(Natural News) Though conventional medicine claims to be winning the war against cancer, along with the holistic health community, we at Natural News have consistently been trying to expose one of the biggest frauds known in human history: CHEMOTHERAPY.
Brainwashed by doctors, oncologists, and the mainstream media, most cancer patients think their only hope for survival is chemotherapy. In America, treating cancer is BIG business. Since the cancer industry makes billions of dollars each year, a cure is not what they are after.
Did you know that the number one side effect of chemotherapy is cancer? Conventional cancer treatments not only fail miserably, they are also designed to make cancer patients sicker. Though chemotherapy may shrink the initial tumor(s), what is happening in the background is far more important. It is the one dark and criminal truth nobody seems to knows about.
A new study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine earlier this month proved what we have been saying for decades; conventional cancer treatments cause more cancer. A team of scientists at New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine has found compelling evidence that chemotherapy is only a short-term solution.
Eventually, the drugs will make you sick again, pushing patients towards a second round of expensive treatments. Clever money generating trick: Instead of helping patients to get rid of the disease, they temporarily put it on hold so they can take the dollars twice.
Chemotherapy kills more patients than cancer itself
In 2017, an estimated 1,688,780 new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed and about 600,920 people will die from the disease in the United States, according to the annual report by the American Cancer Society.
The New York scientists explained that while shrinking the tumors, chemotherapy simultaneously opens new doorways for tumors to spread into the blood system, triggering more aggressive tumors which often result in death.
The researchers believe toxic chemo drugs switch on repair mechanisms in the body that allow tumors to grow back faster. Furthermore, Dr. George Karagiannis, lead author of the study, and his team found that two common chemo drugs increased the number of “doorways” on blood vessels which allowed cancer cells to spread to other parts of the body. The team also discovered that chemotherapy increased the number of cancer cells circulating the body and lungs of mice.
Though this study only investigated the effects of chemotherapy on breast cancer, the researchers are currently experimenting with other types of cancer to see if similar effects occur, reported The Telegraph.
Dr. Karagiannis noted that women receiving preoperative chemotherapy to treat breast cancer should be monitored to check if the cancer isn’t circulating or creating more possibilities to spread. He recommends taking a small amount of tumor tissue after a few doses of preoperative chemotherapy. If the markers are increased, the therapy should be terminated immediately.
This study is not the first to demonstrate the ways in which chemotherapy can trigger secondary or metastatic cancers. In 2010, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry were awarded a $805,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program to investigate the question whether chemo encourages cancer to spread throughout the body.
Many studies later, we can no longer ignore the answer to that question. YES, patients are dying from chemotherapy, not cancer itself. It has been shown to not only cause secondary cancers but also accelerates tumor growth and causes cancer cells to become resistant to treatment.
Seventy-five percent of physicians and scientists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves or their family
What does this number say about the effectiveness and risks of therapy? Do these people know more? And what is the mainstream media hiding from us?
Think about it. When your body is fighting cancer, the last thing it needs is more cancer-inducing, immune suppressing chemicals, right? Though all scientists and doctors know that chemotherapy is pure poison and can make things worse, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlaws doctors from choosing non-chemical routes, such as vitamins, supplements, herbs, superfoods, and other natural cancer solutions, for their patients.
Over the past few years, one study after another has been coming out, linking chemotherapy to cancer. Yet authorities fail to make the healthy call. How much more proof do they need before they start to acknowledge that there are far better, less expensive real cures out there?
(Natural Blaze – Jim Miller) My name is Jim Meehan, MD. I am an ophthalmologist and former associate editor of the Journal of Ocular Immunology and Inflammation. During my work with the journal I reviewed two papers seeking publication of research reporting an association between the MMR vaccine and retinal vasculitis in children. The research framed a compelling case for the association of recent vaccination with Merck’s MMR vaccine and a type of bleeding in the back of children’s eyes that to this day is considered a cardinal sign for traumatic child abuse.
Despite my support for the publication of the research, I was not surprised when the papers were rejected.
