Cancer and other Cures Frustrated by Rockefellers and the FDA *vid*

For more on how these tax-exempt foundations have corrupted our country with money gifted from us go here.
For another youtube expose of the FDA, go here 

For the extensive video gallery of the Rockefellers and their co-conspirators go to bottom of this post.

 

Published on Mar 12, 2014

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: As Americans fret about the Obamacare website and wonder how the country became enslaved to the high.

The modern day mainstream medical industry has a dubious history, deeply rooted by a drive for profit through the subversion and suppression of non-profitabl.

Alex Jones Radio show 5th of January 2009 broadcast. Dr. Russell Blaylock talks to Alex about the Rockefellers and their eugenics programs and how it all cam.

Part of a Eustace Mullins interview by wa5dxp, May 22, 2005.

Global Sciences Congress, December 1, 1990, Tampa, Florida.

An exploration of the mission and history and an overview of some current research underway at The Rockefeller University Hospital. The Hospital, which is ce.

How ROCKEFELLER ruined our Medical industry, hiding a simple cure for ALL diseases, even terminal cancer, for nearly free and no danger -- contrary to Corbot.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

The good folks at Natural News put together this short - but extremely revealing - video about the origins of both the American Medical Association and the n.

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to s.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

This is a video of the Rockefeller Estate. It is the home that John D. Rockefeller, the nations first billionaire, called Kykuit - dutch for lookout, because.

Rockefeller was used to tough situations from a young age. Watch his story in The Men Who Built America exclusively on HISTORY (Sky 529, Virgin Media 234, BT.

Rockefeller University cell biologist Ralph M. Steinman, who discovered the immune system's sentinel dendritic cells and demonstrated that science can fruitf.

David Rockefeller, youngest son of the late John D. Rockefeller Jr., discusses his new book, Memoirs, with UCSD history Professor Michael E. Parrish. Serie.

Quelle: The Rockefeller Medicine http.

Eustace Mullins in the Bobby Lee Show in 1992 on the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly and the matching cancer industry, the profits of cancer, death and vaccinat.

This is one of the Billionaires mentioned who decide who lives and who dies, pay attention to what he is saying and why.

Voices for National Service and ServiceNation, in partnership with AmeriCorps Alums, have launched the I Serve Because. Video Contest. This is why I serv.

7 minute vid starts out at President Garfield's monument and tomb. Then we parked and walked up to the Rockefeller family plot.

Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV gave an opening statement at the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on June 26, 201.

Les Rockefeller - 1l3.

 

This is the video gallery of subversive activities of the Rockefellers and their agents.

Search Tells You If, When, and How Much YOUR Doctor Was Paid by Big Pharma

on 4 March, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Is your doctor on the payroll of the mega pharmaceutical companies? If you want to find out if your doctor’s aggressive push for Viagra could be stemming from financial interests, there’s a government website that can do just that.

The Open Payments Data website presented by the government reveals to you the depths to which your personal care provider could be controlled by Big Pharma’s institutions. From physicians to teaching hospitals, you can even identify the company making payments.

Is your doctor on the payroll? This is a really awesome tool to tell whether or not your current or perspective healthcare providers are hiding their vested interests.

Watch also: John Oliver Exposes The Outrageous Practices Of Big Pharmaceutical Companies

Source theglobalelite

FDA is Hiding 22 Fraudulent Falsified Studies from the American Public

Were you of the understanding that Congress had Oversight over the FDA?

Posted by: Stephanie Vick, staff writer in Science News February 24, 2015 

(NaturalHealth365) Professor Charles Seife of the Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism at New York University recently uncovered some disturbing evidence about the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This information came to light when he made a Freedom of Information request earlier this year. 

When Seife received his information, he learned that 22 clinical trials submitted to the FDA were falsified, and the results of these falsified trials were not revealed to the public.

With his students assisting him, Professor Seife compared the FDA’s actions regarding these trials against information on them in peer-reviewed studies. The results of Seife’s investigation were recently published in the online journal, JAMA Internal Medicine.

