GlaxoSmithKline Hid Evidence of Avandia Harm
February 23, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
GlaxoSmithKline, maker of the diabetes drug Avandia, knew the drug was linked to tens of thousands of heart attacks but went out of its way to hide this information from the public, says a 334-page report just released by the Senate Finance Committee. (http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpr…)
This report also accuses the FDA of betraying the public trust, explaining that FDA bureaucrats intentionally dismissed safety concerns found by the agency’s own scientists.
The report says that Big Pharma’s drugs “put public safety at risk because the FDA has been too cozy with drug makers and has been regularly outmaneuvered by companies that have a financial interest in downplaying or under-exploring potential safety risks.” Sales of Avandia were $3.2 billion (yes, billion) in 2006.
According to a statistical analysis in the report, if all the diabetics currently taking Avandia were put on a “safer” drug, it would avert 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure every month in the United States alone. Presently, hundreds of thousands of Americans are still taking this drug, and hundreds will continue to die each month as a result, according to the report estimates.
This report, championed by U.S. Senators Grassley and Baucus, is the result of investigators pouring through more than 250,000 pages of documentation gathered from GlaxoSmithKline and the FDA. The document reveals some rather startling facts about the dangers of Avandia, including evidence from the FDA’s own scientists who concluded that Avandia was associated with 83,000 heart attacks.
GlaxoSmithKline intimidates scientists
This investigative report also reveals that GSK engaged in the intimidation of physicians, saying: “GSK executives attempted to intimidate independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovascular risk.”
“Patients trust drug companies with their health and their lives, and GlaxoSmithKline abused that trust.” said Sen. Baucus. (Gee, really? Is anyone really surprised that GSK put its own financial interests ahead of a few thousand human lives?)
A separate letter sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg by Senators Baucus and Grassley added, “the totality of evidence suggests that GSK was aware of the possible cardiac risks associated with Avandia years before such evidence became public.”
The FDA’s own research also showed Avandia to be associated with a significant increase in heart attack risk, yet the FDA did nothing to protect the public. The agency’s own scientists wrote in 2008, “There is strong evidence that rosiglitazone [Avandia] confers an increased risk of [heart attacks] and heart failure compared to pioglitazone [a rival drug on market].” This evidence went completely ignored at the FDA.
The FDA’s famous Dr David Graham — the key whistleblower on the Vioxx scandal — concluded from his own research, “Rosiglitazone should be removed from the market.”
Even the American Medical Association — a long-time defender of Big Pharma’s drugs — admitted Avandia was dangerous. Its journal, JAMA, wrote in 2007: “Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes, rosiglitazone use for at least 12 months is associated with a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction and heart failure, without a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.”
The New England Journal of Medicine also warned about the safety of the drug in an article published in 2007.
Despite these multiple warnings, an FDA panel voted 22 – 1 in favor of keeping Avandia on the market. This is no surprise, of course, to those who know how the FDA really operates (and where its priorities really lie).
Analysis: What does it all mean?
Are you kidding me? A drug company hid data that its high-profit drug was linked to increased risk of heart attacks? A drug company intimidated physicians and got away with hoodwinking the public while raking in billions of dollars in sales for a drug that the FDA’s own scientists said should be pulled from the market?
Sounds like business as usual at the FDA, the “sweep it under the rug” division of the pharmaceutical industry. Once again, Dr David Graham turns out to be the sharpest guy in the room while having the courage to tell the truth even when surrounded by an agency full of morons and criminals.
The drug industry must hate this guy. But they can’t get rid of him because he’s one of the very few scientists in the FDA who is actually committed to protecting the public. Gee, what a concept, huh? The FDA as a whole abandoned that idea so long ago that virtually nobody there even remembers what it means. Protect the public? What do you mean? As in, lose profits by banning dangerous drugs that just happen to be making big money?
That’s unthinkable at the FDA as we know it today. The agency exists to promote pharmaceuticals, not to limit their sales just because a hundred thousand people happen to drop dead each year from taking FDA-approved drugs.
