Pharmacists getting Cancer from dispensing Chemotherapy Chemicals

Natural News

One of the side effects of chemotherapy is, ironically, cancer. The cancer doctors don’t say much about it, but it’s printed right on the chemo drug warning labels (in small print, of course). If you go into a cancer treatment clinic with one type of cancer, and you allow yourself to be injected with chemotherapy chemicals, you will often develop a second type of cancer as a result. Your oncologist will often claim to have successfully treated your first cancer even while you develop a second or third cancer directly caused by the chemo used to treat the original cancer.

There’s nothing like cancer-causing chemotherapy to boost repeat business, huh?

During all this, the pharmacists are peddling these toxic chemotherapy chemicals to their customers as if they were medicine (which they aren’t). While preparing these toxic chemical prescriptions, it turns out that pharmacists are exposing themselves to cancer-causing chemotherapy agents in the process. And because of that, pharmacists are giving themselves cancer… and they’re dying from it.

Why pharmacists are dying of cancer?

People who live in glass houses should never throw stones, they say. And you might similarly say that pharmacists who deal in poison shouldn’t be surprised to one day discover they are killing themselves with it.

Chemotherapy drugs are extremely toxic to the human body, and they are readily absorbed through the skin. The very idea that they are even used in modern medicine is almost laughable if it weren’t so downright disturbing and sad that hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year around the world by chemotherapy drugs.

Now you can add pharmacists to that statistic. For decades, they simply looked the other way, pretending they were playing a valuable role in our system of “modern” medicine, not admitting they were actually doling out chemicals that killed people. Now, the sobering truth has struck them hard: They are in the business of death, and it is killing them off, one by one.

The Seattle Times now reports the story of Sue Crump, a veteran pharmacist of two decades who spent much of her time dispensing chemotherapy drugs. Sue died last September of pancreatic cancer, and one of her dying wishes was that the truth would be told about how her on-the-job exposure to chemotherapy chemicals contributed to her own cancer.

Second-hand chemo

The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), it turns out, does not regulate workplace exposure to toxic, cancer-causing chemotherapy chemicals. At first glance, that seems surprising, since OSHA regulates workplace exposure to far less harmful chemicals. Why not chemo?

The answer is because the toxicity of chemotherapy has long been ignored by virtually everyone in medicine and the federal government. It has always been assumed harmless or even “safe” just because it’s used as a kind of far-fetched “medicine” to treat cancer. This, despite the fact that chemotherapy is a derivative of the mustard gas used against enemy soldiers in World War I. Truthfully, chemotherapy has more in common with chemicals weapons than any legitimate medicine.

So today, while workers are protected from secondhand smoke in offices across the country, pharmacists are still being exposed every single day to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals that OSHA seems to just ignore. The agency has only issued one citation in the last decade to a hospital for inadequate safety handling of toxic chemotherapy drugs.

As the Seattle Times reports, “A just-completed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) — 10 years in the making and the largest to date — confirms that chemo continues to contaminate the work spaces where it’s used and in some cases is still being found in the urine of those who handle it…”

That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50’s, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50’s, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40’s, now dead)

The great contradiction in cancer treatments

As the Seattle Times reports:

“Danish epidemiologists used cancer-registry data from the 1940s through the late 1980s to first report a significantly increased risk of leukemia among oncology nurses and, later, physicians. Last year, another Danish study of more than 92,000 nurses found an elevated risk for breast, thyroid, nervous-system and brain cancers.”

The story goes on to report how new safety rules are being put in place across the industry to protect pharmacists, veterinarians, nurses and doctors from toxic chemotherapy chemicals. But even the Seattle Times, which deserves credit for running this story, misses the bigger point:

If these chemicals are so dangerous to the doctors, nurses and pharmacists dispensing them, how can they be considered “safe enough” to inject into patients who are already dying from cancer?

It’s a serious question. After all, if nurses can become violently ill after merely spilling chemotherapy chemicals on themselves (it’s true), then what effect do you suppose these chemicals have when injected into patients?

