It’s a scenario that’s all too familiar for many parents: Your child is acting differently and feeling unwell, so you take his temperature. If he has a fever, you’ll weigh the pros and cons of waiting it out versus bringing him to the doctor’s. Then, just a short time later, your child is running around like usual as if nothing ever happened, and his temperature is totally normal again.

Experienced moms and dads know that this happens sometimes, so when an Arizona mother saw that her son’s fever went away and she decided not to bring him to the hospital, she had no idea it would end with Child Services stepping in and a SWAT team bringing the boy to the hospital.

It all went down in dramatic fashion in Chandler, Arizona, after a mother, Sarah Beck, brought her 2-year-old to a naturopathic doctor because he had a fever of 105 degrees. The doctor instructed her to bring him to the emergency room to rule out meningitis.

However, by the time the family left the doctor’s office, the boy was playing with his siblings and laughing. His temperature had gone back down to almost normal, so they decided to head home rather than to the ER. Beck called the doctor to say everything was fine. The doctor believed she should go to the hospital anyway, but she ultimately decided not to because she was worried her son’s unvaccinated status would be problematic – a decision that led to an unbelievable turn of events.

When the doctor learned that the parents had never showed up at Cardon Children’s Hospital, she called the Arizona Department of Child Safety to report the incident. Police arrived at the family’s home to check on the boy, and his parents wouldn’t let them inside. Speaking to an officer over the phone, the boy’s father, Brooks Bryce, said he would not bring the boy to the hospital and incur an expensive ER bill because he was fine.

The officers came back with a court order for temporary custody of the boy. Surveillance video shows that officers, wearing tactical gear, broke down the front door and stormed into the home. Their other children, aged 4 and 6, were also taken to the hospital.

Although the parents weren’t arrested, investigators are determining whether criminal charges will be filed. The child, by the way, had an upper respiratory infection and did not end up having meningitis.

Although the boy’s symptoms had improved, 105 degrees is a rather high fever and it’s reasonable to suggest that a follow-up would have been a good idea. However, the reaction of authorities was completely over the top, and all three children are likely to be left with some serious trauma from the experience. They’re now staying with their grandparents, who have been granted temporary custody. Their parents are hoping to get them back after a hearing set for next month.

Abuse of power

Although the doctor’s concerns are understandable, the authorities’ reaction is not. It’s absolutely ridiculous to treat a 2-year-old like a dangerous fugitive. There is no reason to smash down a family’s doors and barge in with weapons drawn to take a child who had a fever that has since gone away. The kids in this family were essentially kidnapped, and many suspect the fact that they’re unvaccinated played a role in how these parents were treated.

Arizona House Rep. Kelly Townsend told KNXV that she considered the children’s removal an “abuse of power” on the part of law enforcement and DCS, adding: “I think we need to re-think where we draw the line when it comes to disagreements between doctors and parents and what level we’re going to go to to keep the child safe.”

Sources for this article include:

Reason.com

ABC13.com

Last week, the Florida House passed a bill that would expand a law passed last year to help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government regulatory schemes.

Rep. Wyman Duggan (R-Jacksonville) filed House Bill 7 (H7) on Feb. 14. Last year, Florida enacted a law specifying that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. The law also stipulates that a primary care provider, or an agent of a primary care provider, is not required to obtain a certificate of authority or license under the Florida Insurance Code to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care agreement. H7 would expand the law to include all licensed healthcare providers, not just primary care physicians.

On March 27, the House passed H7 by a 90-24 vote.

Final passage of the bill would open the door for specialists and other healthcare providers to open practices based on the direct care model.

According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:

“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”

This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.

Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.

A SECOND STEP STEP

Introduction of H7 illustrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Once the door is open, the way is cleared for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.

Even while controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans never did repeal Obamacare. And if they had passed one of their bills, the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.

Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct health care agreements offer one.

These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.

By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.

A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.

Final passage of H7 would take another step toward healthcare freedom in Florida and create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of Florida could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.

WHAT’S NEXT

H7 will now move to the Senate for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been referred to a Senate committee.

The networks that broadcast nonstop advertising for Viagra, films that advocate promiscuity, and mega-violent movies filled with soft porn have rejected advertisements for Unplanned, the film about a Planned Parenthood clinic director who quit the job and took up the pro-life cause.

The reason we can’t see the ads? Abortion is too sensitive a subject even to broadcast an ad for a film about it.