The FDA is keeping the public in the dark about scientific fraud

When clinical trials are found to have violated proper practices or to have been falsified, the FDA takes regulatory action against those conducting the trials. 

When this is required, paperwork regarding the trials is traditionally marked as “official action indicated (OAI).”

Seife’s investigation revealed that 57 trials received the OAI indicator for everything from bad record keeping (35 studies) to actual falsification of results (22 studies). The affected trials took place between 1998 and 2013. The FDA never informed the public of these findings or of any actions taken against the facilitators of the studies.

How could the FDA allow falsified studies to be published?

While the FDA did take ‘official action’ against clinical trial facilitators who falsified results, they allowed the results to be published. No retractions for these falsified results were ever required. Studies with blatantly falsified results remain in medical journals, misleading other researchers as well as the public about the truth.

It is no longer a ‘secret’, the FDA has violated the public trust.  This is the same organization that refuses to label seafood that has mercury – a known neurotoxic (heavy metal) substance; allows the deadly (artificial) sweetener aspartame to be sold in food products and gives its approval to drugs that cause harm.

By allowing falsified results of clinical trials to remain in publications with no retractions required, the FDA is violating the public’s trust. The public has a right to expect transparency from the FDA, as the health and safety of America’s people depend on it.

Professor Seife has stated that the FDA seldom takes any action to make sure falsified study results are corrected in the medical literature, even when it finds significant departures from good study practices. And, the only reason why the FDA has not been taken down is because the federal government, its regulatory agencies and the U.S. legal system work together to protect corporate interests – while minimizing its exposure to lawsuits.

The evidence is clear: The FDA does not care about public safety

When the FDA does NOT retract inaccurate and/or falsified research projects – this indicates a clear violation of their duties and obligations – both morally and professionally. In fact, the actions of the FDA are criminal – by NOT making every (reasonable) step to protect the population.

And, just in case you have any doubt how bad this organization really is – consider this quote from a credible source:

“The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.” – Herbert Ley Jr., M.D., former Commissioner of the FDA.

The FDA consistently acts as the ‘protector’ of drug company profits and supports the monopoly-control that the pharmaceutical industry has over the world.  Not only does the FDA hide fraud, they actually censor quality health information from getting into the public domain. 

In fact, here are several examples of how the FDA deliberately withholds lifesaving information from the general public:

• Between 1992 and 1996, the FDA prohibited companies that sell folic acid from telling women of childbearing age that .4 mg of folic acid daily before pregnancy could reduce the incidence of neural tube defects (including spina bifida and encephaly) by 40%. FDA’s censorship contributed to a preventable 10,000 neural tube defect births.
• Between 1994 to 2000, the FDA prohibited companies that sell omega-3 fatty acids from telling Americans that those fatty acids found in fish oil could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by as much as 50%. FDA’s censorship contributed to a preventable 1.8 million sudden death heart attacks.
• Between 2000 and the present, FDA prohibits companies that sell saw palmetto extract (the fruit of the dwarf American palm tree) from telling Americans that saw palmetto reduces enlarged prostates and relieves related symptoms. Approximately 50% of all men age 50 and older suffer from enlarged prostates and are denied access to this information.
• Between 2000 and the present, FDA prohibits companies that sell glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate from telling Americans that those dietary ingredients treat osteoarthritis and relieve osteoarthritic pain and stiffness. Approximately 20 million Americans suffer needlessly from osteoarthritis.

This criminal behavior must be stopped. Without the correct information, other researchers, as well as the general population, are being misled and allowed to go down roads regarding their own studies, health and wellness practices – that lead to nowhere, or eventual harmful outcomes.  The FDA has broken public trust; acted without regard to public safety and must be held accountable for their actions.

References:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/289167.php

http://www.smnweekly.com/fda-possibly-hidden-22-fraudulent-clinical-trials/15039

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2109855

http://www.stopfdacensorship.org

Source via naturalhealth365

CNN IS LOBBYING FOR FORCED VACCINATIONS!

They are essentially advocating for the government to takeaway your right to your own body and children!

CNN IS LOBBYING FOR FORCED VACCINATIONS! This is scary. They are essentially advocating for the government to takeaway your right to your own body and children!

