Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
STSI should investigate Jujube:
Article at:
http://www.mdidea.com/products/new/new03004.html
Betulinic Acid at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betulinic_acid
Scientific Discovery---"There are three stages to scientific discovery: first, people deny that it is true; then they deny that it is important; finally they credit the wrong person."
From Bill Bryson's book: "A Short History of Nearly Everything"
Michael Mullan Alzheimers Disease Research Notes
Excerpt:
"Roskamp Institute in Sarasota, Florida, have shown that an anatabine compound supplied by Rock Creek has beneficial effects on memory and learning in animal models of Alzheimer’s Disease. Michael Mullan, MD, Ph.D., CEO of the Roskamp Institute and his colleague, Dr. Daniel Paris, published these findings in October, 2011 in the European Journal of Pharmacology"
"Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the brain accumulation of Aß peptides and by the presence of neurofibrillary tangles. Aß is believed to play an important role in AD and it has been shown that certain flavonoids can affect Aß production. Recently, it was suggested that the Aß lowering properties of flavonoids are mediated by a direct inhibition the ß-secretase (BACE-1) activity, the rate limiting enzyme responsible for the production of Aß peptides."
Article at:
http://www.mullanalzheimer.com/alzheimer/mike-mullanroskamp-institute-sarasota-florida-shown-anatabine-compound-supplied-rock-creek-beneficial-effects-memory-learning-animal-models-alzheimers-disease-michael-mullan-md-ph-d-ceo-roskamp-instit/
Re Lopes Law Suit claiming "The Street" story verifies false claims by STSI. STSI refuted story with rebuttal. (Old news but refreshes the issues):
Excerpt:
" Star Scientific, Inc. STSI commented today on a January 23, 2013, column appearing on TheStreet.com. That piece contains numerous false and misleading statements regarding the Company's anatabine research and the initial results of the ASAP Human Thyroid Health Study released by Star Scientific on January 7, 2013."
Rebuttal at:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/star-scientific-inc-refutes-story-published-on-thestreetcom-2013-01-28
"The real reason critical research remains unpublished" from Fred Pescatore, MD "Reality Health Check" email:
"Dear Reader,
Here's something I didn't know (so I'm guessing you may not know it either): Out of all the randomized clinical trials scientists conduct, you'll never hear a word about nearly a third of them.
This statistic comes from a recent analysis of close to 600 registered trials. Results showed that 29 percent were still unpublished five years after they were finished.
We're talking about data from nearly 300,000 subjects. And it has practically vanished from the public eye. You can only find results on ClinicalTrials.gov--the government's searchable database of current studies--for about a quarter of them.
I was also shocked to learn that once trials actually do get published, they usually feature less than half of the data regarding relevant patient outcomes, compared with original findings.
You probably have the exact same question I do: What, exactly, is going on here?
Well, follow the money, as they say.
You see, journals only print studies with results that further the agenda of the financier. And who's funding the vast majority of clinical trials these days?
Two words: Big Pharma.
It's funny. Back when I was in medical school, you didn't take money from "the industry" (which is just code for "drug companies") to do anything. Especially not research.
You just didn't do it.
Yes, private companies gave medical residents pens or pizza--but that was about it. But today, there isn't a medical research university on the map that doesn't readily accept money from the pharmaceutical industry.
I dare say that most of them couldn't stay open without it.
So when you think about it, all of this makes perfect sense.
Big Pharma has found a way to control the trials they fund--right down to the publishing of their results. Which includes withholding and releasing adverse data at their own discretion.
If this doesn't sound right, well, that's because it isn't. But it's the way things are. And this latest report just emphasizes the consequences of this insidious monopoly.
According to this study's authors, "the lack of availability of results from these trials contributes to publication bias." Meaning that the trials with results the industry bigwigs want you to know about are the only ones that actually get press.
The rest of them disappear into limbo along with all the other studies bearing less-than-ideal outcomes.
The non-publication rate of this research sampling came in at 32 percent for industry-funded trials. And 18 percent for those with independent, non-industry funding. Which basically means that studies bankrolled by Big Pharma "disappear" twice as often.
The authors go on to say that this phenomenon also "constitutes a failure to honor the ethical contract that is the basis for exposing study participants to the risks inherent in trial participation."
Let me repeat: The unpublished studies this research looked at featured hundreds of thousands of participants in total. What if these people were exposed to something that could cause them harm? Don't they have the right to know?
At the end of the day, any trial participant exposes him or herself to potential risks. Especially in the case of drug trials. We're talking about unproven and very powerful treatments. But we accept this risk based on the greater benefit to society that the resulting knowledge will offer.
If the results of these studies never see the light of day, then the participants put themselves at risk for nothing. It's as simple as that. "
Sources:
"Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis." BMJ. 2013; 347: f6104.
"Randomized Clinical Trials: 1 in 3 Not Reported." Medscape. Oct 29, 2013.
Cayman Chemical also selling Anatabine (Tartrate).
Excerpt from ad:
"Of note, anatabine diminishes amyloid beta (Aß) production in vitro and in vivo. Anatabine reduces (at 600 µg/ml) the transcription and protein levels of ß-secretase, lowering the amount of Aß1-40 and Aß1-42 in a dose dependent manner in SHSY-5Y cells. Anatabine also dose dependently inhibits NF-?B activation.5 Anatabine (tartrate) may be preferable to Anatabine (Item No. 11001) for certain applications and formulations."
So, if Anatabine is sold as a chemical, a company can claim efficacy of function/use? If sold as a vitamin/food supplement, you can't?
Anatabine sold in China by Sigma-Aldrich. 10mg for about 618 RMB (about $100) and 50mg for 2508 RMB (about $411)---and you thought Anatabloc was expensive at 300 mg for $100 retail (1mg/tablet, 300 tablets).
