn’t mean they weren’t on the case. People had their suspicions regarding the correlation between the lack of fresh foods and withering sailors for centuries. By the late 1400s, the healing powers of citrus were known, but it wouldn’t be until the mid-18th century that medicine gave us definitive answers. In what is famously known as the first clinical trial ever (owing to his use of control groups), ship surgeon James Lind formally concluded that scurvy could be cured by citrus fruits, debunking the popular theory that it was caused by a lack of acids. Lind, however, waited to inform the British Navy about his findings because of citrus’s high price; it would be nearly 50 years before lemon juice would become a required ration in the Navy.

Yes, yes, but what does this have to do with me?

It’s true: Scurvy is not something that you will readily encounter in mainstream American life, since death from lack of vitamin C requires poor medical care and consistent and prolonged lack of access to fresh or fortified foods. It also often involves a cofactor such as alcoholism, being an elderly shut-in, or inadequate infant nutrition. But that doesn’t mean you’re off the hook: Like so many diseases with social roots, scurvy doesn’t come on like flipping a switch; it’s not as if one day you’re fine, and the next all your old scars are opening up and your tongue is covered in sores. This kind of malnutritive illness exists on a sliding scale of grays. Vitamin C deficiency is no joke, and acting like we don’t have to worry about historical diseases is arrogant and stupid. Here’s why.



(https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1080/1*WloVSfnImI6qjWZNO9LhPw.png)
Source: State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, CDC, 2013


There’s a trap that we fall into in our ostensibly affluent country, a mirage flanked by skyrocketing obesity trends on one hand, and our obsession with image on the other. It tells us that in the land of plenty — one of the wealthiest and fattest countries on this blue, agrarian marble — there is no hunger, no malnutrition. How could anyone see our supermarkets and think that children go hungry on the weekends without school lunch? How could they understand bones softened by rickets, or that scurvy is still making gums bleed? Like keeping a lucky rabbit’s foot with your keys, we delude ourselves into thinking that proximity to medical care and healthy food is enough to keep us all well.

(https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/393/1*WBzuEFFk0x85guoXKrdfXg.png)
*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000-calorie diet.

But hunger and poverty are quiet monsters, the ones content to burden its victims with the job of concealment. As far as society is concerned, it’s easy to miss what you didn’t want to see in the first place. But in 2013, 49.1 million Americans were food insecure — a status defined by the USDA as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food” — and homes with children were more likely to struggle. That year, almost one in five homes with children were food insecure; for households run by a single mother, the rate jumped to over 1 in 3.


The last time CDC researchers looked at vitamin C deficiency among the American public, they found that an estimated 8.4 percent of adults aged 20 and older were at risk of developing scurvy. Like scurvy-scurvy, with wound-healing problems and weird rashes and bleeding gums, the whole sick-pirate bit. Prolonged vitamin C levels this low are incredibly dangerous.


But it’s not just scurvy-scurvy, either. There’s also latent scurvy, which happens when vitamin C concentrations are low but not super low. Research suggests it’s associated with fatigue and irritability, as well as vague, dull, aching pains; one study showed 15.7 percent of adults had vitamin C levels in this low range.


There is good news, however. Vitamin C levels are actually going up. In the late 1980s and early ’90s, the overall prevalence of deficiency was much higher — it had halved a decade later, and continued to fall. But the dramatic decrease is not for the reasons you may think. There was, in fact, no uptick in fruit and vegetable intake over that time: Consumption held steady for fruit at 1.6 servings a day on average, while for vegetables it dropped slightly, from 3.4 to 3.2. We’re actually eating just a little bit worse than we used to. But at the same time there was a decrease in smoking, and smoking makes it harder to properly absorb vitamin C.

The rest of the news is, unfortunately, bad.

Perhaps most distressing is the clear influence of socioeconomic status. The study found that the average vitamin C concentrations increase, and prevalence of vitamin C deficiency decrease, with improving socioeconomic circumstances. Of the men in the lowest bracket, 17.4 percent were deficient and in the range for developing scurvy, but on the other end of the spectrum, males with high socioeconomic status clocked in at a mere 7.9 percent. The same trend is apparent in women, whose rate of vitamin C deficiency drops from one in 10 in the lower income bracket to one in 20 in the high.

(https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/491/1*yJ8B3629_bJ5tYa6n09H2A.jpeg)

The way we eat now versus the way we ate then has long inspired dieting fads — just think paleo — but you cannot pin scurvy on the advent of processed food. It’s true that cooking, canning, and other forms of preservation can and do degrade the amount of vitamin C present, but many food manufacturers add it (under the name ascorbic acid) as a preservative. And with the ubiquity of enriched beverages and “immune-boosting supplements,” it’s not as if the nutrient is hard to find.

Even so, with one in three single-mother households dealing with food insecurity, and one in 10 women with diminished socioeconomic status verifiably in the scurvy zone when it comes to vitamin C levels, it’s clear that there is a failure of the system.

Like Type 2 diabetes, scurvy is well-known, diet-related and just as avoidable — even if it may never be as widespread or as omnipresent.

(https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*dfPI8hv0OWUCHbu4x-Ez-w.png)

As hard as it may be to believe, a significant proportion of the U.S. population is at risk. Huge swaths of the populace are unknowingly flirting with scurvy — and yet the treatment is incredibly simple: Consuming vitamin C–rich foods like brightly colored fresh fruits and vegetables, oysters, or even (as soldiers in Napoleon’s army discovered) fresh horse meat is enough to treat the disease. But treatment is easy; the solution is hard.

Scurvy isn’t malevolent; it is merely the poster child for a broken social contract.   (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)   The kind where the wealth gap widens and people are slipping deeper into poverty as the federal government cuts $93 million in spending to Women, Infants and Children — a program offering nutritional support to low-income women and their kids. Combine that with the fact that processed foods are cheap and filling, and suddenly vitamin C levels in the scurvy zone start to make more sense.

We worry so much about the illnesses we pass on to each other: Measles, ebola, all the rest. But what do we do when sickness isn’t spread by germy fingers, but by apathy?

Agebert NOTE: There is a bit more than APATHY at work here (see MENS REA).


Surly,
Great article on scurvy! (http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg) Captain Cook would force his crew to eat raw seal and tried to get fresh plants whenever he could. As your article points out about those days, it was a struggle.

I believe the main problem is processed foods ADDICTION caused by flavonoids in the crap that passes for foods. The normal biochemistry that unconsciously tells us to eat this or that has been blunted, shunted and fooled by said flavonoids to make the person think everything is hunky dory.

The fist step requires a detox from processed foods. I went an internet tirade a month ago against some vegetarians carrying on about how "meat eaters" are hurting the environment. The Paul McCartney article recommended "meatless mondays". Here's my comment thread. It is the solution to Vitamin C deficiency and many other daily nutritional vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Our Corporate overlords just do not want to hear it because they MADE MONEY CREATING these non-food foods that are addictive CRAP. They don't want their profit over people parade interrupted by CFS.

a month ago  

Quote
When you are poor, "meatless" happens a LOT MORE OFTEN that just on Mondays!

I think it is great if you can go Vegan. But for all you Vegans with lots of money and STOCK in fruit and vegetable corporations, I SUGGEST you lower the price of nutritious fruit and vegetables.

The price of fruit is TOO HIGH and the wages paid to those who pick them are TOO LOW. How about walkin' the Vegan Talk for all of us!!? Give us affordable fruit! You can pay your executives a lot less and your pickers a lot more and still reduce fruit and vegetable prices. Don't tell us you can't!

And while you are at it, why don't you GET RID OF THE FOOD DESERTS in poor neighborhoods by putting premium quality fruit and vegetable (discounted for the poor) grocery stores there?
 
Oh, there isn't enough profit in that?

Well then, spare us the Vegan tears about how much meat eating is destroying the planet. YOU are helping by not EATING a LARGE PART of the fruit price profits on behalf of the overwhelming mass of humans that are poor and middle class.

Have a nice day.


Quote
empirical evidence guy > agelbert  • a month ago   

The US govt subsidizes meat, but not fruits and veggies. Probably should be the inverse. But then again, someone that eats too much meat and other processed foods {along with couch potato lifestyle} is more unhealthy and visits a doctor more often. Medical costs + potentially unnecessary drug costs ($$ & side effects, etc.) make citizens more likely to refrain from active participation in our democracy.

Conspiracy? perhaps

Quote

agelbert > empirical evidence guy  • 24 days ago   


Conspiracy? Of course! The collusion of business interests in the USA to keep average IQ down among the middle and lower class is well documented. Besides being a dumping ground for processed food, every sort of air, soil and liquid pollution from industrialization and automobiles is far more prevalent in poor and middle class communities. Just research where coal, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have been sited since electrification began in this country in the 1930's.

It was PLANNED that way. But the planetary sewers are backing up now so the "elite" are scrambling to keep their environment and food "safe". They think they KNOW where to run to and hide.

The biosphere has a message for them:
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260115193430.png)



Quote
Don-Flyboy  • a month ago 

I agree with agelbert....alternative eating habits are expensive to design to eliminate meat from the diet, and get the required nutrition elsewhere. Now, I agree with a couple days a week without meat. I love salad, but a really good salad with Romain lettuce and several vegetables is expensive and short lived in the refrigerator. But I am "wealthy" enough (moderately poor) to be able to afford to eat well. Many people are not so fortunate (not as strongly motivated for education, to become a professional and have the benefit of a good paying job). Now I also eat fish...and I know some vegans who eat "sea food" why is that different than eating animals? Air breathing sea creatures such a dolphins (Mahi-Mahi) are "animals" by definition. But shrimp, fish, crab and even shell creatures are "alive" & so are plants!!

So....
I believe in moderation....So I eat meat....mankind really is a omnivore....but not every day....some days I have mixed fruit salad for breakfast, some days cereal or oatmeal with fruit, or turkey bacon & eggs, or pancakes or Belgian waffles (a personal favorite)...but for lunch I usually have soup & sandwiches... tuna or turkey...never beef.... if I have lunch....and for dinner I vary my diet a lot. Very rarely eat large meat portions....usually my plate has very large vegetable portions, when I eat potatoes its almost always sweet potatoes or yams...they have more flavor and a wider range of nutrients....and I frequently include things like applesauce or other fruit....like raspberries & raisin cranberries in a dinner salad. And I eat really good substitutes like eggplant & portobello mushrooms. So I follow a frequent meatless meal philosophy. But my vegan friends disapprove. Oh well. As I wrote above...I believe humans are omnivores by nature. Do we disrespect the dog, cat, wolf or lion because they are carnivores? I do not. And I openly confront animal cruelty and "Factory Farms" mentality and practice. We need MORE organized resistance and grass roots initiated legislation to give animals a decent life and humane death for consumption. That part of the vegan philosophy I agree with totally. I often buy uncaged eggs from free range chickens.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 05:14:41 pm
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth—How GMOs Took Over the Food Supply, Part 2 Druker


March 15, 2015 | 239,764 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqfAXOcmezY&feature=player_embedded

SNIPPET from the article following the video:

Quote
Misrepresentations by Molecular Biologists Led to the Creation of One of the Biggest Frauds in History

Ultimately, the blame for this fraud has to be put at the feet of the molecular biology establishment—the main scientific establishment in the life sciences—which Steven discussed in Part 1 of this interview. His book goes into this part of history in great detail, demonstrating how the aggregate misleading statements about the science behind GMOs and their purported safety were born back in the early 1970s when genetic engineering was first established. Within the context of the history of science, the fraud related to GE foods is one of the biggest and most pernicious ever committed by scientists, and it began with molecular biologists who wanted to protect the budding science of genetic engineering by whitewashing potential concerns.

In the 12th chapter of Steven’s book, “Unfounded Foundational Presumptions,” he shows that even when the evidence goes against the genetic engineers of today, they always fall back on some of those initial presumptions made by the molecular biology establishment—presumptions that support the notion genetic engineering is a safe enterprise—and they never really acknowledge that those presumptions have been solidly refuted.


"One of the key ones of those, which I think is important to bring out, is that somehow, no matter how unruly and unpredictable somebody can demonstrate genetic engineering to be, they will always say, 'Well, conventional breeding is worse. Nature is far more random, unruly, and risky.' That is a very important point to bring out, because there are so many Americans who probably, just as a matter of course, believe what they're being told about this.

They don't understand that that is actually a foundational assumption—that you can't actually trust food that's been here for a long, long time; that nature is somehow being slandered and disparaged as being far more unruly, unpredictable, and dangerous. Every act of pollination is somehow supposed to be at least as risky, if not riskier, and more unpredictable than these radical insertions of foreign genetic material into soybeans, corn, and zucchinis. That I found to be gross slander against nature. I think more and more people need to understand that." 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/15/altered-genes-twisted-truth-gmo-part-2.aspx


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210215010009.jpeg)
  (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2015, 08:18:45 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The following comment on a story about a scientist chasing funding is better than the story  ;D.

The (scientifically well referenced (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif)) comment sheds much needed light on how  scientists have become corrupt, money chasing and mendacious, thanks to the corporate destruction of good science in the service of profit over patient (AND PLANET TOO!). (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

Quote
This story leaves out some important context about its protagonist, David Sinclair.

Sinclair was the chief person behind the series of high-profile papers in the 2000s linking red wine, resveratrol, sirtuins and aging. During this period, Sinclair's work was repeatedly featured in the New York Times and he became a minor scientific celebrity. He founded a company, Sirtris, with the goal of making sirtuin activators to treat aging related diseases, and Sirtris was purchased by GSK in 2007 for the staggering sum of $720 million. This was despite the fact that the company had never shown that any of its compounds had activity in humans.

Shortly after the Sirtris sale, it began to emerge that the whole red wine/resveratrol/aging story was not true.

It turned out that resveratrol and the compounds discovered by Sirtris were not sirtuin activators, as claimed by Sinclair in a series of Nature papers. Rather, the activity of the compounds was an artifact resulting from a poorly controlled biochemical essay. 

Likewise, evidence emerged that sirtuins were not nearly as important for aging as Sinclair and others had claimed, and that several of the key biological results making this link, published by Sinclair and others in Science and Nature, were again not reproducible due to sloppy experimental design.

Recently, Sirtris was shut down by GSK, and the consensus in the pharmaceutical industry is that their $720M Sirtris investment led to nothing of value. I have copied below a series of papers and other links that go into greater detail regarding this story. (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)

This information provides a different context for the funding saga of David Sinclair recounted above. It is possible that Sinclair found it difficult to obtain NIH funding because his much-hyped work had been thoroughly discredited, such that NIH study sections decided (rightly) that it would be a mistake to give him any more money.

In this context, the fact that Sinclair has nonetheless been able to find private backers so that he can again maintain a 22 person lab is remarkable.

It suggests that there is a profound failure in the mechanisms by which we ensure accountability in academic science.
By writing a story that fails to mention any of this, and in fact portrays Sinclair as the hero, the author Bob Grant is contributing to the problem.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10296.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19843076

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20061378

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21428798

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/03/12/sirtis_gets_shut_down_in_cambridge.php

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/01/12/the_sirtris_compounds_worthless_really.php

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/11/05/what_exactly_does_resveratrol_do.php



http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42799/title/Follow-the-Funding/

As you can see, GREED is destroying the scientific method along with the environment. (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png)

Quote

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few. These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior.

It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on May 24, 2015, 03:58:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9-33PrPdoQ&feature=player_embedded
MEDICAL FRAUD for CORPORATE PROFIT  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif)

SNIPPET:
Quote
Many Times They Just Make Stuff Up  :o

While it’s hard to comprehend, some health recommendations are completely fabricated and are not based in any science. Dr. Kendrick wrote about this in a recent article for The Independent:1

“If you are a man, it has virtually become gospel that drinking more than 21 units of alcohol a week is damaging to your health. But where did the evidence to support this well-known ‘fact’ come from?

The answer may surprise you. According to Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, the level for safe drinking was ‘plucked out of the air.’

He was on a Royal College of Physicians team that helped produce the guidelines in 1987. He told The Times newspaper that the committee's epidemiologist had conceded that there was no data about safe limits available and that ‘it's impossible to say what's safe and what isn't.’

Smith said the drinking limits were ‘not based on any firm evidence at all,’ but were an ‘intelligent guess.’ In time, the intelligent guess becomes an undisputed fact.”

According to Dr. Kendrick, the linear model for blood pressure—which states the higher your blood pressure is, in a linear fashion, the greater your risk of dying—was also made up.

Ditto for recommended cholesterol levels, and healthy versus unhealthy obesity levels. Believe it or not, none of these are based on real data. The recommendation to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables is equally made up, yet recommendations such as these become set in stone.


People believe it must be based on solid evidence and therefore true. One of the most impressive comments he made in the interview is: “Don’t believe it. They just made it up.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/05/24/medical-fraud-doctoring-data.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2015, 01:06:02 am
Shocking Report from Medical Insiders  :o  :o  >:(

Posted by talesfromtheconspiratum on June 20, 2015

Posted in: Big Pharma, Corruption, Medicine, Science, Scientism. Tagged: Medical journals, pharmaceutical companies, The Lancet.

F. William Engdahl

June 18, 2015

A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.  >:(. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

(http://journal-neo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/img535616.jpg)

Horton declared,
Quote
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.

The drug industry-sponsored studies Horton refers to develop commercial drugs or vaccines to supposedly help people, used to train medical staff, to educate medical students and more.

Horton wrote his shocking comments after attending a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research at the Wellcome Trust in London. He noted the confidentiality or “Chatham House” rules where attendees are forbidden to name names: “’A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides.”

Other voices

Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated,

Quote
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

Harvey Marcovitch, who has studied and written about the corruption of medical tests and publication in medical journals, writes, “studies showing positive outcomes for a drug or device under consideration are more likely to be published than ‘negative’ studies; editors are partly to blame for this but so are commercial sponsors, whose methodologically well-conducted studies with unfavorable results tended not to see the light of day…”

At the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic obtained documents that showed that, “vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day.”

Lancet’s Dr. Horton concludes, “Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counter-argument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

Corruption of the medical industry worldwide is a huge issue, perhaps more dangerous than the threat of all wars combined. Do we have such hypnosis and blind faith in our doctors simply because of their white coats that we believe they are infallible? And, in turn, do they have such blind faith in the medical journals recommending a given new wonder medicine or vaccine that they rush to give the drugs or vaccines without considering these deeper issues?

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

https://talesfromthelou.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/shocking-report-from-medical-insiders/
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2015, 05:36:13 pm


A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media >:(. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

This is one deeply sobering article, that brings into focus and confirms what many have feared.

Yep. It scared me. It reinforces the requirement for all of us who, like me, must deal regularly with the medical establishment, to research every drug or vaccine a doctor tries to push on to us six ways from Sunday. Due diligence is definitely not optional when dealing with doctors.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2015, 03:35:54 pm
Cancer Doctors Offer Way to Compare Medicines, Including by Cost


By ANDREW POLLACK JUNE 22, 2015
 
Alarmed by the rapid escalation in the price of cancer drugs, the nation’s leading oncology society unveiled on Monday a new way for doctors and patients to evaluate different treatments — one that pointedly includes a medicine’s cost as well as its effectiveness and side effects.

The release by the American Society of Clinical Oncology of what it calls its “value framework,” is part of a change in thinking among doctors, who once largely chose drugs based on their medical attributes alone. The major cardiology societies, for instance, are also now starting to factor cost into their evaluation of drugs.

“The reality is that many patients don’t get this information from their doctors and many doctors don’t have the information they need to talk with their patients about costs,” Dr. Richard Schilsky, chief medical officer of the oncology society, said in a news conference on Monday.

He said the price of new cancer drugs now averaged about $10,000 a month, and some cost $30,000 a month, which can mean prohibitive co-payments even for some patients with good insurance. “Many cancer patients are facing severe financial strain, even bankruptcy in some cases,” he said.

The value framework envisions considering two costs: the out-of-pocket costs for the patient and the overall cost of a drug to the health system.

Evaluating the latter cost would put doctors in the role of being stewards of societal resources. That is somewhat of a controversial role for doctors, since it might conflict with their duty to the patient in front of them. But the oncology society said it did not see those roles as being in conflict.

Some of the sample valuations presented by the society were far from flattering for the drugs involved.

Quote
Roche’s Avastin, when added to chemotherapy, had a net health benefit of 16 out of 130 possible points when used as an initial treatment for advanced lung cancer. Its monthly cost was $11,907.87, compared to $182.09 for the chemotherapy alone.  :o  >:(
Quote
Eli Lilly’s Alimta for that same use had a net heath benefit of zero with a cost exceeding $9,000 a month  >:( compared to about $800 a month  for the drugs it was compared to in the clinical trial.

A spokeswoman for Lilly said the trial analyzed by the oncology society understated Alimta’s effectiveness because it covered a broad population, whereas Alimta is approved for only one type of lung cancer. A spokeswoman for Roche said Avastin was the first drug to help lung cancer patients live longer than a year, and that the choice of treatments for life-threatening diseases was complex and personal.

The framework, published online Monday by The Journal of Clinical Oncology is more a proposed methodology that will now be open for public comment. It will take time to input the data on the effectiveness, side effects and costs of each drug, and convert it to a system that can be used on computers and mobile phones.

There is no requirement that doctors use the framework and it remains to be seen if they will.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png) But the authors of the document say it is a start.

Agelbert NOTE: Considering the HEAT doctors are going to get from the pharmaceutical crooks that pay doctors (http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg)to push this, that and the other drug because it supposedly "works" (according to a RIGGED clinical study (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corporate-profits-over-patient-in-the-health-care-field/msg3342/#msg3342), ALWAYS DONE BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL CROOKS themselves, while the AMA and FDA claims it's all very "scientific"  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)),
with your doctor's advice, use Caveat Emptor ON STERIODS!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

And, OF COURSE, the insurance CROOKS will claim THEY are being ripped off by doctors. This will give those crooks ANOTHER totally unsubstantiated excuse (considering they have raised rates at over 500% of published inflation EVERY YEAR for over 20 YEARS!) to jack up their rates AND delay cancer therapy. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)

Quote
“It allows the patient and the doctor to at least talk through the issues,” said Dr. Lee N. Newcomer, senior vice president for oncology at UnitedHealthcare, the big insurance company, and a member of the task force that developed the framework. “Before, the information wasn’t there.”

UnitedHealthcare is mounting a similar effort of its own, Dr. Newcomer said. Starting this month, it is requiring oncologists to get prior approval from the insurance company for every cancer drug they administer. The company will then track what happens to patients and eventually provide information to doctors about how well each drug works.

Concern about cancer drug prices has been rising for years and doctors have been becoming increasingly vocal. At its annual meeting late last month, the oncology society included a talk sharply criticizing the prices of cancer drugs as part of its plenary session.

