June 6, 2001 - Issue 226
Continued:
This AZT
catastrophe is the reason for the ineradicable belief that HIV is the cause of
AIDS.
Moreover, it has led to the
habit to use "HIV" and "AIDS" as synonymous terms.
Epidemiological predictions are based on this assumption that HIV is the same
as AIDS, and in respect of all countries with such HIV-test explosions they
predict that catastrophic AIDS epidemics will follow.
For the president of South
Africa, Mbeki, the discrepancy between what European and US newspapers write
about his country (drastic population reduction) and what's actually happening
in his country (doubling of the population within the past 30 years), was
striking, hence he refused to follow the general (American) AIDS-politics and
instead, called the meeting of experts who had the task to examine whether or
not HIV was actually the cause of AIDS.
Two things
had particularly startled him:
First the extensive
literature on AZT and the damaging effects of this substance, and secondly a
paper by Max Essex that was published in the "Journal of Infectious
Diseases" and which describes a strong cross reaction of HIV tests with
antigens, that can be found in the bacteria which cause tuberculosis and lepra.
That means, nobody in Africa or elsewhere in the world knows whether a patient
suffers from tuberculosis because he is HIV-positive, or whether he is
HIV-positive because he suffers from tuberculosis.
Another problem of the AIDS
epidemiology is the following: By now about 30 afflictions all of which were
known before, are being renamed to AIDS in the presence of a positive HIV-test.
This also is not an increase of diseases of course --but just a redefinition.
This circular definition
HIV+/TB = AIDS and HIV-/TB = TB makes the correlation HIV-AIDS appear 100%. For
example, a patient who suffers from TB and who is also HIV-positive is an AIDS
patient today, and a woman who suffers from cervical carcinoma is an AIDS
patient today, and a patient with a lymphoma is today not a lymphoma patient
but also an AIDS patient if he has antibodies against HIV.
The virus-AIDS-hypothesis
and the media alarm connected to it (12 cover stories alone by Der Spiegel) has
caused the biggest medical catastrophe and human tragedy, by driving countless
numbers of people into fear and despair, by causing suicides and iatrogenic
deaths, and is still doing so.
Possibly the end of this is
in sight, if Mbeki will be successful with his AIDS politics and will ban HIV-testing
as well as antiviral medication in his country, and instead, will fight
tuberculosis that is progressing in his country and poverty that is connected
to it.
Tuberculosis has always
been a good indicator for the weal and woe of a society (see the frequency of
TB in Germany after the two world wars, Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden).
Modern tuberculosis however is now, after the introduction of HIV-tests, called
AIDS and is treated accordingly. In India they showed me patients who had
tuberculosis and sold house and home, in order to get the cure (AZT) from the
West.
Hepatitis C
With hepatitis C we see a
similar phenomenon, although the iatrogenic measure is not as drastic as in the
case of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Here one can only expect a temporary therapy
with interferon and ribavirin, however this therapy too produces many side
effects, and as I will show, it's also superfluous.
The birth year of hepatitis
C is 1987. The laboratory for this job was nothing less than the Chiron Corp.,
a biochemical company that by now makes billions Umsätze with Hepatitis C
antibodies. At that time they injected blood from a patient with a Non-A/Non-B
hepatitis into chimps. None of the animals developed hepatitis. Just around day
# 14 after the infection they showed temporary increase of transaminase.
The animals were
slaughtered, and the liver tissue was examined.
They didn´t
find a virus.
Being in deep despair they
then searched for the tiniest traces of a virus, and amplified a little piece
of genetic information, that didn´t seem to belong to the genetic code of the
tissue, via PCR. They assumed that this piece of foreign RNA must be the
genetic information of a before undiscovered virus. Whatever it was, the liver
tissue contained it in hardly detectable quantities, but they were able to
build an antibody against it.
This antibody bestowed us
the hepatitis epidemic insofar, as test explosions are taking place again and
HCV positive patients are now told they carry a virus that after a latency
period of ca. 30 years will generate a liver cirrhosis. Most of the HCV
positive patients, however, don´t have any symptoms of illness.
