Importante La guarigione di Feux...

Nei siti di heilpraktiker si parla di noci brasiliane e selenio, non si puó definire una quantitá precisa di selenio per noce perché questa dipende da molti fattori quali il terreno, la qualitá delle noci, il clima, il grado di maturazione eccetera
quello che peró viene sottolineato é il pericolo di muffe.
Vedi tu, anche se sono biologiche non esiste una sicurezza che si potrebbe avvicinare al 90%
Per quanto riguardo il selenio come integratore bisognerebbe preferire uno chelato perché decisamente piú assimilabile.

Vittorio, naturalmente a tutti noi dispiace di non essere riusciti ad essere tanto credibili quanto lo è ora per te il dr. Sauro, sugli effetti nocivi della chemio..ciò che risulta dai tuoi 9 giri all'inferno, è che "la ragione degli Altri" in questo caso non noi che siamo Pochi Altri Sovversivi,, ha il potere di farci fare quello che Non si Vorrebbe, nessuno vorrebbe andare all'inferno. Ora, se trasformiamo ciò in una equazione risulta che "la ragione degli Altri" che corrisponde di volta in volta a differenti Dogmi, e quindi alla Legge Dominante, è identica all'inferno...

PER CAPIRE E MEDITARE...

Drug Companies: Still Selling Snake Oil

In the chain of delivery of health care, the next big corporate link is to the suppliers, and the number one supplier is the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill. The increase in drug spending reflects the fact that people are taking a lot more drugs than they used to and that those drugs are more likely to be expensive new ones instead of older, cheaper ones. Moreover the prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year.

The pharmaceutical companies justify their high prices by citing the need to carry out expensive research and development (R&D). In fact, R&D is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies, an estimated 14% (about 19 billion dollars in 2000) – dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration (63 billion dollars), not to speak of their profits.

That 19 billion dollars for R&D does not pay for much. The pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. Only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and most of them were based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Instead, the pharmaceuticals spend most of the money on developing variations of older drugs that are already on the market. These are called "me-too" drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, there are now six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first.

What is most striking is that the pharmaceutical companies do almost no research into cures for many of the major diseases that ravage the planet and the population. The pharmaceuticals have not come up with any significantly new antibiotics since the 1970s – antibiotics are usually taken only for a course of one or two weeks, and there aren't enough profits in that. Neither have the drug companies pursued new drugs to fight cancer, even though scientists have a greater understanding of many different forms of cancers, making breakthroughs more likely. With so many different forms of cancer, each needing a different drug, none of the specific drugs would produce that much total profits. Nor do the pharmaceuticals carry out research into curing and treating the most deadly tropical diseases like malaria, which kill more people than any other diseases. The millions of people who suffer from these diseases are so poor they do not constitute a profitable enough market.

Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, writes in her new book, The Truth about the Drug Companies, "These companies are primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit."

The companies do this with remarkable success. The pharmaceuticals are among the most profitable companies in this country and most likely on this planet. In 2001, the ten American drug companies in the Fortune 500 list ranked far above all other American companies in average net return, whether as a percentage of sales (18.5%), of assets (16.3%), or of shareholders' equity (33.2%). These are astonishing margins. For comparison, the median net return for all other industries in the Fortune 500 was only 3.3% of sales. Commercial banking, itself an extremely aggressive industry, was a distant second, at 13.5% of sales. In 2002, as the economic downturn continued, the big pharmaceuticals showed only a slight drop in profits – from 18.5% to 17% of sales. Nonetheless, in 2002 the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 (35.9 billion dollars) were more than the profits for the other 490 businesses all put together (33.7 billion dollars). In 2003, profits of the Fortune 500 drug companies dropped to 14.3% of sales, still well above the median for all industries (4.6%) for that year. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money the big drug companies really are.

They shower it on themselves. The former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold Jr., made 75 million dollars in 2001, not counting his 76 million dollars worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made 41 million dollars, exclusive of his 41 million dollars in stock options. And so on.

