These A'holes

[PolarKnight]

I suppose this could have been put under "pharmacology" but i think it fits better here.
"Crestor" is a drug used to lower cholesterol and comes with serious risks and side effects.

This FDA approval for the marketing of Crestor to healthy people is a breakthrough for wealthy drug companies. Selling drugs only to people who are sick is, by definition, a limited market. Expanding drug revenues requires reaching people who have nothing wrong with them and convincing them that taking a cocktail of daily pharmaceuticals will somehow keep them healthy.

link to story here.FDA approves Crestor for people who have no health problem to correct

In Canada, and internationally, CRESTOR® has been associated with reports of a serious condition called rhabdomyolysis. Rhabdomyolysis results in muscle breakdown and the release of muscle cell contents into the bloodstream.

link to story here. Risks of CRESTOR (rosuvastatin)

[7redorbs]

My god PolarKnight. This sounds terrible As usual, the big pharma seems to put their marketing and patents ahead of non patentable herbal remedy , and unsick patients.

I see a pattern evolving here. It's quite sad that people needlessly die of cancerous tumours, because drug companies want to find a way to create an effective herbal synthetic that can be patented and sold for extortionate prices.. but to do this to people who are well?

That is unspeakable. Someone , somewhere, knows, exactly what they are doing. Probably a lot of very smart, and very powerful people. I hope it was worth it. I can see why they want to keep their anonymity , and maintain the status quo, if they were caught, or punished, society would want them up on a platter. I would if it was a member of my family. I never thought that I'd have to play doctor with my family - but seriously, the things they hand out today, AMAZE me. I know what they do, so do Doctors, makes you wonder what the fark they are playing at.

Are they trying to help people, when they have conflicts of interest? duh! guess not.

A

[outlander]

Probably have a marketing campaign like Splenda:



The dumbing down of everyone is almost complete.

[7redorbs]

Probably have a marketing campaign like Splenda:



The dumbing down of everyone is almost complete.

What they don't say is it's a low calorie sweetener because it's not sugar.. it's a synthetic chemical!!

These artificial products scare the crap out of me.

ASPARTAME VERSUS SPLENDA (SUCRALOSE)

The dangers of aspartame are now widely known, but the risks of using Splenda are not documented – until now. Splenda may not penetrate the blood brain barrier as aspartame does, hence entering the brain and creating neurotoxin havoc at the brain center, but Splenda CAN adversely affect the body in several ways because it IS a chemical substance and not natural sugar.

December newsletter Equal Sues Splenda

The same patterns with aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal) are repeating with sucralose (Splenda). Their claims of product safety and research results are identical to those used by The NutraSweet Company. Note the comparisons and repetitions between the products, the corporations, and marketing. Maybe now, consumers can prevent damage to human health sooner than with NutraSweet, which has damaged the health and lives of millions of innocent consumers since it was placed in the public food supply in 1982.

Has the FDA repeated the aspartame approval process for sucralose, allowing a product with proven carcinogens to flood our food supply? Only time will tell, as it has with aspartame. Yet at the cost of human lives.

Knowledge is power. As an educated consumer, you have the awareness to choose what you and your family will ingest. Unnatural artificial sweeteners may affect your health. Why take the chance? With this book, you woke up and smelled the coffee just in time. Now you can drink it safely.

http://www.splendaexposed.com/

Scary thing being? That I didn't even know about this product, or how dangerous it was, until I looked. The first time I looked at stuff like this , I realized how screwed we are as a world, most people DONT LOOK. They trust these bastards.

This sort of reminds me of christmas, we think that it is all goodwill and because we buy eachother presents, nobody loses out.