Some have slightly
increased transaminase, and and real liver damage is almost exclusively a
problem of those patients who have consumed alcohol and drugs before. Here we
see indeed a big overlap insofar, as almost 80% of the drug addicts are HCV
positive. Now we have to answer the question again, does the virus damage the
liver, or the drugs and the alcohol. The 30-year latency period would then be
an euphemism for the toxic effects of drugs and alcohol that can lead to liver
cirrhosis after 30 years.
While two or three years
ago newspapers had headlines like "Hepatitis C - underestimated danger;
Hep C - unrecognized danger; Hep C - the new big plague, it comes quietly but
powerfully", we nowadays read more often: "Danger of hepatitis
overestimated?" and Prof. Manns from Hannover, who initially was one of
worse case depicters, is now saying that - based on the available studies and on
a cost-benefit-risk estimation - therapy for Hepatitis C can be seen as a
relative counter indication.
This new view when it comes
to an estimation of hepatitis C has the following background: Last year Seef
et. al published a big study in Annals. of Internal Medicine, that was carried
out with GIs whose serums had been frozen 45 years ago. A follow-up over 45
years showed that there are practically no differences between liver diseases
of HCV positive and of HCV negative people.
This indeed leads to the
consideration that the risk of a HCV positive person developing liver cirrhosis
later in life, was apparently massively overestimated, and makes the theory
appear more plausible that liver toxic substances like alcohol and drugs,
called "cofactors", are actually the main factors and so a positive
HCV test obviously has no clinical relevance. Accordingly, antiviral treatment
for HCV positive patients doesn't make any sense.
Moreover, medicamentous
treatment of liver diseases has been considered paradoxical by leading
hepatologists over many decades, because practically all substances damage the
liver in one way or the other, because the liver is the main organ for
metabolism of toxins. For example, Benuron, that is used during an interferon
treatment one gram per day. Remember in this context the Fialuridine disaster
of a treatment attempt a few years ago, where a couple of patients died, and
others could only be rescued by liver transplantation (Hoofnagle et. Al).
In my opinion, Prof. Dennin
from Lübeck offers a much better explanation for the phenomenon of HCV
positivity than Prof. Laufs from Hamburg who believes in the existence of a
transmissible pathogenic virus. Dennin et al. were able to find the sequences
named HCV in human DNA of healthy HCV negative individuals. So, it´s imaginable
that HCV positivity can be produced endogenously when liver cells get damaged
by toxic substances like alcohol or drugs and then generate these sequences.
This would explain the relatively strong correlation between HCV positivity and
alcohol/drugs.
In the case of hepatitis C
- it's similar for hepatitis G - we can apparently still hope for a
self-correction of science, because of the lack of clinical evidence. HCV
positive liver cirrhoses occur almost exclusively in drug users or alcoholics,
while a significant group of people who are HCV positive and develop a liver
cirrhosis at the age of 50 and who are free of nutritive-toxic liver damages,
does practically not exist.
The
epidemic-like character of the hepatitis C plague is being promoted by medical
publications and the general press:
Recently, in Itzehoe a HCV
positive surgeon allegedly infected many of his patients. But one has to
consider that prevalence of hepatitis C antibodies is relatively high in the
population, so that it is easily possible that 2% react positively to HCV
tests, that means 40 cases out of 2000 would match the general degree of
"infection".
BSE (Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy)
Now the atmosphere of
plague fear culminates in the BSE hysteria --where we have not one case of
illness in our country [Germany], and still you can read about the BSE crisis
or BSE plague in all newspapers.
Here again we
see the phenomenon of a test explosion, insofar as the Swiss company Prionics has their BSE tests
ready for the market and is distributing them.
Here again a positive test
case is equated with a case of disease. The plague atmosphere created by this
is even supported by the panic which comes up with the hypothetical notion that
mad cow disease can be transmitted to humans by them eating beef and will
appear as the new variant of the Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. The media heat up
this atmosphere of plague fear by dragging putative victims in front of the TV
cameras although the disease is only diagnosable post mortem.
While all
epidemiological data available so far contradict such a connection, this is still the big fear which
drives scientists and politician to the current totally overdone safety
measures (mass slaughter of cows).