Description of ad:
"Anatabine is a blood-brain barrier penetrant minor alkaloid, a cholinergic agonist, isolated from Solanaceae plant family that exhibits anti-inflammatory properties. Apparently, anti-inflammatory properties of anatabine are partially mediated by inhibition of STAT3 and p65 NFkB phosphorylation. Anatabine decreases the transcription and protein synthesis of ß-secretase (BACE-1), and appears to ameliorate experimental autoimmune thyroiditis and encephalomyelitis"
Notice ad says 'apparently' and 'appears' to describe pharmaceutical action. Maybe that's all STSI has to do is to clean up the ads and descriptions with vague references to the possibilities of causing improved physiological problem??? But again, this ad is for China, maybe different requirement than U.S.? Also the ad sounds like Anatabine produced from natural sources and not synthesized.
Ad at:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/sml0689?lang=zh®ion=CN
Anatabine use for joint pain:
"
Of the 282 survey respondents, 232 (82%) reported a benefit from anatabine supplementation for one or more joint pain conditions, most commonly the knee, wrists/hands/fingers, shoulder, and back, most often due to osteoarthritis or injury to the joint. Mean scores of joint pain and stiffness were significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced after starting anatabine supplementation, and for most respondents joint pain was virtually eliminated. Around 90% of all individuals rated the effect of anatabine supplementation as good or excellent for joint pain, stiffness, functionality, and overall effects."
Article at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250235
Also note graphs (images)
Nancy Lopes Lawsuit---I don't know if shown before but here's a link to the lawsuit:
http://securities.stanford.edu/1050/STSI00_01/201395_r01c_13CV00183.pdf
Re my postings. I have been asked why I post what I post. I submit postings of articles that I have read and found useful for my DD. I post these because I think they may be useful for other investors (not speculators) of STSI. I think ALL FACTUAL information, good or bad, relevant to STSI's products, markets, and financials are useful for investors to make decisions on their investments---long or short. FYI, I am long STSI so I am probably biased towards good information. I try not to get invloved in diatrides and wild opinions either way. Having said that, some people seem to encourage that. Maybe it's Anatabloc time!!
Federal Trade Comission (FTC)--Dietary Supplements
Excerpts:
"Dietary supplements don't undergo FDA review for safety and effectiveness before they're sold."
"Under Federal law, dietary supplements can't be promoted for the treatment of a disease because they aren't proven to be safe and effective."
"FDA's Rules for Health Claims
What kinds of claims can companies make on food and supplement labels? FDA-approved claims:
Must be based on significant scientific evidence that shows a strong link between a food substance and a disease or health condition.
Can state only that a food substance reduces the risk of certain health problems — not that it can treat or cure a disease. For example: "Calcium may reduce the risk of the bone disease osteoporosis. "
Dietary supplements also can carry claims about the effect of a substance on maintaining the body's normal structure or function — "Product B promotes healthy joints and bones" — but must include the disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease."
Article at:
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0261-dietary-supplements#whatsadietarysupplement
Dietary Supplements-National Institute of Health:
Excerpt:
Federal Regulation of Dietary Supplements
"Dietary supplements are products intended to supplement the diet. They are not drugs and, therefore, are not intended to treat, diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or cure diseases. The FDA is the federal agency that oversees both dietary supplements and medicines.
In general, the FDA regulations for dietary supplements are different from those for prescription or over-the-counter drugs. Unlike drugs, which must be approved by the FDA before they can be marketed, dietary supplements do not require premarket review or approval by the FDA. While the supplement company is responsible for having evidence that their products are safe and the label claims are truthful and not misleading, they do not have to provide that evidence to the FDA before the product is marketed.
Dietary supplement labels may carry certain types of health-related claims. Manufacturers are permitted to say, for example, that a dietary supplement addresses a nutrient deficiency, supports health, or is linked to a particular body function (like immunity or heart health). Such a claim must be followed by the words, "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."
Manufacturers must follow certain good manufacturing practices to ensure the identity, purity, strength, and composition of their products. If the FDA finds a product to be unsafe or otherwise unfit for human consumption, it may take enforcement action to remove the product from the marketplace or work with the manufacturer to voluntarily recall the product.
Also, once a dietary supplement is on the market, the FDA monitors information on the product's label and package insert to make sure that information about the supplement's content is accurate and that any claims made for the product are truthful and not misleading. The Federal Trade Commission, which polices product advertising, also requires all information about a dietary supplement product to be truthful and not misleading.
The federal government can take legal action against companies and Web sites that sell dietary supplements when the companies make false or deceptive statements about their products, if they promote them as treatments or cures for diseases, or if their products are unsafe."
Article at:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/DS_WhatYouNeedToKnow.aspx
From the FDA re NDI, "New Dietary Ingredient':
"What is a "new dietary ingredient?"
The term "new dietary ingredient" means a dietary ingredient that was not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994. (See section 413(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), 21 U.S.C. 350b(d)). There is no authoritative list of dietary ingredients that were marketed in dietary supplements before October 15, 1994. Therefore, manufacturers and distributors (you) are responsible for determining if an ingredient is a "new dietary ingredient" and, if not, for documenting that a dietary supplement that contained the dietary ingredient was marketed before October 15, 1994.
If you want to market a "new dietary ingredient" in a dietary supplement, you must be sure that the substance is considered to be a "dietary ingredient." (See section 201(ff)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C 321(ff)(1)). A dietary ingredient is a vitamin; a mineral; an herb or other botanical; an amino acid; a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of the above dietary ingredients.