Retinal hemorrhaging can be caused by a vasculitic reaction, an inflammatory reaction in the blood vessels of the retina. The inflammation can be so pronounced that it results in leaking and bleeding of the blood vessels of the retina. This bleeding can be seen on funduscopic examination of the retina (the back of the eye). The pattern of bleeding can appear as “dot-blot hemorrhages,” which, when it’s seen in a child, is taught to be pathognomonic, or a cardinal sign, of child abuse, called Shaken-Baby-Syndrome (SBS). Interestingly, I don’t recall ever being taught to consider adult abuse when I see it in a patient with similar retinal findings. No, in an adult the most common causes are diabetes mellitus, hypertension, vascular occlusive disease, or autoimmune disease.
Nevertheless, there is a large body of compelling ophthalmologic research that supports retinal hemorrhages in a child as a cardinal sign of abuse. Believe me, I’ve read and considered all of it. There’s just this gnawing doubt that we’ve missed something and made up a great story that seems to neatly explain everything. Accept for me and my experience it doesn’t. And like any good scientist I won’t consider the “science settled.”
I was in my ophthalmology residency training at the time I edited for the journal. At that time, I was still well indoctrinated in the medical orthodoxy of vaccines and vaccine safety. Nevertheless, personal experiences as a first year ophthalmology resident physician had made me skeptical of child abuse as the only possible cause of the retinal bleeding in the babies brought to the ER by their parents.
I was consulted on several cases presumed to be child abuse that presented themselves to the Barnes-Jewish Hospital ER. In these cases I examined the child, their retinas, and interviewed the parents. I never encountered a case in which there was any combination of evidence or testimony that made me think child abuse was a probable cause. However, the “babies with dot-blot hemorrhages are victims of child abuse” is the dogma that the medical orthodoxy teaches, therefore, a diagnosis of retinal hemorrhages in an infant is almost guaranteed to result in a parent or caregiver being presumed guilty.
I clearly recall one such case of retinal hemorrhages presumed to be SBS, in which I argued against the diagnosis because there were no other injuries. Specifically, there were no bruises where the child would have allegedly been held and shaken.
I had a strong background in mechanical engineering taught to me by one of the best engineering schools on the planet, the United States Military Academy at West Point. To my mind, it was beyond improbable that a child could be shaken hard enough to induce shear forces in the vascular layers of the retinal and there NOT be other injuries or evidence on physical exam. My attending physician, a pediatric ophthalmologist and department head, treated me like I had to be an idiot to consider any other diagnosis. Therefore, the diagnosis stood.
I can only assume that charges of child abuse were filed, CPS was called, and a family was broken, because that is what happens when retinal hemorrhages are observed in children.
A few years ago I was drawn back into the vaccine safety controversy when the news of the #CDCwhistleblower, William Thompson, PhD, hit the major media. Dr. Thompson, a lead CDC scientist on THE seminal study published in the Journal of Pediatrics in 2004 investigating the safety of Merck’s MMR vaccine and its association with autism, came forward and admitted the study was fraudulent. Out of his guilt and shame, Dr. Thompson admitted that the he and his fellow CDC coauthors secretly colluded to change the study analysis plan, manipulate data sets, destroy documents, and publish a fraudulent paper that hid the fact that the CDC’s own investigation found strong associations between Merck’s MMR vaccine and autism.
For an excellent presentation on the CDC whistleblower story and the fraud at the CDC, please watch the documentary Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.
I remembered those studies from 14 years prior and the fact that at least two unrelated independent research centers had found an association of retinal hemorrhages in children with Merck’s MMR vaccine. I started asking the questions that any good physician and scientist asks in these situations; the questions that have to be asked if we are going to find the truth. The more questions I asked the more I was opposed by blind orthodoxy, unbelievable rationalizations, and unreasonable arguments. You know, the kind of stuff that allowed experiments on Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz, the Tuskegee airmen, tobacco smokers, and patients treated with dangerously addictive and destructive drugs like OxyCodone, Xanax, Soma, and Adderall.
