Showing posts with label alcohol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alcohol. Show all posts

Thursday, 13 June 2013

THE W.H.O. IN FULL ACTION TOWARDS THE DETRIMENT OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

''Look out for “big food, big soda and big alcohol.” The UN is trying to interfere in what you eat and drink, Anthony Furey is joined by Christopher Snowdon to discuss the World Health Organization’s hunger for power.''
View the interview here:  http://en.video.canoe.tv/archive/source/marblemediasinking-ship-production/taking-away-food-choice/2472847685001  

Saturday, 26 November 2011

POT POURRI II


Little does it matter that contrary to what he claims alcohol consumption has decreased in Canada since 2004, the Nova Scotia Chief Medical Officer, Robert Strang is launching a crusade against alcohol . 

Alors que l’O.M.S. nous annonce qu’ ‘’en matière de boisson, il n’existe aucun seuil de sécurité’’ une étude norvégienne effectuée auprès de 149 729 personnes nous confirme qu’une consommation modérée d’alcool serait bénéfique pour le cœur et réduirait les risques de décès par maladies coronariennes de 40 %.  Le Canada pour sa part, adopte désormais des nouvelles normes de consommation d’alcool. 



The myth that smokers and the obese are burdening the healthcare system has once again been debunked.  A leading actuary has lampooned health lobby figures on the costs of smoking and obesity as being extravagantly inflated and based on suspect methodology.’’


‘’Smokegate’’ happened long before climategate as we can read from this 1995 letter from one of Australia’s top anti-smoker activists to his colleagues.    http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ETS1.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ETS2.jpg
 
Climategate 2.0: Une nouvelle publication de courriers électroniques refait tanguer le débat 
sur le réchauffement climatique.


Chemins de fer autrichiens : le retour du compartiment fumeurs.  ‘’En bon businessman, 
l'ancien directeur  des CFF a compris qu'on ne peut se priver impunément d'une clientèle qui représente  30 % de la population: les fumeurs.’’

The British Medical Association (BMA) retracts original press release that uses bad science to justify car smoking bans.  Brian Monteith: BMA’s ‘facts’ prove to be all smoke and mirrors 


Un juge fédéral américain a émis une injonction préliminaire bloquant  les avertissements graphiques sur les produits de tabac, jugeant que ceux-ci enfreignaient les droits constitutionnels des compagnies de tabac. 



 Irvin Leroux, the beleaguered taxpayer who suffered financial ruin following a nightmare audit by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), has won the right to continue his lawsuit against the CRA in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

 
Le Canada part en croisade contre le sel malgré qu’une telle campagne peut être néfaste 
pour la santé d’un bon nombre de personnes.  Lire notre analyse (en anglais) à http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-sodium-reduction-campaign-worth-ones.html 

Thursday, 20 October 2011

DRUNKOREXIA


Drunkorexia: A term coined to refer to condition of binge drinking combined with the typical self-imposed starvation seen with anorexia nervosa. It has also been used to refer to individuals who use purging (as seen with bulimia nervosa) to try to reduce caloric intake to offset the calories consumed in alcohol. The typical individual described as a drunkorexic is a college-aged woman who is a binge drinker, starving all day in order to get drunk at night. (Source: MedicineNet.com)

The Calgary Herald reports that a non-peer reviewed study (aka Science By Press Release) found that one in five students in campuses suffer from drunkorexia, and that this ‘’disorder’’ could affect their ability to learn, to make decisions, and to ultimately damage their internal organs.  They sure give new and awful connotations to something many students have been doing ever since universities were established and mostly all grew out of it alive, don't they? 

''Valerie Taylor, the chief of psychiatry at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, told the paper that “alcohol abuse and mental-health issues are on the rise in Canada and schools continue to try to address the problem.”
Perhaps Taylor should be looking elsewhere for the cause of the rise in mental health issues in Canada because according to Statistics Canada alcohol consumption is not increasing. Actually it has decreased significantly since 2004.  Rather than blaming an increase in alcohol consumption that simply didn’t happen for the rise of mental issues, Taylor should be looking at psychotropic drugs that her profession is now over-prescribing to ever younger children. 
 



(Hat Tip  to Andrew Phillips at http://www.andrewmphillips.net/Adhd.php for the video)  

What we're witnessing is only the beginning of the modern day alcohol prohibition and there will be a lot more from where this came from. Better get used to reading results from junk studies, bogus statistics, sound bites such as no safe level of alcohol, harm to the ''kiddies'', new disorders, new drugs, higher taxes, no advertizing, gory health warnings on the bottles…There is lots of money to be made from selling anti-alcohol propaganda.   http://www.wikihow.com/Quit-Drinking-Alcohol-Using-Anti-Craving-Medication

The WHO propagandists are talking about it here European Region has heaviest drinking in the world - Countries seek to reduce the harmful use of alcohol where you can read that ''There is no safe level of drinking, and in many societies no difference in the risk for men and women.''