Article at:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/NewDietaryIngredientsNotificationProcess/ucm109764.htm#what_is
In addition, the product containing the dietary ingredient must be a dietary supplement. (See section 201(ff) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321 (ff)). The term "dietary supplement" means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that contains one or more dietary ingredients. A dietary supplement is limited to products that are intended for ingestion in tablet, capsule, powder, softgel, gelcap, and liquid form, that are not represented as conventional food or as the sole item of a meal or of the diet, and that are labeled as dietary supplements. Additionally, dietary supplements do not include products that are approved drugs, certified antibiotics, or licensed biologics. Dietary supplements also do not include products that are authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biologic (and for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public), unless the product was marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food before it was approved as a drug, antibiotic, or biologic, or, in the case of investigational products, before the public disclosure of such investigations."
Surprise, Surprise, Smoking is Good For You---Interesting article about tobacco and smoking, kinda interesting---so how much is it the Anatabine?
http://wispofsmoke.net/goodforyou.html
Some legal(lawyer) comments re the recent FDA warning, etc:
Warning letter underscores FDA view of extraction and concentration as factors in NDI status
By Hank Schultz, 03-Jan-2014
A warning letter from FDA to Star Scientific, makers of an antioxidant supplement called Anatabloc, underscores again the agency’s focus on the status of New Dietary Ingredients.
http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Regulation/Warning-letter-underscores-FDA-view-of-extraction-and-concentration-as-factors-in-NDI-status
Also see the article on TBI
Try post 15672
"The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" by Dr. Marcia Angell former editor for two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine. Read the reviews of her book and if that doesn't turn your eye balls, buy the book.
Offered at Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1V1A/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb
So, which boat are we in?
FDA Direction may explain the notice.
In the link: "New Scientific Successes with Cancer and Arrhythmia"
This speech was presented by Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki on Saturday, November 2, 2002 at the Health Congress 'Make Health Not War - A Peaceful and healthy world is possible'
Close to the end of the article, disucssion of the new FDA director:
"The faster we progress the pressure to protect pharmaceutical business intensifies. This could be seen quite recently in the selection of a new commissioner of the FDA, the US agency that regulates food and drugs. The FDA was without a commissioner for about a year and in April this year an appointment of Dr Woods was announced. However, his appointment did not last long. In two weeks, he was gone. The largest newspaper in New England, the Boston Globe, rightly said that the drug industry was responsible for pushing him out. The reason: he was known as being tough on drug safety.
Since last month the FDA has a new commissioner - Dr. McCully. Dr. McCully specializes in economy issues, and he quickly assured the industry that one of the first items on his agenda is ensuring the safety of…drugs? No, not drugs, even if they are the third leading cause of death, but of…nutritional supplements, vitamins. The directions are clear now. As you can see the attempts to stop vitamin freedom come from every corner of the globe, Germany, Holland, US, from African and Asian countries. The threat to vitamin freedom is a global one."
Article at:
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/Natural_Health_Congress_2002/speakers/speakers01.htm
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry---A Business!
From the Dr Rath Health Foundation
Excerpts from the article:
"The main principles governing the pharmaceutical “business with disease.” It is not in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent common diseases – the maintenance and expansion of diseases is a precondition for the financial growth of this industry."
"1
The pharmaceutical industry is an investment industry driven by the profits of its shareholders. Improving human health is not the driving force of this industry.
2
The pharmaceutical investment industry was artificially created and strategically developed over an entire century by the same investment groups that control the global petrochemical and chemical industries.
3
The huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry are based on the patenting of new drugs. These patents essentially allow drug manufacturers to arbitrarily define the profits for their products.
4
The marketplace for the pharmaceutical industry is the human body – but only for as long as the body hosts diseases. Thus, maintaining and expanding diseases is a precondition for the growth of the pharmaceutical industry.
5
A key strategy to accomplish this goal is the development of drugs that merely mask symptoms while avoiding the curing or elimination of diseases. This explains why most prescription drugs marketed today have no proven efficacy and merely target symptoms.
6
To further expand their pharmaceutical market, the drug companies are continuously looking for new applications (indications) for the use of drugs they already market. For example, Bayer’s pain pill Aspirin is now taken by 50 million healthy US citizens under the illusion it will prevent heart attacks.
7
Another key strategy to expand pharmaceutical markets is to cause new diseases with drugs. While merely masking symptoms short term, most of the prescription drugs taken by millions of patients today cause a multitude of new diseases as a result of their known long-term side effects. For example, all cholesterol-lowering drugs currently on the market are known to increase the risk of developing cancer – but only after the patient has been taking the drug for several years.
8
The known deadly side effects of prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world, surpassed only by the number of deaths from heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998). This fact is no surprise either, because drug patents are primarily issued for new synthetic molecules. All synthetic molecules need to be detoxified and eliminated from the body, a system that frequently fails and results in an epidemic of severe and deadly side effects.
9
While the promotion and expansion of diseases increase the market of the pharmaceutical investment industry - prevention and root cause treatment of diseases decrease long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or even obstructed by this industry.
10
Worst of all, the eradication of diseases is by its very nature incompatible with and diametrically opposed to the interests of the pharmaceutical investment industry. The eradication of diseases now considered as potential drug markets will destroy billions of investment dollars and eventually will eliminate this entire industry.
11
Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that optimize cellular metabolism threaten the pharmaceutical “business with disease” because they target the cellular cause of today’s most common diseases - and these natural substances cannot be patented.
12
Throughout the more than one hundred year existence of the pharmaceutical industry, vitamins and other essential nutrients, with defined functions as cofactors in cellular metabolism, have been the fiercest competition and the greatest threat to the long-term success of the pharmaceutical investment business.
13
Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that effectively prevent diseases are incompatible with the very nature of the pharmaceutical “business with disease.”
14
To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:
(1) Withholding life-saving health information from millions of people. It is simply unacceptable that today so few know that the human body cannot produce vitamin C and lysine, two key molecules for connective tissue stability and disease prevention.
(2) Discrediting natural health therapies. The most common way is through global PR campaigns organized by the Pharma-Cartel that spread lies about the alleged side effects of natural substances – molecules that have been used by Nature for millennia.