Randy Burkholder, vice president for policy and research at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry trade group, said that drugs represented only 20 percent of cancer treatment costs. He also said that the big clinical trials that the oncology society used to make its value calculations might not be as relevant as treatment becomes increasingly personalized based on genetic analysis of a patient’s tumor.

Some experts say that ideally, the price of a drug should reflect its value, but that does not seem to be the case with cancer drugs  ;). A recent study by researchers from the National Cancer Institute, published in JAMA Oncology, surveyed cancer drugs approved from 2009 through 2013. It found that prices did not correlate very well with how novel a drug was or whether it prolonged life versus just shrinking tumors.

Agelbert NOTE
: IOW, "They are dying from cancer, they are desperate, they are a captive market! (http://elqahera-trading.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dollar-sign-thumbnail1.jpg)  - FLEECE them for all they are worth!" SEE "free market" CELEBRATION of  Empathy Deficit Disorder in the medical and pharmaceutical industry. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

The framework computes a score — called the net health benefit — based on clinical trial data.

Drugs for advanced cancer are given a score from 0 to 130. Up to 80 of the points are based on a drug’s effectiveness in prolonging lives, delaying the worsening of cancer or shrinking tumors. Then up to 20 points can be added or subtracted based on side effects. And up to 30 bonus points can be granted if the drug relieves cancer symptoms or allows a patient to go without treatment for a period of time.

The costs of the drug are listed separately, rather than incorporated into the final score for a drug. That is a step short of what is done in some evaluations, such as those by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in Britain, in which drugs are rated by the cost per extra year of life they provide, adjusted by side effects and symptoms.

Researchers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center recently announced a tool that allows people to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs.

These other institutions “take the next step to say ‘What do we think about this amount of benefit at this cost?’” said Dr. Steven D. Pearson, president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit organization that evaluates the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments.

Dr. Lowell E. Schnipper, chairman of the task force that developed the oncology society’s framework, said that patients wanted to know how medically effective a drug is. Adding the cost into an overall rating would obscure that information, he said.

Each drug is evaluated based on how it did in clinical trials compared to a control group, and the control groups can be different. That makes it difficult to compare one drug to another.

“This is not a way of ranking drugs,” said Dr. Schnipper, who is clinical director of the cancer center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “This is simply a way of understanding the outcome of a clinical trial.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/business/cancer-doctors-offer-way-to-compare-medicines-including-by-cost.html
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 02, 2015, 10:19:39 pm
Vermont's version of Nurse Rached!

(http://media.al.com/entertainment_impact/photo/10610051-large.jpg)

Psychiatric nurse disciplined for abusive treatment of patient

Morgan True Jul. 1 2015, 2:50 pm

Agelbert NOTE:
The article is honest in reporting the facts uncovered but the reporter refuses to question some of those "facts" like the "positive work history" of this Vermont Nurse Rached. The comments, however, tell the REAL story.


A veteran nurse at the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin was disciplined for abusive treatment of a patient in January, a Division of Licensing and Protection survey report shows.

The nurse, acting as shift lead, directed staff to conduct “planned ignoring” of a patient with severe obsessive compulsive disorder in an attempt to manage the patient’s “maladaptive” behaviors, according to the report.

Planned ignoring is a strategy sometimes used to reduce attention seeking behavior, the report states, but it was not part of this patient’s treatment plan. The treating psychiatrist later said planned ignoring is not recommended for patients with OCD and the nurse had no authority to instruct staff to implement it.

The nurse carried it further than just ignoring the patient, according to witnesses, by “taunting” the patient who became “visibly upset” and cried throughout the evening while begging for assistance.
The episode left the patient so anxious that the person reported having thoughts of taking his or her own life, the report said.

A month later the patient and nurse went at it again, the report says. After the patient slammed a door, the nurse reopened the door 5 to 7 times while smiling and laughing. That left the patient “angry yelling and hysterical.” The nurse later told investigators they were creating a distraction to “deescalate” the situation.  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315203150.png)

Officials at VPCH reported the incident to the Division of Licensing and Protection, which performed an unannounced site visit on behalf the federal government. The inspection concluded that the abuse resulted from poor job performance “rather than from systemic processes and factors that require correction.”  ;)

At the same time, Adult Protective Services and the Department of Human Resources conducted their own investigations. APS, which investigates abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults, substantiated the alleged abuse in March, and the nurse was immediately placed on administrative leave. The finding was also reported to the Vermont State Board of Nursing.

The nurse in question was allowed to continue working at the hospital while those investigations unfolded because of “a positive work history with no record of having mistreated a patient.” The nurse has worked in state psychiatric facilities for nine years, a tenure dating back to the former Vermont State Hospital in Waterbury.

As of May 15, when Licensing and Protection approved the hospital’s corrective action plan for issues uncovered during the inspection, the nurse remained on administrative leave, according to Vermont Public Radio which first reported the incident.

The inspection also found VPCH was not properly documenting its use of restraint and seclusion, but not that restraint or seclusion was being used inappropriately.

The inspection report highlights the difficulty of cases that nurses at VPCH regularly confront. The combination of trying circumstances, low pay and lack of qualified nurses driving turnover and understaffing at VPCH — an issue at the hospital since it was opened last summer.

VPCH CEO Jeff Rothenberg told VPR that an Agency of Human Services working group is expected to deliver a report on state nursing salaries later this summer, and he was optimistic that could lead to higher pay.[/color]


COMMENTS: 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

Quote
Tom Pelham 

July 1, 2015 at 5:31 pm


Morgan…a little over a year ago you wrote the story below which profiled the cost per patient per day of the new Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital (VPCH) at $2,247 per day or $820,000 per patient bed per year.

http://vtdigger.org/2014/05/28/new-state-psychiatric-hospital-brings-care-21st-century/ (http://vtdigger.org/2014/05/28/new-state-psychiatric-hospital-brings-care-21st-century/)

Though I have looked, I can’t find any acute care level 1 psychiatric hospital with this high level of operating costs. Plus, at over $1.1 million construction cost per bed unit, the hospital must be at the frontier of best practices design for a psychiatric hospital servicing the needs of patients requiring such a high level of care.

By any measure, for both construction and operations, a lot of money is invested in this facility, leaving one to wonder how it’s is now being managed with a result that yields only “trying circumstances, low pay and lack of qualified nurses driving turnover and understaffing at VPCH”.

The Vermont State Hospital use to have a distinct budget appropriation in the state budget where one could track such expenditures. Now, the VPCH budget is blended into the Department of Mental Health’s overall budget of $217.1 million for fiscal 2016, making tracking VPCH budgeted expenditures impossible. It might be helpful to readers as this story moves forward to provide some context of the cost of this new facility, both construction and operations, with similar facilities in other states.

Curtis Sinclair 

July 1, 2015 at 10:32 pm

Notice that this is a veteran nurse. That means this is the kind of thing she has been doing for years. This kind of behavior was common by staff at the old Vermont State Hospital because staff think that’s what they are supposed to do – provoke patients so they have an excuse to drug them. That’s the whole program at institutions like this – force drugging people. And the staff and doctors use any means they can, including lying at court hearings. I know because I saw it personally. A good way to stop such abuses would be to end involuntary ‘treatment’. When patients didn’t like their treatment they would check out and that would empty out places like VSH and the Vermont Psychiatric Care ‘Hospital’.

How many incidents will it take before CMS begins questioning this ‘hospital’s’ certification? I predicted that when this new facility was planned because the state would be transferring the same old problems into a new facility. I even pointed out another state where the same thing happened – Arizona. They built a new $80 million facility to replace the old one and within a few years it was already in trouble with federal inspectors.

All the money wasted on this ‘hospital’ could have gone to voluntary community treatment programs that would have really helped people.

http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/01/psychiatric-nurse-disciplined-for-abusive-treatment-of-patient/ (http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/01/psychiatric-nurse-disciplined-for-abusive-treatment-of-patient/)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 03, 2015, 04:08:56 pm
Quote
A political revolution.

It's coming. 

Because what should be alive is dead, because what should be dead is alive, because what should be set free is bound, because what should be bound is set free, because what should be done is not done, because what should never be done is being done.

By politicians who reward the powerful and punish the powerless, by bankers who regulate Congress instead of Congress regulating them, by police who kill children and call it law enforcement, by hacks who cut-and-paste plutocrat talking points and call it journalism, by judges who fill America's prisons with the poor and call it justice.

They will be held accountable, they will all be held accountable.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/01/1398125/-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Crashing-the-Gates (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/01/1398125/-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Crashing-the-Gates)

(https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11542044_929037413830690_5883339999878130417_n.jpg?oh=bcbbc64f2749ae5458ab10fc13a0b097&oe=5624CA3F)

AG,
The pharmacologizing of mental health has been well-documented now for decades.  no surprise that so-called "caregivers" promote patients in order to justify the diagnosis.  It's good for "business." Likewise, pills instead of therapy. All part of institutionalizing profits for Big Pharma.

 Nevertheless, it's amazing with Vermont still has facilities like this open to warehouse the mentally ill. In the South, most of these people are on the streets or sleeping under bridges.

Surly,

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

As to the mental health thing, Vermont DOES have a plan, as the last commenter stated, of voluntary medication and mental health care, as opposed to throwing them in the streets (see: Ronald Reagan in California). The reason it's being sabotaged is for big pharma, as you noted.

BUT. there is another reason that has to do with the GROWTH of this Empathy Deficit Disorder COMBINED with the ethics free profit motive in this country (e. g. Prison industrial complex).

UB may disagree, but the subtext is the sadistic joy these "health care" EDD Nurse Rached types get out of CONTROLLING defenseless human beings. I think that THAT is the REAL reason, above and beyond profit, that this evil persists. But lacking hard evidence, I have to leave it in the subtext ("fringe benefit"  :evil4:) subordinate category.

Surly, For those who, unlike you, will NOT see the EDD pattern in the USA from "states rights" to "slaves are property" to "might is right" to "war is good business" to the current crop of EDD CEO's, politicians and doctors dominating the "We are doing it  for yer own good" profit over people and planet double talk, here is an article that connects a LOT of the dots that most people shy away from connecting:

Nurse Ratched and the Thera peutic State

Agelbert NOTE: Of course the logic challenged types looking for a chance to plug their 'greed is good' ideology will try to claim "it's all big gooberment's fault and we should let the free market sort it out".  ::) It really is amazing how EDD people can disingeunuously claim empathy "for our own good" while they carefully and calmly plan to ignore the poor and mentally ill everywhere in order to pad their pocketbook.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)


 In the history of American cinema, few characterizations of female villains have been so artfully played as Louise Fletcher’s “Nurse Ratched” from One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Bloodless and detached, psychologically opaque, calculating and as serenely reserved as an adder, McMurphy’s more than worthy Antagonist in White is deftly portrayed as a creature of malignant control couched within starched layers of therapeutic justification.

Agelbert NOTE: e. g. See fossil fuel industry's claim of being "our savior" and "altruistically" controlling our energy Procrustean bed (that they profit massively from) "for our own good" using (see MKing = Rached) calm. prudent, scientific, measured, and so on, apex predator "math".  :evil4:

Throughout the course of the film, it will be both characters’ unyielding struggle for ascendency that ultimately crescendos into its tragic finale, as the spirit of rebellious freedom crashes headlong into a system that has been designed to silently strangle that very hope.

Quote
In bargaining for health and life in exchange for the freedoms and privileges of a free people, America has voluntarily introduced the spirit of tyranny through its back door in the guise of a cloying matriarchal nurse who has other agendas secured behind her chilling blue-eyed gaze.

The Good Nurse in her antiseptic fiefdom communicates the appearance of benevolent concern for her charges—but upon piercing the outer veil we find this not to be so. From Kesey’s novel we learn that Ratched has spent years acquiring the correct mix of doctors and staff that serve as pliant instrumentalities of her will—and that her will manifests a more personal agenda. Hence, as we immerse ourselves in the tale, we find that a select group of patients, many who are voluntary admissions, are in reality the victims of Ratched’s thera peutic malevolence.

Her method is designed to homogenize–to pit them against one another and themselves. By quashing bad thoughts, her project is systematically geared towards instilling an infantilizing culture of emasculation and caste-iron control. Most disturbingly, we learn that the ward’s thera peutic goal, once ideally aimed at the restoration of health, has long been discarded for the Nurse’s own questionable discipline: a therapy with a paper thin veneer of democracy that has nevertheless metastasized into a calculated regime of dominance.

Under color of an exaggerated maternal concern for our temporal wellbeing, the Thera peutic State arises in America with reptilian eyes as she licks her lips and sizes us up. Flowing from a technical reservoir of absolute certainty, the Great Matriarch Who Knows Best has deemed it prudent for you to assume the Procrustean dimensions of body and mind that have been lovingly prepared as an altruistic service to her wayward children.

Such a project, however, cannot be instituted in one day. Indeed, much of America is like a young colt that will not be broken; and hence, how difficult it is to accustom a proud people to the overseer’s yoke. Thus, any governmental strategy directed towards a policy of inordinate control must mimic the boiling frog scenario. However, if men can be convinced that the restriction or evisceration of freedoms or an unorthodox train of thought are counter to a people’s own interests of health or wellbeing, then many will fasten the saddle and halter upon themselves and lovingly lick the whip master’s hand. The great writer, C.S. Lewis crystallizes this observation:
Quote

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

Once the camel’s nose has appeared under the tent, he cannot be kept out. For example: having long ago relinquished the reins of collective accountability to the hands of their Masters in a herded hive mentality such as New York City, should it be so surprising to a citizenry that its mayor could throw down stunningly invasive legislation concerning Big Gulps: laws that in themselves would elicit convulsive laughter in Gillette Wyoming?

It could be that the jihad leveled against tobacco fulfilled the same opening that the camel’s nose provided. Whichever way one views what is unarguably a nasty habit, it cannot be denied that the state has willingly used the practice as a wedge to cast moral aspersions on smokers by turning the population against one another, much as Nurse Ratched did in her therapy sessions that singled out and humiliated. Furthermore, it can be little denied that the American anti-smoking long march, which even the collectivized sheeple of Europe would deem beyond the pale, has taken every concession granted as a sign of weakness that only further arouses the state’s thirst for more lucre. In truth, cigarette smokers are looked down upon and deemed cultural pariahs—persona non grata who in some places fear smoking in their own residences lest the Health Gestapo make their dour appearance for crimes against children.

Quote

However, if men can be convinced that the restriction or evisceration of freedoms or an unorthodox train of thought are counter to a people’s own interests of health or wellbeing, then many will fasten the saddle and halter upon themselves and lovingly lick the whip master’s hand.

It is utterly amazing that a vice that never contributed to moral depravity and that some of the greatest minds of Earth’s intellectual pantheon engaged in have been relegated to the status of cultural lepers—often by the same crusaders who glowingly evangelize the benefits of brain numbing strains of Marijuana. One could perhaps feel a certain respect for the thera peutic busybodies if they in their fanaticism just made the entire tobacco enterprise illegal and stood on principle. But in extracting pounds of flesh in a mercenary fashion, the state retains its moral high ground while it pummels its victims and drains an increasingly debilitating amount of blood for its own purposes in the bargain. As government taxation now dwarfs the profits made by cigarette manufacturers, it assumes the role as muscle in what is no more than an extortion racket. It is as if a father, in punishing his naughty son, not only made him go to the woodshed to pick out a stick, but ordered him to use his personal allowance to go to the father’s own lumber store and purchase the means of his thrashing.

The Thera peutic State can only make its self-serving argument if health itself is viewed as a zero sum game. If the state then commands the economics of the health care industry, then a case can be made that the sphere of private action harms the public weal, therein providing the justification for turning a larger faction against a smaller one. As the private sphere becomes more diminished, this domain of personal right will also tend to vanish as the relationship between one’s culinary habits and the public’s interest in your Body Mass Index (BMI) become everybody’s business. When things are shared in common, what one does in the privacy of one’s own home, even things once viewed benign in a simpler age, are subject to the scrutiny of the nanny state—all in the interest of an abstract homogeneity. But the dark rub is this: Having acquired political mastery over the private authority by which health care is measured and dispensed, the state then solely determines the worthiness of how those finite resources are allocated and thus becomes the ultimate arbiter of life.

Quote

Furthermore, it can be little denied that the American anti-smoking long march, which even the collectivized sheeple of Europe would deem beyond the pale, has taken every concession granted as a sign of weakness that only further arouses the state’s thirst for more lucre.

The most pernicious development of the Thera peutic State is the reductionism of things moral to the physical. Under the specter of government mandated healthcare, personnel can compile into a clearinghouse almost everything about you, apparently including whether you have a firearm in your residence. Furthermore, a society that has deconstructed morality into lifestyle preferences normalizes what was once considered in traditional America as deviance. The tendency to view moral choices that manifest as cruelties, addictions and criminal activities into biological and cultural pathologies is ultimately ethically confusing, thus dissolving conceptions of good and evil into a deterministic fog that hamstrings moral accountability.

Societies that descend into the morass of thera peutic reductionism invert the moral universe and magnify relatively innocuous health matters into civil sins while reserving judgment upon or even validating immoral lifestyles and sexual proclivities that not long ago were viewed as wicked, diseased or narcissistic at best.

Quote

It is utterly amazing that a vice that never contributed to moral depravity and that some of the greatest minds of Earth’s intellectual pantheon engaged in have been relegated to the status of cultural lepers—often by the same crusaders who glowingly evangelize the benefits of brain numbing strains of Marijuana.

In societies that come to view the temporal and material world as the totality of existence, death then becomes that greatest of all evils whom none can escape. As such, death is annihilation and the obsessions of health and the avoidance of pain and suffering are ultimately manic but futile longings pursued as so much smoke. Inevitably, youth withers and death draws its veil as we eventually roll snake-eyes despite the Herculean efforts of our medicine. So terrifying is our culture’s morbid fear of death that it does what it can to submerge it in the Waters of Forgetfulness.

Our advertisements and entertainments betray this vain worshipping at the Cult of Youth; but it was not always this way. In healthy societies and ages, such neurotic fear of death would be viewed with astonishment. In all wisdom, there are worse things than death—including the loss of liberty and the obsessive anxiety to dig one’s claws into survival at any cost. In bargaining for health and life in exchange for the freedoms and privileges of a free people, America has voluntarily introduced the spirit of tyranny through its back door in the guise of a cloying matriarchal nurse who has other agendas secured behind her chilling blue-eyed gaze.

In that final scene that haunts anyone who has ever viewed Cuckoo’s Nest, Chief Bromden, the silent Native-American giant who McMurphy psychologically redeems by his rebellion, comes to terms with his demons and is ready to now leave that shadow- world existence of perpetual smallness where he has for years hid himself away. Even before finding and “liberating” McMurphy from his final silent hell, he had awoken to the knowledge that the slow manacled death that comes when you hold your freedom hostage to fear is far worse than any terrors that await on the outside.

We would do well in considering this metaphor before America willingly barters away any more of a legacy birthed in the rebellious distrust of power—especially that artful and cunning seduction concealed within Nurse Ratched’s thera peutic hand.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (1108 views)
http://www.stubbornthings.org/nurse-ratched-therapeutic-state/ (http://www.stubbornthings.org/nurse-ratched-therapeutic-state/)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 04, 2015, 07:40:17 pm
Barrie Dunsmore: The real news on weather disasters


http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/03/barrie-dunsmore-the-real-news-on-weather-disasters/ (http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/03/barrie-dunsmore-the-real-news-on-weather-disasters/)

Viewers should also be repeatedly reminded of what ties these political representatives have to the oil, gas and coal industries. (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png) Under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which gave corporations the same rights as individual people, corporations now can and do plow hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into elections. Most don’t do so for patriotic or altruistic reasons. Under current lax campaign finance laws, some of that money can be hidden. But not all of it. And the American people should be told regularly, just how much their congressmen and senators are getting from corporations, or individuals who oppose virtually any climate change legislation.

The usual argument against effective steps to slow the devastation of a changing climate is that they are too expensive.

So Americans should also frequently be told how much it is costing taxpayers right now, to clean up after every major storm, including business and workers’ pay losses.

No state can be blamed for the hurricane, typhoon, flood or drought it has been hit with. But its people are ultimately responsible for those they elect to represent them.

Such news coverage would certainly make the extreme weather reporting more relevant – and even help to combat climate change. Maybe some day.

Read this with interest. Barrie is, of course, correct. But given that our current system of campaign funding is tantamount to, "rent a politician,"  I question whether we'll ever lived to see it.  And what media outlet would dare report such linkages with the threat of the corporate sugar tit being withdrawn as a result?

Of course the media/corporate suicidal Empathy Deficit Disordered status quo defenders will continue to avoid using CFS.  But comments from folks like Barrie make it harder and harder for them to BS and pretend they aren't BSing.

The TRUTH of how TOTALLY gamed our system is cannot be hidden anymore. Take this comment at Thom Hartmann's site that references another comment.

Quote
Aliceinwonderland • 14 hours 54 min ago #12 This post, written by Alan McLemore, follows an article from Truthdig: The Fight Over Obamacare Was A Giant Political Charade; July 2, 2015.

It was so damn good, I just had to re-post it here. It starts with him responding to a comment from another blogger. Great comment, except for this: "You will need a lawyer, to get treatment approved even if you have coverage."

Bad news. I am a lawyer, and one of the things I have seen happen steadily since Reagan was elected has been the non-stop cutting back of the rights people have to sue corporations and, in particular, medical corporations. They did it by using corporatist media to tell lies, like the infamous million-dollar McDonald's hot-coffee case: https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm...

I used to practice medical-malpractice law, but quit after the cases dried up--because under present law, a lawyer must spend $50,000 or more to get the requisite expert witnesses, medical records, and other things necessary to prepare and try the case. This is true even if the case is "open and shut", which many are.

This means that, in Texas (and now in most states), you are very unlikely to find a lawyer to help you unless you have at least a half-million dollars in damages. And now that pain-and-suffering sorts of "consequential" damages are very limited, that means an extremely serious injury--with tons of medical bills--is required.

How serious? If you come in and tell me you lost half the fingers on your right hand, or lost half the sight in one eye or the hearing in one ear, I'll tell you "Sorry, not enough damages, good luck with your next doctor".

And in cases where medical-malpractice isn't involved: More and more, the "terms of service" you unthinkingly agree to in a transaction require you to "arbitrate" disputes. What this means is that you have to "try" your case before a panel of corporate lawyers who pass as "arbitrators". It's not cheap--and less than 5% of claimants prevail even if you spend the money.

It's an awful situation. All the more reason for BERNIE IN '16.

Yeah no sh it. Literally do-or-die, folks. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/07/bernie-sanders-could-be-next-fdr#comment-325848

I celebrate Aliceinwonderland's take on the importance of a future with President Sanders. But I think he understates, even with his grave warning, the gravity of the situation.  I don't think it is "do or die". We ARE DEAD! It's resurrection of CFS (Common F'n  Sense) or extinction.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on August 26, 2015, 10:04:54 pm


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNQ4-89W8AE-SR1.jpg)

Bingo!    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) Can you say, celebration of Moral Hazard? Can you say, Empathy Deficit Disordered business model?

