AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Moral Imperatives

It seems that G W Bush believes that stem cell research is morally wrong when it involves embryos. Scientific research has used embryos in many forms throughout the years, with little outcry.

But then the government has experimented on people throughout it's history and I guess it depends on who thinks they are the decider.

Daily we are slaughtering our own people who are dispatched by order to fight the fabricated war currently raging in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

We are killing innocents in these countries as well.

Now we learn that Iraqi orphans are moved "better quarters" but they are in a state of emaciation.

Someone explain this brand of morality to me please.

So here you have it folks! Lyrica for fibromyalgia.

What is Lyrica you might ask? It’s a so-called pain medication but here is what you won’t be told, as I learned about two years ago because of a client who came to me for help.

LYRICA is indicated for management of: Neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and post herpetic neuralgia. It is also indicated as adjunctive therapy for adult patients with partial onset seizures.

A maximum allowed dose is 300 mg daily and it must not be abruptly discontinued as this make provoke seizures. This drug must be used with extreme caution in people with renal (kidney) impairment.

Some of the many side effects include dizziness and somnolence, gait disorders, confusion, asthenia, abnormal thinking, blurred vision, lack of coordination, infection, accidental injury, dry mouth, weight gain, chest pain, vomiting, nervousness, peripheral edema, risk of heart failure, itching, bruising, ulceration and others.

In standard preclinical in vivo lifetime carcinogenicity studies of pregabalin, there was an unexpectedly high incidence of hemangiosarcoma (cancerous tumour).

Now what interested me was that I had a client who was preparing for elective surgery. She came to me to try to get relief of pain while on this drug. In reviewing her lab tests she had a definitive problem with platelet reduction.

Platelets help your blood clot, something certainly necessary with pending surgery. Now as we continue with side effects consider this – Decreased Platelet Count. Pregalbin treatment is associated with a decrease in platelet count.

The musculoskeletal side effects include joint pain, leg cramps, and muscle pain. With Fibromyalgia there is muscle and joint pain. I guess the money mongers at Pfizer just want to see how much you can endure.

With the positive results for FMS I've achieved with clients in my work using natural treatment, it’s a wonder anyone would do something else.

FDA OKs first fibromyalgia treatment
A Pfizer Inc. drug won expanded federal approval Thursday as the first treatment for fibromyalgia, a mysterious syndrome marked by muscle pain and fatigue.
The Food and Drug Administration action means Lyrica becomes the first drug that can be marketed specifically as a treatment for adults with fibromyalgia. Patients currently make so-called "off label" use of pain medications, antidepressants, muscle relaxants and sleep aids to treat the condition. Exercise and applying heat also can help.
Fibromyalgia typically affects women, striking them with long-lasting or chronic pain, as well as muscle stiffness and tenderness, according to the FDA. An estimated 3 million to 6 million people in the United States are affected each year.
Lyrica, known generically as pregabalin, previously won FDA approval to treat partial seizures, pain following the rash of shingles and pain associated with diabetes nerve damage.
The FDA warned that common side effects of the drug included mild-to-moderate dizziness and sleepiness. Also, the agency said that Lyrica reduces pain and improves daily functions for some patients with fibromyalgia, but that not everyone derived benefit from the drug in studies.
The cause of fibromyalgia is a mystery, though it may be linked to injury, emotional distress or viruses that change the way the brain perceives pain, the FDA said.

Saturday, June 16, 2007


There are days when I think it is almost time for me to quit. Either someone finally brings up an issue I've addressed long ago, or I am dealing with newbies who address items on a superficial level yet think they are the 'expert'.

While for some I may be a high-priced consultant from out-of-town, for most I am not. It's just that you really do have to get beyond the hype and propaganda to know what is going on under-the-spin.


by Jason Zasky

Any individual who has firsthand experience with the court system will tell
you how costly and time-consuming it is to bring a lawsuit, and how difficult it
is for the average American to get justice in court, especially if the defendant
is a deep pocketed corporation. Yet, a disconcertingly large percentage of the
public—influenced by fictional or highly misleading "frivolous lawsuit" stories
and the occasional eye-popping verdict—believes the U.S. is in the midst of a
litigation crisis.
Any American who thinks they support tort reform ought to
read Stephanie Mencimer's "Blocking the Courthouse Door" (Free Press), a
powerful new book which demonstrates how self-interested corporations and
"lawsuit abuse" groups have convinced millions of citizens that it's too easy to
sue. Why has their stealth campaign been so successful? Failure interviewed
Mencimer to find out.

