Antibiotic resistance is a natural product of bacterial evolution. Throughout their history, many bacteria have evolved some degree of resistance to toxic chemicals in their environments, which include the defensive chemicals that other organisms produce against them — the very chemicals that antibiotics are based on. So, when a bacterial population is exposed to antibiotics, all the vulnerable organisms die, leaving only the drug-resistant ones to pass their genes on to the next generation.

But this process has been dramatically accelerated by irresponsible use of antibiotics to treat viral infections or non-dangerous bacterial infections, and particularly by the use of antibiotics as growth-promoters in livestock.

‘Nightmare bacteria’

The future was foreshadowed by a shocking case in August, of a 70-year old woman who was admitted to a Reno hospital suffering septic shock from an infection of Klebsiella pneumoniae. After she died from the infection — which failed to respond to antibiotic treatment — samples of the bacteria were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for analysis.

Researchers found that the strain of K. pneumoniae was resistant to all 26 antibiotics approved for human use in the United States, including the “drug of last resort,” colistin.

K. pneumoniae is naturally present in the gut, and typically only causes infection in people who are weakened by injury or disease, such as hospital patients. The woman had initially acquired the infection while hospitalized for a broken leg in India. Thus, the “nightmare bacteria,” as the CDC calls it, does not appear to be endemic to the United States — yet.

“The ease of global travel does mean that such cases will increase,” said David Brown, chief scientist at Antibiotic Research UK.

The end of modern medicine

The post-antibiotic future may arrive faster than anyone expected, for one simple reason: All antibiotics are derived from only a handful of separate chemical types. And once bacteria develop resistance to one drug, that resistance rapidly generalizes to every drug in the same class.

Additionally, pharmaceutical companies have largely abandoned research into new antibiotics due to low profit margins.

But, ultimately, even the development of new drugs would only slow the end of antibiotic-based medicine. Experts warn that only widespread changes in antibiotic use, including an end to routine use in animal agriculture, can truly stop the problem.

In 2015, World Health Organization head, Margaret Chan, warned that without these changes, we will enter “a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections will once again kill.”

This era will likely arrive within the lifetimes of many people who are alive today. According to projections by the British government’s Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, by 2050, superbugs will be killing 10 million people per year, more than the deaths from cancer and diabetes combined. That is 10 times the number being killed by these infections today. In some countries, such as Nigeria, it is predicted that superbugs will be responsible for a quarter of all deaths by that same year.

Notably, these numbers count deaths from only six drug-resistant pathogens (though not all of them are bacteria): K. pneumoniae, E. coli, MRSA, HIV, TB and malaria.

A post-antibiotic world will not just mean that people will die from infections that can now be treated. It will mean that many now-routine medical procedures will become impossible — including all surgeries, cancer treatments and organ transplants. The deaths caused by the loss of these medical treatments are also not included in the 10 million per year figure.

In Chan’s words, the loss of effective antibiotics will “mean the end of modern medicine as we know it.” (RELATED: See Medicine.news for breaking new on modern medicine’s failures and achievements.)

Sources for this article include:

AnonHQ.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

But the federal government has only responded with continued bans and regulatory restrictions that have limited access to the many who wish to freely choose this alternative medical treatment. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has now technically reclassified cannabis extracts as a Schedule I substance, putting them in the same category as heroin.

Now, however, the nightmarish over-regulation of cannabis may be about to be dismantled. President Donald J. Trump may be about to nominate someone to head up the Food and Drug Administration who believes in, and is a fan of, medical marijuana. (RELATED: Discover the latest scientific data on cannabis, hemp and marijuana at HempScience.news)

As reported by The Anti Media, Trump has spoken to two potential candidates: Balaji Srinivasan, CEO of bitcoin start-up 21.co, and Jim O’Neill, the managing director of investment firm Mithril Capital Management. Both met with Trump about a week before his inauguration.

Srinivasan, Recode noted, does not have much use for the FDA. Though they are now deleted, Srinivasan’s Twitter archive at one time contained huge criticisms of the federal agency. Now that he’s being considered to run the agency, he apparently does not want to give senators critical of him any more ammunition to fire against him than necessary.