Yep.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2015, 11:15:57 pm
Most Americans say drug prices are unreasonable and blame company profits

http://healthpopuli.com/2015/06/17/most-americans-say-drug-prices-are-unreasonable-and-blame-company-profits/

Sanders to introduce bill targeting high drug prices  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

   
By Peter Sullivan - 09/01/15 05:53 PM EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is introducing legislation aimed at fighting high prescription drug prices, as he attacks pharmaceutical companies for their “outrageous profits.”

The presidential candidate, challenging Hillary Clinton from the left, has made attacking high drug prices one part of his push on healthcare, where he also calls for a “single-payer” system of government-provided insurance for all.

“Americans should not have to live in fear that they will go bankrupt if they get sick,” Sanders said in a statement. “People should not have to go without the medication they need just because their elected officials aren’t willing to challenge the drug and health care industry lobby.”

Sanders’s bill would allow the Medicare prescription drug program to negotiate prices with drug companies, which is currently banned under a 2003 law. The measure would also allow the importation of drugs from Canada.

It requires drug companies to report information about factors that affect pricing, such as research and development costs. Pharmaceutical companies say they are producing groundbreaking new cures that are difficult and expensive to develop.

Clinton has also pointed to high drug prices as a problem. In June she called for fixes to “the exploding cost of drugs.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that prescription drug spending increased 12.6 percent last year, the largest increase since 2002 and more than twice the increase in overall health spending.

New specialty drugs that treat complex conditions account for much of the price increase. Sovaldi, a new cure for Hepatitis C, has become a symbol of high drug prices with its $84,000 cost for a 12-week treatment.

Sanders also says he will soon introduce a single-payer healthcare bill. He held a rally outside the Capitol in July to call for single-payer and a fix for high drug prices.

Sanders asked if the country wants “drug companies to be making outrageous profits from people who can’t afford their products?” The crowd responded, “No!    (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/252473-sanders-to-introduce-bill-targeting-high-drug-prices

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 05, 2015, 07:46:04 pm

If the shoe fits, WEAR IT! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)


Quote
Yankee ingenuity is a stereotype of inventiveness, technical solutions to practical problems, "know-how," self-reliance and individual enterprise associated with the Yankees who originated in New England and developed much of the industrial revolution in the United States after 1800.[1] The stereotype first appeared in the 19th century. As Mitchell Wilson notes, "Yankee ingenuity and Yankee git-up-and-go did not exist in colonial days."[2]

Yankee ingenuity characterizes an attitude of make-do with materials on hand. It is inventive improvisation, adaptation and overcoming of shortages of materials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_ingenuity

THIS is an eye opener  :o for all those that have swallowed the 'stoic, self reliant, independent individual that can handle whatever comes', "Yankee ingenuity" MYTH:

Gary Shattuck is a former federal prosecutor who specializes in researching and writing about historical events utilizing period legal documents.

Quote

September 4, 2015 at 7:45 am

Vermont had a significant opiate addiction problem in the 19th century and, as I will further relate at the inaugural lecture of the Sam Hand Lecture Series at UVM on October 20 (http://www.uvm.edu/~crvt/?Page=news&storyID=20942&category=crvevent) and my more in-depth article to be published by the Vermont Historical Society next month, it was the medical profession at the heart of much of it.

Huge amounts of opium and morphine were being consumed by Vermonters out of all proportion to what the rest of the country was experiencing, resulting in widespread addiction (“habit” they called it) by 1900, much of it because of doctors. It is a tragic, yet fascinating, story and highly relevant to what we are seeing today.

Gary Shattuck

http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/03/shumlin-promotes-prescription-drug-take-back-day/
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 13, 2015, 04:01:16 pm
Hat tip to Reality of Truth Internet poster.      (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)


Quote
This is all we need to know (Death rate increase graph associated with
Parkinson's and glyphosate application + gmo plantings):

(http://i.imgur.com/FrULVaZ.png)
http://imgur.com/FrULVaZ

Indeed they do, pass this around too! Print it and post it on store windows, give it to friends, keep wallet foldouts and hand them to strangers as you pass by! Let us obliterate the helpless corrupt fools from the face of this world with absolute righteous indignation, no remorse, no mercy, no hesitation and no concern for their nonsense (just like they have no concern for us!).
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2016, 08:31:50 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Although this video reveals quite a bit about the profit over patient modus operandi so customary in the USA, it leaves out the FACT that we-the-people SUBSIDIZE, through R & D expense "tax deductions", advertising and drug promotion campaigns (that EXCEED actual drug R & D and INCLUDE the bought and paid for Doctors :evil4:) and, last but certainly not least, FREE US Government medical and drug R & D available 24/7 to the drug "private" (for PROFIT) corporations, these Corporate WELFARE QUEENS disguised as part of the "health care system" (i.e. corporate ECONOMIC HEALTH   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)).

Tell me, FRIENDS, WHY don't those whining about all the "costs of the social safety nets" INCLUDE THESE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of money from we-the-people in the "burden" on our economy of "social safety nets"? Because they have an agenda to continue fleecing we-the-people for the benefit of corporate WELFARE QUEENS. But they will always deny that.      (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif)  (http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YQZ2UeOTO3I

"We deny any wrong doing"   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif)   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

Your friendly neighborhood drug pusher is not the shady guy standing on a street corner.

How dangerously irresponsible is Big Pharma and the MDs who do business with them?

Fashion your seat belt. We all need to be smarter about this... EVERY drug prescribed has its side effects posted online.

Read the documents. Most doctors don't. If you're really serious, there's an online resource that let's you see how much your doctor has received from drug companies to "introduce" you to their products. - See more at: http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/health-and-wellness/your-friendly-neighborhood-drug-pusher.html#sthash.ZwIvX29w.dpuf (http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/health-and-wellness/your-friendly-neighborhood-drug-pusher.html#sthash.ZwIvX29w.dpuf)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 16, 2016, 09:11:17 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Here is an example of how a conscientious Dentist is confronting the Vermont Dental Society's BASELESS, Capitalist, 'greed is good', turf protecting health care provider "business model" that wants to shut out Dental Therapists in Vermont. We already have Nurse Practitioners to lower doctor costs. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for this Dental profit over patient, no matter what a certain dentist champion of Capitalism from Texas might say.  ;)     

Jan. 15, 2016, 7:00 pm by Commentary
Editor’s note: This commentary is by Dr. James C. Gold  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif), a retired dentist who lives in Norwich. He his chair of the Good Neighbor Health Clinics in White River Junction, and past member of the Vermont State Board of Dental Examiners and the North East Board of Dental Examiners. The opinions expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which he is affiliated.

James Gold: Dental therapists will be quality providers  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)


SNIPPET 1:

Organized dentistry’s position that four years of dental school education ensures a higher quality of treatment than that provided by allied professionals is not always true.

Quality is based upon a provider’s desire to strive for a high standard, constant improvement, taking quality continuing educational courses, and eye-hand coordination that remains consistent or improves over the span of a 30- or 35-year career.

Dental therapists  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) will receive as many hours of clinical experience in the procedures they will be licensed to perform as a dental school student, and take the same portion of the clinical examination in basic competencies as a dentist to receive a license.
Quote

The bottom line is that dental therapists will be quality providers and this is supported by exhaustive literature, decades of experiences, and the rigorous training and licensure requirements included in the proposed legislation.


SNIPPET 2

The dental therapist opportunity will benefit patients, the dental profession and overall population health. Because they are providing only routine preventive and basic services, their working environment can occur in mobile clinics, schools and nursing homes, all venues less likely served by a fully staffed dental office.

And it is in these venues, particularly in rural parts of Vermont with limited access to fully licensed dentists, where the need is most acute.

It is unfortunate that the Vermont State Dental Society’s position defies logic, the evidence and public sentiment on this issue. One has to wonder what truly is their biggest fear. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

Treatment provided by dental therapists has helped improve the oral health for the populations they serve. Dental therapists will be good for the state and are worthy of positive support from the Vermont Legislature.  (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)

http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/15/james-gold-dental-therapists-will-be-quality-providers/

Agelbert ADDITIONAL NOTE: The Vermont State Dental Society’s position defies the logic of "First, Do No Harm". Howevah, I understand their LOGIC quite well. Their hero, John D. Rockefeller, voiced their LOGIC several decades ago. See Below.
(https://d13yacurqjgara.cloudfront.net/users/190857/screenshots/2300244/test2_1x.jpg)

 
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2016, 10:11:23 pm
(http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg)

Meet the ‘rented white coats’ who defend toxic chemicals

Center for Public Integrity

How corporate-funded research is corrupting America’s courts and regulatory agencies  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif)

The National Institutes of Health’s budget for research grants has fallen 14 percent since its peak in 2004, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. With scarce resources, there’s little money for academics to study chemicals that most already deem to be toxic.

Yet regulatory officials and attorneys say companies have a strong financial interest in continuing to publish research favorable to industry.
Gradient (http://i1.wp.com/gas2.org/files/2013/05/stupid.png)  belongs to a breed of scientific consulting firms that defends the products of its corporate clients beyond credulity, even exhaustively studied substances whose dangers are not in doubt, such as asbestos, lead and arsenic.  :o  >:( Gradient’s scientists rarely acknowledge that a chemical poses a serious public health risk.

(http://kingworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Doctor-Scientist-Confused-Questions-275x200_c.jpg)

The Center for Public Integrity analyzed 149 scientific articles and letters published by the firm’s most prolific principal scientists. Ninety-eight percent of the time, they found that the substance in question was harmless at levels to which people are typically exposed  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220216203149.gif)
.
Quote
“They truly are the epitome of rented white coats,”
said Bruce Lanphear, a Simon Fraser University professor whose own research showing that even tiny amounts of lead could harm children has been called into question by Gradient  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) scientists  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif) .

A panel of experts convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2012 that there is no reliable evidence for a safe level of lead.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/08/19223/meet-rented-white-coats-who-defend-toxic-chemicals
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 12, 2016, 02:40:21 pm
CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding With Coca-Cola to Salvage Soda Market

July 12, 2016 | 85,495 views

https://youtu.be/7sRYOFnDxlo

By Dr. Mercola

I've often written about the collusion between industry and our regulatory agencies, and how industry-funded research tends to simply support and promote the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

Recent media reports have now revealed devastating evidence showing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) executive aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.1

In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

WHO's recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

The damning email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).2 According to PhillyVoice:3


"The emails were between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D. director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).


They allegedly show Bowman's multiple attempts to aid Malaspina's relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.


According to the report, Bowman — whose job is to try to help prevent obesity, diabetes and other health problems — 'appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.'"

Soda Politics

This kind of political maneuvering and back scratching is covered at length in Marion Nestle, Ph.D.'s book "Soda Politics." I interviewed Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, last year.

https://youtu.be/q1YmS_WiR0U

Download  Interview Transcript (http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/Interview-MarionNestle-SodaPoliticsTakingOnBigSoda.pdf)

In response to the CDC-Coke scandal, she says:

"[T]he fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper," adding the emails "suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an 'in' with a prominent CDC official.

The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to 'eat less sugar' and 'disclose industry funding' recommendations.

The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship ... This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials."

Nestle's book reveals the soda industry is well aware of the connection between soda consumption and obesity and obesity-related diseases.

Soda companies are by law required to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about vulnerabilities, and for the last decade Coca-Cola has been telling the SEC that obesity is the most significant threat to soda industry profits.

Quote
In short, Coca-Cola knows that once the truth about soda's influence on obesity becomes fully recognized, their jig is up.

Exposed CDC Official Steps Down

For many years now, health advocates have warned people about the connection between sugary drinks and obesity, and the message has slowly but surely started to take hold.

U.S. soda sales have dropped 25 percent since 1998,5 no doubt due to successful public health advocacy, and this makes the current scandal all the more scandalous, as it's an attempt by a high-level health official to undo all the work that's already been done to protect the public health. According to USRTK:

Quote
"Alex Malaspina was able to ask for and receive regular input and guidance from a top official at the ... CDC on how to address actions by the World Health Organization that were hurting the food and beverage industry.

The emails ... reveal that ... Bowman ... tried to help Malaspina find inroads to influence WHO officials to back off anti-sugar talk. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports ... "

Surprisingly, Bowman had the good sense to immediately vacate her post once her betrayal of the public trust was exposed.

According to The Huffington Post, Bowman "announced her immediate departure from the agency ... two days after it came to light that she had been offering guidance to a leading Coca-Cola advocate who was seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters."

Perfect Example of Why Revolving Door to Industry Needs to Be Shut

While Bowman didn't mention her public disgrace as a factor in her resignation, saying she'd made the decision to retire "late last month," her boss, Ursula Bauer, Ph.D., confirmed Bowman's dealings with Coca-Cola in an internal email to CDC staff.

In it, Bauer states the "perception that some readers may take from the article [revealing Bowman's dealings with Malaspina] is not ideal," adding that the situation "serves as an important reminder of the old adage that if we don't want to see it on the front pages of the newspaper then we shouldn't do it."8

Bowman's connections to Coca-Cola actually dates back decades,9 and it's anyone's guess as to how those ties may have slowed down the path to truth and influenced public health policy. She'd been at the CDC since 1992; she was appointed director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) in February 2013. But earlier in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola.

This just goes to show the power of the corporate and federal regulatory agency revolving door allegiances. Public servants must choose the hard road of doing what is best for the public, not their former bosses and acquaintances.

Few have that kind of integrity, it seems, and this case is a perfect example of why the door between private industry and public health and regulatory agencies needs to be more closely monitored. This is not a new problem and is pervasive in Washington for other industries. Yet the U.S. Congress and Senate continually fail to pass legislation to address this glaring loophole that decimates public health.

Philadelphia Imposes Soda Tax and Other Bad News for Big Soda

This scandal comes on the heels of a number of blows against the soda industry. Aside from WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan announcing soda is a key contributor to child obesity and suggesting restrictions on sugary beverages, Philadelphia recently decided to implement a soda tax to cut consumption.

Mexico imposed a soda tax in 2014, and San Francisco requires ads for sugary drinks to include a health warning as of last year. Many cities around the world are also considering similar measures to restrict soda sales. However, the stance against sugar taken by WHO was perhaps considered one of the most serious. In a June 2015 email to Bowman, Malaspina expresses worry about negative publicity related to sugar-rich products and European soda tax plans.

Malaspina says WHO's actions can have "significant negative consequences on a global basis," and that "the threat to our business is serious." He also notes that WHO officials "do not want to work with industry," adding that, "something must be done." In response to Malaspina's request for suggestions on how to get an audience with WHO, Bowman replies that "someone with Gates or 'Bloomberg people' may have close connections that could open a door at WHO," USRTK writes.

"She also suggests he try someone at PEPFAR program, a U.S. government-backed program that makes HIV/AIDS drugs available through the sub-Saharan Africa. She tells him that 'WHO is key to the network.' She writes that she 'will be in touch about getting together.'"

Clearly, the soda industry is struggling to stay alive. But at what cost should they be allowed to promote their business? It's equally clear that the price for their unrestricted success is disease and death of its consumers, which is why these kinds of backdoor dealings are so unpalatable.

Without Conflicts of Interest, Could Junk Food Industry Survive? ???  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)

https://youtu.be/qkuNejVGhTQ

In 2013, I interviewed Michele Simon, who has practiced public health law for nearly 20 years, fighting corporate tactics that deceive and manipulate you about health. Last year, she released a report that revealed disturbing ties between the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) — considered a premier source of nutritional science — and the primary purveyors of obesity and chronic ill health.

ASN is sponsored by 30 different companies, including Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, Monsanto and the Sugar Association, just to mention a few, each of which pays $10,000 a year in return for "print and online exposure, annual meeting benefits, and first choice to sponsor educational sessions, grants, awards and other opportunities as they arise." As noted by Simon:
Quote

"In other words, food, beverage, supplement, biotech and pharmaceutical industry leaders are able to purchase cozy relationships with the nation's top nutrition researchers."

Junk food purveyors gain even more influence by sponsoring educational sessions at various conferences and annual meetings, and featuring speakers that represent the industry. ASN's ties are particularly problematic since they also publish three academic journals, including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN).

These ties can "taint scientific objectivity, negatively impact the organization's policy recommendations, and result in industry-friendly research and messaging that is shared with nutrition professionals and the general public alike," according to Simon.

Obesity researcher David Allison, Ph.D. tops the list of those with the most conflicts. Allison serves on the editorial board of the AJCN, ASN's flagship publication, even though he has ties to PepsiCo, the Sugar Association, World Sugar Research Organization, Red Bull, Kellogg, Mars, Campbell Soup and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group.

According to Simon, "having Allison in such a critical gatekeeper role demonstrates how industry can potentially influence even the science that gets published."

'Just Say No' to Soda

"Just Say No" was a slogan created by first lady Nancy Reagan. The "Just Say No" advertising campaign against recreational drug use was prevalent through the 1980s. Today, the same slogan would be appropriate to discourage soda consumption, and a whole lot easier to implement as well.

If you struggle with weight or chronic health issues, replacing soda and other sweet drinks, including fruit juices, with pure water could be one of the best things you could possibly do. Granted, other dietary changes are likely needed as well, but for many, ditching soda can go a long way.

If you crave some flavor, try adding some lime or lemon juice to still or sparkling water. Tea is another option. Just avoid adding sugar, and steer clear of bottled varieties as they're usually loaded with added sugars. Ditto for so-called "designer water" like Vitamin Water.

If you find it difficult to quit, don't be discouraged. Many are indeed addicted to soda. To break free, be sure to address the emotional component of your food cravings using tools such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). A version referred to as Turbo Tapping tends to be particularly useful for eliminating soda addiction in a short amount of time.

If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion.

Remember, sweetened beverages, whether sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), naturally occurring fructose or artificial sweeteners are among the worst culprits in the fight against obesity and related health problems, including diabetes and heart disease. Ditching ALL of these types of beverages is a significant first step toward reducing your risk for chronic health problems and weight gain.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/07/12/cdc-soda-industry-coca-cola.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 12, 2016, 08:19:08 pm
CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding With Coca-Cola to Salvage Soda Market

July 12, 2016 | 85,495 views

https://youtu.be/7sRYOFnDxlo (https://youtu.be/7sRYOFnDxlo)
[embed=640,380]<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7sRYOFnDxlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

By Dr. Mercola

I've often written about the collusion between industry and our regulatory agencies, and how industry-funded research tends to simply support and promote the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

Recent media reports have now revealed devastating evidence showing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) executive aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.1

In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

WHO's recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

The damning email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).2 According to PhillyVoice:3


"The emails were between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D. director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).


They allegedly show Bowman's multiple attempts to aid Malaspina's relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.


According to the report, Bowman — whose job is to try to help prevent obesity, diabetes and other health problems — 'appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.'"

Soda Politics

This kind of political maneuvering and back scratching is covered at length in Marion Nestle, Ph.D.'s book "Soda Politics." I interviewed Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, last year.

https://youtu.be/q1YmS_WiR0U (https://youtu.be/q1YmS_WiR0U)
[embed=640,380]<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q1YmS_WiR0U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

Download  Interview Transcript (http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/Interview-MarionNestle-SodaPoliticsTakingOnBigSoda.pdf)

In response to the CDC-Coke scandal, she says:

"[T]he fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper," adding the emails "suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an 'in' with a prominent CDC official.

The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to 'eat less sugar' and 'disclose industry funding' recommendations.

The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship ... This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials."

Nestle's book reveals the soda industry is well aware of the connection between soda consumption and obesity and obesity-related diseases.

Soda companies are by law required to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about vulnerabilities, and for the last decade Coca-Cola has been telling the SEC that obesity is the most significant threat to soda industry profits.

Quote
In short, Coca-Cola knows that once the truth about soda's influence on obesity becomes fully recognized, their jig is up.

Exposed CDC Official Steps Down

For many years now, health advocates have warned people about the connection between sugary drinks and obesity, and the message has slowly but surely started to take hold.

U.S. soda sales have dropped 25 percent since 1998,5 no doubt due to successful public health advocacy, and this makes the current scandal all the more scandalous, as it's an attempt by a high-level health official to undo all the work that's already been done to protect the public health. According to USRTK:

Quote
"Alex Malaspina was able to ask for and receive regular input and guidance from a top official at the ... CDC on how to address actions by the World Health Organization that were hurting the food and beverage industry.

The emails ... reveal that ... Bowman ... tried to help Malaspina find inroads to influence WHO officials to back off anti-sugar talk. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports ... "

Surprisingly, Bowman had the good sense to immediately vacate her post once her betrayal of the public trust was exposed.

According to The Huffington Post, Bowman "announced her immediate departure from the agency ... two days after it came to light that she had been offering guidance to a leading Coca-Cola advocate who was seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters."

Perfect Example of Why Revolving Door to Industry Needs to Be Shut

While Bowman didn't mention her public disgrace as a factor in her resignation, saying she'd made the decision to retire "late last month," her boss, Ursula Bauer, Ph.D., confirmed Bowman's dealings with Coca-Cola in an internal email to CDC staff.

In it, Bauer states the "perception that some readers may take from the article [revealing Bowman's dealings with Malaspina] is not ideal," adding that the situation "serves as an important reminder of the old adage that if we don't want to see it on the front pages of the newspaper then we shouldn't do it."8

Bowman's connections to Coca-Cola actually dates back decades, and it's anyone's guess as to how those ties may have slowed down the path to truth and influenced public health policy. She'd been at the CDC since 1992; she was appointed director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) in February 2013. But earlier in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola.

This just goes to show the power of the corporate and federal regulatory agency revolving door allegiances. Public servants must choose the hard road of doing what is best for the public, not their former bosses and acquaintances.

Few have that kind of integrity, it seems, and this case is a perfect example of why the door between private industry and public health and regulatory agencies needs to be more closely monitored. This is not a new problem and is pervasive in Washington for other industries. Yet the U.S. Congress and Senate continually fail to pass legislation to address this glaring loophole that decimates public health.

Philadelphia Imposes Soda Tax and Other Bad News for Big Soda

This scandal comes on the heels of a number of blows against the soda industry. Aside from WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan announcing soda is a key contributor to child obesity and suggesting restrictions on sugary beverages, Philadelphia recently decided to implement a soda tax to cut consumption.

Mexico imposed a soda tax in 2014, and San Francisco requires ads for sugary drinks to include a health warning as of last year. Many cities around the world are also considering similar measures to restrict soda sales. However, the stance against sugar taken by WHO was perhaps considered one of the most serious. In a June 2015 email to Bowman, Malaspina expresses worry about negative publicity related to sugar-rich products and European soda tax plans.

