Using Pharmaceuticals as Weapons
March 1, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Most people are familiar with traditional weapons of mass destruction such biological weapons, nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. The point of all such weapons of mass destruction is to inflict a large number of casualties on civilian populations as a way to cripple a nation into political or military submission.
When it comes to actually deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against civilian populations, no country has murdered more innocent civilians than the United States of America through its bombing of two Japanese cities during World War II. (This isn’t rhetoric, it’s an historical fact.)
Atomic bombs were very visible WMDs deployed in World War II as a way to force the empire of Japan to surrender to western forces. Since that time, full-scale nuclear weapons have never again been used directly on civilian targets, meaning the United States of America maintains the distinction of being the only nation in the history of human civilization to have dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations.
It begs the question: If national leaders believe dropping atomic weapons on civilian populations is justified, what other weapons might they feel justified in unleashing upon civilian populations?
Weapons of Mass Prescription
What if a nation wanted to reduce its own civilian population but do it covertly? One way to accomplish that would be to slowly poison the civilian population through exposure to toxic chemicals, heavy metals, hormone-disrupting molecules and nerve toxins.
And as any terrorist can tell you, the most covert way to accomplish that would be to inject such chemicals into the everyday products that people routinely consume: Water, food, personal care products and medicines. I even published a cartoon with this theme a couple of years ago.
Here’s another interesting fact: If you examine what’s in the water, food, products and medicines sold across North America, you’ll discover a dangerous assortment of chemicals that, taken together, could quite reasonably be considered weapons of mass destruction.
Interestingly, the fluoride dumped into public water supplies was originally an offshoot of the enrichment processing facilities for uranium to be used in nuclear weapons. These days, however, fluoride is usually just the toxic waste from fertilizer manufacturing factories or the waste from smokestack scrubbers of coal-fired power plants. Either way, it’s not good for your teeth: The entire fluoride agenda largely a convenient, low-cost way to dispose of industrial waste chemicals while calling it a public health program.
Antibacterial soaps derive their antibacterial properties from chemicals that are molecularly quite similar to the infamous Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War. And yet these products are openly marketed for use by children.
Similarly, children and adults continue to be poisoned by heavy metals like mercury thanks to the highly toxic practices of modern dentistry — an industry which astoundingly has still failed to admit to the obvious toxicity of a heavy metal its practitioners continue to install in people’s mouths as “silver fillings” (which actually contain more mercury than silver).
There are hormone-disrupting chemicals in most of the plastics used in the processed food industry — especially canned soups which are often highly toxic for a variety of other reasons. MSG and other nervous system destroyers are used throughout the food supply in soups, snack foods, salad dressings, flavorings and dips.
These are all chemical assaults of one kind or another, but the greatest assault on the minds and bodies of western consumers comes in the form of pharmaceutical chemicals. That’s why I call them ‘Weapons of Mass Prescription.’
Destroy any nation by destroying the health of its citizens
If you want to destroy any nation, simply unleash Big Pharma into its medical system. Within just two generations, its people will suffer widespread organ damage, sharp decline in cognitive function and rampant degenerative disease brought on by the side effects of everyday pharmaceuticals.
Click here for the full report
Dr. Jeff McCombs
Click the picture or link below to hear Kevin’s interview with Dr. Jeffrey McCombs. Click here to order The McCombs Plan and click here to purchase LifeForce: A Dynamic Plan for Health, Vitality, and Weight Loss.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 12-23-09
Today, Kevin gives you the hard evidence behind the September 11th conspiracy, the reasons why Barack Obama is merely a puppet and his solution to Obamacare!!
Plus, Dr. Jeff McCombs, the author of LifeForce, explains how Candida is polluting your body and what you can do to rid your body of this toxin! Also find out how antibiotics are hurting you and how the McCombs Plan can completely transform your body!
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!
Toxins Affect Baby Still in Womb
November 17, 2009
Sphere.com
By Andrew Schneider
It is one of the worst nightmares for a mother-to-be: She’s poisoning the baby in her belly, and there is little she can do about it.
Now new research out Tuesday has put hard numbers to those fears, showing that chemicals from everyday products contaminate women’s bodies, and that their children enter the world already exposed to known toxics.
