I was an innocent UFO-virgin; until this particular Tuesday, 8.17pm, when I was prompted to check the horizon from my 5th floor residence:
 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lebh8bAY5B4

 
Can you see the faint lightship gliding majestically behind the top of the building in the center? You may have to maximize screen size & increase contrast (not brightness), in order to detect it.

It was across the clouds & was still circling @9 pm, when I proceeded for my daily ideation. By the time I finished @ 10.20 pm, they were gone.

They may have shown up earlier also; I do remember seeing light-forms rotating amongst the clouds in that neighborhood.

But most of them were due to a beam of light projected from the marina bay area & reflected from the clouds. And so I never paid much attention to them.

Others have also reported seeing both – reflection & this flying saucer – on earlier occasions & from different parts of Singapore, but assumed them all to be one & the same.

But this time I was urged to have a closer look at it, & as I stood there wondering what's going on, it was immediately & emphatically signaled to me that I was indeed witnessing an alien spacecraft.

This one was floating away from the Singapore coast – over the ocean, so there is no chance of it being just light radiated upwards from the surface below.

Lighthouses don't beacon skywards & long-range laser-works do not produce this kind of effect.

The fact that the integrity of it's light seeping through the clouds, remained convincingly homogeneous throughout the 40 minutes of this sighting, compared to the dynamic clouds around, makes it credulous enough.

There was not even a trace of any beam of light underneath it, throughout the sighting, as is sometimes visible, if it were a laser-beam projected from the ground. Aeroplanes do not lit up like a disc of light.

It was impressively giant in size & I, kind of, felt it's dominating presence, everytime it dazzled at it's brightest, as it passed behind the building's left side.

Since it has been so blatantly rounding up our skies – do you think it could be of human origin? National governments that have built flying saucers are hush-hush about it.
 
So what do you think 'they' are up to in this part of our world?

My friend Clara's comment "Well, the ETs have always been there waiting for us to notice them." spurred me into reasoning this:

Since the authorities won't acknowledge publicly & the fact that most people go by the 'official' version, the well-meaning amongst our 'space-brothers' want to make themselves a little too obvious to ignore, but not so much as to cause panic.

Correct me if I ain't, but the not-so-well-intentioned, amongst the extraterrestrials, have no reason to show themselves off to the general public.

"There is need for a world militia because there may be inter-planetary fight."- Shri P. R. Sarkar [1]
 

Amongst us, those who are clued-in, know that some of these alien baddies have been eyeing & usurping some of our resources for long; E.g. mining our Moon [2].


UPDATE on 18 Dec 2011:

Tonight @10.30 pm, I saw a light-show, in the same region of the sky. I had been looking up that area frequently since the sighting :

• This glob of light was criss-crossing across in a more regular fashion; mostly making the figure of '8'.
• It's movement was faster & abrupt – as from a man-made instrument.
• It actually looked like blurry light, reflected from the clouds.
• It was much fainter in strength, even though the night was dark. I recorded it with the same camera, but it came out too vague to upload online.
• Since the sky was only partially clouded – it was easy to make-out that it was indeed a reflection: it didn't last beyond the edge of the cloud.

So what do you 'reflect' in the 'light' of this observation?

• As I have hinted above, the assertions on the top, are not my opinion or interpretation.
  
  Logic was used as an afterthought, as a secondary aid – just to reaffirm & explain the finding – since that's the highest criterion, most people think, they can rely upon.
• This is not the 1st time I have come across 'higher-ups' deliberately making themselves, or their presence, contestable .
  
  Those who are limited by logic will collapse both the scenarios – lightship & lightworks – together. In other words it's an intentional ploy to which most of the regular folks will – & have been – falling for, far too quickly.
  
  This sighting is for those who don't.

So there's definitely something going on here. What’s your 'view' on this, buddy?

PS: These space-farers are so much ahead of us because so are their…  m—–v—.
(You guessed it!)

References:
1. Prout in a Nutshell, Part 18
2. The truth about the Moon

 
 
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." – Bertrand Russell
 
What's so intolerably awry about your alternative therapies?

It's not their being scientifically untested as allopathic snobs thump their chest about; their proven science is the one which is unproven mostly, as far as it's wherewithal to elementally solve a wellness riddle is concerned.
 
Over & above the 3 big gripes, wikileaked in the video above, others include:

1. Some horrid herbalists spike their fare with undeclared Rx drugs or other bogus unsanctioned analogs like [5, 8] :
   • Methyl testosterone,
   • Pednisolone,
   • Diazepam,
   • Chlorzoxazone,
   • Acetaminophen,
   • Phenylbutazone,
   • Indomethacin,
   • Hydrochlorothiazide,
   • Chlordiazepoxide,
   • Aminopyrine,
   • God-knows-what-else.

   
   So much for the umpteen 'herbal' expectorants, pain relievers, sleeping aids, mood enhancers, etc. [16]
   
   Some of their known reactions are [5] :

   • death,
   • convulsions,
   • seizures,
   • mental confusion,
   • coma,
   • sedation,
   • kidney disease,
   • cardiovascular collapse,
   • tremors,
   • tiredness,
   • weakness,
   • skin pigmentation,
   • mental deterioration,
   • agranulocytosis,
   • God-knows-what-else.
2. Numerous herbal formulations have been found to be contaminated with heavy metals [7] & toxic chemicals like camphor & methyl salicylate [5].
   
   E.g. 'Black pearl' & 'Chuifong Toukuwan' were found to contain lead and cadmium. 
3. Unwholesome quality of the raw material used [17]. What's listed & what is actually in there tends to differ as per neutral testing labs [22]. Like all other eatables, they also have their Tolerable Intake Limits.  
4. A number of them are laced with undesirable compounds used / needed to extract, process, bundle & preserve them for  unnaturally long periods of time.
   
   These include manmade fillers, coatings, conditioners, emulsifiers, pH controllers, binders, colors, taste enhancers, anti-caking agents, aromatics, etc. Most of these go undeclared. [6, 19] 
5. Inadequate & incomprehensible labeling information. Medical herb users donot always know or understand what they are putting into their body-works. 
6. Dehydrating &/or cooking burns away a varying amount of their utility for you.
    

Many herbs definitely benefit us; but…

… your body & mind are too convoluted a microvita apparatus to be sorted out by a bunch of shrubs while your 'healthy' diet & lifestyle remain the unsuspected crooks, openly plundering your wellness away [18].

So you gotta use these home remedies as part of a complete system to make the most of your money & effort.

You need an elaborate well-formulated plan that flat-out destroys the causal culprits behind your sickness or limitation.

Wouldn't such a combined alternative modality be a sounder alternative to single alternative therapies?
 
 
Have you been living this lie? :
 
A medical report from the 'Coalition for Nursing Home Reform' states that at least one-third of USA's 1.6 million nursing home residents are suspected to be suffering from malnutrition and dehydration, which hastens their demise [14].

It also mentions that 400% more of these malnourished residents die as compared to the better nourished ones [14].

This is true for practically everyone, including the most ardent supplement-addicts, because they are waging through several nutritional asymmetries, unless one has been living off a pristine forest.
 
Even the AMA once let through a report that 80% of all disease and degenerative conditions are due to stress and poor nutrition.[26]
 

But one of the lingering urban legends is that allo-pathetic Doctors have something useful to say about nutrition and health.

These poor chaps were rushed through mere 10 dodgy days of outdated, largely inconsequential, mis-education on food & diet during their 4 years of allopathic indoctrination! [9, 10, 11]

Even the rest of the medical doctrine of that budding Dr. was doctored by non-doctors.

No wonder they remain embroiled in nutritionally impoverished practices like:

1. Prescribing artificially assembled minerals & vitamins; & that also only when the malnourishment of that particular mineral or vitamin can't be ignored anymore.
   
   For e.g. in case of anemic blood, they have no choice but to prescribe iron; but they do that without taking into account the rest of the factors needed to put that iron into good use.
   
   What's wrong with altering the diet to organically source all the iron your blood cells need alongwith the requisite synergists? Who is going to keep at bay their antagonists?
2. All this while many of their prescriptions quickly deplete some or the other vital nutrient in your body [12], making you even more sick.
   
   As per Dr. Carlos M. Reyens, atleast 400 common drugs, including many OTC brands, are known to induce nutritional depletions by interfering with your ability to digest, absorb, transport, metabolize, synthesize, utilize & excrete vitamins & minerals [12].

   E.g. –

   • Oral contraceptives contravene your: Vitamin B2, B3, B6, B9, B12, C, magnesium, zinc, tyrosine. [12]
   • Antacids are anti-: Vitamins A, D, E, K, B1, B9, B12, chromium, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, phosphorus. [12]
   • Statins steal away: CoQ10 [31]…
   • Anti-ulcer drugs usurp your: Vitamins B1, B9, B12, D, iron, zinc, calcium, selenium, protein [12].

   Similarly -

   • anti-inflammatory drugs,
   • diabetes meds,
   • anti-depressants,
   • estrogen replacement therapy,
   • high BP / anti-hypertensive drugs,
   • other cholesterol lowering / anti-lipid drugs,
   • anti-convulsants &
   • anti-biotics

         are known plunderers of your nutritional wealth.

   For instance, B6 shortage is found in people decrepit with [12] :

   • depression,
   • anxiety,
   • decreased libido,
   • impaired glucose tolerance,
   • low serotonin,
   • low melatonin,
   • high homocystiene…

And hence over-relying on randomly applied natural or allopathic remedies, while ignoring the essentials of diet & lifestyle, leaves the original reasons of a physical or psychological disorder intact. [3]

To add insult to your injury, many of the inanely popularized 'health foods' inflict additional atrocities due to the bad microvita ensouled in them.

One of the reasons people fall-in for herbs is because of the apparent convenience of popping in herbals pills or potions on-the-go & assuming they have done their job .

"You can trace every sickness, every disease, and every ailment to a mineral deficiency." – Linus Pauling; Nobel Prize winner, twice.

That's not entirely true but the fact remains that most probably you are yet to introduce yourself to the neoscientific fundaments of food & lifestyle. They trump other treatments, even those from the saner alternative domain.

Ideally your food, lifestyle & other natural cures should work together to defend you from the double barrel attacks of miserable microvita & allopathic misery.

So before rushing in for herbals or other alternatives, you may want to inquire if your body is really well nourished with foods carrying significantly more of benign microvita rather than the offensive ones?

Or, like many others, are you also expecting some natural therapy to magically takeover the daily job of your internal organs?

Such stop-gap manipulations, if followed exclusively, will only deteriorate your health in time, if you donot sort out your diet & lifestyle asap.
 
Can folk medicine & naturopathic botanicals ever be a replacement for appropriate life-sustaining foods?

Can alternative treatment ever be an alternative to essentially comprehensive nutrition?

Your microvita machine needs it's biofuel more than the lubricating oil.
 

And so how much can all these mono-dimensional folk medicines help, when your blood, bone marrow, brain, DNA, skin, kidneys, spleen, liver, joints, hair, lungs, muscles, glands, etc. …

  … are not even getting the complete range of over 120 nutrients known to be required by them in respectful measurings?

Perhaps you are clear by now that guzzling isolated man-made mixtures of random nutrients is such a glorious act of self-deception.
 