Malaspina says WHO's actions can have "significant negative consequences on a global basis," and that "the threat to our business is serious." He also notes that WHO officials "do not want to work with industry," adding that, "something must be done." In response to Malaspina's request for suggestions on how to get an audience with WHO, Bowman replies that "someone with Gates or 'Bloomberg people' may have close connections that could open a door at WHO," USRTK writes.

"She also suggests he try someone at PEPFAR program, a U.S. government-backed program that makes HIV/AIDS drugs available through the sub-Saharan Africa. She tells him that 'WHO is key to the network.' She writes that she 'will be in touch about getting together.'"

Clearly, the soda industry is struggling to stay alive. But at what cost should they be allowed to promote their business? It's equally clear that the price for their unrestricted success is disease and death of its consumers, which is why these kinds of backdoor dealings are so unpalatable.

Without Conflicts of Interest, Could Junk Food Industry Survive? ???  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)

https://youtu.be/qkuNejVGhTQ (https://youtu.be/qkuNejVGhTQ)
[embed=640,380]<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qkuNejVGhTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

In 2013, I interviewed Michele Simon, who has practiced public health law for nearly 20 years, fighting corporate tactics that deceive and manipulate you about health. Last year, she released a report that revealed disturbing ties between the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) — considered a premier source of nutritional science — and the primary purveyors of obesity and chronic ill health.

ASN is sponsored by 30 different companies, including Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, Monsanto and the Sugar Association, just to mention a few, each of which pays $10,000 a year in return for "print and online exposure, annual meeting benefits, and first choice to sponsor educational sessions, grants, awards and other opportunities as they arise." As noted by Simon:
Quote

"In other words, food, beverage, supplement, biotech and pharmaceutical industry leaders are able to purchase cozy relationships with the nation's top nutrition researchers."

Junk food purveyors gain even more influence by sponsoring educational sessions at various conferences and annual meetings, and featuring speakers that represent the industry. ASN's ties are particularly problematic since they also publish three academic journals, including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN).

These ties can "taint scientific objectivity, negatively impact the organization's policy recommendations, and result in industry-friendly research and messaging that is shared with nutrition professionals and the general public alike," according to Simon.

Obesity researcher David Allison, Ph.D. tops the list of those with the most conflicts. Allison serves on the editorial board of the AJCN, ASN's flagship publication, even though he has ties to PepsiCo, the Sugar Association, World Sugar Research Organization, Red Bull, Kellogg, Mars, Campbell Soup and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group.

According to Simon, "having Allison in such a critical gatekeeper role demonstrates how industry can potentially influence even the science that gets published."

'Just Say No' to Soda

"Just Say No" was a slogan created by first lady Nancy Reagan. The "Just Say No" advertising campaign against recreational drug use was prevalent through the 1980s. Today, the same slogan would be appropriate to discourage soda consumption, and a whole lot easier to implement as well.

If you struggle with weight or chronic health issues, replacing soda and other sweet drinks, including fruit juices, with pure water could be one of the best things you could possibly do. Granted, other dietary changes are likely needed as well, but for many, ditching soda can go a long way.

If you crave some flavor, try adding some lime or lemon juice to still or sparkling water. Tea is another option. Just avoid adding sugar, and steer clear of bottled varieties as they're usually loaded with added sugars. Ditto for so-called "designer water" like Vitamin Water.

If you find it difficult to quit, don't be discouraged. Many are indeed addicted to soda. To break free, be sure to address the emotional component of your food cravings using tools such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). A version referred to as Turbo Tapping tends to be particularly useful for eliminating soda addiction in a short amount of time.

If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion.

Remember, sweetened beverages, whether sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), naturally occurring fructose or artificial sweeteners are among the worst culprits in the fight against obesity and related health problems, including diabetes and heart disease. Ditching ALL of these types of beverages is a significant first step toward reducing your risk for chronic health problems and weight gain.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/07/12/cdc-soda-industry-coca-cola.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/07/12/cdc-soda-industry-coca-cola.aspx)



Something else to be aware of AG is the replacement for aspertame.
Welcome, neotame ? Same poison, different recipe....



Yep.  :(

Chopin appropriately described in music the trajectory of our "civilization" .
https://youtu.be/kyFyAqLtHq8 (https://youtu.be/kyFyAqLtHq8)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2016, 11:03:41 pm
The Forgotten History of Vaccinations You Need to Be Aware Of

January 18, 2015 | 401,377 views

Quote
Dr. Suzanne Humphries: "In my research, I was startled [to realize] that what I found was completely counter to what I have been told and taught my entire life. I now don't believe that smallpox vaccines eradicated smallpox. I now don't believe that polio vaccines eradicated polio.

The stories are very twisted, long, and complicated, and the vaccines have changed over time. It's really easy to kind of throw up smokescreens here and there and make whatever argument one might want to, because people are so ignorant and because the story is so complicated." 

https://youtu.be/Es8BztUYUfk

SNIPPET:

By Dr. Mercola

Vaccines are one of the most controversial medical therapies, and it's impossible to make an informed decision unless you know both sides of the story. In the process of knowing both sides, the historical context is critical.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,1 is a nephrologist who has committed the latter part of her medical career to exposing the "lost history" of vaccinations.

Barbara Loe Fisher of NVIC commented that this is one of the rare books that conducted in-depth research documenting the medical history related to mass vaccination programs and infectious diseases.

I have read the book from cover to cover and would strongly recommend that you pick up a copy if you have even the remotest interest in this topic, especially if you believe in the safety and necessity of vaccines, as the comprehensive documentation will likely cause you to reevaluate your position.

It is an absolutely fascinating read, and in some ways demonstrates that enforcement of vaccine programs could be far worse today, when compared to historical standards when people were imprisoned and even killed when they refused to comply.

I will likely reread the book again so I can be well armed to articulately express my concerns on why one needs to have serious reservations on the validity of vaccines, based on historical precedents.

FULL eye opening article:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/01/18/history-vaccination.aspx

Dr. Suzanne Humphries knows her medicine and knows the human immune system like few Doctors around:

https://youtu.be/SFQQOv-Oi6U
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on August 01, 2016, 12:17:37 am
 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010816001125.png)

https://youtu.be/SFQQOv-Oi6U
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on August 09, 2016, 12:49:42 am
 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090816003653.png)

August news bulletin: identifying “bad actors”; asking why cancer prevention is not more of a priority

August 8, 2016 at 5:34 pm 

August 2016 News Bulletin

Quote
"At this rate it will take more than 300 years just to screen the compounds that have already raised some concern."   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
Commentary: Identifying the “bad actors”— new challenges for the evaluation of endocrine disrupting chemicals (http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/july/commentary-identifying-the-bad-actors2014-new-challenges-for-the-evaluation-of-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals). “We encourage decision makers around the world to adopt a new chemical evaluation tool that could save lives and money.” (Environmental Health News)


Quote
"In order to make prevention a priority, we need to convince the skeptics in the cancer research and treatment communities that environmental chemicals are an important issue."
Why Isn’t Cancer Prevention a Priority?  (http://silentspring.org/blog/why-isn%E2%80%99t-cancer-prevention-priority)“Research shows that more than half of all cancers are preventable. Yet, why isn’t prevention a priority? More precisely, why aren’t environmental chemicals a focus of prevention research? When researchers talk about prevention, more often than not, they’re referring to things like diet, exercise, tobacco, and other lifestyle factors. Given the mounting evidence linking environmental chemicals with cancer, however, and the fact that toxic chemicals are so widespread, it’s hard to understand why there is so little research focused on environmental carcinogens.” (Silent Spring)

Quote
"“Before we can prescribe medicine, we have to prove it’s safe,” she said. “So how come with the chemical industry, we assume everything is safe and have to prove there’s harm?”
Call for Action on Toxic Chemicals. (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/a-call-for-action-on-toxic-chemicals/?_r=0A) Every day, children and adults are exposed to a variety of chemicals found in common household items. Now a growing body of research suggests that many of these chemicals — which are used to make plastic more flexible, fruits and vegetables more abundant and upholstery less flammable — may also pose a threat to the developing brain. (New York Times)

Quote
"... DuPont Co. and its spinoff, the Chemours Co., have been found liable in the first two of 3,500 lawsuits in which people claim their exposures to PFOA caused cancer and certain other health problems."
PFOA, PFOS Likely Hazardous to Immune System: Scientists (http://www.bna.com/pfoa-pfos-likely-n73014445024/). A panel of epidemiologists, toxicologists, microbiologists and other scientists have critiqued and then supported the National Toxicology Program’s draft analysis that concluded perfluorooctanoic acid, more commonly known as PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, are presumed to be immune hazards to humans. “The systematic approach helped readers to clearly understand what science the program considered and the reasons some scientific studies provided higher levels of confidence while others were graded more moderate or lower priority in the program’s final conclusions,” the commenters and panel members said. (Bloomberg BNA)


Quote
"Retail giant puts formaldehyde and triclosan on the list
Chemicals push affects about 90,000 items made by 70 companies"
Wal-Mart Asks Its Suppliers to Stop Using Eight Chemicals.  (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/wal-mart-asks-suppliers-to-remove-eight-chemicals-from-products)Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is asking suppliers to remove formaldehyde, triclosan and six other substances from their products, part of an effort to eliminate controversial chemicals from household goods. (Bloomberg)

https://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2016/08/08/august-news-bulletin-identifying-bad-actors-asking-why-cancer-prevention-is-not-more-of-a-priority/
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on August 16, 2016, 06:22:09 pm
The major problem with our health care system: The profit motive.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)  

Aetna Proves That Single Payer Is The Only Way To Go

It's been over two years since the bulk of Obamacare went into effect, and American health insurance companies are making a great case for why it's time to adopt a single payer system and take the profit motive out of how health care is paid for once and for all.

On Monday, Aetna, America's third largest insurance company, announced that it will withdraw from Obamacare exchanges in 11 states and it will only offer insurance through the state-level Obamacare marketplaces in four states in 2017.

Obamacare has, overall, been a huge success, especially among the less visible and more marginalized populations in America.

Economist David Cutler told the New York Times back in April that "The law has clearly reduced broad measures of inequality. These are people who blend into the background of the economy. They are cleaning your hotel room, making your sandwich. The law has helped this population enormously."

In February, the administration estimated that roughly 20 million more people have insurance now that Obamacare has gone into effect, and marginalized groups in general benefited the most.

According to that New York Times analysis from April: "Part-time workers gained insurance at a higher rate than full-time workers, and people with high school degrees gained it at double the rate of college graduates. Adults living in households headed by relatives, such as siblings or cousins, [which is] often a marker of economic distress, gained insurance at double the rate of traditional households."

And having health insurance and access to affordable healthcare leads to big benefits for communities: the New York Times reported that one federally funded health clinic in South Los Angeles has enrolled 18,000 new patients under the law, nearly all of them from minority backgrounds, and the clinic reported a 44 percent increase in cervical cancer screenings and a 25 percent increase in tobacco cessation therapy, which means more lives saved and healthier community outcomes.

But, Aetna's announcement on Monday is proof that the law is still fundamentally flawed.

And Aetna is by no means alone.

In April, UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurance company in America, announced in April that it will be withdrawing from the ACA insurance exchanges in most of the 34 states where it currently operates, saying that it's expecting to lose $650 million dollars in 2016.

The Kaiser Family Foundation points out that if United dropped out of all 34 states, 1.1 million people would have just one option for an insurer, creating a for-profit monopoly for those people.

And then there's Humana, which announced in July that the company will offer exchange plans in "no more" than 11 states next year in 2017.

Humana's announcement coincidentally came on the exact same day that the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to block Humana's proposed merger with Aetna.

Some of the shortcomings with Obamacare can be traced to the fact that so many red states have refused federal funds to expand Medicaid.

But the truth is, we're never going to be able to affordably cover every American until we address the major problem with our health care system: The profit motive.

Journalist and Author T.R. Reid pointed out in his 2008 documentary Sick around the World­ that the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that allows for-profit corporations to offer basic, primary care health insurance.

The key difference between us and the rest of the developed world is that health care is considered a legal and political right in every other industrialized country, and here it's only considered a privilege.

And when people pay for health insurance provided by a for-profit company, they aren't just paying for insurance, they're paying for all of the administrative costs of the company, including executive salaries and CEO bonuses.

According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Aetna's Chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini took home $27.9 million in compensation last year, about $24.8 million of which was value gained on stock options.

In 2014, UnitedHealthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley took home over $66 million dollars, including $45.5 million in exercised stock options.

Those salaries and stock options make up just a portion of the 12 percent to 14 percent administrative overheads that are typical for for-profit health insurance companies.

So while the executives get bonuses, consumers like you and I get stiffed with paying for it in the form of inflated insurance rates!.

In contrast, in 2015 the administrative overhead amounts for Medicare were only about 2 percent of the program's operating costs and nobody working for Medicare became a multimillionaire.

If we want universal coverage at the federal level, we need to take the profit-motive out of healthcare with a federal single-payer program like the Medicare-For-All programs proposed by Congressman John Conyers and Senator Bernie Sanders.

But this isn't something that we have to wait for Congress to take action on - citizens at the state level can take the lead.

Right now in Colorado, there is a very popular proposed amendment that would replace the state's problematic Obamacare insurance exchange with a universal healthcare program called "ColoradoCare."

Very simply, the program would pair private providers with state funds from combined sources to extend healthcare coverage to every man, woman, and child in Colorado.

Citizens in Colorado are leading the way, but citizens in other states can, and should, organize and push for efficient statewide universal healthcare systems to replace the inefficient and costly for-profit insurers that cruelly put profit over people.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/08/aetna-proves-single-payer-only-way-go
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 15, 2016, 01:33:26 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221215212409.png)

09/14/2016 02:51 PM     
Monsanto and Bayer Merge into GMO Behemoth

SustainableBusiness.com News

After receiving the largest cash offer on record, Monsanto has agreed to be acquired by Bayer for an incredible $66 billion ($128 per share). 

Thus forms the largest agrichemical and seed company in the world, controlling over 25% of the market. Bayer hopes to close the deal by the end of 2017.

While Monsanto is known for glyphosate, Bayer's notoriety is around Imidacloprid, a neonic pesticide that's decimating pollinators.

Glyphosate use is so widespread (#1 herbicide in the world) that it's in the urine of 93% of Americans.

Quote
"Now the most evil company in Europe has absorbed the most evil company in America," Dave Murphy, Executive Director of Food Democracy Now!, told Ecowatch. Their new corporate motto should be 'Killing bees and butterflies for fun and profit."   

Read, How the National Academy of Sciences misled the public over GMO food safety.  (http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16976-how-the-national-academy-of-sciences-misled-the-public-over-gmo-food-safety)

On October 15-16, Monsanto faces a trial at The Hague for crimes against nature and humanity.   

Farmers are rightly concerned that fewer and fewer seed varieties will be available and that prices will rise. But that's what monopolies do ... and supposedly why we have anti-trust laws in the US and EU. 

Will regulators allow this to go through? Sign the petition against the merger.  (https://actions.sumofus.org/a/stop-the-bayer-monsanto-mega-merger)

Other major GMO producers would also like to merge - DuPont and Dow Chemical - and Syngenta and China National Chemical Corp. (ChemChina) have received approval.

Allowing monopolistic power among fewer and fewer multinationals is behind increasing income inequality and the decline of influence of everyone else. Multitudes of lobbyists and campaign contributions result in government policies and legislation that truly rigs the economy and threatens democracy. 

In Africa, Monsanto and Dupont have been pushing hard to introduce GMO crops, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID has bought their propaganda. The African Centre for Biodiversity accuses them using "the guise of philanthropy" to infiltrate the continent. Companies donate GMO technology royalty-free to get the process rolling.

Take The Urgent Need to Protect Pollinators, For Example

Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta have successfully lobbied to prevent strong regulations that would protect bees, butterflies and other pollinators, according to Buzz Kill, a report by Friends of the Earth (FOE).

 "The pesticide industry has weakened and delayed pesticide reforms and is shaping new pollinator 'protection' plans nationwide that do little to protect bees, but a lot to protect industry profits," they say.

44% of US bee colonies died this past year, up 3.5% from 2015. 

Lobbying on the state and federal levels has resulted in "pollinator protection plans" that "lack metrics to measure effectiveness, improvement, or failure" and often "provide more protections for pesticides and pesticide users than for bee keepers and bee colonies."

Also, there's the "revolving door," where public officials leave to work at the corporations they regulated or where private sector representatives "infiltrate" regulatory agencies. Private corps fund research and education initiatives in "public/private partnerships".

Another report by FOE shows that corporations can also have a beneficial impact. Since Home Depot and other big box stores were taken to task for selling "bee-friendly" garden plants pre-treated with neonics, the percentage of those plant sales has dropped dramatically. In 2014, more than half of plants were pre-treated, dropping to 23% this year.

Zika Virus 

Even though state and local officials are allowed to use chemicals "as needed" to spray mosquitoes as a response to Zika, Republicans in the House used it as an opportunity to loosen pesticide regulations. 

Democrats almost unanimously opposed the bill, which loosens environmental protections on pesticides and other chemicals under the Clean Water Act. 

Corporate Power   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) Exceeds Many Countries 

The world's 10 largest corporations have more wealth than most countries combined!, concludes a study by UK-based Global Justice Now. Their combined value is $2.9 trillion -larger than China's economy.

Out of the 100 wealthiest economic entities in the world, 69 are corporations and 31 are countries, they say, warning that "within a generation we will be living in a world entirely dominated by giant corporations."

Largest Entities and their Value


US: $3.3 trillion
 China: 2.4 trillion
 Germany: 1.5 trillion
 Japan: 1.4 trillion
 France: 1.3 trillion
 UK: 1.1 trillion
 Italy: 876 billion
 Brazil: 631 billion
 Canada: 585 billion
Walmart: $482 billion
 Spain: 473.6 billion
 Australia: 425.7 billion
 Netherlands: 336.5 billion
State Grid Corp of China: 329.6 billion
China National Petroleum: 299.3 billion
Sinopec Group: 294 billion
 South Korea: 291 billion
Royal Dutch Shell: 272.2 billion
 Mexico: 259.6 billion
 Sweden: 250.8 billion
Exxon Mobil: 246.2 billion
Volkswagen: 236.6 billion
Toyota: 236.5 billion
 India: 236 billion
Apple: 233.7 billion
 Belgium: 226.8 billion
BP: 225.9 billion

Other corporations in the top 50 entities are: Berkshire Hathaway (#32); McKesson (#35); Samsung Electronics (#37); Glencore (#39); Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (#40); Daimler (#41); UnitedHealth Group (#43); CVS Health (#44); EXOR Group (#45); General Motors (#46); Ford (#47); China Construction Bank (#48),  AT&T (#49) and Total (#50). 

Here's the full list.

Quote
Monopolies deprive governments of revenue by stashing profits in offshore accounts and push for trade deals where private tribunals nullify judicial systems. They are behind the drive to privatize everything so they can make endless, short-term profits - literally tearing the world apart through environmental destruction and climate change. 

Read, The Complete History of Monsanto, The World's Most Evil Corporation:
 
Website: www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964
(http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2.jpg)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170716143402.png)

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26668
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 15, 2016, 02:37:42 pm
Food| Sep. 14, 2016 01:36PM EST

Sugar Industry Paid Harvard Scientists to Shift Blame to Fat

By Union of Concerned Scientists


By Genna Reed

It might not shock you to know that the sugar industry doesn't have our best interests in mind.
Quote
But would you be alarmed to find out that they consciously manipulated science in order to increase sugar consumption? And that they did so in the face of scientific evidence that sugar consumption was associated with chronic disease?

Quote
Next year will mark 50 years since the sugar industry initiated and funded a literature review absolving sugar of its association with chronic heart disease, without disclosing the industry's role in the study.

What we now know as the Sugar Association began as the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) in 1943. Researchers Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt and Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) combed through hundreds of SRF documents and found evidence that the sugar industry had manipulated the science to exonerate sugar as a dominant cause of heart disease—an action that shifted the direction of scientific research for decades.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

One particularly jarring quote they found was from the president Henry Hass's 1954 speech to the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists in which he said, "if the carbohydrate industries were to recapture this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet (the difference between the 40 percent which fat has and the 20 percent which it ought to have) and if sugar maintained its present share of the carbohydrate market, this change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with a tremendous improvement in general health."

The sugar industry was interested in increasing sugar consumption by funding science that would urge Americans to decrease calories from saturated fats and hopefully replace them with sugar.

The UCSF analysis reveals that SRF employed the following tactics the Union of Concerned Scientists previously identified in Added Sugar, Subtracted Science in order to undermine public health policy on sugar. Our work shows that SRF's successor the Sugar Association and its counterpart in the corn syrup industry, the Corn Refiners Association, took pointers from SRF:

Attacking the Science

Just as the Corn Refiners Association planned to "bury the data" when it was inconvenient, when the sugar industry got word that researchers like John Yudkin at Queen Elizabeth College were challenging the maxim that sugar calories were more desirable than fat calories, the SRF's vice president and director of research called on the organization in 1964 to "embark on a major program" to counter the science coming from Yudkin and others representing "negative attitudes toward sugar."

This program would include issuing a public opinion poll to find out what messages would resonate with consumers and decision makers, opening up a venue to publicly call out scientists for their undesirable results regarding sugar, and finally, pushing out studies funded by the sugar industry that look at the causes of chronic heart disease.


Spreading Misinformation  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)


Similar to the sugar industry's recent misinforming in order to fight labeling policies, as a part of its campaign to increase sugar consumption in the 1960s, it began to fund its own literature review on sugars, fats, and chronic heart disease in an obvious attempt to dispel the rumors that calories from sugar were at least part of the problem. The SRF paid Dr. Mark Hegsted and Dr. Robert McGandy, under the supervision of Harvard University's Fredrick Stare, a total of nearly $50,000 (in 2015 dollars) for their work. And the SRF was heavily involved throughout the review process, urging the scientists to focus on the perils of fat consumption.

The SRF vice president and director of research, John Hickson, emphasized in 1965, "Our particular interest had to do with that part of nutrition in which there are claims that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose make an inordinate contribution to the metabolic condition, hitherto ascribed to aberrations called fat metabolism. I will be disappointed if this aspect is drowned out in a cascade of review and general interpretation."

The study authors discounted research showing sugar's impact on chronic heart disease in a number of ways, focusing especially on possible bias within individual studies instead of looking at the consensus across studies. The conclusion of the literature review was that there was "no doubt" that the one way to prevent chronic heart disease was through a reduction of dietary cholesterol and replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats. And the SRF was content with these findings, telling the lead authors, "this is quite what we had in mind."