If we want to understand
this fear, we must browse back a some years, and consider the work of Carleton
Gajdusek. Gajdusek did research in Papua New Guinea in the 70s, on a kind of
dementia which was prevalent mainly in the female population there.
The disease Kuru was
observed as being endemic in two tribes whose members often married each other.
These so called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies which Kuru belongs
to, the Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, the familiar insomnia and the
Gerstmann-Sträußler-Scheinker syndrome appear sporadically or genetically
caused and of autosomal dominant origin. These diseases are fatal within 5
years. They are extremely rare, frequency is around 1:1000000 and within a family with a
frequency of 1:50 --which is a good argument for a genetic cause.
But Gajdusek received the
Nobel prize for his concept of slow viruses and thereby established the
transmissibility of those spongiform encephalopathies. However, if we observe
his experiments he tried to prove the transmissibility with, we have to wonder
today that the scientific community at that time accepted those papers as proof
for transmissibility.
Neither the feeding of
infected brain tissue nor the injection of it affected the lab chimps, only one
bizarre experiment led to neurological symptoms in the chimps, and this was
intracerebral inoculation experiments. On these experiments the
transmissibility of those diseases is based!!
Hardly evidence for
Gajdusek´s cannibalistic hypothesis which postulates that the disease in humans
could be caused by the consumption of infected brain. Burdensomely we have to
add that Gajdusek is the only witness alive for cannibalism in Papua New
Guinea. One teams of anthropologists that examined the case, found stories
about cannibalism but no authentic cases.
So, about
Gajdusek´s Nobel prize we can only say:
If his stories are not
true, they have nicely been made up anyway. Despite these inconsistencies
(intracerebral inoculation experiments) for proof of the oral transmission path
the notion of oral transmission is now so established that we actually fear the
consumption of beef. According to Gajdusek´s attempts, we´d only have reason to
fear something, if we made holes in our head and inoculated the infected brain
of mad cows.
Also on the cannibalistic
hypothesis the assumption is based that by feeding of infectious animal meal
the plague got started. Because of the general acceptance of this hypothesis it
is entirely neglected that the epidemiology of BSE does not match the feeding
of animal meal at all. Great Britain for instance has exported tons of animal
meal to the Middle East, South Africa and also to the USA. In none of these
countries BSE occurred Instead, BSE cases almost always occur in Great Britain
(99%), Switzerland and North Ireland.
One explanation is in the
case of BSE again the intoxication hypothesis. 1985 in England a law came into
force, which forced British farmers to pour Phosmet along the napes of their
cows. Phosmet is an organphosphate that is used as insecticide against the
warble-fly. This substance was used in relatively high concentration only in
Great Britain, North Ireland and Switzerland, and the law didn´t allow an
exception. A British farmer, Mark Purdey, noticed that his cows from organic
production didn´t develop BSE although they were fed by animal meal, but never
treated with organphosphates.
The British Government
knows this context, and in the early 90s the law was taken back, because a
connection between the organophosphate and the occurrence of BSE was very likely.
Organophosphates can change the alpha helix structure of proteins.
According to this measure,
BSE cases started to decline from 1993 on. Actually, the British inquiry
committee admits that organophosphates are apparently a cofactor for BSE. Toxicologically
it is known (Lüllmann, Kuschinski: Lehrbuch der Toxikologie) that chronic
intoxications with organophosphates lead to "the clinical symptoms of
polyneuropathy. The basis is axon swellings and fragmentation and eventually
demyelinization of peripheral and central axons".
However, the BSE inquiry
committee refuses to accept the organophosphates as the sole cause. But one
question comes up: Why do not all those cows get the disease that were treated
with organophosphates? Here we must consider: The dose makes the toxin - and
even if all cows get the some quantity it depends on the diffusion distance
whether the toxin reaches the central nervous system and can start its damaging
activity.
Thereto the
observation of British farmers:
meager milk cows are
significantly more receptive to BSE than the fatter beef-cows. If one pictures
the diffusion distance the nerve toxin takes after being poured over the nape
of the cows, one can easily imagine that the thickness of the subcutaneous
fatty layer is quite crucial for whether or not a cow will develop BSE. As
lipophilic substances the organophosphates are buffered in the subcutaneous
fatty layer.