What is the definition of tort reform?
It depends on whom you ask. If you ask a trial lawyer he or she will say it's a movement to tilt the playing field in the courts towards the defense so that big companies are more insulated from lawsuits by individual consumers. If you talk to people in the corporate world they say that tort reform is a movement to bring fairness and predictability to a legal system that they consider nothing short of a form of legalized extortion.

Are we in the midst of a litigation crisis?
No. The kinds of lawsuits that the tort reformers care about are what you'd call
personal injury cases or toxic torts. They make up a very small percentage of
the legal docket—maybe 10 percent total. And the number of those lawsuits has
been declining for at least a decade.

So why do so many Americans support tort reform?
If you ask Americans, "What is your definition of a frivolous
lawsuit?" they basically think it is any lawsuit except one that they might
file. You hear people who actually end up having to file say, "My suit wasn't
frivolous. I'm not one of those people." There's this perception that tort
reform only limits the "crazy" lawsuits. People don't realize that tort reform
affects their own ability to sue, and that's partly because it's sold that way
by those who are most interested in passing it.

Do Americans really want to go back to the early 20th century, where the public had almost no legal protection from unscrupulous businesses?
I don't think so. Most people just don't think about this stuff. It's not like health care where you regularly see your doctor or have a regular interaction with the system. Most folks never have to deal with the legal system unless they are getting divorced. It's only after something really bad happens to them that they find out the rights they thought they had aren't there for them.

How did we get to the point where Americans believe that our society is too litigious?
For one thing, insurance companiesand the tobacco industry spend a lot of money persuading them that is the case.
Also, they circulate a lot of "loony lawsuit" stories. But when you look closely
you find that these lawsuits are either not true or that the facts are
remarkably different. And most of the loony lawsuits are filed—without the
assistance of a lawyer—by prisoners or people who are mentally ill. It doesn't
necessarily mean that the claims are frivolous. It's just that without the help
of a lawyer they don't do it properly and that makes for things you can make fun
of. So some goofy things get into the system, but most of them don't go

Can you tell our readers the story of Frank Cornelius?
Back in the 1970s Cornelius worked as an insurance industry lobbyist in Indiana and helped pass the state's cap on medical malpractice damages. Afterwards, he left the
insurance lobbying business and sold used cars—among other things. One day he
felt out of a chair and injured his left knee. He needed [routine arthroscopic]
surgery and after he got home from the hospital he was in an inordinate amount
of pain. He tried to get hold of his surgeon, but the doctor was going on a ski
trip and told Frank's wife, "Just get him a bedpan and I'll see him when I get
back." It turned out that he had a complication from the surgery [reflex
sympathetic dystrophy, a chronic neurological syndrome often brought on by
surgery or trauma], and at some point the condition became irreversible. Then
while he was having physical therapy to treat this complication, his therapist
shocked his leg with a piece of rehab equipment. After that he was in more pain
than ever. Then he had to have more surgery because he developed a blood clot in
the leg. After that operation he nearly bled to death, and as the surgeons were
trying to save him the doctor who put the breathing tube in punctured his lung.

By this time, he needed an oxygen tank to breathe, he was confined to a
wheelchair, and was addicted to pain-killers. When he went to file a medical
malpractice lawsuit, he found out the hard way that damages in Indiana were
capped at $500,000. That was the most money he could be compensated, even after
all these injuries. Cornelius ultimately committed suicide, but before he died
he wrote a mea culpa to The New York Times about how the work he had done 15 or
20 years earlier had come back to haunt him. He was a victim of his own reform.
Between his lost income and the cost of his medical care he had damages that
were in excess of $5 million. He was only able to recover a tiny fraction of

What role has the media played in building public support for tort reform?
The fundamental problem is how news agencies cover the civil justice system. Most reporters never cover trials. They only cover verdicts. So the only time there is ever news about the civil justice system is when somebody wins a lot of money in a
jury verdict. The public gets the perception that you could slip on a banana
peel and win millions of dollars, because that's all they hear about. It's a
very distorted portrait of the legal system.

