• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jts

  1. In a free market, prices adjust to where supply and demand are equal. In an unfree market where government sets prices below or above the free market level, the result is imbalances between supply and demand. Elementary economics. Everybody is supposed to know that. Even a chimpanzee can understand supply and demand. Do I need to give examples? Diamonds are expensive because they are rare. The price of diamonds adjusts to where the supply of diamonds (small) and the demand for diamonds (at the price) are equal. Coal is cheap because it is abundant. The price of coal adjusts to where the supply of coal (large) and the demand for coal are equal. Ditto for everything else. If oil becomes scarce, the price of oil will go up and the motive to find oil and increase supply will go up. If there is a severe frost in California that wipes out the crop of oranges, the supply of oranges will be decreased. The price of oranges will go up and balance between supply and demand will be restored. The next year the price of oranges probably will come down. Wages and salaries are prices and in a free market adjust to where supply and demand are equal. If you have a skill that few people have and many people are willing to pay good money for it, you can make big money. Even in a free market there can be a temporary imbalance between supply and demand. When a clown balances a pole on his nose, he is continuously doing small corrections of imbalance. The free market also continuously does small corrections of imbalance. If demand exceeds supply, the price goes up, the balance is restored. If supply exceeds demand, the price goes down, the balance is restored. For a more proper explanation of supply and demand, find some free ebooks about elementary economics. Leave supply and demand alone. It works very well. The trouble starts when government interferes with it. To h.. with Karl Marx and his labor theory of value. Karl Marx would have done better if he had followed his wife's advice, instead of writing about capital, to make some.
  2. You did not listen to the other documentaries. It was not about chicken crap. He beat them in court about the chickens. The chickens were a pretext. It was about green zoning laws and conservation area. They didn't just want to get rid of his chickens. They wanted to evict him off his own property.
  3. This is Agenda 21. Notice they don't call it Agenda 21. They call it "green zoning laws". They claim the land is a "future conservation area". They call it "green space". Conspiracy? Yes. Theory? No. This video is short. Only 1:20.
  4. jts

    Dr. Russell Blaylock

    There is a video of this interview. Here is the transcript. http://www.naturalnews.com/035555_Russell_Blaylock_interview_excitotoxins.html Health Ranger interviews neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock on MSG and brain-damaging excitotoxins by NaturalNews (NaturalNews) In the following interview, Dr. Russell Blaylock, renowned neurosurgeon, author and researcher, talks to Mike Adams about MSG, aspartame and other brain-damaging excitotoxins that are widely used in our food supply today. Dr. Blaylock is the author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills and other important books on this important topic as well as others. In this interview, find out why Dr. Blaylock was shocked at what he found out about the effects MSG and aspartame have on our brain function and pathology and much more. Health Ranger: Hello and welcome everyone, this is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger for Natural News.com and today I'm joined by neurosurgeon and author, researcher, Dr. Russell Blaylock. He's widely regarded as the foremost authority on excitotoxins, and we're going to be talking about MSG, aspartame, and other issues as we interview him today via Skype video. Dr. Blaylock, thanks for joining me today. Dr. Blaylock: Well thank you, Mike. Health Ranger: It's great to have you on, you know I'm a big fan of your work and your books. In fact, one of your earlier books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills is one of the first books I read that helped get me into the business of teaching people about health. Dr. Blaylock: I'm glad I contributed- you're a great person to teach people about these things. I'm a great fan of yours as well. Health Ranger: Well, I'm a huge fan of your work, but for those watching , most people are probably familiar with you and your work and your books, but for those who may not be, can you give us just a brief background of how you got started in this, what encouraged you to write that book and so on. Dr. Blaylock: Well, I was a neurosurgeon and during my residency training, I was interested in what causes all these neurological diseases and I was particularly interested in something that most of my colleagues were not interested in. That's nutrition and its effect on the brain and recovery from brain injury. So that naturally led into looking at things that produce these problems. And I came across a book by George Schwartz on the MSG syndrome and as I read this little book about it, I said well there's a lot of things in here I wasn't familiar with. So I started researching monosodium glutamate and what it does to the brain and I was astounded by what I found. This is a very common additive to food and most people have no clue as to what it's doing to the brain function and pathology, particularly in the developing brain, a child's brain. I amassed all of this research, and so I decided to write a book, my first book, and I put it together and I presented it to the publishing company and they liked it and printed it. Health Ranger: Now, most people who read that book are truly astonished by what you unveil in there. You talk about how the excitotoxins overexcite nerve cells and cause those cells to die, how it passes through the blood/brain barrier and so on. Just how toxic is MSG really and then, might you also add, what have you learned since writing the book that would add to the weight of the evidence? Dr. Blaylock: Well actually, this book was written in 1994 and updated a few years after that but the amount of information we have about this toxicity has grown by leaps and bounds. There's an enormous amount of literature, so the weight of the evidence on my side is just overwhelming. Now, what we've discovered is that this is a very toxic substance, particularly to the developing brain. So if a mother is consuming it while she's pregnant in these high amounts, it not only passes through the placenta to the developing baby, but the amount or concentration of glutamate in the baby's blood is twice as high as the mother's. And of course this is a very delicate developing brain, the brain is under very complex development and we know that glutamate plays a big role in brain development. If the levels are too high or too low it can cause significant abnormalities in how the brain develops. Well women have been consuming this stuff and children have been consuming this stuff since 1945. And the amount in the food has doubled every decade since that time. Massive amounts of this stuff- and a study, a research foundation found out in fact that the amounts humans are consuming is the same amount that produces lesions in animal's brains. So of all the life forms on earth, humans are the most sensitive to the MSG toxicity. Health Ranger: Well let's make sure we cover two of the basic concepts again for those viewers who may be new to this. Number one, why is MSG added to foods and then number two, what are the most common symptoms that people might observe in their own physiology that would be a clue that they're experiencing MSG toxicity. Dr. Blaylock: Well it was previously added to food during wartime into the sea rations, into the Japanese rations for the soldiers to increase taste, to stimulate taste. And they had discovered long ago that if you add a little bit of monosodium glutamate, it stimulates certain cells in the tongue to make food taste very good- so you could take a very bad tasting food, particularly canned foods, they have that tinny type taste to it, a metallic taste, and you put MSG in it, it just tastes scrumptious. Well, all the food manufacturers discovered this as they were introduced to it by the military and so all the major food manufacturers started adding MSG to food, including baby foods. So, up until 1970 it was placed in the baby foods itself and then when Dr. John Olney, a neuroscientists, discovered this toxicity to the brain and the serious implications of that toxicity, that's when we started giving a little bit more attention to it. As far as symptoms, of course the first group of symptoms that came to the public's attention was the MSG syndrome in which people would have flushing of their face and heart palpitations and sometimes pains going down their arms and even episodes of GI discomfort and diarrhea. Well those are the obvious symptoms. What was discovered after that in fact that there's silent damage to the brain in which there's very few symptoms. But over time, we see destruction of major important areas of the brain, things that can cause Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, ALS and that if you have these diseases it's make them progress much faster. Health Ranger: Now, as a neurosurgeon, have you ever actually seen brains that you know those those tissues have been damaged by MSG, is it something that's visible when you're actually looking at a living brain or is it not visible? Dr. Blaylock: Well it's not visible to the naked eye, you would have to look under a microscope to see it, but we know there are certain areas of the brain that are very sensitive, for instance the hypothalamus. There's a nucleus in the hypothalamus called the arcuate nucleus, that controls your energy supply. That's where leptin receptors are located and growth hormones. And it is the most sensitive place in the entire brain, it's virtually wiped out by high doses of MSG. We know there's a lot of damage to that nucleus and there's good evidence that this obesity epidemic is caused by damage to that nucleus by the large amount of MSG put in food. Germans knew this, the German research scientists are writing about this regularly. In America, they don't want to talk about it because of the enormous wealth. Health Ranger: It's really extraordinary, the food lobby has so much influence in Washington that they're able to keep the FDA off of this issue or the USDA off of this issue. And it's not just MSG, they're able to put sodium nitrite in processed meat for example, to the point where today if you go buy beef jerky and you look at the ingredients, it's got both MSG and sodium nitrite in it. It's like a double dose of a toxic chemical cocktail, it's amazing. Dr. Blaylock: Well if you look at a lot of processed food you'll see they do contain multiple toxins and multiple forms of glutamate, this excitotoxin. So I refer to them rather than MSG I refer to it as excitotoxic food additive. And they put it in virtually everything. Every processed food and those that don't put it in there have trouble selling their food because they can't get the taste hyped up enough to be able to sell it. Health Ranger: You know that's a good point, Dr. Blaylock, I also have noticed because I'm very sensitive to MSG and I have been for as long as I can remember- decades. Causes severe headaches, face flushing and things like that so I know if I've had some MSG. I've learned to look for it on labels. And I've found that, of course, the food companies hide it under all these different names. And my pet peeve name today is yeast extract because it's used by many of the so-called natural food companies and even the vegetarian foods. They're loaded with yeast extract. Can you talk about yeast extract and other hidden names for a minute? Dr. Blaylock: Yeah When I first spoke on this issue in Chicago at a convention one of the chief manufacturers of processed foods came up and told me, he said if you convince everyone of the toxicity of this, we'll just change the name. We're gonna get it in the food one way or another. I told him, well, I'm gonna tell everybody the story of our conversation and I do, I repeat this story because it's very important. And the government allows them, if it's less than 99 percent pure MSG they can call it anything they want to. Caramelized yeast, caseinate, carrageenan, natural flavoring, vegetable extract, protein concentrate, soy isolate, the names just go on and on and on and on, and they're very benign sounding like natural flavoring. Well people think that's natural, or it'll say hydrolyzed protein or plant protein, people think that's natural. That's why you see it in so many natural foods and these natural food stores. Health Ranger: Yeah, it's sickening, it's insidious, I mean this is an age when consumers want full transparency, consumers want to know, are there GMO's in the product, They want to know, is it organic or not, they want to know is there MSG in there and these companies just keep trying to hide it. Now to their credit, some companies have placed claims on their labels that say no MSG added and generally I find that to be an honest claim. And some of those companies are very much doing the right thing in that realm, but other companies just hide it under a different name. Seems to be a wide diversity of ethics in the food industry. Dr. Blaylock: Well you see they do this quite commonly. When my book came out and a lot of people were talking about it, it had a big impact on these companies. They began to remove MSG on the label. And they would even put NO MSG and I would look at the label and I would see about three to four different forms of disguised glutamate in it. So they learned very quickly to just disguise the name, most of the public's not going to know what it is and they'll say well