(3) Banning by law the dissemination of information about natural health therapies. To that end, the pharmaceutical industry has placed its lobbyists in key political positions in key markets and leading drug export nations.
15
The pharmaceutical “business with disease” is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product “health” promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the “products” most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death.
16
The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry."
Article at:
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
Read the other articles linked on this page, makes life interesting!
Death by Medicine---ugly, ugly, ugly!
Excerpts from article:
"By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD
Something is wrong when regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics
showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard"
"This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be
2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year.
The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of
people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.
The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an
astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and
injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number
of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5) "
"Natural medicine is under siege, as pharmaceutical company lobbyists urge lawmakers to deprive Americans of the
benefits of dietary supplements. Drug-company front groups have launched slanderous media campaigns to discredit
the value of healthy lifestyles. The FDA continues to interfere with those who offer natural products that compete with
prescription drugs.
These attacks against natural medicine obscure a lethal problem that until now was buried in thousands of pages of
scientific text. In response to these baseless challenges to natural medicine, the Nutrition Institute of America
commissioned an independent review of the quality of “government-approved” medicine. The startling findings from this
meticulous study indicate that conventional medicine is “the leading cause of death” in the United States . "
Read the entire article and get a good flavor of what STSI is up against and the environment it faces.
Article at:
http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf
Big Farma same as Big Pharma? Read the article: "The Stakes Are Raised in the David and Goliath Battle with Food Corporations"
Excerpt from article:
"2014 is shaping up to be a decisive year for the future of food and farming. Grassroots activists are gearing up for new legislative battles, including state GMO labeling laws and county bans on growing genetically engineered crops. Meanwhile multinational food corporations last month raised the stakes in the ongoing David vs. Goliath battle by petitioning the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to allow companies to continue to label or market products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as "natural." And all signs point to efforts by industry and the FDA to float either voluntary, or watered-down mandatory GMO labeling laws that would take away states’ rights to impose strict GMO labeling laws, and also exempt a large percentage of GMO ingredients from labeling.
For more than two decades, Monsanto and Big Food have poisoned and profited with impunity, thanks to the FDA’s reckless 1992 dictate that pesticide-drenched (Roundup-resistant) or insecticide-impregnated (Bt-spliced) crops and foods are “safe and substantially equivalent” to non-GE foods. Now, the biotech bullies and junk food giants are under siege by a well-informed and passionate grassroots food movement that is determined to drastically reduce or eliminate the market share of genetically engineered and chemically-intensive foods and crops"
Article at:
http://www.alternet.org/food/stakes-are-raised-david-and-goliath-battle-food-corporations
Hmmmm? The FDA is suppose to protect the public health? Next, drugs are natural?
MO for Big Pharma?
7 Drugs Whose Dangerous Risks Emerged Only After Big Pharma Made Its Money
Excerpt from article:
"
It is the business model for new drugs that provokes Big Pharma to bury risks and exaggerate benefits. A new drug under patent has a high price and no competition, and will make millions or even billions every year it is under patent. A settlement for death or injuries down the road is a nuisance and just the cost of doing business. Needless to say, the "forgiveness is cheaper than permission" business plan breeds shameless repeat offenders since the company makes money and no officers go to jail.
Hidden and unforeseen risks in new drugs are such a danger that some medical professionals advise patients to wait up to seven years before they try a new drug. Of course, the drug is no less risky when made by a generic drugmaker except that it has been in use longer and is not accompanied by slick advertising to push demand and even "sell" the condition it treats. But generics have their downside, too. Unlike branded drug companies, a 2013 Supreme Court ruling says generic drug makers can't be sued."
Read the history of these 7 drugs and the comments, interesting discussions! Is Anatabloc a threat to their income stream?
Article at:
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/7-drugs-whose-dangerous-risks-emerged-only-after-big-pharma-made-its-money
Natural Nutraceuticals Rather Than Pharmaceuticals. Another data point.
Excerpt from the article:
"The Role of Good Nutrition is Completely Underestimated by the Medical Profession
Although the pharmaceutical industry is quick to claim credit for the waning of infectious diseases in the first half of the 20th century, it was not the result of new drug discovery; it was the result of better nutrition, and more specifically, the availability of good quality protein on which the immune system depends. For example, almost 70% of the decline in pneumonia mortality occurred before the invention of sulphur drugs in 1935. Also, more than 80% of the decline in tuberculosis mortality occurred before any good drug therapy was developed n the 1950s. Polio is the only disease that shows a correlation between a drug or vaccine introduced to treat infections and the slowing of its infection rate.[3]
Since over 70% of people entering hospitals are clinically malnourished, it would make sense to ensure that clinical practice improves these stark statistics. Poor diet is to blame for many Western diseases, yet this is entirely dismissed by the medical community, who in effect collude with the pharmaceutical industry. To suggest, as most GPs do, that the average UK diet supplies adequate nutrients for good health is quite frankly a joke, especially with recent (2006) government reports confirming otherwise.
Many Drugs are Ineffective or Actually do more Harm than Good
"90% of drugs do not work in over 40% of people" – the CEO of GSK proclaimed recently. Furthermore adverse drug reactions (ADRs), are the 4th leading cause of death in the West. As synthetic foreign molecules, all drugs carry risks yet the significance of this risk: benefit ratio seems to be increasingly ignored by the majority of doctors and the industry that educates them.
The Power of Natural Medicine
In my daily work helping patients who often suffer debilitating chronic illnesses, I see people prescribed drugs which are actually speeding their demise. It is difficult to believe that in 2009 this can be true – that such irresponsibility can exist, but the belief that pharmaceuticals are the only real option seems endemic in medicine from consultant to GP.