These rampant delinquencies of our professional experts agitated me enough into going about compiling the causative, contributing, aggravating, remedial & preventive nutrients behind 400 or so health & wellness mishaps.

Here's a bit of something startling I came across along the way:

1. Queer nutrients which mysteriously affect only one side of your body!
 
2. 25 ferociously supplemented nutrients whose excess is one of the causes behind as many as 190 sicknesses!

For e.g.
- Excess Calcium is convicted for 71 miseries.
- Excess Vitamin C attributed to 16 sicknesses.

Hence their mindless supplementation actually hurts you gravely.

3. This most eaten 'healthy food' implicated in over 127 illnesses!


And that was not even the warm-up. What I found was so astounding that I ended up with:

Here's what makes it your life-long reference guide:

CHAPTER 1 -

• Nail down the 6 steps to gauge the excess or deficiency of any of the ~120 nutrients.
  
  This is crucial because symptoms of different diseases usually overlap, & hence do not leave much clue about what's amiss.
  
  For example, insomnia may directly involve over 2 dozen nutrients.
  
• Take your 5 leaps to final prophylaxis.
  
• Adopt 2 unsung but credible ways to mitigate genetic challenges. (What?!)

 
CHAPTER 2 –  Get armored to tackle the following 74 chronic conditions :

• 14 ailments related to your Cartilage, Tendons, Ligaments, Spine, etc.
• 11 sicknesses of your Heart & Brain,
• 9 Circulatory problems,
• 5 Tumor types, 
• 7 concerning Insulin. Diabetes is not much about sugar!
• 5 related to the quality of your Blood, 
• 5 Liver & Weight challenges,
• 7 Lung related afflictions
• 10 other miseries  – in Kidneys, etc.

 
CHAPTER 3 –  Lists 130 common maladies related to :

• 19 Skin related issues : Will it help to avail all of the 30+ nutrients you require for healthy, naturally glowing skin?
• 6 Hair related issues : Is your scalp fertile enough to raise a lush crop with all the 26 +nutrients needed by your hair-roots embedded inside?
• 6 Eye related issues : Your organ of sight is intently looking for atleast a dozen nutrients in the food bowl, over & above the much parodied Vitamin A + lutein.
• 12 Dental issues : Want to source all the over-15 nutrients needed beyond fluoride, for lasting teeth & gums?
• 22 Digestive issues
• 17 Psychological issues : they can arise purely due to nutritional factors
• 14 issues related to Infections, Parasites, Allergies & Toxicity
• 9 different types of Aches & pains
• 10 Muscular troubles
• 10 General wellbeing problems : Would you like to cater all the over-35 important nutrients for hunky-dory DNA sustenance?

 
CHAPTER 4 – 28 Women's health issues

• 5 nutrients to boost Estrogen,
• 14 for PMS,
• 10 for Menopause,
• 12 Nutrients to avoid birth defects,
• scores others for Pregnancy,
• Lactation,
• Oedema,
• Ovarian cysts,
• Fibrosis, etc.

 
CHAPTER 5 – 12 challenges to Men's health

• 18 nutrients for Virility & Testosterone regulation,
• Long list of nutritives for your Prostate health, etc.

 
CHAPTER 6 – 22 Children's complaints

• 28 nutrients for higher IQ & others for
• ADD, ADHD, other Learning disorders,
• Speaking difficulties,
• Motor skills,  etc.

 
CHAPTER 7 – 8 Old-age problems

• Alzheimer's,
• Macular degeneration,
• Incontinence,
• Age-related Muscle loss & Fat gain,
• Parkinson's syndrome,
• Senility,
• Bad Memory,
• Lack of Self-confidence, etc. – Yes! our sense of self-assurance has an explicit dietary dependence.

 
CHAPTER 8 – 91 Miscellaneous afflictions of your nervous system, glands / hormones, other tissues. E.g.

• Peripheral neuropathy,
• Varicose veins,
• Piles,
• Warts,
• Wound healing,
• Excess Mucous,
• Tinnitus,
• Bad body odor,
• Dizziness, etc.

 
CHAPTER 9 – 37 Uncommon ailments

E.g. Vitiligo, Epilepsy, Restless legs syndrome, Swollen lymph node, Loss of smell / taste, Paralysis, HIV, etc.
 
 
CHAPTER 10 – Inhibitors & supporters for 45 major nutrients.

• There are approximately 5 – 10 synergists & antagonists for each nutrient you need. For e.g.-
  
  No matter how much Vitamin E you supplement, but if any of it's 10 antagonists are in excess, or the 10 synergists that help metabolize it are missing from your meals, then your actual Vitamin E utilization would be dismal, if not zilch.
• Their mutual ratio is also of import; For e.g.-
  
  A total of 9 vitamins & 13 minerals must proportionate vis-a-vis Iron, for it to get adequately metabolized in your body.
  
• Eliminate the 8 notorious anti-nutrients plaguing your lifestyle.
• Befriend the 2 compulsory facilitators of proper mineral uptake, which you need more of, now.

 
CHAPTER 11 – Practical insights like:

• 15 married couples amongst the minerals inhabiting us – they always work in tandem. Treat them as such.
• 2 polar groups of minerals politicking inside – one degenerative & other inflammatory, when excessive. Play them against each other to your advantage.

 
A lot of nutrients are needed in the right permutations & combination to drive back any bio-psychological sickness or roadblock.

No prescription medicine, off-the-shelf or MLM product can provide them all in a way in which they are meant to be consumed along with their synergists. MicroVita SuperDiet™ does that for you.

For instance, what comes across as a shortage of a nutrient may not be because it is short-supplied by your dinner & lunch, as presumed by default.

The nutritive might be there in full measure but it can still pass out significantly untouched.

And hence, instead of pushing more of it down your food-pipe, the correct approach would be to make it more bioavailable by -

• spooning in more of it's synergists as they are all part of one extended family;
• cutting back on it's inhibiting factors; listed in Chapter 10.

 
In the same way, when you suspect a nutrient impeding some portion of your wellness, just look into:

• it's level of intimacy with it's 'spouse' nutritive, as indicated in Chapter 11;
• it's relationship with the rest of the members of it's political party, as mentioned therein;
• the role played by it's social adversaries, highlighted above.

Thus there is an intriguing social dynamics going on between all the nutrients fuelling your life. Restoring their spirit of mutual bonhomie, is the purpose of this meticulously compiled compendium.

That makes it 1 of the 5 trusted mainstays of your MicroVita SuperDiet™ system.

By now you must have realized that the microvita doctrine is the canonical cornerstone of all healing sciences.
 

It starts with a neo-scientifically standardized diet. Get yours so: I am targeting prophlaxis from:     Email me the list of primary nutrients for my condition:

I have no alternative but to treat your email privacy holistically.

 
Ofcourse it's not just about the quantity, range & mutual proportion of assorted nutrients, because any given nutrient can come from either a food with suitable or unsuitable microvita.

With every 'healthful' meal you continue to supplant more of lousy microvita inside of you. They are the ultimate spoilers of your wellness & peace.

Other people following the same diet & lifestyle as yours, may not end up with the same entanglements in their wellbeing, as yours.

This is because they have other gridlocks forming within them as per their own unhealthy microvita permutations & combinations.
 

The internals of your body are permanently in a state of war between the 2 opposite genres of microvita. Most of the time we are oblivious of it as our life-supportive microvita competently maintain an upper edge.

But when things start getting out of hand, a.k.a. illness, then you better intervene. Like a Field Marshall who tactically organizes & leads the loyal microvita troops to victory, in one battle after another.

This compendium is the 1st section of that life-saving war-manual because it fortifies your 1st line of defense against their guerrilla attacks.

It also brings to your attention some of the explosive mines buried in the battle field. You have been stepping on them, on a daily basis.

 
You will not heal as much as you could & as soon as you can, until you begin eating those foods which have more of the right microvita constituents & ditch the foods which have improper microvita predominantly.

Otherwise you'll continue to increase the numbers of non-beneficial microvita within, instead of the beneficial ones.
 

Take these well-spun counter- measures in time to forestall their oncoming onslaughts as far as feasible: Gear me to fight off :     Email my battle vest to :

Your email privacy will stay well defended.

A sizable chunk of my clients take this up to proactively improve their performance in certain areas of their life. 

Whenever you did that for yourself or cured yourself of an unwellness, while undergoing some holistic process or natural remedy, it happened because the population of wrongful microvita in your body & mind, came down overtime.

Simultaneously, the community of rightful microvita grew bigger until they succeeded in overwhelming the rogue microvita committing those wrongs.

This act of rebalancing your microvita set-up may or may not have profited measurably from that alternative ‘cure’.

So by directly focussing on this microvita readjustment strategy, you can achieve faster & fuller recovery besides larger self-growth. Dismantle your aberrant microvita constructs while you can.

If your 'healthy' diet & lifestyle aren't supporting you satisfactorily on that front, then how much can stray traditional cures do?
 

Mark the words of Shri P. R. Sarkar :

"…the increased concentration of negative microvita caused by allopathic medicines creates many new types of diseases and due to this, two or three new diseases are presently being created every decade.”

 
MicroVita SuperDiet™ is structured like a generic formula. And that's why, it will be just as deployable against new roadblocks in your wellness & performance, in the future.

Now that you know all this, if you still rush for naturopathy solely, while not on MicroVita SuperDiet™,… as you please.
 

 
“The doctor of the future will give no medication, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.”
- Thomas Alva Edison.
 
 
 

PS: The blind leading the 'busy' :-
 

This work isn't for those who lap up to everything they hear from someone donning a white coat, whose main (dis)qualification, in turn, is also precisely the same – blind faith in allopathy, in the name of medical science

This is another reason why alternative health-care gives even more inconsistent & paltry results to these obedient followers.

Because they turn to nature only as their last resort, after allopathic denatutralization has stopped providing any relief; i.e. after their body has been wreaked too much; maybe beyond repair.
 

42 million people were found to be directly suffering due to allopathic medicines as per a survey in the US [24].

Up to 40 % of all patients may actually be victims of doctor induced (iatrogenic) illnesses. Generally, half of this 40% are from drug reactions [26].

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in US reported that drug overdoses killed 33,000 people in 2005 [27]. Most cases go unreported [25].

If diseases are due to a deviation from the microvita-driven nature, then to repose in your natural exuberance, you could start imbibing the full spectrum of the commonly overlooked health restorative elements 'prescribed' by the nature.

How many of the allopathic cocktails are natural? By design – none.


If the allopaths were getting all the nutritives required for proper functioning of their brain they could have understood the bankruptcy of their manipulations; unfortunately they went for some clinically tested branded pill.


That also explains why all these natural, & hence unpatentable, therapeutics remain “unproved”.
 
With no pot of gold at the end of this cosmic rainbow, who is going to put up the millions of dollars needed to conduct all the double-blind randomized medical trials required to flick regulatory approval?

And until then, administering these curatives will be persecuted as quackery.


As per Dr. Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D, who authored ‘The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis’, CCTs have become popular primarily for political reasons.

"It's used as a stick to beat alternative medicine with for failing to perform these trials. Since these trials are very expensive – it costs about $200 million today to get a new drug on the market.

The controlled clinical trial is really an instrument for limiting competition in medicine, and for raising the costs of medicines to the public." [28]

Synthetic medication or natural 'nutrication'? Fortify me against / for :    My email address:

Your email privacy precedes both of them.

