Shock: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, all US wars
by Jon Rappoport
October 7, 2013
People want to believe medical science gives us, at any given moment, the best of all possible worlds.
And of course, the best of all possible worlds must have its enemies: the quacks who sell unproven snake oil.
So let’s look at some facts.
As I’ve been documenting in my last several articles, the medical cartel has been engaged in massive criminal fraud, presenting their drugs as safe and effective across the board—when, in fact, these drugs have been killing and maiming huge numbers of people, like clockwork.
I’ve cited the review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”, by Dr. Barbara Starfied (Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000), in which Starfield reveals the American medical system kills 225,000 people per year—106,000 as a direct result of pharmaceutical drugs.
I’ve now found another study, published in the same Journal, two years earlier: April 15, 1998; “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.
The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:
Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.
Beyond that, every year 2.2 MILLION hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.
The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”
So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals outside hospitals who died as consequence of the drugs.
I found the link to this study at the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, in the middle of a very interesting article by Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: “Commentary on the Safety of Vitamins.”
Here are two key quotes from her article:
“In 2010, not one single person [in the US] died as a result of taking vitamins (Bronstein, et al, (2011) Clinical Toxical, 49 (10), 910-941).”
“In 2004, the deaths of 3 people [in the US] were attributed to the intake of vitamins. Of these, 2 persons were said to have died as a result of megadoses of vitamins D and E, and one person as a result of an overdose of iron and fluoride. Data from: ‘Toxic Exposure Surveillance System 2004, Annual Report, Am. Assoc. of Poison Control Centers.’”
Summing up:
No deaths from vitamins (2011), and three deaths (2004) from vitamins (plus fluoride!).
106,000 deaths every year from pharmaceutical drugs (Starfield).
Between 76,000 and 137,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs every year in hospitalized patients (Lazerou).
The FDA and its “quack-buster” allies go after vitamins, demean “unproven remedies,” and generally take every possible opportunity to warn people about “alternatives,” on the basis that they aren’t scientifically supported.
Meanwhile, the very drugs these mobsters are promoting—and in the case of the FDA, CERTIFYING AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE—are killing and maiming people at a staggering rate.
The masses are treated to non-stop PR on the glories of the US medical system.
In the Wikipedia entry, “US military casualties of war,” the grand total of all military deaths in the history of this country, starting with the Revolutionary War, is 1,312,612.
In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2,250,000 deaths.
Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the latter number under wraps.
Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Reblogged this on The Surf Report and commented:
Shock: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, and all US wars
Excellent work. I’m so tired of the hypocrisy. Nice to know someone else out there is making efforts to expose as much of it as they can. You work really well in these areas of human praxeaology, exposing the hypocrisy there. Expose expose expose. How about more on psychiatry, insurance, law, “medicine”, dentistry, lotteries, churches and religions.
See: http://www.doctor-ian.org/?p=430 et seq
[…] Jon Rappoport October 7 2013 […]
[…] Jon Rappoport link to original article […]
Hmmm
Death from vitamins? really. perhaps you could document some of them. Other than intentional overdoses from suicidal victims I don’t believe more than a handful occur in the US annually. Very clever of you to lump vitamins in with drugs. Vitamins do not contribute in any significant statistical way to the over death toll in the US. To suggest otherwise is not just disingenuous it is untrue.
And surely not coincidently the big pharma gansters are trying mightly to get “vitamins” regulated and controlled right out of existence………as this article was written.
[…] Shock: Comparing deaths from medical drugs, vitamins, and all US wars « Jon Rappoport’s Blog […]
Very interesting to tally these deaths against those in all the US wars. The statistics are staggering. I would be interested in finding out how many of the deaths were the result of an overdose or contraindications. Certainly vitamins seem too much more good than harm.
[…] http://www.nomorefakenews.com […]
At bottom is an abstract from the JAMA study in question.
First it is a META-Analysis. Meaning it is a small sampling of other studies that are rolled into one. Below it even states they selected only 39 studies out of a possible 153. That means the authors only selected 25% of the studies they found, and they admit themselves (see conclusion) their findings should be viewed with caution.
http://www.ccjm.org/content/75/6/431.full
Above is a link to a paper by The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine that states:
“A well-designed meta-analysis can provide valuable information for researchers, policy-makers, and clinicians. However, there are many critical caveats in performing and interpreting them, and thus many ways in which meta-analyses can yield misleading information.
Secondly, no offense meant, but the authors were Canadian Zoologists??? Not sure that lends an extreme amount of credibility to their findings. Not that they are not scientists, but it would have more credibility if they were clinicians that were more specialized in pharmacology or pharmaceutical studies etc.
I am NOT a fan of vaccines or flu shots. And I also believe the “medical industrial complex” is rife with fraud. However, based on the data provided, I also DO NOT believe adverse events from pharmaceutical drugs cause that many deaths a year. I will need much more definitive proof than this.
JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5.
Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN.
SourceDepartment of Zoology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions (ADR) in hospital patients.
DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases were searched from 1966 to 1996.
STUDY SELECTION: Of 153, we selected 39 prospective studies from US hospitals.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data extracted independently by 2 investigators were analyzed by a random-effects model. To obtain the overall incidence of ADRs in hospitalized patients, we combined the incidence of ADRs occurring while in the hospital plus the incidence of ADRs causing admission to hospital. We excluded errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, drug abuse, therapeutic failures, and possible ADRs. Serious ADRs were defined as those that required hospitalization, were permanently disabling, or resulted in death.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The overall incidence of serious ADRs was 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2%-8.2%) and of fatal ADRs was 0.32% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.41%) of hospitalized patients. We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in US hospitals was found to be extremely high. While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue.
A buck — Slang term for a the American dollar.