Deploying Industry Scientists (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)/Influencing Academia

Just as the Sugar Association and Corn Refiners Association today work with academic scientists to advance their talking points, when the literature review was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, the authors did not disclose the funding or close involvement of the SRF in the review. Dr. Fredrick Stare, the founder and chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, had an extended history of funding from the sugar and food industry: over 30 papers authored by members of his department were funded by the SRF just between 1952 and 1956. Stare's department at Harvard is a key example of how industry funding can influence academic science, with dangerous consequences for public discourse and public policy.


Undermining Policy

The manipulation of science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Often, it serves to change the conversation and impact policy, as well. Similar to today's efforts by the sugar industry to undermine public health policies, in 1986, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Sugars Task Force assessed the scientific evidence around sugar, leaning heavily upon the industry's 1976 review, titled "Sugar in the Diet of Man." The FDA report said that "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." The agency's study was influenced by industry sponsorship, as the chair of the study later went on to work at the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group that represents the interests of high-fructose corn syrup manufacturers.

This agency study, which had clear influence form the sugar and food industry, has been responsible for the determination of GRAS status for several added sugars, and has largely set the precedent for the resulting years of denial about the health impacts of sugar-laden diets.

The Sugar Industry's Role in Today's Chronic Disease Epidemic


It is no wonder that even today, our food policies are only just beginning to adequately address the association between added sugars and chronic disease. The sugar industry has magnificently managed to delay the inevitable knowledge about the dangers of excessive sugar consumption for a half century. And they are still employing this same behavior. Just last month, the American Heart Association released added sugar consumption guidelines for children, recommending that children under two consume no added sugars and that all other children consume less than 10 percent of calories from sugars, because "there is minimal room for nutrient-free calories in the habitual diets of very young children." The Sugar Association responded by accusing the American Heart Association of a lack of scientific integrity.

Luckily the tide is beginning to turn in spite of the industry's best efforts. FDA's label will soon include added sugars information on food packages. More and more local resolutions are popping up to place taxes on sugary beverages. School meal policies are adding variety and improving the nutritional quality of kids' diets. And exposés like this one are revealing the truth about how the food industry has manipulated science to influence our diets for the worse.

Still, the aforementioned research points to some interesting scientific integrity issues that remain today, including the rigor of conflict-of-interest policies at scientific journals and the ethical questions involved with the ability of decision makers to use industry-funded research to shape policies. My colleague, Gretchen Goldman, explains more about how we should be dealing with conflicts of interest in science funding here. We need greater transparency around the sugar industry's role in scientific studies, including funding but also identification of the nature of the relationship between the industry and the science. Independent science should inform policies that protect public health from the adverse impacts of added sugar.

Genna Reed is a science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.ecowatch.com/sugar-industry-2004899240.html
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on October 11, 2016, 09:17:56 pm
The FDA and Big Pharma Are Too Cozy  >:(

October 11, 2016 | 13,131 views

By Dr. Mercola

One of the primary roles of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to review the safety and efficacy of new drugs before approving them for the U.S. market.

Clearly an objective, unbiased review is needed for this system to work, but a new study published in The British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggests conflicts of interest are rampant.

A much-used revolving door exists between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, which is putting Americans' health at jeopardy for the sake of the drug industry's (and individuals') monetary pursuits.

Such cozy ties have been revealed before, but for the new study the researchers, from Oregon Health and Science University, wanted to find out just how prevalent they actually are.

Concerning Numbers of FDA Employees Leave Agency to Work for Drug Industry

The researchers analyzed data on FDA hematology-oncology drug approvals from 2006 to 2010 along with medical reviews conducted from 2001 to 2010. They then found out the subsequent jobs of the former FDA medical reviewers that worked on those drug approvals.1

Out of 55 people, 15 left their job at the FDA to work or consult for the biopharmaceutical industry (another 29 continued working at the FDA in some capacity while the rest of the jobs could not be determined).2

Study author Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and assistant professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University, cited a need to understand why so many people are leaving the FDA.

He pointed out that while working at the FDA "they're certainly earning less than what they can make in the [pharmaceutical] industry." He continued in Time:3


"I don't think there is overt collusion going on, but if you know in the back of your mind that a major career opportunity after the FDA is going to work on the other side of the table, I worry it can make you less likely to put your foot down


… Regulators may be less willing to be very tough, and I worry that is happening."


The FDA Is Supposed to Stop Harmful Drugs From Reaching the US Public

The revolving-door trend is particularly troublesome in the hematology-oncology field, an area of medicine where the drugs may be highly toxic with only minimal benefits. The researchers noted much room for "interpretation" when reviewing such drugs.

For instance, many cancer drug studies use surrogate endpoints, which means the study may not reveal whether the drug improves survival or quality of life, but instead may evaluate a different outcome, such as tumor shrinkage.

The problem is that it's often unknown whether the surrogate endpoint, such as tumor shrinkage, leads to better health outcomes.

The end result, as Kaiser Health News reported, is that FDA-approved drugs may appear to be more beneficial than they really are. And, once FDA-approved, these drugs must be covered by Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the agencies are unable to negotiate prices.4

Further, when a reviewer is poised to work for the drug company manufacturing a borderline drug, he's likely to be more lenient. If a reviewer plans to someday work for the drug company in question, for instance, Prasad told Kaiser Health News:5


"Are you more likely to give [companies] the benefit of the doubt? Are you less likely to beat them up hard over [using bad comparisons in drug studies]?"


… Sometimes, the public needs [the FDA reviewers] to be firm. If they're not, no one else in the health care sector is going to be … The FDA is often the only real wall between ineffective, harmful drugs and patients."

Former FDA Commissioner (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg) Says She Won't Consider Big Pharma Work for a 'Couple of Years'  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

In what she described as a "cooling-off period," former FDA commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said she would not consider working for companies regulated by the FDA for "a couple years."6

The FDA requires a waiting period of this type from former senior employees, although the featured study pointed out numerous anecdotal reports of employees going directly to work for the pharmaceutical industry.

Even a couple-year lag time added in to the revolving door does little to assuage concerns of cozy ties between regulators and industry.

In Hamburg's case, the revolving door worked both ways, as she was previously employed by industry before joining the FDA. She stepped down as commissioner at the end of March 2015.

Hamburg entered the FDA through the revolving government/private industry door after allegedly making millions as the director of Henry Schein Inc., the largest seller of dental amalgam (mercury fillings). Schein is a flu vaccine seller as well.7

Dr. Michael Carome, director of the health research group at Public Citizen, has been more critical, calling her tenure a period of "weak and ineffective leadership." He said in a statement in 2015:8

Quote

"Too often, the FDA has succumbed to industry and political pressures, implementing policies and taking actions that tilt too far toward the bottom-line interests of pharmaceutical and medical-device companies, and away from protecting public health …


Throughout Hamburg's (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)  tenure, the FDA has grown even more cozy with the industries that it regulates."


2015 Was a Banner Year for New Drug Approvals   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif)

There is perhaps no better evidence of where the FDA's loyalty lies than in the sheer number of new drug approvals granted in 2015 — 45 in all, which is the most new drug approvals granted in one year since 1996.9

Chemistry & Engineering News reported that "few products approved in 2015 stood out as major breakthroughs," and continued:10

"Rather, many of the new drugs were notable more for their breathtaking price tags and how swiftly they moved to the market than for their ability to transform lives."


About 60 percent of the new drug approvals were also granted some type of expedited review process, allowing them to come to market faster. Many believe the speedy drug approvals come at the expense of safety.

An increasing number of New Drug Applications are also getting approved on their first attempt, meaning the FDA did not ask for any additional testing or information. Eighty-seven percent of new drug applications were approved on the first go-around in 2015 compared to just 56 percent in 2010.11

Also of note, 12 of the drugs approved in 2015 come with a more than $100,000 price tag per year, while others must be taken in combination with other exorbitantly priced drugs, "easily bringing the combined annual cost of treatment into the six figures," according to Chemistry & Engineering News.


How Financial Interests Affect FDA Member Voting Behaviors

It goes without saying that researchers and policy makers with financial ties to industry should not be permitted to participate in public health recommendations relating to said industry. Unfortunately, this blatant conflict of interest happens all the time.

In 2014, for instance, a study published in the Milbank Quarterly journal revealed how financial interests affected the voting behavior of nearly 1,400 FDA advisory committee members who took part in drug approval decisions between 1997 and 2011.12

On average, 13 percent of the members in any given committee had financial interest in the company whose drug was up for a review by that committee. About one-third of financial interests involved consulting for a drug maker, 25 percent involved ownership interest and 14 percent involved serving on an industry advisory board or steering committee.

Committee members with financial ties to the company sponsoring the drug under review voted in favor of approval 63 percent of the time while members who did not have financial ties had a 52 percent chance of favoring approval. Committee members who served on a sponsoring firm's advisory board, meanwhile, voted in favor of the drug's approval 84 percent of the time.


FDA Lets Fraud and Misconduct in Clinical Trials Slide

The FDA reviews several hundred sites that conduct research on human participants each year in order to be sure they're engaging in good clinical practice. But what happens when they find evidence of questionable procedures or practices?

In the most serious of cases, the FDA can classify it as "official action indicated," or OAI. This is reserved for "severe" forms of clinical trial violations, including "objectionable conditions or practices" that warrant compulsory regulatory action, as opposed to "voluntary action indicated" for lesser violations."13

Now, if a trial had been deemed OAI by the FDA, you might assume that you'd see evidence of that when reading the results of studies based on said data. But that would be a liberal assumption. Researchers conducted a review of FDA inspection reports between 1998 and 2013.14

They found 60 clinical trials that had been classified as OAI, and these trials had been used for data in 78 published articles. Out of those 78 studies, only three included mentions of the violations found by the FDA.

The violations included fraud, incompetence and misconduct. This means that anyone browsing a medical journal (such as your physician) might be making decisions based on fraudulent or heavily flawed published studies — and have no way of knowing that this is the case.

Of the 57 OAI trials:15

•22 had falsified information

•14 trials had researchers who failed to report adverse events

•42 trials had violations of the trial's protocols

•35 trials had record-keeping errors

•30 trials had researchers who failed to protect patient safety or acquire informed consent


Increased Transparency Might Help

The FDA devotes an entire section of its website to transparency and says they're engaged in an "agency-wide effort to open the doors of the agency."16 Whether this is occurring in practice is questionable. In the above-referenced OAI study, for instance, most of the documents obtained by students were heavily redacted.

In some cases, they couldn't even tell what drug was being tested, and they believed they would have uncovered even more violations if not for the redaction.17

Ultimately, you are responsible for your and your family's health, so be sure you feel completely comfortable with any related decisions you make. If you're facing a health challenge, choose health care practitioners who really understand health at a foundational level and have extensive experience helping others (and don't be afraid to ask for references and seek corroboration).

Unfortunately, you simply cannot place your blind faith in agencies like the FDA, as they are currently too embroiled with industry to at the same time be an effective watchdog for public health.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/11/fda-big-pharma.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on November 11, 2016, 08:02:31 pm
There goes Medicare, something Trump PROMISED "he would not touch but would defend".          (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) Ryan speaks AFTER meeting with Trump.

Paul Ryan just announced his plans to phase out Medicare with privatization using vouchers   

Friday Nov 11, 2016

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/11/1596527/-Paul-Ryan-just-announced-his-plans-to-phase-out-Medicare-with-privatization-using-vouchers (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/11/1596527/-Paul-Ryan-just-announced-his-plans-to-phase-out-Medicare-with-privatization-using-vouchers)

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on November 22, 2016, 03:00:40 pm
Politics| Nov. 21, 2016 12:06PM EST

CDC Scientists Expose Agency Corruption


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

SNIPPET:

The group, which claimed to represent scientists across the CDC's diverse branches, calls itself SPIDER (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). The letter to CDC Chief of Staff, Carmen Villar, expressed alarm "about the current state of ethics at our agency."

The scientists complained that "our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests" and "circumvented by some of our leaders."

http://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-corruption-robert-kennedy-jr-2096438139.html
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 02, 2016, 02:55:08 pm
(http://rs674.pbsrc.com/albums/vv110/zcry/flag/nana_zpscbe2f304.jpg~c200)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)


The true story of America’s sky-high prescription drug prices

Updated by Sarah Kliffsarah@vox.com   Nov 30, 2016, 2:00pm EST

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/30/12945756/prescription-drug-prices-explained
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2016, 01:38:51 pm
(http://dl10.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2491/2491210ovie015m90.gif)
VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe (Stowe)

January 14, 2017 @ 10:30 am - 12:30 pm

« Member Night in Catamount Country Screening & Community Conversation: “Vermont Speaks for Itself” »


Description: VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe is a story of collusion, corruption, and fraud at the very agency that claims to be protecting “the public health.” Interviews with pharmaceutical insiders, doctors, politicians, and parents of vaccine-injured children reveal an alarming deception that has contributed to the skyrocketing increase of autism and potentially the most catastrophic epidemic of our lifetime.

Purchase tickets ($12) online: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/vaxxed-in-stowe-vt-tickets-30283726441

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010816001125.png)

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2016, 08:07:15 pm
The GOPs Plot To Kill Medicare Starts Jan. 3rd! (Guest Host Alex Lawson w/ Nancy Altman)
https://youtu.be/Oykw5QBCGew

Guest Host Alex Lawson talks with Social Security Works co-Director Nancy Altman about the GOP plot to steal our Social Security and Medicare - starting January 3rd!  >:(
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 30, 2016, 06:53:04 pm
Paul Ryan/Tom Price/GOP *do* plan to throw grandma off a cliff...after picking her pocket.

By Brainwrap 
Badges Trusted User Daily Kos Subscriber 
   
Thursday Dec 29, 2016 ·  6:09 PM EST



SNIPPET:

The Republican plot to devour retirees' nest eggs

...A great many medical providers adjust their prices based on how defenseless the patient is, and bleed the weakest ones for every last red cent, often with preposterously inflated charges for things like aspirin and bandages. A 2015 study looked at the worst price gougers in the country and found 50 hospitals that charged uninsured people roughly 10 times the actual cost of care.

Key to this practice is something called "balance billing," and it's why the American Medical Association is strongly supporting Donald Trump's pick of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare. Balance billing is forbidden for Medicare enrollees, but Price wants to allow it — thus allowing doctors and hospitals to devour the nest eggs of thousands of American seniors.

So what is balance billing? It's the practice of billing the patient for the difference between the sticker price and what insurance will pay. So if a hospital visit costs $1,000, but your insurance will only cover $300, some providers will "balance bill" you for $700.

For unscrupulous providers, the method of exploitation is obvious: When doing any sort of expensive procedure, take a rough estimate of the absolute maximum the patient can pay, and jack up the price so the balance hits it. Or if you're short on time, just bill them into the stratosphere, and you'll get whatever the patient has during the bankruptcy proceeding.

https://youtu.be/OGnE83A1Z4U

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/29/1615511/-Paul-Ryan-Tom-Price-GOP-do-plan-to-throw-grandma-off-a-cliff-after-picking-her-pocket


Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 01, 2017, 05:49:33 pm
Flawed and Poor Quality Surgical Instruments Place Patients at Risk


December 31, 2016 | 131,005 views

https://youtu.be/5r0g-vgfGGA

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/31/poor-quality-surgical-instruments.aspx

Agelbert NOTE: This is a video that everyone who is planning to submit to some type of endoscopy, either through the esophagus or the colon, should see.

MONEY QUOTE:
Quote
If you’re having a colonoscopy done, or any other procedure where a flexible endoscope will be used, be sure to ask how it is cleaned, and which cleaning agent is being used.

•If the hospital or clinic uses peracetic acid (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png), your likelihood of contracting an infection from a previous patient is very slim.

•If the answer is glutaraldehyde  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp), or the brand name Cidex (which is what 80 percent of clinics use), cancel your appointment and go elsewhere.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/31/poor-quality-surgical-instruments.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/31/poor-quality-surgical-instruments.aspx)


Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 19, 2017, 05:25:03 pm


 (http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png)

https://youtu.be/1rx-eGC-Jb4
Senator Sanders gives it to Trump Nominated Crook Tom Price with Both Barrels  ;D

Quote
Tom Price’s long record seeking to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would make him a disaster as Secretary of Health and Human Services. And his first Senate hearing did nothing to allay our concerns.

Price refused to say whether he’d honor Donald Trump’s pledge to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Price confirmed that he, other members of Congress, and their families and staff received an exclusive deal in purchasing pharmaceutical stock at a “preferred price,” raising serious legal questions. Tom Price has no business serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Alex Lawson, Social Security Works

https://youtu.be/epxst1Uo8YA
Al Franken Lights Up Tom Price For His Ties To Tobacco, Corruption

https://youtu.be/AJGuHj12CrA
Elizabeth Warren Exposes Tom Price's Unethical Dealings

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241216151049.png)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 19, 2017, 06:11:27 pm
https://youtu.be/AX5JuIc3RUw
Elizabeth Warren RIPS Tom Price for Wanting to Cut Over a Trillion Dollars From Medicare, Medicaid

Published on Jan 18, 2017

In a contentious hearing Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — Donald Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary — over his proposal to cut to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as his introduction of legislation that directly benefitted a company he held stock in.

Noting that more than 100 million Americans receive healthcare through the federal programs Medicare and Medicaid, Warren asked Price if he hopes to cut Medicaid funding by more than $1 trillion dollars, as his 2017 budget proposal suggests.

Price did not directly answer whether he proposed the trillion dollar cut, instead arguing the “metrics” of success for Medicare and Medicaid are “not necessarily the amount of money” put into the programs. Warren refused to let Price dodge her question. “It’s a yes or no,” she pressed. “Did you propose to cut more than a trillion dollars out of Medicaid over the next ten years?” “You have the numbers before you,” Price shot back. “I’ll take it as a yes,” Warren replied.

The Massachusetts senator then referenced Donald Trump’s campaign pledge not to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid, asking Price if he can “guarantee” he “will safeguard president-elect Trump’s promise” regarding funding for those programs.

Price, once again, dodged the question. “Your question presumes that money is the metric,” Price began. “I’m sorry to interrupt but we’re very limited on time,” Warren replied. “The metric is money.” “Frankly, the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid today are not going to be reassured by your notion that you have some metric other than the dollars that they need to provide these services,” she continued, noting “Americans will be watching” to see if Price reneges on Trump’s campaign promise. Warren then pressed Price about his stock holdings in Zimmer Biomet, a medical device manufacturer that made several contributions to Price’s reelection campaign.

In March 2016, six days after purchasing stock in Zimmer Biomet, Price introduced legislation in the House that directly benefited the company. Warren took issue with Price’s argument that he was not the one “making those decisions” to buy stock in the company, noting the HHS nominee did not use a blind trust or passively managed mutual fund. “So let’s just be clear, this is not just a stock broker, someone you pay to handle the paperwork,” Warren began. “This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to.” “Not true,” Price said. “Because you decide not to tell them” Warren asked. “Wink, wink, nod nod, and we’re all supposed to believe that?” The Massachusetts senator then asked Price directly if he took actions to benefit a company he owned stock in. “I’m offended by the insinuation, senator,” Price replied.

Elizabeth Warren GRILLS Tom Price at Senate Confirmation Hearing 1/18/17. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blasted Donald Trump's nominee to become Secretary of Health and Human Services over his desire to drastically cut essential services, including Medicare and Medicaid. Warren reminded Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that Donald Trump himself promised he would not cut those core safety net programs.

After informing Rep. Price "more than 100 million Americans now receive their healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid," Sen. Warren reminded Rep.

Price the budget he authored as chair of the House budget committee would have cut spending on Medicaid by $449 billion over the next decade, and would have cut Medicare by more than $1 trillion Price's response? The "metrics" used to determine success of these programs should not be dollars. That prompted a heated exchange, with Senator Warren slamming a combative Price, then reminded Rep. Price that "President-elect Trump was very clear about his views on Medicare and Medicaid." "Can you guarantee to this committee that you will safeguard President-elect Trump's promise and while you are HHS Secretary you will not use your authority to carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits?" Warren asked. "What the question presumes is that money is the metric," Price responded. "In my belief from a scientific standpoint, if patients aren't receiving care even though we're providing the resources, it doesn't work for patients."

Warren was not buying what Price was selling. "We're very limited on time," she reminded the nominee. "The metric is money. And the quote from the President-elect of the United States was not along this to cut dollars from this program.

So that's the question I'm asking you. Can you assure this committee you will not cut one dollar from Medicare or Medicaid should you be confirmed to this position?" "I believe that the metric ought to be the care that the patients are receiving," Price insisted. "I'll take that as a no," Warren retorted.

Agelbert NOTE:
Don't miss the end of the video when a POS fellow corrupted CROOK Senator Isakson (R-GA), indignantly huffing and puffing, tries to make Price's PLANNED stock purchases BASED on his PLANNED LEGISLATION appear innocuous by claiming "they jes' don't know what their brokers is buyin' and sellin'".   (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 19, 2017, 07:51:25 pm
How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums

January 17, 2017 | Report


Quote
Summary

A little more than a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the budgetary effects of H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which would repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminating, in two steps, the law’s mandate penalties and subsidies but leaving the ACA’s insurance market reforms in place. At that time, CBO and JCT offered a partial assessment of how H.R. 3762 would affect health insurance coverage, but they had not estimated the changes in coverage or premiums that would result from leaving the market reforms in place while repealing the mandate penalties and subsidies. This document—prepared at the request of the Senate Minority Leader, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions provides such an estimate.

In brief, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:

•The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.

•Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52371

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115234833.gif)                                  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014183629.gif)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301216142007.png)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 26, 2017, 06:32:27 pm
(http://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/b8/1a/02a79eaf4ad7b0d0b7fa1ade5112/150729-lbj-editorial.jpg)
LBJ signs Medicare into Law - That was then. NOW it is under THREAT from Republican Fascists.

Quote

 Q: I’m already on Medicare. Could I really lose my coverage or see it radically altered?

For people currently on Medicare, there is no immediate threat to your coverage. The most widely discussed plan proposed by House Republicans would not go into effect until 2024. But at this point, the debate is just beginning, and there are other proposals that could reduce coverage and raise costs for today’s seniors. Current beneficiaries could also be affected if the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, is repealed, and the additional benefits that the law provided to Medicare recipients disappear.

Q: Reforming Obamacare seems to be an important early goal of the Trump administration. How could that affect my Medicare coverage?

The ACA made a number of improvements to Medicare—including closing the gap in drug coverage (the “doughnut hole”), adding free preventive benefits and cutting excess provider payments—that improved the financial stability of the program. Obamacare also took some steps to improve care coordination and reduce hospital readmissions. If the entire health care law is repealed, these improvements would be lost.

Q: Isn’t Medicare at risk of going broke within a few decades? For the sake of grandkids, don’t we have to make some changes?


Medicare is not going broke: The program can pay full hospital benefits through 2028. Beyond that, there are challenges, largely caused by a growing older population and skyrocketing health costs.