 
References:

1. Herbal supplements that cause liver toxicity

2. Alternative Medicine Index

3. Liver supplements don’t seem to offer protection

4. Supplements and Liver Damage

5. A bewildering array of Chinese herbal medicines

6. Natural remedies that may be dangerous

7. Medical interventions that harm your kidneys

8. Some traditional Chinese medicines may cause serious side effects

9.  Lack of nutritional training for doctors

10.  Survey of Nutrition Education in U.S. Medical Schools

11.  Status of nutrition education in medical schools

12.  Drug Nutrient Interactions, What you Don’t Know CAN Hurt You

13.  Liquid in fish oil capsules interacts with foam plastic cups

14.  Malnutrition kills 108,800 people annually just in the US

15.  Natural Vs. Synthetic Vitamins : How They Are Different and How to Tell Them Apart

16.  The untold dietary supplement scandal

17.  Alerts and Advisories

18.  Before Taking Vitamin and Mineral Supplements…

19.  Taking Supplements Could be Hazardous to Your Health

20.  Safety Alerts for Human Medical Products

21.  US FDA Alerts on Dietary Supplements

22.  Defective supplements that were recalled when exposed

23.  'Microvita in a Nutshell', © Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha

24.  Food, Cells, Physical And Mental Development, Tattva Kaomudii, © Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha

25.  Death by Medicine – By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.

26.  The Allopathic Drug Racket

27.  “Reaction” American Medical News. January 15, 1996. Page 11

28.  'The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis' by Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.  

29.  Lawsuit Raises Fish Oil Supplement Concerns
 
30.  Fish oil supplements have organochlorines

31.  Are Your Drugs Depleting You of Vitamins & Minerals?

• "Controlled Clinical Trials" (CCT) or
• "Randomized Clinical Trials" (RCT)

                …used to trump up new allopathic medicines, appliances, surgeries, etc. :

1. Are not scientific
2. Cannot guarantee safety & efficacy of the new drug / procedure / equipment
3. Their results are often ambiguous and uninterpretable
4. Because of several other compounding problems like treacherous patient-to-patient & physician-to-physician subjectivity, they are not dependable enough to test out new modes of treatments [1].

Methodology: The CCT / RCT is performed on patients by dividing them into a "test" group and a "control" group.

The test group receives the new medication, surgery or other mode of treatment, while the control group receives the existing way of treatment or nothing at all, maybe a placebo.

Their purported scientific validity rests entirely upon two basic assumptions :

1. The groups are "homogeneous" : i.e., there are substantial biological similarities amongst the trial participants who are suffering from the medical condition being investigated.

   This allows us to presume that their bodies will respond to the new drug / treatment in a comparable fashion.

2. The groups are "generalizable" : i.e., their body's represent the biology of the entire population which is likely to suffer from the medical condition being investigated.

 
 
But till date not a single randomized controlled clinical trial matching this textbook definition has ever been performed because these theoretical requirements are practically unrealistic, to say the least.

But is that what they call science?
 
 
1. Non-existent Homogeniety: First of all there is no such thing as a "homogeneous" group. We are all unique; & when it comes to disease – the differences matter more than the similarities.

Therefore it is impossible to obtain 2 exactly identical groups due to each patient’s unique bio-psychological makeup. For e.g. their

• Sensitivity to the drug dosage & frequency
• Responsiveness to different methods of treatment,
• Severity & range of symptoms,
• Past history of illnesses,
• Prior treatments,
• Food habits,
• Lifestyle,
• Genetics,
• Mood, attitude, motivation,
• Toxicity level,
• Family & social support,
• Weather,
• Environment,
• Commitment to strictly adhering to the do's & don'ts; And honestly reporting back any non-compliance, etc.

There will always be many other unknown & inadequately understood factors involved.

Other trial corrupting variables include :

• Wrong selection of candidates
• Communication gaps
• Complexity of the technique
• Practicality of the test protocol (do's & don'ts)
• Observer bias : The varying ability & sincerity of the physicians in
  • Conducting the trial
  • Making observations
  • Monitoring patients
  • Their faculty of judgment
  • Tiredness
  • Whom did he/she checked just before working on the next person (referential bias), etc.

These uncontrollable variables irreversibly jeopardize the outcome of all so-called controlled clinical trials. And hence CCTs can not be relied upon.

So how much of a science was that?
 

2. Absence of Repeatability:

One study showed that there was no correlation between the estimates of one physician and that of another. How can a matter of opinion be passed around as sound science?
 
Given the person-to-person biodynamics mentioned above, the positive results, if any, are difficult to reproduce in another group at some other time & place.

Now, was that science?
 
 
3. Little / unreliable Measurability:

• All physical ailments have a psychological footprint & vice versa. The feelings cannot be measured… yet.
• As for the bio-physical components, a lot remains undiscovered; so forget about measuring them.
• Even in the known bio-chemistry, not everything can be measured properly.

How valid is an experiment if the raw data collected is not even adequately measureable?

Shall we still call it science?
 
 
4. Unacceptable Precision:

A proper scientific study starts by precisely defining the objects or phenomena to be studied. But continuing from the above line of arguments -

• There are biological parameters that are measurable to a varying degree, but many of them do not exhibit a consistent level of preciseness.
• Instruments from different manufacturers have been found to yield different readings for measurements made on the same patient at the same time.
• Even the machines made by the same manufacturer tend to show variance due to -
  • sensitivity deterioration due to aging,
  • model-to-mode design changes,
  • upkeep & maintenance problems.
  • scale mis-adjustments,
  • wrong way of usage, incompetency, etc.

This means that a decent amount of accuracy is not achievable in an allopathic clinical trial of living beings – more so humans; then how can we call it a science?
 
 
5. Lack of Generalizability / representativity:

When experimenting with animals or chemicals, one can choose what species or compounds he/she wants, but then it comes to humans, they are ones who decide whether to participate in a trial or not.

So how can the test results be extrapolated for all of us, because the samples themselves are NOT randomly chosen by the allopaths?

Those recruited for allopathic trials generally come from the -

• urban poor,
• prisoners,
• military recruits,
• impoverished students looking for a quick buck or
• those who are already hospitalized;

 
     … hardly anyone from -

• the affluent classes,
• those with minor symptoms or
• those who prefer alternative therapies.
• Young women & old folks are generally under-represented.

Thus any results obtained with those 2 sample groups are not transferable to the rest of the people suffering from that particular disease in question because -

• The trial participants do not constitute a statistically valid selection. They do not represent us. They are merely examples of a large population that cannot be narrowly specified.
• Results of "random sampling" can not be uniformly applied to each & every one, biomedically speaking.
• Efficacy in expert hands during clinical is no guarantee of effectiveness in a typical high-paced real life encounter with a busy GP or under over-loaded / less trained paramedics in a crowded hospital [4].
• If a trial finds that in a study group of 1000 patients 70% respond well to treatment and 30% don’t, one may surmise that the therapy works for 70% of people 100% of the time.
  
  But the same data also imply that 70% people benefit some of the time; & at others times a totally different percentage of people may benefit.

Are we still calling it science?
 
 
5½.   Allopathy’s therapeutic paradox:

1. If the group participating in a clinical trial has low internal homogeneity it doesn't form a good sample for testing; as reasoned above.
2. But let's say, theoretically you do get a group with high internal homogeneity,…
   
    … ironically, it wouldn't represent the general populace truly which has such deep heterogeneity in their biochemical & psycho-physical ways of suffering the disease symptoms under study.

Thus, these two core conditions of designing a scientifically sensible clinical trial are themselves in irreconcilable mutual conflict.

What kind of science is that?
 
 
"The CCT can never tell a doctor how a given patient will react to a given drug at any given time. The findings from the so-called controlled clinical trial are useless in one-on-one doctor patient interactions."
                – Dr. Harris L. Coulter; The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis
 
Independent reviewers found that about 85% of new drugs offer few if any new benefits – Dr. Donald W. Light [2].

The benefits of drugs & other interventions may be meager or last for a short while, but the harms are immense in the longrun [3]:

Drugs cause more than 2.2 million hospitalizations and 110,000 hospital-based deaths a year [2].

That's because these counter-health practices, make your body a fertile ground for all kinds of destructive microvita, which carry out the rest of your premature life-decimation or atleast compromise your wellness in other unobvious ways.

This only adds to the bottom-line of allopathic businessmen.

Even the lethal ones amongst the negative microvita entities are mostly intelligent enough to have figured out that they shouldn't kill their host immediately, lest they lose their source of physical subsistence & evolution.

That's why such human bodies stagger towards their occupants self-sentenced death penalty, executed slowly, over time.
 

Instead of the misnamed 'randomized controlled clinical trial', what about a 'customized integrated self-rejuvenation drive' for a change?

Think of the last time you prevailed over a health foul-up. Irrespective of the medication used, it was purely because you succeeded in raising up your bank balance of positive microvita above red.

On the contrary have you ever been on the receiving side of a hardy illness?

That happened because negative microvita from external sources like poor diet, lifestyle, allopathy, sick people, etc., had struck root & started flourishing more than the positive microvita occupying your bio-space.

Get your house in better order; may be you do deserve a cozier microvita ambience :

Which part of your body deserves a better science? 

 
Type in your email address to start bettering:


Your email privacy will remain in good order.

 
Or may be you need a slightly better diagnosis, without which you won’t land a better treatment.
 
 
References:

1. The controlled clinical trial – an analysis; Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.

2. The Risks of Prescription Drugs; Columbia University Press
 
3. The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs; Merrill Goozner; University of California Press

4. Dirty pharmaceutical tactics against dissenting researchers
 

PLAQUE (flickr. com/photos/euthman/1210 61911/in/set- 720575941 14099781/)

Atheromata, the deposits which are partially obstructing your blood circulation right now, started forming much before you were even 10 years old [2].

To minimize them, you may want to decipher each of the components of your arterial plaque, as enumerated below [1]:

1. Macrophages (a type of white blood cell / WBC) : a major component
2. Oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol : 2nd major component
3. Aggregated platelets : smaller amount.
4. Calcium : smaller amount.
5. Debris : smaller amount.
6. Fatty acids : smaller amount.
7. T cells : sometimes present
8. Connective tissues & smooth muscles : local elements.

From this list, only cholesterol & fats were singled out, on flimsy grounds, as the villains behind your  lifestyle disorders [7].

LDLs are produced in your liver to transport cholesterol to your peripheral tissues whenever they ask for it because they need it for valid reasons. But LDLs have been found in the blood even when the peripheral cells were not signalling for it.

 

WBC (image: wikipedia.org user:Arcadian)

Those who are unaware of the microvita theory may assume that these are just mindless “deregulated” molecules – as scientists call them – which stick-up here & there haphazardly, inside your arteries.

But that leaves behind more questions unanswered. For e.g., what’s the role of macrophages in this situation – after all they are a major component of all your plaques?

Probing further will uncover more of the fine microvita intelligence which is producing & driving all these molecules inside you.

For instance, pathologists know that these macrophages have scavenger receptors on their surface  which cause them to take up oxidized lipoproteins floating around & then embed themselves inside the extracellular matrix of your arterial walls as shown below [3].

