Big Pharma Pills will have Nano devices to track patients

Natural News

The emerging field of nanotechnology is currently gaining a lot of attention across many industries. Nanotechnology allows scientists to manipulate individual atoms and molecules to create unique materials and even micro-scale devices, and this is leading to a wide range of applications in clothing, textiles, electronics and even food and medicine.

Sounds great, right? Except for the fact that, like genetic modification of food crops, nanotechnology tampers with Mother Nature in a way that’s largely untested for safety. And here’s something really bizarre: The pharmaceutical industry may soon begin using nanotechnology to encode drug tablets and capsules with brand and tracking data that you swallow as part of the pill.

To really explain how this works, let me simplify how nanotechnology works so you’ll see why this is so bizarre (and potentially dangerous). Instead of using materials and elements as they’re found in nature to build and construct things, nanotechnologists are deconstructing the basic building blocks of these materials and elements to make completely new ones. In other words, nanoscientists are reconstructing the molecular building blocks of our world without yet knowing what it will do to humans and to the environment.

The long-term consequences of nanotechnology are still largely unknown because not a single formidable study has ever been conducted on this emerging science that proves it to be safe. In fact, most of the studies that have been conducted on nanotechnology show that it’s actually detrimental to health and to the environment (which I’ll cover further, below).

But that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma from potentially adopting it for use in a new tracking and identification system that could be integrated into the very drug pills and capsules that millions of people swallow every day.

By the way, I’ve also posted a video explaining all this. Check it out here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=93626…

Nano-encrypted bar code in every dose

Now don’t get me wrong. Big Pharma isn’t the only industry using nanotechnology despite a complete lack of safety evidence. “Nanoparticles” are present in sunscreens, fabric protectors, plastic food liners, and other products. But what’s different about the nanoparticles soon to be found in a pill near you is that they are capable of storing data about where the drug was made, when it was made, and where it has traveled.

It’s a lot like the bar codes used on parcels to track them along their shipping journeys, except that in the drugs, it’s a molecular bar code that people will be swallowing. During digestion of the pill, the nano data bits will be distributed throughout your body and can become lodged in your body’s tissues.

A company that’s introducing this system for pharmaceuticals, says it this way on its website:

“In the NanoEncryption process, NanoCodes are incorporated directly onto tablets, capsules and vial caps. These codes may be associated with an unlimited amount of manufacturer-determined data, including product information (strength and expiration date), manufacturing information (location date, batch and lot number) and distribution information (country, distributor, wholesaler and chain).”

So if you take these drugs, you’ll be swallowing nano “hard drives” that can store data — data that will be distributed throughout your body and can be read by medical technicians who could then track what drugs you took in the past. And what’s the rationale for this? According to the company, it’s to “defen[d] against pharmaceutical counterfeiting and illegal diversion”.

It sounds like a good idea, right? Unfortunately, there’s a whole lot more to this technology than meets the eye.

Editor’s Note: UPDATE 1 — The company originally mentioned in this story now denies what NaturalNews reported. Their own website text as quoted in this story, was apparently misleading, and they now claim they do not use nano “material” of any kind to achieve their nano encoding. We are temporarily removing the name of this company from this story while we attempts to sort out the truth of the matter. In the past, we’ve had many company rush to change their own website text after we ran a story on them. All quotes published in this story were 100% accurate at the time of publication, and we made a good faith attempt to report this story accurately.

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?

A Pandemic of Corruption, not H1N1

Margaret Chan

Dr. Margaret Chan standing next to the WHO's flag bearing the Caduceus.

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 7, 2010

There is no need to say it; it is almost redundant and repetitive to tell about the corruption that brought about the H1N1 false alarm last year.  However, it is never excessive to point out massive corruption when it is detected and identified so clearly.  Many independent sources have denounced the corruption that runs rampant in the World Health Organization.  One of them, the European Health Council, studied and published a report that revealed the gigantic corruption scheme within the WHO and between its workers and the pharmaceutical industry.

Now it is the turn of the British Medical Journal to denounce and publish its findings.  The highlight of the report states that highly positioned scientists who ‘convinced’ the heads of the WHO to declare the pandemic, held tight financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that loaded up their coffers with the sale of the vaccines.  The WHO scientists received direct financial compensation from the vaccine manufacturers. During and after the fallout, the WHO denied requests to disclose information on conflicts of interests between its top advisers and the drug companies.

Perhaps the biggest victim after the thousands of patients who died of the side effects the vaccine produced, those suffer from irreparable neurological disorders -also as a consequence of the vaccine- and others who will die and get sick in the future, is the WHO itself.  The very little credibility it still held has completely dissipated and nothing that comes out of its loudspeakers can be trusted.  Now, the only way the organization -a branch of the United Nations- can enforce any of its maddening policies is through the puppet governments that follow any of the guidelines it may issue in the coming months and years.

Caduceus

* The Caduceus is an appropriate choice to represent modern medicine. In antiquity, it was the guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars and thieves.