it says plainly on the label, no MSG, but in fact it contains more glutamate. Health Ranger: Incredible, I want to urge those watching right now to learn more from Dr. Russell Blaylock and his website is RussellBlaylockMD.com did I get that right? Dr. Blaylock: That's right. Health Ranger: Russell BlaylockMD.com, put it on the screen there, and then also you could check out his books at bookstores everywhere, including Amazon.com where he's got Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills and Health and Nutrition Secrets, is that another one? What's your book on cancer, Dr. Blaylock? Dr. Blaylock: Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients. Health Ranger: Ok, good, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients I really want to encourage you to check out his books, you'll learn a wealth of information. It's just astonishing. Dr. Blaylock, you, as a neurosurgeon, you are of course well informed about the structure and function of the brain and yet, I'm sure you often find yourself either arguing with or debating with some sort of MSG pusher who says things like, Oh, it's perfectly safe, it doesn't affect brain function at all. Is that a common piece of feedback that you hear from the industry? Dr. Blaylock: Well not anymore. In the beginning, I did. When I first started giving lectures, when the book first came out. I did an interview with Chicago Tribune and I pointed out all these different dangers and then they had the representatives of the company that makes the product come back after me and say, well it doesn't enter the brain because of the blood/brain barrier, and I'd already discussed that with the reporter. That in fact there's compelling evidence and now absolute proof that it does pass the barrier. And that there's many tissues in the body that have glutamate receptors. Virtually every cell in your body has glutamate receptors, and there's no barrier. Now they know I've accumulated so much powerful evidence they never try to confront me directly, they know I've been to an audience, they never try to come back and defend themselves. There's no defense. All the evidence is on my side. Health Ranger: They just hope people don't pay attention to your message? Dr. Blaylock: Exactly. That's right. They just ignore me, have the major media ignore it because they evidence I have is so compelling, most of the scientific world would agree with what I'm saying once they start looking at it, and more and more articles are being written on this. Health Ranger: You mentioned the scientific world. That's one of the most extraordinary things happening today is that the so called scientific world, in many cases they simply abandon the science and they become a priesthood of defenders of a certain narrow mythology. Such as, MSG doesn't harm the brain or all vaccines are safe and effective, for example, complete quackery. But that becomes the line of the so-called scientist who abandoned the science. I mean are you concerned about the reputation, the credibility of the scientific community because of that, or what are your thoughts on that? Dr. Blaylock: Well, you're exactly right and this is a major problem and a number of studies and articles have been written in some of the clinical journals, very good journals, pointing out this fact. The fact that the pharmaceutical companies, the food industry is having such a massive affect on publication of papers and research articles that it's really polluting the scientific world. They're trying to make this more stringent, where there's transparency and you know that these people work for the company. For instance, when I look at an article that says MSG is good for the elderly because it makes them eat more nutritious food or that it's safe, I can almost assure you if I look at who wrote the paper it's either someone that works directly for the "geno-modo" company or is connected and is being funded by the "geno-modo" company [sic], the principle maker of monosodium glutamate and its other additives. Health Ranger: What do you think about the theory, there's something that I've noticed as a very keen observer of this, that Chinese people in particular seem to not suffer the migraine headaches that many white people do when they consume MSG. Is there a metabolic difference in the way different people process glutamate? Dr. Blaylock: Well, actually, the difference is they don't consume near as much of this as we do. Health Ranger: Really? Dr. Blaylock: When they eat, they eat small portions, and now we're starting to see in the Japanese population that are eating these higher portions, they're getting grossly obese, they're having neurological problems, Alzheimer's increasing, ALS, Parkinson's disease- all increasing significantly in Japan and these countries that traditionally ate a smaller amount. The other thing is the rest of their diet. For instance, they eat a lot of omega-3 fatty acids, they have one of the highest flavonoid intakes from fruits and vegetables of any population in the world. These are protective against a lot of this toxicity. Americans don't do that, they do just the opposite. They're eating things that enhance the toxicity of glutamate. Health Ranger: Yeah, that's a really good point. Instead of the antioxidants, they've got other junk food, other fried food and then maybe a couple vaccines on top of that and some chemtrails on top of that. It's like a toxic stew. Dr. Blaylock: Fluoride and aluminum, it just goes on and on and on. Pesticides, herbicides, all add to the toxicity and have been shown to enhance the toxicity of glutamate additives. Health Ranger: Incredible. Alright, one last question for you in this segment, Dr. Blaylock, and then we'll wrap this up. What about the critics of your work who say, hey well glutamate appears naturally at some level in tomatoes or seaweed or other natural foods. What's your response to that criticism? Dr. Blaylock: Well it does, but it's almost always bound as a protein so when it's released in your body, it has to break down the protein. It's a slow release so your blood levels really don't go up that high. Now we know in people with, for instance, ALS, if they eat, for instance, a steak their blood level goes twice as high as a person that does not have ALS. So with certain neurological conditions, you do have to avoid foods that naturally have high glutamate levels, like meats and pureed tomatoes. When you eat a whole tomato, it's very slow release of the glutamates and your blood level really does not rise that high. If you're physically active, that glutamate, instead of going to your brain, goes into your muscles. If you're sedentary and you eat the very same diet, most of it's going to go to your brain and have toxicity. So there's so many variables there. Health Ranger: Yeah, that's interesting. So there's a fitness level impact on the way your body metabolizes it. That's fascinating. I want to bring up one last question, sorry, one more that just came to mind when you were speaking there. People talk about glutamine, the amino acid, and the dietary importance or applications of glutamine, and then some people confuse glutamine with glutamate. Can you briefly describe the difference for those watching? Dr. Blaylock: Well, glutamine is an amino acid that's converted to glutamate. In your brain, in order to make glutamate, your body has glutamine that is converted in your brain cells into the glutamate neurotransmitter. If you feed an animal a lot of glutamine, you will produce excitotoxicity in the brain. You will produce these brain lesions. Patients who have ALS, if you feed them a lot of glutamine, they will get worse and die a lot sooner. So there is a conversion of glutamine into glutamate. They're related amino acids, so there's a relationship. As far as the health effects of glutamine, that's just way overblown and I get this question a lot when I lecture. People want to say, well isn't it good for gut repair and good for immune stimuli and I say well, yes, your immune cells have glutamate receptors that have to do with producing the free radicals they use to kill microorganisms. So, to a limited degree, yes, it's good for that. Now as far as for gut repair, the new results show that glutamine is not that good for gut repair. Things like pyruvate are much more effective. Pyruvate also protects your brain against glutamate. Health Ranger: Oh really. Pyruvate, which, any mineral bound in pyruvate form? Dr. Blaylock: Magnesium or calcium, it doesn't matter, its' the pyruvate that protects you. Pyruvate's used in the Krebs cycle to produce energy. When you produce energy in the brain, it protects the brain against excitotoxicity. And it's an antioxidant. Health Ranger: Now you're getting me fascinated, I'm going to ask you one more question, sorry. People often ask me what is the defense against high glutamate foods. For example, if they know they're going out to eat, with a social group let's say, they know they're going to get some MSG in the soup or whatever, can they take something beforehand to reduce the effects of MSG? Dr. Blaylock: Well there are several things. One of the most important is magnesium. One of the most prominent glutamate receptors, one of the regulators of its over activity is magnesium. So people who have low magnesium, that eat soup for instance with MSG in it, they'll have a terrible headache, terrible response to the glutamate. If they have a higher magnesium level, if they take magnesium supplements, then get their brain levels up higher, they're much more resistant to the toxicity. Also, curcumin, all your antioxidants, vitamin E, vitamin C. These things protect against glutamate's excitotoxicity in the brain and its toxic response. And the pyruvate. Health Ranger: That's really interesting, so there is a strategy you might call defensive eating. Again, if you know you're gonna subject yourself to the toxicity, obviously it would be wiser to not do that. But, if you want to, you could protect yourself in advance with better nutrition. That's fascinating. Dr. Blaylock: If you combine these nutrient protectants, and I've protected the literature about how to protect yourself against glutamate toxicity. If you combine them you could produce tremendous protection against this toxicity to the brain. But like you say, you don't want to expose yourself to a toxin just because you can reduce the level of damage. Health Ranger: Right. It's like putting a helmet on your head so you can strike yourself with a sledgehammer. Dr. Blaylock: That's exactly right. You brought up the migraine headaches. I want to expand on that a little bit- the interesting thing, when you look at people who have migraine headaches, number one they have very low magnesium levels. When they have an attack of migraine, the spinal fluid glutamate level goes up tremendously. Once the attack stops, the glutamate level falls. And this is why glutamate in your diet can trigger a migraine headache. And usually when I was treating migraine headaches that were very resistant to treatment, the first thing I'd tell them, get off all the glutamate. I'd make a list of things and tell them how to get off the glutamate. Their attacks would get dramatically better, they were less intense and easier to control. And you put them on the magnesium or the pyruvate, they got even better. A lot of them never had a migraine attack again. Health Ranger: That's fascinating, you've got so much great information here, we're about out of time for this segment. Let me just give your websites again- RussellBlaylockMD.com, folks, sign up there for Dr. Blaylock's email newsletter and you can stay informed on issues like what we've talked about here. Also, you have a wellness center website, is that right? Can you give us the URL? Dr. Blaylock: It's BlaylockWellnessCenter.com Health Ranger: Perfect, BlaylockWellnessCenter.com, and there you can find books, DVDs, lots of information Dr. Blaylock has put together to educate you about how to protect your health against excitotoxins. Dr. Blaylock I want to thank you for joining me in this segment. We'll do more in the future, but I thank you for this time. Dr. Blaylock: Thank you, I appreciate it. Health Ranger: Alright, folks, that was our interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock. Share this video, it's very important to get this out there. Check out his websites for more information, and also search YouTube and TV.NaturalNews.com for more videos interviewing Dr. Russell Blaylock. We're gonna talk to him about vaccines and other topics in future videos. Thanks for joining me today. This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reporting for NaturalNews.com Watch the full video at: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=8C501468CA914ABEE2D9395667D5F200
  5. It's happening. The recent case of Wordes is an example. The authorities illegally harassed him for raising chickens and he committed suicide. Be on the alert for more examples. They won't call it "Agenda 21". Look for "sustainable development". That is a benign sounding term for Agenda 21. Look for other benign sounding terms. Agenda 21 will be implemented little by little, each time by something that will seem reasonable. Most people will not notice what is happening. It probably won't even be reported on lamestream news. One of their techniques will be to neglect roads, of course pretending that they don't have the money to maintain the roads. Gradually the road near a farm will become impossible to travel on. What will this do to the farm? Eventually living on the farm will be impossible. And you won't be able to sell the farm because nobody else will be able to live there. People will not recognize this result as intended and anyone who says it's the intended result will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist and a kook. How do I know all this? I get the real news, not the filtered news.
