Woman says she found metal inside her prescription pill

Posted on: 9:37 pm, March 18, 2014, by Justin Joseph

 http://kdvr.com/

see news report here.

DENVER — A Colorado woman says she found a piece of metal in one of her prescription pills. Now she’s worried something that’s supposed to help her, could make her sick.

Through a magnifying glass you can see the tiny piece of metal protruding from the white medication. Check it out in the video clip above.

Michelle Baker says she bought the medication to treat anxiety.  She started taking the generic form of the popular anti-anxiety drug Buspar two weeks ago, but didn’t notice any problems until last week.

“I’m on my second week and as I was splitting the pill in half it poked me and stuck to my finger. When I looked closely with a magnifying glass there was a metal shard stuck in the pill,” said Baker.

Baker’s doctor prescribed the pills which she picked up from a local drug store.  She says now she’s worried some of the pills she’s already swallowed may have had metal inside.

“This is something that was supposed to help me. Something that my doctor prescribed for me, and now I’ve been swallowing metal for like two weeks,” she said.

Baker says the pills’ manufacturer is the generic drug company Teva, which Fox31 Denver verified.

In a statement they said: “(The company) cannot comment until after it has completed its investigation into this consumer complaint.”

As for Baker, she’s now looking for another option to treat anxiety.

How doctors make fake diagnoses for diseases

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2014

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

 

I never grow tired of explaining this issue, because people write to me with the assumption that they understand disease diagnosis. And they don’t. They’re not off by a little bit. They’re off by a mile.

 

Two of the most prevalent tests for diagnosing diseases are antibody tests and what’s called the PCR.

 

Prior to 1984, it was well understood by most doctors that the presence of antibodies specific to a given germ meant: the patient’s body had contacted and successfully thrown off the germ.

 

Antibodies are scouts for the immune system. They “go hunting” for germ invaders and ID them, so other troops can knock them out. That’s the conventional view.

 

Therefore, if a test shows that antibodies are present, it’s taken to mean: victory. The body IDed and rejected the germ in question.

 

That view was turned upside down in the mid-1980s. All of a sudden, the presence of antibodies meant: the patient was ill or would get ill.

 

Actually, the presence of antibodies simply indicates that the body’s immune system contacted the germ in question. That’s all it means.

 

To say that a positive antibody test means a patient has a certain disease is fatuous, wrong, and absurd. Yet, that is what doctors do every day.

 

The PCR diagnostic test takes tiny genetic fragments of what are assumed (but not always proven) to be germs and enlarges them, amplifies them, so they can be observed.

 

That very fact tells you why the test is useless for diagnosing disease. Even by conventional medical standards, you need lots and lots and lots of a given germ in the body to even begin to assume the germ is causing the patient any harm.

 

And the PCR test is based on the idea that there is so little of the germ available that you need to enlarge it fantastically, just to be able to see it.

 

There is a medical term that refers to the quantity of a given germ in the body: titer. It is usually ignored in today’s medical “science.” But it is vital.

 

Saying a germ is present in the body is irrelevant to disease, unless you can show there are lots and lots of that germ doing harm.

 

When researchers say, “We found germ X in the patient,” people tend to assume that means the germ is causing disease, but this isn’t necessarily so.

 

When researchers are trying to discover whether there is a new disease they haven’t seen before, they must isolate the previously unknown germ as the first step. This isn’t done indirectly by antibody or PCR test.

 

For example, in my last article about hepatitis C, I mentioned Nick Regush, the late ABC News medical reporter, and his discovery that the so-called virus reputed to cause hepatitis C had never been properly isolated.

 

Not properly isolated=never really discovered.

 

Doctors and researchers, in a stunning display of incompetence and/or dishonesty, are misdiagnosing patients every hour of every day. They are using tests that don’t work. They are misinterpreting the meaning of the tests they run. They are lying.

 

And the general public blithely accepts these false diagnoses.

 

To put the cherry on the cake, on top of everything I’ve written here, it is really the individual’s immune system that determines whether a germ causes disease. It’s not the germ all by itself. The medical establishment has it backwards.

 

There may be exceptions to this rule, as in the case of certain bioengineered germs. But for the wide range of typical diseases which are said to plague humankind, it’s all about immune systems, and whether they are strong or weak.

 

And that is not a medical issue. It’s an issue involving nutrition, environmental toxins, poverty, sanitation, overcrowding.

 

No conventional doctor deploys tests to assess these vital factors, and he doesn’t have drugs to treat them.