In contrast, I am in awe of the power of natural foods and extracts to heal both body and mind. From debilitating inflammatory diseases of the colon cured with enzymes and probiotics, to Restless Legs Syndrome successfully relieved with our tailored nutraceutical recipe to nourish the nervous system and better control of Parkinson symptoms with flower essences. Of course our genes matter. But what medicine currently fails to acknowledge is that the expression of genes is controlled by the cellular environment, which is influenced by our lifestyle; our food, level of activity, pollutants and stress levels and our thoughts and emotions.
The founding father of medicine, Hippocrates, didn't know about genes, but he did say:
"First do no harm" and "Let thy medicine be thy food and thy food be thy medicine"."
Article at:
http://www.positivehealth.com/article/nutraceuticals/natural-nutraceuticals-rather-than-pharmaceuticals
FDA New Dietary Ingredient Notification: "that has
not been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a
form in which the food has not been chemically altered'' to define
which new dietary ingredients are subject to the notification
requirement."
Excerpt from Federal Register:
"SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is establishing the
procedure by which a manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements
or of a new dietary ingredient is to submit under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) the information on which it has
concluded that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient
will reasonably be expected to be safe. FDA is issuing this regulation
to enable industry to comply with the requirements of the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (the DSHEA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn W. Miles, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-456), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-401-9858.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of September 27, 1996 (61 FR 50774), FDA
published
[[Page 49887]]
a proposed rule, entitled ``Premarket Notification for a New Dietary
Ingredient'' (hereinafter referred to as ``the September 1996
proposal''). FDA issued this proposal in response to section 8 of the
DSHEA (Pub. L. 103-417). This section of the DSHEA amended the act by
adding, among other provisions, section 201(ff) (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)),
which defines a dietary supplement, and by adding section 413(a) (21
U.S.C. 350b(a)), which provides, among other things, for the
notification of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) (and by delegation FDA) at least 75 days before the
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a
dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient. Section
413(a) of the act states that a dietary supplement that contains a new
dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated unless it meets one of
two requirements. One requirement is that ``the dietary supplement
contains only dietary ingredients which have been present in the food
supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not
been chemically altered.'' The alternative requirement is that:
[T]here is a history of use or other evidence of safety
establishing that the dietary ingredient when used under the
conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary
supplement will reasonably be expected to be safe and, at least 75
days before being introduced or delivered for introduction into
interstate commerce, the manufacturer or distributor of the dietary
ingredient or dietary supplement provides the Secretary with
information, including any citation to published articles, which is
the basis on which the manufacturer or distributor has concluded
that a dietary supplement containing such dietary ingredient will
reasonably be expected to be safe.
FDA published the September 1996 proposal to establish a procedure
that would enable industry to comply with this notification requirement
in an efficient manner. Adoption of this procedure will help to
facilitate compliance with the notification required by section
413(a)(2) of the act. Interested persons were given until December 26,
1996, to comment on the proposal.
FDA received four letters each containing one or more comments from
consumer groups, a trade association, and industry in response to the
proposal. All of the comments generally supported the proposal. Several
comments suggested modifications or revisions of various aspects of the
proposal. A summary of the comments and the agency's responses follows.
II. New Dietary Ingredients Subject to Notification Requirements
1. Several comments expressed concern that proposed Sec. 190(a),
published in the September 1996 proposal, implied that any ``new
dietary ingredient'' is subject to the notification requirements. The
comments argued that the statutory requirement for notification under
section 413(a)(2) of the act does not apply to those new dietary
ingredients that have been present in the food supply as an article
used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically
altered, as described in section 413(a)(1) of the act.
FDA agrees with the comments that the notification requirements of
this regulation apply only to new dietary ingredients described in
section 413(a)(2) of the act. Section 413(a)(1) of the act applies to
dietary supplements that contain only dietary ingredients that have
been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form
in which the food has not been chemically altered, and the statute does
not require that FDA be notified before these products are marketed. To
make clear which new dietary ingredients are subject to the
notification requirement in section 413(a)(2) of the act, FDA is
modifying proposed Sec. 190.6(a) by incorporating the phrase ``that has
not been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a
form in which the food has not been chemically altered'' to define
which new dietary ingredients are subject to the notification
requirement."
Article at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-09-23/html/97-24737.htm
So, is Anatabine Citrate something not present in the food supply or has been chemically altered?
I'm not a FDA expert or lawyer but my view is that Anatabine Citrate is in the food supply and the synthetized version is chemically the same as found naturally in 'nightshade' plants and tobacco.
Let the arguements continue!
Is it greed that drives the arguements? Interesting post in the Sunday Standard, an India publication. Looks like Big Pharma sees potential in neutraceuticals. Are prescription drugs topping out?
Excerpt:
"The burgeoning interest in nutraceuticals (products extracted from natural sources or manufactured synthetically to supplement the regular diet and help prevent nutrition-related disorders) should come as no surprise.
More than 40 per cent deaths in developing countries are due to nutrition-related disorders, according to the World Health Organization.
Eight of the top 15 risk factors are related to nutrition and contribute nearly 40 per cent of the total deaths and 30 per cent of total disease burden in developing countries, including India.
It’s not just a developing world trend either.
Globally, pharmaceutical companies have begun competing head-to-head for market share and the acquisition of emerging health and wellness products with growth potential, such as Nestlé Health Science’s recent investment in Axona.
And why not? A recent survey of 1,000 vitamin consumers in the US had 93 per cent respondents saying they felt more confident about their health when taking a vitamin or supplement–a jump from 71 per cent customers last year.
Back at home, “the market is being driven by the changing lifestyles of consumers and increased knowledge about nutritional supplements.
It is also due to a shift towards preventive therapies, increase in disposable incomes, increase in healthcare spending and ageing population,” says Dr Shubnum Singh, dean, nursing, Allied Health & Wellness Programs, Max Hospitals Group.