By the time their life is over, these macrophages would have eaten several dozen LDL cholesterol molecules.

Upon death, their contents are released into their surroundings. This includes cholesterol, fatty acids & other cellular debris.

Their dispersion attracts even more macrophages towards the atherosclerotic plaque which enlarges your arterial clog. Overtime the older portions of your plaque calcify.

This is the real story behind the “saturated fat & bad cholesterol” blooper.

But why do your macrophages anchor themselves inside the connective tissues behind your blood vessel walls?

If they had shown up to perform their function as a debris remover then they should have carried the LDLs away.

Are we witnessing a new hitherto unappreciated role of your immune system’s macrophage phagocytes?

To understand what’s going on you may want to examine how the other inhabitants of your clogged arteries came about? Do these members just happen to be there?

1. The inner surface of your blood vessels is lined with a thin layer of endothelial cells which normally inhibit platelet activation.

But when this endothelial layer gets injured, your collagen, vWF (von Willebrand factors) and tissue factors from the sub-endothelium get exposed to your bloodstream.

2. Due to chemotaxis (release of cytokines…) & pathogens (if any), some of your WBCs (leukocytes) are attracted to the damaged tissues. These monocytes enter the arterial wall & become a macrophage.

3. Simultaneously platelets may be deployed to these sites of injury [4]. Upon contact with the collagen or vWF, these platelets of yours get activated & excrete calcium ions besides other stuff.

These excretions serve to clump together the platelets & temporarily plug the broken lining.

4. Thus a blood clot may form at the site of your internal injury. Fibrinogen is converted to fibrin during their formation.

5. The aggregated platelets secrete chemicals that promote the invasion of fibroblasts from surrounding extracellular matrix into the wounded area to form more of the connective tissue (scar).

Fibroblasts are known to play a critical role in all kinds of wound healing.

6. The damaged / infected cells may also attract T lymphocytes (another type of your white blood cell).

7. Once a plaque is fully-formed, your endothelium grows over it. These protrusions come in the way of your blood flow thus inviting further lesions. Once that happens, the story repeats itself while your mound gets bigger.

8. In some regions of increased macrophage activity, macrophage-induced-enzymes erode away the fibrous membrane beneath the endothelium so that the cover separating your plaque from your blood flow in the lumen becomes thin and fragile [5].

9. Over time these vulnerable plaques rupture, thus triggering blood clotting which further narrows your arteries.

If these happen to be large enough, blood flow in that artery will be blocked resulting in heart attack, stroke, peripheral vascular disease symptoms and other major debilitating events [6].

Many a times, why do cardiovascular occlusions follow intense bouts of cardio / aerobic exercises?

Because of the higher mechanical stress they may inflict upon your old plaques, especially those which may have softened by now due to the decaying junk inside. They are easy to burst open even by the non-stop stretch & release of the blood vessels induced by your regular 72 bpm pulse-rate.

Thus your plaques are your body’s best response to the bruises sustained on the inner surfaces of your blood ‘piping’. Macrophages act as a band-aid to repair these cuts & abrasions [7].

As observed, this mechanism has been getting invoked a bit too frequently, right from your early childhood. Can these be avoided or atleast minimized?

Obviously it has nothing to do with your intake of cholesterol or saturated fats per se, but can that be said about…  the rest of your diet? Or would you rather first marvel at the incredible group dance of cholesterol with the rest of your physical microvita?


References:

1. Fatty streaks

2. Kumar, Vinay; Abbas, Abul K.; Fausto, Nelson; & Mitchell, Richard N. (2007). Robbins Basic Pathology (8th ed.). Saunders Elsevier. pp. 348-351 ISBN 978-1-4160-2973-1

3. Macrophages are the predominant cells involved in creating the progressive plaque lesions of atherosclerosis

4. Platelets

5. Plaque

6. LDL Cholesterol

7. The Cholesterol Myths

Checkout what do you think this could be doing to your immune system – pushing it’s resilience to the brink…

Or go back to boost ‘your nutritional quotient‘ which is modulating your IQ & EQ today.

.

1. Free radicals provide a positive feedback loop giving you greater energy [1]. 
    
   When you exercise your muscles, more ROS (reactive oxygen species) are released… these free radicals may trigger production of more mitochondria, if need be. 
    
   Mitochondria are the power houses inside our cells.
2. Free radicals stimulate the release of adiponectin hormone which increases the insulin sensitivity of your cells. This keeps away obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, etc.
3. Free radicals also spur the expression of genes that tune-up insulin sensitivity. “Exercise increased insulin sensitivity only in the absence of antioxidants in both previously untrained and pretrained individuals.” [7]  
    
   “If transient increases in oxidative stress are capable of counteracting insulin resistance in humans, it is possible that preventing the formation of ROS by, for example, antioxidants might actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of type 2 diabetes.” [7]

Some other intrigues :

1. Most antioxidants pills & antioxidant drinks are just a repackaged cocktail of synthetic vitamins & minerals.  
2. Some antioxidant vitamins become pro-oxidant after their mutual chemical reactions; for e.g vitamn C in the presence of excess iron or copper [3].
3. During the manufacturing process itself some of these cheap forlorn vitamins get oxidized and hence no longer work as anti-oxidants.
4. One of the explanations of the ‘High Vitamin E leads to Heart Disease’ hypothesis is that megadoses of antioxidants turn into pro-oxidants.
5. “Antioxidants are not the magic bullets that the supplement industry would like consumers to believe”,  
    
   …said David Schardt, a nutrition expert with the consumer advocacy group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “They're not even necessarily benign.”
6. Clinical trials using supplements of vitamin C, E and carotenoids have shown inconsistent results implying that whole fruits and vegetables rather than the individual compounds they contain help in disease prevention [4].
7. Andrew Shao from CRN, Washington DC, argues that pulling a nutrient out of context and testing it in a clinical trial is ridiculous. “That’s simply not how nutrients work. They work in concert with each other”.[5]  
    
   “Antioxidants can play their part only when they are in their natural composition (with other necessary co-acting molecules in milieu), and it is unlikely to exert the same effect as a single synthetic compound or even when compressed together as an extract”.   
   
8. According to Dr. Erik Skovenborg from the Scandinavian Medical Alcohol Board, extracted polyphenols have poor antioxidant power as compared to those obtained by consuming natural antioxidant rich foods.
9. “Published findings tentatively suggest that antioxidant fruits and vegetables may exert health-promoting effects despite their antioxidant content and possibly due to other bio-active compounds” [7].

In simple words, it’s your intake of entire antioxidant food that benefits, alongwith related parameters, anti-oxidant supplements may actually harm.  
 
Also keep in mind what the NQ presentation briefly touched upon regarding the outdated reliance on mere “fruits & vegetables” as quoted above by the mainstream experts.  
 
That’s what they best understand. But just like other nutrients, known & unknown, MicroVita SuperDiet™ is ideally structured to supply all the antioxidants you’ll ever need to source from your daily meals :

Wanna beat free radicals 47.9 times better than blueberries do?

1. Your body needs –
   • The entire antioxidants list, not all of which have been pin-pointed yet
   • Full assemble of catalytic antioxidants
   • Both hydrophilic & lipophilic antioxidants apposite benefits
   • A nice spread of low & high molecular weight antioxidants
   • Different antioxidants that specialize against specific free radicals
   • Endogenous & exogenous antioxidants.

   There is much more to free-radical scavengers than the list above but do antioxidant superfoods cover all of these biologic territories?  
    
   MicroVita SuperDiet™ does.

2. While most free radicals in your body are derived from oxygen (ROS), some are also derivatives of nitrogen (“Reactive Nitrogen Species”, RNS), as influenced by your diet.

The food vendors keep on harping on the antioxidants in green tea, coffee, chocolate & blueberry but it seems they happen to gloss over a few pertinent facts …

1. Biochemist Barry Halliwell from the National University of Singapore has discovered that tea and coffee are also bursting with reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the form of hydrogen peroxide [4]. 
    
   “Every time you drink a cup of coffee it’s a dilute bowl of hydrogen peroxide,” says Halliwell.  
    
   The hydrogen peroxide is there because of the presence of the antioxidants – antioxidants react with oxygen in the water to produce hydrogen peroxide.
2. Chocolate’s ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) score (used to calibrate anti-oxidant strength) crashes down to 1/4th when you add sugar to it.Isn’t that the way it’s always eaten? 
    
   Same dynamic holds true for green tea, coffee, antioxidant water & fruit juices with added sugars.
3. Perhaps you already know how the over-feted blueberries fare against our humble beans. As per USDA, the ORAC scores for the same amount of –
   • Kidney Beans: 8459
   • Pink Beans: 8320
   • Black Beans: 8040
   • Blueberries: 6552

   Thus red bean has 29% more antioxidants than the hyper-sold blueberry; & at a fraction of it’s cost.

4. Not surprisingly, blueberries are commonly faked using synthetic colors, transfats and High Fructose Corn Syrup; which btw is made from genetically modified corn [6].  
    
   Enjoy your blueberry muffins, pie, scones, pancackes…
5. Since the internet & other media are flooded with commercially planted info – you won’t discover the really most powerful antioxidants on this planet, simply because they aren’t that glamorous.  
    
   Allow me to retain such precious gems for the picky subscribers of the free MicroVita SuperHealth research gazette

 
Got some email-address to trade in for those 12 uber-concentrated anti-oxidant foods that are 316% to 4699% more effective free radical scavenger than blueberry, besides being dirt cheap & easily available?  
 
After subscribing, wait for the relevant issue of the MicroVita SuperHealth newsletter. They are delivered in a sequence; 1-click unsubscription, anytime, at your call. Here’s my sanctified email privacy policy.
.  

References:  

1. The free radical theory
2. Antioxidant supplements might increase risk of diabetes
3. EDTA
4. The antioxidant myth
5. Synthetic antioxidants
6. The blueberry fraud  
7. Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise  
8. Vitamins and Antioxidants – Are they effective?  
9. General AntiOxidant Actions  
10. Free radical chemistry  
 

PS:  Incidentally, your free radical scavengers also play a significant role in anti-radioactivity – IF they meet atleast 2 essential criteria – which unfortunately are NOT much of a case with your current healthy diet.

Get clear on the finer points of trust-worthy anti-radioactivity preparedness, protection from the horrible side effects of chemotherapy, possible nuclear terrorism, etc.

Information is shared sequentially with the readers of the MicroVita SuperHealth research gazette. Email privacy policy.  
 
.  
Wait:  
 
Have they made you nutritionally superstitious?  

Tune-up your microvita cornucopia : antioxidant and cancer, antioxidant and skin,…  

Arm yourself with more sensible ways to kill unwanted germs lurking inside  
 
.

1. The highest concentration of cholesterol is in your brain.
2. Your cell-walls are water-proof due to cholesterol.
3. Your steroid hormones - cortisol, aldosterone, progesterone, estrogens, testosterone and their derivatives – are synthesized by cholesterol.
4. Your vitamin D is made from the cholesterol in your skin when it is exposed to sunlight.
5. It makes your bile which helps to digest fats alongwith with vitamins A, D, E and K.
6. It helps to converts carotene to vitamin A & absorption of minerals.
7. Within your cells, cholesterol is a precursor molecule in several biochemical pathways like that of intracellular transport, cell signaling and nerve conduction.
8. Cholesterol is deployed in the insulation membranes of your nerves.

