The Kevin Trudeau Show: 10-6-12

Today, Kevin gives you even more proof that the economy is getting worse and that your standard of living is deteriorating! Plus, the creator of the Resolve mineral detox, Dr. Ray Lala, stops by to explain how his mineral detox can virtually cure you from any viral infection, including herpes and HPV.

Self Help:
Second Stream Of Income
The Secret To Perfect Health
Resolve The “Unresolvable”

Economy:
Recovery Job Growth Concentrated In Low-Paying Occupations
Protesters ‘Liberate’ Foreclosed Homes

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Stand with KT!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

5 Food-Medicines That Could Possibly Save Your Life

April 16, 2012

Activist Post

By Sayer Ji

“Let thy medicine be thy food.” –KTRN

Some of the most powerful medicines on the planet are masquerading around as foods and spices. While they do not lend themselves to being patented, nor will multi-billion dollar human clinical trials ever be funded to prove them efficacious, they have been used since time immemorial to both nourish our bodies, and to prevent and treat disease.

So valued were these in ancient times that they were worth their weight in gold, and entire civilizations either rose to great power or collapsed as a result of their relationship to them.

What is even more amazing is that many of these “plant allies” are found growing in our backyards, and often sitting there in our refrigerators and spice racks, neglected and under appreciated. In fact, many of us use these daily, unaware that this is why we don’t get sick as often as those who do not incorporate them into their diet. Let’s look at a few examples….

1) Garlic – with the increasing prevalence of multi-drug resistant bacteria and the failure of the conventional, drug-based model to develop effective solutions against them (nor accepting responsibility for creating them), spices have regained their once universal reign as broad spectrum infection-fighters with sometimes life-saving power.

Garlic, in fact, has several hundred therapeutic properties, confirmed by a growing body of scientific research, which you can view directly on GreenMedInfo.com.[i]

One quick example of garlic’s power, is in killing multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), which the mainstream media has termed the “white plague,” roiling the masses with a fear of drug-resistant (but not plant-extract resistant) they are made to believe they are defenseless against. Last year an article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal showing that garlic was capable of inhibiting a wide range of multiple drug resistant tuberculosis strains.[ii] The authors concluded “The use of garlic against MDR-TB may be of great importance regarding public health.” Garlic’s anti-infective properties do not end with MDR-TB, as it has been demonstrated to inhibit the following pathogens as well:

Amoeba Entamoeba histolytica (parasite)
Cholera
Clostridium
Cytomegalovirus
Dermatophytoses (a type of topical fungal infection)
Haemophilus Influenzae
Helicobacter Pylori
Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1
Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2
Klebsiella
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus A. (MRSA)
Parainfluenza Virus
Peridontal Infection
Pneumococcal Infections
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Streptococcus Mutans
Streptococcus Infections: Group A
Streptococcus Infections: Group B
Streptococcus pyrogenes
Thrush (oral fungal infection)

This amazing list underscores how important it is to keep a supply of garlic close by!

Click here for the report.

Vaccines For Everything: Researchers Now On Brink Of Developing Salmonella Jab

February 24th, 2012

Natural News

By: Ethan A. Huff

The vaccine industry is currently hard at work trying to churn out a vaccine for salmonella, a typically food borne pathogen that thrives on factory farms and in other unsanitary settings. CBS 13 News in Sacramento reports that researchers from the University of California, Davis, have been tasked with developing a vaccine that supposedly prevents salmonella, which these researchers say they are on the verge of completing in the very near future.

Rather than attempt to address the root causes of salmonella, which include filthy animal living conditions on industrial farms and the overuse of synthetic antibiotics in conventional livestock, just to name a few, mainstream science is busy concocting new ways to jab people with toxic chemical cocktails that could permanently injure them.

Funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, Stephen McSorley and his team of international researchers believe that by closely studying the immune response to infection in mice, they will be able to arrive at a solid vaccine protocol for “curing” salmonella. And their findings thus far, which were recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, seem to indicate that the project is moving forward as planned.

Not surprisingly, Big Pharma is behind this ludicrous endeavor to develop a vaccine for an illness that is largely preventable through improved hygiene, small-scale agriculture, and naturally-boosted human immunity. Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the Novartis Vaccines Institute for Global Health are both collaborators on the project, which is expected to soon move into human clinical trials (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/a-vaccine-against-salmonella/).