I learned that I wasn’t the only one to ever question both the medical orthodoxy and the mechanism of injury in SBS:
Despite the powerful medical orthodoxy that teaches otherwise, I am convinced that many cases of retinal hemorrhaging in babies are not caused by the unlikely, arguably improbable, mechanisms of shaking, but by the far more insidious generalized vascular inflammation that occurs when the physiology of a susceptible child’s blood vessels reacts to a vaccine. In fact, on 5/16/2017 Merck added two vasculitic diseases of childhood as adverse events to the package insert for the MMR vaccine(3). So, now we have more evidence that the FDA and Merck both acknowledge that the MMR vaccine can cause exactly the kind of vasculitic pathology capable of producing retinal and brain hemorrhages.
We should also consider how the elements and admission of parental frustration that can sometimes be elicited in these cases. Consider the symptoms of the bleeding vasculitis causing an inconsolable, screaming child, in such pain from the cerebral swelling. A scenarios that might drive any parent to the point of exhaustion and frustration.
I believe that the clinical research studies that a medical journal decided not to publish so many years ago, might have actually been pointing to an important truth. Unfortunately, because that truth was not “the“ truth fully accepted by the medical orthodoxy, the research got passed over. Instead of new science and observations that challenged long held beliefs, we simply had another example of how, because we considered the “science settled,” we continued, repeatedly, for years, to misdiagnose, fail to identify possible, perhaps more probable, causes and sent innocent parents to jail. Now, we need to stop, slow down, reinvestigate, reconsider, open our minds and make sure we haven’t missed identifying potential underlying causes, figure out how to prevent them, and if the problem is vaccine injury, hold the vaccine manufacturers accountable for the injuries they’re products have caused.
Except that with vaccines we can’t hold the manufacturers accountable. Because we made the horrible mistake in 1986 to give vaccine manufacturers, whose products were even then causing so much injury, immunity to product liability lawsuits. Which is the reason that in early 2000 a young ophthalmology resident was reading research suggesting that Merck’s MMR vaccine was associated with retinal hemorrhages at the same time scientists at the CDC were committing fraud to hide the association of the very same vaccine with autism.
In conclusion, I believe what doctors are being taught about what is supposed to be one of the most characteristic signs of child abuse, retinal “dot-blot” hemorrhages in a child, is not such “settled science” that we can afford to stop considering other possible causes and diagnoses. What if retinal hemorrhages in a child aren’t so pathognomonic for child abuse? What if it’s also a sign of vaccine injury but we don’t know because we aren’t considering, asking, or looking? What if we aren’t asking the right questions and conducting the right research because you can’t get your research funded if it doesn’t advance the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda? It’s time that doctors, scientists, and concerned people everywhere reopen the case against vaccines and demand absolute transparency, gold standard clinical testing, and scientific oversight that is neither dependent on, nor corrupted by, Big Pharma’s money.
This Thursday, March 9, 2017, photo shows the main entrance to Evans Memorial Hospital in Claxton, Ga. Like many other rural hospitals in the U.S., Evans Memorial has struggled to keep its doors open while treating patients who tend to be older, poorer and often uninsured. (AP Photo/Russ Bynum)
(The Conversaton) Much has been made of the distress and discontent in rural areas during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Few realize, however, this is also felt through unequal health.
While some have blamed these gaping disparities on “culture” or “lifestyle” factors – such as a supposed fatalism or overconsumption of unhealthy products like Mountain Dew – the truth is that the biggest culprit is limited access to health care and challenging economic circumstances.
The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 began to change this as more rural Americans gained insurance coverage and the government invested more money into regional health facilities and training.
This progress is now at risk, however, as the Republican Congress inches closer to repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a feeble alternative that greatly weakens rural health care access. As researchers who study the mental and physical health of rural Americans, we believe this would have disastrous consequences.