Cholesterol is so widely used that all of your cells manufacture it;  3 to 4 times more than whatever you eat. Even if you don’t eat it much, your liver & other tissues will compensate for the shortfall by producing it.

(image: rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/lipoprot.htm)

So how come a -

• low HDL/LDL ratio is blamed for coronary heart diseases?
• high HDL/LDL ratio accompanies weight loss? [1]

First of all, does the correlation imply that your HDL/LDL ratio is the root cause? Or is it the other way round? When your diet & lifestyle -

• spoils your blood & it’s flow, it causes a low HDL/LDL ratio while pushing you towards a heart attack / stroke.
• reduces your weight, it results in a high HDL/LDL ratio in your arterial blood.

The main task of HDLs is to carry cholesterol from the peripheral tissues, including the artery walls, to the liver where it is recycled for other purposes.

Due to reasons we’ll visit in another post, overweight people are more susceptible to vascular damage & hence carry a higher risk of heart attack. Imbalanced HDL /LDL ratio is only a symptom of the deterioration.[2]

In other words, the logic can also be reversed, as in, your health condition impacts your HDL/ LDL ratio & not the other way round. Let’s not put your cart before the bull.

As per scientific evidence, it is just a possible secondary risk marker at worst, not the primary cause of coronary artery disease (CAD), myocardial infarction, atherosclerosis, stroke & everything else it is accused of.

In fact, many studies have found that even people with LOW cholesterol have an increased risk of atherosclerosis, cardiovascular illness & several other diseases:

1. In the Framingham Heart Study of subjects over 50 years of age they found an 11% increase overall and 14% increase in CVD mortality per 1 mg/dL per year drop in total cholesterol levels.[3]

2. In the Vorarlberg Health Monitoring and Promotion Programme, men of all ages and women over 50 with very low cholesterol were increasingly likely to die of cancer, liver diseases, and mental diseases (antisocial behavior, depression, suicide, etc.) [4].

3. As per the oxford journal [5] low levels of cholesterol were associated with 2.27 higher risk of non-cardiac death.

4. Other studies[6] also report increased death rate from different causes, cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s diseases, increased susceptibility to infections and other abnormalities when blood cholesterol was low.

5. Even people with low levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol & high HDL (good) cholesterol have suffered an increased occurrence of atherosclerosis & other cerebrovascular diseases [7]

On the other hand high cholesterol has worked out well for lot of people :

1. A study of elderly French women living in a nursing home showed that those with the highest cholesterol levels lived the longest (The Lancet, 4/22/89). The death rate was more than five times higher for women with very low cholesterol [8]!

2. A 2009 study of patients with acute coronary syndromes found an association of hypercholesterolemia with lesser mortality.[9]

3. Yale University researchers unearthed that old people with high cholesterol had half the number of deaths from heart attack as compared to their low-cholesterol peers .

4. Over 60 per cent of all heart attacks occur in people with normal cholesterol, and most of those with high cholesterol never suffer heart attacks at all [10].

“There is no such a thing as bad cholesterol.” – F. Batmanghelidj, M.D.

Cholesterol has been maligned so far due to faulty studies & many a times, deliberately so, to sell toxic cholesterol lowering statin drugs [11, 12].

So what’s the real source of injuries behind your ongoing atherosclerosis & artherosclerosis?

Is it high homocysteine levels as sometimes charged[13]? That may be just 1 of the risk factors involved otherwise why do high homocysteine therapies fail to reverse cardiovascular damages[14]?

Can anyone expect a mishap caused by your entire diet & lifestyle to be undone by just a bunch of isolated nutrients?

Revert back to What’s your Nutritional Quotient?

References :

1. Dattilo AM, Kris-Etherton PM. Effects of weight reduction on blood lipids and lipoproteins: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992;56:320-328.

2. Craig WE, Palomaki GE, Haddow JE. Cigarette smoking and serum lipid and lipoprotein concentrations: an analysis of published data. British Medical Journal 1989;298:784-788.

3. Anderson KM, Castelli WP, Levy D (April 1987). “Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study”. JAMA 257 (16): 2176–80.

4. Ulmer H, Kelleher C, Diem G, Concin H (2004). “Why Eve is not Adam: prospective follow-up in 149650 women and men of cholesterol and other risk factors related to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality“. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 13 (1): 41–53.

5. Stephen B. Hulley, MD, MPH; Judith M.B. Walsh, MD, MPH; and Thomas B. Newman, MD, MPH “Health Policy on Blood Cholesterol – Time to Change Directions”

6. S. Behar, E. Graff, H. Reicher-Reiss, V. Boyko, M. Benderly, A. Shotan, D. Brunner; “Low total cholesterol is associated with high total mortality in patients with coronary heart disease” for the Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention (BIP) Study Group

7. van der Steeg WA, Holme I, Boekholdt SM, Larsen ML, Lindahl C, Stroes ES, Tikkanen MJ, Wareham NJ, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Pedersen TR, Khaw KT, Kastelein JJ (February 2008).  High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein particle size, and apolipoprotein A-I: significance for cardiovascular risk: the IDEAL and EPIC-Norfolk studies“. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 51 (6): 634–42.

8. Cholesterol skeptics conference report

9. Wang; Newby, L.; Chen, A.; Mulgund, J.; Roe, M.; Sonel, A.; Bhatt, D.; Delong, E. et al. (2009). “Hypercholesterolemia paradox in relation to mortality in acute coronary syndrome“. Clinical cardiology 32 (9): E22–E28. (JAMA, 1994; 272: 1335–40)

10. In Praise of Fatty Foods

11. Elevated Cholesterol Levels: Cause for Worry?

12. Dangers of statins

13. a b c Lonn, E; Yusuf, S; Arnold, MJ; Sheridan, P; Pogue, J; Micks, M; McQueen, MJ; Probstfield, J et al. (2006). “Homocysteine Lowering with Folic Acid and B Vitamins in Vascular Disease“. N Engl J Med 354 (15): 1567–77.

14. Bonaa KH, Njolstad I, Ueland PM, Schirmer H, Tverdal A, Steigen T, Wang H, Nordrehaug JE, Arnesen E, Rasmussen K (2006). “Homocysteine Lowering and Cardiovascular Events after Acute Myocardial Infarction“. N Engl J Med 354 (15): 1578.

15. The Cholesterol Myths

Get back to your dietary roots.

.

Your honor

We all have been hoodwinked into subjecting ourselves to fallacious allopathic 'research'. Hence this class action suit against the entire cast of characters in the fray.

 
8 Main charges against the prime accused – allopathic drug industry :

They themselves [7, 8] -

1. Fund the study of their own new interventions
2. Design their own test protocols & rig the benchmarks

3. Pick 'suitable' trial participants
4. Analyze and interpret the resulting data

5. Decide which portion of the data to use
6. Draw their own conclusions after massaging the data

7. Choose whether to report it or not; & if yes, then which findings to report
8. Buy or bully all decision-makers in the allopathic scheme. 

 
Some incriminating evidence [1, 2] gathered:
 

1.  They finance the clinical trials of their own new interventions

Two thirds of all medical research is sponsored by the main accused these days [18].

As a pre-condition for providing funds to medical colleges, drug companies insist that they be intimately involved in all aspects of their research [13].

85% of the industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes, as compared to 50% for government-funded trials – a tell-tale sign of selective reporting & result manipulation [6].

 
2.  They design their own test protocols & rig the benchmarks

For example,

1. They select which earlier drugs or procedure to compare the new findings with; if at all [17].
2. By testing against a placebo's instead, they can totally get away from having to prove that their new mode of treatment is better than an existing competitive treatment [13].
3. The new drug may be compared with another drug administered at such a low dose that their drug looks more effective [13].
4. They may manipulate the conditions under which their new intervention is tested.

   For e.g. the control group may be in an advanced stage of the disease while the test group may be having only a mild form of the disease [22].

5. They may space out their poisonous dosages to hide the problematic side effects [22].

 
3.  They pick 'suitable' trial participants as per their own criterion

For e.g. -

• Elder folks are the biggest consumers of pharmaceuticals yet, in a review of medical trials, researchers at the University of Michigan discovered that just one in five included them [23].

  This is because young people are less likely to display the full range & severity of side effects [13] during the limited time-period of an allopathic test.

• The size of test participants is usually not large enough to discover all the harmful effects of a new intervention [19].

 
4.  They either conduct the trials themselves or control it tightly

• Constrained by contractual publication restriction agreements with their sponsoring drug company, researchers have been forced to publish fraudulent reports based on partial data [16].
• If the data obtained by a clinician is not supportive of the drug being investigated, they take their trials elsewhere until satisfactory results are wrung out.
    – Dr Judith Jones, Director of the Division of Drug Experience, FDA.
• The commercial drug-testing firms hired by the drug manufacturers just do the bidding of their paymasters [19]:
  • Dead people were listed as subjects of testing.
  • People reported as subjects of testing were not in the hospital at the time of tests.
  • Patient consent forms bore dates indicating they were signed by the subjects after the subjects died .
  • Patients who died, left the hospital or dropped out of the study were replaced by other patients mid-way through the test, & without updating the records.

"Yet most drugs that people take have been evaluated, for the most part, by the companies that produce them – Dr. Brett Thombs, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research [24].
 
 
5.  They decide which portion of the resulting data to use

• Unfavorable research results are deliberately & systematic suppressed [14, 19].
   
  For e.g. irregular heart beat cost tens of thousands of lives, because early signs of dangerous adverse effects were deliberately kept hidden [11].
• Clinicians are pressured into keeping quiet about them [38].
• "Data fabrication is so widespread", says Dr Braithwaite, "that it is called 'making' in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, 'graphiting' or 'dry labelling' in the United States."
          – Dr John Braithwaite, Trade Practices Commissioner [19].

 
6.  They draw their own conclusions after massaging the data

• "in 40% to 60% of studies, results had either been completely omitted or analyses changed" [11].
• "In this way study results are often presented in a more positive way than is actually the case"
        – Beate Wieseler, Deputy Head of German Institute for Quality and Efficiency (IQWiG) in Health Care's Drug Assessment Department.
• One common way to give a positive spin to a negative result is by shifting the focus from the drug's intended effect to a secondary effect that can highlighted more favorably after cooking the findings [3].
• On the other hand, the risks are systematically underestimated [12].

The difference between many of the drugs that are assumed to be effective and a placebo is too small to be of any clinical significance [13].

7.  They choose whether to report a trial or not; & if yes, then which conclusions to report

• WHO recommends that all human trials must be registered to pre-empt the 'publication bias' of reporting only the favorable ones [4].

  But several independent studies have unearthed that ~50% of these results never make it to any publication – blatantly hiding their unmentionable 'side-effects' [5, 9].

  636 participants died in 22 such unpublished trials [10], in one such incident.

• The reported results are frequently found to differ from officially registered outcomes [5].
• Positive results, if any, are repeatedly published in slightly different forms [14]

This reporting bias has been spotted in all organs of allopathy –

• pharmacological,
• surgical; e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy,
• diagnostic; e.g. ultrasound, and
• preventive interventions; e.g. cancer vaccines [12].