The development of this new salmonella vaccine appears to also align directly with the vision of a group of researchers in the U.K. who last summer called for the development of 20 new vaccines in the next decade. Their paper, which was published in the journal Lancet, seeks funding for the development of vaccines “beyond classic infections,” including for things like diabetes, degenerative diseases, and even cancer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13714224).

So by the looks of it, there could soon be vaccines for virtually everything — a headache, an upset stomach, a paper cut, you name it. Anything mainstream medicine can identify that is a consequence of a underlying condition rather than a cause of it is open game for vaccine development because there is a whole lot of money to be made utilizing this approach to so-called medicine.

For The Full Story Go To Natural News

Monsanto Believes The Safety Of GMOs Does Not Need To Be Tested

January 25, 2012

InfoWars

By Ethan A. Huff

There is a growing body of scientific evidence which proves that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are inherently different from natural organisms, including the way the body processes them, as well as how the immune system responds to them. But Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs in the world, believes that GMOs are no different than natural organisms, and that GMO testing is both needless and valueless.

In the “Why aren’t you running human clinical trials on GM crops?” section of Monsanto’s Food Safety page, the biotechnology giant explains its opinion that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to natural organisms. According to Monsanto, since concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrient factors vary among natural crops, as well as among natural and GM crops, then these differences are automatically unimportant in light of GMO safety.

Furthermore, Monsanto claims that its injection of foreign DNA into its GM crops is also automatically safe because, get this, DNA is present in natural crops as well. Never mind that the injected DNA is foreign and unnatural, and is used to alter the entire genetic structure of GM crops — according to Monsanto, its unnatural DNA is automatically non-toxic because every other plant also has DNA. Case closed.

Using this same absurd illogic, injecting foreign animal DNA into a developing human baby, for instance, must also be safe because that baby contains DNA, right? Or how about drinking antifreeze, which is made of atoms, because your body is also made of atoms?

Based on Monsanto’s pseudoscientific nonsense,everythingcan be considered non-toxic and safe because it is all made of atoms, just like our bodies!

Click here for the full report from InfoWars.

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 7-27-11

Today, Kevin gives you even more proof that the economy is getting worse and that your standard of living is deteriorating! Plus, the creator of the Resolve mineral detox, Dr. Ray Lala, stops by to explain how his mineral detox can virtually cure you from any viral infection, including herpes and HPV.

Self Help:
Second Stream Of Income
The Secret To Perfect Health
Resolve The “Unresolvable”

Economy:
Recovery Job Growth Concentrated In Low-Paying Occupations
Protesters ‘Liberate’ Foreclosed Homes

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Stand with KT!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

Deadly Medicine

January 27th, 2011

Vanity Fair

By: Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele

You wouldn’t think the cities had much in common. Iaşi, with a population of 320,000, lies in the Moldavian region of Romania. Mégrine is a town of 24,000 in northern Tunisia, on the Mediterranean Sea. Tartu, Estonia, with a population of 100,000, is the oldest city in the Baltic States; it is sometimes called “the Athens on the Emajõgi.” Shenyang, in northeastern China, is a major industrial center and transportation hub with a population of 7.2 million.

These places are not on anyone’s Top 10 list of travel destinations. But the advance scouts of the pharmaceutical industry have visited all of them, and scores of similar cities and towns, large and small, in far-flung corners of the planet. They have gone there to find people willing to undergo clinical trials for new drugs, and thereby help persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to declare the drugs safe and effective for Americans. It’s the next big step in globalization, and there’s good reason to wish that it weren’t.

Once upon a time, the drugs Americans took to treat chronic diseases, clear up infections, improve their state of mind, and enhance their sexual vitality were tested primarily either in the United States (the vast majority of cases) or in Europe. No longer. As recently as 1990, according to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, a mere 271 trials were being conducted in foreign countries of drugs intended for American use. By 2008, the number had risen to 6,485—an increase of more than 2,000 percent. A database being compiled by the National Institutes of Health has identified 58,788 such trials in 173 countries outside the United States since 2000. In 2008 alone, according to the inspector general’s report, 80 percent of the applications submitted to the F.D.A. for new drugs contained data from foreign clinical trials. Increasingly, companies are doing 100 percent of their testing offshore. The inspector general found that the 20 largest U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies now conducted “one-third of their clinical trials exclusively at foreign sites.” All of this is taking place when more drugs than ever—some 2,900 different drugs for some 4,600 different conditions—are undergoing clinical testing and vying to come to market.