A number of proposals on the table could keep Medicare on a strong financial footing. Some would make older Americans shoulder more of the costs. Others would focus on lowering health care costs by tackling high drug prices, improving care coordination and cutting back on waste and inefficiencies in our health system.

Q: I’ve heard about the voucher-type plan that House Republicans   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) hope to implement soon. How would this plan change Medicare?

The “premium support” plan put forward by House Republicans represents a dramatic change:(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png)  It would move away from guaranteed benefits and instead provide older adults with a set amount of money (similar to what has been called a voucher) to buy health insurance from private companies. Supporters say this would stimulate greater price competition among insurers and ultimately cut down on costs.

But opponents — including AARP — say the amount of the voucher may not be enough to keep up with health care inflation, so older adults could end up paying more for care and for insurance that has fewer choices of doctors and other providers.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)


Q: I’ve been paying payroll taxes for Medicare for many years and thought I was guaranteed coverage. Can the rules be changed now before I’m old enough for Medicare?

Current benefits are set in law for today’s beneficiaries. But Congress can revise the law at any time to change the benefit guarantee, raise the age of eligibility and require higher cost sharing.(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp) 


AARP is fighting to protect that benefit guarantee. We are also working to improve the care and coverage in Medicare, and to make sure that health costs stay as low as possible for those using the program.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2016/why-medicare-matters-key-questions-answered.html
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2017, 04:02:25 pm
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif) Stop 28-Hour Shifts for New Doctors! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

by: Lacey Kohlmoos

target: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Board of Directors

22,625 SUPPORTERS

25,000 GOAL

Quote


In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) passed regulations stating that first-year resident doctors can work no longer than 16 hours during one shift and must be given at least eight hours off in between shifts. The regulations were designed to ensure both the safety of patients and the well-being of first year doctors, many of whom are under 30.

But last November, the ACGME announced a proposal to roll back the restriction on hours. If the proposal is passed, first-year resident doctors could be required to work the same number of hours as more experienced doctors. Shifts could be as long as 28 hours and scheduled back-to-back without a full eight-hour break in between. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

As a patient, this terrifies me. There is no way that I want a 26-year-old first year resident performing any procedure on me after they have been on their feet for 28 hours. That is how accidents happen. That is how people die. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png)

As the wife of a fourth-year medical student about to enter into his first year of residency, it also terrifies me. I have seen how long hours and sleep deprivation can change a young doctor. At best, they can become jaded and chronically tired. At worst, they can become completely disconnected from their friends and family, some even suicidal. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2955.gif)

A 16-hour shift is already long and stressful, but a 28-hour shift is inhumane and dangerous for both patients and new doctors. Please sign my petition demanding that the ACGME Board of Directors reject the proposal to roll back restrictions on how long a first year resident doctor can work during one shift.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300614160245.gif) Stop 28-Hour Shifts for New Doctors! (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/271/377/950/?z00m=28798589&redirectID=2309973494)

Agelbert Comment when signing: Doctors cannot be expected to be compassionate if they are not treated with compassion. 12 HOURS should be the absolute maximum a doctor has to work a shift, PERIOD!
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 11, 2017, 02:27:07 pm
(https://www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/u1752/Truthout%20logo.jpg)

Climate Science Denial Network Funds Toxic Chemical Propaganda

 Tuesday, March 07, 2017 

By Stacy Malkan, The Ecologist | Report

Stacy Malkan is the founder of communications consulting firm MovetheMarket.org and the author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.

Quote
The same arch-conservative foundations that finance climate science denial back key players in the agribusiness and chemical industry dispersing propaganda promoting GMOs and toxic chemicals while attacking opponents as "anti-science." (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)

British writer George Monbiot has a warning for those of us trying to grasp the new political realities in the US and the UK: "We have no hope of understanding what is coming until we understand how the dark money network operates," he wrote in the Guardian.

Corporate America may have been slow to warm up to Donald Trump, but once Trump secured the nomination, "the big money began to recognize an unprecedented opportunity," Monbiot wrote. "His incoherence was not a liability, but an opening: his agenda could be shaped. And the dark money network already developed by some American corporations was perfectly positioned to shape it."

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39757-climate-science-denial-network-funds-toxic-chemical-propaganda
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on April 03, 2017, 09:18:57 pm
Medicaid is not just for the poor. It is the LARGEST long term healthcare program in the USA!

https://youtu.be/R8dI7ZVOn68

Alex Lawson, Social Security Works. The most interesting development in the Medicaid expansion saga, however, is taking place in Kansas, where Democrats AND Republicans have joined sides to pressure a far-right governor into giving healthcare access to the working poor.

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on June 03, 2017, 07:46:57 pm
 (http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png)

May 3, 2017

Democratic Party Resistance to Medicare for All Traceable to Campaign Funding  >:(

Corbin Trent  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) of JusticeDemocrats.com, whose group is campaigning for Medicare for All bill, explains the group's research and strategy for pushing the Democratic Party to endorse the plan.

https://youtu.be/U_MwTsNit8U

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19245
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 10, 2017, 03:03:21 pm
http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-republican-healthcare-bill-vote-when-2017-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-republican-healthcare-bill-vote-when-2017-7)

'WE WILL GO FROM MAJORITY TO MINORITY': It's starting to look ugly for the GOP healthcare bill

    Bob Bryan

(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/586c05d1f10a9a1c008b6509-1008/undefined)
 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)  Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Senate Republicans are set to come back from a week-long recess facing ever-dimming chances to pass their stalled healthcare legislation.

Continued public pressure and few concrete solutions have left the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) seemingly further away from passage than before the July 4 break.

A week in which lawmakers have faced pressure from constituents at home has left the legislation's math on the wrong side of passage, as moderates and conservatives continue to disagree about fundamental issues within the bill.

On Sunday, many Republicans openly questioned whether or not the GOP will be able to deliver on a bill before the August recess.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who expressed misgivings about the current form of the BCRA in meetings last week, took to Twitter to express displeasure with the current state of affairs in the healthcare debate.

"52 Republicazn [sic] senators shld be ashamed that we have not passed health reform by now WE WONT BE ASHAMED WE WILL GO FROM MAJORITY TO MINORITY," Grassley tweeted.

Sen. John McCain was also downbeat during an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation.

"I think my view is it's probably going to be dead, but I've been wrong," McCain said. "I thought I'd be president of the United States. But I think, I fear, that it's going to fail."

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Lousiana also also declared the current BCRA "dead" in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."


(http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on July 18, 2017, 09:25:14 pm
People are Dying in ERs of Preventable Diseases Because of Lack of Care (w/guest Dr. Bill Honigman)

https://youtu.be/L1otWyvOimA

Jul. 17, 2017

Thom sits down with guest Dr. Bill Honigman (ER Physician, Organizer - Progressive Democrats for America) to talk about the serious healthcare crisis in America.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2017, 09:06:57 pm
Because of oxidative stress, microwave radiation is MORE DAMAGING than X-rays!

The Real Dangers of Electronic Devices and EMFs
   
September 24, 2017 • 119,932 views

https://youtu.be/fic98vu7D2c

Story at-a-glance

Quote
Exposure to microwave radiation from cellphones, routers, cordless phones, smart meters, baby monitors and other wireless devices causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction due to free radical damage

Excessive free radicals triggered by low-frequency microwave exposure from wireless technologies have been linked to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s, infertility and more

In addition to remediating obvious EMF exposures, strategies that may help reduce the harmful effects of EMFs include optimizing your magnesium level, eating Nrf2-boosting foods and pulsing molecular hydrogen

By Dr. Mercola

I was recently interviewed by Dave Asprey when I visited his Bulletproof lab on Vancouver Island.1 In it, I review the real dangers of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by electronic devices. I will also do a more comprehensive lecture on this topic at Asprey's Bulletproof Conference October 13 through 15 at the Pasadena Convention Center in Pasadena, California.

Avoiding excessive EMF exposure is an important component of optimizing mitochondrial health. In fact, this is going to be the topic of my next book. Like my latest best-seller, "Fat for Fuel," which details my metabolic mitochondrial therapy program, I want the book on EMFs to be peer-reviewed by the leading scientists and researchers in the world who understand the truth and are free of industry corruption.

The key is to translate the science into clear and understandable language, and offer practical recommendations on how to remediate the problem. After all, we are swimming in an invisible ocean of EMFs just about everywhere you go these days. It's near-impossible to avoid microwave exposure completely, but there are ways to reduced it, for sure.

Your Cellphone Is a Major Source of EMF Exposure

As noted by Asprey, his studio is hard-wired, and that's one simple way to reduce exposure from Wi-Fi. You can also shut your Wi-Fi down whenever you're not using it, and certainly at night when you're sleeping. When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone 3 feet away from you, using a selfie stick. I've measured the radiation and you decrease your exposure by about 90 percent this way.

When not in use, make sure your cellphone is in airplane mode and/or keep it in a Faraday bag. These are just a few quick examples of how you can protect your health while still living in modern society. I have carefully measured the radiation coming from my phone and even when it is on and not calling someone the radiation doesn't come down to safe ranges until I am 25 feet away, which is why I keep my phone in airplane mode most of the time and only use it for emergencies or when I am traveling.

It took me awhile to figure this out. I got rid of all the wireless devices and Wi-Fi in my house, yet the EMFs were still high. Then I finally realized that it was my phone (while on) that caused it. My levels dropped below 0.01 volts/meter once I put it in airplane mode. This is a key point. For nearly everyone reading this, the majority of the radiation you're exposed to is not coming from the outside into your home; it's coming from the items in your home.

Nonthermal Damage

Most of the radiation we're exposed to today is microwave radiation, which does include radiation from your microwave oven. If you still have one, I recommend replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food just as quickly but far more safely. When you turn that microwave oven on, it will expose you to very dangerous microwave radiation at levels that are far in excess of your cellphone. We're not talking about thermal (heat) damage here. We're talking about nonthermal damage.

I recently interviewed Martin Pall, Ph.D., who has identified and published several papers describing the molecular mechanisms of how EMFs from cellphones and wireless technologies damage plants, animals and humans.2,3,4,5 Many studies have shown that when you're exposed to EMFs, intracellular calcium increases. Pall also discovered a number of studies showing that you can block or greatly reduce the effects of EMFs using calcium channel blockers — medication commonly prescribed to patients with heart disease.

This turns out to be a crucial point, because it's the excess calcium in the cell and the increased calcium signaling that are responsible for a vast majority of the biological effects of EMFs.

Pall has discovered no less than 26 papers showing that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells. Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC.

Importantly, the cellular membrane is 7 million times more sensitive to EMFs than the charged particles inside and outside of the cells, which are what safety standards are based on. In other words, the safety standards are off by a factor of 7 million!

A Chain Reaction of Harm

https://youtu.be/R2vAmEJNchM

When there's excess calcium in the cell, it increases levels of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. While NO has many beneficial health effects, massively excessive NO reacts with superoxide, forming peroxynitrite, which is an extremely potent oxidant stressor.

Peroxynitrites, in turn, break down to form reactive free radicals, both reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species (ROS), including hydroxyl radicals, carbonate radicals and NO2 radicals — all three of which do damage. Peroxynitrites also do damage all on their own.

So, EMFs are not "cooking" your cells. It's not a thermal influence. Rather, the radiation activates the VGCCs in the outer cell membrane, which triggers a chain reaction of devastating events that, ultimately, decimates your mitochondrial function and causes severe cellular damage and DNA breaks. It also decimates your cell membranes and cellular proteins. In a nutshell, it dramatically accelerates the aging process.

Common EMF-Related Health Problems

As noted by Asprey, he used to keep his cellphone in a pants pocket on his right leg. He now has 10 percent less bone density in his right femur, which he believes is related to carrying his cellphone there. Needless to say, he no longer carries his phone on his body. Now, since the biological damage is triggered by activation of your VGCCs, it stands to reason that tissues with the highest densities of VGCCs will be more prone to harm.

So, which tissues have the highest concentration of VGCC's? Your brain, the pacemaker of your heart, your nervous system, retina and male testes. Indeed, studies dating back to the 1950s and '60s show the nervous system is the organ that is most sensitive to EMFs. Some of these studies show massive changes in the structure of neurons, including cell death and synaptic dysfunction.

When the VGCCs are activated in the brain they release neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones, and elevated VGCC activity in certain parts of the brain has been shown to produce a variety of neuropsychiatric effects. Among the most common consequences of chronic EMF exposure to the brain are: 6

Anxiety
Depression
Autism
Alzheimer's

Common heart problems linked to EMF exposure include:

Cardiac arrhythmias (associated with sudden cardiac death)
Atrial fibrillation / atrial flutter
Premature atrial contractions (PACs) and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), also known as heart palpitations
Tachycardia (fast heartbeat) and brachycardia (slow heartbeat)

Many who suffer these conditions are on dangerous drugs. If you have any kind of heart or brain-related condition, you really need to take EMF exposure seriously, and take steps to remediate it. There's simply no question about it — EMF exposure can trigger these and many other conditions. The drug is not treating the cause of the problem, and if you truly want to get well, you need to address the causes. EMFs may not be the sole contributor, but it's a significant one that should not be overlooked.

Reproductive Effects and Cancer


EMF exposure may also increase a man's risk for infertility if he wears his cellphones near his groin and/or uses a laptop on his lap, and a woman's risk for breast cancer is higher if she tucks her cellphone in her bra. Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.7,8

Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.9 In regard to breast cancer, the most common location for breast cancer is the upper, outer quadrant. When the cancer is located in the upper, inner quadrant, it's more likely to be related to cellphone radiation (if you've been carrying your phone in your bra).

How to Lower Your Exposure

The first step to lower your exposure would be to identify the most significant sources. Your cellphone is a major source of exposure, as are cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen. Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use. For example, remedial interventions could include:

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/24/electronic-devices-emf-dangers.aspx


EMF meter review
https://youtu.be/FEpJlr6arxg
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on September 25, 2017, 09:37:40 pm
Quote
What would happen if few cancer cells from other person are injected into your bloodstream?

Ken Saladin, Taught university biology for 40 years

Updated Jun 29 · Upvoted by Ricardo Strang, MD, MSc., Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon. Full member os Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery. …

Actually something like this has already been done in a horribly unethical experiment. In the 1950s, a virologist and cancer researcher at Sloan Kettering named
Chester Southam (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) was working with the famous HeLa strain of cancer cells (named for the source patient Henrietta Lacks). He wanted to know if there was a danger of these giving cancer to one of the researchers by accidental exposure.

In 1954, he injected HeLa cells into a dozen hospitalized cancer patients without telling them what he was doing or why. He lied and said he was testing their immune systems, but he was really experimenting to see if the cancer from Henrietta Lacks would grow in another person. Several of these grew to tumors about 2 cm in size and one metastasized to the patient’s lymph nodes.

Since these patients already had other cancers, Southam next wanted to see if the HeLa tumors would take in healthy persons. One hundred fifty state prisoners volunteered for various reasons (such as feeling it would help atone for their crimes) and he injected HeLa into 65 of them in 1956. Tumors grew in the prisoners too, on the arms at the injection site. All of the prisoners’ bodies fought them off and the tumors vanished.

Southam injected HeLa into more than 600 other people in the years following that, incuding every OB-GYN surgery patient at Sloan Kettering, lying to these patients about what he was doing. “We’re just testing for cancer,” he told them.

When all of this came to light in the 1960s, a reporter from Science asked Southam why he didn’t inject the cells into himself. His reply was basically that he was more important than these patients; his life less dispensable. “Let’s face it,” he said to the reporter, “there are relatively few skilled cancer researchers, and it seemed stupid to take even a little risk.”

Stupid to risk his life for research; not too stupid (in his opinion) to risk the lives of hundreds of other people.

The ethical codes in place today would prohibit such a horrific experiment. Southam’s career would have been at an end if he had done such experiments in disregard to any such code of medical ethics, and he likely would have been stripped of his medical license and perhaps imprisoned. But such codes didn’t exist in the 1950s.

(Reference: Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, pp. 127–136)

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-few-cancer-cells-from-other-person-are-injected-into-your-bloodstream
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on October 23, 2017, 08:40:07 pm
Reveal who (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) runs America

HELP US LAUNCH TARBELL (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif) (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)

Must see (also short and to the point) video:

https://www.tarbell.org/#video

A few stories Tarbell will tell

How soda companies use deceptive messaging to defeat ideas they oppose.

How corporate lobbyists are angling to preserve subsidies within tax reform.

What to know about a coalition in Florida minimizing money’s role in politics.

What the fossil fuel industry learned from big tobacco about keeping public support.

The evidence-based solution for half of Americans who struggle to get dental care.

The ways drug companies shape the debate about high drug costs.

HOW THIS WILL WORK

The Tarbell model

People
Our members are the first to see, share and take action because of our stories.

Partners
We’ll work with newsrooms nationwide to amplify our stories and your contribution.

Movements
We’ll make sure our stories inform those who are shaping America’s future.


(https://img.ifcdn.com/images/d273dcf4828ebb04f55f650ce7e7b61133f10a0bc872adf4b502fdebf24a20a4_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on October 23, 2017, 08:56:40 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Here's ANOTHER "gift" of the Industrial Revolution to humanity: Bad Teeth and Overpaid Dentists! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Have Human Teeth Become Stronger over Time? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)

Prehistoric humans didn't need toothpaste, or floss, or even sonic toothbrushes. They lived on a grain-free diet made up of meat, vegetables and nuts, and they had really nice teeth. It wasn’t until early man started farming that gum disease-associated bacteria began to be a problem. A 2013 genetic study of ancient dental plaque by a group at the University of Adelaide charted the course of oral bacteria, starting with strong-jawed Neolithic hunter-gatherers, and documented when higher carb diets brought plaque to our mouths.

Nice smile, caveman:  ;D

The researchers took DNA from calcified plaque from 34 prehistoric northern European human skeletons, and traced the introduction of certain types of oral bacteria.

The researchers found that bacteria associated with dental cavities, such as S. mutans, became dominant around the time of the Industrial Revolution.

The study also found that the frequency of bacteria associated with periodontal diseases, such as gingivitis, has not changed much since farming began.

http://www.wisegeek.com/have-human-teeth-become-stronger-over-time.htm

Quote
"The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on October 28, 2017, 06:09:06 pm
How Astroturfing and Other Media Manipulation Compromise Your Ability to Get Truthful Information
   
October 28, 2017 • 79,168 views

Story at-a-glance

Ninety percent of news media are controlled by six corporations. As a result, the vast majority of what you read, see and hear is part of a carefully orchestrated narrative created and controlled by special interest groups(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)


“Astroturf” is the effort on the part of large corporate special interests to surreptitiously sway public opinion by making it appear as though it’s a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda

Wikipedia is astroturf’s dream come true. Many pages are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests who forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda


https://youtu.be/xsawOwPgZZc

Full article with more video:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on November 10, 2017, 06:31:58 pm
2017 to 2018 Flu Vaccine Update

November 09, 2017 • 116,118

https://youtu.be/BRcZZROphLM

Quote
Story at-a-glance 

ʘ At the end of 2015, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analysis revealed that, between 2005 and 2015, the influenza vaccine was less than 50 percent effective more than half of the time

ʘ During the 2015/2016 flu season, FluMist, the live virus nasal spray, had a failure rate of 97 percent. The CDC did not recommend it last year and still recommends against using it during the 2017 to 2018 flu season

ʘ Shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration, which includes chronic pain, limited range of motion, nerve damage and frozen shoulder, are typically the result of the injection being administered too high on the arm

ʘ The 2016 to 2017 flu vaccine, which was very well-matched to circulating viral strains and hailed as “one of the most effective in years,” turned out to be another dismal failure

ʘ The vaccine had no clear effect in those between the ages of 18 and 49. Ditto for the elderly. Among young children, the effectiveness was about 60 percent. In other age groups, the effectiveness topped out at 42 percent
[/size]

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/11/09/2017-2018-flu-vaccine-update.aspx


Agelbert NOTE:
I would rather get sick and die of the flu than be subject to the DANGER of these profit over patient flu vaccines! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on November 28, 2017, 04:55:21 pm
Pharma Dogs Hunt Down Vaccine Disruptors in California

November 28, 2017 • 85,599 views

Is The Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)

3
https://youtu.be/43hUZ76rD54

Story at-a-glance

֍ Medical vaccine exemptions in California have tripled since 2015 when the state’s personal belief exemption was removed from mandatory vaccination laws for children to attend school

֍ The parents of more than 10 percent of children enrolled at 58 California schools in the fall of 2016 obtained a medical exemption for their children to attend school without having received every federally recommended dose of every state-mandated vaccine

֍ A recent Los Angeles Times article accused some California doctors of helping parents avoid giving their children vaccinations by writing medical exemptions for children who do not need them — a practice that the newspaper alleged “could endanger their communities”

֍ The editorial, written by the LA Times editorial board, called for punitive measures to flush out and sanction doctors who write medical vaccine exemptions, for which the editors said only 3 percent of children “should reasonably qualify”

֍ Evidence strongly suggests the resurgence of whooping cough is due to vaccinated people becoming asymptomatic carriers spreading the disease. The pertussis bacteria have also mutated and no longer match strains included in the vaccine

By Dr. Mercola (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)


https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/11/28/medical-exemptions-for-vaccination.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on November 29, 2017, 09:16:38 pm
American Heart Association President Suffers Heart Attack at 52

November 29, 2017 • 119,275 views

Story at-a-glance

֍ John Warner, cardiologist and president of the American Heart Association (AHA), recently suffered a heart attack in the middle of a health conference at the age of 52


֍ In all likelihood, Warner followed AHA recommendations, many of which can actually worsen or cause heart disease


֍ AHA supports ample grain consumption and recommends eating harmful fats such as canola, corn, soybean and sunflower oil, both of which are known to cause and/or contribute to cardiovascular problems


֍ Good heart health starts with your diet — what you eat and when you eat. A powerful treatment for heart disease is to work your way up to an intermittent fasting schedule where you’re fasting for 20 hours a day


֍ When you do eat, make sure you eat real food, and consider a cyclical ketogenic diet, high in healthy fats, low in net carbs with moderate protein. Once you’re comfortable with this intermittent fasting schedule, start doing a monthly water only fast, working your way up to multiple days

SNIPPET 1:

Quote
Just this past summer the AHA shocked health experts around the world by sending out a worldwide advisory6 saying saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil should be avoided to cut your risk of heart disease, and that replacing these fats with margarine :P and vegetable oil might cut your heart disease risk by as much as 30 percent.(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)  Overall, the AHA recommends limiting your daily saturated fat intake to 6 percent of daily calories or less.7  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif)


(http://www.funny-emoticons.com/files/funny-animals/blue-bird-emoticons/801-listen-up!.png)This is as backward as it gets, and if Warner was following this long-outdated advice, it’s no wonder he suffered a heart attack. In fact, it is to be expected.