The CDC talks about it here Alcohol & Public Health
 Haut du formulaire
Bas du formulaire
So does anyone want to wager on how many years before we are no longer allowed to drink in a bar if we don’t seriously fight against these neo-prohibitionists?  Get involved now!  Write, phone, use public forums and open lines to make your opinion known before it goes too far.  

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

If anyone wanted an example of how a campaign to interfere in people's lifestyle choices on one issue transfers readily to more interference on other choices, the latest government initiative in Turkey fits the bill perfectly.

After legislating an uncompromising indoor smoking ban, the current government decided to apply the exact same series of strategies and rhetorical justifications (Think of the children! Promote healthy lifestyles!) to alcohol. This includes alcohol advertising and display bans, tax increases, marketing bans, and so forth:



Not so shocking, really, since we've been warning about this sort of thing since several years.

Friday, 9 October 2009

THE BULLY STATE

Rarely has anyone expressed so many thoughts about the ‘’bully state’’ more succinctly than the author of the article we link to below. His article perfectly expresses many of the points we have been bringing forward since our 5-year existence. Whether explaining the differences between a nanny-state and a bully-state, or the multi-issue aspect of government encroaching in our day to day lives based on misconceptions, or the even more harmful unintended consequences bully laws cause, he’s got the global plight of state bullying ‘’for our own good’’ down to a t.

Enjoy the article and please take a few minutes to drop Mr. Monteith a word in the comment section at the bottom of the page.

Live to a hundred? You choose!

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

ALCOHOL DEPICTION ON SCREEN MAKES YOUNG MEN DRINK MORE, STUDY FINDS


‘’TV boozing may drive you to drink’’ reads the Chronical Herald article headline. It goes on explaining how watching movies that depict drinking makes young men crave for alcoholic beverages.
80 university students observed, drank different quantities of alcohol depending on whether what their group watched depicted more or less drinking and found that the group that watched movies that portrayed more drinking, drank more than those that portrayed less.

We will let our regular readers decide if this is what one would call science in the traditional definition of the word.

We will also let our regular readers decide if a cohort of 80 is a big enough sample to draw any reliable ‘’causal’’ conclusions from an observational study, especially that this study’s findings are unique according to the authors.

Nevertheless, we do believe that what we’re presented with on the big and small screen can and does in fact influence some people’s behavior to a certain extent. We also believe that this is true for everything that we observe in society whether on screen or in real life. There is no way possible that we can shield ourselves from every risky or unhealthy behavior unless we live in a state governed and policed by puritans where everything but what the state deems appropriate would be forbidden. Pushed to its extremes such a state would only help inevitably develop a strong underground society that would better serve the needs and instincts of the citizens because such is human nature and anyone that has tried to tamper with it in the past has failed miserably. This is also why humans, contrary to animals, were gifted with an important weapon that serves their instinct of survival -- it is called intelligence. It is this weapon that allows them to reason and protect themselves and their offspring from a myriad of potential dangers and harms. We concede that not everyone’s weapon is equal in strength and some need a little help from other members of society. Help should be offered in the form of compassion and education towards those who need it most, not prohibitions for each and every one of us one who will eventually have absolutely nothing worth to live for.

Engels, the principal investigator of the study, may believe in artistic freedom and thus not be favorable to bans, but he has nevertheless given a so called scientific weapon to neo-prohibitionist extremists who will only be too happy to use it to advance their agenda.

TV boozing may drive you to drink

Thursday, 26 February 2009

OFFICIAL: THERE IS NO LEVEL OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED SAFE


Does the title of this post sound familiar?


How about this paragraph from the article linked below?


"Although the magnitude of the excess absolute risk associated with one additional drink per day may appear small for some cancer sites, the high prevalence of moderate alcohol drinking among women in many populations means that the proportion of cancers attributable to alcohol is an important public health issue," the authors write.

What the authors are saying in plain language is that the risk is very small for any individual person but it becomes an important health issue collectively. In other words it doesn’t really matter how small the risk is, it will translate into many many cancers as the world population increases. So in the name of reducing the death toll collectively, an individual will no longer be allowed to take individual risks no matter how small because public health must do their job and reduce the total death toll by hook or by crook even if that means taking away all individual liberties in the process.
Is this the type of society we want to live in? Have we become a herd of farm animals that must be fed whatever our providers deem healthy in order to be kept alive as long as we’re productive and relatively healthy that we don’t cost our public health masters any unnecessary spending? Wow!

And what to say about the forever contradictory findings from one study to another, depending on the funders of the studies of course! And they wonder why an ever increasing number of people don’t trust a word epidemiology says any longer?

Welcome to the world of de-normalization to the social drinkers! Hop along and make yourselves comfortable, this is going to be a very long and sinuous ride.

Sunday, 11 January 2009

SHE WILL NEVER SURRENDER, WILL YOU?


The following opinion piece that appeared in the January 9th edition of the Windsor Star, sums up exactly what is wrong with the healthist movement and the apathy of the people in the name of health and political correctness.

From the lucrative industry that epidemiology (aka politicized science) has become, to the pharmaceutical industry’s corporate interests in inventing diseases that need ‘’fixing’’ through dangerous drugs, the writer of this piece has pinned the situation down to a science.