When it comes to safety vs. profits, the FDA chooses profits for Big Pharma time and time again.
Do the math on this: If Avandia is linked to 83,000 heart attacks, and if roughly 50% of those are fatal (that’s just an estimate), then Avandia could conceivably be the cause of 40,000 deaths. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 killed roughly 3,000 Americans, and yet just one drug that has been mysteriously kept on the market by the FDA appears to have killed more than ten times as many Americans as the terrorists.
So what does that make the FDA? More dangerous than the terrorists, of course!
So why is the FDA still allowed to operate in America if it’s such a dangerous organization that’s killing so many American citizens? Because it’s profitable, of course!
There’s one thing that’s true about both WAR and MEDICINE: As long as the right corporations are making money, it really doesn’t matter how many people die in the process.
And for all those diabetic Americans struggling to find improved health right now, there’s something you desperately need to know: There’s a price to putting your faith in the FDA, the drug companies and your pill-pushing doctor. That price may very well be your own life.
Diabetes has a cure, you know. You can reverse it in as little as four days by changing your diet. Read the books on diabetes by Dr Gabriel Cousens or Dr Julian Whitaker. Or read more about diabetes right here on NaturalNews: http://naturalnews.com/diabetes.html
Click here for the full report.
Kevin Trudeau Included in Michael Jackson Lawsuit
February 23, 2010 by Andrew
Filed under KT In The News
September 18, 2009
TMZ
A man is suing Michael Jackson’s estate, claiming the singer is responsible for the theft of his herpes cure.
Erle Bonner claims Jackson gave his formulas for “herpes cure, acne cures and arthritis cures” to a guy named Kevin Trudeau, also a defendant, who allegedly pilfered them.
Bonner also claims …”someone from the Jackson family came by my house and shot a 22 pistol in the air. They turned around in a neighbor’s driveway and drove away.”
Bonner also claims in his suit, filed today in L.A. County Superior Court … Jackson stole nine copyrights and the idea for an automobile insurance policy that “would revolutionize insurance for cars in America.”
There’s more, but you get the point
Click here for the full report
Big Pharma Researcher Admits to Faking Research!
February 23, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.
Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!
Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.
It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.
As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.
After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100…)
Business as usual in Big Pharma
What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.
The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.
Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.
Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a “scientific” medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn’t it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.
Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on “good science.” It’s all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being “woo woo” wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that’s based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.
You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is “scientific” while natural medicine is “unproven.” Sure it’s scientific — about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a “let’s play doctor” gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.
For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on “scientific evidence,” just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.
Drug companies support fraudulent research
Don’t forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben’s research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.
The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben’s research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to “prove” that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). “Here’s another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink).”
And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to “prove” exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don’t believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician’s wand and chanting, “Abra cadabra… let there be RESEARCH DATA!”
Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a “scientific” paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.
I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little “research magic” conveniently fills the void.
The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever “scientific evidence” they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.
What is “Evidence-Based Medicine?”
The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what’s really behind “evidence-based medicine.”
The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as “fact!”
When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting “evidence-based medicine” as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on “real science,” what they really mean is that it’s based on fraudulent science but they’ve all secretly agreed to call it “real science.” When they claim to have “scientific facts” supporting their position, what they really mean is that those “facts” were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.
“Evidence-based medicine,” it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals — without getting caught by his peers — then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?
Here’s what is says: “Scientific medicine” is a total fraud.
And this fraud isn’t limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven’t yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in “scientific” medical journals. They’ve been quoted in the popular press. They’ve been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as “safe and effective” for widespread use.
And yet underneath all this, there’s nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?
How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?
Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben
Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable “scientific” journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.
Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I’m sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more “scientific” studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.
You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you’re a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!
Because if there’s one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it’s in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.
Click here for the full report.
High Fructose Corn Syrup EXPOSED!