Some of the health conditions where in research has been fudged are –

• depression,
• bipolar disorder,
• schizophrenia,
• anxiety disorder,
• attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,
• Alzheimer's disease,
• pain, migraine,
• cardiovascular disease,
• gastric ulcers,
• irritable bowel syndrome,
• urinary incontinence,
• atopic dermatitis,
• diabetes mellitus type 2,
• hypercholesterolaemia,
• thyroid disorders,
• menopausal symptoms (PMS),
• various types of cancer; for e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma,
• several infections; for e.g. HIV, influenza, Hepatitis B &
• acute trauma [12].

Favorable reports, often written by professional ghost-writers but officially “authored” by influential opinion-makers of the allopathic fairy land, are actively planted in medico journals [15].

Thus allopathic companies have misappropriated the making & dissipation of most medical knowledge [21]. What kind of solutions do you expect from them?

 
8.  They buy or bully all decision-makers in the allopathic ecosystem

Some shady practices that have come to light -

• Swamp the drug regulator with large numbers of incomplete, partial, substandard clinical trials. For example, in one study of 111 final applications for approval:
  • 42% lacked adequately randomized trials,
  • 40% had flawed testing of dosages,
  • 39% lacked evidence of clinical efficacy &
  • 49% raised concerns about serious adverse side effects.
            – Donald Light; Sociologist; Professor of comparative health policy at the University of Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey [21].
• If the members of independent scientific & ethical oversight committee do not fall in line [22, 8]
  • the dissenters are intimidated,
  • their career growth is obstructed,
  • their professional competency is publicly slandered by big-pharma's stooges in positions of power,
  • they may be demoted or sacked from their posts,
  • they are shunted away to some other responsibility.

   

"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. 

Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector."
- Prestigious medical journal 'The Lancet', April 2000.

It takes a lifetime to undergo the full impact of a foreign chemical inserted into a living being. But their annual balance sheet depends upon churning out more & more new drugs every year.
 
"Under this system it is impracticable to do tests extending over a long period to establish the range of usefulness and potential dangers from toxicity.. with a minimum of clinical trial, a drug may be marketed."
- Dr William Bean [20].
 
As per a New England Journal of Medicine study, one in four patients suffered observable side effects from the more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002 [6].

According to an AMA publication, drug related “problems” kill as many as 198,815 people and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions every year [25].

Standard medical pharmacology texts admit that relatively few doctors ever report adverse drug reactions to the FDA [6].

The reasons range from not knowing such a reporting system exists to fear of being sued.

Yet the public depends on this tremendously flawed system of voluntary reporting by doctors to know whether a drug or a medical intervention is harmful.  
 
Allopathic pinocchio's nose keeps growing longer alongwith the money in their hand; they'll continue to destroy health in the name of 'health care'…

  … unless their aficionados start seeing illness & limitation as a fight between friendly & unfriendly microvita entities.
 
 
With that, your honor, I seek your permission to subpoena the 6 felons of the main accused, for your just adjudication.
 
 
Accomplice No. 1 of allopathic field trials, captured live; put on trial.
Accomplice No. 2 of pharmaceutical research, counter-researched.
Accomplice No. 3 & 4 of allopathic treatment studies, countermanded to judicial custody. 
Accomplice No. 5 & 6 of the big pharma – hauled up; their day of judgement.  
 
 
Citations:
 
1. Research accountability and financial conflicts of interest in industry-sponsored clinical research: a review

2. BMJ-British Medical Journal (2009, December 1). Is it right for drug companies to carry out their own clinical trials? Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

3. Some Discrepancies Exist Between Outcomes Indicated In Trial Registration And Later Publications. JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, September 2). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

4. Public Library of Science (2009, February 26). Extensive Publication Bias For Phase I Drug Trials Found. Retrieved June 6, 2011, ScienceDaily.

5. Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation

6. Children’s Hospital Boston (2010, August 3). Drug trials funded by industry are more likely to publish favorable results, researchers find. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

7. University of Leicester (2009, August 20). Detecting Bias In The Reporting Of Clinical Trials Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

8. Science on trial: conflicts of interest jeopardize scientific integrity and public health.

9. Half Of Trials Supporting FDA Applications Go Unpublished. Public Library of Science (2008, September 22). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

10. Useful stroke trials left unpublished. BioMed Central (2010, April 22). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

11. Medicine’s secret archives Beate Wieseler, Deputy Head of German Institute for Quality and Efficiency (IQWiG) in Health Care’s Drug Assessment Department.

12. Reporting bias in medical research

13. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

14. Alison Bass’s book: ‘Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial’.

15. Flanagin, A; Carey, LA, Fontanarosa, PB,  Phillips, SG,  Pace, BP, Lundberg, GD,  Rennie, D. Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals. JAMA. 1998;280:222-224.

16. Chan, AW, Hróbjartsson, A, Haahr, MT, Gøtzsche, PC, Altman, DG. Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials. JAMA 2004;291:2457-2465

17. Gøtzsche, PC, Hróbjartsson, A, Johansen, HK,  Haahr, MT,  Altman, DG, Chan, AW. Constraints on Publication Rights in Industry-Initiated Clinical Trials. JAMA 2006;295:1645-1646.

18. Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni, P. Are randomised controlled trials in the BMJ different? BMJ. 2001 Nov 24;323(7323):1253-4

19. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. by Dr John Braithwaite

20. William Bean; 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection; Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS, Switzerland, 1989, p. 87.

21. American Sociological Association (2010, August 17). Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm, analysis finds. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

22. Dirty pharmaceutical tactics against dissenting researchers

23. Why so many people suffer side effects from drugs; Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 3, 2011

24. Conflicts-of-Interest Sneaking Back Into Medical Journals, Say Investigators

25. “Reaction” American Medical News. January 15, 1996. Page 11

26. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD

Taking to the witness stand now is accomplice No. 1 of the main accused: Esteemed Research Journals

 
“Anyone who trusted the reports about the benefits of -

• hormone replacement therapy, or
• COX-2 pain killers, or
• SSRI antidepressants, or
• atypical antipsychotics, or
• cholesterol lowering STATINS,
• hypertensives, etc, etc

      … because they were published in respected medical journals were fooled.

Even The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The British Medical Journal, not to mention the Journal of the American Medical Association, and …

… the numerous journals in psychiatry that lack even a modicum of scientific substance or objectivity – :all have published fraudulent and biased conclusions without substantiating data.

Medical journals have lost their authority as they became more concerned about 'bottom line' economics rather than accuracy.”
                     – Vera Hassner Sharav, President, Alliance for Human Research Protection [6]

 
 
Laying out the 11 charges against accomplice No. 1 :-

1. Conflict of Interest (COI):

1. 2 out of every 3 trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) are either totally or partially funded by a drug company – Richard Smith, MD [24].

   Dr. Richard Smith was editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for 25 years & has extensively exposed journal editors' unacknowledged significant COI in his book 'The Trouble With Medical Journals' [23].

2. Only 2 out of 29 sets of drug-trials released in high-impact journals even mentioned the issue of who funded the original drug trials & none mentioned whether researchers were paid by the drug industry [13].

   The rate of disclosure of conflicts of interest is as low as 2% – Warner TD, Gluck JP; Department of Psychiatry, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, USA [3].

   Why do the published drug trial reports routinely fail to mention that they were paid for by the manufacturer of that same drug? [9]

3. Published drug trials whose authors had a financial COI, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts [27].

COI can be in the form of equities, consultancies, gifts, sponsorships, paid engagements, travel grants, etc. [28] More & more, it is being done in a way that it’s difficult to catch.

2. Money talks:

Medical journals with allopathic advertising are more likely than subscription journals to recommend drugs [14, 19].
 
 
3. The whole research report may be paid for! – Not just the trial & ads in the journal:

Even prestigious journals accept cash payments from the drug industry to publish commercially-driven reports. [7].

The journals 'established' reputation drowns out any independent analyses contradicting these industry's sponsored reports that were designed to promote marketing goals.

Many of the articles published in medical journals, even the most prestigious ones, are little more than infomercials for the drug. – Dr. John Abramson [15].
 
 
4. Not quality, but quantity-driven revenue model:

Many of these reputed journals do not share their financials publicly even though they are granted taxpayers monies. What are they trying to hide? [8]

There is no transparency in reporting of conflict of interest by any of the reputed medical journals because publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations resulting in greater journal income through reprint sales [23].

According to Dr. Richard Smith, sales of reprint rights typically earns them a million dollars per article with 70% profit margin. And so journals do not divulge this financial incest [24].
 
 
5. Defective approval process:

Before publishing any new research reports submitted to them, they appraise it by 'peer review', where by it is critically reviewed by another competent scientist.

1. These reviewers work for free and hence cannot devote sufficient time and effort to detect misconduct. Especially given the fact that top journals are receiving an increasing number of submissions every year [18].

   And once a paper has passed peer review it is generally swallowed as holy gospel.

2. Peer reviewers' criticisms are only based upon the information submitted by the authors. It cannot detect fraud.
3. Publication of a paper only means that, in the view of the referees who green-light it, it is interesting and not obviously false [18].
4. Unless someone redoes the entire drug experiment, which generally last several years & costs a lot, there is no way to find out that the raw data was fabricated.
5. “peer review does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed the very test for which it is used” – Dr. Lawrence
   Altman [6]
6. The medical journals have outright rejected calls to make their own research vetting process scientific by conducting random audits & other sensible measures [18].

   This is because the allopathic research fraternity has vested interests in maintaining the illusion that "passing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval."
   - Dr. Lawrence Altman [17]

 
6. Fraudulent research is rarely retracted:

1. Once a fraudulent paper has been published it is very difficult to remove it because libraries all over the world are stocked with printed copies of journals that cannot be recalled.
2. Even from the online databases, they are not retracted by the journals that released them because [18] –
   • they are afraid “that angry scientists will withhold the manuscripts that are the lifeline of the journals, putting them out of business”.
   • Most journals do not expunge any fraudulent reports from their records unless ALL the authors make a written request to do so thus confessing their fraud.

     That's like expecting a criminal to ask for punishment.

   • Another reason why allopathic journals are reluctant to pull a paper is because they want to avoid generating bad publicity for their established publication. [18]

 
7.  Rankings are determined by popularity, not substance:

These journals are ranked by an arcane “impact factor” which is just a count of how often they are quoted [16].

Since industry-supported trials are more frequently cited than randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with other types of support [23, 26], hence publishing industry-run field trials jacks up their inter-journal rankings.

More citations also means more profits, as we saw above along with the fact that most of these big-pharma-financed trial reports are primarily a propaganda piece, thinly disguised as research [1].
 
 
8. They are all in bed with the main accused:

“Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited." -The New York Times, May, 2006 [17]

Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, calls medical journals “information laundering operations.” [21]

The high impact medical journals are just a front of the allopathic industry; camouflaging their promotional reports as medical research [20, 22]
 
 
9. Self-policing by the perverts?

1. On their own, journals “avoid investigating suspected errors” because the more material they publish, the more profits they can make [17].
2. Another reason journals seldom investigate frauds they have published is their “desire to avoid displeasing the authors and the experts who review manuscripts”, fuelled by monetary greed ofcourse [17].
3. There are no industry-wide standardized Conflict of Interest (COI) policies which could discipline the errant journals [27].
4. Even the publicly stated guidelines are not implemented consistently [27].
5. Many respected journals do not require authors to sign disclosure statements; Many of those who do, only require it from 1 of the authors [27].
   
