Doorzoek het forum
Zoeken met Startpagina
Startpagina Thema's
isabella
Mijn dochter van 15 is diabeet. 4 x insulinespuiten op een dag.
Nu las ik het boek : "Handboek zeflgenezing van Hulda Regehr Clark.
heeft er iemand ervaring met deze methode? laat horen ik ben benieuwd.
Isabella
En never nooit zomaar stoppen met de insuline als je het idee hebt dat die methode zou helpen (ik geloof er niet in, er is nog nooit een dibeet genezen van zijn kwaal!!!). Je loopt het risico op een forse keto-acidotische ontregeling met mogelijke IC-opname tot gevolg!
Overleg ALTIJD met haar arts!
Deze links zijn van orthodoxe artsen en farmaceuten. die willen uitsluitend patienten afhankelijkheid en zo veel mogelijk medicamenten verkopen. De farma lobby is tegen elke mogelijke concurrentie van alt. geneeskunde en preventie. Feitelijk is zij gebaat bij zoveel mogelijk zieken en ziekten. Ik heb een don croft zapper en werkt prima.
succes allemaal
Geloof jij werkelijk dat een stroompje gegenereerd door een 9 volt batterijtje interne parasieten kan doden? Hiervoor moet je niet out-of-the-box voor kunnen denken hiervoor moet je out-of-your-mind voor denken.
Iedereen met een beetje basiskennis van biologie, geneeskunde of wetenschappelijke proefopstellen kan gemakkelijk door al die claims van deze dame heenprikken.
Die complot theorie is al helemaal belachelijk, denk eens aan al die ziektes waar veel mensen aan leden in het verleden en die nu grotendeels of helemaal weg zijn.
Ik weet niet hoeveel je betaald hebt voor die “zapper” maar je bent in ieder geval voor die hoeveelheid flink bedonderd.
Arjen
Het boek van die dame is inderdaad niet al te sterk. Wat sterker is is de biofysische achtergronden die zij gepopulariseerd heeft. Verdiep je er eens in, je doet jezelf te kort door het niet te doen. Of zet eens een wormlarfje in water onder gewone zwakstroom (er gebeurt niets) en dan onder positieve contrast stroom (hij gaat dood). www.newtreatments.org. Lees ook een de Intermediair van vorige week, over 10 jaar is electromedicine hot topic.
Zeg, Peer, ik ben eens betrokken geweest bij een marketing campagne van Novartis. Je wilt echt niet weten hoe farma-managers geld aan jou- als zieke- willen verdienen. Ik stuur even een artikel mee uit de NY-Times.b
2 Powerful Groups Hold Sway Over Buying at Many HospitalsBy WALT BOGDANICHhis article was reported by Walt Bogdanich, Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh and was written by Mr. Bogdanich. Amid a tangle of wires and worried faces, the brief life of Joshua Diaz was slipping away, and Dr. Mitchell R. Goldstein knew he must soon make an agonizing decision.For 30 minutes, Dr. Goldstein's emergency team had medically assaulted the 2-week-old baby with lifesaving measures, none of which appeared to be working. Worse, a device called a pulse oximeter failed to detect a pulse or show how much oxygen Joshua's blood was ferrying to his vital organs.“I had the nurse and respiratory therapists asking me, `Why are we doing this?' ” said Dr. Goldstein, of West Covina, Calif. Some feared they were just torturing the baby. But the doctor pressed ahead after attaching a second, experimental monitor that showed encouraging signs: Joshua's blood was taking on more oxygen. Today, Joshua Diaz is a healthy 7-year-old living in Ontario, Calif. “We probably would have given up,” Dr. Goldstein said, were it not for the second monitor.But seven years later, its inventor, Joe E. Kiani, says he still cannot sell his oximeter, regardless of the price, to many American hospitals, even though medical experts say it helps the most fragile of patients  premature infants.The reason, Mr. Kiani says, is that he has effectively been locked out  his much larger competitor has secured exclusive contracts to sell its device to thousands of hospitals, in part by paying fees to two national purchasing groups that largely determine which products many hospitals buy.These two private groups act as middlemen for about half the nation's nonprofit hospitals, negotiating contracts last year for some $34 billion in supplies, from pharmaceuticals to pacemakers, bandages to beds.Each group has the same basic mission: to use the market power of its more than 1,500 hospitals to find the best medical products at the lowest prices.But many in the medical world  Mr. Kiani among them  question whether that mission is being compromised by financial ties that the groups, Premier and Novation, have to medical supply companies, ties that, according to an investigation by The New York Times (news/quote), are both extensive and highly unusual.The problem begins with this simple fact: The buying groups are financed not by the hospitals that buy products but by the companies that sell them. In other words, the groups take money from the very companies they are supposed to evaluate objectively. Each year, companies pay Premier and Novation hundreds of millions of dollars in fees that represent a percentage of hospital purchases. The more hospitals spend on medical supplies, the more dollars Premier and Novation get from the suppliers.In a few cases, Premier or some of its officials have also received stock or options from companies with which Premier contracts.Critics say such conflicts of interest can mean that the buying groups do not always choose the products that are best for patients, hospitals or the taxpayers and insurers that pay their bills.