We only have one comment for this editorial: If more people would see as clearly as this writer how we are being manipulated ‘’for our own good’’, our healthcare systems and economies would not be in the mess they are today and reason would reign over collective hype and paranoia!


Enjoy reading the article but more importantly, please take the time to do something about denouncing this outrageous manipulation. Never hesitate to express your opinion to the media and to our politicians. You might think you’re being ignored and perhaps you would be if you were the only one doing it. However, they couldn’t possibly ignore our cries if only a greater number of us expressed our disgust and deep concern as to where they’re leading us.

Gradual stripping away of freedoms

The Windsor Star

Comox Valley Echo January 9, 2009

It was with dismay but not surprise that I read the editorial reprinted from the Times Colonist regarding Dr. Perry Kendall's recommendations for yet more laws to be passed dealing with alcohol. What disturbs me more is people's apparent willingness to keep tolerating this gradual stripping away of our personal freedoms.

Are we so busy being concerned about political correctness that we can't see what's going on around us? We are being told what to do and how to live constantly; in school, on TV, on the job, everywhere we go. These rules and regulations often come about as a result of "studies", a lucrative business indeed, especially in the case of health. Fats, carbs, vitamins, coffee, tea, you name it, it's been studied to death. But it doesn't stop there. Seems all the studies don't agree, so we need more. I guess to disprove last year's study, and then inform us. Or tell us they were right after all. Or because a study's no good unless it gives the hoped-for result, so scrap it and do another one. Ow, feels like a good swift kick in the wallet to me.

Bad enough that John Q Public has to foot the bill for this, like it or not, but we shouldn't have to endure the added indignity of having the "results" used to justify unfair bans and taxes. I guess the extra taxes could be used for yet more studies. Personally, I don't relish having to pay for the stick they plan to beat me with.

In the UK in 2007, the government, in a fit of absolute lunacy, decided to ban cheese ads for children, because someone somewhere had decided cheese is bad for us. Diet pop was not banned. Where has common sense gone? Britain's fanatical antismoking legislation has had a devastating effect on the economy, particularly for pub owners. Apparently, unemployment and poverty are better for your health than having a cigarette in a pub. But, that's OK, folks, because smokers are dirty, dangerous antisocial cretins who don't know what's good for them. Make no mistake, portly ones, they're coming for you next. Or have you not noticed that people seem to feel free to insult "overweight" people now, because the government has decided how much you should weigh. One of the first steps in social engineering is to ostracize the target group.
Don't things like toll-free rat lines scare anybody? Doesn't it bother you that schools undermine parental authority by promoting the government's agenda? This same government which allows big pharmaceutical companies to bombard us constantly with ads flogging pills for minor ( possibly even nonexistent) ailments, even though the side effects can kill you? Nice to hear, though, that Health Canada is "in the process of creating stronger wordings" on product labels such as Champix, an antismoking drug, because taking it might cause you to go crazy and/or kill yourself or someone else . These are the same people who expect you to believe little Willy will wilt if you smoke.

If people don't take a stand now, we could all end up living nice healthy lives, subsisting on bags of People Chow (complete nutrition guaranteed) and ingesting prescription drugs by the bucketful. That's not living, that's livestock. And what does livestock do but provide profit for the owner.

Well, I'm not livestock. And, like Winston Churchill (who, in addition to fighting for our freedoms, drank, smoked, and ate chocolates until it finally killed him at age 90), I will never surrender. They'll have to pry that KitKat from my cold dead hand.

Lynne Powell
Courtenay

Sunday, 4 January 2009

LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD


Leveling the playing field.

This phrase has become very common from our elected officials as of the last few years, second only to the famous ‘’for the children’’ classic justification for governments to encroach deeper and deeper in our everyday lives and businesses.

So what exactly does leveling the playing field mean when it comes to business? The most simple to understand short definition probably comes from investorsword.com : Environment in which all companies in a given market must follow the same rules and are given an equal ability to compete. At first look this sounds enticing since it would be giving everyone equal opportunities to thrive in today’s competing market. We would even tend to agree with it if its extent was limited to treating every entrepreneur fairly as far as bureaucratic rules and regulations that govern their businesses go without any free passes. But beyond government treating all businesses equal when it comes to already established taxation, permits and minimal employment regulations, it should be left totally up to each individual business when it comes to the way it markets its wares and services in an effort to be creative in order to prosper, providing it is done within the boundaries of legality.

For example, while it is ok for government to regulate noise that may have become a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors, it is not up to government to set a hefty entry fee for the purpose of limiting the bar to an older less noisy crowd, nor to decide what the age of the patrons should be providing they are of legal drinking age.

The most common example of the level playing field excuse used by government is when it was thrown around ad nauseam during the Canadian campaign for smoking bans. The ban proponents stubbornly refused to allow any exemptions (even for private clubs with no employees), using the ‘’level playing field’’ to justify their intransigence. But are all bars operating under equal opportunities? Sure they may all be subjected to smoking bans now, but what of those that don’t have the space to operate a patio, a dance floor, a more attractive location or the money to provide for such attractions?