The cancer industry, though, has never stopped injecting patients long enough to ask the commonsense question: Why are we in the business of dispensing poison in the first place? Poison, after all, isn’t medicine. Not when dispensed in its full potency, anyway.

The whole idea of “safety” in the cancer industry is to find new ways to protect the health care workers from the extremely dangerous chemicals they’re still injecting into the bodies of patients. Something is clearly wrong with this picture… if health care workers need to be protected from this stuff, why not protect the patients from it, too?

Nobody ever died from handling herbs

In contrast to all this, consider the truthful observation that no naturopath ever died from handling medicinal herb, homeopathy remedies or nutritional supplements. These natural therapies are good for patients, and as a bonus, you don’t have to wear a chemical suit to handle them.

Furthermore, medicinal herbs, supplements and natural remedies don’t cause cancer. They support and protect the immune system rather than destroying it. So they make patients healthier and more resilient rather than weaker and fragile.

But herbs, supplements and natural remedies don’t earn much money for the cancer industry. Only the highly-toxic patented chemotherapy drugs bring in the big bucks. So that’s what they deal in — poison for the patients. And when you deal in poison, some of it always splashes back onto you.

Chemotherapy doesn’t work

Beyond this whole issue of pharmacists and health care workers dying from exposure to secondhand chemotherapy, there’s the issue of whether chemotherapy actually works in the first place. Scientifically speaking, if you take a good, hard look at what the published studies actually say, chemotherapy is only effective at treating less than two percent of the cancers that exist. And that two percent does not include breast cancer or prostate cancer.

Yet chemotherapy is routinely used to “treat” breast cancer even though it offers no benefit to breast cancer patients. In effect, the cancer industry is engaged in a criminal treatment hoax that promises to make you healthier but actually gives you even more cancer — which is great for repeat business, but terrible for the cancer patients who suffer under it.

The level of quackery at work right now in the cancer industry is simply astonishing. You would think that if doctors and pharmacists were dishing out these chemicals to patients, they would make sure there was some sort of legitimate science to back them up. But they haven’t. The science doesn’t exist. Chemotherapy doesn’t work at anything other than causing cancer — and it accomplishes that indiscriminately, damaging any person it comes into contact with. Merely touching chemotherapy chemicals is dangerous for your health.

So if you’re considering chemotherapy for yourself, think about this long and hard: If chemotherapy is so dangerous that it’s giving the pharmacists cancer just from touching it, why on earth would you want to inject it into your body?

This is not an idle question. It is perhaps the most important question of all for someone considering conventional cancer treatment using chemotherapy. The question is essentially this: If chemotherapy causes cancer, how can it treat cancer?

Treating cancer with chemotherapy is like treating alcoholism with vodka. It’s like treating heart disease with cheese, or like treating diabetes with high-fructose corn syrup. Cancer cannot be cured by the very thing that causes it.

And to those who deal in poison, watch out for the cause-and-effect laws of biology. If you deal in chemotherapy chemicals, don’t be surprised if you get cancer one day. If you deal in chemical pesticides, don’t be surprised if you get Alzheimer’s. If you’re a dentist installing mercury fillings in the mouths of clients, don’t be surprised if one day you just go stark raving mad (because mercury causes insanity, and dentists breathe in mercury vapor thrown into the air from their drills).

If you work around chemicals, they will eventually impact your health, and never in a good way. There’s a karmic element in all this, too: If you spend your life dishing out chemotherapy drugs as a pharmacist, you have a lot to answer for. You have been an enabler of a very real chemical holocaust against the people. Don’t be surprised if that holocaust turns against you one day. Karma tends to work that way. Cause and effect is a universal law that cannot be escaped.

And if you’re a cancer patient, I urge you to think twice about the toxicity of anything you might allow in your body. If you are trying to HEAL your body, why would you allow yourself to be poisoned with a chemical that causes cancer?

Don’t let some cancer doctor talk you into chemotherapy using his fear tactics. They’re good at that. So next time he insists that you take some chemotherapy, ask him to drink some first. If your oncologist isn’t willing to drink chemotherapy in front of you to prove it’s safe, why on earth would you agree to have it injected in your body?

Codex Alimentarius: No More Health Freedom

The United Nations and World Health Organization’s FrankenScience to Push Restrictions on What You Eat

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 1, 2010

Almost no time is given to considering the one type of freedom that we all seem to take for granted. Health freedom, or the possibility to choose a good state of being and to nourish it through methods of our own choosing, is something that many times borders into the abstract. Besides being a population accustomed with consuming pharmaceuticals as a way to “maintain” and “improve” our health, many people are unaware that all we need to stay healthy is to provide our body with the nutrients it needs in order to maintain a strong immune system. Part of the reason why this is so is that we all have been brought up within a cultural frame that from our very early years induces us to rely on processed synthetic products, instead of the natural ones which cost just a fraction of the price and that are more effective in providing us the health we all seek.

If the fact natural medicines and products really are the solution to our health problems was not true, the big pharmaceutical conglomerates would not spend billions every year in research and development with profit written all over it. If you have never asked yourself where pharmaceuticals come from, this is a good time to learn. To a great extent, such products are developed based on the curative properties of natural ingredients found in plants and trees. They are then copied and synthetically mass produced for everyone to consume. Given the fact chemical conglomerates use natural solutions to create their products, one would think there would be a concerted effort to promote the use of such natural solutions, however it is not so. Since the 1960´s there is a concerted effort to not only limit the choices we as consumers and human beings have in order to take care of our health, but also to restrict the access to food itself as we know it.

Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

In order to understand what Codex Alimentarius is, one needs to know it has nothing to do with consumer protection as its charter says. Such statement is just a catchy phrase to have the people and the nations approve its implementation. “Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The plan was born in 1962 when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was founded by the U.N. to supposedly facilitate trade relations. In reality, it was created to regulate and control the way in which food and nutrition are guided and how products are sold to people. It is indeed all about the profits of multi-national corporations. The relation is very simple: the more natural products people use, the less profits the pharmaceutical corporations make. Codex Alimentarius was created to protect Big Pharma´s profits through the elimination of natural health products and treatments. What is more alarming at this point is that Codex was scheduled to be approved on December 31st, 2009. Once this plan is signed, it will be mandated through its approval by Congresses around the world, and imposed to all nations; a lot like the Copenhagen Treaty is intended to be implemented.

As in several other programs that the U.N. FAO and WHO want to impose, Codex is based on pseudo-science. For example, it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. The proper science for classifying nutrients and its proper levels is Biochemistry, but Codex does not use Biochemistry. Instead, it uses Risk Assessment which is a branch of Toxicology, or the science of assessing toxins. Those who propose Codex as a way to maintain and improve health have the unscientific idea that vitamins and other nutrients´consumption needs to be reduced. Codex is composed of a series of rules specifically focused on all aspects of food. For example, one of them ratified (approved) on July 2005; Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), seeks to ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins and minerals such as Vitamin C which would be limited to a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.

How was Codex broadly accepted?

As it is typical in this kind of programs, the U.N. and the WHO use their favorite technique to mandate and implement Codex Alimentarius; that is Compartmentalization. In plain words, this is the policy of creating little groups of people who in theory work for a common purpose; to achieve a grand goal, but who in reality are fed different kinds and amounts of information in order to manipulate the outcome of such discussions. Codex is not the exception. Although its formation seems inclusive from the outside, the truth is that each and every committee created to work on Codex, had its own set of standards and guidelines. Such committees formed at the local, regional and international levels are headed by the CAC, the top-level of the Codex hierarchy. After these committees and task forces formulate rules which become ready for ratification (once they reach step 8 of the formulation process), they are then presented to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) for ratification.

Codex is not only unscientific and manipulated; it is also undemocratic. One example of how Codex is run is the way in which the Chairman of the CAC conducts business. Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of the pivotal “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), had the delegate from India bodily removed during a November 2003 CCNFSDU meeting. The delegate’s crime? Insisting on discussing the inclusion of CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% of newborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr. Grossklaus declared the issue approved by “consensus”. The Chairman can prevent a delegate from being heard by deliberately refraining from turning on the delegate’s microphone. So if the Chairman (i.e. Dr. Grossklaus) does not like what is being said, he can flip a switch and that will be that. This guarantees that there is no sustained opposition if the Chairman does not want there to be any opposition.

How will Codex be Implemented?

According to Codex Alimetarius´ own records, once a rule or standard is ratified by CAC it becomes an official regulation and it is implemented through the World Health Organization (WHO) where it is used to decide trade disputes. Outrageous sanctions will be applied onto countries that are deemed to be in violation of the Codex Alimentarius Standards via the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Resolution process. By Codex´s writings a compliant nation is deemed to be the automatic winner in a trade dispute with a country whose laws are not Codex-compliant. The plan then gives the WTO a set of rules to judge if a country is providing a hidden or overt barrier to trade (i.e. not complying domestically with Codex regulations).

The prevailing country, by the way, selects the area in which the trade sanctions will be applied in order to damage the offending country in the way that serves its needs best. Both the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPSA) and the Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement (TBTA) have provisions which could be used to force law into compliance with Codex Alimentarius. Many fear that both CAFTA and NAFTA could do the same (force compliance with Codex) as could the FTAA agreement. Article 3 of the SPSA makes domestic compliance mandatory with WTO-accepted standards (e.g. Codex Alimentarius) regarding toxins. Countries whose domestic law complies with Codex are held to be in automatic compliance with Codex Alimentarius for the WTO Dispute Resolution purposes. Countries not in internal compliance with Codex Alimentarius can be held to be providing a hidden barrier to trade in any food-related trade dispute and be subject to severe WTO trade sanctions.
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D., author of “Death by Medicine”, attended a Codex committee meeting (CCNFSDU, Bonn, 2004), a long-time employee of Codex told her that once the World Trade Organization took over Codex in 1995…

“It was no longer in the hands of the 165 member nations of the WHO (World Health Organization) but in the hands of trade organizations in the 148 countries of the WTO (World Trade Organization), which seems intent on standardizing everything to do with international trade in our emerging global economy.”

How will Codex negatively affect humans and the Environment?

Implementation of Codex Alimentarius would result in severe consequences for human and the environment. For example, high potency nutrients will be labeled as illegal, valuable nutrients not on Codex list will be illegal, new nutrients or herbs will be illegal, traditional medicines with nutritional value will be illegal, antibiotic and hormone-free milk, poultry, fish and meat will not be available in supermarkets due to degraded organic standards, levels of pesticides, hormones, animal drugs and other toxins will be increased in the food supply, labeling for GMOs will not be required, irradiated food will become an accepted practice, and so on.
A new study by French scientists from the universities of Caen and Rouen on three varieties of genetically modified maize, shows clear evidence of health risks. Spain is the only EU country that allows the cultivation of one of these maize, MON810, in large scale. The other two corns are authorized for import and for entry into human and animal food supplies. Farmers, consumers and environmentalists call for applying the precautionary principle and ban GM crops and foods. The study was conducted through tests by the multinational Monsanto, which sells the three types of corn. The science team examined data from tests with rats that were submitted to obtain authorization, which were hitherto confidential and have been obtained in many cases through the courts. According to the authors, it is the first time that these confidential tests from Monsanto have been released to be reviewed by independent researchers.

Scientists have found clear evidence -by analyzing the data- that there are health risks in blood parameters associated with kidney and liver functions. The changes observed in transgenic maize are the three typical patterns of disruption in the metabolic system. The team also sharply criticized the way the data were analyzed by Monsanto, without complying with international statistical standards, or standards for food tests. The three maize have, however, clearance from European authorities, which enabled them to enter the food and feed in Europe. “These studies demonstrate that it is not possible to guarantee the safety of GM food. We must apply the precautionary principle and withdraw transgenic food from our agriculture and our food “said David Sanchez, in charge of Agriculture and Food Friends of the Earth.

