Tooth decay reversal?

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39654

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/end-fillings-sight-scientists-find-alzheimers-drug-makes-teeth/

https://futurism.com/scientists-have-discovered-this-drug-fixes-cavities-and-regrows-teeth/

Amazon Could Massively Disrupt How People Get Their Meds

There is almost nothing Amazon can’t do. From delivering nearly any item you can think of in two days to single-handedly reducing the price of certain Whole Foods’ products, Amazon has been a huge force for market innovation. And if not for the federal government’s interference, Amazon might have even been a leader in the drone delivery industry by now.
But according to recent gossip circulating around the business world, the online retail giant may soon be venturing into uncharted territory by entering the pharmaceutical business.
For several years, Dr. Josh Umbehr has been sending emails to Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos.

While these rumors are purely speculative for the time being, Amazon’s potential entry into the world of prescription drug care could be huge for consumers looking for alternatives to our country’s outdated, insufficient health care system. It would also be the realization of one doctor’s dream.
Prime for Prescriptions?
For several years, Dr. Josh Umbehr has been sending emails to Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos every other week. An admitted “fanboy,” of Bezos and his successful business endeavors, Umbehr believes Amazon has the potential to completely change the way consumers purchase prescription drugs.
In one of his biweekly emails, Umbehr wrote:

Amazon could work with small pharmacies across the country to provide a huge value to Prime customers, on a regular basis (with) short delivery times, not to mention the effect it would have on competition that overcharges immensely.

While these emails have become routine over the last few years, Umbehr hasn’t necessarily been holding his breath waiting for a reply. However, there was a small inkling of hope when he recently received a response from an employee of Amazon who implored him to submit a business proposal to the company.
After submitting his proposal he was told that if his idea was accepted, he would most likely not hear back from the company. Fully expecting to have to continue writing his biweekly emails, Umbehr was shocked when he received a detailed email in January, explaining that his proposal had been forwarded to Amazon’s business development team for further consideration.
By opting not to work with third-party insurance companies, Atlas MD has been able to dramatically cut medical costs for its patients.

By the time May had rolled around, it was reported that Amazon was actively looking for a general manager to place in charge of the company’s potential pharmaceutical branch. While it is still uncertain what Amazon’s plans may actually entail when it come to breaking into this multibillion dollar industry, something is definitely brewing.  And if Bezos has any doubts that this type of model could be successful, he need only ask Umbehr for advice.
A Different Approach
Dr. Umbehr has been leading the charge towards free market health care alternatives in the United States. Based in Wichita, Kansas, Dr. Umbehr, along with Dr. Doug Nunamaker, runs a direct-pay primary care health practice that does not accept insurance premiums.
By opting not to work with third-party insurance companies, Atlas MD has been able to dramatically cut medical costs for its patients. Instead of accepting an insurance copay like most physicians offices, patients pay a monthly flat fee for a membership subscription. These membership costs vary by age. For children, Atlas MD charges $10 a month. For adults, services range from $50-$75 a month. Senior citizens are charged the most at $100 a month.
For health care consumers who have purchased memberships, this allows them access to all the services provided at the Atlas MD office without having to worry about whether or not their insurance policies cover a procedure.
In addition to making the care and payment process easier to manage, Atlas MD also stresses the importance in using tech to communicate information to their patients. On its website, clients have access to numerous amounts of health information on their computer or mobile devices, allowing them to have more control over their personal health.
This revolutionary health care model hasn’t gone unnoticed either. Atlas MD has made headlines over the last several years not only because their concierge care model is so unique, but also because it works.
What Is Bezos up To?
It should shock no one that the most problematic obstacles standing in Amazon’s way are health insurers and government regulations.