The findings revealed by Deborah Cohen, editor at the BMJ, and Philip Carter, a journalist who works for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, were not only not denied by the head of the WHO, Dr Margaret Chan, but also defended and justified.  Chan said the secrecy was necessary to protect the integrity and independence of the members while doing critical work and also to ensure transparency.  In other words, it is not necessary to carry out honest work at the World Health Organization so long people do not suspect or discover corruption.  However, if corruption is discovered, it is absolutely fine to cover it up while the WHO investigates itself to determine if there is or not wrongdoing in its operations.

The British Medical Journal is not the only organization that found corruption at the heart of the WHO.  As mentioned before, the European Health Council’s investigation also determined that the declaration of the H1N1 Pandemic was based on politics and not science.  It says the way in which the WHO handled the supposed pandemic was “a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.”

The reaction from the pharmaceutical industrial complex could not come fast enough.  The drug lords said the WHO did not have other option but to declare the pandemic due to the fact vaccines are the only ways to prevent and cure disease.  This of course are lies.  Vaccines do not treat or cure disease; they prolong them and produce them.  On the other hand, natural production of vitamin D3, for example, is a proven way to prevent and cure disease such as Influenza and others like cancer more effectively than any vaccine ever could. How many times do you hear any doctor or WHO scientist recommending a patient to take sunlight so the body can produce the necessary vitamin D or D3?  The answer is never.  The reason for that is that both the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO pretend to perpetuate the sick care programs that currently have more people than ever in drugs.  Anyone heard of drug or pharmaceutical dependency?

Studies in North America, South America and Europe have shown that a 40-60 nanograms of serum per mililiter hydroxyvitamin D (100-150 nanomols per liter) of  blood is lethal to disease, including 10 different kinds of cancer, diabetes and of course influenza.  The details of the studies and what Vitamin D and D3 are capable of doing to prevent disease as well as to decrease the chance of many medical problems to recur, can be seen here.  So one of the keys to prevent disease is to find out what’s the level of serum in your blood, and to intake vitamin D or D3 if there is a deficiency.  The cost can vary from free (exposure to sunlight 10-15 minutes a day between 11 am and 1 pm when there is less UVB radiation) to about five cents of a dollar a day (using supplements).  Don’t let any doctor confuse you with “no one knows what is the right dosage of vitamin D”, because that is exactly the wrong question to ask or try to answer.  But if you are someone who feels more comfortable with measuring your daily intake, 2000 IU per day is a recommended dosage.  Again, the details can be seen in the video cited above.

As Mike Adams writes “People were kept ignorant of natural remedies, in other words, to make sure more people died and a more urgent call for mass vaccination programs could be carried out.  A few lives never gets in the way of Big Pharma profits, does it?”.  That is exactly my point, too.  A few thousand lives don’t mean anything to an industry whose only goal is to profit every single year based on lies, scare tactics and corruption.  This is precisely what Dr. Margaret Chan meant with her statement.  Corruption is tolerated.  Experimenting with humans is all right.  Looting the public coffers is also fine.  And when people find out the lies, they themselves decide whether there was wrongdoing or not.

But how is it that the World Health Organization mixes, brews and carries out the corruption cocktail we are talking about?

Over-blow the supposed risk: The WHO and pharmaceutical companies classify the risk as very high and create imaginative levels of chance of mortality.  This time, the WHO created a 6th stage which it then declared we were all in.  At this time, when very few cases of H1N1 had been confirmed around the planet, the simple intake of Vitamin D and D3 -either through sunlight or supplements- would have done away with the virus.

Demand that nations purchase vaccines: The WHO asked and then demanded that countries bought vaccines from the biggest manufacturing houses: Sanofi and Glaxosmithkline; in order to prepare for the supposed pandemic.  They then raised the risk level to one of “public health emergency”, which made the countries carry out massive vaccination campaigns against the unsuspecting public.

Loot the public coffers: Nations -both in developed and underdeveloped regions of the world- spent billions of dollars purchasing  H1N1 vaccines while the virus never even reached a significant level of risk.  As it turned out, what did get indeed gigantic was the bank accounts of the pharmaceutical companies as they collected the money.

Payoffs to corrupt scientists: While the world was falling victim of the panic and interacting with anyone on the street was seen as risky, -masks popping out everywhere- scientists at the WHO pocketed kickbacks from the pharmaceutical  manufacturers. Those monies were intentionally kept secret; as the head of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan admitted.

Instigate and increase fear: As a way to keep the profits from the sale of vaccines growing, the WHO as well as national and local health departments called on people to vaccinate themselves and their relatives.  Vaccinating, they said, was the only way to be saved from the deadly H1N1 virus.  How many of the people who allegedly died from H1N1 died due to the virus?  Very few.  Most of them died of health complications related to previous medical problems that were aggravated with the influenza virus.  The vaccine did not prevent or treat those complications.  In fact, many of them were triggered by the vaccines themselves.