This new study adds to a long list of independent studies on the environmental impacts and health risks of transgenic products, which are repeatedly ignored by the Spanish and European authorities. Ana Etchenique, vice president of the Confederation of Consumers and Users (CECU) said: “It is not possible that a government listens to the industry before the public. The government has to ensure responsible agricultural practices for food safety and the health of citizens / consumers. Why our government does not follow the lead of countries like France, Austria and Germany, which already have banned the planting of GM crops? ”

According to the Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex will also bring a considerable loss of access to natural products, which would mean a huge increase in illness. On July 4 in Rome, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) ratified the destructive Codex Alimentarius “Vitamin and Mineral Guideline”. Vitamins and minerals in doses high enough to have a therapeutic effect could become just a memory. Other nutrients (such as amino acids and herbs) will, according to Codex, follow quickly. The driving force of the VMG is economics, not medicine, and has nothing to do with consumer protection. Dr. Rima Laibow a co-founder of NSF has been fighting Codex for many years, and she concludes that nothing positive will result from the adoption of the U.N.´s sponsored program. “High potency nutritional products are highly beneficial for health. Many people would suffer greatly if nutritional products were removed from their reach while health promotion and disease prevention would be nearly impossible without them,” Laibow says.

This would leave, says the doctor, more than 60% of the world’s population without any legal medical care of any kind. In addition to cutting down access to vitamins and supplements, Codex also promotes the use of pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply such as growth hormone as well as insect and vegetable genes in produce. The direct health consequence of this will be a perpetual state of disease because both pesticides and drugs are highly toxic to the liver, our primary organ of detoxification. The poisoning of organs and enzyme systems leads to side effects and illness. If you think that the connection between pesticides and Big pharma is unbelievable, if you do not think a corporation could ever plan such a continuum of disease, think again. It is well-known that drug companies fabricate illnesses for the sake of drug sales. For example, the “fabrication” of mental illnesses.

“Despite a nearly 500 percent increase in mental health drugs being prescribed to children in the previous six years, the NFC [New Freedom Commission on Mental Health] recommended a plan of mandatory mental health screening for all public school students and follow-up treatment with drugs when needed. “The fact is, this is nothing more than another elaborate profiteering scheme hatched by Bush and the pharmaceutical industry to convert the millions of people in public systems into customers for new psychiatric drugs in order to funnel more tax dollars to Pharma,” asserts Evelyn Pringle on the Online Journal.

Codex Alimentarius allows pesticides, veterinary drugs and other toxic residues in foods at levels much higher than even industry lobbyists have asked for! In speaking only of current pesticide levels (Codex levels would be much higher), the Ontario College of Family Physicians notes. Codex Alimentarius would not only allow for the use of more pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other GMO in food, but will also open the door to more dangerous substances like aflatoxin. This drug is a strong carcinogen in milk, peanuts, almonds and other foods. Aflatoxin is the second most potent non-radiation cancer-inducing agent known to man. However, Codex allows corporations to use high levels of aflatoxin in milk: 0.5 mg/kg. That is at least 100 times more than the recommended dose.

How to stop Codex on its tracks?

As it often happens, the people will need to rise against Codex in an effort to inform their relatives, neighbors and friends. The best way in which countries can reject Codex Alimentarius is by opting out of it. This is a decision that must be made by the people through Congress. A letter is available here to send to your Congressman along with detailed information contained in this article or any of the sources provided. Each Congress and the representatives who are negotiating Codex in each local, regional and international committee need to oppose Codex and officially, on behalf of each nation, opt out of it. Only a massive opposition by the people can defeat this initiative. Citizens may not trust their politicians to make the right decisions when it comes to their health freedom. So, contact your government officials and inform them about Codex right now.

Sources:

Who is Behind Codex Alimentarius?

Amended Codex vitamin and mineral guide

Risk Assessment Science + Nutrition = A Toxic Brew!

Documentary: We Become Silent – The Last Days Of Health Freedom

British Parliament Officially Warns About Pharmaceutical Industry

8-Step Codex Decision Process

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

Codex Threatens the Health of Billions

Billions of people expected to die under Codex Alimentarius

The Coming Nutricide: Former Nazi is the Father of Codex

Los riesgos para la salud de transgénicos cultivados y consumidos en España