To do that CNN is using the fear tactic to scare people into more business for pharmaceutical companies. JUST COUNT HOW MANY DRUG COMMERCIALS YOU WILL SEE ON CNN TODAY ALONE AND TRY TO RECALL HOW MANY YOU’VE SEEN IN THE PAST. Remember Humera… Zorelto… and countless other drug advertisements that always end with a fast reading voice that talks about side effects which include nearly everything from diarrhea to death… How can anyone trust CNN now, when they are openly funded by the very companies that have the most to benefit from vaccines sales?

Let me be clear, while I do not deny that most vaccines work (so do steroids, antibiotics, hormone and chemical drugs, all with severe side-effects) I prefer to have the final say weather or not to have such drugs or chemicals in my body – NOT the government, the pharmaceuticals, even my doctor and especially not the CNN.

If any news networks or the government feel so strongly about vaccinations (that they are considering forcing people to take these drugs) then here’s my proposition.

Lets have CNN dedicate 5 hours of their valuable air time (or as long as it’s necessary) to have a national uninterrupted debate where the best qualified opposing sides will argue their case to the public. Then air this debate two times per week for two months to make sure most people in the nation are informed about this matter.

After which have a national vote on this issue. That would be a much more professional way of presenting this highly important matter to the public, especially in light of how CNN is doing this now through short 10 min edited segments, without any reasonable opposition and with media prosecutions as well as character assassinations of anyone opposing vaccinations. If that is not propaganda, I do not know what is….

So why I don’t trust vaccines? Aside from my personal research, because CNN is pushing them on to me in a propagandistic way. They are unprofessionally using media techniques that are clearly visible to me and that puts in question not just the content they are presenting but their objectivity, honesty and any benevolent intent (that I highly doubt CNN has).

My last suggestion is – move out of large highly populated cities and relocate into smaller towns, communicates and villages. Eat healthy foods, breath fresh air, exercise and strengthen your immune system. Above all educate yourself in all areas that interest you… like vaccinations. At the same time don’t become a hermit or seclusionist. Partake in your community, politics and business. Advocate for reason, transparency and openness.

Hey if that five hour debate convinces me that having 300 vaccines and chemicals is good for me I will be the 1st person in line to get them…. but lets have that debate… lets get all the facts in the open.

Here is a good place to start your research….


via Veteransnewsnow

The Great Generic Drug Rip-Off

December 15, 2014

Big Pharma has followed the only avenue left to reap billion-dollar profits: jack up the price of generics.

What happens when rapacious cartels run out of billion-dollar-profit products? They jack up the price of what was previously low-cost. And why are they able to raise prices by 388% to 8,000% at will? Because they can. That's the whole point in having a cartel that is enabled and enforced by the cartel's toadies and apologists in the central state (federal government): price increases can be imposed on the government and the private sector at will.

I was alerted to the extraordinary price increases in widely used generic drugs by Ishabaka (M.D.), who forwarded this fact sheet issued by the office of Senator Bernie Sanders: (Chart is reproduced below)

Staggering Price Increases for Generic Drugs

"Rep. Elijah E. Cummings and Senator Bernard Sanders sent letters to 14 drug manufacturers requesting information about the escalating prices of generic drugs used to treat everything from common medical conditions to life-threatening illnesses. Data was provided by the Healthcare Supply Chain Association (HSCA) on recent purchases by group purchasing organizations (GPOs) of ten generic drugs."

Here are Ishabaka's comments:

"I'd like to focus on the top one - doxycycline. This is a very effective antibiotic for pneumonia, bronchitis, and sexually transmitted diseases (chlamydia and gonorrhea). Throughout my medical career, it has been a cheap generic drug I used all the time. It's cost has gone up from $20 a prescription to over $1,600 a prescription in the last 12 months.

Low-income people used to be able to afford doxycycline, which would stop the spread of these serious, sometimes life-threatening infections. Now they can't, and there is no drug as good as doxycycline available cheaply. I think this is an outrage. Imagine if a generic bottle of aspirin increased in price from $10 a bottle to $800 a bottle in 12 months - Americans would be marching in protest."