February 23, 2010 by KT
Filed under Kevin's Blog
As I promised on my radio show, here is Personal Trainer Herve Duchemin’s AskMen.com article “Celebrity Workout: Tobey Maguire” and the President of the Corn Refiners Association, Audrae Erickson’s response to thus article:
——————– Corn Refiner’s Letter———————————
Subject: Comment: “Celebrity Workout: Tobey Maguire”
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:33:17 -0400
Dear Mr. Duchenmin: We read your AskMen.com article “Celebrity Workout: Tobey Maguire,” with interest, particularly the advice to avoid foods that include high fructose corn syrup. We would like to provide you with science-based information on this safe sweetener and be a reference for you for future articles.
Scientific information, sourced from peer-reviewed journal articles that studied high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) specifically, as well as FDA and the USDA, can be found in the following brochure that provides fully cited answers to frequently asked questions about HFCS http://www.hfcsfacts.com/images/pdf/HFCSBrochure.pdf. Links for many of the studies noted in the brochure can be found at http://www.HFCSfacts.com/Related_Links.html.
HFCS, sugar, honey and several fruit juices all contain the same simple sugars.
Dr. Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University and author of “What to Eat” and “Food Politics” told the Spokesman Review “HFCS is glucose and fructose separated. Table sugar is glucose and fructose stuck together, but quickly separated by digestive enzymes. … The body can hardly tell them apart.” (Lamberson C. January 2, 2008. “High-fructose corn syrup may be the next target” Spokesman Review.)
Many studies claim that the body processes HFCS differently than other sugars due to the fructose content. Conclusions from these studies cannot be extrapolated to HFCS. That is because the studies looked at the effects of fructose independently.
Like sugar, honey and some fruit juices, HFCS contains almost equal portions of fructose and glucose. As noted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1996, “the saccharide composition (glucose to fructose ratio) of HFCS is approximately the same as that of honey, invert sugar and the disaccharide sucrose (or table sugar).” (61 Fed. Reg. 43447 (August 23, 1996), 21 C.F.R. 184.1866. Direct food substances affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe; High Fructose Corn Syrup – Final Rule.)
The absence of glucose makes pure fructose fundamentally different from HFCS. This is because glucose has been shown to have a tempering effect on specific metabolic effects of fructose. Once the combination of glucose and fructose found in HFCS and sucrose are absorbed into the blood stream, the two types of sweetener appear to be metabolized similarly using well-characterized metabolic pathways.
A considerable body of published scientific research finds high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) both safe and no different from other common sweeteners like sugar and honey. Recent scientific studies have shown that the human body appears to metabolize HFCS and sugar in much the same way. Like sugar, honey and some fruit juices, HFCS contains almost equal portions of fructose and glucose. Both sugar and HFCS contain 4 calories per gram.
Kathleen J. Melanson, et al. at the University of Rhode Island reviewed the effects of HFCS and sucrose on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin in a study group of lean women. The study found “no differences in the metabolic effects” of HFCS and sucrose. (Melanson KJ, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Nguyen V, Angelopoulos TJ, Rippe JM. 2007. Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women. Nutrition 23(2):103-12.)
Joshua Lowndes, et al. reported on the effects of HFCS and sucrose on circulating levels of uric acid. Uric acid is believed to play a role in the development of the metabolic syndrome. This short-term study found “no differences in the metabolic effects in lean women [of HFCS] compared to sucrose,” and also called for further similar studies of obese individuals and males. (Lowndes J, et al. June 2007. The Effect of High-Fructose Corn Syrup on Uric Acid Levels in Normal Weight Women. Presented at the June 2007 meeting of The Endocrine Society. Program Abstract #P2-45.)
Linda M. Zukley, et al. at the Rippe Lifestyle Institute reviewed the effects of HFCS and sucrose on triglycerides in a study group of lean women. This short-term study found “no differences in the metabolic effects in lean women [of HFCS] compared to sucrose,” and called for further similar studies of obese individuals or individuals at risk for the metabolic syndrome. (Zukley M, et al. June 2007. The Effect of High Fructose Corn Syrup on Post-Prandial Lipemia in Normal Weight Females. Presented at the June 2007 meeting of The Endocrine Society. Program Abstract #P2-46.)
