* Combating a cold or flu requires an infection-fighting healthy immune system.
* Treating a cold or flu requires the proper natural treatment!

 Killers to the immune system; smoking, stress, a diet filled with sodas, candy, cakes, pies, cookies, and puddings. Sugar kills our white cells, which are the fighters to ward off colds and flu. For every one of these diet faux paux you will require and extra 1500 IU of Vitamin C with bioflavonoids.

·        Prevention Solution: Cut out the sodas, sweets, caffeine, alcohol and smoking. Eat a diet rich in vegetables, grains, legumes (beans). Get plenty of exercise (30 minutes a day) and be sure to rest and sleep your required hours (8 hours for most but some can get by with a wee bit less than that), drink plenty of water every day (64 ounces).  This will boost your immune system way up over an extended time. The immune system was not run down overnight, it took time to get there and it will take time to rebuild.See what Congress knew in 1936 that isn’t being taught in medical school or anywhere else for that matter! Senate 74TH congress 2^ND SESSION 1936. Senate Document No. 264.  Read it  Click Here

Build the immune system so this will not happen to you again. My choice of Immune builders is a host of herbs contained in my favorite Immune building formula  IMMUNE SUPPORT online info and/or ordering

• Didn't prevent and find yourself ill: Get the ultimate virus fighter Ionic Silver Water... Drink immune building lemon & honey tea: put juice of ½ lemon in a cup of hot water and add 2 – 3 teaspoons of honey. Sooth and tasty tea and Kids love it also.

 

A Medical Diagnosis or What?
© By Lena Sanchez
 
Marketing technique of the drug industry or a real diagnosis?
 
What the average person does not comprehend is how drug companies quietly and very subtly start to lobby and familiarize the medical community and the world with a disease before they push a drug to counteract an illness/disease!
 
Example; In November 2001 a California firm offering "business intelligence" announced, "43% of all women over 18 experience sexual dysfunction . . . Greater public awareness and acceptance of SD [sexual dysfunction] as a common and treatable disease will heavily influence market growth, predominantly for women." In August 2002 a company advertising trials of a new drug for "female sexual arousal disorder" prominently cited the figure in its press release. That release quoted a Dr Sweeney saying that 40% of women have the dysfunction in one form or another, "but not all have the most severe form of the disease."  Ever heard of SD as a disease prior to that?
 
One of the milestones in the making of that disorder was a JAMA article in February 1999 titled "Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors."  Two of the authors of that article, later admitted to close ties to Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (Business Intelligence), said that for women aged 18-59, the "total prevalence of sexual dysfunction" was 43%, a figure picked up by the medical community and now widely cited in both scientific and lay media as gospel truth.
 
First let's see how 43% came to be!
 
A University of Chicago sociology professor Ed Laumann and colleagues reanalyzed a slice of data from a 1992 survey and came up with serious questions about the 43% figure so aptly bantered about these days. That figure came from a study of around 1500 women who were asked to answer yes or no to whether they had experienced any of seven problems, for two months or more, during the previous year, including a lack of desire for sex, anxiety about sexual performance, and difficulties with lubrication. If the women answered yes to just one of the seven questions, they were included in a group characterized as having SD (sexual dysfunction). No mention of what time of the month or what circumstances led up to their answer.
 
The JAMA article stated that its data was "not equivalent to clinical diagnosis," yet this was overlooked, and some leading sex researchers have raised serious concerns about the figure's constant misuse. 
 
One of those concerned was Dr Sandra Leiblum, professor of psychiatry at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and a clinical psychologist. She believes real dysfunction is much less prevalent than 43%, and that the figure has contributed to an overmedicalization of women's sexuality, where changes in sexual desire, from time to time, is the norm. "I think there is dissatisfaction and perhaps disinterest among a lot of women, but that doesn't mean they have a disease," she said during an interview at a New York educational workshop.
 
The director of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, Dr John Bancroft, believes the term "dysfunction" is highly misleading, and he is one of several researchers critical of the corporate sponsored 1998 definition. He argues that an inhibition of sexual desire is in many situations a healthy and functional response for women faced with stress, tiredness, or threatening patterns of behavior from their partners. "The danger of portraying sexual difficulties as a dysfunction is that it is likely to encourage doctors to prescribe drugs to change sexual function when the attention should be paid to other aspects of the woman's life. It's also likely to make women think they have a malfunction when they do not," he said during a telephone interview with RFW. In response, Laumann defends his use of the term "dysfunction" but concedes that many women among his 43% are "perfectly normal" and that a lot of their problems "arise out of perfectly reasonable responses of the human organism to challenges and stress."
 
New York University's clinical associate professor of psychiatry, Dr Leonore Tiefer, contends that the medical model itself is severely limited for dealing with problems of sexuality because of its mind-body split, biological reductionism, focus on diseases rather than people, and reliance on norms. She claims pharmacological research oversimplifyies the sexual difficulties of both men and women because it "promotes genital function as the centerpiece of sexuality and ignores everything else" 
 
Could this all be another ploy by the pharmaceutical company to come up with a disease to fit a drug they are working on and about to release? Exactly what it is! This happened with Viagra before it was released, it happened with other drugs in the past and will continue to happen as the drug companies come up with more drugs. Vioxx was removed but immediately thereafter a small blurb (Oct. 14, 2004) appeared in newspapers and on some TV news that Merck had a new arthritis medication in the works. So Arcoxia followed Vioxx yet is the same COX-2! Is it will be better than Vioxx? NO! Be sure and read the 4th paragraph... A few years from now we will hear the same danger as with the Vioxx and maybe worse... Just one example of marketing techniques used year after year...
 
How about the commercials, of the past, of premenstrual gals in the department store dressing rooms trying on clothes and the bloating they were experiencing and then it moved to the nasty oubursts and the term PMDD (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder)? The adds for Serafem coming out shortly after those ads appeared for a so-called PMDD disorder. Serafem being nothing more than the very dangerous antidepressant drug Prozac repackaged in lavender pink, marketed to women for PMDD. I like what the late Nicholas Regush, health investigative reporter's question in regards to the FDA approving Serafem. Were members of its advisory committee suffering emotionally from Pre-BS Affliction (PBSA) when they approved Sarafem/Prozac for PMDD?  I would like to add that they are still suffering from PBSA as this is an ongoing drug industry marketing ploy. You know the term BS, right? A more accurate diagnosis!
 
As early as two to five years prior to release, the occurrence of "informational" meetings and speeches spouting the latest diagnoses begin for the medical world. All set up to get a new classified disease and their drug paid for by insurance companies and recognized by the medical community. These meetings are published as "informational" by the news media. Informational? Like a fox in a chicken house...
 
Those meetings were all the forerunner of a new disease that shortly had a HCFA number for billing insurances. I watched it happen over and over and even attended a workshop or two paid for by the pharmaceutical company working on a new medication with a coined (drug marketing) disease/illness!
 
There are always a few people who see through their smoke screens but usually lose in the attempt to thwart the pharmaceutical industry's goal of billions of dollars in their pockets! Those thwarted are labeled as cracked or some such name...
 
Pay close attention to your diagnosis and prescription.
 

---