Drug	Use	Average Market Price Oct. 2013	Average Market Price April 2014	Average Percentage Increase
Doxycycline Hyclate (bottle of 500, 100 mg tablets)	antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections	$20	$1,849	8,281%
Albuterol Sulfate (bottle of 100, 2 mg tablets)	used to treat asthma and other lung conditions	$11	$434	4,014%
Glycopyrrolate (box of 10 0.2 mg/mL, 20 mL vials)	used to prevent irregular heartbeats during surgery	$65	$1,277	2,728%
Divalproex Sodium ER (bottle of 80, 500 mg tablets ER 24H)	used to prevent migraines and treat certain types of seizures	$31	$234	736%
Pravastatin Sodium (bottle of 500, 10 mg tablets)	used to treat high cholesterol and to prevent heart disease	$27	$196	573%
Neostigmine Methylsulfate (box of 10 1:1000 vials)	used in anesthesia to reverse the effects of some muscle relaxants	$25	$121	522%
Benazepril/ Hydrochlorothiazide (bottle of 100, 20-25 mg tablets)	used to treat high blood pressure	$34	$149	420%
Isuprel (box of 25, 0.2 mg/mL vials)	used to treat heart attacks and irregular heartbeat	$916	$4,489	390%
Nitropress (50 mg vial)	used to treat congestive heart failure and reduce blood pressure	$44	$215	388%
Digoxin (single tablet, 250 mcg)	used to treat irregular heartbeats and heart failure	$0.11	$1.10	884%

The murky world of drug pricing is attracting some much-needed attention:

Lawmakers Look for Ways to Provide Relief for Rising Cost of Generic Drugs

For 30 years, generic medications helped make health care cheaper. Why is their cost surging?

What politicos and the mainstream media cannot dare state openly is obvious: the system of drug development and generic drug pricing/distribution is broken in the U.S., and the core cause is the cartel-like structure of Big Pharma and the rest of the healthcare system.

Though nobody in officialdom or the mainstream media can say this publicly, the reason for these outrageous increases is painfully obvious: As Big Pharma's stable of billion-dollar drugs slip off patent, their profit pipeline is weakening.

The pipeline of potentially billion-dollar-profit drugs (so-called blockbuster drugs) is thin. So Big Pharma has followed the only avenue left to reap billion-dollar profits: jack up the price of generics, and push the government to pay the outrageous increases via Medicare and Medicaid and force the increases on private insurers and providers. If we just roll over and accept 8,000% increases, we deserve the corrupt, rapacious system we have. 

via charleshughsmith

FDA Actively Blocking Fast Ebola Detection Technology In America

This one has a strong odor of Coverup cologne. 

Published October 20, 2014


By: J. D. Heyes

Common sense would lead you to believe that the U.S. government would be doing everything in its power, now that Ebola has reached American shores, to combat the deadly virus. But if you assumed that, you would be mistaken.

Most people don’t know that there is an Ebola screening machine; it is currently available to the U.S military, and the military is using it now. So why aren’t U.S. hospitals using it? Because government guidelines prevent hospitals from doing so.

According to military news site Defense One:
It’s a toaster-sized box called FilmArray, produced by a company called BioFire, a subsidiary of bioMerieux and it’s capable of detecting Ebola with a high degree of confidence — in under an hour.

Incredibly, it was present at Dallas Presbyterian Hospital when Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan walked through the door, complaining of fever and he had just come from Liberia. Duncan was sent home, but even still, FDA guidelines prohibited the hospital from using the machine to screen for Ebola.

Government bureaucracy preventing its use

The machine sells for about $39,000 a piece and is capable of screening for the genetic markers of a number of respiratory, gastrointestinal and other pathogens, and that includes the Ebola virus. However, it has to have the correct “kit” in place.

And right now, current guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration prohibit hospitals — including the Dallas hospital where Duncan was treated and where two of his nurses became infected — from getting that kit. “That’s despite the fact that it can provide results with higher than 90 percent certainty and it’s one of the machines that the military is currently using to screen for Ebola in Africa,” Defense One reported.