In addition to looking for personnel to head up this potential pharmaceutical project, Amazon has also recently hired several professionals from the health care sector to offer feedback and advice for any future medical related projects.
Since this is all currently speculation, guessing is all anyone can really do when it comes to predicting Amazon’s next move. But according to some in the medical field, it would be in Amazon’s best interest to cater any future health-related endeavors to consumers willing to pay out of pocket for care. These are the same types of health care consumers who are attracted to Atlas MD.
Others weighing in on the issue have wondered if Amazon’s recent acquisition of Whole Foods provides some evidence to support the company's intentions of getting in on the pharmaceutical game. Stephen Buck, who co-founded “GOODRX,” a company that provides consumers with coupons for costly prescriptions, said, "The acquisition of Whole Foods makes entry into pharmacy much easier for Amazon. Amazon could use this retail footprint for consumers to pick up prescriptions." While Buck thinks that the 450 physical Whole Food locations provide an easy access point for health care consumers to pick up prescriptions, others are thinking bigger.
“Whole Foods creates an entry point to drug delivery,” analyst Morgan Stanley recently wrote. But whether the company chooses to have a pick up site or offer Prime delivery on certain prescriptions, or perhaps both, one thing is known for sure: Amazon is already selling prescriptions on its Japanese site. So Amazon moving into the health care world is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
Additionally, and again this could merely be a coincidence, Gabrielle Sulzberger, Whole Foods chairwoman, is also on the board of Teva Pharmaceuticals, a huge drug maker in Israel.
It should shock no one that the most problematic obstacles standing in Amazon’s way are health insurers and government regulations. As physicians like Umbehr already understand, third party health insurers often make the situation worse as it stifles the organic pricing process associated with demand for a certain product. It will be hard to compete for prices within a system that is already vastly distorted by third party insurance companies.
Likewise, the government has many restrictions in place for medications that require special requirements. In the instance of certain stimulants and opiates, delivery would not be an option as these require in-person pickups where the patient must provide government identification. But since Amazon hasn’t released any substantial information regarding its plans, there is really no telling what route they may take, if they take any at all.
Others who have chimed in on this new venture have insisted that there is no money to be made from the pharmacy business. Both CVS and Walgreens, two of the most well known pharmacies in the country, have been experiencing falling stock prices this years. And many in the field have said that this would be a risky move since there is not a whole lot of money to be made in the world of generic prescription drugs.
But one thing the public is no stranger to is Amazon’s willingness to take experimental risks in the world of online retail. So while there may be much working against its favor, there is still hope, especially from Umbehr that Amazon will take on the beast that is the pharmaceutical company.
And while we wait to see if and how Amazon plans to execute an online pharmacy, it is hard to imagine any apparatus that is less effective than the current government controlled system.

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. Brittany studied political science at Utah Valley University with a minor in Constitutional studies.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Look to Markets, Not the State, for Access to Contraceptives

The Trump Administration is getting a lot of criticism for its decision to rollback the Obamacare mandate that required employers to include contraceptive coverage in their company premiums. In addition to asking these companies to alter their current plans, it also demanded that oral contraception copays be brought down to zero dollars for insurance holders.
As these types of essential monthly costs can quickly add up, many women were pleased to be relieved of this burdensome expense. And while this has been convenient for many, it doesn’t make the mandate just. It also isn’t the best way to offer affordable birth control to more women.
Private companies are just that: private. They should not have their company guidelines dictated by state interference. Not to mention, altering insurance premiums for an entire company is not only time consuming for human resources, it also costs more money for the employer. These are funds that could have been used elsewhere, possibly even on increasing employee salaries. But this money must be provided for by the private company and not those responsible for crafting the policy.
But what is most important to understand is that this mandate creates obstacles for the market that in turn make birth control perpetually inaccessible to those who may not have access to insurance or who may have made the personal choice to be uncovered.
Asking the government to mandate access to a product is in no way liberating. 