Some medical researchers question whether the results of clinical trials conducted in certain other countries are relevant to Americans in the first place. They point out that people in impoverished parts of the world, for a variety of reasons, may metabolize drugs differently from the way Americans do. They note that the prevailing diseases in other countries, such as malaria and tuberculosis, can skew the outcome of clinical trials. But from the point of view of the drug companies, it’s easy to see why moving clinical trials overseas is so appealing. For one thing, it’s cheaper to run trials in places where the local population survives on only a few dollars a day. It’s also easier to recruit patients, who often believe they are being treated for a disease rather than, as may be the case, just getting a placebo as part of an experiment. And it’s easier to find what the industry calls “drug-naïve” patients: people who are not being treated for any disease and are not currently taking any drugs, and indeed may never have taken any—the sort of people who will almost certainly yield better test results. (For some subjects overseas, participation in a clinical trial may be their first significant exposure to a doctor.) Regulations in many foreign countries are also less stringent, if there are any regulations at all. The risk of litigation is negligible, in some places nonexistent. Ethical concerns are a figure of speech. Finally—a significant plus for the drug companies—the F.D.A. does so little monitoring that the companies can pretty much do and say what they want.

Click here for the full report from Vanity Fair

Duke Cancer Researcher Quits as Papers Questioned

December 13th, 2010

ABC News

A Duke University cancer scientist resigned Friday amid concerns about his research that arose after the university started probing whether he’d lied on a grant application.

School spokeswoman Debbe Geiger also said another researcher at the school is asking the journal Nature Medicine to retract a paper he published with Anil Potti, the scientist who’s stepping down. Potti’s collaborator Joseph Nevins said some of the tests in the research they produced for that paper can not be duplicated.

Other papers submitted by Potti are also being reviewed, and three clinical trials based on his research have been closed, Geiger said.

A phone message left at a listing for Potti was not immediately returned Friday.

Potti was an associate professor of medicine at Duke who has been under investigation by the school since this summer, when his claim on a federal grant application to be a Rhodes Scholar was scrutinized. Geiger didn’t immediately return a call seeking further information on what the school found out about the Rhodes Scholar claim.

Potti’s research was questioned by statisticians at the University of Texas’ M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, who were troubled by methods used in a study that described gene patterns that might help predict a breast cancer patient’s response to chemotherapy.

The December 2007 study also was questioned by 15 European scientists involved in the research, who expressed “grave concerns about the validity of their report” to the National Cancer Institute.

Potti has received a five-year, $729,000 grant from the American Cancer Society, but that award was suspended during the investigation into his work.

Click here for the full report from ABC News

UK Approves Pot-Based Drug

July 6, 2010

DailyFinance.com

by Bruce Watson

It looks like marijuana sales may be moving from the street corner to the pharmacy in the U.K., where a drug derived from cannabis went on sale Monday. Sativex, which was developed by GW Pharmaceuticals and will be marketed by Bayer, is intended for multiple-sclerosis patients. It’s the world’s first prescription drug made from pot, according to The Wall Street Journal, and Canadian regulators approved its use back in 2005.

British regulators approved the drug Friday. GW Pharmaceuticals also plans to seek approval for Sativex in other countries, including Spain, Germany and Italy. In the U.S., where Phase III (late-stage) clinical trials are set to start later this year, the company hopes to market the drug as a painkiller for cancer patients. Analysts estimate that annual revenues from Sativex will ultimately reach $74 million to $148 million.

These massive potential revenues have reignited the controversy over medical marijuana. If the active chemical in pot, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has proven its effectiveness for medical purposes in Sativex, could that lend more legitimacy to the idea of using marijuana leaves directly for medical purposes? Or will new pharma-developed drugs like Sativex outcompete marijuana in its original form?