  6. Obama is a [insert cuss word] liar. John Stossel On Obama's First Year In Office video 4:37
  7. Disclaimer: Do not assume that I agree with everything Mike Adams says. For example, he believes in "naturopathic or holistic treatments". I don't. I see those things as forms of alternative quackery. Poisons: I don't know if Mike Adams will say it outright, but I will. Drugs (as that word is commonly used, not water) are poisons. If you want evidence, here is what you can do: 1. Find a list of drugs. There are so many drugs that you might want to limit the list to the more popular drugs. 2. For each drug in the list, do a search on that drug. What does wiki say about it? What does the company that peddles it (eg Merck or Eli Lilly) say about it? They will tell you in euphemistic words that it is a poison. They won't use the words "poison" or "poisonous". But they usually devote much space to "side effects", "adverse reactions", "contraindications", "interactions" and "warnings". When they come to the part about how it works, it works by disrupting biochemical pathways, not by supporting biochemical pathways as nutrients do. If these substances were not called "drugs" and were not prescribed by a Medical Deity that you worship and were found in a field and were in the form of a green plant or a mushroom, you would have no difficulty recognizing them as poisons. http://www.naturalne...n_medicine.html From the link: If prescription drugs are so good, where are all the healthy drug takers? by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor When observing the state of modern medicine and the unprecedented influence of pharmaceuticals, an interesting paradox arises. The drug companies claim that pharmaceuticals can do wonders for people: lower their cholesterol, end clinical depression, reverse osteoporosis, eliminate allergies, calm your children and many other similar promises. But if prescription drugs are so good for people, where are all the healthy medicated customers? There aren't any to speak of. There's nobody taking twelve prescriptions who has a clean bill of health. In fact, the more prescriptions a person takes, the worse their overall health. And if you approach the healthiest people you can find in a local fitness center and ask what prescription drugs they're taking in order to be so healthy, they'll give you a rather confused look: they don't take prescription drugs!. So how is it that the pharmaceutical industry can be claiming to make people healthier in the first place? And what happened to common sense here? A rigorous scientific view of the whole situation can only conclude that prescription drugs are, in fact, making people sicker. It's like a massive clinical trial, and the results of the trial are rather obvious: we're swallowing more drugs than ever, and we're getting sicker. In fact, the more drugs a person takes, and the longer they take them, the more rapidly their overall health deteriorates. So why are drugs approved in the first place? During development, prescription drugs are designed to target a single measurable marker, such as cholesterol levels or bone density. There are thousands of such markers to target in the world of modern medicine, and if a specific drug can alter any measurable marker in a positive direction -- without killing too many people during the clinical trials -- the FDA eventually declares it to be "safe and effective" and the drug is unleashed for public consumption. Indeed, the drug may effectively impact that one marker. But here's where the problem starts: every drug has a systemic effect, and these systemic effects are not accurately measured (or admitted) in clinical trials. For example, statin drugs do, in fact, lower bad cholesterol levels. But they do this by compromising the ability of theliver to create all types of cholesterol, including the "good" cholesterol and important hormones that the body manufactures from cholesterol. Statins may have one measurable, positive effect according to the medical charts, but they simultaneously throw off the body's healthy physiology in a hundred other ways such as blocking your sex drive. Clinical trials don't pay much attention to these other effects; they're just looking to prove one particular thing and get FDA approval to market the drug as a miracle cholesterol fighter. What other effects the drug has on the human body are largely ignored. And when clinical trial participants start showing these severe effects, they are typically "dismissed" from the trial in order to ensure that trial results look positive. In this way, extremely toxic drugs are actually approved by the FDA as "safe." Prescription drugs represent a war on the American people This situation means that, right now, prescription drugs are killing 100,000 Americans each year and injuring more than two million. Those are the statistics from the Journal of the American Medical Association, and that figure doesn't include the 40,000 or so who are killed each year by over-the-counter pain medications. These are staggering figures: it's like having twenty-five 9/11 attacks each year, but instead of terrorists flying the airplanes, it's pharmaceutical company CEOs. There are more deaths and injuries caused each year by pharmaceuticals than in any U.S. war or conflict since World War II. And yet pharmaceuticals continue to be marketed as miracle drugs that can help people be healthy. But as I've mentioned, there are no extremely healthy people taking lots of prescription drugs! The counter argument The obvious counter to this argument is that people only start taking prescription drugs after they're already sick. But that's not true: statins are now being pushed onto perfectly healthy people who have cholesterol levels of 115, for example. They're supposed to start taking statins as a preventative measure, even though there's nothing wrong with them. With a similar lack of wisdom, the American Diabetes Association has recommended that all diabetics start taking statin drugs even though there is no scientifically proven benefit to doing so just in case some benefits are someday discovered! And statin drugs are already known to cause an alarming number of dangerous side effects. After being consumed for just a few days, statin drugs start interfering with normal liver function. Within a matter of weeks or months, the patient often shows new symptoms or disorders. Upon visiting a western medical doctor, they are diagnosed with another disease or condition and -- guess what? -- given another prescription drug to take in combination with the statins. In the business world, this is called "upselling the customer" -- getting the same customers to buy more stuff, thereby greatly increasing your profit margin. And so it goes: one prescription after another, like boxcars on a train, until the patient is: 1) financially depleted, and 2) suffering the ravages of extreme chemical toxicity from prescription drugs. By the time a typical patient finally dies from complications caused by the prescription drugs, they may have spent $100,00 or more on drugs alone. And that number can be multiplied even further if "heroic drugs" are prescribed during the patient's last surviving days. Dangerous drug interactions are rarely tested There's another factor to consider here, too: prescription drugs are rarely tested for dangerous interactions with other drugs. In other words, even though the FDA might have approved drug A for one thing, and drug B for another, nobody ever tested what happens in human beings when both drug A and drug B are taken together. Far too often, the combination is toxic, and many prescription drug combinations are fatal. Those that are not fatal may cause other injuries, meaning they will destroy the patient's liver or pancreas, which will of course create demand for even more prescription drugs to deal with those issues. In this way, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you visit a western medical doctor and take even a single prescription, you're caught in the spiral of pharmaceutical dependence. The only way to escape this trap and actually restore your health is to give up all prescription drugs and, instead, make radical changes to your diet andlifestyle -- and seek our naturopathic or holistic treatments -- to restore your health. This is the only way to create lasting health. Where are all the healthy, happy, athletic prescription drug takers? Getting back to the main point here, doesn't it make sense that if prescription drugs made people healthy, there would be all sorts of healthy, happy, athletic people walking around touting the benefits of all the drugs they're taking? If drugs were good for you, there should be hundreds of thousands of such people right now. They should be mentally sharp, have low body fat, high bone density, healthy digestive tracts, healthy blood chemistry, vibrant skin, high energy, excellent moods, and so on. And yet this is not at all the case. Typically, when you meet a person who is taking multiple prescription drugs, they are overweight or obese, chronically fatigued, mentally depressed, sickly in appearance, mentally clouded, suffering from several blood chemistry problems, burdened with weak immune systems, suffering from low bone density, and emotionally unstable. Sadly, this is not only the typical prescription drug patient I'm describing here, this also describes many doctors and health care workers who dole out the drugs in the first place. Given this reality, it takes a great leap of imagination to believe that prescription drugs are somehow good for you. It's almost like walking into a Michael Jackson video, seeing a roomful of half-dead zombies drooling on each other, and shouting like Jim Carrey, "I want whatever they're taking!" The promise of drugs is seductive It's seductive, of course, to imagine that perhaps your state of mental anguish is simply a "brain chemistry imbalance" that can be corrected with antidepressant drugs. It's tempting to treat your osteoporosis with a doctor-recommend pill rather than getting into the habit of daily walking. It's convenient to live on heartburn medications instead of having to make healthy food choices for a change. Popping pills is always easier than changing your life, but popping pills is like making a deal with the Devil: you always end up losing. When you take prescription drugs on a long-term basis, you're sure to come out worse than when you started. Prescription drugs are only appropriate for short-term interventions that save a patient's life while they make radical changes to their diet, nutrition and lifestyle that correct the underlying imbalances. For example, an obese middle-aged man suffering from extremely high cholesterol is obviously at risk of a sudden heart attack. Statin drugs might be legitimately used for a few weeks or months just to keep the guy alive while he makes radical lifestyle changes that will ultimately bring his cholesterol (and his body weight) down to reasonable levels. The legitimate uses for prescription drugs That's a reasonable, legitimate use of prescription drugs. But that's not the way they're being promoted today. Thanks to the culture of greed and widespread lack of ethics at pharmaceutical companies, statins and other drugs are being pushed as lifetime medications while any mention of diet, nutrition or exercise is either completely avoided or, at best, glossed over. The result is that patients are told drugs are the only answer. Doctors are culpable in this as well: most don't even understand nutrition 101, and few bother to take the time to work with patients on lifestyle changes in the first place. Of course, most doctors would say that it's the patients who aren't interested in making changes, and they're right about that, but there's also something rather negligent about the fact that the vast majority of doctor visits result in a 90-second conversation and a prescription for the latest brand-name drug. (If you're a doctor and don't fit this description, good for you! But make no mistake: your colleagues are miserable healers...) So why are prescription drugs so popular? The only reason prescription drugs are so popular today is not because they work, but because they are extremely profitable. It's profitable for the drug companies who mark them up as much as 500,000% over the cost of the raw ingredients, it's profitable for retailers like Walgreens who mark them up even further (and whose business relies primarily on drug profits), it's profitable for newspapers and magazines who gladly cash checks for millions of dollars in drug advertising, and it's even profitable for doctors who receive all sorts of free vacations, "consulting fees," and other not-so-subtle bribes in exchange for writing prescriptions for brand-name drugs. The system is extremely profitable to everyone... everyone except you, that is. You suffer devastating health consequences when you participate. You get stuck with the medical debt. Your insurance rates go sky-high. And to add insult to injury, you're sicker now than before you started taking the drugs! Our system of modern medicine is a sham, folks. It's primarily a drug racket that's dominated by Big Pharma. The science is largely distorted (and often outright fraudulent), the ethics have all but disappeared, and the long-term price of all this is going to be enormous. We have an unprecedented problem on our hands that's sickening an entire generation and creating stratospheric long-term health care costs for the next round of working taxpayers unlucky enough to stumble onto all this. But don't worry: when everybody's sicker than ever, the drug companies will promise they have the next big cure. All you have to do is pop daily pills at $200 each, and all your health problems will be solved!