“It's just like payola,” said Paul Lombardi, head of contracts for the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle. Buying groups are “getting paid” to buy certain products, said Mr. Lombardi, whose hospital system dropped Premier in 1996.In Mr. Kiani's case, his small company says it could not compete against an industry giant, Mallinckrodt, whose many products generate large fees for the buying groups. Nor, Mr. Kiani says, can he afford to do what that company did  help finance Premier's private venture-capital fund and contribute $1 million to a Premier research service.Premier did not give Mr. Kiani's company a contract even though the buying group's own evaluators had privately concluded in 1999 that its oximeter was superior to what was then on contract. Premier says that review was not conclusive.R. David Nelson, who leads the Institute for Supply Management, representing purchasing managers or buyers from 11,000 companies, said he was surprised to learn that buying groups were financed by suppliers.“I had no idea that the kind of things you're talking about were going on,” Mr. Nelson said. If such practices occurred in the industries he knows, “red flags would go up all over the place,” he added.When suppliers finance buying groups “you get the tail wagging the dog,” Mr. Nelson said.Premier and Novation, which say their contracting decisions are untainted by supplier payments, release no public accounting of how much each supplier pays them, or the terms of individual contracts.“Billions of dollars are being controlled by two companies, and nobody knows who they are,” said Larry R. Holden, president of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, a Washington-based group of mostly small companies. “Nobody looks at their books. Nobody knows what companies they are investing in.”The big buying groups “are like a form of government,” said Peter Vincer of the Technology Management Group, an equipment maintenance company in Oak Creek, Wis. “They say who can play and what it costs to play.”An Industry Is Transformed Buying groups became popular more than two decades ago as a way for hospitals to seek better prices for goods and services, which account for about a quarter of their costs. The groups identify good products and negotiate contracts for them, but member hospitals do the actual buying.Initially, there were no dominant buying groups, and hospitals, not suppliers, often financed them. Much has changed, however. Not only did the groups consolidate, but in 1986 they also convinced Congress that money could be saved if legislators allowed suppliers to pay their costs.As a result, Congress exempted the groups from federal antikickback laws. The agency now called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was supposed to monitor the fee payments “for possible abuse, particularly those in excess of 3 percent” of sales, according to a Congressional committee report.Novation and Premier may have gone well beyond what legislators envisioned.Novation acknowledges that about 30 percent of its contracts exceed 3 percent of sales, and a hospital official who buys through that group complains that some fees are now “up in the teens.” Novation said its hospitals approved those fees.Premier accepts virtually no fees above 3 percent, but it has sometimes accepted stock in supplier companies in lieu of or in addition to cash payments. It has also invested in a number of companies in the medical supply field.Just three months ago, American Pharmaceutical Partners, based in Los Angeles  a company that Premier helped start and steered hospital business to  went public. At that time, the buying group's stake was worth $46 million. Premier said it invested in suppliers to encourage competition, to promote new technology and to make money for its hospital shareholders.Some of Novation's hospitals are angry that tens of millions of dollars of supplier fees were invested in a publicly traded, money-losing electronic commerce company, Neoforma Inc. (news/quote) Several hospital officials contend that Premier and Novation have become preoccupied with increasing revenue, rather than negotiating the best deals on products. Instead of being returned to hospitals, some of that revenue goes to finance programs that have little to do with negotiating buying contracts. Some top buying group executives have found other ways to profit personally. Richard A. Norling, Premier's chairman and chief executive, was allowed to retain and continue collecting a supplier's stock options that he converted into a $4 million profit in 2001.Mr. Norling received those options while serving as a director of one of Premier's predecessor buying groups and as Premier's top official.Mr. Norl