As noted by American science writer Gary Taubes in his extensive rebuttal to the AHA’s advisory,8 with this document, the AHA reveals its longstanding prejudice — and the method by which it reaches its flawed conclusions.

SNIPPET 2:

Stent Placement No Better Than Placebo

https://youtu.be/4uFxbKmTdok

SNIPPET 3:

In an open letter to AHA president Warner, Dr. William Davis, a New York cardiologist and author of The New York Times best seller “Wheat Belly, Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health,” writes, in part:
Quote

“If you ignore the nonsense that AHA policy dictates, you can absolutely gain control over cardiovascular risk. But you will NOT find the answers in any AHA policy. I learned these lessons practicing as an interventional cardiologist, then abandoning this ridiculous way of managing coronary disease to devote my efforts to early detection and prevention.

So, I thought I would articulate some of these thoughts in an open letter to Dr. Warner as he recovers from his procedure … Dr. Warner — … There are a number of reasons why someone like you — deeply-entrenched in the conventional world of heart disease management and what passes for prevention — highlights the miserable failure that the modern coronary care paradigm represents:

1) We are trapped by the outdated but profitable lipid hypothesis … 2) We know from abundant data that small oxidation- and glycation-prone LDL particles are highly atherogenic … are potent triggers of the inflammation cascade … and are triggered to abundant degrees in some genotypes upon consumption of the amylopectin A of grains …

[Y]es, the food that the American Heart Association advises to fill the diet with — and sugars … I am hoping that, now that this disease has touched you personally, your eyes will be opened to the corrupt and absurd policies of conventional coronary care and the American Heart Association.”

The Magic Pill Myth Needs to End

Davis goes on to note that heart disease is a multifactorial problem that cannot be solved with a pill. 

Quote
“Thinking that a statin drug … [is] sufficient to prevent coronary events is absurd and overly-simplistic, like thinking that taking Aricept for dementia will stop the disease — of course, it does no such thing,” he writes, adding, “There are no drugs to ‘treat’ many of the contributors to coronary atherogenesis. But there are many non-drug strategies to identify, then correct, such causes.”

Must read article (that is, if you value your cardiovascular health):  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif)


https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/11/29/aha-president-suffers-heart-attack.aspx

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191017143841.jpeg)Agelbert NOTE: Cardiology has turned into a pharma scam to push statins and/or blood pressure medication, while recommending  foods that hurt your cardiovascular health (which will result in you being prescribed MORE medication (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)). Don't be a sucker for drug pushers in white coats. Eating healthy is the best solution, even if you already have "high blood pressure".  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif) Read the article to learn why I just put that in quotes.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 06, 2017, 02:04:59 pm
Big Sugar  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg) Buried Evidence to Hide Sugar Harms

Story at-a-glance

֍ The sugar industry has long known that sugar consumption triggers poor health, but hid the incriminating data, much like the tobacco industry hid the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer

֍ Historical documents show the sugar industry has spent decades manipulating, molding and guiding nutritional research to exonerate sugar by shifting the blame for obesity and heart disease to saturated fat

֍ The documents also show the sugar industry buried evidence from the 1960s that linked sugar consumption to heart disease and bladder cancer. At the time, food additives shown to cause cancer in animals were banned

֍ Sucrose was also found to have an adverse effect on cholesterol and triglycerides

֍ Just like it defended sugar in food by shifting the blame onto dietary fats, the sugar industry also made sure sugar did not become a concern within dentistry by shifting the focus onto the need for fluoride

Full article: 

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/06/industry-buried-evidence-hiding-sugar-harms.aspx

Agelbert NOTE: Back in 1985 when I went back to college to study pre-med, I learned of what medical science calls the "sugar reflex". The metabolic immediate effects of sugar molecules on the most life forms, including humans, is a hormonal trigger telling the organism to "GET MORE OF THAT GREAT STUFF"! Sugar is cheap energy which, though essential to survival when starvation conditions exist, is extremely harmful due to the fact that eating it encourages fat cell population increase, anoxic conditions in the liver (too many fat cells there) which cause inefficent liver function (all sorts of enzymes you need are no longer produced in sufficent quantity), which leads to cirrhocis  and metabolic diseases like cardiovascular dysfunction, obesity and diabetes.

Now medical science knows quite a bit more about the metabolic downsides of the sugar reflex.

Among the diseases resulting from eating too much sugar that I mentioned above, diabetes is the one everybody seems to know about. However, they don't know the PROCESS, that any pre-med student now should know, that starts with the sugar reflex.

You see, you have millions of these little tiny biological machines inside you called H3 receptors. You know how the pancreas does its insulin thing to help the mitochondria in your cells metabolize all that sugar you were gamed into eating by the sugar reflex (i.e. hormone triggers happy day! Lots of cheap energy! Go GIT IT!(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030817202100.gif)).

What you aren't being told is that eating cheap crap like refined sugar causes a major adjustment in your biochemstry. That is, the H3 receptors flag the system that TOO MANY of them are being activated. Unlike Capitalism, your body's systems know when too much cheap energy (i.e. metabolic HARMFUL 'profit') is coming in. Capitalists (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif) do not understand the concept of harmful profit. Thus they doom themselves. But I digress. ;D Your body, generally speaking, knows what too much of a 'good' thing is, but your brain can be fooled by the sugar reflex into overcoming the mechanisms your biochemistry has for dealing with harmful (i.e. excess) energy.

The system then tweaks the H3 receptor "software" ;D so they need a lot more sugar in the blood than before to be activated. Thus, you begin the path that leads you to diabetes. The pancreas reaches a  point where the H3 receptors will not budge to signal it to make insulin. Your mitichondria cannot metabolize the sugar and you get hyperglycemic (high blood sugar) and possibly pass out (or go into a coma). You can go into an equally dangerous hypoglycemic condition too. It is very bad news to be diabetic.

Some reading this might say that all medical science needs to do is retweak those H3 receptors so your system can work with a normally small amount of insulin, as it did before. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The H3 receptors peter out as you move towards being a diabetic, so the pancreas will not make insulin, so  you then need insulin injections.

Stay AWAY from refined sugar if you want to live longer. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif) And, by the way, your teeth will last longer too. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/129fs238648.gif)

For those who want to learn a bit of Histamine metabolic fun and games associated with H3 receptors, enjoy the study at the link below:

SNIPPET:

Since the inhibitory effect of neuronal histamine on food intake was first reported in 1973 (Clineschmidt and Lotti, 1973), many studies have shown that histamine acts as a neurotransmitter in energy homeostasis, modulating hypothalamic neuronal activities (Jorgensen et al., 2007). A H3 receptor inverse agonist increased the hypothalamic concentration of histamine, leading to reduced food intake and body weight (Malmlof et al., 2005). Conversely, a H3 receptor agonist suppressed hypothalamic histamine release and elicited feeding behaviour in rats (Chiba et al., 2009). Betahistine, a partial inverse agonist at H3 receptors, induced significant weight loss with minimal adverse events in women under 50 years of age (Barak et al., 2008). Moreover, the centrally acting H3 receptor protean agonist proxyfan reduced blood glucose level and exhibited anti-diabetic properties in mice (Henry et al., 2011). Based on all these findings, neuronal H3 receptors have attracted substantial attention as a potential therapeutic target in obesity (Leurs et al., 2005).

The expression and function of histamine H3 receptors in pancreatic beta cells

The expression and function of histamine H3 receptors in pancreatic beta cells
T Nakamura,1 T Yoshikawa,1 N Noguchi,2 A Sugawara,3 A Kasajima,4 H Sasano,4 and K Yanai1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874705/
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2017, 04:47:18 pm
Ghost (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif) in the Machine, Part 3 — Pride and the Politics of Vaccines
   
December 29, 2017 • 45,603 views

Story at-a-glance

֍ The history of vaccine development and use of vaccines in underdeveloped countries reveals great hypocrisy and examples of unethical opportunism

֍ Mainstream medicine, media and the U.S. government itself have deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry linked to Big Vax, which explains why there is so much misinformation about vaccine risks

֍ The “vaccine court” created by Congress and operated by federal agencies and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. protects vaccine manufacturers from liability for vaccine injuries and deaths and discourages improvements in vaccine safety

By Dr. Mercola

SNIPPET:

The Science Is Ignored

Earlier this year, Kennedy, chairman of the World Mercury Project, actor Robert De Niro and others held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., calling for an open and honest discussion about vaccine safety. Appearing in a video was the late Dr. Bernadine Healy, who was the first female director of the National Institutes of Health, serving from 1991 until 1993.

She was also professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at Ohio State University and president of the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association.19 In the video, Healy expresses concern that no government attempts have been made to see if a population of susceptible people exists for whom vaccines are risky.

She said she did not believe “the public would lose faith in vaccines” if such a population were found, a fear she said was expressed at the Institute of Medicine. She also lamented how animal studies which suggest vaccine links to neurological damage have been ignored. One such study was savaged by pro-vaccine scientists. As reported by OCA:20

“A 2010 paper published in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering neuroscience, found that ‘rhesus macaque infants receiving the complete U.S. childhood vaccine schedule’ did not ‘undergo the maturational changes over time in amygdala volume that was observed in unexposed animals.’

Pro-vaccine scientists pounced. Not enough monkeys were used to establish a scientific finding, said one scientist. Opposite findings about the amygdala have been reached, which invalidate the study, said another scientist.

One angry scientist was even willing to discredit the monkey study by claiming that monkeys are not a valid model for human disease — thus annulling millions of experiments including the ones on which human drugs are approved! Of course, many in the animal welfare community have questioned the validity of animal ‘models.’”


‘Vaccine Court’ Protects Vaccine Makers' Interests, Not the Public

Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts. At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation were allowed to continue.

Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines. Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and gave vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Full article:

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/29/vaccines-politics.aspx (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/29/vaccines-politics.aspx)
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2017, 04:59:34 pm
Ghost  in the Machine, Part 2 — Success (http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif) Breeds Greed That Gets in the Way of Ethics, Common Sense and Caution

December 28, 2017 • 115,166 views

Story at-a-glance


֍ Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has led to wider use of prescription drugs by American adults and children

֍ FDA conflicts of interest result in approvals of increasingly dangerous drugs

֍ Pharma defends high drug prices with high-priced PR campaigns and patient front groups

Full article:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/28/dtc-drug-advertising.aspx

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2017, 05:04:15 pm
Ghost (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif) in the Machine, Part 1 — Drug Safety and Media Shaped by Big Pharma (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif)
2.2K       
December 27, 2017 • 78,620 views

Story at-a-glance

֍ Drug industry representatives sit on the boards of major TV and print news outlets, shaping and sometimes blocking reporting about drug safety and effectiveness

֍ Academic institutions, many government agencies and NGOs are financially beholden to Big Pharma, and most academic medical centers have drug company reps on their boards

֍ Sponsored content,” also called branded or native content, is now the prevailing online advertising model making drug advertisements and Pharma messages look like real news

Full article:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/27/drug-safety-media-shaped-by-big-pharma.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on December 30, 2017, 07:07:33 pm
Ghost in the Machine, Part 4 — The War on Supplements, Essential Oils and Homeopathy
 
December 30, 2017 • 94,143 views

֍ As supplements and alternative therapies become more popular, Pharma is calling them ineffective and possibly harmful

֍ The drug industry accuses the supplement industry of false claims and manufacturing irregularities — the same problems which afflict Pharma

֍ Even as Big Pharma discredits supplements, many drug companies market their own vitamins and supplements

SNIPPET:
Examples of Supplements, Essential Oils and Homeopathy Therapy at Work

The medical literature includes notable examples of supplements and natural remedies that function as valuable medicines. Why do we so rarely, if ever, hear of them on health news sites or TV? Supplements and natural substances cannot be patented and hence present no profit potential for Pharma no matter how dramatic their actions. Here are some supplements for which there is promising evidence of effectiveness:

Folic acid, when added to enalapril (an ACE inhibitor used to treat high blood pressure, diabetic kidney disease and heart failure) produced a significant reduction in stroke occurrence in 2015 JAMA research.20

Oregano might be effective against the norovirus, say investigators at the University of Arizona.21

High doses of vitamin C may be useful in the treatment of ovarian cancer, boost the power of chemotherapy and ward off stroke, research indicates.22,23,24

Multivitamins and olive oil are under investigation for their roles in managing breast cancer.25,26

A compound found in a Japanese mushroom could be a cure for the currently untreatable human papilloma virus.27

Vitamin E likely plays an important role in deterring miscarriage.28

Preliminary evidence even suggests that micronutrients could be beneficial in treating adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), according to 2014 research published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.29

When children with ADHD inhaled vetiver essential oil three times a day for 30 days they had improved brain wave patterns and behavior and did better in school.

In patients with allergies, those using homeopathy reported improvements in nasal airflow compared with a placebo group and researchers described a "clear, significant and clinically relevant improvement in nasal inspiratory peak flow, similar to that found with topical steroids."

Don't Rule Out Vitamin D

In the past few years, vitamin D has gone from a vitamin "hero" whose deficiency potentially explained many maladies, to VNG (Vitamin Non Grata).30,31 The same flip-flop has been seen with calcium, once a good guy, now potentially another supplemental bad guy.32 In fact, vitamin D has been so demonized, the pro-Pharma Forbes site actually writes:33

"Vitamin D supplements, to put it plainly, are a waste of money. (For those concerned about osteoporosis, the widely used drug alendronate (Fosamax®), has been shown to increase bone density by about 5 percent, as explained in a 2011 article by Dr. Sundeep Khosia. But Fosamax has side effects.)"

The "side effects" mentioned by Forbes are an understatement. Bisphosphonate bone drugs such as Fosamax and Boniva have been linked to esophageal cancer, jawbone death, heart problems, intractable pain and the very fractures they are supposed to prevent.34 They are one of the most dangerous drug classes ever marketed.

Far from a waste of money, vitamin D made such a difference in a 2014 breast cancer survival study, an investigator said "There is no compelling reason to wait for further studies to incorporate vitamin D supplements into standard care regimens."35 Research suggests it may have a valuable role in multiple sclerosis management, diabetes and depression, chronic liver disease and diseases of older age.36,37,38,39

Pharma Is a Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Full article:

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/30/war-on-supplements-essential-oils-homeopathy.aspx
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on January 01, 2018, 02:43:35 pm
Ghost in the Machine, Part 4 — The War on Supplements, Essential Oils and Homeopathy
 
December 30, 2017 • 94,143 views

֍ As supplements and alternative therapies become more popular, Pharma is calling them ineffective and possibly harmful

֍ The drug industry accuses the supplement industry of false claims and manufacturing irregularities — the same problems which afflict Pharma

֍ Even as Big Pharma discredits supplements, many drug companies market their own vitamins and supplements

SNIPPET:
Examples of Supplements, Essential Oils and Homeopathy Therapy at Work

The medical literature includes notable examples of supplements and natural remedies that function as valuable medicines. Why do we so rarely, if ever, hear of them on health news sites or TV? Supplements and natural substances cannot be patented and hence present no profit potential for Pharma no matter how dramatic their actions. Here are some supplements for which there is promising evidence of effectiveness:

Folic acid, when added to enalapril (an ACE inhibitor used to treat high blood pressure, diabetic kidney disease and heart failure) produced a significant reduction in stroke occurrence in 2015 JAMA research.20

Oregano might be effective against the norovirus, say investigators at the University of Arizona.21

High doses of vitamin C may be useful in the treatment of ovarian cancer, boost the power of chemotherapy and ward off stroke, research indicates.22,23,24

Multivitamins and olive oil are under investigation for their roles in managing breast cancer.25,26

A compound found in a Japanese mushroom could be a cure for the currently untreatable human papilloma virus.27

Vitamin E likely plays an important role in deterring miscarriage.28

Preliminary evidence even suggests that micronutrients could be beneficial in treating adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), according to 2014 research published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.29

When children with ADHD inhaled vetiver essential oil three times a day for 30 days they had improved brain wave patterns and behavior and did better in school.

In patients with allergies, those using homeopathy reported improvements in nasal airflow compared with a placebo group and researchers described a "clear, significant and clinically relevant improvement in nasal inspiratory peak flow, similar to that found with topical steroids."

Don't Rule Out Vitamin D

In the past few years, vitamin D has gone from a vitamin "hero" whose deficiency potentially explained many maladies, to VNG (Vitamin Non Grata).30,31 The same flip-flop has been seen with calcium, once a good guy, now potentially another supplemental bad guy.32 In fact, vitamin D has been so demonized, the pro-Pharma Forbes site actually writes:33

"Vitamin D supplements, to put it plainly, are a waste of money. (For those concerned about osteoporosis, the widely used drug alendronate (Fosamax®), has been shown to increase bone density by about 5 percent, as explained in a 2011 article by Dr. Sundeep Khosia. But Fosamax has side effects.)"

The "side effects" mentioned by Forbes are an understatement. Bisphosphonate bone drugs such as Fosamax and Boniva have been linked to esophageal cancer, jawbone death, heart problems, intractable pain and the very fractures they are supposed to prevent.34 They are one of the most dangerous drug classes ever marketed.

Far from a waste of money, vitamin D made such a difference in a 2014 breast cancer survival study, an investigator said "There is no compelling reason to wait for further studies to incorporate vitamin D supplements into standard care regimens."35 Research suggests it may have a valuable role in multiple sclerosis management, diabetes and depression, chronic liver disease and diseases of older age.36,37,38,39

Pharma Is a Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Full article:

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/30/war-on-supplements-essential-oils-homeopathy.aspx

When my wife was being treated for Ovarian cancer we incorporated Mistletoe and Intravenous vitamin C , Medicinal THC and CBD as well as many supplements. I wish there was more research done to prove or disprove many of the claims made. There was decent research on mistletoe and Vitamin C , some on THC but a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about countless alternatives. If you listened to everyone who supposedly had an easy answer to cancer you would go nuts. It was a very difficult path to navigate. Separating the glimmers of hope from the snake oil was a full time job.

True. That is why I listen to everything Dr. Mercola says. He does his homework and exposes snake oil baloney from everyone, not just the snake oil pushers in Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial complex.

My mom died of ovarian cancer. According to the doctors who treated her at the age of 74, the piece of ovary,that had been left there deliberately by the doctor who gave her a hysterectomy after her seventh child at the age of 35 (since my stupid old man refused to get a vasectomy), turned cancerous. This old procedure was done so women would not suffer from hormone problems when they no longer had ovaries. It was a mistake. They don't do that any more.

Dr. Mercola does not publish unsubtantiated claims. Are you implying that he does?

Also, any therapy, no matter how efficacious it is proven to be by medical science, will have varying effectiveness on humans. All the scientific studies of all known therapies, therefore, are always presented in  statistical form.

It is sheeer folly to assume that modern medical practices and legal drug therapies are not tainted by the profit motive. That is the fact of life we must navigate as we decide what is best for us. Assuming that a medical doctor prescribing a drug is invariably doing it because he or she has "your best interests at heart" is  dangerously naive thinking.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on February 01, 2018, 05:17:24 pm
(https://www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/u1752/Truthout%20logo.jpg)

I Had to Bury My 26-Year-Old Son Because He Couldn't Afford Insulin

Thursday, February 01, 2018

By Nicole Smith-Holt🕊 , Truthout | Op-Ed


SNIPPET:

As you would imagine, my family and I are still grieving. But I've decided that sharing our story may help prevent someone else from going through what Alec did. There are a lot of proposals to increase access to affordable health coverage and to lower the price of medicines, including forcing drug companies to be transparent about their research costs and profits, and allowing Medicare to negotiate down the price it pays for prescription drugs. To me, they all boil down to one theme: Access to insulin, and other life-essential medicines, is a human right.

The inventor of insulin, Frederick Banting, believed that. When he was asked why he gave away his patent for $1, he replied, "Because insulin does not belong to me. It belongs to the world."  (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png) That spirit is being violated today, where there are thousands of GoFundMe pages devoted to people like Alec, desperately trying to cobble together the money they need for their monthly insulin.

Full article:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/43397-i-had-to-bury-my-26-year-old-son-because-he-couldn-t-afford-insulin
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 01, 2018, 08:06:01 pm
If Politicians Take Corporate Money They 🦀  Don't Represent You Anymore! (w/Guest Ebonie Land 🕊)


https://youtu.be/viIu1YJTJKY

Simple Question, Do politicians represent you when they are taking money from the Morbidly Rich? No, they Represent the fascist corporate donors!

Thom Hartmann Feb. 28, 2018 3:00 pm


Resistance To Universal Healthcare is Futile with Michael Lighty (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif)

https://youtu.be/DTTTpFa6IPo

Michael Lighty joins Alex Lawson with a message, Resistance to Universal Healthcare by big money and the morbidly rich is futile!

Thom Hartmann Feb. 27, 2018 2:30 pm

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 05, 2018, 08:45:50 pm
The Deadly Inefficiency Of For Profit Healthcare and the Promise of Medicare for All

https://youtu.be/fsDQwYJ_kv0

https://youtu.be/FVfgqexHRj4


Andy Brodock and Alex Lawson bring us in human terms the deadly inefficiency of the for profit healthcare companies. These stories need to be kept in mind as we fight for medicare for all.

Thom Hartmann Mar. 2, 2018 3:00 pm

https://youtu.be/XvlfIJi2NUI

Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2018, 08:20:24 pm
Nov 10, 2017 | 2,463 views | by The Harvard Law Forum

Quote
On November 9, 2017, health care expert, Jacobin writer and HEAVYxMEDICAL co-host Timothy Faust (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png) came to Harvard Law School and made the case for a single payer, Medicare for All health insurance...

Agelbert NOTE: Tim Faust's encyclopedic knowledge of our medical system, including the good, the bad and the REALLY ugly parts, as well as his detailed proposed solution to the deadly health harming problems in our corrupted and massively inefficient medical care system, makes him a compelling speaker.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) The energy he projects is fantastic. I think he will be a force in bringing Medicare for All to the USA.  (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)


To skip the introductory boilerplate, begin at 3:00.  8)

https://youtu.be/yQAVBqm6cx0
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 19, 2018, 10:00:43 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Great presentaton by Elisabeth Rosenthal about Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field.

Elisabeth Rosenthal, "An American Sickness"

https://youtu.be/N84DOIAef5c

Politics and Prose

Published on May 1, 2017

http://www.politics-prose.com/book/97...

In her first book, Rosenthal, editor in chief of Kaiser Health News as well as an M.D., takes a comprehensive look at the country’s ailing health care system. By breaking down the whole into its parts, she guides readers through a complicated tangle of hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers, focusing especially on the problems that have arisen in recent years as more hospitals are run by business executives and more research charities enter into profitable relationships with drug companies. Rosenthal shows how these arrangements harm patients and suggests ways we can heal the system.