The film opened Friday on 1,000 screens, but thanks to the hard-left, pro-abortion networks, some Americans didn’t know.

Unplanned Rejection

Unplanned is the cinematic version of Abby Johnson’s memoir.

Johnson rose from a mere pro-abortion volunteer to become the youngest clinic director ever for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country. PP performed 332,757 abortions in the fiscal year that ended in June, or 991 every day of the year as the Family Research Council noted.

Johnson abandoned the taxpayer-subsidized killing factory after the abortionist at her clinic called upon her to assist an abortion. Watching the abortion on ultrasound, Johnson wrote that “the baby looked as if it were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then it crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then it was gone.”

The experience traumatized Johnson, caused her to terminate her employment at Planned Parenthood and pushed her into the pro-life cause. She eventually became a Catholic.

But major media outlets don’t want Johnson’s story publicized, and so rejected the ad for the film, The Hollywood Reporter disclosed Friday. “Pure Flix, the distributor behind the box office hit God’s Not Dead and other movies aimed a Christians, opens the movie in 1,000 theaters today, but outside of the Fox News Channel, every other mainstream television outlet has declined to air the ad,” the newspaper reported:

Lifetime, for example, told the film’s marketers that they declined to air the commercial due to the “sensitive nature of the film,” the ad buyers tell The Hollywood Reporter. The marketers though, note that the network — which is owned by A&E Networks, a joint venture of Walt Disney and Hearst Communications — previously promoted an interview with Scarlett Johansson where she pitches Planned Parenthood.

The Travel Channel, Cooking Channel, HGTV and Food Network, each of which are owned by Discovery, also refused to sell ad time for Unplanned due to the “sensitive nature” of the movie, say those who tried buying air time.

Other networks that refused to advertise the movie include the Hallmark Channel and USA Network, the latter of which is owned by NBCUniversal.

The major networks broadcast megaviolent movies in the middle of the afternoon, and during prime time, sitcoms and dramas that promote homosexual sodomy or advocate promiscuity. Suggestive and even erotic advertisements appear on the screen during major athletic events. And the television giants frequently produce fare that openly attacks and defames Christians.

Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that some programs openly promote abortion. “Shrill,” a new series on Hulu, she told LifeNews, “drew outrage earlier this month when the main character bragged about feeling ‘really, really good’ and ‘powerful”’ after having an abortion.

“The entertainment industry no longer hides the fact that it lacks basic moral decency,” Foster told LifeNews. “It’s now overtly dedicated to indoctrinating its viewers with a pro-abortion agenda, hiding from them the pain and emotional toll involved with the destruction of human life.”

Can’t See An “R” Movie, Can Get an Abortion

When THR contacted the nets to find out why they rejected the ads, “Lifetime declined to comment while the rest did not respond.”

Not that anyone didn’t know. “We were looking to spend money, but they didn’t want to get involved,” Unplanned producer John Sullivan told THR. The nets told another producer that “they didn’t want to get into politics.”

That’s code for “we’re not going to upset Planned Parenthood.”

On the bright side, Fox News and the Christian Broadcast Network accepted ads, as did conservative talk radio, THR reported.

Amusingly, the film pulled an “R” rating, an irony that Judie Brown, president of the American Life League explained to Newsweek:

“Even the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) recognizes abortion as truly horrific. The irony is that a teenager as young as 13 can get an abortion without her parents’ consent, but cannot see a movie about abortion unless she is over 17.”

Every day, you are exposed to heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury, that can harm your health. You may not completely eliminate toxins in the environment, but you can take steps to minimize your exposure. Here are some ways:

Evaluate your daily food choices: One of the most common causes of heavy metal exposure is from the foods you eat. There are certain foods that are known to be at higher risk for containing heavy metals. These include fish like tuna, king mackerel, marlin, shark, swordfish, and tilefish, rice, and bone broth. Mercury is commonly found in large, predatory fish, arsenic is typically found in rice, and lead is usually found in bone broth. This does not necessarily mean that you should completely avoid these foods, but you should choose the right ones. Cooking rice in a coffee pot can lower its arsenic content, but cooking bones to make bone broth won’t because bones store lead.

Eat detoxifying foods: There are also foods that can protect you from heavy metals. Include foods like cruciferous vegetables, fiber, phytates, probiotics, cilantro, and black sesame seeds to your diet. These foods help eliminate heavy metals from the body.

