Pharmaceuticals are more dangerous to your health than terrorists' exploding underwear (satire)

(NaturalNews) As all of North America now seems to be focused on the issue of one terrorist wearing a pair of exploding underwear, I might as well comment on this latest bit of security theater that seems to have transfixed the nation. Pictures of the exploding underwear "bomb" have now surfaced on the 'net. You can view them at ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/north...

Here is exactly what the text on this page says (I'm not making this up, this is seriously true): (warning: Some of the content here is graphic, read at your own risk...)

"The first photo, to the left, shows the slightly charred and singed underpants with the bomb packet still in place."

I don't know what you think, but if you did an underwear search of all the passengers flying these days, you'd probably find half of them are wearing underwear that's slightly charred and singed with the "bomb packet" still in place.

The gastrointestinal health of the general population is atrocious! And by the time you add in some airport food and in-flight processed food snacks, pretty much everyone on the airplane is setting off a little bomb packet by the time they get off the plane. (Why do you think everybody can't wait to get off in such a hurry?)

Processed food has turned us all into in-flight terrorists!

Frankly, I'm not sure what's more of a threat to public health: Lousy airport security or the digestive effects of in-flight meals. But they both have one thing in common: Underwear...

How to explode your rectum without harming anyone nearby

The ABC News story mentioned above goes on to state that this terrorist's underwear was packing 80 grams of an explosive powder called PETN, which government tests have revealed can blow a (tiny) hole in the wall of an airplane.

This is all brilliant stuff, of course. Truly brilliant. This whole idea that underwear explosives might destroy an airplane all makes sense except for the fact that the terrorist's butt cheeks are in the way!

Had this explosive packet actually been set off, I can tell you exactly what would have happened: There would have been a really loud pop, immediately followed by in-flight pieces of exploding butt cheeks.

I'm not trying to be funny here. This is a true description of the way bombs work. They explode outward, destroying whatever is closest to them first. And this guy actually had this bomb wedged in between his butt cheeks. A sort of "wedgie bomb", if you will. A wedgie with a bang.

This is a serious discussion. There was an attempted assassination of a Middle Eastern prince that happened not long ago. It was even reported in the press. The assassin had somehow managed to shove explosives into his rectum -- I swear I'm not making this up -- and waltzed right through security with it. He then shuffled toward his target, fired off the bomb and subsequently blew his butt cheeks all over the room... without harming anyone else.

Brilliant, huh?

Think about it. In World War II films, you know how you always see brave soldiers throwing themselves on an enemy grenade to protect their squad buddies? That actually works because whoever is on top of the grenade absorbs the explosion. It's basic physics.

In the case of super wedgie terrorist, he's sitting right on top of the explosive powder! Who do you think is going to absorb the full force of the explosion? It's going to be the guy sitting on it.

This is physics 101. A small bomb in somebody's underwear is really only a threat to the idiot wearing the underwear.

The first rule of making bombs is that you probably should not be sitting on top of them when they go off.

Please remove your shoes and your underwear...

Predictably, U.S. authorities have now talked this up into a huge security threat. And sooner or later, it's all bound to lead up to mandatory underwear searches!

I can see it now: A row of air passengers stands nervously at the gate, nearly ready to board the plane when TSA enforcers approach and suddenly demand that everybody bend over and pull down their underwear for a quick search for "explosives."

Sadly, most Americans are so brain-numbed by security propaganda, they would probably go along with it!

So why not just go all the way with this and pass a new TSA rule requiring all Americans to fly with no underwear!

The captain comes on the intercom, saying, "Visibility is 80 miles, we're climbing to 29,000 feet, and we're expecting this flight to be a little breezy..."

Yep, it's undies off when boarding planes from now on. As you pass through security, you can toss your water bottles in one bin, your underwear and panties in another bin, and your self respect in a third. Essentially, if these security searches get any more personal, they're going to undress us from head to toe and make us wear medical gowns, chained to our seats like convicts in a prisoner transport plane. Once we land, we can reclaim our underwear and, if we're lucky, a bit of our lost pride.

Your bra just might contain a bomb...

Don't you just love how air travel authorities keep coming up with new stuff that you have to throw away because it might be a bomb? Remember when we could bring actual water on airplanes? Those were the good old days.

Then one day they declare "Your water might be a bomb!" So millions of passengers now ditch their water at the security gate, throwing it all to waste.

Then they came up with the idea that terrorists could "mix binary liquids" to make liquid bombs in the airplane toilet, and they used that to ban all liquids. So much for your toothpaste, contact lens solution, herbal tinctures and superfood beverage. Toss it in the trash if you want to get on this plane, buddy!

Now they're going after your underwear. And it won't be long before you have to strip down to your birthday suit and hand over your undies for an "inspection" -- right before they send you through the low-frequency X-ray machine that scans your body parts and displays them on a screen as if you were butt naked.

Just wait for a female terrorist who hides some explosives in her bra one day. Following that, a new TSA security rule will be initiated and all flights will become bra-less. No underwear, no bras, no water... what the heck is happening here? Are airlines going to shave our heads and tattoo barcodes on our arms, too, just in case they lose track of which person was handcuffed to which seat?

Absurd security

This is all getting beyond the point of absurdity. If a terrorist wants to pack a little explosive powder and stuff it down their pants, or up their rectum, or have it surgically sewn into their abdomen, there's nothing we can do to stop that short of strip-searching every single passenger.

And that's not security: That's just a demeaning police state that treats its own people like criminals. If we all have to fly without underwear and bras, the terrorists win!

Besides, all this ridiculous security isn't about saving lives. If U.S. authorities wanted to save lives, they would ban aspartame, or outlaw chemotherapy, or arrest the crooks at the drug companies who are killing over a hundred thousand people every single year -- a far greater number than those killed by in-flight acts of terror (even including 2001 and 9/11).

Even if there were no airport security at all, the risk of being killed by an in-flight act of terror would be a fraction of the risk of being killed by pharmaceuticals in any given year. So why are U.S. authorities going crazy about airport security when so many Americans are dying from pharmaceutical toxicity every single day? Statistically speaking, the number of people killed by dangerous prescription medications is equivalent to one jumbo air liner falling out of the sky and crashing to the ground every single day.

Yet that threat to health and safety goes entirely unmentioned. Un-investigated. Un-noticed.

So while over 100,000 Americans are dying each year from dangerous medications, the mainstream media has us all fixated on a pair of exploding underwear? Are you kidding me?

The whole thing has become a complete circus. Real threats to your safety are ignored while miniscule threats are hyped up as if they were life-and-death to everyone.

And yet, amazingly, most air travelers still go along with it!

This just goes to show you how easily the population can be controlled by fear. I never thought that a photo of a pair of singed underwear would scare a hundred million adults into giving up their freedoms, but this is what has apparently taken place.

How about zero-security flights?

Here's an idea: Airlines should offer optional zero-security flights. On those flights, there are no security checks. Anyone with a valid concealed-carry permit could bring any weapons they want, and the pilot and co-pilot can be armed, too. You can pass right through security with no X-rays, no checks, no delays. You simply sign a disclaimer and go right from the check-in counter to your boarding gate with zero hassles.

I would gladly fly on these zero-security flights. You know why? Because 99.99% of the people flying on those planes would be cops packing heat, ex-military people packing heat and concealed-carry citizens packing heat. Any terrorist stupid enough to try something on such a flight would find himself facing a citizen's army of vigilant passengers.

Zero-security flights would be the safest airplanes in the sky, because no terrorist, hijacker or violent criminal would dare board one.

Plus, we all get to keep our underwear on.

Acute Pharmaceutical Toxicity killed Brittany Murphy - Could it be killing millions more?

(NaturalNews) The entire pharmaceutical industry is based on the idea that for whatever's wrong with you, there's a patented chemical pill that can make it better. Feeling some anxiety? There's a pill for that. Have high blood pressure? There's a pill for that, too. Suffering from sleepless nights? There's yet another pill for that, too.

Importantly, modern medicine and the pharmaceutical industry both believe there is no limit to how many prescription medications you can simultaneously take. If you have ten health problems, they've got ten different pills for you. And when those pills cause twenty different dangerous side effects, they're ready for twenty more prescriptions for you to dutifully swallow.

This idea that health is achieved by taking prescription chemicals is ludicrous from the start. And yet it's the foundation of the pharmaceutical industry. Take as many pills as you "need", they insist. Don't worry: They're all FDA approved!

This is akin to believing that if it's safe to drive 65mph in your truck, and it's also safe to drive 65mph on your motorcycle, then if you load your motorcycle onto your truck, it's now safe to drive 130mph.

The fatal flaw in the theory behind pharmaceuticals

As you already guessed, there's a fatal flaw in this pharmaceutical approach to sick care: Pharmaceuticals have never been tested in combination with other drugs. So all the so-called "gold standard science" is absolutely worthless at knowing what might happen when half a dozen pharmaceutical drugs are combined in a patient's body. Brittany Murphy may have been on as many as TEN drugs!

Despite the fact that no combination testing has ever been done on pharmaceuticals, they are regularly prescribed in combination. Obviously, this creates a whole new realm of unknown risk based on the way multiple drugs might chemically interact in the human body.

The more pharmaceuticals you take, the more dangerous they become. While one pharmaceutical chemical may at first seem harmless (even though just one drug can actually kill you), when you start adding a second, third, fourth and fifth prescription on top of that, you're dealing with Acute Pharmaceutical Toxicity (APT) that's never even been tested in clinical trials.

Pharmacists are trained to help people avoid the most toxic two-drug combinations, but they rarely have any real knowledge about what happens when you combine three, four, five or more drugs. No one does. The science has simply never been done on that question. It's no wonder: With all the possible combinations and permutations of pharmaceutical toxicity, it would take literally trillions of clinical trials to test them all.

So this whole idea that you can take a drug to treat one problem, then take a second drug to treat a second problem, and a third to treat a third problem... this entire approach to health care, upon which modern medicine is largely based, is flawed from the start. In clinical trials, patients are tested for one drug at a time. Never five or six (or ten).

So all the clinical trials that have ever been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry need to be thrown out the window for patients who take more than one drug. And that's just about everybody! Ask any senior citizen which prescription drugs they take, and most of them (the ones who can still remember, anyway) will rattle off a shockingly long list of toxic chemicals that have never been tested in combination. Just because one drug in isolation seems "safe" in one trial in no way means it's going to be safe when combined with half a dozen other toxic chemicals taken by the patient at the same time.

The list of drugs taken by Brittany Murphy boggles the mind

According to information leaked to the press, Brittany Murphy was found near prescription medications of all the following drugs:

• Topamax (an anti-seizure medication)
• Methylprednisolone (anti-inflammatory drug)
• Fluoxetine (antidepressant)
• Klonopin (anxiety medication)
• Carbamazepine (bipolar medication)
• Ativan (anxiety medication)
• Vicoprofen (pain reliever)
• Propranolol (hypertension drug)
• Biaxin (an antibiotic)
• Hydrocodone (pain medication)

That's a whopping ten medications that Brittany Murphy may have been swallowing all at once.

Now, you can search PubMed, the National Library of Medicine and the archives of the FDA, and you will never find a single clinical trial testing these ten drugs in combination. It's never been done (and never will be). Big Pharma, you see, isn't interested in finding out what happens when their various drugs are combined in the same patient at the same time. Why? Because they know the results would be disastrous.

The result was certainly disastrous for Brittany Murphy. Her FDA-approved, doctor-prescribed, Big Pharma-promoted combination of toxic drugs appears to have cost her her life.

How many other patients are dying from Acute Pharmaceutical Toxicity? (APT)

Brittany Murphy surely isn't the only Big Pharma customer who has been killed by Acute Pharmaceutical Toxicity. But no one knows the actual number because no one keeps track!

The FDA simply doesn't want to know. That's why reporting drug side effects and deaths to the FDA remains entirely voluntary. Big Pharma doesn't want anyone looking too closely at this issue, either. Coroners, for their part, rarely ask about pharmaceuticals as a possible cause of death. Typically, they just blame the death on whatever organ failed, calling it a "heart attack", for example, even when the heart attack might have been brought on by toxic pharmaceuticals.

Imagine if police detectives worked the same way. Investigating a crime scene where someone was thrown from a ten-story window and plunged to their death on the street below, imagine if the detective reported the cause of death as being, "Hitting the ground."

That's the way coroners work with the cause of death in patients killed by pharmaceuticals. They routinely ignore the real cause -- the chemical cause -- and just name whatever organ happened to fail first. "Liver failure" is a popular one. But what caused the liver to fail in the first place? It usually has something to do with Acute Pharmaceutical Toxicity.

Why celebrities need real nutrition

I've said it before, but celebrities lead extremely stressful lives. Being a movie star is no easy career choice -- it involves long hours, stressful travel and crazy work schedules.

Sadly, many movie stars have turned to pharmaceuticals to try to keep them functioning through the extreme stresses of a movie shoot. This inevitably leads to devastating consequences.

What professional actors need more than medication is nutrition. Only high-density nutrition can help them cope with the enormous stresses their careers demand. That's why I think more movie stars need to be drinking Boku Superfood, or Living Fuel, or Pure Synergy, or other high-quality superfoods every single day.

I continue to believe that if Brittany Murphy had ditched all those dangerous psychotropic drugs and instead turned to superfoods and high-density nutrition, she'd be alive and well today.

The bigger question in all this, though, is: Could millions of people around the world be dying right now from Acute Pharmaceutical Toxicity? If so, how would we even know?

Sources for this story include:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...