Big Pharma Companies And The Battle Against The Facts
Following the release of a paper by the European Food Standards Agency, it seems that nutritional vitamins, herbs and sunlight and water have gotten one thing in common. The link is that, based on the regulators that influence our access to healthcare, all of them don’t have any advantages in the body. This is not something I believe in as a personal trainer London.
In case you have lived on the earth for some time, you’ll have also seen that you get dehydrated should you not drink sufficient water. You don’t have to be a dietary therapist to conclude that consuming ample water prevents dehydration. However, the communicat launched by the EFSA last week declared that “the proposed allegation doesn’t meet with the requirements for a disease risk negation declaration pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006.” So there you have got it. Water can no longer forestall dehydration as it is not licensed to do so.
Although no-one is predicted to take this literally, the declaration was a symptom of a more severe problem within our health regulators and the government-pharmaceutical-media complex on the whole in coping with the healing properties of meals and nutrients.
Contrary to the legal guidelines of evolution science and common sense, the regulators (in the UK, this means the Food Standards Agency and the Medical and Health Regulatory Authority) do not accept that nutritional vitamins, minerals or herbs can help the body. As a qualified personal trainer London, I obviously know that this is simply not true. Moreover, their official stance is that no natural compound has any impact in the physique; only medicine which have completed a range of specially-designed trials can do so. If it has a therapeutic effect, it’s a drug.
This is the reason retailers land themselves in scorching water in the event that they list a health claim on the packaging of their product or at the point of sale. It doesn’t make any difference if the claim is true or not; they are going to be still facing the threat of prosecution for ‘selling medicine with no licence’. In 2004, Asda had been taken to court by Swindon County Coucil for selling mangos with an attached message saying that beta-carotene and Vitamin C helped stop cancer. Though this isn’t disputed, the Meals Labelling laws of 1996 prohibit such data from being listed.
Producers and retailers of meals and supplements can’t legally inform their customers that Vitamin D3 could improve their metabolism, mood, bone health, insulin sensitivity or most cancer risks. It might have fifty one thousand scientific papers detailing it is effects within the human physique but it’s an organic substance, not a drug. So the official response is that it can’t assist, and anyone promoting a product that mentions any of the benefits present in such studies shall be prosecuted.
The stupidity certainly doesnt come to an end there though. It seems that our regulators live in a parallel plane of existance where not only do nutrients do absolutely nothing within the physique, the same nutrients are additionally dangerous. The EU has waged warfare on natural heath products through the introduction of the Natural Medicines Products Directive, which is currently being rolled out and impacts the availability of many widespread herbs. The threat of additional legislation within the form of Codex Alimentarius, which threatens to ban all therapeutic dosages of vitamins and minerals, still looms.
Don’t make the mistake of pondering that the executives in charge of this nonsensical and contradictory war are stupid. They don’t seem to be; the battle in opposition to natural healthcare is deliberate and sustained. It is being executed so as a result of MHRA being funded totally from the drug trade and staffed by the drug industry. As Jacky Law described in her 2007 guide “Big Pharma”, nearly all of the executives in the FSA and MHRA come straight from the drug trade or transfer immediately into it. This is the revolving-door syndrome, and ensures that the regulators walk, speak and smell identical to the drug firms they’re meant to regulate.
And if there’s one factor drug corporations do not like, its competition. And so they particularly despise competition from merchandise which are a hundredth of the price, work more effectively and provide fewer side-effects. Despite a extensive availability of therapeutic herbs that have formed the spine of medical approaches for centuries. If pharmaceutical corporations intentionally prevented sickness, they might be out of business. If they cured illness rapidly, they’d struggle to remain in business. Instead, the aim of the game is managing illness in a profitable manner.
For this reason helpful herbs and important vitamins that I recommend as a personal trainer London are being threatened, while next-to-ineffective medication with an enormous array of devastating side-effects are actively promoted. Take the instance of Avastin, a cancer drug used to scale back blood vessel growth in cancer tissues. Studies show the drug is capable of extending natural life by just a few months, typically a lot less. It additionally has a range of significant unintended effects, including death. Even the Avastin web site itself says that “no data is available that demonstrates a reduction in disease-associated symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in breast cancer.” In short, Avastin does nothing but decelerate the inevitable. The price of a course of Avastin? Around $100000. There’s a lot of money in cancer.
And herein lies the explanation why drug corporations, by means of their use of the media, shops, and the regulators that they spend billions to influence, seem so hell-bent on restricting consumer access to nutritional vitamins, minerals, herbs and different nutrients. They are cheap, come with few unwanted effects and will put the drug firms out of business. If everyone in Britain boosted their vitamin D levels to within the optimum range, the drug firms could be bankrupted within months. Enough Vitamin D levels has shown to reduce the incidence of cancer by 77 percent (Lappe et al, 2007). The price of this variation that would enhance the well being of tens of millions? Nothing whatsover, at least in summer. Just a few pence a day in winter.
But Cancer Research UK, the charity that features the slogan ‘Collectively, we are going to beat cancer’, maintains a stance that the public ought to avoid the sun on the idea of diminished skin cancer risk. This continued warning comes regardless of humans evolving in 14 hours of sunlight per day and regardless of the confirmed link between lower daylight exposure and elevated cancer rates (Holick, 2008). The established link between improved iodine status and lowered cancer (Abrahams et al, 2002) is just ignored. Vitamin C has long been touted as a useful anti-cancer choice and is backed up by a wealth of analysis (Moyad, 2008) the charity choose to ignore it. It’s nearly as if Cancer Research UK are trying to maintain cancer within the British population. It’s almost as if the executives on £300,000+ per yr know that they will lose their cushy jobs if cancer rates decrease and public concern of the illness wanes, along with the need for their organisation. It’s almost as if they’re working alongside the drug firms who profit from cancer. Actually, hang on; it seems that Cancer Research have official partnerships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer and many others. They’re no longer working with the system. They are the system.
So next time you see a headline that screams of the most recent ‘cancer breakthrough’, you can probably ignore it. Next time you’re confronted with a cancer charity telling you to avoid probably the most efficient manner of preventing most cancers, you may ignore that too. And next time a health care provider tells you that vitamins and minerals do nothing, you’ll be able to punch him in the face (if he is right, he will not feel anything – you need calcium to transmit nerve impulses).