And while a Srinivasan nomination would certainly be in the same mold of Trump’s previous picks – most of his nominees have been critical of the agencies they are about to lead – it’s the potential selection of O’Neill that should excite cannabis and medical marijuana supporters more.

The Anti Media noted:

As a member of the Board of Directors of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, O’Neill has been fighting for weed legalization for years. The Coalition is known for having helped to legalize the plant in the Golden State.

Peter Thiel, billionaire founder of PayPal, and the most vocal and perhaps the only supporter of Trump in Silicon Valley, has ties to both men. That could weigh heavily in Trump’s eventual decision about which one to nominate because Thiel is a close Trump adviser. It should also be noted here that Thiel was the first major investor in the cannabis industry.

O’Neill is both a vocal supporter of marijuana legalization and an advocate of a more lenient FDA. He has also talked about the importance of implementing dramatic FDA reforms that would permit Americans the choice to “start using [drugs], at their own risk.”

He is also a board member at the Seasteading Institute, an organization that seeks to create new societies at sea and away from current governments. This organization has been linked to libertarian movements in the past. Patri Friedman, the grandson of free market economist Milton Friedman, was a founder of the institute (as is Thiel).

Plus, O’Neill has served in government before; he served as the principle associate deputy secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services during the George W. Bush administration.

O’Neill voiced support for free market ideals in 2009, saying that “because there’s not a free market in healthcare, people are suffering very significant health consequences that in a free market they would not suffer.” (RELATED: Get the latest news and information on cannabis and medical marijuana at MedicalMarijuanaUpdate.com).

By embracing the free market, he noted, drug prices and healthcare costs would be “much lower and allow innovation in cheaper delivery of care, both in terms of drugs and devices and better forms of delivery.”

The FDA currently has some of the broadest regulatory powers of all federal agencies. By picking a libertarian-minded nominee to run it, Trump may be signaling that he is prepared to de-emphasize the FDA’s role and rein in much of its authority.

Personally, Trump has expressed his support for medical marijuana and, as far as overall legalization, he has said he believes it should be a “state-by-state” issue. But most of the “mainstream” scientific community and Big Pharma have been lying about the benefits of cannabis for years.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

TheAntiMedia.org

Recode.net

TheGuardian.com

Bloomberg.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

And in our profit-driven world, that is an issue that the dairy industry is clamoring to remedy.

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) petitioned the FDA to amend the “standard of identity” for milk and 17 other dairy products. [RELATED: Keep up with the latest FDA headlines at FDA.news]

Why? So they could use any kind of approved sweetener, including artificial sweeteners like aspartame, without having to indicate that the beverage contained a sugar substitute on the label.

Items that contain artificial sweeteners or other ingredients to reduce their calorie counts are required by the state to indicate that they are “reduced calorie” on the label. According to the IDFA and NMPF, this label is a turn off for many consumers. Perhaps this is because many people try to avoid consuming artificial sweeteners?

Regardless, their deceitful proposal would remove the tell-tale phrase from the products’ labels, but it would not impact the actual ingredient list. However, that means one would have to inspect the ingredient list on every milk bottle they purchase to ensure no undesirable ingredients are present. [RELATED: Learn more about what’s hiding in your food at Ingredients.news]

How many people would actually do this, and how many would actually be aware that they had to? The industry relies on consumer ignorance to sell products; a proposal such as this clearly demonstrates that. They are trying to fool people into buying milk sweetened with a chemical they would otherwise avoid.

How is this even being considered as a possibility? Americans have the right to know what is in their food, and industries like Big Dairy do not have the right to be deceitful. Many other products would still be subject to bearing the “reduced calorie” label — why should they get a pass? There is no reason for milk, or any other food stuff, to lie about what it contains — especially when it contains harmful chemicals like aspartame.

The ill effects of aspartame

Aspartame has been the subject of immense scrutiny for quite some time. In 1996, a study published by The Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology posited, “Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors.”