What nobody actually works out is , that both of you gave your money to "the man" - both of you. etc ;]

A

[outlander]

what about the synthetic fat "Olestra" iirc, they state it sucks vitamins out of the body so they add more to the substance.. they also claim it may cause 'anal leakage'. But hey, with the new cholesterol pill, splenda & olestra I will surely live to 200 :p

[PolarKnight]

what about the synthetic fat "Olestra" iirc, they state it sucks vitamins out of the body so they add more to the substance.. they also claim it may cause 'anal leakage'. But hey, with the new cholesterol pill, splenda & olestra I will surely live to 200

HAHAHA. That reminds me of an ad I saw on television back in the 90's shortly after a law was passed requiring pharma's to state side effects if they stated how their product would improve your life. Can't remember the product but i believe it was a diet drug and they listed the side effects as "Gas with oily discharge"
Nowadays, they never state what a drug does so they never have to say what the side effects are. It is always "Ask your doctor what (our toxin) can do for you"

[reptilian]

It's really good to see people covering this issue. There is interesting history around the FDA approval of aspartame.

"In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame."

How Aspartame Became Legal - The Timeline

[7redorbs]

Hey reptilian, I couldn't agree more!! Wah reptilian, that's crazy.. I thought aspartame was still illegal there? There is a moral to this story, don't believe what your friends and family tell you when you are supposed to specialise in this.

can anyone confirm id aspartame is still legal in the U.S? I thought it was only being pushed in Europe.. I'm , quite surprised. I've actually got the video of a line of hundreds of victims saying how it blinded them, killed family, friends; and a panel of so called medical doctors, totally ignored the evidence.

Reputing a rebuttal that was akin to "we don't care. Prove it."

That's not fair when the company can afford to prove it, but doesn't want to talk about it. However, something that these hapless victims are unable to carry out , sometimes even intellectually, physically or monetarily.

Monsanto , in my opinion (to avoid being jailed lol) - is the most Evil thing to touch organics. The damage they have done to south american habitat, may not be reversible, and may, eventually, pollute the entire genetic stability of the planet. Luckily though, there is *some* signs nature is resisting. Not enough though, the Monsanto contamination is almost beyond control now , as far as I know. I will try and dig up an article about it in a little while.

great stuff rep. It made me laugh, Monsanto is actually in the Firefox dictionary, it reminded me I needed to capitalise. Ironic isn't it?

Peace,
A

[reptilian]

Oh don't get me started on Monsanto. Mexico (and the planet in general) used to have hundreds of native corn species but now thanks to Monsanto virtually all of them are genetically modified. The GM corn pollen spreads naturally on the wind into the wild species and "infects it". In the very near future there will not be a single corn plant left on the planet that does not carry Monsanto's gene modifications. Think about what kind of power that gives Monsanto. If they wanted to they could covertly release a gene that makes corn poisonous and in one fell swoop starve a huge percentage of the world population to death. I hear all this noise from people like Bill Deagle about population reduction plans via killer viruses, but why would the elite waste their time with viruses that could backfire on them when they can control the exact biology of all the major food crops ?

[video]ZbFu7uP2wLk[/video]

-Reptilian

p.s. Yes I can go to the grocery story right now and pick up a diet coke with aspartame in it.

[PolarKnight]

Aspartame is still used in products here in Canada. Just today my brother was drinking a diet drink and I asked him what the sweetener was, and he read out that it was in fact aspartame.
On the subject of Monsanto. They have the patents to all their disgusting products, which are in fact abominations of nature. Any cross pollination that happens with natural crops is absolutely unavoidable and yet Monsanto will have a legal right to seize any such crops because their patented genes are contaned in these crops. I believe this has already occured with some farmers. Now with the looming introduction of Codex Alimentarious, producers of organically grown crops will eventually be denied the right to label thier products as such. All product labelling will be minimal and nolonger will GMO ingredients be labeled as such. This will make it impossible to hold producers of GMO products liable WHEN people start having reactions to them.(I believe this has already happened)

When a German court ordered Monsanto to make public a controversial 90-day rat study on June 20, 2005, the data upheld claims by prominent scientists who said that animals fed the genetically modified (GM) corn developed extensive health effects in the blood, kidneys and liver and that humans eating the corn might be at risk. The 1,139 page research paper on Monsanto’s “Mon 863” variety also revealed that European regulators accepted the company’s assurances that their corn is safe, in spite of the unscientific and contradictory rationale that was used to dismiss significant problems. In addition, the study is so full of flaws and omissions, critics say it wouldn’t qualify for publication in most journals and yet it is the primary document used to evaluate the health impacts.

story here- http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey7.htm