No credible research has demonstrated that HFCS affects appetite differently than sugar. Research by Pablo Monsivais, et al. at the University of Washington found that beverages sweetened with sugar and HFCS as well as 1% milk all have similar effects on feelings of fullness. (Monsivais P, Perrigue MM, Drewnowski A. 2007. Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? Am J Clin Nutr. Jul;86(1):116-23.)
Stijn Soenen and Margriet S Westerterp-Plantenga from the Department of Human Biology at Maastricht University in The Netherlands studied the effects of beverages sweetened with sugar and high fructose corn syrup as well as milk on feelings of fullness. The researchers found “no differences in satiety, compensation or overconsumption” between the three beverages. (Soenen S and Westerterp-Plantenga MS. 2007. No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads. Am J Clin Nutr 86:1586 -94.)
Tina Akhavan and G. Harvey Anderson at the Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto studied the effect of solutions containing sugar, HFCS and various ratios of glucose to fructose on food intake, average appetite, blood glucose, plasma insulin, ghrelin and uric acid in men. The researchers found that sugar, HFCS, and 1:1 glucose/fructose solutions do not differ significantly in their short-term effects on subjective and physiologic measures of satiety, uric acid and food intake at a subsequent meal. (Akhavan T. and Anderson GH. November 2007. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men.Am J Clin Nut. Vol. 86(5) 1354-1363.)
Many parts of the world, including Australia, Mexico and Europe, have rising rates of obesity and diabetes despite having little or no HFCS in their foods and beverages, which supports findings by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the American Diabetes Association that the primary causes of diabetes are obesity, advancing age and heredity.
Around the world, HFCS accounts for about 8 percent of caloric sweeteners consumed. (LMC International, Inc. 2008. Table 2: World Sugar & HFCS Consumption. Sweetener Analysis January 2008.)
USDA data show that per capita consumption of HFCS has been declining in recent years, yet the incidence of obesity and diabetes in the United States remains on the rise.
An expert review of the research literature on the dietary role of HFCS has found insufficient support for the notion that HFCS could play a unique causal role in obesity. The expert panel led by Richard Forshee, Ph.D. of the University of Maryland Center for Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy (CFNAP) concluded that “the currently available evidence is insufficient to implicate HFCS per se as a causal factor in the overweight and obesity problem in the United States.” (Forshee RA, Storey ML, Allison DB, Glinsmann WH, Hein GL, Lineback DR, Miller SA, Nicklas TA, Weaver GA, White JS. 2007. A Critical Examination of the Evidence Relating High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Gain. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 47(6):561–582.)
Most sweeteners undergo processing to make the final sweetener. The sugar refining process consists of numerous steps and process aids including: multiple clarifying steps with heat and lime, polymer flocculent and phosphoric acid; multiple evaporation steps; centrifugation; washing with pressure filtration or chemical treatment; and decolorization with carbon or bone char. Hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, or enzymes are added to liquid sucrose to break the bond between glucose and fructose to make invert sugar. Sucrose from sugar beets is processed by similar methods. (See generally Environmental Protection Agency, AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. 1, § 9.10.1.1 Sugarcane Processing (5th ed.); Galloway JH. December 1996. History of sugar – Domestication to the 17th Century, abstracted from Annals of the Ass’n of Am. Geographers., Vol. 86, No. 4, at 682-706; Chou CC. 2000. Sugar refining processes and equipment, in Handbook of Sugar Refining: A Manual for the Design and Operation of Sugar Refining Facilities.)