Summary
But if a toxin can speed up
the outbreak of a disease, like alcohol can contribute to liver diseases, then
it can also be the sole cause. However, if Phosmet would be declared as cause
of BSE, compensation lawsuits in billions would wait for both the British
government and the manufacturer of the insecticide. This is certainly not
desirable for them, so they prefer to surround the basically clear context in a
fog of prions.
Intoxication hypotheses are
easily testable and in contrast to the virus or prion hypotheses also
falsifiable. They can be examined toxicologically and epidemiologically and
then we can either accept or reject them.
For AIDS, the
intoxication hypothesis would make following predictions:
All patients who die young
of AIDS, must have used recreational or antiviral drugs over a longer period.
There must not be a significant number of people who die of AIDS at a young age
and who are drug free and haven´t taken any antivirals.
For hepatitis C it would
mean, that there is no significant number of people who die of Hepatitis C
caused liver cirrhosis in their mid-lives and who are drug free and alcohol
free.
And for BSE the
intoxication hypothesis would mean that only cows who have been treated with
organophosphates, develop BSE, and inversely, if a significant number of cows
with no organophosphat treatment would develop BSE, the intoxication hypothesis
would be proven wrong.
As elaborated above,
epidemiological and toxicological data suggest that chronic intoxication's are
the real cause for the named diseases AIDS, Hep C and BSE. Why these plausible
hypothesis aren't investigated further, this is a topic one could write a book
about which could have the title "conflicts of interests".
Infection hypotheses can
help making billions of dollars:
1. The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are
distributed, each blood sample needs to be tested (4 millions in Germany alone)
2. The therapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5
fold combinations, AIDS can't be topped in this department.
3. Possibly vaccinations: Here, however, the concept of the
new big plagues gets in the way of itself, because this has brought up the
central paradox of immunology. Since the beginning of HIV they have told us: He
who has antibodies to HIV, will die, instead of, he who has antibodies to HIV
will live, which would meet our vaccination concepts. How many HIV antibody
negative individuals would like to get vaccinated, in order to have antibodies
to HIV afterwards?
With intoxication
hypotheses on the other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple
message is: Avoid the poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses are
counterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet) bring
high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: What virologist who
does directly profit millions from their patent rights of the HIV or HCV tests
(Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, Robert Gallo) can risk to take
even one look in the other direction.
What physician who has
treated AIDS or hepatitis C patients over many years in good faith in the virus
hypothesis and with high personal input, can look in the other direction?
The more so as he must get
the feeling, due to seemingly plausible changes of surrogate markers, that he
is on the right track. Everywhere in the world children are treated according
to this principle. Healthy children get antiviral therapies, in order to
"delay the outbreak of illness", that is, a clinically healthy HIV
pos. child gets a therapy, and any affection that appears under this therapy
will be blamed on the "basic disease" or interpreted as therapy
failure because of the virus developing resistance. In other words, the child
has no chance to escape.
I have experienced myself
--at a trial in Canada (I was ordered to as an expert of AZT), how healthy kids
were taken away from their mother who had been HIV+ for 15 years and who was
allowed to refuse antiretroviral treatment for herself but not for her
children.
Similar was a judicial
sentence in England where a HIV positive couple refused to get their newborn
tested. The judge said that the child must be tested, because in the case of a
positive test result immediate therapy would be necessary.
Even study results that
shed light on the AZT use of pregnant women, aren´t able to wake up the authors.
They describe a 5 - 6-fold higher risk of a rapidly progredient course of HIV
infection for those kids whose mothers have been treated with AZT during
pregnancy, compared to children whose mothers have not gotten any AZT (J. of
AIDS, 2000).
At least our efforts in
Africa on the panel seem to have somewhat impressed the Americans, because a
few weeks ago the NIAID (National Institute for Allergic and Infectious
Diseases) announced a big multicentric study that included a therapy branch
without antiviral therapy. So, after 13 years of aggressive long-term therapy
now a "U-turn" over to what until now has been considered not
justifiable - a real placebo control with clinical endpoints, planned for four
years.