The research team, from Washington University Medical School, noted that at that time, evidence that potentially indicated aspartame as a cause of brain tumors included an animal study that revealed an “exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” in rats that had been fed aspartame, compared to no brain tumors at all in the concurrent control group. The team states that aspartame was introduced into the US food and beverage market just a few short years prior to the drastic increase in brain tumor incidence and malignancy around the country.

In their conclusion, the researchers stated, “We conclude that there is need for reassessing the carcinogenic potential of aspartame.” That was just over two decades ago.

Research has continued to demonstrate that aspartame poses a threat to overall health and can be especially harmful to the brain. A more recent study, published in 2007 found that exposure to aspartame over the course of rodents’ lifespans greatly increased the incidence of lymphomas and leukemias in both male and female rats. Female rats exposed to aspartame also exhibited an increased incidence of mammary cancer. The team concluded, “The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of [aspartame’s] multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans.” The team also noted that when exposure began during fetal life, the carcinogenic effects were amplified.

Several researchers from that study went on to publish a report in 2014, entitled, “The carcinogenic effects of aspartame: The urgent need for regulatory re-evaluation.” In that report, the team discussed the increasing evidence of aspartame’s toxic and carcinogenic nature.

In the abstract, the researchers concluded, “On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects of [aspartame] herein reported, a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health.”

And this is what the dairy industry wants to put in milk, to trick children into drinking it?

Sources:

OrganicAndHealthy.org

NPR.org

FDA.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

Fentanyl overdose is believed to be responsible for the accidental death of singer-songwriter Prince in April 2016.

For the first time, the report used a more accurate method for calculating the individual drugs involved in overdose deaths. This method showed that in 2013, at least 1,905 people died from fentanyl overdose, representing six deaths per one million people.

Just one year later, the number killed by the drug was 4,200, or 13 deaths per one million people. That’s more than double the prior year’s numbers.

Individual drugs finally tracked

The new report sought to correct a deficiency in the way that the United States has historically tracked drug-related deaths. Traditionally, coroners and medical examiners place codes on death certificates to indicate what types of drugs were involved. But these codes indicate categories, not individual drugs. Thus, both oxycodone and morphine are noted by the code for “natural and semisynthetic opioid analgesics.”

For the new report, the researchers analyzed the text of death certificates issued between 2010 and 2014, including written comments. This allowed a comparison down to the level of specific drugs.

The researchers found that in 2010 and 2011, oxycodone was the most lethal drug in the United States. From 2012 to 2014, it was overtaken by heroin. Cocaine moved back and forth between second and third place throughout the study period.

Fentanyl was the 9th most common cause of drug-related death in 2013, but the following year — when fentanyl deaths doubled — it leaped up to 5th place.

Fentanyl deaths were not the only ones to dramatically increase. Deaths from heroin increased more than threefold from 3,020 in 2010 to 10,863 in 2014. Heroin was also involved in more than a third of cocaine-related deaths.

The study also revealed that 48 percent of death certificates that mentioned a specific drug mentioned more than one drug: 25 percent mentioned two, 12 percent mentioned three, six percent mentioned four and five percent mentioned five or more.

The researchers found that nearly all deaths related to the anti-anxiety drugs alprazolam or diazepam — 95 percent — involved another drug as well.

Painkillers kill more than pain

The new study rounds out the picture of the country’s worsening prescription drug abuse epidemic.

The researchers noted that in recent years, coroners and medical examiners have dramatically improved their practice of reporting specific drugs on death certificates. Thus, some of the increase in deaths may simply be due to better reporting. Not all, of it though. Another recent CDC report, using conventional death certificate codes, also found large increases in drug overdose deaths. In a single year from 2014 to 2015, heroin deaths increased by 20 percent, while deaths from “synthetic opioids other than methadone” (including fentanyl) increased by 72 percent. (RELATED: Find more news about Big Pharma’s toxic drugs at the Big Pharma News website)

And while the new study’s focus on individual drugs provides crucial data, it can also obscure part of the bigger picture. Heroin may be the top killer, but that’s only if you count all prescription opioids as separate drugs. If you look at prescription painkillers as a class, they kill far more people than heroin does.

In fact, an analysis of 168,900 autopsies conducted in Florida in 2007 found that prescription drugs killed three times as many people as all cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines combined. A total of 989 people were killed by street drugs, compared with 2,328 killed by opioid painkillers and 743 killed by anti-anxiety drugs.