HFCS is made from corn starch, which is separated from other kernel components through multiple grinding and screening steps, centrifugation and washing. The HFCS refining process utilizes multiple enzymes and magnesium and consists of numerous steps including: multiple refining steps using membrane filters, carbon filters and ion-exchange columns; centrifugation; chromatographic separation; and multiple evaporation steps. (See generally White PJ and Johnson LA. 2003. “Corn Sweeteners,” in Corn Chemistry and Technology, 2nd Edition; Alexander RJ. 1998. “Production and Description,” in Sweeteners: Nutritive; and Corn Refiners Association. 2006. “Manufacture,” in Nutritive Sweeteners from Corn, 8th Edition.)
Fruit juice concentrates are purified through heat and enzyme processing and filtered to remove fiber, flavor components and impurities. The end product is almost identical (in calories, sugars and nutrients) to sugar, honey or HFCS. (See generally Nobigrot T, Chasalow FI, Lifshitz F. 1997. Carbohydrate absorption from one serving of fruit juice in young children: age and carbohydrate composition effects. J Am Coll Nutr 16:152-158; Chaplin M, Bucke C. 1990. Enzymes in the fruit juice, wine, brewing and distilling industries, in Enzyme Technology. Cambridge Univ. Press.)
HFCS has a strong history as a safe ingredient recognized by food manufacturers and the U.S. government. In 1983, the Food and Drug Administration listed HFCS as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (known as GRAS status) for use in food, and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996. (61 Fed. Reg. 43447 (August 23, 1996), 21 C.F.R. 184.1866. Direct food substances affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe; High Fructose Corn Syrup – Final Rule.)
Please do not hesitate to visit our website, www.HFCSfacts.com, for further information or to contact us if we may be of assistance by providing additional information about the products made from corn.
Thank you for your consideration,
Audrae Erickson President
Corn Refiners Association – Washington, DC
———————HERVE’S RESPONSE—————————————
| From: | Herve Duchemin |
| Sent: | Thu 8/14/08 7:57 PM |
| To: | Audrae Erickson |
Ms. Erickson, It is quite the pleasure to hear from you. I wanted to thank you for the information you have provided, and I will look deeper into the research you have provided me with. Nevertheless, my article was geared towards males who want to “lean down”. I will never recommend the consumption of high fructose corn syrup as a means to drop bodyfat (whether the substance is deemed safe or not). If you were looking to lose bodyfat, would you honestly recommend consuming high fructose corn syrup? I think “organic corn” would be a much better choice, don’t you think? I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Herve J. Duchemin
Subscribe to the Kevin Trudeau Show Podcast!
Click here to subscribe to Kevin Trudeau’s Podcast and never miss a show again!!
Scientists Warn of Fraud of Stem Cell ‘Banks’
Febraury 22, 2010
BreitBart
Clinics that offer to “bank” stem cells from the umbilical cords of newborns for use later in life when illness strikes are fraudsters, a top US scientist said.
Clinics in many countries allow parents to deposit stem cells from their neonate’s umbilical cord with a view to using the cells to cure major illnesses that could occur later in life.
In Thailand, for example, parents pay in the region of 3,600 dollars to make a deposit in a stem cell bank, thinking they are taking out a sort of health insurance for their child.
But Irving Weissman, director of the Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University in California, said the well-meaning parents were being fleeced by the stem cell bankers.
“Umbilical cords contain blood-forming stem cells at a level that would maintain the blood-forming capacity of a very young child,” Weissman told reporters at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
“They could also have derived mesenchymal cells — fiberglass-like cells that have a very limited capacity to make scar, bone, fat — but they don’t make brain, they don’t make blood, they don’t make heart, they don’t make skeletal muscle, despite what various people claim,” he said.
Weissman said these “unproven stem cell therapeutic clinicians” tend to set up shop in countries with poor medical regulations, but AFP found websites for umbilical cord stem cell banks in European Union member states and in the United States.
“They do the therapies, then they let the patients go on their own, short of maybe 50-150,000 dollars for a therapy that has no chance — taken away from a family that needs them when they have an incurable disease,” Weissman said.