The size of the global nutraceuticals market is pegged at $117 billion."
Article at:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/article599312.ece
If we are confused, so is the FDA---So is website info labeling or advertising?
From Law 360: Gray Zone Between FDA And FTC Nutraceutical Regulation
Excerpt from the article:
"The FDA’s authority to regulate nutraceuticals stems from the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. The FTC’s authority emanates from the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).
The two agencies operate under a liaison agreement under which the FTC possesses primary enforcement responsibility for claims made in advertising, while the FDA has primary enforcement responsibility for claims made in labeling and packaging."
---------
"In the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, a bill signed into law in July 2012, Congress gave the FDA a July 2014 deadline by which to issue regulatory guidance on the appropriate use of social media for promotion of "medical products that are regulated by [the FDA]."
The agency has been studying the issue since 1996. "Medical products" is not defined in the act, but in a 2009 public hearing announcement by the FDA on this topic, it indicated that the agency interprets "medical products" to include "prescription drugs for humans and animals, prescription biologics, and medical devices." Thus, the guidance may not extend to foods and dietary supplements.
There has been much speculation that the FDA will not meet the deadline, continuing to leave manufacturers and marketers in the dark. Meanwhile, what about the FTC's authority to regulate advertising? Is social media promotion of nutraceuticals, labeling or advertising? Or both?
Despite the lack of concrete rules, some insight into the FDA's thoughts on the issue can be gleaned from the numerous hearings, notices and FDA enforcement actions (including untitled letters and warning letters) that address promotion through product websites, sponsored internet links, online banners and Facebook."
Article at:
http://www.law360.com/articles/464369/gray-zone-between-fda-and-ftc-nutraceutical-regulation
Big Pharma Price Markups---I received this in an email from a friend. It appears to be an article from Life Extensions. And you thought Anatabloc was expensive. Guess the FDA doesn't investigate price gouging.
Story verified true! Make sure you read to the end. You will be amazed.
Let's hear it for COSTCO!
(This is just mind-boggling!)
Make sure you read all the way past the list of the drugs. The woman that signed below is a Budget Analyst out of federal Washington , DC offices.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America .
CELEBREX:100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%
CLARITIN:10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%
KEFLEX:250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%
LIPITOR:20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%
NORVASC:10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%
PAXIL:20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%
PREVACID:30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%
PRILOSEC: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%
PROZAC:20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%
TENORMIN:50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%
VASOTEC:10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%
XANAX:1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%
ZESTRIL:20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809%
ZITHROMAX:600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%
ZOCOR:40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
Percent markup: 4,059%
ZOLOFT:50 mg
Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone should know about this.
It pays to shop around! This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen's on every corner. On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit , did a story on generic drug prices gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. So often we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills.
The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are saving $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.
I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience I had to use the drug Compazine which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients.
I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08.
I would like to mention, that although Costco is a 'membership' type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.
I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own e-mail, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.
Sharon L. Davis
Budget Analyst
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: 202-482-5480
E-mail Address:sdavis@doc.gov
Pfizer 'Cherry-Picked' Celebrex Data, Memos Say
July 09, 2012
Dr. Mercola
"Celebrex is a type of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) known as a COX-2 inhibitor.
Basically, it works by blocking COX-2 enzymes, which become overly active in your body when it becomes inflamed, and is widely used as a form of pain relief; in 2011, 2.4 million Americans received prescriptions for this drug.i
They may have thought twice, however, if they knew the truth behind how this drug came to be … a story that involves cherry-picking of data in attempts to make the drug seem superior to others on the market, when in fact it was not.
Also concerning: Celebrex is the only selective COX-2 inhibitor left on the market, as its close "cousins" were all pulled due to either their killing tens of thousands of people or to their unacceptably high heart risks …
Internal Memos Reveal Deception Surrounding Celebrex Data
New evidence in a lawsuit against Pfizer alleges that the drug company cherry-picked data on its drug Celebrex. Its claim to fame when it came on the market in 1998 was that it relieved pain without causing the gastrointestinal side effects common to other pain-relief drugs like ibuprofen.
Studies showed it didn't necessarily relieve pain any better than the other drugs on the market, so Pfizer was counting on the gastrointestinal "ticket" to propel the drug into blockbuster status, and, in fact, used its easiness on your stomach as its primary selling point.
The problem was, Celebrex only appeared to be easier on the stomach because Pfizer, and its partner Pharmacia, only released the first six months of data from a year-long study. When the entire data set was looked at, the stomach "benefit" disappeared.
Folks this is what is called a blatant lie of omission and these companies do it on a regular basis. The system even encourages it. Contrary to what many people believe the FDA does no testing of drugs that are to be approved. Nor is there an objective third party that does tests. Rather the system the FDA employs has the drug company pay for and do the studies, and they only submit the studies that support the release of their drug. They are not required to submit failed ones.
That Pfizer withheld the critical data has been known for years, but newly unsealed documents showed this was all part of a carefully calculated plan by Pfizer and Pharmacia execs. While medical directors and scientists at the company expressed feeling uncomfortable with the "data massaging" and "cherry picking" of data, the powers that be moved full steam ahead with their deceptive marketing blitz.
Another reason that you might not be surprised about this report is that Pfizer purchased Monsanto and spun it off as subsidiary called Pharmacia in 1997.ii Most readers of this newsletter will instantly recognize that the bastion of evil, Monsanto, would not be out of place with this type of behavior."
The article goes on to discuss the settlements of 'Big Pharma' from misleading the public:
"2012: GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3 billion for illegal marketing of Paxil, Welbutrin and downplaying safety risks of Avandia
2009: Pfizer pays $2.3 billion for marketing fraud related to Bextra, Lyrica and other drugs
2012: Johnson & Johnson will pay anywhere from $1.5 to $2.2 billion for illegal marketing of Risperdal
2012: Abbott Laboratories settles for $1.6 billion for aggressively promoting their seizure drug Depakote for off-label use in elderly dementia patients, despite lacking evidence of safety or effectiveness.
2009: Eli Lilly pays $1.4 billion for promoting Zyprexa for off-label uses, often to children and the elderly.
2011: Merck settles for $950 million to resolve fraudulent marketing allegations related to Vioxx.
2005: Serono (now Merck Serono) paid $704 million after pleading guilty to two felony charges for fraudulent marketing related to a growth hormone to treat wasting in HIV patients.
2007: Purdue Pharma paid $634.5 million for fraudulently misbranding Oxycontin, and suggesting it was less addictive and less abused than other painkillers.
2010: Allergan paid $600 million for aggressively pushing Botox for unapproved uses.
2010: AstraZeneca settled for $520 million for trying to persuade doctors to prescribe its psychotropic drug Seroquel for unapproved uses ranging from Alzheimer's disease and ADHD to sleeplessness and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
2007: Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $515 million for illegally promoting its atypical antipsychotic drug Abilify to kids and seniors."
So, this is the competition?
Chronic Inflammation May Preclude Healthy Aging
Article from Sept 2013 issue of Mescape by
Ricki Lewis, PhD
September 16, 2013
Excerpt from article:
"Individuals who had elevated IL-6 levels (>2.0 ng/L) at both times had a 47% reduced likelihood of successful aging (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 - 0.74) compared with those who had normal IL-6 levels. In addition, those with elevated IL-6 had an increased risk for cardiovascular events (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.15 - 2.33) and noncardiovascular death (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.58 - 3.80).
The researchers adjusted for confounding factors, including sociodemographic data (sex, age, and economic status), health behaviors (smoking status and physical activity level), obesity, acute inflammation, and use of anti-inflammatory medications.
In addition to adding evidence to the value of IL-6 as a marker for chronic inflammation, the results suggest that "maintaining a low [IL-6] level may facilitate successful aging by reducing the likelihood of impaired respiratory and musculoskeletal functioning and increasing the likelihood of remaining free of diabetes.," the researchers write. Assessing chronic inflammation should be a standard part of geriatric practice, they add."
Article at:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811107
Concussions linked to Alzheimer’s disease, researchers say--Article from the National Monitor by Rina Shah, excerpt:
"The participants with no memory loss had normal looking brain scans. They showed healthy scans regardless of their former brain injury history. However, scans of subjects with memory loss plus a history of concussions or brain injuries were five times more likely to show early tell-tale signs of Alzheimer’s disease. What the research team discovered in the scans was a buildup of protein in the brain that has been known to be linked with Alzheimer’s."
Article at: http://natmonitor.com/2013/12/28/concussions-linked-to-alzheimers-disease-researchers-say/
And a connection to TBI support is----Anatabine Citrate (Anatabloc)
Everything you wanted to know and didn't know about Chronic Inflammation.
Read the book: Chronic Inflammation: Molecular Pathophysiology, Nutritional and Therapeutic, costs $128 at Amazon, $122 for Kindle version.
There's enough info in this preview to help understand CI, especially as it relates to Cancer
Link: http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=jvsiAcrmNygC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=chronic+inflammation+cml&source=bl&ots=vR7_ONkv8-&sig=yeNydtCuJpDlkgsMCLxqGKEq_rI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P-6vUu2FFun6iQfC34CwCg&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=chronic%20inflammation%20cml&f=false
HBO Series on Alzheimers---For those interested in a lay language discussion of what Alzheimers is and what is happening in the area of treatment, this video series is worth the watch. The videos are broken up into 16 segments, each about 15 to 30 minutes long. From the Alzheimer's Association video library.
http://www.alz.org/research/video/alzheimers_videos_and_media_understanding.asp
Article from Alzheimer's Society: "Targeting inflammation may help combat symptoms of Alzheimer's, study shows"
Excerpt:
"Alzheimer's Society comment:
'This interesting study looks at a drug designed to boost the brain's own first line of defence against inflammation, which is a key cause of the damage we see in dementia. If we can reduce the amount of brain inflammation we may be able to not only slow progression of dementia, but potentially stop it in its tracks.
'Participants saw an improvement in cognition across the board, but more interestingly the drug was even more effective in people with a higher genetic risk of developing Alzheimer's. Larger trials are needed to confirm these initial findings and test safety. One in three people over the age of 65 will develop dementia - with no cure and few treatments more research like this is so desperately needed.'"
Article at:
http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=1688
Alzheimers and inflammation article:
https://www.dana.org/news/features/detail.aspx?id=40308
A New Look at Brain Inflammation in Alzheimer's
By Jim Schnabel
January 16, 2013
Excerpts:
"The two best-known signs of Alzheimer’s, in the brains of its victims, are the plaques of amyloid beta protein and tangles of tau protein. But the disease also features chronic inflammation. Cells known as microglia—neural cousins of pathogen-eating macrophages of the bloodstream—swarm around amyloid plaques and dying, tangle-ridden neurons. They seem helpful, gobbling up amyloid beta as well as disease-damaged cells. But does their immunological enthusiasm also cause harm to healthy cells—could it accelerate the disease or even help to initiate it? Scientists have debated these questions for more than two decades, without any firm resolution. Now a burst of new research suggests that inflammation does, indeed, play a major role in Alzheimer’s—and that targeting specific elements of that inflammation could be useful in treating or preventing the disease."
"Since the late 1980s, various studies have found hints that the chronic inflammation found in Alzheimer’s hastens the disease process, and may even be a disease trigger. A history of serious head injury, which typically causes brain inflammation, is known to be a risk factor for Alzheimer’s. Systemic infection—another cause of inflammation—also appears to accelerate the disease. Several epidemiological studies have found that older people who use anti-inflammatory drugs regularly appear to have significantly lower incidences of Alzheimer’s."