A protester is escorted away by police as they arrested 43 health care and disability activists at a demonstration outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s constituent office in Washington. Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
Some 98 percent of rural residents live in food deserts – defined as counties in which one must drive more than 10 miles to get to the nearest supermarket. This makes it challenging to maintain healthy and nutritious diets, leading to higher rates of obesity in rural areas that greatly increase the risk for diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.
As rural workers struggle to sustain employment in a shifting economy, the increasing poverty is contributing to mental distress and substance use. On a larger scale, the economic changes that have hit rural areas have resulted in a declining tax base, lower incomes and strained educational institutions. Together, they challenge rural residents’ health not just in the immediate term but cumulatively over their lives.
Barriers to accessing health care
Yet, despite all these medical issues, rural residents have a tough time getting the health care they need.
The lack of public transportation in most rural areas is also a major hurdle to seeing a doctor, particularly as residents have to travel much farther than those in urban areas to reach health care providers.
Rural residents get most of their services through primary care providers, who take on the work of other practitioners, like behavioral health clinicians, due to longstanding specialist shortages. When handling numerous complaints during a single medical encounter, primary care providers may concentrate on the most acute health concerns of their patients, undermining the ability to diagnose all their conditions and meaningfully discuss their larger health risks, such as exercise, weight and substance use. When providers are rushed or deliver sub-par care, rural residents may wonder if seeking it out is worth the challenge, opting to struggle on their own.
These and other constraints make it tougher for rural Americans to get the screenings necessary to spot serious diseases such as cancer early or to maintain adequate followup on conditions like hearing loss. Finding the regular medical care necessary to manage chronic conditions, such as diabetes, depression or opioid disorders, is even more challenging.
Susan Collins is one of a handful of Republican senators who may stand in the way of passage of current legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. Reuters/Joshua Roberts
The ACA and the AHCA
The ACA, intended to turn this around, has in fact led to dramatic gains in insurance coverage among rural Americans.
Broadly speaking, insurance rates in rural areas reached almost 86 percent in early 2015, up from an estimated 78 percent in 2013.
Previous efforts at health care reform show us that rural areas are uniquely vulnerable. Efforts need to take account not only of coverage and access – as has been the focus of the current debate – but also how reform affects rural health care institutions and the larger social factors shaping overall health.
The particular economic factors affecting rural health care institutions make rural areas particularly vulnerable to political shifts that disrupt services for existing patients and for those newly insured, creating immense challenges for rural providers. Steps that fail to account for the impact of financial hardship on these institutions not only hurt their bottom line but contribute to poor morale and workforce turnover and larger-scale decisions to reduce services, which decrease their ability to address patient needs.
If our leaders are serious about reform that will lessen the rural-urban mortality gap, they should recognize the unique needs of rural America and ensure health care policy reflects how vital access to quality care is to their financial success – not to mention their well-being.
epa03462089 (FILE) A file photo dated 31 August 2010 shows a worker tending to cannabis plants at a growing facility for the Tikun Olam company near the northern Israeli town of Safed, Israel. Reports on 07 November 2012 state that Colorado and Washington became the first US states to legalize cannabis for recreational use, while medical marijuana initiatives were on the ballot in Massachusetts, Montana and Arkansas. EPA/ABIR SULTAN ISRAEL OUT *** Local Caption *** 02310452
(The Free Thought Project) Leukemia has a new foe — one reviled by the U.S. DEA, loved as a tool for law enforcement profiteering, and purposely maligned by Big Pharma — cannabis.
A new study found that, in combination with traditional chemotherapy, cannabinoids — the active compounds in cannabis — significantly improved treatment of leukemia.
Adding cannabinoid therapy to a traditional cancer treatment regimen meant doctors could lower the dose of chemotherapy while minimizing its oft-debilitating side effects, such as nausea.
Researchers also found the order in which the two medicines were administered proffered different results — more cancer cells die, or experience apoptosis, when cannabinoids follow chemotherapy.
“We have shown for the first time that the order in which cannabinoids and chemotherapy are used is crucial in determining the overall effectiveness of this treatment,” explained Dr. Wai Liu of St. George’s, University of London, and lead author of the study, quoted by the Daily Mail.
