Monday, May 14, 2012
Big Pharma wants you hooked on these six pharmaceuticals for life
It is a known fact that the drug industry makes a whole lot more money on pharmaceuticals that patients must take perpetually for chronic conditions, rather than on those they take occasionally for isolated illnesses. This is why Big Pharma has worked hard over the years to get as many people as possible hooked on drugs that must essentially be taken for life, including six classes of drugs in particular that you or someone you know is probably already taking.
Ever since direct-to-consumer drug advertising became commonplace on television, in magazines and even on billboards starting in the 1990s, more Americans than ever become convinced that they have some novel new disease that requires ongoing treatment with medication. And these conditions include things like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, depression, asthma, gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) and many others.
But many of these conditions have essentially been made up, or at least grossly overblown, for the purpose of selling new drugs. Individuals are made to feel as though they must take a drug for the rest of their lives in order to mitigate the symptoms of these new and novel conditions. And the consequence of this has been a massive upswing in the number of pharmaceutical drug addicts in America today, conveniently making Big Pharma very rich in the process.
The big three - behavioral drugs, statins, and antidepressants
Writing for AlterNet.org, Martha Rosenberg recently outlined six types of drugs that drug companies hope you and your family will get suckered into taking for the rest of your lives. And rounding out the top three, though not in this particular order in Rosenberg's piece, are behavioral drugs, statin drugs and antidepressants.
Every year, the age at which children are "pre-diagnosed" for conditions like ADHD, bipolar disorder and other so-called "behavioral" problems gets younger and younger. More than 20 million American children, in fact, have been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, even though the vast majority of them are simply immature children that have yet to develop into adults (http://www.naturalnews.com/033131_psychiatric_disease_labeling.html).
This is precisely how Big Pharma has been able to rope more parents into drugging up their children, by convincing them that their children have inherent behavioral problems that must continually be addressed by drugs that calm or "normalize" them. And the same is often true for children and adults that are diagnosed with depression and told they must take antidepressants for an indefinite period of time (http://www.naturalnews.com/031267_antidepressants_medical_fraud.html).
Then there are statin drugs, which purportedly normalize cholesterol levels and prevent cardiovascular problems, but that must be taken throughout a person's life. Even though statins cause many other health problems, even raising the risk of cardiovascular events, many patients fear that if they stop taking them, their arteries will become clogged and they will be worse off in the long run.
Hormone replacement therapy, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for "heartburn," and asthma-control medicines are three other major drug categories that require constant use as well, even though they only address symptoms while doing little or nothing to address the underlying health problems involved. Incidentally, each of these classifications is also linked to very serious side effects.
"[Pharma executives] have shown less interest in medicines like antibiotics that actually cure disease than in those that only treat symptoms," wrote Melody Petersen of Our Daily Meds about the issue. "Most blockbusters are pills for conditions such as anxiety, high cholesterol or constipation that must be taken daily, often for months or years. They are designed for rich Americans who can afford to buy them."
Talking About Greece Leaving The Eurozone Is No Longer Taboo
This started last week, but it's now becoming a hot trend: It's no longer taboo to talk about Greece leaving the Eurozone.
The FT is running a story about how central bankers are now, increasingly discussing it openly.
Bloomberg is also quoting various finance officials around Europe saying the same thing, that a Greece exist is not desirable but possible.
Ekathimerini The recent cover from Der Spiegel, titled Akropolis Adieu, also shows how the idea of Greece leaving the Euro has permeated mainstream thinking.
Bottom line: Between Greece bickering internally, and serious people in Europe talking about how the Eurozone could handle a Grexit, the country's position is looking more and more tenuous.
The two main things keeping it in: Eurozone membership is extremely popular in Greece. AND people think that an actual departure would be horrible for Greece and the rest of Europe, possibly leading to the collapse of the Eurozone altogether.
The fact that its departure would be such a nightmare seems to be why people still don't think it will happen.
Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook. Follow Joe Weisenthal on Twitter. Ask Joe A Question >
JPMorgan Estimates Immediate Losses From Greek Exit Could Reach 400 Billion
While our earlier discussion of the implications of Greece's exit from the Euro are critical reading to comprehend the real-time game of chicken occurring in front of our eyes, JPMorgan's somewhat more quantifiable estimates of the costs and contagion, given the results of the Greek election have raised market expectations of an exit of Greece from the Euro, also provide key indicators and flows that should be monitored. Identifying what has gone wrong with Greece's co-called 'adjustment' program, they go on to identify key transmission mechanisms to Spain and Italy, how it could potentially improve (Marshall-Plan-esque) and most critically, given the exponentially growing TARGET2 balances, if and when Germany throws in the towel.
JPMorgan: Greek Contagion
The results of the Greek election have raised market expectations of an exit of Greece from EMU. How exactly could this exit happen and what flows should we monitor?
Market forces could induce a Greek exit. A potential deadlock between the Greek government and the Troika which terminates funding from the EU/IMF, has the potential to create fear and panic and accelerate the capital and deposit flight out of Greece. Once this capital flight accelerates Greece would likely have to ultimately introduce capital controls. With EU funding being cut and the economic situation deteriorating, Greece will likely to start paying at least part of salaries and pensions in promissory notes or Greek bonds.
Greek banks have run out of ECB eligible collateral already and can only access Bank of Greece’s ELA, but even with ELA, the collateral, typically loans, is not unlimited. They have already borrowed €60bn via ELA which, assuming 50% haircut corresponds to around €120bn of loan collateral. Outstanding loans are €250bn, so Greek banks have a maximum of €130bn of remaining loan collateral which allows for a maximum of €65bn of additional borrowing from Bank of Greece’s ELA.
This corresponds to around 40% of Greek bank deposits which stood at €170bn as of the end of March. The true maximum amount that Greek banks can borrow via ELA is likely though to be significantly smaller because not all loans are accepted as collateral via ELA. The alternative is for Greek banks to be allowed to issue more government guaranteed paper but the ECB can, with a 2/3rd majority, block a steep and unsustainable increase in Bank of Greece’s ELA. This would effectively cut Bank of Greece off from TARGET2 and force it to eventually issue its own money.
Unfortunately, we need to wait until the end of June for the ECB’s monthly MFI balance sheet data to get an accurate picture of the impact of Greek elections on deposits. Anecdotal evidence from the Greek press and elsewhere suggests that deposit outflows re-accelerated post elections.
It is often stated that Greece’s low primary deficit (projected at 1% or €2bn in 2012) increases the incentive for Greece to walk away from the bailout agreement. This is not true, in our view, given that Greece is still on the hook for the €6.3bn that is needed to clear general government arrears and the extra €23bn that is needed to complete the bank recapitalization plan. And as described above, a deadlock with Troika raises the risk of an accident that leads to Greece’s departure via market forces even if this was not the original intention of the Greek government.
The consequences for Greece would be clearly negative, if not catastrophic following an exit: high inflation, fuel shortages, big reduction in living standards, increase in social tensions or even unrest, political isolation internationally. This is why the chances of a Greek exit should be logically significantly below 50%.
What would the consequences for the rest likely to be?
The main direct losses correspond to the €240bn of Greek debt in official hands (EU/IMF), to €130bn of Eurosystem’s exposure to Greece via TARGET2 and a potential loss of around €25bn for European banks. This is the cross-border claims (i.e. not matched by local liabilities) that European banks (mostly French) have on Greece’s public and non-bank private sector. These immediate losses add up to €400bn. This is a big amount but let's assume that, as several people suggested this week, these immediate/direct losses are manageable. What are the indirect consequences of a Greek exit for the rest?
The wildcard is obviously contagion to Spain or Italy? Could a Greek exit create a capital and deposit flight from Spain and Italy which becomes difficult to contain? It is admittedly true that European policymakers have tried over the past year to convince markets that Greece is a special case and its problems are rather unique. We see little evidence that their efforts have paid off.