Does the mainstream media have an incentive to misrepresent the truth about the legal system?
Some of the major media companies have done that, but there's really not that big of a conspiracy. Newspapers are understaffed and they just don't have enough bodies to sit in court all day and report on the civil side of things. So that's part of the
problem. The other part is that reporters are often threatened with
lawsuits, and some of them do get sued. Their firsthand experience with the
civil justice system is often unpleasant. So a lot of reporters probably think
that tort reform is a good idea.

What can be done to get Americans to understand that lawsuits offer more than just the chance to obtain justice—they also provide the opportunity to shine a light on the behavior of private institutions?
That's a good question. There's not really an organized
constituency for the courts. You have the trial lawyers, but people tend to
discount them because they have a financial motive. Anytime they try to come to
the defense of the civil justice system, critics say, "Oh, they are just looking
to line their own pockets." So their message is a little bit colored by
self-interest—even though their interests may align perfectly with the average
citizen. There isn't really anybody else on their side except for a few consumer
groups, but the consumer groups don't have any money. So it's a very uneven
playing field. I don't really know the answer. I guess they could buy my book

Is support for tort reform part of a larger overall problem—that Americans are increasingly willing to give up their constitutional rights?
I don't believe they think much about it. It's funny because Americans have two
minds about this. In our mythology we have this sense that the courts are this
great place where David can best Goliath in the courtroom. People still believe
that. And they think it's important. But at the same time they don't fully
understand that these [tort reform] measures minimize that possibility.

Americans think that filing a lawsuit is a form a victimology—that it's an
abdication of personal responsibility. There is a strong sentiment of that in
American culture and there always has been. But if you provide the facts of an
individual case they'll say, "Wait a minute, maybe this person actually should
get some money, because they were injured by someone else's negligent conduct."
Everyone has heard about the McDonald's coffee spill lawsuit. What do people
not know about Stella Liebeck's story? It's so hard to sum up what really
happened in that case in two sentences or less. The headline was, "Old Woman
Spills Coffee on Herself, Wins $3 Million!" People think, coffee is supposed to
be hot—ha ha ha. But what people didn't hear is that the behavior of McDonald's
was rather callous. McDonald's knew a lot of people had been badly burned by
their coffee and still refused to turn the temperature down.

First, you needto know that Stella wasn't driving when she was drinking the coffee, and when it spilled on her, she went into shock and ended up with third-degree burns on the inside of her thighs and other places you would not want to spill hot coffee on. She had to have skin grafts and spent a couple weeks in the hospital. Her
daughter had to almost quit her job to take care of her because the health
insurance money ran out and she had to be released from the hospital [early].
Stella sent a letter to McDonald's, telling them that their coffee was too
hot and to turn the temperature down, and also asking them to pay some of her
medical bills. McDonald's sent her a letter back and said, Sorry, you are out of
luck. We are not going to change our coffee temperature and we'll give you $700
to go away. Stella and her family members were longtime Republicans but she was
so outraged that she consulted an attorney. She ended up suing and the case went
to a mediator. The mediator suggested that McDonald's settle the case for
approximately $225,000, but McDonald's refused and forced the case to go to

[After-the-fact] interviews with the jurors show that the jury was
very skeptical of the case from the very beginning. But the evidence showed that
there were something like seven or eight hundred complaints that McDonald's had
received about coffee temperature, with witnesses from Shriners Burn Center
testifying that McDonald's coffee was being sold at a temperature hot enough to
peel skin off bone in seven seconds or less. Jurors were shocked and awarded
Liebeck actual damages—compensation for her losses, medical bills, and her
daughter's lost wages. The jury did dock Stella twenty percent, because she did,
in fact, spill the coffee. Then they awarded $2.3 million in punitive damages to
punish McDonald's for its conduct—approximately two days worth of McDonalds'
profits from coffee sales.

What never got the headlines, of course, was that the judge reduced the award to approximately $400,000. The case was eventually settled for something less than that a few years later. So Stella did not get $3 million for spilling coffee on herself.