AIDS Panel Report.com April 27, 2001
AidsPanelReport.com - The Leading Edge on HIV-AIDS.
Email:mail@aidspanelreport.com.
Related Articles:
Insecticides
Cause Mad Cow Disease
Myths
&Truths About Mad Cow Disease
Non-Drug
Approaches to Hepatitis C Ignored by "Awareness" Campaign
New
Developments In Autism, AIDS and Alternative Medicine Paradigm
Some sunscreens are not stable when irradiated with simulated
sunlight. The photostability differs is very different for different products.
Two chemical sun filters have been tested for their dark toxicity and possible
toxicity to mouse cells in a cell culture after UV-irradiation of the filters.
Increased
toxicity as result
of breakdown of a UVB-filter, octyl methoxycinnemate, was observed. UV
radiation absorbed in the filter will lead to the formation of breakdown
products that are different from the original filter molecules and may have
different toxicity and other chemical properties.
The UVA filter included in
the tests, butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, was also toxic in the dark. However,
it was more chemically stable to UV-irradiation, and was not broken down
efficiently by simulated sunlight.
Its toxicity did not change
significantly after irradiation.
It can be
concluded that the two sun filters in concentrations of 5 -- - 10 parts per
million are toxic in the dark to mouse cells under our particular laboratory
conditions, and
that the toxicity may increase after UV-irradiation of the most unstable
filter.
The biological role or
medical effect of these observations are not known and extrapolation from the
laboratory experiments to the use of sunscreens in humans must be done with
caution.
Radiat
Prot Dosimetry vol 91, p 83, 2000
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
Well summer is fast upon
us and many of us are getting much more sun exposure; We ALL need sunshine to
stay healthy. It is one of the essential ingredients for staying healthy. It is
not the perniciously evil item that traditional medicine suggests that it is.
That does NOT mean that
we should all go out and get sunburned. That should be definitely avoided as it
is likely to lead to an increased risk of skin cancer. However, prudent
exposure to the sun, integrating the "listening to your body"
concept, will not.
Adding sun screens is
NOT the best way to limit your sun exposure. It is wise to limit your exposure
early in the season until your system adjusts by increasing melanin
pigmentation in your skin.
The sun is most potent
from 11 AM to 1 PM. During the beginning of the season you will want to limit
your exposure during these times and stay inside, in the shade or wear
protective clothing.
Additionally, consuming
many whole vegetables will increase antioxidant levels in the body which will
also provide protection against any sun induced radiation damage.
So the bottom line is to
avoid the sun screens. They are not necessary and may actually increase your
risk of disease.
Related Articles:
Sun-Care
Chemical Proves Toxic in Lab Tests
Daily my phone rings and my
email overflows with urgent and painful calls from women just awakening from
the ether of their breast implants. Although their first surgeries may have
been decades ago, they are finally emerging from the web of deceit that their
plastic surgeons and the silicone manufacturers have woven through the media
for years in a brilliant, expensive public relations coup of enormous
proportions.
Now reality has struck as
they join scores of thousands of ill and disfigured women in learning the
hidden truth - their cherished breast implants may cost them their insurance,
their health, their beauty, their vitality, their families, their careers, and
too often, even their lives.
Everything I have ever done
or thought or studied for 47 years brought me to November, 1995 when I created
a Newsgroup (alt.support.breast-implant) on the Internet to provide an
International Forum to discuss this perplexing issue and create a place for the
women to connect with each other. I had no idea of the depth, breadth, or width
of the Pandora's Box I was opening.
Five years later, after
unknown thousands of communications from women, doctors, loved ones, attorneys,
supporters and tormentors alike, I admit I am no longer without bias. I now
know that a
huge fraud has and continues to be committed on women, and the background on this issue
reads like a non-fiction espionage bestseller.
No stranger to plastic
surgery (first nose bob during my Dallas high school years) I do not now, nor
have I ever had implants. There, but for the grace of God go I. A few million
of our sisters have made that choice for a variety of reasons.