Nine women from California, Oregon and Washington participated in the first-of-its-kind study and had blood and urine samples taken during their second trimester of pregnancy.
The results showed that even in the womb, children aren’t safe from known toxins. The researchers found 13 toxic chemicals in the bio-fluids of the pregnant women. Their report showed that:
• Bisphenol A, used to make polycarbonate plastic and the lining for food cans, was found in the urine of each woman. An artificial estrogen, it has been shown to be harmful to fetal development. In adults, low-level exposure to BPA can cause decreased sperm production, early onset of puberty, chromosome damage in female ovaries, and a variety of behavioral changes.
• Every test subject had at least two and as many as four perfluorinated compounds in her blood. These “Teflon chemicals” are used to create stain-protection products and non-stick cookware and are classified as a likely human carcinogen; in tests on laboratory animals, they have been shown to cause liver, thyroid, pancreatic, testicular and mammary glad tumors.
• Mercury, known to harm brain development, was in the blood of every woman in the study.
• Breakdown products – phthalate monoesters – of at least four phthalates were in the urine of all nine women. Used as plasticizers and fragrance carriers in numerous consumer products, phthalates are linked to reproductive problems and asthma.
The report further noted that research has proven that toxic chemical exposure has been linked to serious health problems like asthma, childhood cancers, diabetes, infertility and learning disabilities. “Yet the degree to which children are exposed to toxic chemicals before they enter the world is still being discovered.”
The Environmental Protection Agency and scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have repeatedly shown that exposure to toxic chemicals before birth and during infancy have the most serious and irreversible consequences.
However, the report does not offer a correlation between the levels of the chemicals found in the mothers and any health problems their newborns were expected to encounter.
“We cannot say with certainty whether these particular babies were harmed by the toxic exposures in the womb,” Schreder said in an interview late Monday. But “we do know that they were exposed during the very most vulnerable time in their lives to chemicals associated with cancer, learning disabilities and infertility.”
Most of the mothers were stunned by the results of the testing.
“I was surprised. The levels were much higher than I expected them to be,” said Alex Rosenstein, a Realtor from Issaquah, Wash. “And this is just from living what I consider to be a normal life.”
Amy Ellings, a public health nutritionist from Olympia, said: “The government’s role is to protect the public from hazards like these. The FDA should be much more active in keeping these persistent chemicals out of our food and packaging.”
To that end, the groups that produced the report, echoing calls from other public health and environmental activists across the country, say that immediate steps must be taken to eliminate the use of persistent toxic chemicals — those that build up in our bodies or are passed on to the next generation. They also want manufacturers to create consumer products using only chemicals fully tested for safety.
Congress has called for a full revamping of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the law that attempts to control the manufacturing of hazardous chemicals in this country. At recent House and Senate hearings on the EPA law, lawmakers heard testimony stating that out of 80,000 chemicals believed to be in use today, only 200 (including most of the compounds found in the pregnant women) had ever been comprehensively tested for health hazards.
For the West Coast researchers, their findings only underscore how little information the public has on toxic contamination before birth.
“Our study cannot answer these very important questions,” Schreder said. “But it opens a window to view the serious threats faced before entering the world — threats that could affect health and well-being for a lifetime.”
Ultra-Tiny ‘Bees’ Target Tumors
August 18, 2009
CNN
By Elizabeth Landau
They’re ready to sting, and they know where they’re going.
They’re called “nanobees,” and they’re not insects — they’re tiny particles designed to destroy cancer cells by delivering a synthesized version of toxin called melittin that is found in bees.
“Melittin, which would otherwise result in substantial destruction of your red blood cells and other normal tissues if it were delivered intravenously alone, is completely safe when it’s on a nanoparticle,” said Dr. Samuel Wickline, director of the Siteman Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
Nanobees are one of the latest examples of how nanotechnology may change the way diseases are treated.
Nanotechnology encompasses a wide array of innovations that make use of structures that are 100 nanometers or smaller. That means they generally cannot be seen under a regular microscope, but are larger than individual atoms. For example, a nanobee is less than 10 times diameter of a red blood cell, Wickline said.
Particles on the nanoscale are small enough to enter cells, but big enough to carry large doses of drugs, said Robert Langer, Institute professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a leader in the nanotech field.