The FilmArray works by performing polymerase chain reaction tests to see if Ebola is present, based on a set of genetic markers. A company official told the military news site, “It will take the Ebola cells, break them open, expose the [ribonucleic acid] in the Ebola and match those with a target we’ve identified.” The device works using either blood or saliva samples.

A Utah-based firm that manufactures the disease-detection technology, BioFire Diagnostics, confirmed to Defense One that Texas Health Presbyterian did indeed have a FilmArray machine — for as long as two years, possibly — sitting on a shelf when Duncan presented himself to the emergency room.

But in order to use the machine, hospitals must agree to do so only for research purposes instead of actually using it to diagnose incurable diseases like Ebola.

What is the reason for this lunacy? The military site explains:

The FDA rules in what are called “research use only” machines are far more lax than for machines that must provide clinical diagnosis. According to representatives from BioFire, even after the FDA approved the use of the machine for Ebola screening and allowed workers at the hospital to acquire the proper kit for Ebola testing, a 10-20 day “validation” procedure would kick in before they could change the machine’s use from diagnostics to research — and the results would have to go to the Centers for Disease 
Control for confirmation.

Device used to diagnose first two American Ebola patients

Proper controls or just more inane government bureaucracy? It’s not as if the machine’s Ebola diagnostic kit hasn’t already been proven; after all, it is currently being used by U.S. troops in Africa.

To add further insult to injury, Defense One reported that FilmArray was the device used by medical officials at Emory University Hospital to diagnose the first two American Ebola patients, Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol (Emory is where Amber Joy Vinson, the second nurse to become infected by Thomas Eric Duncan in Dallas, is being treated).

In a recent paper, published in the journal Lab Medicine, the Emory medical team wrote, “Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based microbiological analyzer (BioFire FilmArray [BioFire Diagnostics, Inc, Salt Lake City, UT]) designed to detect a panel of viral, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic pathogens, many of which might be found in patients returning from a resource-poor region and might complicate care. Among other pathogen-specific markers, this instrument detects Ebola viral RNA, a capability that we believe could have value for monitoring progression of and recovery from Ebola infection in this setting.”

Learn all these details and more at the FREE online Pandemic Preparedness course atwww.BioDefense.com

Sources:
http://www.defenseone.com
http://labmed.ascpjournals.org ^[PDF]
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://science.naturalnews.com

Colloidal Silver: Natural Treatment for Ebola?

We must insist that the FDA, and their big pharma bosses and lobbyists be kept out of the development and 'approval' process. The FDA is corrupt to the highest degree.

---

Posted on October 25, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

In the News: Silver and Ebola

There is a tremendous buzz about silver and Ebola …
 
For example, a Google search for silver and Ebola turns up 25 million hits.   And the FDA sent a cease and desist letter to the makers of Nano Silver, demanding that they stop claiming their product cures Ebola.
 
Many people who are into alternative health are convinced that colloidal silver cures Ebola.  On the other hand, many mainstream people are positive it’s bunk.
 
Who’s right? What does the science show?

Can Silver Really Kill Germs?

Metal ions can kill germs through the “oligodynamic effect”. As Wikipedia notes:

The oligodynamic effect …  was discovered in 1893 by the Swiss Karl Wilhelm von Nägeli as a toxic effect of metal ions on living cells, algae, molds, spores, fungi, viruses, prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, even in relatively low concentrations. This antimicrobial effect is shown by ions of mercury, silver, copper, iron, lead, zinc, bismuth, gold, aluminium, and other metals.

WebMD notes:

Colloidal silver can kill certain germs by binding to and destroying proteins.

Science Daily writes:

Silver has been known to have antibacterial properties since ancient times.

Silver has been used for thousands of years to fight infection.  The father of modern medicine – Hippocrates – discussed the use of silver in wound care.
 
Before the introduction of modern antibiotics, colloidal silver was used as a germicide and disinfectant.  In the early 20th century, surgeons routinely used silver sutures to reduce the risk of infection, silver-containing eyedrops to treat ophthalmic problems, for various infections,and sometimes internally. During World War I, soldiers used silver leaf  to treat infected wounds.