 

False diagnosis of disease is huge problem and a huge hoax.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

 

qjrpress@gmail.com

 

 Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections:

MARKETPLACE 

‘Scientific’ evidence for FDA-approved drugs isn’t so scientific, it turns out

Thursday, March 06, 2014 by: Julie Wilson

(NaturalNews) A recent study conducted by Yale University’s School of Medicine proves that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval process for testing new drugs is extremely inconsistent. The study, published on January 21 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, exposes the agency’s anxiousness to get new drugs onto the market, many without adequate testing.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Nicholas Downing, said his objective was to educate patients and doctors who presume that all new drugs have undergone the same amount of testing before hitting the market. His experiment included the examination of close to 200 new drug approvals between 2005 and 2012. What he found: “Not all FDA approvals are created equally.”

According to the study, researchers found the FDA to be quite inconsistent when it came to their approval process for drugs and medical devices. For example, some drugs required “high-quality” clinical trials, while about a third received approval on the basis of just one clinical trial.

The Washington Post reports that numerous trials involved some groups of patients and short durations, and only approximately 40 percent included trials in which the new drug was compared with existing drugs on the market.

Interestingly, when it came to upgrades on medical devices, the approval process became even more lacking, and arguably sporadic. Researchers found that upgrades to already approved implantable cardiac devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators, failed to require new research or clinical data, leaving lots of room for mistakes on upgraded equipment.

Philly.com reports, “Since the first device received approval in 1979, the FDA has approved 5,829 changes to 77 devices, an average of about 50 changes per device. Over one-third of these changes involved the devices’ design or materials, and in the majority of these cases, the FDA deemed that new clinical data were not necessary for approval.”

As the authors of the study pointed out, this less regulative process by the FDA makes it easier for manufacturers to update devices; however, it leaves room for devices with life-threatening defects to make their way onto the market.

As reported by Dennis Thompson, senior investigator Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an assistant professor of medicine in the pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a news release, “‘Key cardiac devices recalled in recent years — such as the St. Jude Medical Riata and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads — were approved’ as adaptations to existing devices.”

Responding to the agency’s inconsistent approval process, Dr. Steven Goodman, a Stanford professor of medicine, said, “The FDA walks a tightrope, and until now we haven’t had a huge amount of information about how they’re doing that balancing act. The criteria they are using could be perfect, in that they are being flexible and allowing innovation and getting lifesaving drugs through to market. The other side is they could be making decisions too precipitously and allowing potentially dangerous medications through. It’s a difficult balancing act that requires constant monitoring.”

The documents made publicly available found that the FDA:

• Does not apply the same standard of evidence to all drugs going through clinical trial, approving medications based on criteria that vary widely case by case.
• Often approves upgraded versions of existing heart devices without requiring a clinical trial.
• Regularly overlooks early problems in drug trials that later cause significant delays in the approval of new medications.

This study confirms what many of us have already known about the government’s relationship with big corporations, and in this case, the pharmaceutical industry. Hunter Lewis’ book entitled Crony Capitalism in America 2008-2012 reveals the “government’s incestuous relationship with the drug industry.”

In his book, Lewis points out that getting a drug approved by the FDA can costs an average of $1 billion, and also requires having the “right people on your side.” Political and private interests create financial ties which encourage a “wink and a nod” relationship between involved parties.

“Pharmaceutical companies bury clinical trials which show bad results for a drug and publish only those that show a benefit. The trials are often run on small numbers of unrepresentative patients, and the statistical analyses are massaged to give as rosy a picture as possible. Entire clinical trials are run not as trials at all, but as under-the-counter advertising campaigns designed to persuade doctors to prescribe a company’s drug,” writes the Economist.

In other words, Big Pharma would much rather spend its $1 billion on advertising than on clinical trials designed to protect consumers’ health. The drug industry, also referred to as the patent medicine industry, devotes its time to developing man-made drugs in the lab, as opposed to utilizing naturally occurring molecules, because anything naturally occurring in the environment cannot be patented, and therefore not profited from.

This prevents Americans from learning about natural supplements, or other forms of alternative medicine that can be far more effective, inexpensive and overall safer than prescription drugs.

Sources include:

http://isps.yale.edu

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.philly.com

http://www.anh-usa.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044197_FDA-approved_drugs_Big_Pharma_scientific_evidence.html#ixzz2vDVk27Ii

Mom Who Drove Kids Into Ocean Another Victim of Anti-Depressants?