In researching your book did you encounter any evidence to support the notion that lawsuits drive up the cost of medical malpractice insurance?
No. In theory lawsuits could drive up the cost of insurance, but in medical malpractice the insurers don't make their money off of premiums, they make it off of investments. They take the premiums and invest them in the bond and stock market. There's not much evidence that medical malpractice rates went up because of an epidemic of lawsuits. The spike was caused by the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, because [insurance] companies lost money on stocks, like most of the rest of the country.

Do you think that lawsuit abuse is going to be a big issue in the 2008 campaign? It could be if John Edwards is the nominee. There's a whole industry devoted to attacking trial lawyers, and the Bush Administration tapped into that in the 2004 campaign. They believed John Edwards was a very strong candidate so they worked with tort reform groups to tar him as a former trial lawyer. I'm sure that will all kick
into play if Edwards looks like he might become the Democratic nominee.

What we've complained about for years

I guess you might have to say that this is a window into a concenr I've addressed for years. Yes, many of us have known for a long time that Barrett is truly the 'Quack' of quack watch, and now the courts have pointed this out again.
To the many people in mainstream medicine and the media that cling to Barrett as 'the authority'maybe now you will start to pay attention to those of us who are truly qualified experts in natural health care.
In addition, perhaps the media and others (those superficial researchers dabbling in the false category called CAM) will look to those like me when they are interested in facts and the science behind natural health care.
This might now extend to the US presidential hopefuls claiming to have a health care plan proposal - none addressing right of choice and access to supplements and other healing techniques that would help prevention and reduce costs.

PRNewswire-USNewswire — In a strongly worded opinion,
the Appeals Court for the State of Pennsylvania ruled
against Stephen Barrett, a long-time critic of
chiropractic and alternative health care. In an action
that chiropractors see as a major setback for their
nemesis, the judge refused to overturn a 2005 decision
against Barrett.

The earlier lawsuit was won by chiropractor Tedd
Koren, DC, whose company markets chiropractic
educational pamphlets that Barrett had harshly

In his newsletter, Dr. Koren referred to the
self-proclaimed "Quackbuster" as a "Quackpot" and
commented that Barrett was "de-licensed," and "in
trouble." Barrett sued Koren for defamation and lost
the case.

Barrett, who represents himself as an expert on health
care quackery, has appeared as a medical expert in
numerous court cases and claims the FDA, FTC and other
governmental agencies have consulted him on health
care issues. He is noted for his outspoken opposition
to and criticism of non-medical health care
approaches, most of which he labels "quackery." His
targets have included chiropractic, homeopathy,
naturopathy, and even two-time Nobel Prize winner
Linus Pauling.

Heading the legal team for the original Koren case and
appeal was Carlos Negrete, who serves as legal counsel
for the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).

"This is a great victory for the chiropractic
profession," Koren stated after the Pennsylvania
Appellate Court decision was announced. "Once again,
chiropractors across the country have been vindicated
and exposed the specious and evil attacks by someone
who has no knowledge or expertise in our field."

Negrete specializes in representing alternative health
care providers who are targeted by advocates of the
medical and pharmaceutical industries. His previous
court victories have positioned him as the premier
"health freedom" attorney in the US.

During heated and often dramatic courtroom
proceedings, Negrete pointed out many of the
questionable statements Barrett includes on his
websites attacking chiropractic, as well as facts
about Barrett's own credentials that shocked even his
supporters. Under Negrete's intense cross-examination,
Barrett admitted that he had not been a licensed
physician for more than a decade and had failed the
neurological exam, preventing him from being certified
as a specialist. Negrete demonstrated that, despite
his claims, Barrett had no real expertise in any
medical field.

Barrett also admitted, under questioning, that he
misrepresented himself as a licensed physician in a
previous court case.

"These revelations cast serious doubts about Barrett's
credibility and integrity and were major factors in
the judge's decision," Negrete stated.