Well… in Nova Scotia, our ever encroaching elected officials, have burdened bars with yet another stringent regulation for ‘’the sake of the children’’ and ‘’the level playing field’’, subtracting these businessmen and women of yet another liberty and consumers of yet another break. Indeed, discounting the price of drinks in order to attract customers is now illegal! Everyone in Nova Scotia (coming soon to a province near you) must abide by a minimum price established by the nanny government. Notice that in the article we link to below, we no longer mention ‘’the children’’. We now talk of ‘’students’’. It would of course be kind of silly to use the children as an excuse to implement a minimum price for alcoholic drinks, so if we can’t exploit the ‘’children’’ angle, let’s substitute it for the ‘’students’’ angle. Those ‘’students’’ apparently binge drink and cause trouble and while one of their peers admits that setting a minimum price for drinks will not necessarily make them drink less, it will at least force them to do it elsewhere than a bar, like a friend’s house for instance. How convenient this ‘’out of site out of mind’’ policy! Won’t these ‘’students’’ eventually have to gain their home (exactly as they would after the bar closing hours) most probably even more drunk than if they were at a bar and cause just as much if not more trouble? Won’t these ‘’students’’ be disturbing the peace of residential neighborhoods? Unless of course we institute a law to barricade them in their ‘’friend’s house’’ if they have passed the 0,05 alcohol level! Let’s not give them any ideas, albeit we are sure it has already crossed the minds of the more radical among them.

The article informs us that 70 per cent of those businesses who have responded so far to a government survey are in favor of a minimum price while 20 per cent wanted an even higher price. No indication of course as to the number and type of businesses that responded. Is it 10 or 12 mom and pop establishments that are fed up of being undercut by well established chains, or is it on the contrary 2 or 3 well established venues that have bigger overheads and can’t afford to discount the drinks? Whichever it is, and whatever their number, it is too bad that they are opening yet another door for government to encroach further in our lives and livelihoods. Has the hospitality industry not learnt anything from past experiences with government interference? What will it take for people to understand that the more you ask of government, the more you restrain free will and the free market and this is never good news neither for economy nor freedom.

Last call for dollar drinks

Friday, 5 December 2008

LEARNING FROM HISTORY - ALCOHOL PROHIBITION REPEAL DAY


On this 75th anniversary of the U.S.A. alcohol prohibition repeal we would like to turn your attention to the Alcohol, Problems and Solutions website and particularly the newly published sections on the damages that prohibition caused in the 13 years it was in force.

When reading the literature, please ponder on the alarming fact that prohibitionists are alive and well and working tirelessly to bring back a new form of alcohol prohibition which much like the tobacco ‘’puff by puff’’ prohibition, is insidiously brought about in societies ‘’drip by drip’’ through social engineering that is financially backed up by powerful organizations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and propagandized by ‘’virtuous’’ front groups such as the WHO and MADD. The day it will have become obvious and we will have waken up to a form of prohibition which just like tobacco it will not have banned the product but all practical use of it instead, we will rightfully wonder how we never learn from history. The more indoctrinated among us will even hail the neo-prohibitionist healthist movement, sheepishly buying the propaganda that it is for the betterment of us imperfect humans that need superior minds to dictate the ‘’right way’’ to live and die. But just like 75 years ago, prohibition will have brought nothing but havoc, crime and social discrimination exactly as the tobacco neo-prohibition is doing to societies today.

To better illustrate this last point, we have taken an excerpt from the Alcohol, Problems and Solutions series of articles and highlighted with asterisks and red links some perfect modern day examples of what is happening with the tobacco issue as compared to alcohol prohibition back then and as it will undoubtedly happen in the future if we let the neo-prohibitionists go ahead with their insidious plans to demonize even moderate consumption of alcohol to the extent they have demonized even moderate consumption of tobacco.

Prohibition and Repeal in New York State
by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

Many residents of New York state had hoped that Prohibition (1920-1933) would reduce crime, improve health and safety, promote economic prosperity, and increase public morality. However, experience would prove the Noble Experiment to fail on all counts.

Mob-controlled liquor quickly replaced legitimate tax-paying alcohol producers and retailers. ** Tobacco Road ** Gangster-owned speakeasies replaced neighborhood drinking establishments and within five years after Prohibition was imposed, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone by some estimates. So many speakeasies operated that New York was known as the "City on a Still''.

Mobsters opened large nightclubs with elaborate floor shows and popular bands. ." ** Inside NYC's Smoking Speakeasies ** Speakeasies and nightclubs flourished because law enforcement officers were widely bribed. In essence, the speakeasies and nightclubs bought "protection" from the very people paid to enforce the law.

Hypocrisy was endemic. ** MPs 'smoking in Commons toilets' ** A raid on one of the city's most famous speakeasies caught a number of its politicians and other leading residents. The most famous and successful Prohibition agents in the state, "Izzy" Einstein and Moe Smith enjoyed nothing more after a hard day of vigorously enforcing Prohibition than sitting back and enjoying their favorite beverages: beers and cocktails.