 
Today, the World Health Organization includes colloidal silver as a disinfection method for providing safe drinking water in developing countries.
 
Many modern hospitals filter hot water through copper-silver filters to defeat staph infections and Legionnaires’ disease.
 
Silver is used to disinfect the drinking water in two space stations: the International Space Station and Russia’s Mir .
 
The Journal Nanomedicine published a study in 2010 – written by scientists from Harvard Medical School, MIT’s Department of Chemical Engineering, Harvard-MIT Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, the University of Waterloo’s Nanotechnology Engineering and Brigham and Women’s Hospital – showing:

Inorganic nanoparticles, such as gold and silver, have been shown to have anti-HIV activity in vitro …
Inorganic nanoparticles such as silver have antiviral effects or improve antiviral effects of other molecules, as in the case of gold nanoparticles.

Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, Hong Kong and elsewhere have shown the same thing.
 
Janice L Speshock and Saber M. Hussain – while at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (Hussain is still there as senior scientist; Speshock is now a professor at Wayne State Medical school) – documented that nano silver can inhibit monkeypox virus and Tacaribe virus.
 
They note:

Silver nanoparticles possess many unique properties that make them attractive for use in biological applications. Recently they received attention when it was shown that 10 nm silver nanoparticles were bactericidal [i.e. they kill bacteria] ….

And they point out:

Silver-containing nanoparticles have previously demonstrated antimicrobial efficacy against bacteria and viral particles.

(“Efficacy” is the scientific term for “how well it works”.)
They’ve also shown that silver nanoparticles have some effect on  Ebola …
 
Specifically, Cathepsin B – a type of enzyme which breaks down proteins – is an  essential ingredient for Ebola infection, according to studies by two different teams of American scientists. (But see this.)
Speshock and Hussain explained in a 2010 study:

Cathepsin B activity decreases in a dose-dependent manner with [both silver and gold] nanoparticles …

But Is It SAFE?

While alternative health folks claim that colloidal silver is safe, Speshock and Hussain caution that little is known about the risks of reducing these normal Cathepsin B cell enzymes which have important functions for our health.
 
Indeed, Dr. Hussain participated in a study showing that silver nanoparticles can decrease body weight and locomotor activity in adult male rats.
 
A study published last year in Critical Reviews In Microbiology notes:

There is little understanding of [silver nanoparticles'] interactions with microorganisms.

A Chinese team of scientists notes in a 2014 study published in the International Journal of Nanomedicine:

There is a limited number of  well-controlled studies on the potential toxicities of nanosilver, though these studies tend to suggest that NSPs [nanosilver particles] can induce toxicity in living beings. It should be noted that in vitro conditions are drastically different from in vivo conditions; however, longer-term studies and assessment of NSP toxicity must be conducted so that NSP exposure does not exceed toxic levels.

(A study published recently in the journal Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine found no significant adverse effects from colloidal silver.)
 
And even proponents of a daily colloidal silver supplement admit that it kills beneficial gut bacteria, as well as dangerous bugs. As such, even they say that you shouldn’t overdo it.

Putting It All Together: Colloidal Silver As a Treatment for Ebola?

The University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center notes:

Silver has been used as an antimicrobial agent for thousands of years – the Romans used to use silverware to reduce food and drink-borne infection.  More recently, nanoparticles of silver have been used in everything from food containers to socks in an attempt to imbue them with microbe-killing properties.

When used in the right way, the material certainly does exhibit antimicrobial properties. But there’s a massive jump from odor-resistant socks to curing Ebola patients.
***

 

The source of Dr. Laibow’s [the main person touting silver to prevent Ebola] optimism appears to be a 2009 presentation of research carried out by Janice Speshock and Saber Hussain at the US Air Force National Laboratory.  A Powerpoint of this presentation has been declassified, and is currently doing the rounds on the internet.

The presentation reports on research into the effectiveness of silver nanoparticles in rendering hemorrhagic fever viruses like Ebola ineffective.  The study was carried out using cell cultures, and a number of viruses and virus-like particles.  It seemed to indicate that when the silver nanoparticles penetrated into cells along with the virus in sufficient quantities, they were effective at preventing the virus from being active once the cell had been exposed.