  8. Contrary to popular belief, the Fraud and Deception Administration does not exist for the purpose of protecting people from fraud and deception. Read this interview and learn the truth from a guy who was an employee of the FDA for 20 years. http://www.naturalnews.com/011401.html The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower by Manette Loudon The following interview with Dr. David Graham (senior drug safety researcher at the FDA) was conducted by Manette Loudon, the lead investigator for Dr. Gary Null. This interview contains jaw-dropping insights about the corruption and crimes that take place every day inside the Food and Drug Administration. This is no outside critic, either: these are the words from a top FDA employee who has worked at the agency for two decades. If you've ever wondered how the drug industry could pull off the greatest con of our time -- and turn the human body into a profit-generating machine -- you're about to learn the shocking answers in this interview. This interview is reprinted here with permission from Dr. Gary Null. Parts of this interview also appear in Dr. Gary Null's Prescription For Disaster video documentary, which is available at the Gary Null website and is a must-see video for anyone who wants to know the truth about the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA. MANETTE: Dr. Graham, it's truly a pleasure to have the opportunity to interview you. Let me begin by asking you how long you've been with the FDA and what your current position is? DR. GRAHAM: I've been with the FDA for 20 years. I'm currently the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the Office of Drug Safety. That's my official job. But when I'm here today I'm speaking in my private capacity on my own time, and I do not represent the FDA. We can be pretty certain that the FDA would not agree with most of what I have to say. So with those disclaimers you know everything is okay. MANETTE: On November 23, 2004 PBS Online News Hour Program you were quoted as making the following statement. “I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. Simply put, FDA and the Center for Drug Evaluation Research (CDER) are broken.” Since you've made that statement, has anything changed within the FDA to fix what's broken and, if not, how serious is the problem that we're dealing with here? DR. GRAHAM: Since November, when I appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and announced to the world that the FDA was incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs or from another Vioxx, very little has changed on the surface and substantively nothing has changed. The structural problems that exist within the FDA, where the people who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them. They continue to let the damage occur. America is just as at risk now, as it was in November, as it was two years ago, and as it was five years ago. MANETTE: In that same PBS program, you were also quoted saying, “The organizational structure within the CDER is currently geared towards the review and approval of new drugs. When a serious safety issue arises at post marketing, the immediate reaction is almost always one of denial, rejection and heat. They approved the drugs, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with it. This is an inherent conflict of interest.” Based on what you're saying it appears that the FDA is responsible for protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies and not the American people. Do you believe the FDA can protect the public from dangerous drugs? DR. GRAHAM: As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured. Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about five percent. The “gorilla in the living room” is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug. So you have that conflict as well. MANETTE: When did that go into effect? DR. GRAHAM: The Prescription Drug User Fee Act came into play in 1992. It was passed by Congress as a way of providing the FDA with more funds so that it could hire more physicians and other scientists to review drug applications so that drugs would be approved more quickly. For industry, every day a drug is held up from being marketed, represents a loss of one to two million dollars of profit. The incentive is to review and approve the drugs as quickly as possible, and not stand in the way of profit-making. The FDA cooperates with that mandate. MANETTE: And what about those new drugs? Are they any better than what already exists on the market? DR. GRAHAM: It's a myth that is promulgated not only by industry but also by the FDA itself. It's a misperception that our lawmakers in Congress have as well and they've been fed this line by industry. Industry is saying there are all these lifesaving drugs that the FDA is slow to approve and people are dying in the streets because of it. The fact is that probably about two-thirds to three-quarters of the drugs that the FDA reviews are already on the market and are being reviewed for another indication. So, for example, if I've got a drug that can treat bronchitis and now it's going to be used to treat a urinary tract infection well, that's a new indication. But it's the same drug and we already know about the safety of the drug. There is nothing lifesaving there. There is nothing new. There is nothing innovative. A very small proportion of drugs represent a new drug that hasn't been marketed before. Most of those drugs are no better than the ones that exist. If you want to talk about breakthrough drugs – the ones that really make a difference in patients' lives and represent a revolution in pharmacology – we're talking about maybe one or two drugs a year. Most of them aren't breakthroughs and most of them aren't lifesaving, but they get treated as if they were. MANETTE: Are you at liberty to discuss some of the problems your colleagues are finding with other drugs and if so, how widespread is the problem? DR. GRAHAM: I'm really not at liberty to talk about things that pertain to my official duties at the FDA. I can talk in my private capacity, but I can't talk about material that would be confidential. What I can say is that there are a number of other scientists within the FDA who have also worked with drugs that they know are not safe, even though the FDA has approved or allowed them to remain on the market. They face some of the same difficulties that I do. The difference is that either the problem isn't as serious in terms of the numbers of people that were injured or that it's a fatal reaction – they're not willing to expose themselves to retaliation by the FDA - and retaliation would surely follow. MANETTE: Do you think we should have any confidence in the FDA and if so, can you elaborate on what they do that you feel benefits the American people? DR. GRAHAM: In terms of confidence in what the FDA does, there are two things that the FDA determines when it looks at a drug: it determines whether or not a drug is safe and it determines whether or not it's effective. Regarding the determination of drug effectiveness, I think the FDA does a pretty good job. If the FDA says that the drug will have a particular effect, probably for many of the patients who take the drug it will actually have that effect. If the FDA says a given drug will lower blood pressure and you're somebody who has high blood pressure, there's a good chance that the drug will have an effect that lowers your blood pressure. That has to do with the rigor with which they force the drug companies to establish that the drug actually has an effect. On the safety side, I think that the American public can't be very confident. They can have some confidence because it turns out that most drugs are remarkably safe. But, when there are unsafe drugs, the FDA is very likely to err on the side of industry. Rarely will they keep a drug from being marketed or pull a drug off the market. A lot of this has to do with the standards that the FDA uses for safety. When they look at efficacy, they assume that the drug doesn't work and the company has to prove that the drug does work. When they look at safety it's entirely the opposite. The FDA assumes the drug is safe and now it's up to the company to prove that the drug isn't safe. Well, that's a no-brainer. What company on earth is going to try to prove that the drug isn't safe? There's no incentive for the companies to do things right. The clinical trials that are done are too small, and as a result it's very unusual to find a serious safety problem in these clinical trials. Safety flaws are discovered after the drug gets on the market. MANETTE: I read somewhere that a drug only has to be better than a sugar pill DR. GRAHAM: Right. The standard that the FDA uses to approve a drug is primarily “does the drug work?” That's what they call efficacy. Most often, they'll compare the drug against something called a placebo or a sugar pill. It's basically something that doesn't have a medical effect. The assumption is that the drug will be no different than the sugar pill. The FDA puts the onus on the drug company to conduct a clinical trial to show that the drug is different from a sugar pill. The way the FDA's approval standards are, the drug does not necessarily have to have a very great effect in order to be approved. The drug might lower your blood pressure by just a few millimeters of mercury, but the FDA will say we can approve it because it does lower your blood pressure. Now, would that be a benefit or are there other drugs out there – many other drugs – that patients could take instead that would lower their blood pressure by 10 or 15 or 20 millimeters? The FDA doesn't really care about that. What happens is the drug gets marketed. You've got two drugs that are out there – one drug that effectively lowers your blood pressure a substantial degree and another drug that barely lowers your blood pressure at all. The company that has that second drug markets it like it's this breakthrough medicine. It lowers your blood pressure and they have all these glitzy ads, direct-to-consumer advertising. Lots of patients and lots of doctors will use that medication. What happens in the process is these patients are actually in a sense being denied a more effective treatment because the FDA doesn't require that drugs that come on to market be at least equivalent to, or better than, the drugs that are already there. All they have to do is be better than a sugar pill. MANETTE: When you consider the financial impact your whistle blowing has had on the pharmaceutical industry do you have any fears that your life may be in jeopardy? DR. GRAHAM: I have tried not to think about that. In the work that I've done I've never really thought about what the financial impact would be on any particular company. I put that out of my mind because my primary concern is whether or not the drug is safe. If it's not safe, how unsafe is it and how many people are being hurt by it? In terms of when I identify an unsafe drug, to me it doesn't really matter what drug company it is. I've helped to get ten different drugs off the market, and they're from ten different drug companies. It's not a vendetta against any particular drug company. I have to hope that the drug companies don't take it personally. I'm just ascientist doing my job and I have to leave the rest to God to protect me. MANETTE: Has anyone tried to silence you and stop you from becoming a whistleblower? DR. GRAHAM: Prior to my Senate testimony in mid-November of 2004, there was an orchestrated campaign by senior level FDA managers to intimidate me so that I would not testify before Congress. This intimidation took several forms. One attack came from our acting Center Director who contacted the editor of the Lancet, the prestigious medical journal in the United Kingdom, and intimated to the editor that I had committed scientific misconduct and that they shouldn't publish a paper that I had written showing that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack. This high-level FDA official never talked to me about this allegation. He just went directly to the Lancet. The second attack was from other high level FDA officials who contacted Senator Grassley's office and attempted to prevent Senator Grassley and his staff from supporting me and calling me as a witness. They knew that if they could disarm Senator Grassley that would neutralize me. The third attack came from senior FDA officials who contacted Tom Devine, my attorney at the Government Accountability Project, and attempted to convince him that he should not represent me because I was guilty of scientific misconduct; I was a bully; a demigod; and a terrible person that couldn't be trusted. These people were posing as whistleblowers themselves ratting on another whistleblower. Some of these senior level FDA officials were in my supervisory chain and are people I work for. They were involved in a coordinated attempt to discredit me and to smear my name and to prevent me from giving testimony. There's one other thing that happened the