Notably, that analysis found not a single death from marijuana. Yet earlier this year, a scandal broke out when it was revealed that pharmaceutical company Insys — whose only product is a form of fentanyl — donated half a million dollars to defeat a ballot proposition that would have legalized marijuana in Arizona.

The irony was not lost on legalization advocates, who have long accused Big Pharma of seeking to prevent marijuana legalization in order to prevent competition from a far safer product.

Sources:

LiveScience.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Beyond the scope of cannabis’s myriad of medicinal benefits, there lies one enormously hypocritical fact: the deadliest drugs of all are completely legal in the United States. We’re talking tobacco, alcohol, and opioids.

Tobacco

Smoking cigarettes and using other forms of tobacco have become social taboos in recent years, but the fact remains that tobacco remains present — and totally legal — in our society. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking. For every person who dies from cigarettes, there are another  30 people living with a tobacco-related illness.

Smoking is known to cause a host of different cancers and is know to cause heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (also known as COPD). Smoking also increases the risks for a number of other conditions, including tuberculosis and rheumatoid arthritis.

According to the CDC, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. 

Across the globe, smoking causes upwards of 6 million deaths per year, killing some 480,000 people in the US annually.  Overall, it is linked to one out of every five deaths, each year. What is perplexing is that in spite of the tremendous toll that cigarettes take on human life, they remain legal — while cannabis, which has been found to not cause lung cancer, is still somehow “too dangerous” for the public.

Of course, when you take into account the fact that the federal government reaped $15.5 billion in tax revenue in a single year thanks to smokers, it all becomes a little bit more clear, doesn’t it?

Alcohol

Alcohol is no better; statistics suggest that booze was associated with over 30,000 deaths in 2015 alone. But, that statistics only looks at alcohol-related health problems, like liver disease. When including other alcohol-related deaths, like drunk driving incidents or homicides, that number skyrockets up to around 88,000 deaths per year.

As Vox notes, the death toll may actually understate the harmful effects of alcohol. A 2010 analysis led by British researcher David Nutt looked at 20 of the world’s most popular drugs and the risks they posed in the UK. A group of drug experts measured a variety of risk factors — including mortality, other physical damage, chance of developing dependence, impairment of mental function, effect on crime, and others — and assigned each drug a score for each variable.

They concluded that overall, alcohol was the most dangerous drug available. While there are some drawbacks — the widespread availability of alcohol makes it more harmful than other dangerous drugs because they aren’t as easily accessible, for instance — it remains clear that alcohol is far more dangerous than the average person realizes. This alone makes it all the more harmful: people don’t realize that it is dangerous.

Opioids

Opioid painkillers have been a hot topic lately; the US is currently under the grips of a serious opioid epidemic. It’s not really that surprising, given the immensely fraudulent and aggressive marketing campaigns led by pharmaceutical companies; they had doctors giving out painkillers like candy. Now, it is American citizens who pay the price for Big Pharma’s obscene profits.

The CDC recently reported that over 60 percent of drug overdose-related deaths were caused by opioids in 2015. The organization estimates that 91 people die every day from an opioid overdose. The CDC now admits that the overdoses from prescription opioids have been a driving force behind the epidemic, and notes that the amount of prescription painkillers being sold in the US has quadrupled since 1999, even though there has been no change in the amount of pain reported by Americans. [RELATED: Keep up with the CDC at CDC.news]

Studies have also shown that opioids can actually end up making pain worse. There are many risks associated with continued use of these medications, and if research tells us anything — there is very little benefit for the patient.

It is not so much the legality of these drugs that is the problem, but rather the blatant disregard of facts when it comes to marijuana. There is no denying the fact that more people die as a result of any of these three substances alone, than marijuana. There is no denying that these drugs are more harmful. In the case of cigarettes and alcohol, there is no current medicinal use for these products, but their dangers are apparently justified via tax revenue.

It is beyond comprehension as to why a plant with demonstrated medicinal value can continue to be ostracized by the government, when these substances roam free and clear on our streets.