However, two common
denominators remain the same -- they were always assured they were
"safe" and the "risks minimal," and eerily, they have come
up against a medical establishment unwilling and unable to cure their
illnesses.
In 1992, after 30 years of
unimpeded marketing, the FDA finally banned silicone gel implants for most
women. Because of the lobbying of the manufacturers and plastic surgeons -- who
flew in around 400 women to lobby Washington DC on their behalf -- women
post-mastectomy were and are still allowed to get these unproven, highly risky
medical devices.
Even though early studies
were resurrected, long hidden by the manufacturers, proving they knew that
their implants would break, immune reactions would occur, the gel would migrate, and even more
disturbing, could cross the placenta and affect the unborn fetuses, almost
never did this information make it to the women it could have protected.
They also hired visible
spokesdoctors to misled the public into believing that implant rupture -- a
devastating medical event -- was "only 4-6%." They also claimed to
examine and find "no association" between implants and a myriad of
painful and debilitating autoimmune diseases suffered in disproportionate
percentages.
In fact, the Executive
Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, chose to
publish two very flawed, small and short studies funded by those who stood the
most to gain by the results. She then promoted and defended these studies as if
they were gospel in her pro-manufacturer book, Science on Trial, and flooded
the media with this corporate science while branding a scarlet "Junk
Scientist" on any doctor who dared to dispute the "experts."
This PR campaign includes
labeling the women "crazies" and their leaders and supporters
"fear mongers" and "wackos" so desperate are they to
destroy the credibility of any of us who dared to speak out on the dangers. The
result is that for years, women have been lulled into a false belief, that they
had a 95% chance of being rupture free. The contrary is true.
Alarming, indisputable
evidence was released in October 2000, when the FDA published a landmark study
of implanted women, many still without symptoms. This objective work revealed
that 69%
of these women had at least one ruptured implant, most without any knowledge of it,
although implanted a median time of less than 17 years.
Other studies had already
revealed over a 90% chance of rupture within 20 years.
Hardly, the
"lifetime" product they were promised.
The cover up
continues to fall apart . . .
Dr. David Feigal, director
of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said it so
clearly, "When it happens to you, the rupture rate is 100 percent."
By January 2000, over 127,000 women had written the FDA about the serious complications from their silicone gel implants.
The tragedy is that still
today, they are unable to get good medical care as the majority of doctors
refuse to believe the connection. Even worse, doctors don't have a clue what to
do to heal these assaulted immune systems and rid women's bodies of the dozens
of dangerous ingredients found in implants such as platinum, silica,
formaldehyde, plasticizers and organic solvents.
Implant formulations were
frequently changed -- shells and gel thicker then thinner then thicker again --
and "new and improved" was marketed so often, it appears silicone
merchants believed their own hype.
In the 80's, as
"the" answer to capsular contracture, over 100,000 women received gel
implants with polyurethane foam glued to them. Not only did the foam
disintegrate, often within just weeks of implantation, but it broke down into
TDA, a known carcinogen, decades ago removed from hair dyes.
These women are amongst the
most ill, and even when these dangerous implants were hurriedly taken off the
market in 1991, no recall or even courtesy call was made to warn the implanted
women.
The most recent implant
disaster was exported to Europe, where well over 5,000 women, mainly in
Britain, were implanted with soy oil filled implants, unlovingly known as
"tofu titties." The American protocol for this product required this
new round of female "lab rats" to be past childbearing age, but
somewhere on it's way across the Atlantic, this requirement was dropped.
Health advocates and
cautious scientists were warning of the serious potential dangers but were
ignored and the "experts" made fortunes implanting them even in very
young women. Their bubble burst as shocking reports and the rancid soy oil
leaked out in Spring of 2000, and all the women were advised to have them removed
as quickly as possible.
The damage to many had
already been done. Now, like the millions with failed gel implants, they are
faced with yet another difficult decision, should they replace them with saline
filled implants? Is Saline the Solution?
From her wheelchair, Jackie
Strange, the former Deputy Postmaster General of the United States spoke of the
destruction of her life at hearings by the Institute of Medicine at the
National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC.