“We are gradually forming a pipeline of nanotechnology-based products,” said Piotr Grodzinski, director of the National Cancer Institute’s Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, a program that funds eight Centers of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence in the U.S., including Wickline’s and Langer’s research initiatives. “These things are happening as we speak.”
There have already been two approved cancer treatments on the market that make use of nanoparticles: ovarian cancer drug Doxil, approved in 1995, and breast cancer drug Abraxane, approved in 2005. Both of these involve medication bound with nanoparticles that circulate in the bloodstream for longer than conventional drugs and are expected to migrate to the tumor site, Grodzinski said. These drugs are being tested in some of the eight clinical trials associated with the NCI nano program.
Nanobees, by contrast, are engineered to travel directly to tumor cells without harming any others. They leave the healthy cells alone because the blood vessels around a tumor are like a “postal address” for the nanobees, Wickline said. These vessels express a particular protein to which a substance on the nanobees has a chemical affinity.
This principle of targeting harmful cells and leaving healthy cells intact is under development in many labs. It means efficient delivery of large concentrations of drugs, but with fewer side effects, experts say. One hundred trillion nanobees can be delivered in a single dose, and are not difficult to make, Wickline said. Also, scientists do not use real insects, so they’re “not decreasing the bee population,” he said.
So far nanobees have been tested only on mice, with promising results, researchers said. Wickline anticipates this therapy could become widely available in humans in about five years.
Dr. Ellen Vitetta, who also works on targeted nanotech cancer therapies at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, found the approach intriguing, but said it will be at least 10 years before something like this gets to the market. That’s because what works in mice doesn’t always work in humans, as she learned while developing a targeted antibody cancer treatment.
“People need to appreciate the time issues and the cost issues and just what sort of tests need to be done,” she said. “But it’s always fun and exciting to see a new approach, because who knows what’s going to end up at the finish line.”
Langer estimates that his group’s nanotechnology technique for prostate cancer could be in clinical trials by the middle of next year. The method involves putting an approved cancer drug, docetaxel, in a nanoparticle that has a homing device to take it directly to the tumor.
These nanoparticles are made out of some of the same materials often used for dissolvable sutures, Langer said. In addition to having an “affinity molecule,” which targets the tumor cells, these nanoparticles are coated with polyethylene glycol, which helps the particle get to its target without being “eaten” by white blood cells called macrophages.
Langer and colleagues have also been involved in a new treatment for ovarian cancer, as described in this month’s issue of the journal Cancer Research. The technique has shown success in mice, and could go into clinical trials within one to two years, said lead author Daniel Anderson at MIT. The group has published work on two methods, one using DNA and one using RNA. These particles do not have special targeting antibodies on them, but are injected straight into the abdominal cavity where the cancer cells are likely floating.
Other research groups are exploring the potential of carbon nanotubes, cylindrical carbon molecules that also have applications in electronics and other areas. Researchers led by Vitetta have developed a method of heating the nanotubes with infrared light, which then “cooked” and killed cancerous lymphoma cells.
Vitetta said she doesn’t want to move this treatment forward into humans until the researchers have resolved a number of issues about its potential toxicity.
Nanoparticles are also useful in medical diagnosis, researchers have found. Abigail Lytton-Jean, a postdoctoral fellow in Langer’s lab, worked at Northwestern University on showing that gold nanoparticles can help detect the presence of DNA. When the nanoparticles are coated with a DNA sequence, the solution changes color in the presence of the corresponding DNA. One possible application of this would be anthrax detection, she said.
While a lot of new research is ongoing with nano-sized materials, the particles themselves are not new, and therefore should not cause any more safety concerns than other materials used in medicine, experts say.
“There are going to be nanomaterials that are toxic for sure, but I definitely do not think that because something is nano there’s any more reason to have alarm,” Lytton-Jean said.
Many of the NCI-sponsored nano centers, located at universities across the country, have spun off small companies, Grodzinski said. Kerios, which will make the nanobees, and BIND, which will work on Langer’s group’s prostate cancer therapy, are two of the 25 companies that have arisen from the research.
The pharmaceutical giants, meanwhile, are watching what comes out of them, he said.
“They probably will acquire some of these companies,” he said.
Click here for the full report from CNN
