Vitamin B3 beats Big Pharma's Zetia cholesterol drug

Natural News ^

[Scythian]

(NaturalNews) The utter worthlessness of Big Pharma's cholesterol drugs was demonstrated recently by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which showed that niacin (a low-cost B vitamin) out-performs Merck's drug Zetia for preventing the build-up of arterial plaque, a symptom of cardiovascular disease.

As the study reveals, Zetia failed miserably. Patients taking niacin showed a "significant shrinkage" in artery wall thickness, while those on Zetia showed no such improvement. At the same time, the rate of "cardiovascular events" in the niacin group was only one-fifth that in the Zetia group, demonstrating that niacin is far more effective at preventing heart attacks and other similar events than Zetia.

But curiously, as soon as niacin started to show a real benefit over Zetia, researchers cancelled the study. The premature ending of the clinical trial stopped the process by which even more useful information about the benefits of niacin might have been learned.

5,800% higher price than niacin

Merck, the maker of Zetia, was likely horrified to learn that a low-cost B vitamin out-performed its blockbuster drug. Sales of its Zetia drug are reportedly over $5 billion. It's no wonder: Zetia sells for as much as $3.89 per pill.

Niacin, on the other hand, costs as little as 6.7 cents per pill, even in a "no-flush" time-release formula from a quality source like the NSI brand from Vitacost: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-No-Flus...

These price differences make Zetia 5,800% more expensive than niacin. And yet niacin works better.

So if niacin works better, and if modern medicine claims to be serving patients instead of profits, why don't doctors recommend B vitamins instead of expensive cholesterol drugs? As you have already guessed, the reason is because Zetia earns all kinds of ridiculous profits for Big Pharma and B vitamins don't.

The fact that doctors continue to prescribe Zetia, in fact, demonstrates how thoroughly our modern medical system has failed to recognize and embrace things that work to help patients rather than things that make the most money for powerful drug companies. If our modern system were actually based on what works, doctors would be prescribing various vitamins, minerals, herbs, superfoods and nutritional supplements (including anti-cancer mushroms).

But no... our system isn't based on what helps patients. It's based on what makes the most money, and so patients are put on dangerous (even deadly) pharmaceuticals that can cost 5,800% more than low-cost natural remedies that actually work better!

The big question: Does modern medicine help society at all?

It really makes you wonder: Beyond emergency treatments and critical care, does modern medicine offer any net benefit to society at all? More and more people are now coming to the conclusion that no, modern medicine harms far more people than it helps.

The key question to ask is this: What if our medical system disappeared tomorrow? Would we be better off or worse off?

The startling (but true) answer is that we would be better off. Without cancer screening, for example, breast cancer rates would plummet (because screening causes cancer). Without cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs and chemotherapy, people would live far longer, with less liver damage, kidney damage and brain damage.

In all, pharmaceuticals do not save lives. They destroy lives while making huge profits for drug companies. And yet much of western medicine is based on the administration of these dangerous, over-priced chemicals.

There's a fascinating book entitled What if Medicine Disappeared? by Gerald Markle and Frances McCrea. (http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine...)

This book explains why modern medicine does far more harm than good. It doesn't explain, however, why doctors who think they're so smart continue to prescribe a patented medication that's 5,800% more expensive than a nutritional solution that works better.

[Mase]

The big question: Does modern medicine help society at all?

In all, pharmaceuticals do not save lives. They destroy lives while making huge profits for drug companies

This is sheer idiocy offered by the worst kind of idiots. Tell someone who survived drug resistant staph, thanks to Vancomycin, that drug companies destroy lives. I have a relative who is alive today thanks to Gleevec. Vaccinations have done nothing to save lives? Do you idiots remember polio and what it did to a healthy body? Have you ever seen a child suffering from Pertussis? How many thousands are spared from death by malaria each year because they have access to drugs like Fansidar, Lariam and Malarone?

I read this crap and wonder what kind of moron would post such stupidity here and who would agree with it. It's absolutely mind-boggling. Where do you think the new drugs to treat bacterial infections that don't respond to current classes of drugs will come from...the health food and supplement industry? Who will save us from drug resistant TB......practitioners of homeopathy? Thank goodness our fate isn't in the hands of the clueless.....yet.

[B4Ranch]

Have you tried coconut oil?

[Scythian]

In a recent study “Oregano Oil” out performed Vancomycin in a real study, when Vancomycin failed, “Oregano Oil” worked. And for $35 you can purchase Allimax or Allimed and it KILLS MRSA where all other drugs fail, and it’s been proven, it’s made from Garlic and has a very high Allicin content.

And by the way, there are almost no side effects to Oregano Oil, which is probably, pound for pound one of the strongest antibiotics on the planet, proven in studies to surpass Vancomycin.