week before I testified. The Acting Commissioner of the FDA invited me to his office and offered me a job in the Commissioner's Office to oversee the revitalization of drug safety for the FDA if I would just leave the Office of Drug Safety and come to the Commissioner's Office. Obviously he had been tipped off by people in the Senate Finance Committee who are sympathetic to the FDA's status quo that I was going to be called as a witness. To preempt that, he offers me this job, which basically would have been exile to a fancy title with no real ability to have an impact. This was a conspiracy and it was coordinated and there was collaboration among senior level FDA officials. What a mess! MANETTE: All of these attacks backfired on them. Tell us a little bit about that. DR. GRAHAM: Well, Senator Grassley and his staff quickly realized that what they were saying about me was fabricated. The editor of The Lancet also realized that what the high level FDA officials were saying to him was a pack of lies. He sent emails to them saying it looked to him as if they were trying to interfere with his editorial process. He was very savvy to what these people were doing. Tom Devine, as he said publicly, was very interested in doing the right thing. He said, “We don't want to protect somebody who's a lawbreaker and who really isn't representing the truth so produce your evidence.” They had no evidence because there is no evidence. But I produced my evidence. I showed him all the documentation, all the emails, and the reports that I've written. They flunked every test and I passed every test. In all of the criticism I have received relating to Vioxx and drug safety, they've never attacked the work or the science that I've done or the results that I've come to. What they've done is call me names. The ad hominem attack is the last refuge of the indefensible. They don't have an argument that's substantial. They know that they're vulnerable. They know that they've disserved the American people. The FDA is responsible for 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 dead Americans. That's as many people as were killed in the Vietnam War. Yet the FDA points the finger at me and says, “Well, this guy's a rat, you can't trust him,” but nobody is calling them to account. Congress isn't calling them to account. For the American people, it's dropped off the radar screen. They should be screaming because this can happen again. MANETTE: On CNN with Lou Dobbs you said that there was a certain “culture” that exists at the FDA. Can you explain what you meant by that? DR. GRAHAM: The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The culture also views industry as the client. They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug – Arava – he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on this report that “industry is our client.” I begged to differ with him. I said, “No, industry is not the client, it's the American people, the people who pay our taxes. That's who we're here to serve.” He said, “No! Industry is our client.” I ended the conversation by saying, “Well, industry may be your client, but it will never be my client.” Another aspect to the culture at the FDA is that it overvalues the benefits of drugs and undervalues the risks of drugs. And so the FDA will always say to you, “Well, we're leaving this drug on the market because the benefits exceed the risks.” Well, the FDA has never assessed the benefit of any drug that it's ever approved. It works on what's called efficacy. Does the drug work or not? Does it lower your blood pressure or does it lower your blood sugar? Not: Does it prolong your life? Does it prevent you from having a heart attack? Those are benefits. All they focus on is efficacy. For example, ask the FDA why on earth they didn't ban high dose Vioxx after the VIGOR Study showed in early 2000 that it increased the risk of heart attack by 500 percent? High dose Vioxx was approved for the short-term treatment of acute pain. What earthly benefit was there that exceeds a 500 percent increase in heart attack risk? Ask the FDA to produce its benefit analysis that shows that the benefits exceed the risks. It doesn't exist. The FDA has never looked at benefit. The FDA just says to the American people, “The benefits exceed the risks. Trust me. Believe me.” If you held the FDA to its proof the American people would see how badly served they've been by the FDA and its culture that belittles safety in the drug companies' interest. If the FDA were to pull a drug due to safety issues, it would hurt the marketing of the drug. It might also call into question why they approved the drug in the first place. Therefore, you get this culture of cover-up, this culture of suppression, this culture of denial, and this culture that demonstrates above all else that industry is the client and not the American people. MANETTE: Have your peers turned against you? DR. GRAHAM: No. I've been very fortunate. Tom Devine at GAP has told me that the experience of a typical whistleblower is that they'll have the support of their peers but the peers will be so afraid of retaliation that they won't express that support in public. I've had a very different experience. I've been basically embraced by my peers as someone who has said what they want to say and what they wished they had been able to say and that they recognize as the truth. They're really proud of the fact that I've said it and they're not afraid to be seen with me. They're not afraid to work with me. I've been pretty fortunate in that way. Now with management it's been another story. Upper management avoids me and doesn't talk to me. I could be walking down the hall and I'll say hello, and they'll act like I'm not there. They don't give me interesting work assignments. They don't call me in to consult on things that I should be consulted on even though I am the senior epidemiologist in the Office of Drug Safety with more experience than any of the other people there. I'm looked up to by the scientific staff because of that expertise. Basically, I feel like I'm in the Gulag. MANETTE: How do you cope with that going to work each day? DR. GRAHAM: It's difficult. It's a mind game. They're hoping that I'll just become very frustrated and disillusioned and leave or that I'll slip up in some way so that they can take some sort of action against me. As Tom Devine at GAP has said, I have to be Saint David. I can't afford to make any mistakes. That's very difficult and it is a little bit discouraging. But I've been a target of retaliation in the past. You take ten drugs off the market well, no good deed goes unpunished at the FDA. I've experienced retaliation with many of those other episodes but not as severe as what I've experienced with Vioxx. This is the first time that my job was actually in jeopardy and where the FDA actually intended to fire me. That was stopped only because Senator Grassley intervened. He put the heat on the FDA and told them, “Lay off. This guy has told the truth. He's helped America. Whose side are you on?” MANETTE: Were there any warnings that Vioxx was a problem? Did you see the disaster coming? DR. GRAHAM: I think that I was afraid that there would be a disaster, but I only became aware of this with the publication of the VIGOR Study, which was this large clinical trial that was done that showed that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack five fold. That study was published in November of 2000. It was written, performed, and paid for by industry. What industry concluded was not that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack, but that the drug they were comparing it against – Naproxen – decreased the risk of heart attack. I knew that was not a sustainable argument. There was no way that Naproxen was that protective against heart attacks. Clearly Vioxx was the problem. I knew that Vioxx was on the road to becoming a blockbuster drug (20 million users). All the ingredients were there for a disaster. The FDA is responsible in so far as it could have prevented much of the damage, heart attacks, and deaths simply by banning the high dose Vioxx back in mid 2000 when they knew the results of the VIGOR Study. But the FDA did nothing for almost two years. They were “negotiating” with the company over a label. What did the label accomplish? Nothing! Before the label 17 or 18 percent of people who took Vioxx took the high dose. After the label change 17 or 18 percent were still taking the high dose. High dose use didn't change at all. People didn't read the label, and if they read the label they wouldn't know what to do anyway because it was very confusing. The right thing to do would have been to pull the high dose off the market because there is no benefit for short-term relief of acute pain that exceeds this risk. The FDA made bad decisions based on its culture and its institutionalized biases that favor industry, and as a result thousands of Americans died. Americans and Congress should be screaming bloody murder. They should be beating on the doors of the FDA demanding change. MANETTE: It's estimated that over 200,000 people a year die from prescription drugs. Do you see this as a serious problem and do you think many of these treatments are more dangerous than the disease itself? DR. GRAHAM: Death from adverse drug reactions is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It turns out that most of these adverse reactions are actually what are expected in the sense that they are an extension of the drug's action. For example, we know that drugs for diabetes can lower your blood sugar. If you're more sensitive to the drug than the normal person and it lowers your blood sugar too much, causing you to have a seizure while driving your car and you get killed, well, you died from an adverse drug reaction, but it wasn't something unexpected. The blood thinner Coumadin is another example. That drug provides a benefit, but it is also responsible for probably more deaths than any single drug currently marketed. But it has a recognized benefit and there aren't other drugs to do what it does or to do what it does well. So physicians accept that there are patients who are in a serious situation and who might die without the drug, so they take it. Yes, drugs cause a lot of harm. Unfortunately, we haven't quantified the benefits. For most of these drugs it's more belief. It's faith. We have faith that they'll confer a benefit, but the FDA hasn't demonstrated that they confer a benefit. We're getting much better at quantitating the risks. In the future what we need to do is just take the risks and look hard and dispassionately at what the real benefits are. If the benefits aren't there we shouldn't be having discussions about labeling the drug. You need to weed the garden patch of drugs that aren't doing what they're supposed to do. The FDA has not been very good about that; it likes to cultivate all these weeds. MANETTE: In a perfect world what role do you see the FDA playing in our nation's health? DR. GRAHAM: In a perfect world, I think the FDA would need to be restructured. If it were restructured properly, I think that it could actually provide a great benefit to the public health. I would recommend several changes. First, I would separate safety and post-marketing from the pre-marketing. I would create a separate center for product safety. Actually, Senator Grassley and Dodd have recently introduced legislation to create an independent center for post-marketing safety that would serve to protect the American people from unsafe drugs. This isn't happening now. On the pre-marketing side, the FDA needs to pay greater attention to safety. They need to have larger clinical trials. They need to compare drug products against other drugs that treat the same indication rather than comparing a drug against a sugar pill. What we want in the end are drugs that actually have better benefit. The FDA also needs to determine the post-marketing benefits of a drug. I've done that for several drugs. How many people are actually benefiting? How many people are living longer versus those who are having their lives shortened? Only when you have that kind of information can you make rational decisions about a medication. The times when I've done the benefit analysis, I've been chastised, criticized and suppressed by the FDA. These benefit analyses should be done as a matter of routine. There is a lot that the FDA could do to improve, but the changes aren't going to happen on their own. Congress is going to have to make them happen. There's an expression, “the zebra doesn't change its stripes nor the leopard its spots.” The FDA isn't going to change the way it does business; changes will have to be imposed from outside. MANETTE: How you do feel about direct-to-consumer advertising? DR. GRAHAM: Direct-to-consumer advertising in general is a great disservice to the American people. We see wonderful ads of people demonstrating their health, whether they're skating across the ice or doing their Tai chi. Madison Avenue knows that a