“It is wrong.”
The International Stem Cell Society is due to issue a report in April about unproven stem cell therapies such as banking a baby’s umbilical cord blood for future use.
Click here for the full report
Internet Overloaded With Advertising, Misinformation, and Hate
February 22, 2010
Organic Consumers Association
By Chris Hedges
The Internet has become one more tool hijacked by corporate interests to accelerate our cultural, political and economic decline. The great promise of the Internet, to open up dialogue, break down cultural barriers, promote democracy and unleash innovation and creativity, has been exposed as a scam. The Internet is dividing us into antagonistic clans, in which we chant the same slogans and hate the same enemies, while our creative work is handed for free to Web providers who use it as bait for advertising.
Ask journalists, photographers, musicians, cartoonists or artists what they think of the Web. Ask movie and film producers. Ask architects or engineers. The Web efficiently disseminates content, but it does not protect intellectual property rights. Writers and artists are increasingly unable to make a living. And technical professions are under heavy assault. Anything that can be digitized can and is being outsourced to countries such as India and China where wages are miserable and benefits nonexistent. Welcome to the new global serfdom where the only professions that pay a living wage are propaganda and corporate management.
The Web, at the same time it is destroying creative work, is forming anonymous crowds that vent collective rage, intolerance and bigotry. These virtual slums do not expand communication or dialogue. They do not enrich our culture. They create a herd mentality in which those who express empathy for “the enemy”-and the liberal class is as guilty of this as the right wing-are denounced by their fellow travelers for their impurity. Racism toward Muslims may be as evil as anti-Semitism, but try to express this simple truth on a partisan Palestinian or Israeli website.
Jaron Lanier, the “father of virtual reality technology,” in his new book “You Are Not a Gadget,” warns us of this frightening new collectivism. He notes that the habits imposed by the Internet have reconfigured how we relate to each other. He writes that “Web 2.0,” “Open Culture,” “Free Software” and the “Long Tail” have become enablers of this new collectivism. He cites Wikipedia, which consciously erases individual voices, and Google Wave as examples of the rise of mass collective thought and mass emotions. Google Wave is a new communication platform that permits users to edit what someone else has said in a conversation when it is displayed as well as allow collaborators to watch each other as they type. Privacy, honesty and self-reflection are instantly obliterated.
Tastes and information on the Internet are determined by the crowd, what Lanier calls the hive mentality. Music, books, journalism, commercials and bits of television shows and movies, along with inane YouTube videos, are thrust onto our screens and into national consciousness because of the statistical analysis of Internet crowd preferences. Lanier says that one of the biggest mistakes he and other computer scientists made when the Internet was developed was allowing contributions to the Internet to go unpaid. He says decisions such as this have now robbed people, especially those who create, of their ability to make a living and ultimately the capacity for dignity. Digital collectivism, he warns, is destroying the dwindling vestiges of authentic creativity and innovation, including journalism, which takes time, investment and self-reflection. And while there are a few sites that do pay for content-Truthdig being one-the vast majority are parasites. The only income left for most of those who create is earned through self-promotion, but as Lanier points out this turns culture into nothing but advertising. It fosters a social ethic in which the capacity for crowd manipulation is more highly valued than truth, beauty or thought.
Click here for the full report
Eco Friendly Brands and the Truth
February 22, 2010
Organic Consumers Association
By Peter Aldhous and Phil McKenna
IF YOU care about the environment, you may want to show that in the way you spend your money. Maybe you shop at an organic food store rather than a conventional supermarket. You probably look at energy efficiency labels before buying a new laptop. And if you’re really serious, you may even be concentrating your nest egg into “green” investment funds.
All of these decisions could help steer us towards a truly green economy – but only if consumers and investors have a good idea of which companies have genuinely minimised their impact on the environment. Do the corporations that benefit from our environmentally conscious purchasing and investment choices deserve their green halo?