Make sure your drinking water isn’t contaminated: You may want to consider getting your water tested for heavy metals, especially if you have a well or if your house has older plumbing. This is because heavy metals can contaminate the groundwater through soil contamination of underground aquifers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 20 percent of the water systems in the country have unsafe levels of lead. Invest in a high-quality water filtration system for your home water to reduce your exposure to lead.

Choose safer cosmetics and personal care products: Most widely-used personal care products like sunscreen, nail polish, makeup, whitening toothpaste, and such have been found to contain heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium, and aluminum. These toxic chemicals are actually used as added ingredients in consumer products. Opt for safer alternatives instead.

Get an air purifier for your home: You are also exposed to heavy metals through the air you breathe, so getting an air purifier that filters out these toxic chemicals for your home would be great. One of the most common heavy metals that exist in the air is arsenic. Cadmium, chromium, and nickel are also airborne heavy metals. These toxic substances float around primarily because of human activities like using aerosol products, driving cars, and running heavily-polluting industrial businesses. You can also minimize your exposure to these metals by removing your shoes before going inside your house. Your shoes may contain heavy metals from outdoors and may spread it around the house.

Why should you be wary of heavy metals?

Exposure to heavy metals can lead to heavy metal poisoning, which occurs when these toxic chemicals accumulate in the soft tissues of the body. The symptoms of heavy metal poisoning vary, depending on the type of heavy metal. In general, it can lead to an autoimmune disorder, reproductive problems, infections, weakness, brain damage, and bone loss, to name a few. (Related: Heavy metal toxicity symptoms explained: are you poisoned?.)

Learn more on how to protect yourself from heavy metals by going to HeavyMetals.news.

Sources include:

FoodRevolution.org

Healthline.com

Planned Parenthood and its former research arm released a new report this week intended to warn their followers about rising threats to so-called “reproductive rights,” but the numbers will just as likely hearten pro-lifers by putting the scope of 2019’s pro-life legislative progress in perspective.

On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and the Guttmacher Institute released a report detailing the number of state-level bills to restrict or ban abortion that have been introduced since the beginning of 2019.

According to the abortion giant, bills to ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected (which PPAF’s press release describes only as “six-week abortion bans” and bans “before many people know they are pregnant”) have risen by 63 percent compared with last year.

Seven states have introduced “total bans on abortion” (though PPAF doesn’t specify which measures this phrasing is referring to), six have introduced bans that would only take effect after Roe v. Wade is overturned, and six states only have one facility left that commits abortions. All told, the first four months of 2019 have seen more than 250 pro-life bills across 41 states.

“It’s clear that with allies in President Trump and Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, anti-women’s health care politicians are advancing a strategy to ban abortion nationwide,” the press release declared, “despite the fact that support for Roe v. Wade is at its highest level on record — 73 percent of Americans say they do not want to see Roe overturned.”

While it is true that various polls show public support for Roe higher than support for abortion itself, pro-lifers argue those results are largely a byproduct of widespread ignorance about the 1973 ruling’s history and effects, sometimes compounded by misleading poll questions. Polls generally show that a majority of Americans would allow abortion in “few” or “no” circumstances, and several polls have found that majorities of Americans believe the public should be able to vote on their abortion laws, which Roe largely forbids.

Part of the energy behind the current wave of pro-life laws, most of which apply much earlier in pregnancy and contain fewer exceptions than the norm of years past, is the belief that President Donald Trump’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court may help form a long-awaited majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.

They hope to force such a review by banning abortion earlier than Roe’s “viability” cutoff, and the Supreme Court is more likely to consider a case of national importance if more states are enacting the same disputed laws.

Other state-level pro-life actions that have been advanced in the states this year include steps to ban abortions specifically sought because of a child’s race, sex, or disability, requiring parental notification of a minor’s attempts to abort, defunding Planned Parenthood, requiring abortionists to offer ultrasounds to pregnant women, and bans on abortion at 18 weeks.

A shocking new report from the Environmental Working Group confirms that an overwhelming majority of conventionally grown produce is covered in pesticides. About 70 percent of U.S. produce contains pesticides — even after it has been washed. This is highly disturbing news for the millions of Americans who buy fresh produce, believing that it is healthy for them and their families.

Kale, one of the most beloved leafy greens in the U.S., clocks in as one of the worst offenders. Some 92 percent of samples tested were contaminated with residue from at least two different pesticides. Across the board, roughly 70 percent of the fruits and vegetables sold in the U.S. have traces of pesticides, according to the report from Environmental Working Group (EWG).