Pricing the Pot Market

First, let’s take a look at how Sativex and marijuana would compete on cost. Of course, the current average prices for pot are much higher than they would be if the plant could be widely grown legally, and it’s hard to tell exactly what it would cost in that case. Because of its illegality, marijuana cultivation, transportation and sales are fraught with peril. The lack of secure supply chains and the potential cost of run-ins with the law tend to keep black market prices high.

However, a few open markets hint at what the actual market value of marijuana could be. In Amsterdam, for example, prices range from $1.50 to $10 per gram, depending upon the quality and origin of the marijuana. In Canada, the per-gram price for medical marijuana is only $4.91 ($5 Canadian).

The overall range, then, is $1.50 to $10 per gram for legal marijuana, with $5 per gram as a workable baseline. In Canada, the standard daily dose of medical marijuana ranges between 0.5 and 1.5 grams, which would cost roughly $2.50 to $7.50 for most patients. By comparison, a basic daily dose of Sativex costs roughly $16 per day. And a daily dose of Marinol, a drug containing synthetic THC that’s prescribed for AIDS and cancer patients in the U.S., runs between $9 and $13.50 per day.

This translates into a monthly price of $150 for marijuana, $337 for Marinol and $480 for Sativex. The comparatively high prices of Sativex and Marinol aren’t surprising. In fact, it’s a little shocking that they don’t cost more. Sativex is a processed version of marijuana, which means that its cost is directly tied to the base cost of the plant. Marinol, on the other hand, is a synthesized version of THC and contains far more THC than marijuana. In both cases, the cost of manufacturing massively increases the price that patients — or health-care providers — pay.

Challenges to Medical Marijuana

The basic argument against medical marijuana lies in its classification as a Schedule 1 substance, which means that it has a high potential for abuse, that it does not have an accepted medical usage and that there is a lack of accepted safety for its use in a medical setting. This, by the way, puts marijuana in the same class as heroin, LSD and peyote.

But with the increased acceptance of THC-based drugs like Marinol and Sativex, the Schedule 1 argument starts to crumble. In fact, Marinol contains far more THC than standard marijuana, which can provoke some unpleasant reactions. One consumer, Robert Randall, complained, noting: “When I took Marinol, I found it anxiety-provoking and intense, like I had wandered into a short story by Flannery O’Connor.” (Sativex avoids this effect with a different chemical composition and delivery system, GW claims.)

Another argument is that pharmaceutical companies can produce THC content with higher consistency and quality than medical marijuana. Critics of medical marijuana question whether actual marijuana can have the consistent THC content necessary for prescription use. Sativex, which is made from medical marijuana cultivated in secret farms around the UK, seems to suggest that marijuana plants can be grown with relatively consistent THC.

Smoked Medication vs Pills

The final key argument against medical marijuana is that it’s usually smoked. No medicines that are smoked are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency claims that a marijuana cigarette contains four times more cancer-causing tar than a normal cigarette. Then again, other methods of consumption — including vaporizers, water pipes, and cooked goods — can reduce or even eliminate the tar problem.

For supporters of medical marijuana, Sativex may seem to be a step backward. After all, the marijuana derivative is yet another stopgap separating sick people from a cheap, common, easily produced medication. Then again, as accepted medications start to draw closer and closer to actual marijuana, the arguments against the “the demon weed” increasingly seem to be going up in smoke.

Click here to read the full report

Pfizer ‘Study’ Not on the Up and Up

November 11, 2009

ABC News

by Julie Steenhuysen

A study of internal company documents suggests Pfizer Inc altered or omitted unfavorable study findings to expand its epilepsy drug Neurontin’s market, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday, offering a look at how drugmakers influence scientific research.

Clinical trials are supposed to answer a specific, predetermined scientific question, but a comparison of Pfizer documents and published studies on Neurontin for conditions other than epilepsy found that eight out of 20 study reports never made it into medical journals.

And in eight of the 12 published studies, the primary outcome — the answer to the main scientific question — was changed by Pfizer, the world’s biggest drugmaker, from the original study design.

“There were a lot of primary outcomes that were shifted around between the planning of the protocol and the reporting of the study,” said Kay Dickersin of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, whose study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Some primary outcomes were lost altogether. Some were brand new. Some were secondary outcomes that were upgraded to primary,” she said in a telephone interview.