picture is worth a thousand words, so they convey an image, a message, and it makes an impression on patients and on physicians. It creates needs or desires where there really isn't a need or a desire. There was a recent study in The Journal of The American Medical Association that showed that if patients mentioned a drug that they've seen on television to their physician they were much more likely to be prescribed that drug by the doctor. Drug companies know this. That's why they do it. Would the Vioxx disaster have been as great and as large in the absence of direct-to-consumer advertising? I submit that the numbers would have been far lower than what they were. Direct-to-consumer advertising is part of what made Vioxx a blockbuster drug. It helped to rev the market up to get people to want to use the drug. Clearly, direct-to-consumer advertising does not serve the American people well. Madison Avenue is smarter than the most intelligent American. That's why they make so much money and that's why the drug companies go to them to sell their products. We're not living in a neutral world where the information we're getting is objective and unbiased. It might be that the average American, given all the data, all the facts, and all the information in an objective way could make an intelligent, rational decision. But we don't live in that kind of world. We live in a world where what we're seeing is a visual image of these people being vital and healthy and cured of their illnesses. And it's all because of this little pill that they're taking. A patient with that condition says, “I want to be just like that person.” So they go to the doctor and say, “I want that pill.” Are their lives changed? Maybe some people's lives are changed, but I think most aren't. MANETTE: What do you think people hear when they're watching the ad and after the ad they list all the possible side effects? DR. GRAHAM: I don't think it registers. You have the visual image that conveys one message. Then you have the voice that's speaking over this pictorial being shown telling you what this drug is good for. Then at the end the auctioneer gets on and says, “You know this drug could cause…,” and they rattle off 25 different things in three seconds. You're lucky if you hear anything. I don't think that people come away with it and they certainly don't come away with any sense of how likely it is to happen because the visual image overpowers anything that gets said. It's the same with the ads that appear in magazines. Companies are required to put some of the labeling in the ad. You have the ad on the one side – that's the picture. It shows this person being healthy because they take this pill. The fine print is all on the next page. People aren't going to read the fine print. It's the same thing with labeling for physicians. Physicians don't read product labels. Where do they learn about drugs? They learn about drugs from the detail person from the drug company or from other colleagues who have used the drug. They're not learning it from the labeling. MANETTE: Do you think there is a criminal cover-up going on between the FDA and Big Pharma to approve dangerous drugs that sicken and kill Americans? DR. GRAHAM: I have no knowledge of criminal activity and I'm sure there are legal standards for what's criminal and what's not. I do think that there is an institutionalbias at the FDA that says we will look for a way to say “yes” to the approval of any drug that comes down the pipe. If a drug is so bad that they can't find a reason to approve it, they won't. But, if there is any way that they can approve the drug, they will. The way this is done is by what's called the “indication.” Why is it that you're going to take the drug? Maybe you're going to take it because you have high blood pressure. Maybe you'll take it because you have high cholesterol. That's the indication. A company may come in with a drug and want to get it approved for five different indications. One of them is a really insignificant indication that affects a very small number of people. The main indication might affect millions of people. The drug doesn't show efficacy for that major indication, but they're able to somehow or another approve the small indication. So the drug gets approved for this narrow indication, but the FDA and the drug company both know that it's going to be used for that other indication. It's going to be used “off-label.” Then, the FDA turns around and says that they don't regulate the “off- label” use of drugs. No. But, they aid and abet it. They allow it to happen and in many instances “off-label” use of a drug product is a public health threat. The FDA has a responsibility to protect the public health. The FDA should be intervening, but they don't. In my own experience I have seen multiple examples where I've heard people say, “We can't ask a company to put that in the labeling because the company will say no.” Or, “We can't do that because that will decrease their marketing. We've got to try to approve this drug. Let's see if we can give them this small indication. At least it's giving them something. You've got to find a way to say yes.” That is the typical attitude of the FDA culture. I think Congress is partially responsible for that because when they issued the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, what they were really saying was, “We want you to review these drug applications more quickly because you're keeping lifesaving medicines from the American people.” That's the line they were fed by Big Pharma. So they pressure the FDA and the FDA gets the message. It's a really pernicious system. I think it's unfortunate. There are many people from the FDA who have examples that they unfortunately can't talk about. They'd lose their job and maybe get thrown in prison because you can't discuss confidential and trade secret information. But the fact is these things happen at the FDA and there have been multiple examples in the past where one could see evidence of that. MANETTE: Did your faith as a devout Roman Catholic play any role in the decisions you made to put your career on the line to report the truth? DR. GRAHAM: It did in so far as my faith forms my conscience. It's sort of my sense of what's right and what's wrong and what I am and am not responsible for. I was in a situation here with Vioxx where I was invited by Senator Grassley's office to testify. I could have told them no, but then they would have subpoenaed me. So of course I went peaceably. I was faced with this dilemma. Should I lay it on the line and tell them the way it really is or do I kind of downplay it? There are ways of doing that. What I concluded was that I'm now being given the opportunity to tell the truth to the people who are in a position to actually make a difference. I can't make a difference. I can't change the FDA, but Congress can. If I don't tell them the truth, then I'm now responsible, in part, for future deaths. I don't want to become a co-conspirator with the FDA in what happens with Vioxx because tens of thousands of people were injured or killed because of the FDA's disregard for safety. If I keep quiet about that, now I'm part of the problem. I'm one of them, and at that point then my conscience asks me, “You know what the truth is, are you going to speak it or aren't you?” So I went ahead and did that and prayed that it all works out well for me personally. That I have a job and I'll be able to support my family, that I'm protected from retaliation, that maybe some good will come out of that. My faith plays a role, but it wasn't a direct teaching of the church. You have to do x, y and z, but it's the faith as I've internalized it. My conscience is formed by the voice of Christ speaking internally to me. That's what the conscience is; it's the voice of God speaking to each and every one of us about what's right and what's wrong. I knew what was right. If I walked away from that nobody else would have to do anything. I'd be beating myself up because my conscience would condemn me. So yes, faith plays a part in every thing that I do. It's not saying I'm a saint, because I'm not. But I can't separate who I am from my religious faith. It's all part of the same person. MANETTE: Do you think Congress genuinely wants to fix the problems at the FDA or are too many politicians influenced by the pharmaceutical industry? DR. GRAHAM: I don't know what Congress will do in the end. My hope is that they will act decisively to reform the FDA and make the American people safer by having strong post-marketing. Will that happen or not? I don't know. I think there are many people in Congress who see this as a serious problem and who very much want to see a change. I think at the same time there are other people who don't think it's such a bad problem, and many of those people honestly believe that. For those people I'd say they haven't seen the evidence so they don't really understand how bad the problem is. There are undoubtedly some people who are influenced by industry. Does that influence their judgment in the end? I don't know. They'd probably say no, it doesn't. Maybe at a conscious level it doesn't. But we have the same phenomenon in the scientific world where we look at research studies that are funded by industry and studies that are funded by government, by National Institutes of Health or the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom. Multiple studies have been done that have shown that if your study is funded by industry you are much likelier – about five times more likely – to come up with the result that's favorable to the drug company than if your study on the same subject is funded by an independent body unrelated to the company. Now, are the researchers who did this study biased? Are they consciously cheating and manipulating the data and everything else? No. I don't think that's happening at all, but the fact is if the study is funded by industry it's much more likely to be favorable to industry. Without attributing bad motivations to the scientists doing those studies all I can do is point to a strong correlation. With Congress I would be concerned that there could be a strong correlation there because Pharma is very bright. They fund as many politicians as they can. They get to the Republicans and the Democrats. Look at the funding on the major committees, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee in the Senate or the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in the House. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people on these committees are funded by industry to a substantial degree. Industry knows how to exercise influence. What we have to do is overcome that influence with evidence, and then rely on the fact that at the end of the day the Congress will do what's best for the American people. Will that happen? I don't know because then it gets embroiled in politics. You know, Republicans versus Democrats, the left versus the right, conservatives versus liberals. Yet, what we're talking about is public health and public health is nonpartisan. I can say this with certainty. For every member of the House of Representatives somebody in their district died because of Vioxx. Somebody in their district had a heart attack because of Vioxx. For every Senator in the Senate, many more people in their state died because of Vioxx or had a heart attack because of Vioxx. It doesn't matter whether it's a red state or a blue state. Those are human beings and what we're talking about is public health. What I'm hoping is that Congress will respond. There is a problem and the evidence is overwhelming, but we'll just have to wait and see. MANETTE: What are you thoughts on President Bush's attempt to pass tort reform, which would protect most pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits except in the most egregious cases? DR. GRAHAM: I think it's dangerous and wrong for the following reasons. We already have an FDA that's been neutralized by industry and sees industry as its client. The Center for Drug Evaluation and The Office of New Drugs dominates drug safety so that the drug safety is not independent. Drug safety can't protect the American people. So government now isn't going to protect the average citizen from the consequences of unsafe drugs. The only alternative they have left is the legal system – the tort system. It's not a wonderful system. It would be much better if we had effective post-marketing regulation so that we could get bad drugs off the market before they hurt more people, but that's been neutralized. All that's left to people now is the courts. That's the only way we have of getting companies to change their behavior. What tort reform will do is remove that threat as well. It's basically giving companies immunity because now the people who are injured by the drugs can't recover damages that might actually mean something to industry. I mean $250,000 for damages; they blow that in one ad campaign. To them that's nothing. But a lawsuit for multiple millions of dollars has