Organized smuggling of alcohol from Canada and elsewhere quickly developed after Prohibition became the law. A "rum row" developed off the coast of New York City where ships lined up just beyond the three mile limit to off-load their cargoes onto speed boats under the cover of darkness. ** CORNWALL RCMP DETACHMENT SEIZE 430,000 CONTRABAND CIGARETTES **

In northern New York, bootlegging was especially rampant across the St. Lawrence River separating the state from Canada. Murder and hijacking were common in the dangerous but lucrative bootlegging business. ** Smuggling's price **

An increase in often deadly violence eroded support for Prohibition. Imprisonment reached a high after it became a felony to violate Prohibition. ** JAIL TERM, FINES AMONG PENALTIES FOR TOBACCO OFFENDERS ** The number of violators sent to jail doubled and the federal prison population in the state jumped from 5,000 to 12,000.

Federal Prohibition officials inadvertently promoted Repeal by announcing that effective enforcement in the state would require hiring several thousand more Prohibition agents
** Government of Canada invests $20 million in anti-tobacco activities **. The state legislature's reaction was to pass a law calling for a constitutional convention to overturn the disastrous "experiment in social engineering." Residents of New York State had come to the conclusion that Prohibition was not only impossible to enforce, but that it also created rather than solved problems.

After Congress approved the 21st Amendment for states to ratify if they wished, New Yorkers voted almost eight to one in favor of Repeal.

Over the decades, New York has made progress in modernizing its alcohol laws. In 2003, the state struck down its Blue law banning Sunday alcohol by allowing stores to open any six days, including Sunday, benefiting time-pressed consumers as well as retailers who now have the ability to operate like every other business in this 21st century economy. The success of the stores that opened on Sundays led the legislature to pass permanent seven day sales earlier this year. New York also recently repealed an archaic ban on spirits auctions. Slowly, the remaining vestiges of Prohibition appear to be disappearing in New York.

Sunday, 26 October 2008

DISEASE MONGERING


In the pages of our main website and this blog, we have often commented on the role the pharmaceutical industry plays in dictating policies through their charitable foundations, astroturfing and direct marketing. We have also been very critical of the media reporting Big Pharma’s and its front groups’ press releases verbatim, without any further investigation especially when it pertains to political incorrect issues such as smoking, alcohol, and obesity.

We came across an article in The Health Reformer recently that deals with this very subject of corporate and professional interests shaping public opinion using the media as their showcase to the population. The author of the article Disease Mongering / Medicalization: A wasteful threat to public health explains how the pharmaceutical giants grow markets by promoting sickness for milder and milder conditions by redefining disease. They denounce the regulators’ complacency in this issue and organize world conferences to rectify the situation.

It is heartening to see that fortunately there is an ever increasing concern on this very important issue that has become a hazard not only to our emotional and physical well-being but to the worldwide economies as well.

In following the links in this article we have discovered that there are now specialized websites dedicated to analyze health articles in the media and criticize their value in an effort to help people make informed decisions about their body and what they want or do not want to ingest as a cure to what may not long ago have been a normal part of living. Please visit the Canadian website: Media Doctor and its U.S. counterpart: Health News Review to read their analysis on selected health news articles.

Additional literature:

Monday, 28 April 2008

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY

Not only are the ‘’do-gooders’’ lobbying aggressively to coerce people in giving up pleasurable habits, their pharmaceutical partners are meddling with that part of the brain that controls hedonistic experiences, as we understand from the article below. The result? The very same drugs that are allegedly destined to help smokers and the obese lead healthier physical lives, cause their users to feel depressed, have nightmares and can even lead them to take their own lives.

It is only natural for the makers of these drugs to tout that it cannot be proven that it’s the drugs’ fault, but let’s not forget that it is these same interested parties that claim that the debate is over when it comes to smoke and obesity when in fact the studies on these issues are at best inconclusive.

Articles such as this one do not only flash red lights for smokers and the obese to weigh all sides when taking powerful prescription drugs, but also prove to our readers that smoking and obesity is big business for drug makers. Is it any wonder that they finance in billions anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns?

Risk of depression dims hopes for anti-addiction 'super pills' to curb overeating, smoking

CHICAGO - Two years ago, scientists had high hopes for new pills that would help people quit smoking, lose weight and maybe kick other tough addictions like alcohol and cocaine.

The pills worked in a novel way, by blocking pleasure centers in the brain that provide the feel-good response from smoking or eating. Now it seems the drugs may block pleasure too well, possibly raising the risk of depression and suicide.

Margaret Bastian of suburban Rochester, N.Y., was among patients who reported problems with Chantix, a highly touted quit-smoking pill from Pfizer Inc. that has been linked to dozens of reports of suicides and hundreds of suicidal behaviors.

"I started to get severely depressed and just going down into that hole ... the one you can't crawl out of," said Bastian, whose doctor took her off Chantix after she swallowed too many sleeping pills and other medicines one night.

Side effects also plague two other drugs:

_ Rimonabant, an obesity pill sold as Acomplia in Europe, was tied to higher rates of depression and a suicide in a study last month. The maker, Sanofi-Aventis SA, still hopes to win its approval in the United States.

