I quit smoking three years ago, in just three days. I had no withdrawal symptoms. I used no patches or
meds. To do this cost me perhaps five dollars.
I owe my quit-smoking method to an observation I made whiletalking with my cousin, who is a medicated schizophrenic.
Smoking and schizophrenia, I noted, seem to go together.
During long-distance calls to him, he kept running off for a smoke. "Gotta go - have to have a
smoke".
Extraordinary! And it happened during our conversations all the time.
Readings in biochemistry had alerted me to the importance of Niacin - Vitamin B3 - in reversing and controlling one type of schizophrenia. Like pellagra, "the schizophrenias" can be cured with B3. B3 or Niacin is also called Nicotinic Acid.
Might the brain accept Nicotine and Nicotinic Acid like right- and left-hand skeleton keys? If so, did "gotta
have a smoke" mean "I need niacin"?
Was I hooked because my brain craved Niacin?
To quit smoking, I chose a time when I had no tobacco in the house. My lungs hurt and I was motivated.
From the local pharmacy, I purchased some Vitamin C and Niacin - both very cheap. I chose the B3 "flush" variety - and proceeded to load up with both. For three days, every time I went to urinate, I took 500 units of Vitamin C (one pill, 500 mg) and 100 to 250 mg of Niacin. I experienced some uncomfortable itchy skin flushing, but nothing too painful.
I was delighted to find that Vitamin C detoxed my body, and I had no craving for nicotine. They say that after
3 days, nicotine is no longer in your system, and I have never smoked again.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Niacin for Smoking Cessation
A friend writes,
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Canada's Big Pharma Drug War
From
Canada's Big Pharma Drug War
by Dr. Joel Lexchin
"The Ontario government has recently announced major changes to the way that it will pay for generic drugs for those covered under its public drug plan, primarily people 65 and over and those on social welfare. The aim is to rein in rapidly increasing costs for the Ontario Drug Benefit Program. Up until recently spending has been going up by more than 10% annually and overall across Canada drug costs are the second most expensive part of the health care system behind only hospitals.
The current government made a first attempt to deal with drug spending back in 2006 when it reduced the price for generic medicines from 70% of the brand name drug to 50%. At that time, $222-million in savings (from a drug bill of $3.5-billion) from reduced generic prices and other reforms was predicted. There was never any independent analysis about whether those anticipated savings were realized. Now faced with a deficit of over $20-billion and health care costs that take up 42 cents of every public dollar, the government is looking at a new initiative to rein in at least one segment of health care costs. The question of whether that 42-cent figure represents too much spending on health care or is mostly the product of a series of tax cuts that have reduced government revenue is a crucial issue that must be taken up soon.
The Politics of Generic Drugs
One of the key factors that makes public drug plans affordable is the existence of generic versions for many of the products that are on the provincial formulary. Generic drugs work the same as the original brand-name products but are much lower in cost since generic companies don't incur the research and development expenditures and also don't engage in costly promotion of their products.
However, in order for generic drugs to get used they need to be dispensed by pharmacists and this gives the pharmacy owners a huge stick in dealing with the generic companies. In effect what the pharmacy owners tell the generic companies is that they will not stock their products unless the companies sell to them at a discount. The pharmacy owners are reimbursed by the government at the list price of the medication not the discounted price. Therefore, the discount goes to the pharmacy owners not the government. These discounts amount to about 20% of the price of the drug."
Continues at Link
Canada's Big Pharma Drug War
by Dr. Joel Lexchin
"The Ontario government has recently announced major changes to the way that it will pay for generic drugs for those covered under its public drug plan, primarily people 65 and over and those on social welfare. The aim is to rein in rapidly increasing costs for the Ontario Drug Benefit Program. Up until recently spending has been going up by more than 10% annually and overall across Canada drug costs are the second most expensive part of the health care system behind only hospitals.
The current government made a first attempt to deal with drug spending back in 2006 when it reduced the price for generic medicines from 70% of the brand name drug to 50%. At that time, $222-million in savings (from a drug bill of $3.5-billion) from reduced generic prices and other reforms was predicted. There was never any independent analysis about whether those anticipated savings were realized. Now faced with a deficit of over $20-billion and health care costs that take up 42 cents of every public dollar, the government is looking at a new initiative to rein in at least one segment of health care costs. The question of whether that 42-cent figure represents too much spending on health care or is mostly the product of a series of tax cuts that have reduced government revenue is a crucial issue that must be taken up soon.
The Politics of Generic Drugs
One of the key factors that makes public drug plans affordable is the existence of generic versions for many of the products that are on the provincial formulary. Generic drugs work the same as the original brand-name products but are much lower in cost since generic companies don't incur the research and development expenditures and also don't engage in costly promotion of their products.
However, in order for generic drugs to get used they need to be dispensed by pharmacists and this gives the pharmacy owners a huge stick in dealing with the generic companies. In effect what the pharmacy owners tell the generic companies is that they will not stock their products unless the companies sell to them at a discount. The pharmacy owners are reimbursed by the government at the list price of the medication not the discounted price. Therefore, the discount goes to the pharmacy owners not the government. These discounts amount to about 20% of the price of the drug."
Continues at Link
Sunday, April 18, 2010
NAMI's Road to Recovery and Cure
Roadmap to Recovery & Cure
"Report of the NAMI Policy Research Institute Task Force on Serious Mental Illness Research
The 40-page report is now available!
News release: NAMI Task Force Calls For Stronger, Smarter Investment In Federal Scientific Research on Serious Mental Illnesses
Roadmap to Recovery & Cure full report (PDF, 497kb)
Background information about the Task Force and a list of its members
Take Action Now for Improved Research Funding!
Use the links below to access sample letters and contact information for key policy makers:
Contact your Congressional Representatives
Contact President Bush
Contact Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH)
Contact Senators Harkin and Specter, who hold leadership positions on the Senate’s Labor, Health, and Human Services Subcommittee that oversee"
In this download there's nothing about diagnosis of the physical causes of mental illness. It's like an anecdotal drugs ad with footnotes.
PDF Link
The physical causes of mental illness are outlined here and include
*Finding the Medical Causes of "Dementia" in the Elderly: the Genesis Protocols Used by the Los Angeles County Genesis Program
*Finding the Medical Causes of Severe Mental Symptoms:
The Extraordinary Walker Exam by Dan Stradford Founder, Safe Harbor
*Medical Causes of Psychiatric Symptoms (Extensive)
*Medical Causes of Psychosis, Anxiety, and Depression
by Ronald J. Diamond, M.D., Dept. of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin
*The Medical Evaluation Field Manual of the State of California: Basic Screening Procedures for Finding Medical Causes of Severe Mental Symptoms
*The 29 Medical Causes of Schizophrenia
Only one road makes sense...
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Integrity in Science Project
A searchable database reveals the corporate interests behind science studies.
"Our Mission
Over the last thirty years, the commercialization of science in the United States and around the world has increased dramatically. The revolution in genetics, patent protections for bioengineered molecules, laws strengthening intellectual property rights, and the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act authorizing licensing and patenting of results from federally-sponsored research created new incentives for scientists, clinicians, and academic institutions to join forces with for-profit industry in an unprecedented array of entrepreneurial activities.
Although many have cheered partnerships between industry and the research community, it is also acknowledged that they entail conflicts of interest that may compromise the judgment of trusted professionals, the credibility of research institutions and scientific journals, the safety and transparency of human subjects research, the norms of free inquiry, and the legitimacy of science-based policy.
For example:
* There is strong evidence that researchers’ financial ties to chemical, pharmaceutical, or tobacco manufacturers directly influence their published positions in supporting the benefit or downplaying the harm of the manufacturers’ product.
* A growing body of evidence indicates that pharmaceutical industry gifts and inducements bias clinicians’ judgments and influence doctors’ prescribing practices.
* There are well-known cases of industry seeking to discredit or prevent the publication of research results that are critical of its products.
* Studies of life-science faculty indicate that researchers with industry funding are more likely to withhold research results in order to secure commercial advantage.
* Increasingly, the same academic institutions that are responsible for oversight of scientific integrity and human subjects protection are entering financial relationships with the industries whose product-evaluations they oversee.
In response to the commercialization of science and the growing problem of conflicts of interest, the Integrity in Science Project seeks to:
* raise awareness about the role that corporate funding and other corporate interests play in scientific research, oversight, and publication;
* investigate and publicize conflicts of interest and other potentially destructive influences of industry-sponsored science;
* advocate for full disclosure of funding sources by individuals, governmental and non-governmental organizations that conduct, regulate, or provide oversight of scientific investigation or promote specific scientific findings;
* encourage policy-makers at all levels of government to seek balance on expert advisory committees and to provide public, web-based access to conflict-of-interest information collected in the course of committee formation;
* encourage journalists to routinely ask scientists and others about their possible conflicts of interests and to provide this information to the public.
Link
"Our Mission
Over the last thirty years, the commercialization of science in the United States and around the world has increased dramatically. The revolution in genetics, patent protections for bioengineered molecules, laws strengthening intellectual property rights, and the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act authorizing licensing and patenting of results from federally-sponsored research created new incentives for scientists, clinicians, and academic institutions to join forces with for-profit industry in an unprecedented array of entrepreneurial activities.
Although many have cheered partnerships between industry and the research community, it is also acknowledged that they entail conflicts of interest that may compromise the judgment of trusted professionals, the credibility of research institutions and scientific journals, the safety and transparency of human subjects research, the norms of free inquiry, and the legitimacy of science-based policy.
For example:
* There is strong evidence that researchers’ financial ties to chemical, pharmaceutical, or tobacco manufacturers directly influence their published positions in supporting the benefit or downplaying the harm of the manufacturers’ product.
* A growing body of evidence indicates that pharmaceutical industry gifts and inducements bias clinicians’ judgments and influence doctors’ prescribing practices.
* There are well-known cases of industry seeking to discredit or prevent the publication of research results that are critical of its products.
* Studies of life-science faculty indicate that researchers with industry funding are more likely to withhold research results in order to secure commercial advantage.
* Increasingly, the same academic institutions that are responsible for oversight of scientific integrity and human subjects protection are entering financial relationships with the industries whose product-evaluations they oversee.
In response to the commercialization of science and the growing problem of conflicts of interest, the Integrity in Science Project seeks to:
* raise awareness about the role that corporate funding and other corporate interests play in scientific research, oversight, and publication;
* investigate and publicize conflicts of interest and other potentially destructive influences of industry-sponsored science;
* advocate for full disclosure of funding sources by individuals, governmental and non-governmental organizations that conduct, regulate, or provide oversight of scientific investigation or promote specific scientific findings;
* encourage policy-makers at all levels of government to seek balance on expert advisory committees and to provide public, web-based access to conflict-of-interest information collected in the course of committee formation;
* encourage journalists to routinely ask scientists and others about their possible conflicts of interests and to provide this information to the public.
Link
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Ain't misbehavin', just undernourished?
The story of a Russian boy who was adopted by an American and then returned is in the news.
It seems he terrorized the family who adopted him, making threats to kill them, burn down their house.
We wonder if poor nutrition for his genetic type is the cause?
It seems he terrorized the family who adopted him, making threats to kill them, burn down their house.
We wonder if poor nutrition for his genetic type is the cause?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