While it is impossible to interpret research findings from Powerpoint slides alone, the data do suggest that there are some unusual interactions between silver nanoparticles and Ebola-like viruses, although there are no data indicating whether similar interactions are also seen with other nanoparticles.  More importantly, they do not indicate whether these same interactions would occur in an infected patient.  They also do not indicate the quantity of silver nanoparticles someone wold need to take to render Ebola ineffective, or whether the necessary dose to have an effect would cause medical complications.

This presentation builds on previously published research by Speshock and Hussain that looked at Monkey Pox virus plaque formation inhibition by nano silver.  Using cell cultures, the researchers found that nano silver and and silver ions were effective at reducing Monkey Pox Virus-induced plaques.  However, they also concluded

“The present study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the use, and characterizing the efficacy, of silver-based nanoparticles against [Monkey Pox Virus] infection in vitro. However, for nanoparticles to be used in therapeutic or prophylactic treatment regimens, it is critical to understand the in vivo toxicity and potential for long-term sequelae [i.e. complications] associated with exposure to these compounds.”

In 2010 Speshock and Hussain published research on the interaction of silver nanoparticles with Tacaribe virus.  The research – published in the Journal of Nanobiotechnology – indicated that in cell cultures, the presence of silver nanoparticles increased the cell uptake of the virus, but also suppressed its activity once in cells. They concluded

“Due to the known toxicity of Ag- NPs [silver nanoparticles] in many human cell lines, and the short time limit of efficacy following infection, the Ag-NPs would likely make a more effective decontamination tool as opposed to an in vivo therapeutic agent. However, if the Ag-NPs do indeed facilitate the uptake of arenaviruses into the cell and inactivate the virus prior to cell entry, further studies should be performed to determine if Ag- NPs can prove to be an effective vaccine adjuvant.” ***

With significantly more research, silver nanoparticles may have some role to play in preventing or managing infections.

But the research does not support clinical applications at this stage.  Even if there was proof that silver nanoparticles are effective in humans in suppressing viral activity (and there is not), there are critical questions over dose and delivery.

To be effective, there would need to be systemic uptake of nano silver within the body at doses that are sufficient to inhibit the Ebola virus, but low enough to prevent unacceptable harm.  Currently, scientists have no ideas what an appropriate dose is.

Even if they did, it is not clear how the silver nanoparticles would be delivered.  Taking the material orally – as would be expected of colloidal silver dietary supplements – is unlikely to be effective as silver nanoparticles dissolve in gastric juices.  Nanoparticle uptake from the gut into the body is also very poor.  Inhaling silver nanoparticles is likewise unlikely to lead to significant nano-silver distribution through the body.  Which leaves direct injection of silver nanoparticles into the bloodstream – not an option to be undertaken lightly with an unproven and untested nanomaterial.

Similarly, Live Science reports:

There is some evidence that silver has antimicrobial properties, said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
But as far as taking it orally as medicine, “silver has been tried in various other circumstances against several different infections with very limited effect,” Schaffner told Live Science.

[Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist and a senior associate at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Center for Health Security] noted that silver coatings on bed railings, catheters and endotracheal tubes can inhibit bacteria from colonizing those surfaces. Silver is also added to certain topical antibacterial creams, such burn creams, to prevent infection, he said.

But there’s no peer-reviewed evidence that silver could help a person infected with the Ebola virus, Adalja said. And if the drug were actually made of tiny silver nanoparticles, then the particles could potentially penetrate cells and “wreak some havoc there,” Adalja added.

The bottom line is that colloidal silver – like mannose-binding lectins – is a powerful substances which can kill many dangerous germs. But – like lectins – it can also cause health problems in the wrong dosage or form.
 
As such, I believe that more scientific research has to be conducted before we know whether colloidal silver is effective in the treatment of Ebola and – if so – what the safe and appropriate dosage is.
 