Infections, peripheral
neuropathy, and a myriad of autoimmune diseases struck in both rapid and slow
succession following her implantation with saline filled, silicone implants.
Concurrently, the manufacturers and plastic surgeons were creating a
multi-media blitz touting saline implants from billboards, glossy magazines and
TV. With ads reminiscent of "You've come a long way, baby," young
women were featured praising their implants and plastic surgeons did the Talk
Show circuit assuring women that saline was "natural" and leakage
benign.
In Spring, 2000, in spite
of over 50,000
reports of serious adverse reactions from water-filled implants, the FDA made the fateful decision
to give their highly valued stamp of "safety approval" on two brands
of saline implants, declaring them "safe enough." How can this be?
The manufacturers own
studies show that within just the first 3 years, nearly 40% of post-mastectomy
patients had to have additional surgeries with these implants.
The complication rate for
these women is around 80% in just 4 years time. After cancer, invasive surgery
to remove the tumors, often radiation and / or chemotherapy, the body is simply
not strong enough to handle this foreign invader.
Even for women wanting
implants just for augmentation to boost their self-esteem, the complication
rates are staggering. Glamour Magazine, in their November 2000 issue published
a full page photo revealing a saline filled implant, entirely black with
aspergillus niger and other fungi.
Breast
Cancer and Implants - No Easy Answers
Nearly 200,000 American
women -- our sisters, mothers, teachers, lovers, daughters, friends --will be
diagnosed with breast cancer this year. Cancer and implant survivor, retired
Professor of Health Education, Henrietta Farber, recently summarized the
feelings of many who know, "The cancer was challenging.
The implants almost killed
me." While the manufacturers press releases rage "The Case Against
Implants Collapses," and try to close this ugly chapter in medical
history, the women, now united, have a plan of their own. With the health of
women and their offspring at stake, Martha Murdock, Co-Founder of the National
Silicone Implant Foundation in Dallas, with four generations of her family
affected by silicone toxicity, says it best, "It's not over 'til we win."
Risks of
Breast Implants
1. Implants can rupture
during mammography.
2. Implants make routine
self exams and mammography more difficult. More views are necessary, meaning
additional radiation each time.
3. Implant rupture can go
undetected for years and silicone is known to migrate through the lymph system
and has been found in the brains, spinal fluid, ovaries, livers, and other
organs of implanted women.
4. Implants are not
lifetime devices, and may need to be replaced (even without systemic problems)
more than once a decade.
5. At any time infections
are possible, including fungal and antibiotic resistant bacterial infestations.
6. Loss of breast
sensation, especially around the nipple area is reported, as well as
hyper-senstivity to touch.
7. Capsular contracture can
be very uncomfortable, to the point of severe pain and deformation.
8. Many women have
experienced severe necrosis and other forms of breast tissue loss.
9. Many women have
experienced serious autoimmune diseases post implantation including: rheumatoid
arthritis, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, Sjøgrens Syndrome (severe dry
mouth, eyes, etc.), and lupus.
Those women with pre-existing compromised immune systems are now warned to
avoid implants.
10. Disproportional numbers
of implanted women have reported neurological and cognitive complications, as
well as endocrine disruption including hysterectomies, miscarriage.
11. Children born of
implanted women have experienced the same autoimmune conditions and have been seriously
inadequately studied.
12. Breast implants often
negatively affect the ability to produce milk for breast-feeding.
13. Health insurance
carriers are routinely denying coverage for implanted (and explanted) women.
Ilena
Rosenthal is the author of Breast Implants: The Myths, the Facts, the Women.
Ms. Rosenthal has been connecting, supporting and educating women harmed by
breast implants for over 5 years. As director of The Humantics Foundation for
Women based in San Diego, she created and heads the largest Breast Implant
Support Group in the world. E-mail: ilena2000@hotmail.com
phone: 858/270-0680.
Total
Health for Longevity Magazine November/December 2000, Volume 22, Number 6 pages
41-42
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
Many thinks to Ilena for
allowing me to reprint her excellent article on breast implants. If you suffer
with complications from implants I would strongly recommend joining her support
group.