The studies, all funded by Pfizer, showed how the drug worked in people with problems like migraines or pain, which are off-label uses of the drug.

Once a drug is approved, doctors are free to prescribe it as they see fit, and while companies are not permitted to market a drug for anything but the approved use, they can hand out reprints of studies published in medical journals showing how the drugs work in patients with different problems.

Dickersin got the documents while serving as an expert witness against Pfizer, which in 2004 paid $430 million to settle a lawsuit over illegal promotion of Neurontin.

Pfizer was sued again last year by lawyer Thomas Greene, who brought the original case against the company for off-label marketing practices, for holding back negative study results and changing the design of its trials to produce more favorable results.

That case was the latest in a string of allegations against the pharmaceutical industry suggesting it has controlled the flow of clinical trial research to boost its marketing position.

Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder said in a statement the suggestion that the company attempted to mislead the medical community is untrue and was “derived from a report created for litigation and coauthored by plaintiffs’ expert witness.”

Dickersin said the studies she reviewed are still not publicly available.

She said while there can be legitimate reasons to change a study’s primary goal or endpoint, that change needs to be included in a formal amendment and published in a journal.

Not taking that step leaves a false impression, and in the case of companies, reveals the competing interests of scientists and marketing departments, she said.

To improve transparency, Dickersin said study protocols and primary endpoints should be required when companies register their clinical trials on the public database clinicaltrials.gov.

“It’s important for us not to give up on trying to understand this because if we don’t, the truth of science will not be upheld,” she said.

Click here for full report

Drug Firms Can Make H1N1 Vaccine for Half Planet: WHO

September 24, 2009

Reuters

By Stephanie Nebehay

Drug makers can only produce enough H1N1 vaccine each year for half the planet because they lack factory capacity, the World Health Organization said on Thursday.

The H1N1 vaccine looks to be as safe as the regular flu shot, the WHO said in a statement, adding that drug makers worldwide can produce an estimated 3 billion doses per year and a single dose should be enough to give immunity to healthy adults and older children.

But it said companies had “limited, inadequate and not readily augmented” capacity to increase output to cover the planet’s 6.8 billion population.

The WHO’s previous projection last May was that global production capacity would be close to 5 billion doses, but its new estimate was made on the basis of results from clinical trials and confidential data provided to the U.N. agency.

“There is not enough production capacity worldwide to vaccinate everyone,” WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl told Reuters.

“New production capacity takes a long time to come on line. Any new single plant for vaccine production takes about five years to build, test and get approval,” he added.

It was not immediately clear whether the WHO’s new estimate of 3 billion doses per year implied switching all production from seasonal flu vaccine to H1N1 pandemic vaccine.

Marie-Paule Kieny, director of WHO’s initiative for vaccine research, is due to give a teleconference at 1500 GMT on Thursday.

“Outcomes of trials completed to date suggest that pandemic vaccines are as safe as seasonal influenza vaccines,” WHO said.

“However, even very large clinical trials will not be able to identify possible rare events that can occur when pandemic vaccines are administered to many millions of people,” it said.

Pandemic vaccines are most effective as a preventive strategy when given before or near the peak incidence of cases in an outbreak, it said.

The WHO advised countries to closely monitor the vaccine’s safety and report “adverse events.” This was vital to determine whether changes in vaccination policies were needed.

Side effects are expected to be similar to those with seasonal flu vaccines, including soreness or swelling at the point of injection and possible fever, headache, muscle or joint aches, according to the United Nations agency.

In almost all people, these symptoms should be mild and last 1-2 days, it said.

Most rich nations have contracts with drug makers to obtain enough vaccine to cover their entire populations, it said.

But most low- and middle-income countries lack the financial resources to compete for an early share of limited supplies, which in such countries would depend mainly on donations.

The WHO said it would begin an initial distribution of some 300 million doses of vaccine donated by rich nations to more than 90 developing countries from November.

Leading flu vaccine makers include Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline and Solvay.

Regulatory authorities have licensed pandemic vaccines in Australia, China, Hungary and the United States, soon to be followed by Japan and several countries in Europe, the WHO said.

Click here for the full report from Reuters

Next Page »