_ Taranabant, a similar pill in late-stage testing, led to higher rates of depression and other side effects in a study last month. Its maker, Merck & Co., stopped testing it at middle and high doses.

The makers of the new drugs insist they are safe, although perhaps not for everyone, such as people with a history of depression. Having to restrict the drugs' use would be a big setback because it would deprive the very people who need help the most, since addictions and depression often go hand-in-hand, doctors say.

A bigger fear is that the whole approach may be in trouble. Researchers say blocking pleasure, especially the way the obesity drugs do, might take the fun out of many things, not just the harmful substances and behaviors these drugs target.

It may be possible to improve the drugs so they act more precisely. Chantix targets a different pathway — nicotine pleasure switches — and in a different way than the obesity drugs, which aim at the same pathway that gives pot smokers the munchies. That is one reason many doctors are optimistic that any risks about Chantix will prove manageable.

But doctors are no longer talking about so-called "super pills" for a host of addictions.

"It certainly diminishes my enthusiasm" to see these side effects, said Mark Egli, co-leader of medicine development at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The buzz started four years ago, when studies showed rimonabant helped people shed weight and keep it off longer than previous pills had. It also was being tested for smoking cessation. The Associated Press and other media reported extensively on prospects for a pill that might tackle two big problems at once.

Rimonabant won approval in Europe. But advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration opposed it because of depression risks that became clearer with further study. Sanofi withdrew its U.S. application and said it hoped to resubmit after more research.

But in a new study last month, 43 percent of people taking rimonabant developed psychiatric issues versus 28 percent of those on dummy pills. One rimonabant patient committed suicide and one in the placebo group tried to. Unlike previous studies, this one did not exclude people who had depression in the past.

"I felt it was important to do an 'all-comers' study" to see how real-world patients might fare, said Cleveland Clinic's Dr. Steven Nissen, who led the work.

Sanofi now tells doctors to avoid giving the drug to people with a history of depression, said a company vice president, Dr. Douglas Greene.

"We are at the cutting edge of being able to manage this risk," he said.

Meanwhile, Merck had bad news from a study of its obesity drug, taranabant, which showed an increased risk of depression and other side effects among people taking medium and high doses.

"We're doing a lot to define this risk-benefit," including adding another year to all studies under way and going forward only with the lowest dose, said a Merck vice president, Dr. John Amatruda.

Others were less optimistic.

"The door is closing" on this approach, said Dr. James Stein, a University of Wisconsin-Madison cardiologist. If another study he is helping lead does not show benefit for rimonabant, "this drug's already slim chances of approval will be even more jeopardized," he said.

The situation is murkier with Chantix, which went on sale in the U.S. in 2006 and is sold as Champix in other countries.

The drug binds to the same spots in the brain that nicotine does when people smoke, causing release of a "feel-good" chemical, dopamine. Taking it is supposed to keep any inhaled nicotine from giving the same buzz.

In February, the FDA said a link between Chantix and psychiatric problems appears "increasingly likely." Pfizer added warnings to the drug's label and said that although a link had not been proved, it could not be ruled out.

But a Pfizer vice president, Dr. Ponni Subbiah, said nicotine withdrawal and even quitting smoking can cause mood swings and depression.

It is hard to know "what is causing what," she said. "We know that smokers are at higher risk of suicide than non-smokers, and heavy smokers are at higher risk than lighter smokers."

Some doctors agreed.

"Psychologically, just giving up this 'friend' that they've had many years in their life can be depressing," said Dr. Geoffrey Williams, co-director of the Greater Rochester Area Tobacco Cessation Center and a paid speaker for Pfizer.

Jeanne Morrison, 63, of suburban of Louisville, Ky., looked forward to giving up cigarettes when she and a friend went on Chantix. The friend did well, but Morrison lasted only 10 days on it.

"I got so depressed, I didn't want to go anywhere. I didn't want to do anything, and I'm a very high-energy person. It was a depression like I've never experienced in my life," she said. She also had "major, major nightmares. These would wake me up, and I would be absolutely shaking and sweating."

Several doctors said such reactions are rare, and that most patients do well on Chantix.
Morrison's doctor, psychiatrist Dr. Jesse Wright at the University of Louisville, said Chantix helped one of his schizophrenic patients, "who smoked like a smokestack," without worsening his psychological symptoms.

"The risk-benefit ratio is still very much on the side of use of the medication," Williams said. "The alternative, smoking, is extremely highly risky."

Sunday, 20 April 2008

THE ''WHO'' SPONSORED ''PASSIVE DRINKING'' CAMPAIGN, COMING SOON TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU

If you are neither a smoker, nor obese, if you don’t drink, smoke the occasional joint, or gamble, if you eat all the right foods and do all the appropriate exercises, in other words if you are perfect or a semi-god, you have little to worry about… for now. Please stop reading and keep applauding the WHO and governments that sheepishly obey their guidelines. If however you’re worried that even your perfection will be used against you and you will eventually be blamed for living too long and thus wasting precious resources more useful to the young and productive generations, then maybe you should continue reading because we certainly can’t offer you any guarantees to appease your worries.