Related Articles:
Most Breast
Implants Rupture Over Time
David Coursey, Executive Editor, AnchorDesk, ZDNet
Is America Online worth
another two bucks a month? Doesn't sound like much until you realize the
increase--actually $1.95 a month--adds up to $23.40 a year, which is like charging customers
for one extra month, at the new $23.90 monthly rate, every year.
If I had told you that AOL
wanted you to pay for an additional month each year, would you have felt
differently about it? And might it have prompted an even more important
question:
Have you
outgrown AOL?
THE INCREASE
MAKES AOL THE MOST EXPENSIVE of the big consumer Internet service providers (ISPs). If
that alone doesn't make AOL boss Steve Case the most popular man in the
Internet service business--at least among his competitors--I don't know what
will.
AOL's increase provides
cover for every other ISP in America, and probably overseas if the AOL increase
extends to world markets, to raise their own prices. Now that competition has
dwindled, AOL can safely increase rates without too much fear of customer
defection. After all, would it be worth a few bucks to go to MSN or Earthlink?
I SUSPECT
COMPETITORS WILL DO THE MATH, decide battling over a couple of bucks isn't worth it, and
accept the status quo and raise their rates, too. This reminds me of how the
airlines tend to raise, or lower, their fares all at the same time. But somehow
they do it in a way that doesn't draw too much attention from the Feds.
For the really low-cost
ISPs, AOL's price increase must be seen as an act of a truly munificent being.
These small companies can add nearly 20 percent (for the $9.95 a month
providers) to their revenue and still be in the same relative pricing position
vis-à-vis AOL as they were before! It's almost like free money! And for
companies that badly need it, too.
Sure, someone will make a
big deal over not increasing rates, perhaps promising to do battle with the
evil AOL Time Warner, but that won't last very long.
HAVE YOU OUTGROWN AOL? If I
had just a single Internet connection, it would not be AOL. Why? Because, for
an experienced user, AOL puts too much distance between the person and the Internet.
Surfing via AOL isn't like
surfing from a machine that's just connected to the Internet and using,
perhaps, Netscape Navigator as a browser.
Yes, you can use AOL as an
ISP without actually using the service by opening your own browser and mail
program and minimizing AOL. That works pretty well for me--and it's what I do
while traveling--but I have received many complaints about how browsers run
atop an AOL connection. I can't duplicate the problems, but I hear the
complaints.
THERE IS NO DOUBT that AOL
is a great service and is responsible for much of the Internet's explosive
growth. But there is likewise no doubt that using AOL is more like using the Internet
with training wheels
than connecting to the Net itself.
And for many people this is
exactly as it should be. But for others--perhaps you've always wondered about
that wide world outside AOL's doors--the price increase might provide a reason
for some self-examination. And maybe some users, perhaps you, will decide to
strike out on their own.
Most of us--myself
included--started with training wheels, after all. But one day we realized we
could ride the bike without them. (And that if we did, our older friends would
stop making fun of us).
Perhaps that time has come
for AOL users, at least a few. You, perhaps?
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
Ok, I know that HALF of
you readers are currently using AOL. However, that does not make it right.
Perhaps now that they have raised your rates and want to charge you 10% more
you will listen to my previous recommendations.
Get rid of AOL. You can
remove your training wheels and find a real ISP.
Nearly any other ISP
will be better. However, you might want to stick with one of the large ones if
you travel a lot, so you can have a local dialup when you go to a different
city.
I have cable modem in my
office, but I use Earthlink when I am at home and on the road, but there are
many other good ones.
However, shortly after
posting this article a subscriber emailed me about Surf Best which charges only
$12.50 per month with about 4,000 local dial up numbers. Seems like a winner to
me and I will likely be switching.
Their URL is: http://cognigen.net/surfbest/?owc
Related Articles:
AOL Arrogance and
Your Privacy
AOL:
Aiming for World Domination
To unsubscribe send a blank email to Healthnews-unsubscribe@topica.com
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dfgB.b2sRUg
Or send an email To: Healthnews-unsubscribe@topica.com
This email was sent to:
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.