As for the other suppliers to the hospitals and the medical profession, they are no better. A recent Justice Department investigation into the two biggest companies that buy equipment and supplies for not-for-profit hospitals showed that they were nothing but appendages of the supplier companies themselves, operating through a series of kickbacks and bribes. The not-for-profit hospitals didn't do badly either, since they turned around and bilked Medicare.

The Labyrinth of Profit-Driven, Commercialized Health Care
The primary aim of the health care system in this country is not the health care needs of the population – at least most of the population – but to produce ever more profits for a few enormously profitable companies.

Instead of a health care system that provides simple, uniformly high-standard services for the entire population, this country has a system of health care that is incredibly fractured and Byzantine, divided between different sectors, which are then divided by companies, that are then divided into thousands and thousands of different plans, with different rules – which are changing all the time. This structure necessitates constant intrusions by officials, administrators and consultants, that is, bureaucracy and more bureaucracy. Not to mention the fact that U.S. hospitals tie down not only a small army of clericals and accountants to do the paper work, but tie down doctors and nurses as well: everything has to be documented for the billings and collections from a wide variety of sources.

The corporations always rail that a government administered program would mean a big bureaucracy. Of course, it's true – the government is very bureaucratic. But the bureaucracy that has been created to run the privately run health care system we have in this country makes the government's bureaucracy look like child's play. Just compare Medicare which costs about 5% to administer, to private insurance, which takes 25% or 30%. Or compare the administrative costs of the U.S. system with those of neighboring Canada, which is a government run system. In 2003, the health care bureaucracy in the U.S. was estimated to consume at least 399 billion dollars out of total health expenditures of $1,660 billion. If the U.S. streamlined its administration to Canadian levels (which themselves are certainly bureaucratic), it would have saved 286 billion dollars in administrative costs in 2003. This amounts to almost $1000 per capita spent on administrative costs.

The waste doesn't stop there. Each level of the health care industry – insurance, hospitals, drugs – carries out expensive marketing and promotions. Drug companies employ vast armies of salespersons to push their medications on doctors, and to take doctors for expensive seminars in vacation spots to convince them to prescribe their medication. While the insurance companies are looking for ways to short change doctors by delaying reimbursements and downgrading the classifications of their work, the pharmaceuticals are looking for ways to bribe doctors to prescribe their latest super expensive magic snake oil.

This is a system that encourages hospitals and doctors to perform unnecessary medical procedures on people who don't need them, while denying procedures to those who do. The poor are charged far more for medical services than the rich. Senior citizens are traveling to Canada or Mexico to buy drugs that were manufactured in the U.S., but sell for half the price across the border. People with insurance are clogging emergency rooms because they can't get an appointment to see their regular doctor. Much more money is spent treating diseases than preventing them, because there are much greater profits in using expensive technology and drugs, than in regular check-ups, tests, and educating people on a healthy lifestyle.

Even the most conservative economists recognize this. Says Henry Aron of the Brookings Institute: "I look at the U.S. health care system and see an administrative monstrosity, a truly bizarre melange of thousands of payers with payment systems that differ for no socially beneficial reason, as well as a staggeringly complex public system with mind-boggling administered prices and other rules expressing distinctions that can only be regarded as weird."

Says Neelam Sehri, a health policy specialist at the WHO in Geneva, "It's like the worst market system you could devise, just a mess."

This is the "American model" for the delivery of health care: a monstrosity structured and "modeled" to serve the interests and needs of the most powerful bourgeoisie in the world. It doesn't provide even second or third-rate health care to the population.

