Aug 17, 2023 3-5PM ET
Thursday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Many cancer drugs may end up doing absolutely nothing for patients, study Cancer researchers continue to roll out new and promising treatments for patients all over the world. However, a new study finds that many end up being completely ineffective, failing to improve the quality of life or extend the lifespans of cancer patients. Specifically, researchers in Sweden found that up to two in three cancer drugs prove to be useless for patients after years of research. A team from the University of Gothenburg looked at the scientific evidence surrounding nearly two dozen new cancer drugs during their study. They note that many medications receive rapid approval before scientists have a chance to conduct long-term tests on how these drugs actually impact the lives of cancer patients. Cancer research dominates the pharmaceutical industry worldwide, with companies constantly launching new products that show signs of benefiting patients in some way. In Europe, the Swedish team notes that drugs receive approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and enter the market after national reimbursement processes begin. The Gothenburg team examined 22 cancer drugs approved for reimbursement in Sweden over the last 10 years, examining studies that tested their ability to improve quality of life or lengthen lifespans. On average, these reports examined the drugs for 6.6 years. Results revealed only seven of the 22 drugs had at least one study which showed a clear benefit for cancer patients. Randomized controlled trials on the other 15 failed to show any tangible benefits for people with cancer. Only one drug in the study showed an ability to both improve the quality of life and extend lifespans for patients.
Review Adds to Evidence That Glyphosate Weedkillers Cause Cancer Reinforcing earlier findings, a systematic review published in Chemosphere finds the popular herbicide glyphosate and its formulations (glyphosate-based formulations or GBF) exhibit five out of the 10 key characteristics (KC) of carcinogens, or cancer-causing chemicals. Specifically, glyphosate exhibits strong evidence of genotoxicity, epigenetic alterations (heritable changes in gene expression), oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, endocrine disruption and disturbs gut microbiota implicated in lymphomagenesis (growth and development of lymphoma). Although organizations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designate glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen and scientific literature supports the findings on these adverse effects purported by glyphosate, the chemical remains on the U.S. market in various formulations. Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, not just Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago.
The Vax-Gene Files: Have the Regulators Approved a Trojan Horse? The alarming discovery by scientist Kevin McKernan, of DNA contamination in vials of Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines has raised significant concern in the scientific community. Meanwhile, the reported finding has attracted criticism from those quick to ‘demonise’ anyone questioning the safety, efficacy, and sanctity of the ‘vaccines.’ McKernan’s detractors – and there have been plenty of them – have criticised everything from lack of peer-reviewed publication to speculation about the viability of the anonymously sent vials. Now, don’t get me wrong. Criticism and open debate in scientific enquiry are good things. After the three years of censorship and stifled debate in science and medicine one thing is patently clear: freedom of speech is paramount to truth. Let’s be clear on another thing. The peer-review system is essentially broken. The same players with vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry curiously have the same influence on the research and publication industry. As McKernan rightly points out, ‘[t]he market will validate this finding long before traditional peer review even puts its boots on. Independent wet lab reproduction trumps 3 anonymous readers every time.’ This, then was the motivation behind publishing the results online with a call-to-action for scientists in the field to independently verify the results.
Question of The Day!
Do you have a site where you elaborate on your healing protocol for your gut issues–leaking gut, heavy metals, liver flush, parasites, dysbosis, etc.
Thank you so much
Supplement Media Attack: Another Case of Déjà Vu? If a health product works, it’s cheap, and it isn’t made by a pharmaceutical company, it will come under attack by the mainstream scientific institutions, authorities and the media. Scientific American’s latest attack is in a long line of hit-pieces against dietary supplements that, if taken seriously and implemented, would result in the supplement industry being wiped out. Action Alert! The editorial in Scientific American (SA) not only calls for implementing Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) supplement hit list that we successfully defeated last year; not only does it urge the FDA to regulate supplements more like drugs; it calls for supplements to be regulated more than drugs by requiring third-party testing for safety and efficacy. All this for a group of products that are safer than conventional foods, as shown by our sister organization, the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) using European data. Supporting these absurd recommendations are the same old, weak arguments that have been used to attack supplements for years; they were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. We have to push back against these baseless viewpoints, lest they be used by Congress to support passing Sen. Durbin’s anti-supplement policy in this Congress. The FDA already has the power it needs to stop fraudulent products, or products spiked with illegal ingredients, from the market. In the past, we should remember that FDA leadership deliberately refused to enforce laws in the hope that something would occur which was so bad that the public would call for a drug-like regulatory scheme for supplements.
Your Advocacy on Homeopathy is Working …but we can’t afford to back off — we need to keep up the pressure. Action Alert! Have you – or any of your loved ones been using or relying on homeopathic products for your health? Do you think we should have the right to use them because they’ve been shown to be both safe and efficacious over many decades? Bottom line: the FDA wants to see all homeopathics banned, its prejudice against homeopathy having changed little since the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910. It is only grassroots and congressional pressure that has stopped bans in the past. That’s why can’t afford to take our eye off the homeopathic ball for one minute! You’ll recall we’ve told you before how the FDA issued guidance in December 2022 declaring that all homeopathic medicines are on the market illegally. We’ve been working alongside our allies to protect access to these medicines and to get the FDA to back off, and we have some amazing news: the Senate Appropriations Committee included language aimed at protecting homeopathy in their report accompanying the annual FDA spending bill. This is a clear message to the FDA that Congress is aware of the FDA’s attack and wants the agency to work to ensure a legal pathway for homeopathic medicines to be marketed in the US. The Senate report language asks the FDA to implement “a legal pathway that includes homeopathic specific standards for the regulation of these medicines” and to work with the homeopathic community to ensure continued access to homeopathic medicines. The Senate Appropriations Committee adds that the FDA’s “interpretation of the law that all homeopathic medicines are unapproved new drugs that are illegally marketed has created confusion both for the homeopathic community and enforcement officials.” This is a testament to the fact that your advocacy is working. This report language mirrors many of the points we’ve been making about the FDA’s conduct towards homeopathy. It is a huge win and shows that Congress is finally starting to come around on this issue. You can review our previous coverage for all of the details regarding the FDA’s threat to homeopathy. In issuing its new policy towards homeopathic medicines, the FDA is trying to assert the power to remove any homeopathic medicine it wants to, whenever it wants to. That’s because, technically speaking, the agency has declared that no homeopathic medicines are legally on the market. In effect, the current law hands the FDA a loaded gun it can use at its discretion.
Special Guest Dr. James Johnston, DO
New Covid wave has begun and masks should be worn again, scientists warn Experts have warned it is “reasonably certain” the UK is in another wave of Covid-19 – and suggested people should wear face masks again. Hospital admissions for coronavirus have risen in recent weeks, just as the effectiveness of vaccines is wearing off, a new variant has emerged and ministers have decided Covid boosters will not be offered to nearly 12 million Britons this winter. “Without ramping up surveillance, and in the face of waning immunity, we are travelling into winter more vulnerable and with blinkers on,” warned Christina Pagel, a member of the Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies that advises on the virus. Prof Pagel predicted the new wave could cause extreme pressure on the health service, with a repeat of last winter’s “unprecedented” NHS crisis of Covid, flu and respiratory virus that came all around the same time. “Any increase in hospital burden is bad news, given record waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment and persistently high waits in hospitals for admission,” she wrote in the British Medical Journal. “Infection is also not harmless simply because it’s causing fewer hospital admissions – long Covid remains an ongoing significant problem, damaging people’s lives (eg through persistent fatigue or brain fog), as well as taking them out of the workforce.” And she warned that a new variant very different from previous strains could make “hard-won protection much less protective”.