   Which means the other authors may have a COI but get away without declaring it.
6. These disclosures, even if submitted, may not be published by these promiscuous journals [27].
7. For the most part, there is no way to discover COI if the authors themselves do not declare it.

   "We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so " Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief, BMJ; when caught with their pants down in a JV with Glaxo Smith Kline.

   If the editor-in-chief of 'top-class' journal underwent sudden memory loss when it comes to declaring blatantly obvious disclosures, how many other officials & authors do? [2]

 
10. They are actively spreading their tentacles of brain-washing way beyond research reports & ads:

BMJ (British Medical Journal) Learning’s courses on 20 medical therapy areas are controlled by Merck’s subsidiary MSD.

These are targetted towards Doctor’s Continuing Medical Education (CME) and ‘Continuing Professional Development’ (CPD) [6].

‘The Lancet’ has entered into a partnership with Univadis, another Merck trademark, providing “medical education and an information website.” [8].

 
11. Gatekeepers of science turned jailors:

Journals control the dates when the public gets to know about findings even when they are receiving taxpayer's money.
 
They impose severe restrictions on what authors can say publicly [18].

As long as the earnings of medical research publications come from allopathic businesses – directly or indirectly – how much can they ever stay true to meaningfully scientific health research? [4, 5, 25]

Dr. John H Noble, Jr., has identified various other factors including dirty politics, which confound the integrity of medical research reports [11]. According to him looking at published findings is not enough [12].
 

So were shall we look?

The total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year in the US [29].

Worldwide, only 5% – 20% of allopathic mistreatments are ever reported [29].

On top of that, medical books acknowledge how hard it is to separate drug side effects from disease symptoms.

That's why most of the treatment failures are conveniently attributed to the disease and not to the drug or the doctor.

Doctors are told: “Probably nowhere else in professional life are mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves.” [29]
 

Well, what's not hidden is the fact that allopathic research is more like witch-hunting:

Identify some molecule involved in a biochemical reaction behind a symptom & then do whatever it takes to block it; even though it’s just one of the many intermediaries in the whole microvita spectacle forming your disease.

Common sense was long surrendered in lure of patentable research. What about an uncommon non-patentable way out from this allopathic guile?

 
All that we have to do is focus on maintaining our internal microvita parity – between their constructive & destructive formations.

This will also work for you against other self-limitations.
 
But wait a minute, there's another crook coming in our way: accomplice no. 2 of the main accused.

Do I have your honor's permission to summon him?
 
 
 
Citations :

1. Research publishers conflict of interest

2. Editors conflict of interest

3. What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research?

4. Scientific integrity, fidelity and conflicts of interest in research.

5. NYT Editorial: Our Conflicted Medical Journals

6. Just how much ‘new research’ can we trust? Sunday Times

7. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

8. Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors and Reprint Income

9. COI in Drug Studies

10. 90% of the medical information is bogus

11. Meta-analysis: Methods, strengths, weaknesses, and political uses. Review article in Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 2006

12. Detecting bias in biomedical research: looking at study design and published findings is not enough. Monash Bioethics Review, Vol 26, Nos1-2, 2007.

13. Conflicts-of-Interest Sneaking Back Into Medical Journals, Say Investigators

14. Roehr B. Medical journals with advertising are more likely than subscription journals to recommend drugs. BMJ 2011;342:d1335

15. Overdosed America

16. Just how much ‘new research’ can we trust? The Sunday Times May 21, 2006

17. Dr. Lawrence Altman, For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap. The New York Times May 2, 2006

18. Scientific Misconduct: Cleaning Up the Paper Trail

19. Journals Must Exercise Their Authority as Gatekeepers

20. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review . BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-70.

21. Horton, R. “The Dawn of McScience ,” New York Review of Books, March 11, 2004

22. Smith R. Medical Journals are an extension of the marketing arm of drug companies

23. Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study

24. Medical Journal’s conflict of interest  

25. JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, November 25); Substantial variation exists in conflict of interest policies amongst top medical journals. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

26. Public Library of Science (2010, October 26). Better transparency needed on medical journals’ competing interests, experts say. Retrieved June 6, 2011, ScienceDaily.

27. The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences: Part 1. A Qualitative, Systematic Review of the Literature on Possible Influences on the Findings, Protocols, and Quality of Drug Trials

28. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

29. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
 
 
Opening session of the trial : Double blind studies are indeed blind – scientifically though.
 

Your honor

Ushering into the stands now, accomplice No. 2: Universities, medical schools, teaching hospitals, national academies…

10 accusations made & circumstantial evidence sequenced together [8]:
 
1. Institutionalized kickbacks:

Around 66% of academic institutions are receiving payments from the allopathic industry [7].

Premier universities such as: Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Emory, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Texas, UCLA, etc. have signed moneymaking financial agreements with drug manufacturers.

In return, they promote pharmaceuticals regardless of their unproven efficacy & despite a body of evidence – documented in manufacturers' own disclosures – confessing the hazards of allopathic medications.

“The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government research funding.”
- Cynthia Crossen, a Wall Street Journal staffer, in her book
'Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact in America'.
 
 
She also found that the drug industry's academic financing rose up from $292 million to $2.1 billion within 10 years.


2. Criminal nexus:

Extensive ties with the academicians, particularly the senior faculty of prestigious medical schools, affects the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease [3].

Faculty's financial relationships with the drug manufacturers are commonly in the form of:

• paid speaking engagements,
• consulting agreements,
• holding a position on a scientific advisory board or board of directors,
•  holding equity in start-ups floated by the drug companies that sponsor research performed at the same institution,

      … just to name a few [2, 13]. They do know how to bribe legally.


3. Temples of knowledge or brothels of disinformation?

Corporate-academic adultery starts with the medical text books written by cronies of the allopathic establishment [5].


4. Spurious trials:

Statistically significant association was found between funding by biomedical companies and conclusions favorable to the pharmaceutical industry; with a summarized odds ratio (OR) of 3.6 & 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6 – 4.9 [7].

This proves that results of allopathic trials are fudged to make the sponsoring companies happy.

Dr. Marcia Angell, in her last editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” said :

“When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” [1]

Sr. Marcia Angell also commented on the systemic ethical violations at the nation's leading research centers – including,

• Duke,
• University of Pennsylvania,
• New York Cornell Medical Center,
• Johns Hopkins,
• Fred Hutchinson,
• The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH),
• University of Maryland &
• Harvard in China.

The federal Office of Protection from Research Risks (now, OHRP) was temporarily forced to halt clinical trials at some of the nation's most prestigious institutions [11, 12].


5. Lack of policies:

Academic institutions do not have clear policies covering the industrial relationships of their Institutional Review Board (IRB) members with commercial firms.

These committees are responsible for ensuring that clinical studies uphold patient rights and follow ethical guidelines [9]. But the stated procedures to purportedly achieve those goals vary wildly.

"It is shocking that, after more than 20 years of talking about industry relationships and conflicts of interest, there are still IRBs out there that haven't dealt with this issue.

It also is clear that many IRB chairs have no clue about the behavior of their members who have industry relationships.

The IRB is the primary mechanism medical schools and hospitals have to ensure the appropriate conduct of clinical research, and IRBs without clear, well-defined and enforced policies about conflicts of interest cannot accomplish their fundamental mission,"
- Eric G. Campbell, PhD, MGH Institute for Health Policy [9].
 
 
6. Low adoption rate of the few official policies that do exist:

Only 25% of accredited allopathic medical schools have adopted the Institutional Conflicts Of Interest (ICOI) policy regarding financial interests held by the institutions.

How many of these educational institutions actually enforce it, is an altogether different matter [9].


7. Self-regulation by the selfish?

“it is naive to trust institutions to monitor and discipline their own financial activities, particularly when the financial returns can be substantial.

Licensing agreements on patents generate close to $2 billion per year for academic research centers …

At a time when federal research funding is declining and competition for philanthropic gifts is intensifying, universities may not be eager to promulgate policies that would restrict their freedom to maneuver."
- David J. Rothman, Ph.D., of Columbia University, New York,
comments on the findings of Ehringhaus & colleagues [10]
 
 
 
8. Strong arm tactics against whistle blowers:

Researchers whose findings collide with corporate interests, face intimidation by both corporate sponsors and their own university's administrators [11].
 
Corporate influence is so entrenched at university medical centers that overt threats need not be explicitly made; everybody knows what's expected & what will happen if they don't fall in line. [12]


9. No respect for standards:

University laboratories had the worst record of adhering to Good Laboratory Practices than all other laboratories as per an FDA survey of safety testing violations [6].


10. Stifling the correct advancement of medical science:

Under corporate influence, more research is done comparing trivial differences between one drug and another [11].

Less research is done to gain knowledge about the root causes of disease [12].

Short-term corporate goals take priority over society's long-term needs.

“Conflicts of interest have corrupted the soul of the American university, the ethics of medicine, the integrity of the scientific record, and the safety of patients who serve as human subjects in pre- and post-marketing clinical trials.

Conflicts of interest in clinical trials result in deadly medicine. Adverse drug reactions in FDA-approved drugs are the leading cause of death” – Vera Hassner Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection [11].


What do the graduates of allopathic universities deliver?

In a 2000 JAMA article, Dr. Barbara Starfield documented some hard facts about allopathy's degradation of health which caused [4]:

• 116 million extra physician visits
• 77 million extra prescriptions filled
• 17 million emergency department visits
• 8 million hospitalizations
• 3 million long-term admissions
• 199,000 additional deaths
• $77 billion in extra costs.
  

Still prescription drugs remain the major treatment modality of allopathic medicine. It's just too profitable a business.

A five-country survey published in the Journal of Health Affairs found that 18-28% of people, who were recently ill, had suffered from an allopathic error in the previous 2 years.

The study was conducted in UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada & USA [4].

In the U.K., out of all those admitted in a hospital due to injuries inflicted by allopathy, only 6.3% had that Adverse Drug Reaction reported by their doctors.

As per FDA's MedWatch system for prescription drugs, only about 1 in 100 serious adverse events are reported [1].


So how can you read between the lines of your symptoms?

You have bad microvita troubling you in certain ways which are loosely grouped under the nameplates of different diseases.

But the exact details of your suffering may be quite different from that of another person enduring the same disease.

This is the case because there is much more going on than what has been discovered so far by mainstream disoriented science.

Eventually it all boils down to a scuffle between the benefic & malefic microvita operating within you.
 
Are you coaching the right ones to win?

While desecration of the scientific foundation of medicine continues at the hands of allopathy, Your honor's permission is sought to interrogate 2 more of their accomplices in the next hearing.
 
 
Citations:

1. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.

2. Medical-research ethics under the microscope: schools try to plot the fine line between commercial links and conflicts of interest.

3. Financial relationships of Institutional Review Board members.

4. “Error in Medicine", Dr. Lucian L. Leape; JAMA.

5. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

6. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. by Dr John Braithwaite.

7. The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences: Part 1. A Qualitative, Systematic Review of the Literature on Possible Influences on the Findings, Protocols, and Quality of Drug Trials.

8. Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: A case study

9. Massachusetts General Hospital (2009, March 25). Policies Regarding IRB Members’ Industry Relationships Often Lacking. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

10. JAMA and Archives Journals (2008, February 12). Gaps Exist For Adopting Conflicts Of Interest Policies Among Medical Schools. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily. Journal reference: JAMA. 2008;299[6]:95-671.

11. Dirty pharmaceutical tactics against dissenting researchers.

12. Angell, M. Is Academic medicine for sale? NEJM, 2000, 342: 1516-1518.

13. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.
 
 
Privy to the previous testimonies?

1st session : Drug companies – Drugging or healing you?
2nd Session : Esteemed Research Journals – reservoirs of life-saving info?
 

Your Honor

Before the bench, now we have accomplice No. 3 : Allopathic Researchers / scientists.

The 6 allegations against them, backed by foolproof proof:-
 
 
1. They work as hired hands of the drug makers:

More often than not, the medical faculty serving as investigators in allopathic drug trials are merely collecting test data as per the instructions of the sponsoring company [7].

Approximately 25% of allopathic faculty has industry affiliations [26].

The ones that do, are usually the key position holders. Payments can be in the form of pharmaceutical stock ownership or other financial incentives.

Many of the clinical investigators receive more than $1 million annually from the manufacturer of the drug they are supposed to be testing. [11]

A study conducted by the FDA has revealed that 1 in every 5 doctors carrying out field research of new drugs, had invented the data they sent to the drug companies, and pocketed the fees.

Citing case examples, Dr. John Braithwaite, Ex Trade Practices Commissioner, states:

"The problem is that most fraud in clinical trials is unlikely to even be detected. Most cases which do come to public attention only do so because of extraordinary carelessness by the criminal physician…" [11].
 
 
2. They hijack genuine medical research:

In line with the wishes of their corporate masters, they determine what research is conducted, how it is done and the way it is reported [27, 28].

"Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research.

It's possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members' activities and attitudes.”- Dr. Erik Campbell [1].

The NEJM found that 96% of medical journal authors whose findings were favorable to a product had financial ties to the manufacturer [27].

Informally, medical students know amongst themselves part of what's going on “don't trust this paper because it has been falsified, don't trust that researcher because he/she has a clandestine relationship with so-&-so company” [12].
 
 
3. They include bioethicists sans ethics:

Bioethicists are placed in allopathic research bodies because they “look like watchdogs but behave like show dogs". In so doing, they lend a seal of legitimacy to highly questionable, if not outright unethical research.

A 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty who serve on institutional review boards (IRB) to advise on clinical trial research, also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry.

The process of evaluating clinical trial protocols, including those involving human subjects, is usually rigged to the point that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) members vote to approve it without even examining it [27].

90% of the protocols approved by the IRB at The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), failed to meet either ethical and / or scientific justification.

Their corporate affiliations are not publicly disclosed while they rampantly issue press releases to the media, take responsible positions in IRBs or work on government advisory panels. [28]
 
 
4. They adulterate allopathic practice guidelines issued to all Doctors:

Journal of American Medical Association found that 87% of the authors who wrote treatment practice guidelines in all fields of medicine had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry [27].

New York Times reporter Brian Deer also thinks they are not as reliable as they pretend to be [10]. Even Harvard researchers have turned out to be cheats [9].
 
 
5. They are intellectually dishonest:

As a university student, I noticed that the lecturers were always under intense pressure to publish something – anything – in some research journal.

Quality doesn't matter as long as their Heads of Departments can meet their annual goals of pushing out so many research papers.

Even amongst the monetarily honest scientists, most are intellectually servile to the unmedical allopathic dogma – they can't think beyond that.
 
They get their promotions based on the number of research papers published, even though many of them haven't grasped the 'heart' of the healing dynamics, which lies beyond biochemical technicalities.

They are, thus, bereft of an incisive research mindset to come up with some authentic medical treatments.
 
 
6. They are neck deep into it [2]:

From their drug lords they receive -

• academic chair endowments,
• grants for professional associations,
• patent royalty fees,
• permission for publication attribution,
• sponsorship for their conferences, etc.

Professional organizations, international scientific bodies, etc. draw their members from any of these 6 gangs operating under the main accused.
 
 

With that, I invite the jury's attention towards accomplice No. 4 : The ever-so-charming Doctors, Clinicians, Physicians, GPs, Specialists & Surgeons.

 
Putting the evidence on record for 8 counts of law-breaking, as follows:
 
1. They get hooked on to the big pharma vice soon after college admissions, as a freshmen:

Medical students surveyed at 76 medical schools were found to be frequently getting exposed to pharmaceutical marketing, even in their preclinical years [16].
 
 
2. They exploit their own clients:

They are the ones who body-shop credulous patients to be used as guinea pigs in allopathic field trials.

They are paid handsomely for this, but are allocated time bound deadlines many a times. This may tempt them to recruit ineligible candidates [13].
 
 
3. They pocket good money for not-so-good testing :

As per Dr John Braithwaite, it is very easy for the drug company to arrange favorable clinical trials by approaching a compliant Doctor who would produce the figures they desire.

As much as $1000 per subject is paid by allopathic companies, which enables some doctors to earn up to $1 million per year just from drug research.

Hence the incentive to fabricate data is enormous & investigating clinicians know all too well that if they don't produce the desired data, the loss of future work is inevitable [11].

 
4. Their palms are greased:

92.8% physicians received gifts from the drug industry during last year. Mean value of gifts received was 900 Euros [24].

Pharmaceutical companies fund approximately half of the meetings & conferences attended by doctors [23].

According to an ABC news report, pharmaceutical companies spend over $2 billion a year on over 314,000 events attended by doctors [1].

The bulk of the approximately $21 billion annual marketing budget of the pharmaceutical conglomerates is targeted towards physicians, doctors in training (residents) and medical students. [15]

Many doctors are paid consultants, speakers at company-sponsored meetings, ghost-authors of papers written by drug companies or their agents,[4] recipients of free meals, honoraria, global junkets [27], other out-and-out giveaways.

Drug producers subsidize most of the meetings of professional organizations and most of the Continuing Medical Education (CME) needed by doctors to maintain their licenses. [18]
 

5. Their prescriptions are biased:

1 in 3 doctors admitted that free drug samples, left behind by medical reps, influences what they prescribe [17].

Prescription of promoted meds decreases across the board with a corresponding increase in that of unpromoted ones, when the free samples are removed [19].

Attending sponsored CME events and accepting funding for travel or lodging for educational symposia were associated with increased prescription rates of the sponsor's medication [21].

 
6. They quack unapproved usage of drugs:

A national survey of allopaths revealed that they didn't knew that they were prescribing Off-Label usage of common drugs – even to their child patients [40].

Off label usage implies, eating the drug for ailments other than the one they have been tested & authorized for [7].

Doctors "on the take" are encouraged to promote such clinically worthless drugs for untested uses, without regard for the serious harm they cause to their trusting patients. [8]
 
 
7. They mis-educate themselves:

To keep themselves "updated" on the latest medical developments, don't they rely on the "educational" material sent by the drug companies' sales-persons? … along with the usual incentives.

73.7% of the general practitioners (GPs) prescribe based on the commercial information provided by sales representatives of pharmaceutical manufacturers [20].

This, despite the fact that only 16% of the responding Doctors thought that visits by representatives from pharmaceutical companies were educationally valuable [25].

Drug company-sponsored Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs preferentially highlight the sponsor's drugs [21].

62% of the GPs and 71% of the psychiatrists attend at least three industry-organized meetings every year [22].

90% of the doctors participated in meetings whereby the content was organized by employees of pharmaceutical businesses [25].

But only 37% of these allopaths found the educational events organized by allopathic companies to be of any value [25].

Attending presentations given by speakers from the allopathic madhouse is also correlated with irrational prescribing [21].
 
 
8. They are well-paid propagandists:

Drug companies will pay influential doctors up to $400 an hour to act as key opinion leaders [14].

Some doctors earn more than $25,000 a year in advisory fees, peddling drugs to their fellow doctors & to the public [14].

Doctors fail to communicate all the side-effects of their prescriptions to you [3].

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.

I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." – Dr. Marcia Angell, MD; Harvard Medical School [7]

Your "average prescription drug has only 70 side effects" – Dr. Jon Duke, Assistant professor of medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine [5].

As per 1 study by Dr. Steel –

• 36% of hospitalized patients get manhandled at the hands of their allopathic treatments;
• 50% of them were caused by adverse drug reactions;
• 25% of them died due to it [6].

But in order to protect their staff, reputation & for fear of lawsuits – hospitals & clinics do not report this widespread health travesty.

The long forsaken father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, may have said 'First, do no harm' but there are no long term studies of drug accumulation & resulting harms to your bio-psyche.

Fortunately, there are better options out there to supervise the ongoing conflict between the legions of helpful & unhelpful microvita forces active inside you.
 
 
But before we go there, Your Honor, allow me to present accomplice 5 & 6 in the courtroom to explain their criminal dereliction of duty.

 
 
Citations:

1. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.

2. Scientific integrity, fidelity and conflicts of interest in research.

3. Doctors lie

4. Public Library of Science (2009, February 26). Extensive Publication Bias For Phase I Drug Trials Found. Retrieved June 6, 2011, ScienceDaily.

5. The average prescription drug has only 70 side effects.

6. “Error in Medicine“, Dr. Lucian L. Leape; JAMA

7. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

8. Medical Journals Complicit in Corruption of Medicine

9. Lift Veil on Research Funding on Universities

10. Just how much ‘new research’ can we trust? The Sunday Times May 21, 2006

11. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. by Dr John Braithwaite

12. European Science Foundation. Online Register To Flag Scientific Papers Tainted By Fraud Or Misconduct. Retrieved June 7, 2011 from ScienceDaily.

13. Law Professor Finds Conflicts Of Interest In Clinical Research

14. BMJ-British Medical Journal (2008, June 20). Should Doctors Be ‘Selling’ Drugs For The Pharmaceutical Industry? Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily

15. Indiana University (2007, December 4). Do Medical Schools Affect The Way Future Doctors Interact With Drug Companies? Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

16. Public Library of Science (2011, May 25). Medical students have substantial exposure to pharmaceutical industry marketing. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

17. BMJ Specialty Journals (2006, October 2). Free Drug Samples Influence Prescribing, Say One In Three Doctors. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily

18. Jerome P. Kassirer On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. (Oxford University Press, 2005).

19. Effect of drug sample removal on prescribing in a family practice clinic.

20. Impact of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribing decisions of general practitioners.

21. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift?

22. Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meetings: good value or just a free meal?

23. Do doctors rely on pharmaceutical industry funding to attend conferences and do they perceive that this creates a bias in their drug selection?

24. Is it pertinent to investigate the relations between physicians and the drug industry

25. Continuing education for general practice and the role of the pharmaceutical industry.

26. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

27. Dirty pharmaceutical tactics against dissenting researchers

28. Angell, M. Is Academic medicine for sale? NEJM, 2000, 342: 1516-1518.
 

Earlier hearings, in case you missed:

1st round: Drug companies – Healing or drugging you?
2nd round: Esteemed Research Journals – Reservoirs of pure life-saving info?
3rd round: Prominent universities – Sacred temples of education?