The steady selling of Spanish and Italian government bonds by non-domestic investors over the past nine months (€200bn for Italy and €80bn for Spain) suggests that markets see Greece more as a precedent for other peripherals rather than a special case. And it is not only the €800bn of Italian and Spanish government bonds still held by non-domestic investors that are likely at risk. It is also the €500bn of Italian and Spanish bank and corporate bonds and the €300bn of quoted Italian and Spanish shares held by nonresidents. And the numbers balloon if one starts looking beyond portfolio/quoted assets. Of course, the €1.4tr of Italian and €1.6tr of Spanish bank domestic deposits is the elephant in the room which a Greek exit and the introduction of capital controls by Greece has the potential to destabilize. In this respect, it is important to keep a close eye on Chart 1.
What has gone wrong with the Greek adjustment program?
After all, Greece has managed to reduce its primary deficit by 8 percentage points in two years, something that no other country has achieved. And according to Bank of Greece, given announced cuts, unit labour costs are likely to be down by 13% this year vs. the end of 2009, an adjustment that is only comparable to Ireland’s “success” story. From a technocrat’s point of view, this must be impressive performance.
Perhaps the best way to understand what went wrong with the Greek adjustment program is to compare it with Iceland’s program. On Nov 3rd 2011, the IMF issued the verdict on its 3-year adjustment program for Iceland. The IMF’s verdict was that its “program for Iceland was a success” due to 4 factors:
the decision not to make taxpayers liable for bank losses. the decision not to tighten fiscal policy during the first year of the IMF program. preservation and even strengthening of Iceland’s welfare state during the crisis. prudent use of capital controls. The IMF said: “capital controls were necessary and are now seen as useful addition to policy toolkit”.
Although permissible under EU treaties, factor 4 is admittedly not consistent with a monetary union. But none of the remaining 3 factors were present in the Greek program. No debt relief was given to Greece early, the fiscal adjustment was front-loaded rather than back-loaded (a massive 5% deficit reduction was required in the first year only), and not much attention was paid to protecting those at the low end of the income distribution.
How could the situation improve?
The Marshall plan for Greece is probably the best hope. Much has been said about Greece’s Marshall plan over the past months but little has been done. Estimates are close to €20bn or 10% of Greek GDP. Assuming Greece is changing its bureaucrat and deficient administrative/tax/legal structures quickly enough to allow for fast absorption of these funds, a Marshall plan has the potential to at least stop and perhaps reverse the economic decline.
Clearly such a Marshall plan represents a transfer from the core to periphery. These transfers are necessary in a monetary union where the core diverges from the periphery or, more correctly, Germany diverges from all the rest. Charts 2 and 3 show that both TARGET2 imbalances and real GDP levels continue to show a widening gap between Germany and the rest.
Without these transfers the likelihood of repeated crisis in the euro area will remain very high especially if tight financial conditions, uncertainty and lack of private sector investment condemns the periphery to a path of rising unemployment and never ending economic decline. And unfortunately Greece is not alone in facing these persistent headwinds. As we highlighted in F&L April 27th, the drag from tight financial conditions on periphery remains heavily negative.
It is possible that necessary fiscal transfers are not politically feasible or that Germany is eventually far too different from the rest to coexist in a monetary union. In this case the horrific scenario of a break up becomes more likely. We would like to make two observations: 1) it is less painful and makes more economic sense for Germany rather than periphery to leave. See above discussion on consequences of a Greek exit for Greece, 2) the cost of a breakup is rising exponentially over time. Bundesbank TARGET2 balance reached a new high of €644bn in April.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Cannabis oil is a highly efficient natural cancer cure
Ever since the mid 70s, medical scientists have been well aware of the beneficial effects of cannabinoid compounds over cancerous cells. Thanks to modern science, over a dozen studies conducted during recent years have been able to partially reveal just how it works. Yet cannabis is still not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies as a cancer cure, and since it is not promoted through mainstream channels, very few people are aware of its benefits. Consequently, it is not sought after as an alternative to disfiguring chemotherapy and other harmful drugs.
Laboratory tests conducted in 2008 by a team of scientists formed as a joint research effort between Spain, France and Italy, and published in The Journal Of Clinical Investigation, showed that the active ingredient in marijuana, known as tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, can function as a cure for brain cancer by inducing human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy.
The study concluded that via the same biochemical process THC could terminate multiple types of cancers, affecting various cells in the body. Other studies have shown that cannabinoids may work by various mechanisms, including inhibiting cell growth, inducing cell death, and inhibiting tumor metastasis.
What is amazing is that while cannabinoids effectively target and kill cancerous cells, they do not affect healthy, normal cells and may actually protect them against cellular death. Moreover, cannabinoids are also researched for their pain-modulation and anti-inflammatory abilities as they bind to special receptors in the brain, much like opioid derivatives that are commonly prescribed today.
Further evidence to support the effects of cannabis extract on malignant cells comes from the real life experience of individuals who have successfully overcome cancer by using cannabis oil. Examples include a patient, who managed to completely cure his skin cancer by simply applying cannabis oil onto the affected areas of the skin, as well as another, who recovered from a severe head injury with the aid of hemp oil.
One of the cannabinoids that has displayed amazing medical properties is cannabidiol, or CBD - a non-psychoactive compound that is regarded by some as the medical discovery of the 21st century, and with good reason. Research indicates that CBD can relieve convulsions, reduce inflammation, lower anxiety and suppress nausea, while also inhibiting cancer development. In addition, CBD has exhibited neuroprotective properties, relieving symptoms of dystonia and proving just as effective as regular antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.
What stands out is that from the vast amount of research and data available, as well as the personal experiences of cancer survivors, is that no chemotherapy currently being used medically can match the non-toxic anti-carcinogenic and anti-tumorigenic effects of these natural plant compounds.
Plume-gate: Secret documents prove global cover-up of continued Fukushima radiation pollution
A Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) request filed by Friends of the Earth (FoE), Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), and the Nuclear Information and Resource Center (NIRS) has unearthed a shocking series of new evidence proving a deliberate, global cover-up of the true severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. And the unfortunate reality is that the mainstream media continues to blatantly ignore this colossal scandal.
Private emails, meeting transcripts and other key documents reveal that both the Obama White House and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) were well aware of just how bad things really were with Fukushima from the early days of the disaster, but did nothing to warn the public about it. In fact, NRC and the White House purposely did not warn Americans about a massive radiation plume that struck the West Coast just days after the massive earthquake and tsunami hit Japan's eastern coast.
According to information gathered from hundreds of pages worth of private NRC emails, conference calls and secret meetings, key players in the Fukushima whitewashing campaign, including the NRC's David McIntyre and Elliot Brenner, were hard at work in the days following the disaster distracting public attention away from it. By pretending that a radioactive plume did not exist while simultaneously sending out misinformation to the media, these two, in conjunction with White House officials, actively participated in a criminal cover-up of the truth.
You can read key portions of these criminal dealings at the following link: http://theintelhub.com
Plume-gate, the world's biggest nuclear cover-up to date
A situation that is now being dubbed "Plume-gate," this massive cover-up of critical information about Fukushima could have saved thousands of lives, including the more than 14,000 individuals, many of whom were babies, that died in the weeks following the disaster (http://www.naturalnews.com/034586_Fukushima_USA_fatalities.html). And yet to this very day, the federal government's cozy relationship with the nuclear industry has allowed the injustice to continue, as no proper investigation into this dastardly crime has yet taken place."The executive branch and multiple federal agencies, agencies tasked with keeping the American public safe, did their best to hide and to cover-up information about a deadly radioactive plume and ensuing fallout that was headed for the West Coast of the United States from Japan," writes Tony Muga from The Intel Hub about the situation.
Not only did these government agencies hide the truth and deliberately deceive the public, they also used other events, including the infamous Qur'an burning in Afghanistan, as a distraction to divert public attention away from Fukushima, and away from the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S. that are of a similar age and vulnerability as Fukushima.
So why is the federal government getting away with all this? It is for the same reason that it gets away with most of its other crimes against humanity: corporate fascism. And sadly, corporate fascism is a bipartisan problem, as both Republicans and Democrats today are slaves to it, representing opposite but identical sides of the same coin.
"It seems that the fundamental problem with what Americans are experiencing is not just radioactive fallout but Fascism, the merging of the corporate and the state," adds Muga. "In a fascist state, there is little or no responsible action from the corporations for there is little or no promotion of accountability from the state. The corporations, for all intents and purposes, control the state."
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)