The prevalence of chemical pesticide residues found in produce is highly concerning. Despite industry assurances of safety, modern pesticides are nothing more than toxic chemicals designed to kill — and they should have no place in our food supply.

Pesticides in produce

Conventionally farmed produce is once again under fire for high levels of pesticide contamination. Kale, arguably one of the trendiest “health” foods on the market, was ranked as one of the most “dirty” foods. One sample of conventionally grown kale could be tainted with has many as 18 different pesticide residues. Sixty percent of kale samples tested positive for Dacthal — a chemical that is banned in Europe and is also a suspected carcinogen.

According to the EWG’s report, Dacthal (also known as DCPA) was the most commonly found pesticide overall. Even the EPA has ackowledged that Dacthal is a “possible human carcinogen,” and has labeled it as such since 1995. Yet, this product remains in widespread use.

EWG’s analysis of test data from the USDA names a bevy of other popular fruits and veggies among the most contaminated. Strawberries, spinach, apples, grapes, tomatoes and celery are all featured on the EWG’s Dirty Dozen for 2019, part of their 2019 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce.

Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist working with the EWG, said of the report, “We definitely acknowledge and support that everybody should be eating healthy fruits and vegetables as part of their diet regardless of if they’re conventional or organic.”

“But what we try to highlight with the Shopper’s Guide to Produce is building on a body of evidence that shows mixtures of pesticides can have adverse effects,” Temkin added.

The problem with pesticides

Despite the agrichemical industry’s assurances of safety, scientists agree that it is hard to gauge just how many pesticides people are exposed to in everyday life, and in what quantities. Further, there is very little research on how pesticides interact with each other, and what effects those interactions will have on the human body (and the environment).

To sum it up nicely, there is shockingly little data or research on the effects pesticides will have in real life. This alone should give consumers pause — never mind all of the other glaring problems afflicting the pesticide industry and the pesticide regulation process.

A recent study from France found that people who eat organic have a drastically lower risk of cancer. On average, there was a 25 percent reduction in cancer frequency among organic consumers.

At the time, nutrition experts from Harvard cautioned against the study’s findings, stating, “[T]he health consequences of consuming pesticide residues from conventionally grown foods are unknown, as are the effects of choosing organic foods or conventionally grown foods known to have fewer pesticide residues.”

The idea that organic, pesticide-free produce wouldn’t be healthier is pretty hard to imagine. But the fact that no one actually knows how bad pesticides really are for you raises substantial questions as to how these products have made it to the market and our food supply in the first place.

So-called safety testing is inadequate

Across the board, pesticide “safety studies” have major holes in risk assessment. Currently, the federal government only requires safety testing on the “active ingredient,” even though most pesticide makers rely on other “inactive” ingredients to enhance their products.

Research has already shown that pesticide mixtures are harmful to wildlife, and that pesticides are capable of acting in synergy. What this means is that when two or more pesticides interact, their toxic effects become amplified. A paper published in 2004 further describes pesticides’ ability to act in synergy with other common chemicals and even pharmaceuticals.

“Synergistic effects between multiple pesticides and/or other chemicals represent one of the greatest gaps in EPA’s ability to protect the public from the adverse health effects associated with pesticide use and exposure,” the author posits.

Exposure to multiple pesticides has been identified as a glaring safety issue for decades, yet these toxins and other harmful substances continue to contaminate the food supply. That’s why the Health Ranger Store has its own in-house lab for lot-by-lot testing and analysis. As Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, explains, “Using multiple mass spec instruments (ICP-MS, LC-MS, LC-MS-MS, LC-MS-TOF), we conduct exhaustive analytical testing of heavy metals, microbiology, glyphosate and an increasing number of agricultural chemical pesticides.”

See more coverage of stories like this and learn more about what you’re eating at Food.news.

Sources for this article include:

TheGuardian.com

EWG.org

NWFSC.NOAA.gov

By Jake Johnson

(CD) – In a victory for consumers and yet another massive blow to Monsanto, a federal jury on Wednesday found the company liable for causing a California man’s cancer and ordered it to pay $80 million in damages.

“The jury resoundingly held Monsanto accountable for its 40 years of corporate malfeasance and sent a message to Monsanto that it needs to change the way it does business,” said the legal team of 70-year-old Edwin Hardeman, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in 2015 after using Roundup on his property for more than two decades.