As we have repeatedly been cautionning for the last three years, the success of the passive smoking campaign that many have selfishly applauded without listening to those with insight as to the precedent it would be setting, has indeed opened the flood gates of the modern day eugenic tactics.

First they came for the ‘’filthy smoker’’, relying on citizens who not only hate the smoke but who have been conditioned to fear it. Then they came for the obese relying once again that there wouldn’t be too many people sympathetic to the ‘’glutton fatso’s’’ plight! Now they are just about finished polishing the ‘’ passive drinking ‘’ campaign stacking the cards as high as the tobacco campaign has taught them, relying again that not too many people will stand up for the frightening killer, the ‘’disgusting lush’’.

Fear mongering and guilt campaigns have become the trademark of the healthist movement and unless they are stopped using loud protesting and feet stumping -- the only weapons we have against their billions -- you can then be sure that even perfection will not satisfy them and one day they will indeed find a way to hold you responsible for living too long and wasting nature’s resources.

Thanks to our international coalition activist Christine, at: http://www.raucherbewegung.eu for the link to the article below and these additional links that you may want to follow: The war on ‘passive drinking’ , Europe to crack down on ‘passive drinking’, says leaked report

World leaders are launching a war on alcohol, using as their main weapon the millions of men, women and children whose lives have been destroyed by drink.

The World Health Organisation's global strategy will aim to match the success of campaigns which have made smokers feel guilty about the harm secondhand smoke does to others.
Rather than focusing on the damage drinkers are doing to their own bodies, the WHO wants to highlight the suffering of the innocent victims of drinkdrivers, domestic violence, child abuse and yobbery, this week's New Scientist reports.

The unprecedented drive, to be discussed at the WHO's annual health assembly next month, comes amid mounting concern about the devastating effects of alcohol on society.

Figures show that 40 per cent of domestic violence in EU countries is committed by someone who has been drinking.

Similarly, 40 per cent of all murders are carried out by someone who has been drinking and 10,000 road deaths a year in the EU are alcohol related.

In the UK, an estimated half a million a year are victims of alcohol-related crime - and a million children suffer at the hand of drinkers.

The WHO plan, due in draft form by 2010, will not be legally binding.

Instead, it will include a "menu" of measures that countries can implement.

Likely measures include raising taxes on alcohol and clamping down on advertising and drink-driving.

Governments will also be encouraged to stand up to the alcohol industry's lobbying against price rises and restrictions on availability.

Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians said: "The tipping point for banning smoking in public places was third party damage.

"That is much greater, in terms of violence and damage to unborn children, the first sexual experience and the percentage of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases."

Saturday, 22 March 2008

WOMEN TARGETED IN DRINK CAMPAIGN


The interest in the UK Telegraph article about alcohol that you can read here, is not so much the article itself which is just another piece of fear mongering from public health in the UK (soon to come to a neighborhood near you), but the comments that the readers left.

The UK citizens that commented, are collectively outraged at how much their government is now controlling their lives based on false statistics and outright lies. The general sentiment portrayed in the comments, is a cry that enough is enough and that the UK Telegraph should stop serving as a mouth piece for all this propaganda and do some investigative journalism instead.

As public health becomes more and more aggressive against lifestyle issues, people are opening their eyes to a reality we predicted only three years ago.

The driving force behind government encroachment into our lives, starts at the WHO (World Health Organization) and spreads like a cancer throughout all civilized societies starting with those countries where pharmaceutical giants have a bigger control and powerful front groups to do their bidding.

One commentator suggested that the killjoys take a pill and get over it already. May we remind this commentator that this is indeed where they’re leading us. A pill for every ailment real or invented!

From Scientists predict brave new world of brain pills here are some of the items on their menu:

On the menu: range of treatments

· Ritalin (methylphenidate) is used by a small number of students in an attempt to improve exam results and by business people to improve performance in the boardroom

· D-amphetamine also improves memory but only for people of a certain genetic make-up

· Rimonabant is used as an antidote to the intoxicant effects of cannabis and a treatment for heroin relapse. But it is sometimes also used to enhance the high produced by these drugs by reducing their side-effects

· Naltrexone is already used to treat chronic alcoholism and narcotic abuse. It works by blocking the pleasure receptors that are normally activated in the brain when people use the drugs

· Propranolol, a beta-blocker, is used to treat high blood pressure, angina, and abnormal heart rhythms. It is also used sometimes by snooker players to calm their nerves

· Modafinil, a stimulant developed to treat narcolepsy, has been used by soldiers to improve memory and judgment. It is also used in treatment of cocaine addiction

From University of Connecticut is fighting alcoholism with a pill

The potential market for alcoholism drugs is huge. Roughly 17.6 million Americans -- about 8 percent of the adult population -- suffer from alcohol dependence or abuse, according to the NIH. And alcohol-related illness costs the nation an estimated $86 billion a year in lost productivity, according to government data. By shifting treatment into the private realm of a doctor's office, these new drugs could appeal to people who would otherwise never seek help in a group setting such as AA.