Don’t ask me to prove it unless when I do you are willing to admit you were wrong and that the Drug Companies are covering up cheap, safe, and effective cures ...

[Scythian]

Coconut Oil is in large part what helped me become Morgellons free at the very end, that and OptiMSM (MSM) not MMS ...

Love Coconut Oil ... Had it in my oatmeal in the morning just today (like aways)

[B4Ranch]

If you are ever curious about the efficiency of the FDA, just 30 minutes worth of research will show you that they are a 99.99% worthless agency who supports corporations not science.

[Scythian]

Although there is a combined effect of the many compounds found in oregano oil, its effectiveness is largely attributed to a primary ingredient, the phenol carvacrol. When lab tested, carvacrol was found to be one of the most potent antibiotics known to science. In tests done at Georgetown University, it was found to be more effective than penicillin, streptomycin and even vancomycin (considered to be the strongest of all antibiotics). Unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, oregano oil does not create resistant strains of mutant bacteria. It is able to naturally and effectively eliminate any pathogen that is unfortunate enough to cross its path.

[dbwz]

Without cancer screening, for example, breast cancer rates would plummet (because screening causes cancer).

OMG, they expect me to take anything they say seriously after I read some stupid crap like this?

[ColdWater]

In a recent study “Oregano Oil” out performed Vancomycin in a real study, when Vancomycin failed, “Oregano Oil” worked. And for $35 you can purchase Allimax or Allimed and it KILLS MRSA where all other drugs fail, and it’s been proven, it’s made from Garlic and has a very high Allicin content. And by the way, there are almost no side effects to Oregano Oil, which is probably, pound for pound one of the strongest antibiotics on the planet, proven in studies to surpass Vancomycin. Don’t ask me to prove it unless when I do you are willing to admit you were wrong and that the Drug Companies are covering up cheap, safe, and effective cures ...

Prove it!

[Scythian]

Mammograms increase cancer in women ..

http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_brst_cancer.html

[Scythian]

In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age — as early as 25 — and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don’t have breast cancer in their family trees.

[ColdWater]

“Self-treatment

Persons with Morgellons symptoms may turn to alternative remedies described on web sites and discussion groups.”

wikipedia.com

[Mase]

Yeah, right. The next time you have drug resistant MRSA, reach for the oregano oil instead of the Vancomycin. Let me know how that works out for ya. If you ever get drug resistant TB, whooping cough or malaria be sure and use only oregano oil to treat it....... Farewell and adieu unto you Spanish ladies, Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain....

When someone you know comes down with chronic myeloid leukemia, be sure and load them up on whatever natural idiocy the internet tells you cures it. I know they'll appreciate it.

I thought you Opused yourself from FR and that we were finally spared from your Luddite, chemicalphobe and anti-industry rantings. I knew it was too good to be true.

[CJinVA]

It was actually Intermittent claudication. I had two stents put in at my iliac artery. Lost 20 lbs and started walking 2 or 3 miles a day. And that pretty well fixed the pain in my legs.

[ColdWater]

In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Not exactly.

www.rsna.org

Mammography May Increase Breast Cancer Risk in Some High-Risk Women

"Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted," Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said.

She noted that this analysis is based on a small study sample and should be interpreted with caution. Dr. Jansen-van der Weide also pointed out that these results apply only to specific high-risk groups of women.

Women at average risk were not assessed in this study. In general, early detection with mammography and prompt treatment can significantly improve a woman's chances of survival. More than 90 percent of women whose breast cancer is found in an early stage will survive. For young, high-risk women and their doctors, it is important to weigh the benefits against any potential risk when making a decision about annual breast cancer screening with mammography.

[ColdWater]

Mammograms increase cancer in women ..

Correction:

"Mammography May Increase Breast Cancer Risk in Some High-Risk Women"

[Scythian]

Survive only means be "alive 5 years later" you know that right?

If you really want to survive get your PH up, oxygen level up, amino acids, magnesium, Vitamin D, and direct sunlight with no sun block, one hour a day, build up slowly at first until your color is good.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Thanks for the response and I’m glad it worked for you. Been trying to walk as much as possible, constrained by a blown disc between L4-L5 verts-—mucho pain down right leg, in addition to the PAD symptoms.

Considering some sort of arterial surgery.

[Ladysmith]

Mark.

[ColdWater]

Survive only means be "alive 5 years later" you know that right?

Better than being dead 5 years later!

[ColdWater]

“But curiously, as soon as niacin started to show a real benefit over Zetia, researchers cancelled the study. The premature ending of the clinical trial stopped the process by which even more useful information about the benefits of niacin might have been learned.”

Prove it! Prove that they did not do continued studies.