The question that comes to mind then is: Why do governments and its health departments continue to follow guidelines from the WHO given the blatant corruption schemes that govern its actions?   And more important:  Will they continue to obey the directives from the WHO in the future?  Probable yes.  Bureaucracy is an equal opportunity offender and it does not distinguish whether it is a local, regional, national or international organ.  So the decision to reject the WHO’s corrupted rules and to take responsibility for your health is in your hands.  So when the next ‘pandemic’ comes around remember:  The scientists that advice the WHO are in the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies and they will always hype a virus and turn it into a monster with 5 heads if that is what it takes for them to turn a profit. And one more thing:  there has never been an independent scientific study that confirmed that vaccines prevent, treat or cure any disease.  Vaccines are the biggest scam of modern medicine.  All medical studies carried out which claim that a vaccine prevents, treats or cures disease were either conducted by vaccine manufacturers or paid by them so universities and laboratories  “independently confirmed”  they are effective.

If there is anything positive left from the WHO’s imaginary H1N1 pandemic is that now more than ever we can be sure neither the WHO nor the pharmaceutical industrial complex have your interests at heart.  Their only interests revolve around the idea of filling their pockets with money and in the process depopulate the planet a little bit more every time.

* W. Burkert, Greek Religion 1985 section III.2.8; “Hermes.” Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online. Retrieved October 04, 2006.

Link between tanning beds, melanoma grows stronger

USA Today

Strong evidence now links tanning beds to melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer that afflicts nearly 69,000 Americans a year.

People who have ever used tanning machines were 74% more likely to develop melanoma than others, according to a study of 2,268 patients reported today in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Those who tanned the most — for 10 years or more — had more than twice the risk of melanoma compared with people who never used tanning beds, says co-author Martin Weinstock of Brown University School of Medicine. Those risks didn’t change when researchers accounted for age, sex, income, family history, education, skin and eye color, freckles, moles, sunscreen use or time in the sun.

About 2.5% of men and 1.7% of women develop melanoma, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study provides some of the strongest evidence yet to link tanning beds to melanoma, which kills nearly 7,000 Americans a year, says Electra Paskett of Ohio State University.

The study includes information on the newest tanning technologies, finding that machines emitting both types of ultraviolet light — UVA and UVB — increased melanoma risk, says Allan Halpern of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Halpern and many other doctors say they’re especially concerned about the risks of tanning salons for teenagers, which are popular this time of year as kids prepare for proms, graduations and beach trips. About 35% of 17-year-old girls use tanning machines, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new report comes at a time of increased scrutiny of indoor tanning:

•The FDA is considering recommendations from an advisory panel that suggested that teens be barred from tanning salons, or at least get parental consent before tanning.

•Congress included a 10% tax on indoor tanning in the health reform bill to help pay for expanding medical coverage and to make it harder for teens to afford indoor tanning.

•The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in July listed ultraviolet radiation-emitting beds as “carcinogenic to humans,” its highest category of cancer risk.

In a statement, the Indoor Tanning Association’s John Overstreet says scientists disagree about the link between melanoma and tanning beds. “When reputable researchers are coming to vastly different conclusions, it’s clear that a lot more research is needed,” he says. “The science on both sides of the question needs to be weighed before consideration is given to any sweeping policy changes.”

Watch out for Diabetes Drugs. Your Heart will thank you!

The use of non-original content in this site is protected by the Fair Use Clause created in 1976, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism and education.

Natural News

Widely used diabetes drugs appear to increase patients’ risk of potentially fatal heart problems, according to a study conducted bdiabetesy researchers from Imperial College London and published in the British Medical Journal.

Researchers examined patient and prescription records to examine rates of heart failure, heart attack and death from any cause among 900,000 patients taking all different kinds of diabetes drugs. Patients were followed for an average of seven years each.

Diabetes drugs fall into three classes: sulphonyureas, glitazones and biguanides. The sulphonyureas include chlorpropamide, glibenclamide (marketed as Daonil and Euglucon), gliclazide (marketed as Diamicron), glimepiride (marketed as Amaryl), glipizide (marketed as Glibenese and Minodiab) and tolbutamide. The glitazones, also called thiazolidinediones, include rosiglitazone (marketed as Avandia) and pioglitazone (marketed as Actos). Metformin is the only anti-diabetes biguanide on the market.

The researchers compared all other drugs to metformin, which is an older, well-proven diabetes drug that is often used as a first line of treatment. They found that patients taking sulphonyureas were between 24 and 60 percent more likely to die of any cause than patients taking metformin, and also significantly more likely to suffer heart failure or heart attack. Patients on rosiglitazone had an increased risk of heart failure over metformin.

Pioglitazone appeared to offer the same risk of heart failure as metformin, and both glitazones had the same risk of heart attack or death as the older drug.

Because the elevated blood sugar levels characteristic of diabetes tend to damage blood vessels, all diabetics are at an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Combined with the fact that chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease can take a long time to develop even when caused or exacerbated by drugs, this means that heart-related side effects to diabetes drugs can be very hard to detect. Often, they only emerge after products have been on the market for years.