“It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup,” Hardeman’s lawyers added.

Earlier this month, the San Francisco jury ruled that Roundup was a “substantial factor” in the development of Hardeman’s cancer.

In its Wednesday ruling, the jury said Monsanto—which was acquired by German pharmaceutical giant Bayer last year—should be held liable for failing to give sufficient warnings about Roundup’s cancer risks.

“Clearly, the testimony that informed the jury’s decision was Bayer-Monsanto hiding Roundup’s carcinogenic properties, manipulating the science, and cozying up with EPA so it would not have to warn consumers of its dangerous product,” Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement.

“Bayer-Monsanto has known for decades the cancer-causing properties of Roundup, and I applaud the jury for holding the company accountable for failing to warn consumers of the known danger,” Cook added. “This verdict puts Bayer’s back firmly up against the wall as the cost of litigation mounts and its stock price gets pummeled once again.”

Bayer said it is “disappointed” in the jury’s decision and plans to appeal.

The latest ruling against Monsanto comes as the company is facing thousands of similar lawsuits nationwide.

As Common Dreams reported, a jury last year ordered Monsanto to pay over $280 million in damages to school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, who said Roundup caused his cancer.

“The evidence is overwhelming that Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” Jennifer Moore, a lawyer for Hardeman, told the New York Times. “Now two different juries have held that Roundup causes an individual’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto should be punished for its conduct.”

By Jake Johnson / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo

When the news broke this week that OxyContin makers Purdue Pharmam and the Sackler family behind it, have agreed to pay $270 million to settle an opioid lawsuit filed by the state of Oklahoma, many felt it was a big step in the right direction. With entire states suing them and hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement money being paid out, the guilty parties can no longer hide the role they’ve played in the deadly crisis. In fact, this and similar court cases illustrate how Big Pharma has essentially created its own market for these deadly drugs through a web of lies and deception.

In the Oklahoma case, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family who owns the firm were accused of ruthlessly marketing OxyContin and misleading the public about how dangerous and addictive it is, essentially downplaying the risk of addiction and exaggerating its benefits. Although the firm had previously denied wrongdoing, they agreed to pay out the settlement in the case, which had been set to go to trial in May.

In confirming the settlement, Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Mike Hunter, said that it was just the first step and that other defendants will also be held accountable for their role in what he termed “the worst public health crisis in our state and nation we’ve ever seen.”

The Sackler family is also the subject of a new lawsuit filed by hundreds of counties and cities across 28 states as well as a Native American tribe, who are accusing them of creating the opioid crisis through their lies and deception.

Strong ties with regulators, medical professionals

In fact, OxyContin’s FDA approval came about under highly questionable circumstances. Although the company had not carried out clinical studies into how addictive the drug could be, the FDA approved a package insert for it that said it was safer than other painkillers because its delayed absorption was “believed” to reduce the potential for abuse. Interestingly, the examiner for the FDA who oversaw this left the agency shortly after that and went to work at Purdue.

Doctors were wary of opioids at the time that OxyContin first hit the market, and Purdue knew it. Touting the drug as a legal and safe option with a unique slow-release mechanism that keeps pain away steadily, their marketing was top-notch. The drug’s active ingredient, oxycodone, is part of the same chemical family as heroin and twice as strong as morphine, and at that time it was generally reserved for end-of-life palliative care. However, Purdue Pharma managed to convince countless doctors to get on board by wining and dining them and misrepresenting the drug’s dangers.

In 1996, the same year that Purdue kicked off its misinformation campaign, these prescriptions really took off, and addiction experts have said in no uncertain terms that Purdue deserves much of the blame for the current crisis. Among other acts, they paid doctors to argue that opioid addiction concerns were overblown, sending them to conventions in exotic locales and showering them with gifts in exchange for putting in a good word with other doctors.

Purdue Pharma gave money to state medical boards and continuing medical education efforts. The company worked with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to create pain management standards and other educational materials. Those standards, which were put in place in 2001, played down opioids’ risks and encouraged doctors to prescribe the drugs for chronic and acute pain, which is believed to be a big factor in the current epidemic.

Changing prescribing habits

Their efforts managed to dramatically change prescribing habits. Officials at Purdue later discovered that many physicians were under the mistaken assumption that oxycodone was less powerful than morphine, and rather than correct that misconception, they exploited it, convincing them this strong drug was also suitable for less acute types of pain over the long term, like back pain or sports injuries.