Founded by Carla Cohen and Barbara Meade in 1984, Politics and Prose Bookstore is Washington, D.C.'s premier independent bookstore and cultural hub, a gathering place for people interested in reading and discussing books. Politics and  Prose offers superior service, unusual book choices, and a haven for book lovers in the store and online. Visit them on the web at http://www.politics-prose.com/

Produced by Tom Warren
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 28, 2018, 02:42:13 pm
https://www.thenation.com/article/american-decay/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/american-decay/)

America’s Dental Gap Has Left People Relying on Pliers, Chisels, and Whiskey
A free clinic fights decay in Tennessee.
By Zoë CarpenterTwitter
November 3, 2017

(https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Carpenter-RAM_img.jpg?scale=896&compress=80)
The dental gap is only partly mitigated by RAM’s pop-up clinics, which serve thousands of poor Americans each year. (Zoë Carpenter)

Ready to fight back?
Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

September went out hot in East Tennessee. Caleb didn’t mind; he parked his lawn chair in a shallow pool of shade, clipped a small fan to its arm, lit a cigarette, and settled back to wait. It would be more than 12 hours before the free medical clinic opened its doors. Caleb had read about the clinic online, and that it was best to get there early. Hundreds of people were expected to show up.

Caleb had driven up from Georgia to get a **** tooth pulled. He’s a lean, hard-looking man with a scar running vertically down from his lower lip, the result of a getting bitten by a dog. His teeth are yellowed, many of them dark brown at the gum line. A few years ago, Caleb paid more than $2,000 to have three teeth extracted by a professional, a price that he considered ridiculous. He works odd jobs but wanted me to know that he isn’t poor: He earns enough to own his house and car. “But there’s nothing in the back pocket,” he explained. Since then he’s resorted to pulling teeth on his own, with a pair of hog-ring pliers that he modified for the job. One time he messed up and crushed an aching tooth, leaving a jagged stump embedded in his jaw; he went after that with a chisel and a hammer. He saved a neighbor $300 recently, he claimed, by pulling a tooth for him. “You know what that cost him? Two and a half shots of Wild Turkey 101.”

On the ground beside Caleb sat Michael Sumers, a fellow Georgian with a long neck and wide, darting eyes. Sumers, who never saw a dentist as a child, hoped to get his remaining 14 teeth pulled. He’s only 46 years old. His mouth has hurt him almost constantly for the last five years, but he hasn’t been able to afford any help. Sumers lives on his disability check, and after paying $700 a month in rent, he doesn’t have much left. “I can’t eat steak without my teeth breaking,” he admitted.
ADVERTISING

Chicken is what broke one of Jessica Taylor’s teeth. Another two were broken by her ex-husband’s fist, when he hit her in the mouth during a fight. I found Taylor sitting on the ground, her back to a tree, a pizza box beside her. “Now I’m here,” she said, explaining why she’d come to the clinic, “and he’s in hell.”

Over on the far side of the lot, a group of women sat around a small barbecue grill, smoking cigarettes and flipping burgers: Beverly, April, Darlene, and Donna, a woman with a thin face and gray hair scraped back into a ponytail. All of them hoped to get their teeth worked on the following morning when the clinic opened. Beverly smiled, showing me how her two front teeth overlapped. Her parents divorced when she was little, Beverly told me, “and forgot which one was supposed to take care of it.” April, her sister, read about the clinic on Facebook and had been the first to pull into the parking lot that morning. At 9 am, when the clinic staff arrived to set up rows of dental chairs, April was there in a pink T-shirt, waiting on the sidewalk.

Caleb has resorted to pulling teeth on his own, with a pair of hog-ring pliers adapted for the purpose.

Of the countless ways in which poverty eats at the body, one of the most visible, and painful, is in our mouths. Teeth betray age, but also wealth, if they’re pearly and straight, or the emptiness of our pockets, if they’re missing, broken, rotted out. The American health-care system treats routine dental care as a luxury available only to those with the means to pay for it, making it vastly more difficult for millions of Americans to take care of their teeth. And the consequences can be far more profound than just negative effects on one’s appearance. In fact, they can be deadly.

Wealthy Americans spend billions of dollars per year, collectively, to improve their smiles. Meanwhile, about a third of all people living in the United States struggle to pay for even basic dental care. The most common chronic illness in school-age children is tooth decay. Nearly a quarter of low-income children have decaying teeth, well above the national average; black and Hispanic children also experience higher rates of untreated decay. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare is required to cover dental procedures for adults, so coverage varies by state, and both the very poor and the elderly are often left to pay out of pocket. (Tennessee provides no dental coverage to anyone over 21.) In those states where Medicaid does cover dental care, benefits are limited. Even middle-class Americans can’t always afford necessary care, as private insurance often will not cover expensive procedures. Dental coverage improved modestly during the Obama administration, through an expansion of Medicaid and the state Children’s Health Insurance Program under the Affordable Care Act, but access remains patchy and wholly inadequate.   
Current Issue
View our current issue   

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The situation is made more difficult by the dearth of dentists in low-income communities. Less than half of the country’s dentists will treat Medicaid patients. As one dentist tells journalist Mary Otto in her 2017 book Teeth, while his colleagues “once exclusively focused upon fillings and extractions,” they “are nowadays considered providers of beauty.” Offering cosmetic procedures in wealthy cities and suburbs is far more lucrative than treating people in rural areas and poor neighborhoods—whitening alone is an $11-billion-a-year industry. The result is a geographic imbalance, with dentists clustered around the money. Nearly 55 million people live in areas officially considered to have a shortage of dental-care providers. At the pediatric dental clinic at the University of Illinois at Chicago, there’s a two-year waiting list for children who need dental surgery that requires anesthesia.

All of this explains why Caleb and a few hundred other people slept in a parking lot overnight—in their cars, in tents, or out on the ground—and then gathered in the early-morning dark, waiting for the pop-up clinic to open its doors. Held at a sports arena outside Chattanooga, the clinic is one of dozens operated each year by the nonprofit organization Remote Area Medical.

Appalachia is RAM’s home territory, but the group now runs weekend clinics in medically underserved areas across the United States, from California and Texas to Florida and New York, providing basic medical, dental, and vision care—as well as veterinary services, occasionally—fully free of charge. Dozens of doctors and dentists from across the country volunteer their services.

The group’s founder, Stan Brock, was there to open the doors at 6 am. Brock is a tan, trim man of 81 with a clipped English accent; he is also a former wildlife-television star. (A quick search turns up photos of Brock holding a lion cub, a snake fatter than his arm, and a harpy eagle named Jezebel.)   
Support Progressive Journalism

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.

The idea for RAM came about after Brock found himself badly injured in a horseback-riding accident in a part of Guyana that was weeks away—on foot—from the nearest doctor. Initially, his intent was to fly doctors and medical supplies into remote regions of the world’s poorest countries. Brock got his pilot’s license and a small plane, and started flying medical missions into Haiti, Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Brazil. He founded RAM in 1985; a few years later, the mayor of Sneedville in northern Tennessee read about the group’s work in a newspaper. The local hospital had closed and the only dentist had left town, so the mayor asked Brock for help. Brock put a dental chair in the back of a pickup truck and drove to Sneedville, where more than 50 people lined up to have their teeth worked on. Ninety percent of RAM’s operations are now in the United States.

Little else has changed about the nature of Brock’s work in the two and a half decades since the Sneedville clinic, despite swings of the political pendulum and the passage of numerous health-care reform packages. When I asked Brock about common ailments among the thousands of people who attend RAM clinics each year, he said, “I can tell you that without any hesitation—it’s the same everywhere we go. They’re all there to see the dentist. They’re all there to see the eye doctor. They’re not there to see the medical doctor.” The health-care system treats the eyes and teeth as being distinct from the rest of the body—no matter that an infection that starts in the mouth can move quickly into the bloodstream and then throughout the body. Unlike many other acute physical problems, a **** tooth or the gradual blurring of vision cannot be fixed in an emergency room. Nevertheless, more than 2 million people show up in the nation’s emergency rooms with dental pain each year, though hospitals can usually do little besides prescribe antibiotics and painkillers.   

By the time the sky lightened, nearly 200 people had been ushered into the arena. Outside, the line still wrapped around the building. A woman at the back clutched a ticket numbered 631. Her teeth had been hurting her for a year and a half, but there was no guarantee she’d be seen. Inside, volunteers checked the patients in at rows of folding tables. Dental patients were sent to wait in the bleachers, which filled up quickly.

One by one, the people in the bleachers were summoned to a chair overseen by Dr. Joseph Gambacorta, a dean at the School of Dental Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Gambacorta peered into their mouths to determine whether they needed fillings, a cleaning, or—as was most often the case—extractions. Thirty-six-year-old Jennifer Beard from Dayton, Tennessee, sat uneasily in the chair, her mouth open. She’d already lost all but eight of her teeth. “What do I need to do? I haven’t been to the dentist in a long time,” she admitted in an apologetic tone. “My mom and dad died, and I lost my job.” It took Gambacorta about 10 seconds to assess the damage: “I hate to tell you this, but you need them all out.”   

The intent was to fly doctors into the world’s poorest countries. Then he got a call from Tennessee.

Preventing tooth decay doesn’t necessarily require a lot of money: Toothbrushes and floss don’t cost very much, Gambacorta pointed out. But it does require constant attention, and neglect is serious. One dental student who has volunteered at several RAM clinics told me about a man who arrived with a mouthful of rotting teeth; asked how often he brushed them, he replied, “Well, doc, I don’t.” Diet and habits like smoking also hasten decay. But all these risk factors are amplified by limited access to professional care. When routine care is unaffordable and decay goes untreated, minor problems can become critical. What starts out as a toothache can become an infection in the jawbone, which can then spread to the bloodstream. In one now-famous case initially reported by Mary Otto, a 12-year-old Maryland boy named Deamonte Driver died from an abscessed tooth that would have cost $80 to pull. Driver’s family had lost their Medicaid coverage, and his mother was preoccupied with trying to find a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth. Driver died when the bacteria from his tooth spread to his brain—and after more than $200,000 in surgeries and six weeks in the hospital.

“Six, eight, 10, 15, 16, and two,” Gambacorta said briskly to an assistant with a clipboard, naming the teeth that had to be extracted from the head of a fidgety 30-year-old who’d last seen a dentist nearly a decade ago, when he was in Navy boot camp. Gambacorta took a second look. “Are you sure you don’t want the bottom ones out, too?” he asked. “Put 18, 19, 31, and 32 on the list, too.”

While some patients’ teeth were so decayed that Gambacorta had no choice but to recommend their removal, he hesitates to turn people into “dental cripples” unnecessarily. “Everyone’s eager to get them all out, but they don’t know what that means for after,” he told me. People assume that having dentures is easier than dealing with their rotted teeth, particularly if they’ve been in pain. But dentures come with their own complications, including the fact that people who use them tend to eat softer, less nutritious foods.   
Related Article
The Nation
Can Local Food Help Appalachia Build a Post-Coal Future?

Sarah Jones

On the main floor of the arena, behind a wall of green curtains, stood four parallel rows of dental chairs—50 in all. I found April, still wearing her pink shirt, waiting in chair 22, her gums already numbed. Caleb was in chair 13; he was quiet and nervous, with little of the nonchalance he’d projected the previous afternoon while describing his pliers. Later on, I found him smoking a cigarette in the parking lot, a new gap where his top left tooth had been. “It’s embarrassing,” he said of the gap. Still, he was grateful. He was getting free eyeglasses, too; he hadn’t realized how badly he needed them.

Donna grinned at me from chair 25 as a third-year dental student prepared to pull four of her teeth. The first three came out easily, in a matter of minutes. But the fourth was stuck. It took the oral surgeon who was overseeing things a few swings of his right elbow, as if he were flapping a wing, to yank it free. Donna whimpered in pain, but a few minutes later, her mouth stuffed with gauze, she gave me a thumbs-up. The incessant ache she’d lived with for so long had already started to fade.   
Subscribe to The Nation  for $2 a month.

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

Over the course of two days, more than 800 people received care from RAM. Sheila Barrow, a pretty woman of 55 with dimples and long blond hair, said it was the fourth RAM clinic she’d attended. This time, she was there to have one tooth filled and another pulled. Barrow has health insurance through Tennessee’s Medicaid program, but no dental or vision coverage. She worked for UPS, but after four knee surgeries, she’s now dependent on disability benefits. “They’ve been a lifesaver,” she said of the free clinics. “I don’t know what I’d do without them.”   

“RAM will be holding these events until kingdom come—instead of being where we should be, which is in the Third World.” —Stan Brock, founder of Remote Area Medical

And yet it was clear that free clinics like RAM’s barely paper over the yawning dental-care gap. On Saturday afternoon, I found Michael Sumers in the parking lot, waiting for a ride home. All of his top teeth were gone. He’d gotten four pulled, not the 14 he was hoping for—there wasn’t enough time. Up in the bleachers, Gambacorta and another volunteer had discussed how to triage patients as it became clear that the need was greater than the number of dentists. Treating everyone in line meant that some people would have to choose between getting a tooth pulled or another one filled.

It should be unnecessary to say that a system that requires people to spend the night in a parking lot to see a dentist, or to pull their own teeth with pliers, or that leaves an infected tooth to kill a child, is grotesquely broken. Yet there is no urgency for reform in Washington, particularly with the party in power more inclined toward cutting health benefits. Part of the fault belongs with dentists’ associations, which have fought proposals for a national health-care system as well as smaller-scale reforms, like giving hygienists more autonomy to provide preventive care in public schools. The fault also rests with the policy-makers who have ignored dental care entirely when debating overhauls to the health-insurance system. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings have repeatedly introduced legislation to expand dental coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Department of Veterans Affairs; the latest version, introduced in 2015, never received a committee vote in either chamber.

Unless something changes in Washington, Brock predicted, “Remote Area Medical will be holding these events from now until kingdom come—instead of being where we should be, which is the Third World.”


Everybody has their sob story, and their other story about how they got screwed by some dentist. They're lined up around the block though, when treatment is pro bono.

I could do free dentistry 24/7 and never stop. Too bad I have to pay rent and make a 30K payroll every month, not to mention a lot of other bills.

Dental problems are overwhelmingly preventable, especially the dental problems of kids and young adults. I spend a fair part of my time trying to help people, but a whole lot of them never do a damn thing to help themselves. When you live on Coca-cola, you end up with rotten teeth
.

I disagree with Eddie that these people needing dental and eye care are "sob story" people we should not take seriously. HELLO? Are we going to label everyone who cannot afford decent dental and eye care as "irresponsible"? Sure, a small percentage of them are irresponsible. But, the FACT that dental associatons fight tooth and nail to prevent dental assistants from performing extractions, fillings and crowns is inexcusable. There is a war by these Dentist Poobahs going on in Vermont. We already have physician assistants that can do just about anything a doctor does here. For the last year the fight has been to enable dental assistants to do most of what a dentist does without a dentist grabbing a piece of action. The dentists are fighting this because of MONEY, not becasue of some "care" sbout a dental assistant mangling sombody's teeth (as the Dental associations in Vermont are hysterically claiming).

There is a reason why Cubans do not have dental problems  ;D. Thom Hartmann was recently flabergasted by the LACK of missing teeth or any other obvious evidence of poor dentition in poor Cubans.

Eddie, I firmly believe you should NOT have to pay rent for an office or buy ANY of the chairs, drills. lazers, x-ray equipment, etc. you need to do your job. I firmly believe we-the-people should, and certainly CAN, fund ALL OF THAT for you once you have a license to prractice dental medicine. Furthermore, long before you or any other aspiring medical student gets to that point, the study of medicine should be 100% FREE to anyone with the brains to make it through the program.

Of course we will probably never have medicare, including eye and dental care, FOR ALL in this country.

But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.  It is the most logical approach to health care that there is. As long as a health care professional doesn't have to fund his education or tools of the trade, there is no reason why they should be paid more than a middle class income, along with six weeks of paid vaction a year, in addition to time off for family leave (funerals, visit sick relatives or school field trips to motivate students or accompany their children). THAT is what a healthy soiciety that cares for its citizens does. It is as SOCIALIST as caring for the needs of your own children on a societal scale. I do NOT see a problem with that.

Health care professions should only attract those with a vocation to provide it. The Capitalist profit over patient system we have in the USA attracts too many people who are there to get rich, not to serve God and Country.

I know you do the best you can for your patients, Eddie. But do not tell me that we do not have a GIANT set of moral hazards from the getgo (expensive studies, expensive tools, high rent costs, medical association elitist fees, overly onerous and expensive licensing hurdles, ETC.) for those with the brains to study medicine.

You rightly condemn the propagandized fools who ruin their teeth with a high sugar drinks. Well, I suggest you need to add a HUGE percentage of American Dentists to that list BECAUSE, as I have personally witnessed, more than once, they provide "free" LOLYPOPS in their dental waiting rooms! I've seen hard candy too! Such "nice" little balls of teeth cracking and ruining multi-colored sweets provided "free" by your DENTIST! THese FUCKERS aren't just irresponsible, they are CRIMINAL! THEY BELONG IN PRISON! Those highlly educated (but VERY greedy) BASTARDS KNOW what sugar does to teeth  like NOBODY ELSE!

DON'T tell me the dental associations are doing all they can to educate the public on the FACT that a high sugar and processed food diet is the primary cause of poor dentition. They aren't. IN FACT, they, too often, see deliberate silence on sugar damage potential as GUARANTEED new customers. That is known as a moral hazard.

Just because you do not bullshit your clients does not mean that dental profession in the USA, as a whole, is entirely, and too conveniently, SILENT on the horrendous toll on dentition that simple carbohydrates and sugared drinks cause.
Title: Re: Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field
Post by: AGelbert on March 29, 2018, 06:54:40 pm
So....for anyone who actually took time to read what I just wrote, which is probably nobody, there are a couple more points that should be covered.

A guy like me with 5 to 10 more years of his working life left has a huge incentive to sell out to one of these corporate entities, and that's happening like crazy at the moment. It's a retirement windfall. In the US, it's illegal for a corporation to own a dental practice outright. S they have to partner with some dentists to make it legal. Guys like me sell out and then hang around until the transition is accomplished smoothly and then take their golden parachute....well, no really golden like an insurance CEO....call it a silver parachute.

And for those private dentists who don't want to do that, it's a choice:

1. Spend a lot on making your office look very affluent, and don't take insurance at all. Try to run a "carriage trade" practice. (If Caleb wanders in the door, he's shocked by the fees and starts looking for the pliers.)

2. Try to work with the various kinds of insurance and treat working people and welfare kids, for a LOT less money...and if you're fast and good, like me, you still make a decent living. (but it's less than you used to make, most likely) and you do do a s h i t ton of work for the money.

And you get very pissed off when guys like RE post articles like the one that started this thread.

Thanks for reading. I think it's about time to board the puddle-jumper to fly over to Beef Island.



Eddie, I have read all your posts and respect your opinion. You are swimming in a system not of your creation. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shrk.gif) I get that.

I also understand why RE's posts put a burr under your saddle, so to speak. You probably know him better than I do, but I am certain that, while RE is methodically, and accurately, listing the high costs of dealing with the health care system, you, just like K-dog when discussing the poor, probably think that RE prioritizes costs in ways that demonize medical/dental sine qua non care costs while being quite willing to temporarily forget them by spending a lot of cash on a Solar Eclipse viewing adventure.

Health goes before fun, you say. Generally speaking that is, of course, true. "Irresponsible" people whine about health care costs but do not bat an eye at buying a carton of ciggarettes or going on an alchoholic bing from time to time. Generally speaking, that is also true.

With that rationale, one can brand EVERY person that cannot afford health care because of our greed based sytem as "irresponsible".

Well, I disagree. RE has made some very valid points. You do not have to take it personally. I really do not understand why you do not attack the dental poobahs that REFUSE, despite having the knowledge and the skills to do so, to engage in a class action suit against every sugar pimping corporation from Coca Cola to Marrs and Hershey bar makers.

The meth addicts that ruin their teeth are a drop in the bucket compared with the millions  propagandized 24/7 by the teeth destroying sugar crap.

Are dentists (AND the AMA too!) afraid of the corporate power in the courts? I say, NO, they are NOT! The AMA knows EXACTLY how much business they are guaranteed from  chronic (the magic word for repeat business!  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png)) sugar related diseases like diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular problems. They are, like the Dental Poobahs in the USA, complicit in the overly expensive costs of health care, starting with the inflated education costs to other gate keeping functions that RE outlined.

Surly and I have some common ground in that my wife has had HUGE dental costs while I have had relatively few. I still have all my teeth at 70 plus years in the valley of tears.

As a retired Federal Employee, I have been there and done that with dental insurance for over 50 years. While I was actively employed, it covered just about everything. All that changed after I retired.

I have studied all the plans available to me as a Federal Retiree (which are a bit better than what is available to the average person out there). They are all, as RE pointed out in so many words, scams. A very brief study of what is covered and the limits per year of that coverage reveals that, even though these plans make a LOT of money because the pool of users is very large, they REFUSE to pass ANY of that onto the insured in lower costs or greater annual maximum coverage. SO, most people with two neurons to rub together look at the numbers and see that it is CHEAPER to NOT have the scam dental insurance than to have it.

Dental insurance costs are out of control. AND, as you said, what they pay the person who actually does the work, is also less than what it should be.

Yes, you and I are on the same page as far as recognizing that insurance corporations want to make the Dentist another wage slave.

Yes, that's why a lot of dentists don't take insurance and set up some VERY fancy offices that scare the poor away. At the  last dental "team" I had the misfortune to visit (they moved to a VERY fancy office shortly after I began to get care), they would not do ANY work on me or my wife (this was in 2008) until they had my credit card number, PERIOD. They had some nice pretty brochures in the waiting room with lots of neato ways to finance your dental care for only about 12% interest plus fees, of course 😇 😈. I do not finance dental care, period. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

The deep scale root planing on me cost $800, in four sessions (one quarter of the mouth in each session) done by a dental technician. AFTER that, I got one filling (which fell out two years later and the molar NEVER stopped having hot and cold sensitivity until the filling fell out. LOL!).

My wife's work was about $7,000. It turned out that about $2,800 was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield medical because the apictomy or whatever they call it was done by a maxilofacial surgeon. That was a VERY expensive year for me. I guess my wife and I are somewhat responsible for all our dental costs so I should not go the sob story route in relating our experience. Woe is us.

BUT, that does not mean that the Dental schools of medicine do not share in creating this untenable situation by gate keeping measures to keep the number of dentists down and charging 250K for the study of medicine. That is TOTAL HIGHWAY ROBBERY! If Germany can teach their doctors and dentists FREE, so can WE! Germany is certainly NOT a "socialist" country or one with medical training and certification standards "below" the USA, like you might claim Mexico has (though I think Mexican Dentists are well qualified).