"What it will do is make alcoholism a mainstream problem that family practitioners deal with," says Bankole Johnson, professor of neuroscience and psychiatry at the University of Virginia, who oversees clinical trials on some of the new drugs.

In many ways, the move to treat alcoholism with drugs mirrors the shift in treating depression that came more than a decade ago, when new antidepressants like Prozac hit the market. The drugs helped doctors view depression as medical problem and treatment expanded to include pills as well as behavioral interventions.

Tuesday, 13 November 2007

LEGISLATING PLEASURE

Those who thought that because they don’t smoke and are not obese or overweight, all is well in the wonderful world of the health nanny society, had better think again because alcohol is insistently being attacked by public health as we can read from the following article published yesterday in the Star. Those who were afflicted with the ‘’why me and not him’’ syndrome, instead of fighting the health nannies for the right reasons, will take comfort in knowing that misery loves company.

Openly admitting to follow the tobacco quasi prohibition tactics, tax increases, advertisement controls, ‘’brief interventions’’, are some of the measures that the health nannies are scheming for the sake of saving the ‘’youth’’ of course.

In a society where legal pleasure is being aggressively controlled and legislated, the only ones who will benefit from such measures are the underground economy and the pharmaceutical empire. The former who will make a fortune selling ‘’pleasure’’ at affordable prices just like we are presently witnessing with the rampant tobacco contraband and the latter who will openly market anti-depressants and miracle pills to control your cravings…for pleasure.

SOBERING REALITY

TheStar.com

New studies confirm cancer is alcohol's deadly hangover

Just when many people were getting comfortable with the idea that our most popular drug – alcohol – is largely harmless to most, even beneficial to some, there is troubling news.

Alcoholic beverages – increasingly popular and widely promoted as a social lubricant, mealtime complement, relaxant, business facilitator and party favourite – have been identified as a major risk factor for cancer.

While this news recently received media attention, medical and epidemiological researchers have known or suspected this for years. Noteworthy recent developments have provided a strong rationale for our governments to review our harm reduction policies, and for those of us who drink alcohol – that's 78 per cent of Ontarians – to rethink our personal practices.

The first development was the recent review by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In February 2007, a group of 26 scientists from 15 countries met in Lyon, France, to reassess the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages by reviewing several thousand underlying studies in humans and animals.

As reported in the medical journal Lancet Oncology in April of this year, the group identified alcohol as a contributing cause of mouth and oropharynx cancer, esophageal cancer, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, and now, colon, rectal and breast cancer.

But doesn't this risk apply only to people who consume large quantities of alcohol?

Certainly there is a "dose response relationship," where larger amounts of consumption lead to higher relative risks for breast cancer and all other cancers caused by alcohol. But surprisingly, the relative risk for breast cancer is significantly increased with regular consumption of even about 18 grams of alcohol per day – slightly more than a standard bottle of beer, shot of spirits or glass of wine. This finding is based on a pooled analysis of 53 studies of more than 58,000 women.

The second development occurred on Oct. 31, 2007, when the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund released its major report on lifestyle and dietary characteristics for several types of cancer. The authors concluded that there is convincing evidence linking consumption of alcohol to elevated cancer risk, and indicated that if people do drink, they should consume no more than one drink per day for women and two for men.

That same day, academic experts and senior representatives of cancer and public health agencies were holding a seminar on alcohol and cancer in Toronto. Discussions included how the role of alcohol as a carcinogen is not well known to the general public, where media-based messages about the benefits of alcohol (often including inaccurate or exaggerated details) tend to dominate.

Is drinking really a health problem here? In recent years both overall consumption and high-risk drinking have increased in Ontario and Canada. These two indicators have both been linked with alcohol-related chronic disease, including cancers; overall, alcohol has been linked with more than 70 chronic conditions and types of trauma. In Canada, alcohol-related health, law enforcement, and workplace impact costs were estimated at almost $15 billion for 2002.

So what do we do about it? Thankfully, we already know what to do – tackle alcohol-related harm, including chronic disease, with the same level of social commitment as we have given to drinking and driving, and tobacco use. We do not need to wait years to develop and evaluate new approaches – there are policies and prevention strategies currently available that can reduce the risk at both the population and personal levels. These include:

Introduce pricing/taxation policies that ensure that the cost of alcohol at least keeps pace with the cost of living.

Ensure that there is no further expansion on the hours and days of sale of alcohol, and no increase in the number of alcohol outlets on a per capita basis (density control).

Have more effective and evidence-based server intervention programs and training of bar and other staff serving alcohol.

Expand services to those who wish to reduce their alcohol consumption by providing "brief interventions" through medical and other health-care facilities.

Modify the mandate of our liquor control agencies to ensure that control once again becomes central to their objectives and operating procedures.

Reduce the volume, scope and range of alcohol marketing and advertising – particularly those promotions that are most attractive to youth and young adults, who are most vulnerable and include many high-risk drinkers.

Comparable approaches have helped reduce the smoking rate in Ontario to an all-time low, especially among young people. It's time to acknowledge the harms of alcohol, and respond with the same commitment to protecting our health.