To find out, New Scientist teamed up with two companies that have collected the most relevant data. Earthsense, based in Syracuse, New York, has polled US consumers on their perceptions of the “greenness” of various companies. Trucost, headquartered in London, has compiled an unparalleled quantitative assessment of companies’ global environmental impact (see interactive graphic, and “How we crunched the numbers”).
Bringing these two sets of information together shows just how confused ordinary people are about companies’ green credentials. Overall, there was no correlation between the Earthsense and Trucost scores, suggesting that US consumers have little idea about companies’ environmental performance relative to each other. And looking within industrial sectors, the only hint of accurate consumer awareness came for technology companies (see “Geeks, gadgets and the environment”).
In some cases there were dramatic mismatches between perceptions and reality. Take media firm Discovery Communications: its environmental impact, per dollar earned, is almost indistinguishable from TV and movie giant Viacom. Yet Discovery has a stellar green reputation that Viacom does not enjoy – which could be due to Discovery’s content, which includes Animal Planet TV and websites such as TreeHugger.
Some of the greatest confusion surrounds the food and beverage sector. Of the 115 firms we analysed, producers of food and drinks stood out as having the highest environmental impact – significantly different from media firms, retailers, technology companies and manufacturers of personal and household goods. Yet there were no significant differences in consumer perceptions between the sectors. In general, US consumers fail to recognise the high environmental costs associated with agriculture and food processing.
When it comes to perception, one company’s high score truly stands out: Whole Foods Market, which operates more than 270 stores, mostly in the US. As a purveyor of “natural and organic produce”, everything about Whole Foods shouts green. In addition to its overall branding, the company has taken steps to reinforce its environmental credentials, including improving the efficiency of its refrigerators and reducing packaging. But Trucost’s modelling rates Whole Foods no better than conventional supermarkets such as Safeway.
Click here for the full report
Climate Scientists Back off Sea Level Claim
February 22, 2010
Guardian
By David Adam
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results”. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.
“Retraction is a regular part of the publication process,” he said. “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled “Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change” – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.
Click here for the full report
‘Power Plant in a Box’ Unveiled
February 22, 2010
Fast Company
By Ariel Schwartz
If you keep track of green technology companies, you may have heard rumblings about Bloom Energy, a secretive company that has raised nearly $400 million from investors like Kleiner Perkins for its supposedly game-changing fuel cell device. Now the eight year old company is finally emerging from the shadows with the Bloom Box, a $700,000 to $800,000 machine that 60 Minutes calls “a little power plant-in-a-box.” So what exactly is the Bloom Box?
The box consists of a stack of ceramic disks coated with green and black “inks.” The disks are separated by cheap metal alloy plates. Methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen are fed in, the whole thing is heated up to 1,000 degrees Celsius, and electricity comes out. Bloom estimates that a box filled with 64 ceramic disks can produce enough juice to power a Starbucks.
As of right now, Bloom isn’t angling for the residential market–the box is far too expensive. But major companies like eBay, Google, Staples, and FedEx have already secretly started using the boxes. So far, the Bloom Box has been a success–eBay has already saved $100,000 in electricity costs since its 5 boxes were installed nine months ago. EBay even claims that the boxes generate more power than the 3,000 solar panels at its headquarters.
Of course, fuel cells aren’t new. They have just been too expensive to be viable until now, and Bloom still has to prove that its box can produce energy at a cheaper rate than other power sources. The box also produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct–a potential downside depending on how much it generates.
Bloom Energy founder K.R. Sridhar estimates that a Bloom Box for the residential market could be out in 5 to 10 years for under $3,000. That’s a big improvement from the $800,000 box of today, but only time will tell if Sridhar is being overly optimistic. And in the coming years, big name competitors will probably catch up to Bloom with cost-efficient boxes of their own. Will the Bloom Box and fuel cell devices like it eventually replace the power grid? Probably not, but they have the chance to one day at least partially free homeowners from the grid–along with solar panels, wind turbines, and other alternative energy sources.
Click here for the full report