Cannabis has long been touted as efficacious in alleviating nausea and vomiting associated with rigorous chemotherapy treatment — but this study marks a groundbreaking foray into the study of the plant as a potentially curative medicine.
Liu deemed cannabinoids a “very exciting prospect in the oncology.”
Researchers sought to analyze the effects of various cannabinoids — specifically THC, the compound known for giving recreational users a ‘high,’ as well as CBD, or cannabidiol — on leukemia cells and whether the order in which the plant compounds and two common chemotherapy drugs, cytarabine and vincristine, are given would impact results.
According to the study, published in the International Journal of Oncology:
“In addition to the well-known palliative effects of cannabinoids on some cancer-associated symptoms, a large body of evidence shows that these molecules can decrease tumour growth in animal models of cancer. They do so by modulating key cell signalling pathways involved in the control of cancer cell proliferation and survival. In addition, cannabinoids inhibit angiogenesis and decrease metastasis in various tumour types in laboratory animals.”
Taken after chemotherapy, cannabinoids “can increase the cancer cell-killing effects of the chemotherapy and decrease the growth of new tumor cells and tumor-feeding blood vessels,”UPROXXreports.
“These extracts are highly concentrated and purified,” Liu elaborates, “so smoking marijuana will not have a similar effect.”
Most momentously for advocates of medical cannabis, the team found phytocannabinoids indeed display significant “anticancer activity” — even when used as sole treatment against the disease.
Further analysis and study must be completed, however,
“Studies such as ours serve to establish the best ways that they should be used to maximise a therapeutic effect,” Liu said.
Leukemia wasn’t the only cancer studied by the researchers — glioblastoma, the most aggressive brain cancer, may also be significantly impacted by the introduction of cannabinoids, should promising animal testing be ultimately translatable for treatment in humans.
This study adds to the evidence as presented by the National Cancer Institute as well. As the Free Thought Project previously reported, the government agency recently acknowledged the power of cannabis to kill cancer cells which is backed up by laboratory tests.
“Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory,” states the cancer.govwebsite.
But, in order for swaths of patients in the United States to even dream of eradicating their leukemia, cannabis prohibition — existent primarily for the highly politicized agenda of criminalizing the antiwar left, African-Americans, and, earlier, jazz musicians — must be lifted.
Perhaps the steepest obstacle to ending cannabis prohibition rests with the lucrative pharmaceutical industry, whose societally-established drugs for treating cancer rake in billions each year.
As long as the astonishingly beneficial plant remains out of reach for many U.S. patients, any future cannabinoid additions to chemotherapy could theoretically find the user fined or locked in a cage.
Dr. Liu and his team conclude the abstract of their promising by imploring immediate further examination of their results, stating,
“Given that cannabinoids show an acceptable safety profile, clinical trials testing them as single drugs or, ideally, in combination therapies in glioblastoma and other types of cancer are both warranted and urgently needed.”
Now, only the dollar signs blinding the U.S. government and Big Pharma to the indisputable benefits of cannabis stand between cancer sufferers and relief.
(Dr. Mercola) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are prescribed extensively throughout the world. In the U.S., nearly 70 million prescriptions are written and 30 billion doses are consumed each year when over-the-counter NSAIDs are included.1
In many cases NSAIDs are prescribed to treat back pain, headaches, menstrual pain and arthritis. While most consider the medication innocuous, the truth is that by conservative estimates over 105,000 people are hospitalized each year from the side effects of NSAIDs and over 16,000 of those die.2
Side effects from long-term use of NSAIDs range from hearing loss to gastrointestinal bleeding. Unfortunately, there is no specific antidote for NSAID poisoning, which may lead to metabolic acidosis, multisystem organ failure and death.3
Research has now discovered side effects from NSAIDs may occur even with short-term use, increasing your risk of a heart attack in the first week to month if you take the medication consistently.4 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognized the risks associated with NSAIDs since 2004.5
In order to review all studies involving NSAIDs, the FDA also recommended limiting use of over-the-counter NSAIDs. This review order came on the heels of rofecoxib’s (Vioxx) withdrawal from the market due to an increase in cardiovascular risk.6 Shortly after the withdrawal of Vioxx, another NSAID, valdecoxib (Bextra), was pulled from the shelves due to increased risk of heart, stomach and skin problems that outweighed the benefits of using the drug.7
Your heart requires a supply of oxygen and nutrients to enable the muscle to continue to pump. You have two large coronary arteries that branch off your aorta, the right and left coronary arteries. These arteries branch further to feed your heart the oxygen and nutrients it needs.