Anatabloc best way to reduce inflammation: Article from Stock Gumshoe discusses revised criterias for use of statin drugs. Article at:
http://stockgumshoe.com/2013/12/the-statin-guidelines-looking-at-the-whole-cardiovascular-spectrum/?utm_source=Copy+of+leeb+bran+trinast&utm_campaign=DailyEmail&utm_medium=email
Comment from Dr Childress:
CR Childress says:
December 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm
The real enemy is inflammation……. That is what needs to be the focus.
“Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.
Statistics from the American Heart Association show that 75 million Americans currently suffer from heart disease, 20 million have diabetes and 57 million have pre-diabetes. These disorders are affecting younger and younger people in greater numbers every year.
Simply stated, without inflammation being present in the body, there is no way that cholesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease and strokes. Without inflammation, cholesterol would move freely throughout the body as nature intended. It is inflammation that causes cholesterol to become trapped.”
Dr. Dwight Lundell is the past Chief of Staff and Chief of Surgery at Banner Heart Hospital, Mesa , AZ.
The Lipitor Dilemma http://www.bargainfishoil.com/documents/lipitordilema.pdf
So given the above, Dr. Lundell,” what’s the safest, most effective way to eliminate or decrease inflammation? (saw report RE Lipitor)
Reply
CR Childress says:
December 11, 2013 at 3:51 pm
You asked ” what’s the safest, most effective way to eliminate or decrease inflammation?”
Answer: IMHO Nutracuetical supplement Anatabloc at GNC
Well I have personal proof as my C Reactive Protein (CRP body inflammation marker) went from over 5 to 1.23 in 12 months.
Dr. Ryan Lanier “Scientifically proven to manage excessive inflammation”
Dementia to triple world-wide by 2050 (BBC)---"Alzheimer's Disease International says 44 million people live with the disease, but that figure will increase to 135 million by 2050."
Article at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25213162
Nilvadipine phase III trial for Alzheimer's launches in Europe---Feb 2012:
"We believe that Nilvadipine blocks the production of amyloid proteins linked to Alzheimer's disease," said Roskamp Institute President and CEO Michael Mullan, M.D., Ph.D., who along with Associate Director Fiona Crawford, Ph.D., and Daniel Paris Ph.D. led the team that developed the drug. "That means Nilvadipine is aimed at addressing the actual disease, and not just the symptoms."
A consortium of medical teams from nine European countries is meeting in Ireland this week to plan the US$10 million multicenter study. Phase III studies are usually the last step in the regulatory process before a drug can move into clinical practice. The consortium, called NILVAD for Nilvadipine/Alzheimer's Disease, will involve participants from Ireland, England, Hungary, Greece, France, Sweden, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.
The 500 participants, who have mild to moderate cognitive impairments, will begin the double-blind study this fall. Each participant will be followed for 18 months to see if the drug produces a change in cognitive abilities.""
Article at: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120214/Nilvadipine-phase-III-trial-for-Alzheimers-launches-in-Europe.aspx
Not alone reaching for the golden ring---Report from Yahoo Finance, Zacks:
"Shares of Coronado Biosciences, Inc. (CNDO) fell 66.9% to $1.90 as a phase II study (n=250) on its pipeline candidate TSO (trichuris suis ova/CNDO-201) failed to meet both primary and secondary endpoints. Coronado Biosciences announced top-line data from a phase II study (TRUST-I), which is evaluating TSO for the treatment of Crohn’s disease.
Coronado Biosciences failed to achieve the primary endpoint of improved response defined by a 100-point reduction in the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (:CDAI) and also the secondary endpoint of remission, indicating CDAI of 150 points. As patients treated with placebo did better than expected, patients treated with TSO did not reach target levels of improvement.
The 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of TSO for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. The enrolled patients received either TSO 7500 or placebo once every two weeks. After the completion of this study, the patients were given an option of enrolling in a 12-week open-label extension trial, where they will receive TSO 7500 once every 2 weeks.
TSO is being evaluated for the treatment of autoimmune indications like Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.
Coronado Biosciences expects interim data on TSO in the fourth quarter of 2013 from another phase II study, TRUST-II, which is being conducted by Coronado’s development partner, Dr. Falk Pharma, for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. This study is evaluating the efficacy and safety of three different dosages of TSO in patients with active Crohn's disease."
At 16:09, 41600 shares trade after hour at $1.9036, up 0.1136
After thinking about the problems with statins, the possibilities of anatabine citrate could be a home run. Statins lower cholesterol but lowering cholesterol brings a host of adverse effects. Study after study demonstrate that statins have little to no effect in reducing cardiovascular diseases and death.(though pharmaceuticals say they do, the facts don't bear this out--the 'hoax') Cholesterol is used by the body to make Vitamin D, sex hormones (Estrogen, Progesterone, and Testosterone), and bile acids. Cholesterol helps neutralize toxins. Low cholesterol is linked to a greater risk for infection. CHOLESTEROL DOES NOT CAUSE HEART DISEASE---Inflammation, oxidation, sugar, and stress does! Having said that, Statin drugs are toxic, like arsenic, which will slowly poison you over time.
Statin drugs are anti-inflammatory.(so does anatabine citrate), They lower CRP and decrease blood viscosity.(so does anatabine citrate) They lower chloresterol. (not anatabine citrate) They deplete CoQ10, depletion causes muscle pain, weakness, and fatigue.(not anatabine citrate) Statins interfere with serotonin receptors in the brain. Statins may be associated with higher risk for cancer and diabetes. So, think of anatabine citrate as similar to statins without the negatives of lowering cholesterol and it's adverse effects. Could Anatabloc be the 'un-statin'???? Hmmmm?