Calling the case a "landmark decision" for
chiropractors and alternative care providers, Negrete
noted that "Barrett has made a career out of attacking
core chiropractic values, specifically subluxation,
with no scientific basis for his contentions. This
case clearly shows that his opinions about
chiropractic or other health care options are

WCA President Terry A. Rondberg, DC, agreed with
Negrete. "This is a turning point not only for
Barrett, but for all unscientific and uninformed
opponents who seek to impose the medical monopoly on
the public. People around the world deserve freedom of
choice in health care and need valid, unbiased and
truthful information on all options available to them.
Thanks in great part to the WCA legal counsel, Carlos
Negrete, they now have a better chance of getting

The World Chiropractic Alliance — an international
organization representing doctors of chiropractic —
promotes traditional, drug-free and non-invasive
chiropractic to correct vertebral subluxations. The
WCA is an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)
associated with the United Nations Department of
Public Information and publishes the peer-reviewed
chiropractic research journal, Journal of Vertebral
Subluxation Research. For more information, contact
the WCA at 800-347-1011 or

SOURCE World Chiropractic Alliance

Friday, June 15, 2007

Dr. Zorba is out to lunch

Well don't I wish!

Probably not a week goes by that I don't come across some really bad - and WRONG - information given out by this radio doctor aired on your local public radio station.

Calling my station recently about one of the pieces of 'wrong information' doled out by Paster, the program director brusquely pushed me off to his program.

I explained that I had contacted the program a number of times about the pablum dosed out by Zorba, with not even the courtesy of a reply. KPBX couldn't care less.

Well just the other day Zorba disrupted my air ways because I forgot to switch stations as I was in the middle of a project. Here he was telling a mother who had called in about her daughter, herself and allergy remedies.

This mother had chosen a good remedy, Nettle. Nettle is one of the best herbs for allergy in the pollen propulsion season of each year.

Zorba scoffed! and this is certainly demeaning to the caller, in my mind.

Maybe this was the result of his medical training, you know that system that puts women well below men.

So the next time you need to know about natural remedies, contact us. If it's nettle you need to know about - about the best herbal anti-histamine (along with antronex and vitamin c)you can use - go to our webpage.

And our PODCASTS will be returning to the internet shortly, so you'll have more than one venue to get good information and facts.

Here you have some science to counter the HYPE

Most people know little about the two key players in the artificial sweetener market, aspartame and sucralose.

What they do know is more likely than not limited to the marketing and advertising HYPE blasted over the airwaves, online or in print. What they buy into is really a long known health dive, and the risk of very serious problems over time. In some, the problems can and do appear almost immediately.

Aspartame and sucralose (Nutrasweet and Splenda)have in common the fact that both were developed as insecticides. Very few know this, including your local health care provider.

Aspartame is a chemical soup of ingredients that turn into methyl (wood) alcohol when exposed to heat and during digestion.

Sucralose is, according to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), synthesized by this five-step process:
1. sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride,
2. the resulting TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose) is chlorinated with hydrogen chloride in the presence of toluene,
3. the resulting 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid,
4. the resulting 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and
5. the resulting TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) is treated with methanol (wood alcohol, a poison) in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose. (1)

Even if you don't know what the chemicals are, it should scare any sensible person.

"Splenda (sucralose) is created in the lab, using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce - let alone consume. Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard."

So here you have it, and hopefully you too will question these products and stop using them. Find out more at

Never too late to read the labels on what you buy.

Safe alternatives are agave, stevia and Just Like Sugar.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Using the Right Food Achieves the Same Effect, Naturally and Safely

Of course when money is the driving factor little or no research into nutrition and its relationship to health problems is seen.

Eating Sesame Seed, Halvah, and using Sesame Seed Oil in your diet - all promote platelets.


Glaxo drug hikes platelets, cuts bleeding in study
Sat Jun 9, 8:51 AM ET

GlaxoSmithKline Plc's experimental platelet-boosting drug eltrombopag has produced further positive results in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP), researchers said on Saturday.

Eltrombopag, which Glaxo plans to sell as Revolade in Europe and Promacta in the United States, is one of several novel drugs in the group's pipeline which it believes have blockbuster potential.

Results from a pivotal Phase III study presented at the European Hematology Association congress in Vienna showed 50 to 75 milligrams once daily resulted in a statistically significant increase in platelet counts and also reduced bleeding in people with chronic ITP.

The placebo-controlled trial involved 114 adults and patients studied had previously received and failed current standard ITP treatments.

ITP is an autoimmune disease which results in low blood platelet counts. Because platelets contribute to blood clotting, patients with low counts bleed more easily than others, heal more slowly and bruise more often.

Eltrombopag, which is given as a pill, was discovered as a result of a research collaboration between Glaxo and Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc..