by Georgi Stankov and Brad Barber, October 17, 2015
I have written on many occasions that the key finding of the new General Theory of Biological Regulation of the Universal Law is that more than 90% of all drugs are cell-inhibiting as their names suggest, e.g. anti-biotics, beta-blocker, anti-histaminics, zyto-statics, etc., and thus infringe on the natural biological regulation of the human body and harm it in numerous ways. The result is high morbidity rate due to various serious adverse effects and an increased mortality rate of 2 to 4% when compared to placebo (no active treatment).
There are some excellent large-scale double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that were done in the late 80s and throughout the 90s that confirm this fact beyond any doubt. These trials were published in the best international scientific journals on medicine. I have quoted the most prominent ones in volume III where I prove my case:
Since the beginning of modern pharmacology and pharmaceutics after WW2 the Orion pharmaceutical industry, in cahoots with medical doctors, has committed the biggest crime ever done on humanity. It has effectively and deliberately exterminated several hundred millions of patients by treating them with toxic cell-inhibiting drugs which are synthetically developed chemical substances that are not part of the natural biological organism and are thus pure poisons.
The theory why and how these cell-inhibiting drugs cause harm in the human cells and organism and thus premature death has been developed for the first time by myself in 1994 and extensively explained in my pivotal book on the General Theory of Biological Regulation, volume III based on the latest scientific data at that time. Since 2000 the pharmaceutical industry stopped carrying such large placebo-controlled trials as the dark cabal in the FDA realised that in this way they reveal the dreadful truth about their drugs, especially when some cardiac drugs had to be withdrawn from the market for their proven toxicity and increased mortality rate in the 90s.
I am reviving this topic one more time at this place as Brad made me aware of a brand-new publication that addresses this issue based on new medical evidence:
Just wanted to make sure you saw this one. Mass murder and “good medicine” in the same article. You are the man and how hard you’ve worked.
Together with the Obama drone program release, it appears we’re taking it up a notch.
With love and light,
In this article, which I have published in full below, the authors write as follows :
“What is more concerning is that beta blockers may have caused as many as 800,000 deaths in Europe over the past 5 years. A paper published in the European Heart Journal shows that beta blockers may increase incidence of a major cardiac event, including heart attack and death up to fifty percent.”
This is a brilliant confirmation of my findings on the human genocide committed by the Orion pharmaceutical industry 20 years ago which shows that humanity finally begins to awaken.
If this is true for Europe then it is even more true for the USA and Canada where prescriptions of cell-inhibiting drugs significantly exceed that in Europe. Although Obama care is bankrupt since its introduction, the drug consumption skyrocketed with a 15% increase from 2014 to almost $400 billion this year, over-the-counter drugs not included. For instance doctors in the United States write more than 250 million prescriptions for anti-depressants (cell-inhibiting drugs) each year. According to a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, nearly 70 percent of all Americans are on at least one prescription drug, and an astounding 20 percent of all Americans are on at least five prescription drugs. Due to this fact, Americans spend far more on health care than anyone else in the world, and yet they only rank 26th in life expectancy and the entire health care system has been transformed into a giant money making scam.
More precisely the Americans, the Canadians and the Europeans are a huge laboratory of guinea pigs that are subjected to the most insidious genocide of gargantuan proportions in the history of mankind. The aim of the dark cabal is the reduction of the human population below one billion in the End Times as to establish the NWO, which they failed but still at the expense of hundreds of millions victims in the health care sector.
In 1994-5 I had a key experience as a clinical researcher of new drugs that convinced me to stop doing this job and close my institute for clinical research – DIAS institute in Munich. You can also find this story if you open volume III and go to page 333. Here is an excerpt of it which highlights the toxic effects of beta blockers and how much they increase mortality in all patients:
The High Mortality Rate of the Beta Blocker D-Sotalol Compared to Placebo (No-Active Treatment), written in 1997
In the Light of the Law, the electric LRC (long-range correlation = gradient) of muscle cells (or any other cells) is the aggregated product of all integral FUELs (Functional Unit of Energy transLocation = transmembrane proteins such as receptors, ion channels, ion pumps, etc.) and agents of the supracellular regulation that interact with them. As all systems are open U-sets and contain themselves as an element, from an energetic point of view it does not make any difference which FUEL, ion, or agent is predominantly responsible for the modulation of the electric LRC. What counts is the relative change of the potential in time and space. As d-sotalol (beta blocker) does not reduce the amplitude of the action potential, but only prolongs its plateau, it has a negative chronotropic effect on heart muscle cells: f is decreased and the energy exchange E=E(A)f is also decreased.
In this respect, it is important to observe that as energy (cell metabolism) has only two dimensions, space and time, any chronotropic effect on the heart is at the same time inotropic: thus d-sotalol is both negative inotropic and chronotropic. This correlation is a consequence of the reciprocity of space and time. In this particular case, inotropy is a synonym for energy and chronotropy is a synonym for time; as E≈f, both magnitudes change simultaneously. Space-time is a unity; this holds true for any system of space-time. The present discrimination between inotropic and chronotropic drugs is an abstraction born in the cardiologist’s mind. Considering this evidence, it is a mystery why both drugs are still believed to have similar effects and have been assigned to the same class III antiarrhythmics.
This detailed discussion of the two drugs has a personal background that is highly instructive with respect to modern clinical research. In early 1994, I was contacted by a representative of Bristol-Myers Squibb and informed that his company had sponsored a large international multicentre, placebo-controlled (phase III) trial evaluating the efficacy of d-sotalol as an antiarrhythmic drug.
Sotalol had been used for a long time as β-blocker, but the company was searching for new indications to enlarge its therapeutic scope, as the positioning of the drug in the β-blocker segment was jeopardized by various new β-blockers (“me-too drugs”). To avoid competition, BMS decided to use the racemate form of this drug.
At that time (early 1994), I had just outlined the General Theory and had finished with the verification of the dipole model on the basis of 4000 registered drugs (chemical entities). Both amiodarone and d-sotalol were among the drugs analysed. Based on the dipole model, I informed the BMS representative that d-sotalol was definitely a cell-inhibiting drug and would therefore be detrimental to the patients enrolled in this trial. In this context, I quoted the results of the CAST trial as discussed above. In the presence of two other colleagues, I predicted that this trial, if properly evaluated by the company, would inevitably show that d-sotalol had increased mortality in comparison to placebo.
As one would expect, the company representative was not very happy about my objections. At the end of 1994, I had another meeting with the same representative. He informed me that the trial had been prematurely stopped by the safety monitoring board because there were significantly more deaths in the d-sotalol group when compared to placebo. He showed me confidentially the interim statistical results of this trial. The only two figures which I remembered were that more than 3000 patients were enrolled in the trial and that there were more than 20 excess deaths in the treatment group.
For the first time after many years of clinical research I realized during this intercourse that clinical researchers in particular and doctors in general could quite easily become “statistical murderers”. Two years before this meeting I finished a similar large trial programme in osteoarthritis with a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), for which I had written the protocols. According to the dipole model NSAIDs are potent cell-inhibiting drugs. We had to stop one trial because of life-threatening adverse events (gastrointestinal bleedings) in the high-dose treatment group. Being the only one to have realized the full magnitude of the fatal potential of cell-inhibiting drugs, I was somehow relieved not to have had any drug associated deaths in any of my previous trials.
That evening I came to the conclusion that I would no longer be in a position to carry out clinical trials with cell-inhibiting drugs. From that moment onward, my only occupation was to develop and popularize the discovery of the Law and its consequences in medicine and to convince the scientific community and the authorities to stop this worldwide genocide of patients. I was bewildered, staggered and depressed by the silent, clean, and efficient character of this collective capital crime in which I had participated for many years, financed by the taxpayers and disguised under the moral impeccability of the Hippocratic oath.
One year later, I closed my institute (DIAS institute), which conducted clinical trials for the international pharmaceutical industry, and dedicated myself to the elaboration of the new theory of the Law.
But a true story must have an epilogue. In 1996, I red in Lancet the results of the SWORD trial (Waldo AL et al., 1996, 348: 7-12) and felt, as if I had been “stabbed with a sword”. I recognized the trial that made me quit my profession as a clinical researcher.
It is an established practice to justify the conduct of each trial in the introduction of the paper. The authors’ justification of this trial is as follows:
“Among available potassium-channel blockers, d-sotalol has been most widely used. It is the dextrorotatory optical isomer of the racemate d,l-sotalol and blocks Ikr, the rapid component of the delayed-rectifier current. d-sotalol lacks clinically significant beta-blocking activity and would be expected to be well tolerated by patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Anti-fibrillatory activity of d-sotalol has been shown in some experimental models but not in others. The Survival With Oral d-Sotalol (SWORD) trial was a multinational, multi-centre, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial of d-sotalol to test the hypothesis that a drug with a pure potassium-channel-blocking action reduces all-cause mortality in patients with previous MI (myocardial infarction) and left ventricular dysfunction.”
As I had anticipated, it turned out the other way round. After 3121 of the planned 6400 patients were recruited, the trial had to be stopped on Nov 1, 1994 after 2.3 years of recruitment. Among 1549 patients assigned d-sotalol, there were 78 deaths (5%) compared with 48 deaths (3.1%) among the 1572 patients assigned placebo (p = 0.006). Thus 30 patients in excess were killed by treating them chronically with d-sotalol. This means that approximately 1% of all the patients participating in the trial and 2% of those treated with d-sotalol were actively exterminated.
This figure is quite instructive if one wants to estimate the cumulative killing rates of cell-inhibiting drugs worldwide in the second half of this century. It is important to observe that, according to the dipole model, d-sotalol is somewhat less cell-inhibiting than the more common racemate of d,l-sotalol, which has been widely used as β-blocker for many years. Thus we can assume similar or even higher killing rates with this β-blocking agent in patients with heart diseases, such as CHD and hypertension.
Although we do not have any direct comparisons, the killing rate of d-sotalol can be considered representative for the large group of β-blocking agents, many of which are more potent cell-inhibiting drugs than this agent when the dipole model is applied (see also below). The survival curve in the SWORD trial (see figure 1 in the original publication) showed that the difference in the mortality rate increased significantly after the first 180 days of treatment and had its maximal value after 300 days (specific Ljapunov time). This indicates that the observation period in this condition must be at least 1 year. Shorter observation periods may miss the difference in treatment.
The results of this trial do not need any further discussion. They illuminate the dreadful truth of modern pharmacology. There are many reasons why this truth has not been unveiled yet. We cannot consider all of them…
Beta blockers don’t improve heart health, they increase incidence of heart attack and death
Christina Sarich, October 15, 2015
If you or someone you love has a major surgery planned and they are taking one of the many ‘beta blockers’ often prescribed to those who have high blood pressure, you’ll want to know about the additional risk of these pharmaceutical drugs.
Beta blockers are the subject of some serious medical inquiry. In a recent Forbes magazine article, it was pointed out that hundreds of thousands of people have died from beta-blockers in the past several years. The Forbes article references a study published in JAMA which suggests that beta blockers may not improve outcomes for heart patients.
Sriapl Bangalore and colleagues analyzed data from 44,708 patients enrolled in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health, 31% of whom had a prior myocardial infarction (MI), 27% of whom had documented coronary artery disease (CAD) without MI, and 42% of whom only had CAD risk factors.
Patients who received beta blockers were compared with matched controls and were followed for a median of 44 months. To summarize, beta blockers did not show any improvement in the heart health of the patients who took them.
What is more concerning is that beta blockers may have caused as many as 800,000 deaths in Europe over the past 5 years. A paper published in the uropean Heart Journal shows that beta blockers may increase incidence of a major cardiac event, including heart attack and death up to fifty percent. This brings to mind the question – is this bad medicine, or mass murder?
According to Consumer Reports, these drugs can cost anywhere from between $200 to $2000 annually for a single patient. Even the cheaper Beta blockers available as generic drugs can cause huge safety risks. These include those prescribed as:
- A second drug for high blood pressure such as atenolol, metoprolol tartrate, nadolol, and propranolol
- Drugs prescribed for angine including atenolol, metoprolol tartrate, nadolol, and propranolol
- Drugs prescribed after a heart attack including atenolol, metoprolol tartrate, and propranolol
- And even drugs prescribed for mild and severe heart failure, among them are bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol succinate
If you have any major surgery planned, including those which are unrelated to heart disease, you may want to avoid beta blockers.