Sales reps were trained to play down the addictive potential of the drugs and dodge questions about its dangers. They marketed the drug as something “to start with and to stay with,” and while millions of people did indeed find relief with it, many of them also became hopelessly hooked.

The new lawsuit is calling on the Sacklers to issue some “corrective advertising statements” in medical journals, TV shows, websites, and regional and national publications to more honestly portray the dangers involved.

Listed on the Forbes wealthy family list at number 19 with a worth of $13 billion, the Sackler Family’s fortune comes mainly from sales of OxyContin. Although they pleaded guilty to false marketing of OxyContin in 2007 and paid out $635 million, they’ve continued to market it aggressively. The blockbuster drug has generated around $35 billion in revenue for Purdue Pharma so far.

Approximately 200,000 Americans have now died from prescription opioids like Oxycontin. On top of that, people who become addicted and are then cut off from the drug by their doctors or can no longer afford it often transition to heroin. In fact, four out of every five people trying heroin today reportedly started with prescription painkillers. According to the CDC, 145 Americans are dying each day of an opioid overdose in a crisis that was largely created by the irresponsible acts of profit-minded pharmaceutical companies.

Sources for this article include:

Breitbart.com

NewYorker.com

Chemotherapy is the hallmark of conventional cancer treatment. In spite of the bevy of unpleasant side effects, chemo remains the go-to for treating many different cancers and is even used in palliative care. While chemo drugs are considered “healing” medicines, the truth is that these drugs are capable of causing long-term damage to the body and the brain. As a side effect, cognitive deficits related to chemo are estimated to effect some 75 percent of patients with cancers effecting areas of the body outside the central nervous system.

A growing number of experts are now speaking out about the deleterious effects chemotherapy has on cognition — and there is no shortage of research to support what they’re saying. Multiple chemo drugs have been implicated in the instance of “chemo brain,” and it turns out these drugs are capable of damaging essential structures within the brain. Studies show that while the industry claims chemo brain is only temporary, the effects chemo has on cognition can be long-term. Estimates suggest chemo brain may last anywhere from a few months to an entire decade.

Chemo on the brain

As Psychology Today reports, a number of chemo drugs have been identified in the onset of chemo brain. These include carmustine, cisplatin and cytarabine, along with many others. Past research has shown that these drugs had negative effects on oligodendrocytes, a type of brain cell. Specifically, these chemo drugs increased oligodendrocyte death within the dentate gyrus and hippocampus — regions of the brain dedicated to learning and memory. Research has shown that other cancer drugs are also capable of harming oligodendrocytes.

Oligodendrocytes are integral to the formation of the myelin sheath, which covers neurons and streamlines the transmission of electrical signals through the nervous system. Disruptions in the myelin sheath, or demyelination, has dire consequences and can cause problems with learning, cognition and motor skills. As such, it would appear that chemotherapy is capable of causing demyelination through its ill effects on these essential brain cells.

But this is not the only way in which chemotherapy can be harmful to the brain.

Speaking with Neurology Advisor, cancer research expert Dr. Allan Butterfield explains that in rodent models, chemo drugs that are not supposed to reach the brain are still capable of causing cognitive deficits. In one such study, the drug doxorubicin was found to cause free radical damage in rodent brains. The observed oxidative damage was associated with decreased mitochondrial function of the brain cells, along with an increase in brain cell death.

Alternative medicine on the rise

Many experts have spoken out about the potential ills of conventional cancer treatment. Even radiation treatment and other therapies are capable of causing unwanted side effects and flat-out harm to patients. It is no surprise that so many people are now turning to alternative treatments.

Turmeric is one such alternative. Recent research has shown that this golden-hued spice is more effective at fighting cancer than chemotherapy and radiation. The primary polyphenol in turmeric, curcumin, is capable of killing off cancer stem cells without causing hazardous side effects. Curcumin targets cancer cells through a number of different mechanisms — and it is capable of doing this without harming healthy cells, something most conventional cancer treatments can’t say.

This selective targeting of cancer cells is what makes turmeric (and many other herbal remedies) so unique. While scientists are still looking for the best way to use turmeric to fight cancer, it hasn’t stopped patients from beating cancer on their own. In 2018, the British Medical Journal published an astonishing case study in which a woman used nothing but turmeric to completely cure her stage-3 multiple myeloma.

You can learn more about alternative cancer treatments at Cancer.news.

Sources for this article include:

PsychologyToday.com

NeurologyAdvisor.com