more of an impact. Now, is that optimal? No. But the fact is that since we have a regulatory agency that doesn't regulate and we have a public health agency that doesn't protect the public, we have thousands of people who are being injured by products that the FDA knows are unsafe. The FDA knew there was a problem with Vioxx. They knew it was a big problem back in mid 2000 yet did nothing about it. There has to be a system in place that reins companies in. If the FDA isn't going to exercise control over companies, then who will? How will it happen? I don't think that working through the courts and lawsuits is a particularly effective way of doing it; but it's the only recourse we have now, and that will be removed as well. You can demonize the trial lawyers but I think that there are patients who are severely injured by drugs. The defense is, “It's on the labels so we're protected.” The problem is that nobody reads the labels so how do they protect anyone? The FDA should be making those decisions. MANETTE: What can you tell us about all the antidepressants on the market that millions of children are taking? DR. GRAHAM: In early 2004, SSRI antidepressants and suicidal behavior was a big safety issue. The FDA had suppressed a report written by a colleague of mine in drug safety and had prevented him from presenting this information in an advisory committee meeting. That information leaked to the media, embarrassing the FDA because it had been caught suppressing very important information – that most of the antidepressants don't work for treating children. Someone in my supervisory chain initiated a criminal investigation to identify the person who had leaked this information to the media. It turns out that the investigation ordered by these FDA officials was illegal. They broke federal laws – at least two or three federal laws – in ordering this investigation. I think it's well established that depression is very common in adolescence. With the antidepressants that we have on the market right now only one of them has been shown to work in children and that's Fluoxetine or Prozac. All the other SSRI antidepressants are no better than sugar pills. However, if you were to read the labeling for these drugs it doesn't point that fact out so patients think one SSRI is as good as another. This is another way that the FDA has betrayed the American public and has betrayed the public health. With the SSRI and antidepressants what the FDA should have insisted on was a signed informed consent at the time a child was going to be treated. That informed consent would say three things. One, these are the antidepressants that are available. Only Fluoxetine has been shown to work for depression in children. All the other drugs are no better than placebo. That's point two. No better than placebos. No better than sugar pills. Third, all of these drugs appear to have the ability to increase the risk of suicidal behavior. As a parent, if I see that in writing and the psychiatrist or GP is going to write the prescription and put my child on some drug other than Fluoxetine, I can say, “Doc, why are you putting my child on a drug that doesn't work in kids.” The FDA didn't want patients to have that information so they refused to have signed informed consent. The companies didn't want the patients to have that information because all of a sudden the “off-label” use of these drugs would dry up. So whose interest was being served there? MANETTE: How do you feel about taking the approval process out of the hands of the FDA? DR. GRAHAM: Well, where would you put it? If you put it somewhere else they're going to eventually become co-opted the way the FDA has been co-opted. I think the most that we could probably hope for is to try to disassociate the industry pressures from the approval decision. You have to change the culture of the organization, and you have to change the incentives in the organization. The culture and the incentives that the FDA operates by would have to be changed, and Congress can do that through legislation and by establishing different standards for how a drug gets approved. Not only do you have to show that the drug is effective, but you've got to show that it works as well or better than other drugs that treat that indication. You've got to prove to me that the drug is safe, not that the drug is harmful because you're never going to prove to me that the drug is harmful. You set up stringent standards of evidence that might lead to the approval of safe drugs that actually have benefits to the population. Then pair that up with an independent post marketing regulation. Currently, the pre-market people who approve the drug decide what happens after it's on the market. If the drug needs to come off the market, they're the ones who have to say yes at the end of the day. The people at the FDA who approved the drug, the Office of New Drugs, they are the single greatest obstacle when it comes to removing unsafe drugs from the market. I can vouch for that from personal experience. What you have to do is you have to take that responsibility and power away from them and put it with the group who sees their mission as serving the public and protecting the public health from unsafe drugs. I think if you do those two things you'd be a long way towards getting the FDA on the right footing. Also, it would probably be beneficial not to have the FDA's funding come from industry. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and we now have a captured agency. Industry underwrites more than 50 percent of the Center for Drug Evaluation's budget. When industry yanks the chain whose neck is going to get tugged? The Center for Drug Evaluation! If industry isn't happy with them and the funding dries up what are we going to do? We're going to have to let half our people go. The program is going to shrink. Congress is going to be jumping up and down on our back. So it's a captured agency and America is not well served when industry is calling all the shots. Yes, industry has a right to make a legitimate profit from marketing products that help the American people. But you shouldn't have a situation that just basically leaves the American public defenseless. And that's what we have right now. We're virtually defenseless. MANETTE: Are there other Vioxx's out there? Do you think this will repeat itself at this high profile level? DR. GRAHAM: At this current moment I don't think there are other drugs out there that are as bad as Vioxx in terms of the enormous numbers of people that were hurt. During my Senate testimony I did mention that there were five other drugs that I thought the FDA really needed to reevaluate because in my estimation the benefit to risk was misjudged. After I named those five drugs the FDA was in the media saying that I did junk science and that these drugs were safe and effective and that I was a crackpot. However, recently the FDA announced that they were going to take Bextra off the market. Well, Bextra was one of the five I mentioned. They announced that with Acutane they were going to impose a restricted distribution system. Well, I had recommended a restricted distribution system 15 years ago. The major problem with Acutane is that it's just so widely overused that it causes an enormous amount of potential harm to pregnancy exposure. If we restricted the use of the drug to the small number of women who really need it each year, the problem would be pretty much resolved. But the FDA didn't want to do that because it would interfere with company profits. If you restrict the distribution and only one-tenth of the people who are getting it now are getting it tomorrow, profit will drop 90 percent. Of course companies aren't going to go along with that and the FDA isn't going to do anything that's going to harm corporate profit. After my Senate testimony the FDA announced that they can look at other drugs – not only the other three of the five that I mentioned. There are other drugs on the market that I prefer not to talk about that the FDA knows are killing people. Ten or 100 people a year are dying because of the use of a particular drug or being hospitalized. Hundreds or maybe thousands of people are being hospitalized each year. For some of those drugs the benefits do exceed the risks. For others, it's clear that more could and should be done and maybe that means restricting the distribution of the drug's use or maybe it means banning an indication for the drug saying the drug should not be used for particular indications. Maybe it would be something like with the SSRI's where I believe there should be signed informed consent so that parents will know that the drug the doctor is prescribing for their son or daughter actually doesn't work in children. I think that there are many things that can be done that haven't been done. There are other unsafe drugs out there, and the nature of our business is that a drug could be approved tomorrow that turns out to be the next Vioxx and we won't know until it happens. Then the question is, how quickly do we identify the problem and how quickly do we take effective action against it? We're pretty good at identifying these problems quickly. Where the FDA falls flat on its face is that there is a long period of time in which it does nothing. Then what it normally does is woefully inadequate and ineffective and as a result the body count mounts and that needs to be changed. Maybe Congress will change that. MANETTE: Let's talk about incentives. When you say incentives what do you mean? For example, working at the FDA, is their pay somehow based on how many drugs they approve? DR. GRAHAM: Currently, the performance evaluations for managers at the FDA are built around the drug review. How many reviews did they get done? Did they meet their PDUFA deadlines? It looks bad if you miss your PDUFA deadlines. The unspoken mores – what's the expected – is that you're going to approve as many of these drugs as you can. There has to be an overwhelming reason for you not to approve. Frequently what will happen is that these medical officers in their review will recommend that a drug not be approved and they get overruled by the higher ups because the higher ups are answering to a different set of incentives. You have to change that. A lot of that comes from the leaders. What I want to see is does the drug really make a difference? Is it beneficial? There are many classes of drugs where we've got 10 or 15 members of that class. They all lower your blood pressure. They all lower your cholesterol. Another one comes along and the FDA feels its obligation to approve it. Why? Maybe the standard should be that for the drugs that come later in a class, they've got to show that they're actually better than the drugs on the market because we've already got these other drugs that work. That would create incentives maybe within industry to develop drugs that are better than the ones that are already there. Currently, the way the incentives are for industry, it's safer to do a “me too” drug, another drug in the same class. MANETTE: Do you think that the FDA should not be partially funded by industry? DR. GRAHAM: I think that PDUFA funding for the FDA is a mistake. MANETTE: Can you explain that a little more clearly because most people don't know what PDUFA funding is? DR. GRAHAM: The drug companies pay a substantial amount of money to the FDA at the time that they bring a drug application for approval in order for the FDA to review the drug. Basically it's a tax. It's a fee. Industry pays the fee, and the FDA will review the drug application. But the real expectation is from the company: “We've paid our money, now approve our drug.” That's basically how the FDA reacts as well. I think that the funding for the FDA should be independent of the industry that it's regulating and I think in the scientific field there's good evidence to support this notion. Industry money is influencing the decisions that get made, and it creates this incentive structure. You have this culture, you have these expectations, you have pressure from Congress. All of them come to a head at the FDA and all of those incentives are in the direction of “approve the drug.” That's what happens so I believe that the FDA is unduly influenced by industry and that undue influence is in part the result of industry money funding the FDA operations. MANETTE: Dr. Graham, thank you for your commitment to your convictions and for sharing insights that drove you to save many lives. DR. GRAHAM: You're welcome. I hope I've helped.
  9. Your reasoning seems to be: #1. All scientologists are opposed to shrinkiatry. (which is probably true) #2. Therefore all people who are opposed to shrinkiatry are scientologists. (definitely false) Statement #2 does not follow from statement #1. Also your reasoning seems to be: #1. Scientology is crap. (true) #2. Scientology is opposed to shrinkiatry. (true) #3. Therefore shrinkiatry is not crap. Statement #3 does not follow from #1 and #2. I happen to believe BOTH scientology and shrinkiatry are crap.