If one of the larger arteries or branches becomes blocked the portion of the heart that artery feeds is starved of oxygen. If the situation continues for too long that area of heart muscle will die. This is the conventional description of a myocardial infarction (MI), or literally “death of heart muscle.”8
In either case, the signs of a heart attack are not always straightforward. There are several early signs that may not even seem related to your heart. Although chest pain is the most common, you may experience other symptoms and women may have a heart attack without feeling pressure in their chest.9
Even though heart disease is still the No. 1 killer in women in the U.S., women may attribute the symptoms to less serious conditions such as acid reflux, the flu or aging. Even when the symptoms are subtle, the consequences may be deadly. If you or a loved one experience any of these symptoms10,11,12,13 do not wait. Call your local emergency number — 911 in the U.S. — to get help. Activating your emergency system early may reduce the risk of permanent heart damage and death.
Chest pressure described as an elephant sitting on your chest
Fullness or pain in the center of the chest that may come and go
Pain in the arm, back, neck, jaw or stomach
Toothache that comes and goes
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
Cold sweat, lightheadedness or nausea
Indigestion or “choking” feeling
Extreme weakness or anxiety
Rapid or irregular heartbeat
Pain that spreads to the arm
Unusual fatigue that may last days
General malaise or a vague uneasy feeling of illness
NSAIDs May Raise Your Risk of Heart Attack in the First Week
The objective of the most recent study was to evaluate the risk of an MI associated with NSAID use in real-world situations using a statistical model (Bayesian) that turns the results of testing into a real probability the event may occur.14
The researchers used studies that pulled information from European and Canadian health care databases, gathering information from eight studies that met the criteria and over 440,000 individuals.15 The researchers evaluated the probability of an MI in the first through seven days that an individual took specific NSAIDs.
They found increasing probability an individual may experience an MI in the first seven days for celecoxib (Celebrex), ibuprofen, diclofenac (Voltaren), naproxen (Naprosyn) and rofecoxib (Vioxx). This only adds to mounting evidence linking NSAIDs to cardiovascular symptoms.
The risk of heart attack increased 24 percent with celecoxib (Celebrex), 48 percent with ibuprofen, 50 percent with diclofenac (Voltaren), 53 percent for naproxen (Aleve, Naprosyn) and 58 percent for rofecoxib (Vioxx), which was removed from the market due to increased cardiovascular risks.16
The researchers determined there was a higher risk associated with higher doses. Over-the-counter doses are commonly lower than prescription doses of NSAIDs. Mounting evidence of cardiovascular risks with all NSAIDs triggered the FDA to strengthen their warning in 2015.17 The warning was based on the FDA review of the literature since the order in 2004, and included information such as:18
NSAIDs increased the risk of heart attack and stroke, especially at higher doses
NSAIDs can increase the risk of heart attack in individuals with or without a history of heart attack or risk of heart disease
Patients treated in the first year after a heart attack with NSAIDs were more likely to die than those who were not treated with NSAIDs
There is an increased risk of heart failure in those using NSAIDs
Myocardial Risk Differences Between NSAIDs
In this video, Dr. Partha Nandi, creator and host of the medical lifestyle television show, “Ask Dr. Nandi,” describes the results of another study evaluating the use of NSAIDs during an upper respiratory infection. The results were similar to the recent study evaluating MI and NSAIDs in the European and Canadian health care databases.