End notes: In an emergency – say, if one were directly exposed to Ebola – one would have to make his or her own decision about whether to gulp down colloidal silver as a desperate measure. 
 
I am not a healthcare professional, and this does not constitute medical advice.
 
Disclosures: None. I don’t work for – or have any investments or other financial interest in – any companies which sell colloidal silver or medicine.

Source

▶ Issues in the Economics of Medical Care | Timothy D. Terrell *vid*

Published on Jul 30, 2014

Archived from the live broadcast, this Mises University lecture was presented at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 25 July 2014.

FDA corruption news, articles and information

How Big Tobacco Has Made Cigarettes So Much Deadlier Than They Used To Be

By Tara Culp-Ressler  

June 23, 2014 

"How Big Tobacco Has Made Cigarettes So Much Deadlier Than They Used To Be"

CREDIT: Shutterstock

Fifty years ago, the U.S. surgeon general tied tobacco to lung cancer for the first time. Since then, additional scientific research has linked smoking with a host of other health issues, and efforts to publicize those harmful side effects helped spur a historic decline in the number of Americans who regularly smoke. 

Nonetheless, more than 42 million adults remain addicted to cigarettes, and the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that tobacco is still the greatest public health challenge of our time.

Why is tobacco still at the top of the CDC’s list? Why haven’t we moved past this yet? Largely because cigarette manufacturers have worked hard to keep their products relevant even in the midst of aggressive public health campaigns to crack down on smoking, according to a new report released on Monday by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The cigarettes sold today are quite different from the cigarettes that were on the market five decades ago, according to the new report, and that’s because tobacco companies have done extensive research to figure out how to make smoking appealing for new customers. They’ve essentially made it easier to get hooked on their products by increasing the levels of nicotine — the addictive chemical in cigarettes — and using new additives to help enhance nicotine’s impact. They’ve also added flavoring, sugars, and menthol to mask the effect of inhaling smoke, ultimately hoping that will make it more pleasurable to use cigarettes:

“Most people would think that 50 years after we learned that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, cigarettes would be safer. What’s shocking about the report we issued today is that we’ve found that a smoker today has more than twice the risk of lung cancer than a smoker fifty years ago, as a direct result of design changes made by the industry,” Matt Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in an interview with ThinkProgress.

On top of that, Myers’ organization notes that these corporations have made calculated moves to create the next generation of smokers, according to internal marketing documents from tobacco companies that have been made public as a result of litigation against them. Brands like Marlboro, Newport, and Camel have specifically worked to attract younger customers in order to remain viable, citing statistics that most regular smokers pick up the habit before they turn 18.

Most people know that cigarette makers have historically worked to target young people with their advertising. Indeed, before increased regulation attempted to rein in this practice, it used to be even more explicit than it is now. 

For instance, the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company infamously used the cartoon character Joe Camel to help sell their cigarettes in the 1990s, a practice that mobilized anti-tobacco advocates to fight hard against marketing aimed at younger Americans.

But the new report finds that tobacco companies have actually gone even further to woo teens. The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company didn’t just rely on its camel; it also looked to change its cigarettes to appeal to a younger demographic. “Two key areas identified for improvement were smoothness and sweetness delivery. Smoothness is an identified opportunity area for improvement versus Marlboro, and sweetness can impart a different delivery taste dimension which younger adult smokers may be receptive to,” a 1985 product development plan for the company noted.

“We would have thought, with the tobacco industry claiming they don’t market to kids, that they wouldn’t be making design changes that increase the number of our kids who smoke,” Myers said. “But they have, quietly and behind the scenes.”

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ report was released to coincide with the five year anniversary of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, historic legislation that gave the FDA power to regulate tobacco products and marketing efforts. At the time, that measure was hailed as the “toughest anti-tobacco bill in American history” — and Myers’ group wants the government to use it to undo some of the changes that have been made to cigarettes over the past several decades.

“At a very minimum, the FDA should act swiftly to require the tobacco industry to reverse all the steps they’ve taken to make these products more dangerous, more addictive, and more appealing to our kids,” Myers said. “I think this report tells us that the tobacco industry has not reformed over the last 50 years.”

via thinkprogress