AGING = Disease. It's TIME to Treat The CAUSE.
AGING = Disease. It's TIME to Treat The CAUSE.
Scientific evidence shows Aging = Degeneration and Disease.
Aging - Slows the process to repair damage and errors within the body. Normal functions within the systems slow down, whilst plaque and inflammation build up.
Disease - Where plaque and inflammation build up, while an inability to repair the damage and errors within the body occurs, causing more diseases.
IF WE DO NOT TREAT THE CAUSE, WE WILL SUFFER THE EFFECT.
Someone YOU LOVE WILL NEED YOUR HELP.
FDA DO NOT ACCEPT AGING AS A CAUSE OF DEGENERATION AND DISEASE = NO FUNDING = NO GRANTS = NO ADVANCEMENTS. Scientists are FORCED to Research the EFFECTS OF AGING, LEAVING THE CAUSE TO BE UNTREATED AND PROGRESS.
- BIOLOGICAL AGE (DAMAGE OVER TIME) CAN BE REVERSED. THIS NEEDS TO BE OF THE FIRST AND FOREMOST IMPORTANCE. IT WILL PROVIDE SUSTAINABILITY, SECURITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO PROSPER WITHIN ALL AVENUES.
- THE OUTDATED SYSTEM IS FAILING THE PEOPLE, THE ECONOMY AND THE FUTURE.
- THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURRENT APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE IS DEBILITATING OUR ECONOMY, OUR PEOPLE AND THE PROGRESS NEEDED FOR ALL.
- THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE RETIRING FROM THE WORKFORCE (DUE TO AGE AND HEALTH) IS NOT ABLE TO BE FILLED OR MAINTAINED BY THOSE ENTERING IT.
- THOSE UNABLE TO WORK DO NOT HAVE FINANCIAL STABILITY WITH RISING HEALTH COSTS (THAT ARE BASED ON AN OUTDATED SYSTEM, NOT ADDRESSING THE CAUSE, BUT FOCUSING ON SUPPRESSING SYMPTOMS.) WHICH PROGRESS, WHILST THE PENSION AGE IS RAISED. WE ARE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE WITHOUT MEANS, TO MAINTAIN HEALTH AND PREVENT ISSUES IN A SYSTEM THAT ADDRESSES THEM AFTER THE FACT.
- PHARMA COMPANIES DOMINATE THE MARKET
THEY OFTEN SUPPORT POLITICAL CANDIDATES
THEY OFTEN RECEIVE PRIORITY IN DRUG DISCOVERIES THAT DO NOT CURE HEALTH ISSUES
THEY OFTEN FOCUS ON CAPITAL AND PROFITS, SUPPORTED BY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WHICH OVERLOOK HUMAN CAPITAL - THE REAL CAPITAL VALUE CREATED BY THE PEOPLE.
THEY OFTEN PROVIDE THE FUNDING WHICH PROVIDES CONTROL OVER WHAT AVENUES ARE DEVELOPED OR DEPRIVED.
THEY OFTEN OWN THE RIGHTS TO DATA, HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO WITHOLD DATA FROM THE PUBLIC, TO ALTER THE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THEY ALSO ALTER THE CREDIBILITY OF PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AS THEY SEE FIT, ALTERING THE CREDIBILITY DIRECTLY ALTERS THE OUTCOME PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE.
IF WE DO NOT CHANGE THIS NOW, WE WILL NOT HAVE WHAT WE NEED, WHEN WE NEED IT MOST
THE TRUTH TO ACT NOW
Drug companies control the knowledge that informs doctors’ clinical decisions.
This leads to soaring pharmaceutical profits and crippling healthcare costs, while doctors have no way of knowing which therapies are more effective—or more efficient.
"Big Pharma companies and academic medical centers shows that 80% allowed the commercial funder to own, and thus control, the data from jointly conducted research. Furthermore, fully half of the research contracts between drug companies and academic institutions—the partnerships with the highest likelihood of upholding rigorous research standards—allowed industry insiders to ghostwrite clinical trial reports for publication in scientific journals, relegating the named authors to the position of “suggesting” revisions."
"The drug companies own that data and keep it confidential as “corporate property.” Reviewers must rely on brief data summaries included in the submitted manuscripts. Peer reviewers at even the most prestigious medical journals cannot possibly attest to the accuracy and completeness of the articles they review.
This sham was exposed in 2005 when the editors of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine admitted they had not seen relevant data from a clinical trial involving Merck’s arthritis drug Vioxx. Five years earlier, the article had extolled the drug’s safety even though neither the editors nor the peer reviewers had been granted access to underlying data, which showed three heart attacks that had occurred in patients treated with Vioxx were not reported. Had this data had been properly disclosed and analyzed when the manuscript was first submitted, the article would have shown that Vioxx significantly increased the risk of heart attack five-fold when compared to over-the-counter naproxen (Aleve). And many of the estimated 30,000 Americans who died as a result of taking Vioxx after the incomplete article was published would not have been exposed to the drug.
"Big Pharma companies remain unwilling to disclose their underlying clinical trial data. The most recent example involved Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. a group of medical researchers and scientists sued the FDA for the release of 451,000 pages of scientific documents it had evaluated prior to granting the vaccine full approval. Even though the agency required only 108 days to sufficiently evaluate these documents before granting the vaccine formal approval, the FDA (with Pfizer wanting to join the lawsuit), argued that the fastest they could release the data was five hundred pages per month, meaning that it would take seventy-five years before the documents were released in full.
THIS CONTRADICTS THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO EFFICIENTLY REVIEW 451,000 PAGES OVER A 108 DAY PERIOD CONCLUDING THE VACCINE WAS SAFE FOR APPROVAL, AS THEY ARGUE, IN FACT, THE FASTEST THEY COULD RELEASE THAT DATA WOULD BE 500 PAGES A MONTH, REQUIRING 75 YEARS TO DO SO.