Clara ha scritto: Vittorio, naturalmente a tutti noi dispiace di non essere riusciti ad essere tanto credibili quanto lo è ora per te il dr. Sauro, sugli effetti nocivi della chemio..ciò che risulta dai tuoi 9 giri all'inferno, è che "la ragione degli Altri" in questo caso non noi che siamo Pochi Altri Sovversivi,, ha il potere di farci fare quello che Non si Vorrebbe, nessuno vorrebbe andare all'inferno. Ora, se trasformiamo ciò in una equazione risulta che "la ragione degli Altri" che corrisponde di volta in volta a differenti Dogmi, e quindi alla Legge Dominante, è identica all'inferno...

Mi dispiace Clara che vi siate messi dalla parte degli sconfitti. Lo sarei anch' io allora, in quanto sono uno strenuo difensore delle cure naturali.
Ma qui si apre il discorso dei condizionamenti che si subiscono nell' ambiente in cui viviamo. Oggi per esempio ne ho avuto la dimostrazione di quanto siamo considerati sovversivi.

Sono andato al funerale di un amico morto per cancro al rene+metatstasi. Fatta chemio ma alla fine i medici hanno mollato. Nel giro di 1 anno qui sono morti altri due amici, uno, cancro al pancreas e l' altro, cancro al fegato. Anche loro fatta chemio.
Al funerale di questi due ultimi non andai perché impegnato con le mie cure.

Oggi quindi, uscendo dalla chiesa, ho incontrato quasi tutti gli amici della mia cerchia che non vedevo da mesi. Ho visto che facevano fatica a guardarmi negli occhi. Non sono andati al di la di uno ciao. Altri conoscenti mi sbirciavano ma non salutavano. Ho provato la sensazione di un abbandono emotivo, di una dismissione sociale, una rottamazione imminente. Prima della malattia era tutta gente con cui avevo ottimi rapporti.
Ho riflettuto un attimo e mi son detto: ammazza che solidarietà!

Tornando a casa ecco l' illuminazione: hanno saputo che ho interrotto la chemio e mi considerano quanto meno uno sciagurato, se non appunto, un sovversivo.

Mi sono detto: " E meno male che questi 3 amici sono morti nonostante la chemio"!

In questo paesello l' unico che scherza con me è il mio farmacista omeopata!

Clara, siamo arrivati a capire quanto sia venale in questo campo la medicina ufficiale, ma non percepiamo fino in fondo quanto la gente, colpevoli i media, siano stati plagiati dalla mala informazione. Lo puoi capire solo se ci capiti.
Questa gente è disposta a compatirti, ma se esci dalle righe, tutti, compresi i nostri cari medici, sono pronti ad ignorarti, per timore che diventi un esempio.

Siamo considerati dei diversamente inutili.

Ciao Vittorio,io sono contenta e basta che tu abbia deciso di smettere...finalmente!Non importa chi ti abbia convinto ,l'importante è che tu adesso sia convinto e forte mentalmente più di prima x affrontare questa salita. In questi giorni stavo ridando uno sguardo all'uso dell'ozono,consideralo.

In bocca al lupo,
Adele

ade ha scritto: Ciao Vittorio,io sono contenta e basta che tu abbia deciso di smettere...finalmente!Non importa chi ti abbia convinto ,l'importante è che tu adesso sia convinto e forte mentalmente più di prima x affrontare questa salita. In questi giorni stavo ridando uno sguardo all'uso dell'ozono,consideralo.

In bocca al lupo,
Adele

Vorrei precisare il fatto che qualcuno mi abbia convinto a lasciare la chemio. Non è proprio così.

Dopo la seduta di capodanno, visto lo stato di imbambolimento a cui ero arrivato, ho deciso di smettere.
Siccome frequentavo le pagine fbook: QUELLI DELL' ARTEMISIA ANNUA ho conosciuto dei medici oncologi, 3 o 4. Li ho interpellati sulla mia decisione e l' unico che si è espresso a favore è stato Il dott Claudio Sauro. Claudio mi ha detto: hai fatto già abbastanza danni.

Mi son detto: questo è il passaporto per la salvezza. E ho smesso. Tra l' altro lui ancora non sa che ho lasciato.