  10. There are 2 kinds of quacks: orthodox and alternative. The latter has a bunch of subdivisions of quacks. A poison is a poison. Don't matter whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral. Herbalists are quacks who use poisonous plants.
  11. Whatever the FDA approves, avoid it. The Fraud and Deception Administration approves only bad things, never good things. When they approve tomatoes and broccoli, that's when I will quit tomatoes and broccoli. Stories: http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
  12. From the above link: "ATLANTA — More than $1 billion has been spent over the past decade researching autism." They gotta walk a narrow line. On the one hand, they gotta keep up appearances, make it look like they are accomplishing something, so they can keep getting money from the government. On the other hand, they gotta be careful they don't actually get results and then no longer have a job, and lose revenue for the medical industry besides. Ten years into the future they probably will still be spending money on researching autism and still be almost getting results but not quite. Like cancer. If it was the free market, they would have to get results first and money after. Then they would get results. And they wouldn't spend $1 billion.
  13. Horse Poop. Here is some more horse poop. There is lots of horse poop. I selected Blaylock because he seems to have the most horse poop per minute in his lectures. And he seems to really know his horse poop. I suspect that most of Dr. Blaylock's horse poop is too deep for most people to wade thru. Even if vaccines don't contribute to causing autism, that does not prove that vaccines are safe or good. They do contain poisons and these poisons are put directly into the bloodstream. Mercury is one of the most deadly of all poisons. If you take mercury directly into your bloodstream, should you expect it to not do harm? Add to that other poisons. And interaction among all these poisons. Perhaps truth is not the point. If the truth turned out to be that vaccines are neither safe nor effective, that could be bad for a multi-billion dollar industry. What would they be willing to do to save the industry? Fudge the studies, maybe? That happened before. If you were the editor of a scientific journal that made 70% of its income from advertising drugs, would you publish articles that bash drugs? That wouldn't be good business. It is said that peer reviewed research is self-correcting. Yup. Who are the peers? Maybe those who peddle the product? Was the study funded by a vaccine company? Maybe if it doesn't support the bottom line, it must be corrected. If vaccines and drugs harm health, that is actually good from the point of view of making money for the medical industry. They don't make much money out of healthy people. But they must be careful to not go so far as to kill people; it's hard to make money out of dead people. The ideal is to have people live as long as possible but in a state of bad health. I don't trust research done by or funded by the industry that peddles the product or by the FDA. Contrary to popular belief, the Fraud and Deception Administration does not exist for the purpose of protecting the general population against fraud and deception. It exists to promote the products, get people to think they are safe and effective. Sometimes the FDA bans a product, but that is to protect the company that sells the product; if it kills too many people, that would make the company look bad and would be bad for business. Anyway, have a listen to Balylock's horse poop. Dr. Blaylock Vaccines and Autism 14 parts, about 5 min each part 1/14 You can easily find the remaining 13 files if you are interested.
  14. Why is it that the 2012 world chess match will be between the #4 player and the #22 player, by Elo rating? I would tend to expect it to be between the #1 player and the #2 player. This question suggests a math problem. Gelfand, the #22 player, qualified as challenger for Anand's world title by a series of 3 matches. They were 4 games, 4 games, 6 games. Short matches. The Math Problem: Each game is worth 1 point. If you win, you get the full point. If you lose, you get zero. If the game is a draw, each player gets half a point. If the match (series of games) is a draw, there is a tie break system. Assume that the higher rated player on average scores 60%. Assume that the probability of a game being a draw is 50% (which is a little on the low side in real life). Let N be the number of games in a match. What is the equation that expresses the relationship between N and the probability that the lower rated player wins the match? Or, how the 773H did Gelfand qualify as challenger?
  15. The theory that the decline of smallpox and other diseases was helped by vaccines is not supported by the statistical evidence. For example the graph shows that smallpox was on the decline before the vaccine and that the vaccine did not make any difference. For more information see "The Poisoned Needle". Tilden had experience with smallpox. He said smallpox is a disease of filth. The Indians were specially vulnerable to smallpox because they lived in filth. Smallpox is over-rated as a disease. A healthy person can be exposed to the disease and not get it. Koch's postulates for proving that a germ causes a disease were changed by one word. A germ causes a disease in a susceptible host. That one word makes a huge difference. Germs are everywhere. Poisons are everywhere. We are adapted by millions of years of evolution to survive. We must be weakened some way before a pipsqueak germ can do much to us.
  16. Even setting aside questions about the vaccine paradigm and whether vaccines work, modern vaccines contain such things as mercury and aluminium and squalene. These are poisons. Mercury is one of the most deadly poisons known to man and it is injected directly into the bloodstream. Injection of mercury is much worse than ingestion of mercury, because the gut is a great protector. When a kid gets like 20 vaccines in one day, each vaccine with poisons, at some point it might be too much. Read the insert that comes with the vaccine. It tells you outright the poisons and the dangers and the contraindications. The authorities rely on you not reading it. Find the insert with Google. They used to say if you are vaccinated you are protected for life. Now they are saying you must be vaccinated every year for the same disease. But viruses mutate and you must be vaccinated for each mutation, every year. Looks to me like they don't want to admit that the vaccines don't work, but no matter, they can make lots of money vaccinating people and still more money treating the problems caused by the vaccines. I have a better idea. Be healthy. Healthy people have a natural immunity to almost everything. Once in a while we hear on the news that the rate of getting the disease is higher for those who were vaccinated against it. Plus the evils of the vaccine poisons. A whole bunch of doctors who studied the subject of vaccines are coming out against vaccines with evidence, not just opinion. Obviously most people will dismiss everything they have to say without hearing it, based on what is "generally accepted". Accepting whatever is "generally accepted" is much easier than spending a few hours getting informed about an alternative view and making your own conclusion. Things like whooping cough and diptheria were trivial for doctors like Dr. Tilden and Dr. Trall, without vaccines and without drugs. Do you argue against success? These doctors had a different paradigm of disease, unknown and unimaginable to most people. I have no fear of such things as H1N1 or whatever the latest virus pandemic scare. I do have fear of vaccines and I have no use for them.
  17. Alex Jones has a bunch of people helping him do the Alex Jones show. So it's not always Alex Jones doing the Alex Jones show. Alex Jones admitted that sometimes they do a better job than he does. I selected this video because: * It's not AJ doing the show. Someone disliked AJ's voice. And often AJ gets sidetracked by rants. * It's only 6 minutes. Some people dislike long videos. * This AJC video packs more information per minute than most. It starts with a very direct statement. video 5:58
  18. Bouncer with an IQ of 200? The Smartest Man in the World - Chris Langan video 29:14 Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe website - essays
  19. On the subject of Islam. Craig Winn wrote a book titled "Prophet of Doom". It consists of passages from the Koran in chronological order, for each passage 5 of the most respected translations, and commentary from Craig Winn. The book is free of charge. You can read it in html form or in pdf form or you can listen to the audio version, all free of charge. The book, even minus Craig Winn's commentary, reveals Islam as evil. This website has a huge amount of stuff, all free. http://prophetofdoom.net/ Craig Winn says the most powerful thing that you can do to beat Islam is tell the truth about it. Perhaps that is why you risk getting death threats if you tell the truth about Islam. The truth about Islam is in the Koran. Perhaps Muslims should kill everyone who reads the Koran or encourages people to read the Koran. In the infowar against Islam, this book is a nuke. It is Islam convicted by the prophet's own words.
  20. This documentary by Stossel is bullshit. There ain't no way schools are that bad. But it's good entertainment. Obviously he is stretching the facts to make a point. video 40:46The point of all of Stossel's documentaries seems to be that government has a power similar to the power King Midas had. Everything King Midas touched turned into gold. Government has a power like that except with one difference. Everything government touches turns into shit.
  21. http://www.orange-pa...ge-thinker.html --- begin quote --- Do You Think Too Much? It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone — "to relax," I told myself — but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?" Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But Honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!" "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with a PBS station on the radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they didn't open. The library was closed. To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. (The author of this little jewel is unknown.) --- end quote ---
  22. Your reasoning seems to be: 1. It has a genetic cause. 2. Therefore it has no other cause. I say #2 does not follow from #1. Probably everything has a genetic component. Even lifestyle doctors (those who advocate health by healthful living) believe in the genetic component. Dr. Shelton even devoted a whole article to the genetic component, explaining why achieving and maintaining health is more difficult for some people than for others. Dr. Tilden (another lifestyle doctor) was a great believer in the genetic component as evidenced in his book "Cursed Before Birth". Anyone who studies causes of health problems knows that it is common for diseases to have multiple cause factors. So to me, that autism has a genetic component is to be expected. Why does it need to be proved? I would be surprised if autism did not have a genetic component. So I don't know what the big deal is, a study proves that there is a genetic component. Let's imagine that a study comes out that proves that strength of bones has a genetic component. Would this put a stake thru the theory that broken bones are caused by slipping on ice? If the genetic component is the only cause factor of autism, then that would imply that the gene that causes it increased 78% in the last 10 years. Is that possible? Did people with autism produce 78% more children than average in 10 years? 78 percent increase in childhood autism rates over past decade
  23. Even better than that, after they solve all the problems and get the price down, will be the nanotech capacitor. It will store about a hundred times as much energy as batteries of the same size.
  24. About autism: Perhaps it is best to -not- do the research to find causes of autism. You might find what you are looking for. Autism Triggered by Mercury Poisoning | Dr David Ayoub 58:43 [1 of 2] The Global Vaccine Agenda - Mercury & Autism 1:31:17
  25. Obviously this video is an April 1 joke. April Fool's Day came a little late, April 13, 2005, according to the time on the video itself, not the description. PENTAGON BRIEFING ON REMOVING "The God Gene" video 4:16 The speaker is talking about using a virus to cure people of religion. If everybody in the Muddle East was cured of religion, then there wouldn't be any Muslims or Jews or Christians or any other religious people and there wouldn't be any religion to fight about. If it ain't an April Fool's joke, then it's a conspiracy theory and we all know that all conspiracy theories are false. Alex Jones takes this April Fool's joke seriously and says the virus eats your brain.