The researchers noted the recent study was observational, so drawing conclusions as to cause and effect would not be possible from their results.19 Others criticized the study, saying other factors may have been the cause of the increased MIs in the study.20 However, the researchers studied over 60,000 cases of MI before concluding current use of NSAIDs were associated with a significant increased risk of an acute MI.21 Use of NSAIDs exhibited a quick onset of MI risk in the first week that leveled by Day 30.
Celecoxib and diclofenac showed a single wave of increased risk in the first week, while ibuprofen, naproxen and rofecoxib exhibited an additional increased risk during eight to 30 days of consuming the drug. The researchers speculated the differences between NSAIDs may be related to the drugs’ effect on renal function.22
The findings also suggested MI risk associated with rofecoxib was greater than those of other NSAIDs included in the study. This aligns with results from past studies that prompted the removal of rofecoxib from the market.
NSAIDs Carry Further Risks
NSAIDs also increase your risk of other health conditions, some of which may be lethal. For example, researchers have determined women who took NSAIDs in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a significantly higher risk of miscarriage.23 The study evaluated the health records of over 50,000 Canadian women and found those who took NSAIDs early in their pregnancy had a 2.4 times higher risk of miscarriage.
The researchers hypothesize NSAIDs’ effect on hormone-like prostaglandins that support pregnancy may be the trigger. NSAID use is also associated with atrial fibrillation in patients who previously had an MI.24 While you may believe you can discount this particular risk factor, it is important to note research demonstrates up to 45 percent of heart attacks are clinically silent or without symptoms.25
Many of these silent heart attacks are discovered during a routine physical examination or electrocardiogram where the physician notes damage to the heart muscle.
NSAID use also increases your risk of upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract bleeding. Upper GI bleeding is more commonly reported, and occurs with all formulations of NSAIDs.26 Up to 15 percent of upper GI bleeding reported in a single county of Denmark may be attributed to NSAID use.
Lower GI bleeding occurs with most NSAID drugs, as does increased mucosal permeability and inflammation of the lower GI tract.27Other findings associated with lower GI bleeding include anemia, occult blood loss, protein loss and malabsorption.
Painkillers Are a Bitter Pill
Use of over-the-counter pain relievers, including ibuprofen, have been associated with hearing loss in men28 and women.29 Prescription strength or long-term use of NSAIDs and aspirin are associated with interstitial nephritis,30 a type of kidney damage that may be permanent, leading to kidney failure.31
NSAID use may also induce other renal function abnormalities, including fluid retention, electrolyte complications and deterioration of renal function.32 It’s also worth remembering that even short-term consistent use of pain control medications may increase your risk of further injury as these drugs help to mask pain, enabling you to continue your activities. Further injury or pain may lead to use of stronger pain medications.
Pain and discomfort are the common triggers for opioid prescriptions, which have risen over 100 percent between 2000 and 2010,33while treatment modalities for injuries have improved. I believe the drastic increase in these numbers play a major role in the global epidemic addiction to opioids.
After just one month on morphine, patients showed demonstrable changes in brain volume.34 The number of deaths from overdoses rose from a little over 10,000 a year in 2002 to nearly 35,000 in 2015.35 Now, some states are fighting back,36 trying to hold manufacturers accountable for the epidemic of addiction that resulted from deceptive marketing.37
Drug-Free Pain Control
Pain control without addressing the underlying physical issue may increase your risk of experiencing side effects from medications you’re taking, or lead you to resort to even stronger medications that have more dangerous side effects. I strongly recommend you exhaust other options before resorting to consistent use of painkillers, even in the short term. The truth is that many drugs used to treat pain may increase your risk of heart attack, change your brain chemistry and possibly your behavior.
Sleep, for example, is one important factor in how you perceive pain. Getting eight hours of quality sleep on a nightly basis may help you cope with the discomfort you experience.38 Your pain experience is affected by several factors, of which sleep may be the most important. Sleep, pain and depression are a strongly interconnected triad where a change in one impacts the other two.