Sources:

TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Vox.com

CDC.gov

CDC.gov

That’s right; the guys in the pharmaceutical labs are so desperate to develop a drug that delivers the same therapeutic benefits as cannabis – under their own exclusive money-making patent, of course – that they don’t mind if a few people die along the way.

That’s what happened last year in France, when a clinical trial involving a synthesized laboratory drug designed to stimulate the body’s endocannabinoid receptor system left six people hospitalized, one of whom was later declared brain-dead.

The pharmaceutical industry has long been in the business of isolating or synthesizing the active ingredients of medicinal plants and patenting the resulting drugs so that huge profits can be made, and they often look to governments to aid them in obtaining exclusive rights and eliminating competition.

From True Activist:

“[W]hen government-connected industries wish to shut out their competition, which in this case is a plant, they lean on the state’s ability to stifle competition through claiming a right to the intellectual property behind a particular set of ingredients – otherwise known as a patent.

“Since no one can patent a wild plant, pharmaceutical industries turn to their labs and chemistry to recreate nature.”

But to reproduce the wide-ranging and nearly-miraculous therapeutic properties of cannabis in a laboratory is no simple task. The effects of cannabis on the human body are very complex, and there are many active compounds contained within the plant.

Scientists have only recently discovered what is called the endogenous cannabinoid system (ECS), and it’s the key to how and why cannabis works so well to alleviate pain and even cure many illnesses.

From Reset.me:

“Cannabis medications work so efficiently because of the endocannabinoid (EC) system, present in all humans and many animals as well. This system consists of a series of receptors that are configured only to accept cannabinoids, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).” (RELATED: See more news about cannabidiol at CBDs.news)

The way this system works is just beginning to be understood, and the death and hospitalizations that occurred as one drug company rushed to test its own lab-based synthetic ECS stimulant is a testament to the fact that we simply don’t understand the endogenous cannabinoid system well enough yet to begin subjecting humans to experimental drugs designed to affect it.

What we do know, however, is that the “whole” cannabis plant delivers all of the therapeutic benefits, without any dangerous side effects.

That fact scares the hell out of the pharmaceutical industry, because they are seeing people discarding pain pills and other drugs in favor of a natural remedy that costs nothing to grow.

That’s also why Big Pharma is continuing to put pressure on the government to keep marijuana classified as a dangerous drug and to stifle research into the use of the natural plant as opposed to dangerous, government-approved chemical drug research and development.

Fortunately, the prohibition of marijuana is failing. As more and more studies confirm the therapeutic benefits of the plant itself, and the old attitudes and stigma regarding marijuana begin to fade into the past, it will be difficult to continue convincing the public that the plant should be outlawed and that only government-approved chemical cannabis substitutes should be made available.

But the battle isn’t over yet. We, as citizens, must continue to demand the right to have access to cannabis and to be able to grow it at home. Until the federal government completely legalizes marijuana and removes it from the list of controlled substances, the fight isn’t over.

Big Pharma’s chemical version of cannabis is not an acceptable substitute for the real thing.

Sources:

TrueActivist.com

StatNews.com

Reset.me

These piercing words from the president sent shock waves throughout the drug industry, which saw massive drops in stock value almost immediately after they were stated. Clearly frustrated with the corruption between pharmaceutical companies and the federal government that keeps drug prices high, President Trump reiterated what he’s been saying all along the campaign trail about the need for reform — a message that was also heralded by failed Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists, a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs,” President Trump remarked from Trump Tower in New York City. “We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly. We’re going to start bidding. We’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.”

President Trump also criticized the drug industry for manufacturing drugs in other countries where they’re cheaper to produce, only to ship them back to the U.S. to sell to Americans at top dollar. This hallmark of crony globalism, a major target in the president’s platform all throughout his campaign, is something that’s most definitely on the chopping block with the incoming administration.