Numerous previous cases of mothers on SSRI drugs killing their own children

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 6, 2014

Reports that the pregnant woman who drove her three children into the ocean appeared to be in a daze before the bizarre incident suggest that 32-year-old Ebony Wilkerson may have been another victim of anti-depressant drugs.

Family members told the media that Wilkerson was acting strange two hours before the incident, during which she tried to kill her three children by driving her van into the sea at Daytona Beach.

“She’s talking about Jesus, that there’s demons in the house,” said her sister.

Stacy Robinson, one of the heroes involved in the rescue of the children, said Wilkerson appeared to be in a daze. “When I was speaking to her her eyes were wild,” she said.

“She had this look on her face, I can’t describe it. It was just an awful blank look, like spaced out look,” said Tim Tesseneer, another rescuer.

Footage appears to show Wilkerson attempting to push the helpers away from the vehicle as they try to save her children.

Police interviewed Wilkerson hours before the incident during which she told them she was going to her “safe place” in order to escape her husband. She remains in hospital as authorities prepare to conduct a mental evaluation.

Anti-depressant drugs have been linked with innumerable bizarre and violent outbursts over the past three decades, including many mass shooter incidents.

There is also a clear history of a connection between SSRI medication and mothers killing their own children, including an L.A. mother who drowned her own children in a bathtub in 2012, and a UK mother who smothered her children to death the same year.

Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children at home in 2001, was also on a cocktail of anti-psychotic drugs.

Julie Schenecker, who shot and killed her own teenage children in January 2011, also had a long history of depression and police later found unidentified medication in her home.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

 

This article was posted: Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 10:42 am

NY Attorney General confirms real-life conspiracy among drug companies

Friday, February 21, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) The office of the New York Attorney General and the American units of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. have come to terms on a settlement involving claims that an agreement between the two Big Pharma companies restricted competition unlawfully.

Both companies agreed to pay a small fine (by comparison) of $150,000 to New York State and to cease making similar agreements in the future as part of the settlement, Reuters reported. Neither company admitted or denied the allegations, but the settlement absolves them of having to do so.

By settling, the companies have ended an investigation that was being conducted by the state into an agreement that was signed by both in 2010 to sell a generic version of Pfizer, Inc.’s cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor in the U.S., while not horning in on the exclusivity rights of other generic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies. Per Reuters:

The agreement was drawn up as a contingency plan to allow Israel’s Teva to sell the generic Lipitor, or atorvastatin calcium, in case Ranbaxy’s version was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before Lipitor lost its patent protection on November 30, 2011.

While India’s Ranbaxy, majority-owned by Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd, eventually got FDA approval in time, the agreement remained in place and could have been used to protect other drugs made by the two companies.

‘Pay-for-delay’

“Agreements between drug manufacturers to protect each other’s market positions violate fundamental principles of antitrust law, and can lead to higher drug prices,” Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.

While the agreement related only to the sale of the one drug, it included a “no-challenge” clause, which allowed both companies to shield from competition, as well as legal and regulatory challenges, scores of other medications, according to the NY attorney general’s office, which added, however, that no anti-competitive effects due to the agreement had been identified during the investigation.

Schneiderman says the entire ordeal represents the application of a recent legal precedent that arose from challenges of “pay-for-delay” agreements that were established between makers of brand-name and generic drugs.

Those deals, where a brand-name Pharma company pays a generic rival not to sell their versions of a drug at a much-reduced price, have caught the attention of regulators in countries all over the world, because such agreements raise patient-care costs as well as the public sector’s costs to cover healthcare treatments.

Criminal enterprise

“Ranbaxy… continues to believe that the agreement was pro-competitive and an important part of making the product readily available to patients and the U.S. healthcare system in a timely fashion,” a Ranbaxy spokesman said in an email to Reuters, but the other company involved, Teva, would not comment.

“The settlement is positive for (Ranbaxy). The settlement amount will not significantly impact the company,” said Sarabjit Kour Nangra, an analyst at Angel Broking, as quoted by the newswire service.

Ranbaxy was banned from exporting drugs to the U.S. after failing to abide by U.S. Food and Drug Administration manufacturing standards.

Natural News has reported on illegal activity committed by Big Pharma companies often in the past. As our editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has documented, anyone who has labeled the industry as little more than a criminal enterprise has been vindicated time and again. In 2012, Mike wrote:

Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation’s pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an “overarching anticompetitive scheme” to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits.

This latest settlement with authorities in New York further documents the previous pattern of criminality.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044010_drug_companies_real-life_conspiracy_NY_Attorney_General.html#ixzz2u0D8W7kj