“Our drug industry has been disastrous,” President Trump explained before the press pool. “They’re leaving left and right. They supply our drugs but they don’t make them here, to a large extent. And the other thing we have to do is create new bidding procedures for the drug industry, because they’re getting away with murder.” (RELATED: Stay informed about Big Pharma’s illegal practices at BigPharmaNews.com)

RINO Republican Paul Ryan wants to maintain Big Pharma monopoly over medicine

Going against an old-guard Republican establishment that has long favored not only Big Pharma but a host of other special interest groups, including biotechnology and chemicals, won’t be an easy task. Top Republican kingpins like House Speaker Paul Ryan, for instance, are already challenging President Trump’s remarks, tacitly implying that the system is working just fine and doesn’t need to be changed.

In an interview with Mike Allen of Axios, Ryan emphasized that he wants to “have more conversations” about the issue to presumably redirect President Trump’s agenda. He carefully sidestepped the gaping problems stemming from Big Pharma’s monopolistic control over medicine, instead offering up rhetoric in favor of maintaining the status quo. When asked about the president’s comments that drug companies are “politically protected, but not anymore,” Ryan remarked: “I don’t speak like that, generally speaking. I’m always looking for win-win situations, and I believe there’s a lot more we can do to bring down the price of drugs.”

In other words, Paul Ryan isn’t the type of guy to take a stand against anything or anyone who pays his salary — in this case, big money interests like Monsanto and Merck. It’s the Republican way, perhaps, but not President Trump’s way, which begs the question: will the president be able to effectively overcome this deep-seated gravy train funding Republicans-in-name-only (RINOs) like Paul Ryan? (RELATED: See news about how everything is rigged at Rigged.news)

‘Conservative’ nonprofit exposed for pro-Monsanto, pro-Hillary agenda

Considering the fact that so-called “conservative” groups often work in lockstep with “liberal” groups to advance the same agenda — in this case, pushing the special interest agendas of their mutual donors — accomplishing this feat could be the biggest challenge of Mr. Trump’s life.

One such group, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was exposed late last year for helping a billionaire donor for the Hillary Clinton campaign secure — wait for it — Republican support for failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Besides the seemingly contradictory nature of such a union, the AEI, as revealed by GMWatch, is closely aligned with biotechnology giant Monsanto.

No matter how you look at all this, President Trump definitely has his work cut out for him. While the drug industry is known to make large financial contributions to candidates from both political parties, historically the industry has been more focused on funding RINO Republicans, with the exception of Democrat Hillary Clinton who received, by far, the most financial support from Big Pharma during the 2016 presidential election season.

“Industry PACs have given at least $4.4 million to Republicans and $2.6 million to Democrats in House Races across the primary and general elections,” news organization STAT reported back in November. “In the most competitive House contests — those rated as toss-ups or only leaning toward either party by the Cook Political Report — pharmaceutical PACs have given more than $435,000 to Republicans, a separate STAT analysis found. By comparison, the committees have given less than $70,000 to Democrats in those races.”

Sources for this article include:

Breitbart.com

NaturalNews.com

GMWatch.org

CNN.com

StatNews.com

Following through on one of the many pro-business promises he made all along the campaign trail, Trump reiterated the need to rethink the way our country buys and sells drugs to help lower costs in the public interest. The United States is currently the largest buyer of pharmaceutical drugs in the world, and yet prices are completely out of control. Trump would like to see this change by using simple competitive market forces, a position that appeals to a strong public sentiment that Big Pharma has been getting away with far too much for far too long.

“Pharma has a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power,” the president-elect proclaimed before an eager press pool, “and there’s very little bidding. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly.”

President-elect Trump’s statements come amidst the drug industry’s major annual investor conference, which is currently taking place in San Francisco. Though no specific policy proposals were presented by Trump as to how drug pricing will change, the writing seems to be on the wall for many key players within the drug industry, which felt a major hit in the stock market following the announcement.

“Our drug industry has been disastrous; [drug companies are] leaving left and right,” Trump added. “They supply our drugs but they don’t make them here, to a large extent.” (Follow more news about Big Pharma at BigPharmaNews.com)

Trump plan for pharmaceuticals should have bipartisan appeal; who doesn’t want more competition and lower prices?

While these words by Trump might come as a warning shot for the drug industry, they are music to the ears of the American public. Tackling the Big Pharma monopoly has been a key priority for voters on both sides of the aisle for many years, explaining why former presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also took aim at drug industry price-gouging and other anti-consumer tactics while on the campaign trail.

Trump’s call for a policy of more competitive bidding to encourage lower drug prices is a message that one would expect would have drawn broader bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats than it has. But aggressive campaign “fake news” campaigns against the incoming Trump administration by many within the mainstream media have created an environment of continued hostility.

While the president-elect tried repeatedly to outline the many ways in which he plans to level the playing field, foster transparency and serve the interests of the country, many in the press pool could only find fault with every word coming out of his mouth. At one point, CNN reporter Jim Acosta had to be told to keep quiet and stop “being rude,” after he interrupted questions from another reporter with ones of his own.

“Your organization is terrible,” Trump retorted to Acosta’s continued interruptions and demands that his question be answered. “Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news,” he added.

Later in the day, Trump “tweeted” about the fake news phenomenon that seems to be specifically targeting Trump with attacks in a way that no other president-elect in history has faced. Trump denounced the situation in all-caps as “A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

Sources for this article include:

ZeroHedge.com

CNBC.com

Gazette.com

TheHill.com

Reports indicate that the axing of the TPP by President Trump came as part of a trio of executive orders, the other two of which included a hiring freeze on all federal employees except for those in the military, and the reinstatement of the so-called “Mexico City Policy,” which bars countries that receive U.S. aid from performing or actively promoting abortion as a method of family planning.

As President Trump signed the executive action officially killing the TPP once and for all, he stated before press cameras in the Oval Office that the move was a “great thing for the American worker.” The president has also indicated that he plans to take a closer look at and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), another jobs-killing trade deal signed into law by former President Bill Clinton back in 1993 that’s been a gradually progressing death sentence for the American economy.

“The trade deal is a disaster for many reasons,” then-presidential candidate Trump stated back in May 2015 about the nature of Obama’s TPP. “Number one, we don’t have any good negotiators in our government … Number two, and very, very importantly, it doesn’t take into consideration the currency manipulation because we get beaten in trade more by currency manipulation than any other single factor.”

“The other thing they do, and they do it despite agreements, is they make it impossible to sell product in their countries even after they sign an agreement, so we need much stronger penalties if they continue to do that.”

Concerning NAFTA, President Trump later stated that its affects have been felt all throughout the U.S. manufacturing industry, which has lost nearly half of its entire base since the law was first enacted. This is the type of thing that the president has repeatedly promised to both stop and reverse — the continuous bleeding of American jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries — and he’s beginning with the TPP.

TPP would have been a nightmare for healthcare both in the U.S. and abroad

Another area where the TPP would have been disastrous for Americans and the American economy is the provisions it contained governing the drug industry. Not only would the TPP have upheld existing pharmaceutical monopoly powers over drug pricing, but it would have greatly expanded them in many areas, both domestically and abroad.

Specific text contained in the bill would have given multinational drug companies the rights and powers necessary to continue increasing drug prices while limiting consumer access to less expensive generic drugs. It would have done this by extending monopoly drug patents, allowing drug companies to continue charging obscene prices for not only drugs but also surgical procedures.

Where this likely would have hit the hardest is in foreign countries bound by the provisions of TPP, where multi-billion dollar drug companies would have been allowed to sell “lifesaving” drugs for conditions like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and cancer at monopolistic prices, preventing all access to generic alternatives. The end result of this would have been more sickness and more death amongst the poorest and neediest people living on our planet.

“Big Pharma uses free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to expand their monopoly power and restrict access to medicines,” says Public Citizen, a nonprofit organization in the nation’s capital that fights on behalf of the public interest. (RELATED: See more news about pharmaceutical medicine at Medicine.news)

“The TPP — which was defeated by thousands of diverse organizations representing working people united across borders — would have provided large pharmaceutical firms new rights and powers to increase medicine prices and limit consumers’ access to cheaper generic drugs.”

In the U.S., expanded drug company powers provisioned in the TPP would have resulted in major attacks on public health programs like Medicare, which would have been prevented from reducing prescription drug costs for Americans in need, including the elderly. It also would have allowed pharmaceutical corporations to sue the U.S. Government for trying to reduce drug costs.

“The TPP would have also empowered multinational corporations to directly challenge domestic toxins, zoning, cigarette, and alcohol and other public health and environmental policies, and to demand taxpayer compensation for ‘expected future profits’ they claim were inhibited by such policies,” adds Public Citizen.

There’s no denying that the world dodged a bullet with the total annihilation of the TPP, and the world has President Donald Trump to thank for this major accomplishment, which occurred on the first business day of the president’s term as Commander in Chief.

Stay up to date on more news about Donald J. Trump at WhiteHouse.news.

Sources for this article include:

Breitbart.com

Citizen.org

The toxic cream in question is known as fluorouracil, which is sold under the brand names Carac, Efudex, and Fluoroplex.

The FDA reports, “In one case, two dogs began playing with a tube of fluorouracil and one punctured the tube before their owner could retrieve it. Within two hours, the dog that punctured the tube began vomiting, experienced seizures, and died 12 hours later.” (Related: Keep up with FDA headlines at FDA.news)

In another, unrelated case, a dog managed to find a tube of the cancer cream and proceeded to ingest it. After realizing the dog had consumed the cream, the owner immediately rushed their pet to the veterinarian’s office. Unfortunately, the federal agency says, the dog fell sick anyway and was euthanized.

The FDA warns,”People using this medication should use care when applying and storing the medication if they are also in a household with pets, as even very small amounts could be dangerous to these animals.”

Additionally, the FDA has warned that fluorouracil can also be toxic to cats — who could be accidentally exposed to the product as well. The FDA notes that if an owner were to touch a cat after applying the product to another pet, the amount consumed while the cat grooms themselves would likely be enough to cause a reaction. (RELATED: Stay up to date on warnings about prescription medicine at Medicine.news)

What is mind-boggling about all of this is the simple fact that dogs also lick themselves. If you have ever tried to put anything on your dog, you know how quickly they will find a way to lick it off.  That’s why the FDA is suggesting that if you use this product on your dog, you should consult with your vet to see what options there are to ensure your dog cannot lick it off.

While many products may cause some gastrointestinal distress if accidentally consumed, death is not really an acceptable side effect of accidental consumption when it comes to products geared for pets. Fluorouracil can be extremely toxic even in small amounts.

What is fluorouracil, and why is it so toxic?

The chemical name for this poisonous skin cancer treatment is 5-fluourouracil and it is a pyrimidine analog that is an antimetabolite. It is capable of destroying rapidly dividing cells, and a number of ill effects — like killing your dog.

A toxicology report, published in 2001, states that while any form of 5-fluorouracil can cause problems, most issues arise when dogs find the tube of cream and start chewing on it. Jay Albretsen, DVM, PhD, DABT, explains that ingesting less than half of a 25 milligram tube of 5% fluorouracil will likely be fatal to any dog that weighs 70 pounds or less. Albretsen says that even a 160-pound dog would experience adverse effects from such a minuscule amount, let alone an average-sized pup. Albretsen also commented that the small size of the tube would permit even small dogs to consume its contents with relative ease.

One of the top problems with fluorouracil is that many times, pharmacists or other professionals may not be away of how toxic this compound is to pets. In some instances, pet owners have even been erroneously told that the cream isn’t toxic to animals. However, fluorouracil routinely induces vomiting and seizures when consumed by household pets. These seizures grow more aggressive and difficult to treat, and unfortunately, often leads to an untimely death for the dog.

Albretsen explains that the severe toxicosis seen in dogs exposed to fluorouracil is not fully understood, but there is at least one hypothesis. It is thought that when the 5-fluorouracil breaks down into fluorocitrate, it causes cerebral ataxia and convulsions. The potential for fluorouracil to produce such neurotoxic effects has been recognized at least since the 1970s, though it is generally considered to be a rare occurence in humans.

Regardless, it is a known risk for dogs. For your pet’s safety, be sure to keep this product — and truly, any medicine of any kind — in a place where they cannot get to it.

(Keep up with the latest headlines on chemical toxins at Toxins.news)

Sources:

NBCNews.com

ASPCAPro.org