The birth control coverage issue is one that is rarely met with anything but controversy. But as the country argues over whether employer contraception coverage should be mandated by law, the real issue gets ignored: access to birth control should be far easier than it is today and the government is preventing this from happening.
State Control, Not Liberation
Many proponents of the Obamacare birth control mandate assert that it gives women more control over their lives. To be sure, the advent of birth control was extremely empowering to women as it gave them control over family planning and thus, their own futures for the first time in history.
Unfortunately, asking the government to mandate access to a product is in no way liberating. In fact, it is the epitome of control.
There is virtually no logical reason to explain why birth control is so difficult to obtain today.
If I have a minor headache or a muscle ache, I have the ability to go to my local drugstore and choose from a variety of products all aimed at making me feel better.
And while these products are relatively safe, there will always be a risk of consumers misusing or abusing even something as seemingly harmless as Tylenol. Knowing this, it seems odd that something as commonly used as birth control is still only available to women through state intervention.
Thanks to the FDA approval process and state control over prescription drugs, getting birth control is as strenuous as obtaining other medications with much harsher and potentially dangerous side effects.
Currently, women must find a doctor, rearrange their busy schedules to visit the doctor, and then sit through a rather intrusive line of questioning before they are handed a piece of paper that essentially gives them the state’s permission to use contraception.
While the government is taking its precious time, the market has found a way to make birth control more accessible.

This is similar to the process required for patients seeking antidepressant or psychotropic drugs which both come with a plethora of safety precautions and risks. Birth control is not only safer, it already fits the FDA’s own benchmarks for being sold over the counter. Yet, it has been routinely prevented from being sold over the counter.
It should also be highlighted that in countries where oral contraception is available over the counter, there have been no reported increases in negative health-related incidents.
The Over-The-Counter Solution
By allowing oral contraception to be sold over the counter, the corresponding costs would be free from the price distortion that always accompanies third-party insurance companies.
When you go to the store to purchase Advil, you don’t have to wonder about how much you will end up paying out of pocket. The price is listed on or near the product and you know exactly what you will pay when you reach the register. This helps keeps prices low as consumers understand when a product’s price is unnecessarily high, especially when they are able to do a side-by-side comparison to other similar products in the aisle.
When you are given a prescription for birth control from a doctor, you are given access only to that prescription and any generic version of that specific chemical compound. You only know what that one particular product will cost, which puts the consumer at a disadvantage since they cannot compare with other products on the market. A Google search can get you an idea of the general cost, but since this does not factor in individual insurance premiums, it becomes a giant guessing game.
In addition to cost, selling contraception over the counter would make it much easier for women to gain physical access to it. Instead of having to worry about getting to a pharmacy in between work and other responsibilities, women could go to any drug store, at any time and select their brand of choice. This would also help prevent the common issue of missing doses between contraceptive packs because consumers would have easier access that is not based on whether or not they have a prescription.  
The movement to move birth control from a prescription drug to an over the counter drug has been growing over the last decade. However, it is the government and specifically the FDA that is dragging its heels on making this a reality.
In January, it was announced that Ibis Reproductive Health, a nonprofit organization had joined forces with the European company, HRA Pharma to further the efforts to make oral contraception available over the counter. But even though this sentiment is spreading, thanks to lengthy government approval processes, this is unlikely to happen within the United States anytime soon.
So long as demand exists, free enterprise will always find a way. 

But thankfully, while the government is taking its precious time, the market has found a way to make birth control more accessible to more woman at an affordable cost. And they have done so in spite of the government.
Uber for Birth Control
The market is a resilient force. So long as demand exists, free enterprise will always find a way. Since its creation, contraception has been a product for which there is always high demand. But now, the sharing economy model is making it easier for women to bypass the traditional methods of gaining a prescription, without ever having to leave their homes.
There is almost nothing the sharing economy cannot provide for the consumer. From inexpensive rides and cheap short-term lodging alternatives to food delivery and even puppies on demand, this organic market force has become a huge source of convenience in our lives.
Over the last few years, and thanks to the telemedicine laws that allow doctors to visit with patients online, the sharing economy has expanded into the health sector, specifically contraception.
The San Francisco-based startup Nurx has been doing its best to make oral contraceptives more accessible for female consumers. The startup works by providing users with a birth control consultation online. After filling out the relevant health-related questionnaire on the site, consumers can either choose from a list of available brands or let the doctor choose for them based on their medical history.
For those without insurance, Nurx waives the consultation fee and provides its birth control options for just $15 a month. But its services do not end there. After the prescription has been written by a Nurx affiliated doctor, a three-month supply is then delivered to the consumer's door within a day.
Under the Obamacare mandate, only those with insurance coverage were given the $0 copay for oral contraceptives. For those without insurance, one month of birth control can cost an obscene amount of money even reaching triple digits. But thanks to Nurx, uninsured women have options.
Nurx co-founder and attorney Hans Gangeskar commented:

It's absolutely ridiculous the way the system works. We absolutely believe oral contraceptives should be available over the counter. This is one step on the way."

Unfortunately, telemedicine laws vary from state to state, which precludes many from taking part in these market alternatives. But this model is catching on and while it isn’t perfect, it is still a major disrupter when it comes to shaking up the up the way contraceptives are distributed to patients.
The issue of access to birth control is important. But unfortunately, many people can only fathom solutions that fit within the framework of our current state-dominated system, instead of creating new and potentially revolutionary market alternatives. This usually means utilizing government authority to reach a desired end. But as Nurx is demonstrating, there are better options available now. Just imagine how much better these alternatives would be if the state wasn’t involved at all.
Women should absolutely have easier and more affordable access to birth control, but it should not come from a state mandate. The market is more than capable of dealing with the contraception issue and is doing so in a way that supports the female consumer without hurting other individuals or forcing private companies to pay for something against their will.

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. Brittany studied political science at Utah Valley University with a minor in Constitutional studies.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

My comment in short:
It's not an illness, it's not a risk, it is a choice.

Glyphosate et cancer: donner un sens aux faits

Glyphosate et cancer: donner un sens aux faits

“Nous ne sommes savants que de la science présente”, Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, Essais, 1580.

La carcinogénicité des xénobiotiques relève de la compréhension de l’incertitude. Établir des faits expérimentaux ou d’observation, utiliser des moyens fiables de les interpréter notamment les probabilités pour déterminer l’absence ou l’existence de liens de cause à effet résume le but de la science. Les insectes, les animaux en particulier les oiseaux, les micro-organismes et les mauvaises herbes détruisent ou consomment entre 20 et 48 % de la production annuelle agricole. C'est évidemment considérable. Le glyphosate est utilisé comme biocide végétal. Il est moins toxique que les produits chimiques courants tels que l'aspirine, avec une DL50 chez le rat supérieure à 5 g par kg-1 (http://www.msal.gob.ar/agroquimicos/pdf/Williams-et-al-2000.pdf) mais est il cancérigène?

Le risque de cancer lié au glyphosate chez l’homme

Les biocides doivent être toxiques pour la cible mais ne pas provoquer de cancer chez l’humain, agriculteur, utilisateur ou consommateur d’aliments traités. Les études animales sont seulement des signaux de risque car chez les rongeurs (rats et souris sont les plus utilisés) le risque de cancer peut être majoré ou au contraire réduit par rapport à l’humain (http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v5/n10/full/nrc1715.html). Peu d’agents carcinogènes pour les rongeurs ont été établis comme étant clairement carcinogènes pour les humains et vice versa. C’est pourquoi les études humaines sont essentielles. Le glyphosate a été évalué comme les autres pesticides dans le cadre de l’Agricultural Health Study (AHS) depuis les années 1990 sur environ 89000 agriculteurs et leurs familles de l’Iowa et de la Caroline du nord. Les autres pays gros utilisateurs de pesticides en Europe non jamais conduit de telles études alors qu'il existe des bases de données dans les systèmes de soins européens qui permettrait certainement d’importer des données de grande qualité sur ce sujet. Les séries observationnelles de l’AHS, dont les données sont disponibles pour les chercheurs du monde entier (https://aghealth.nih.gov/collaboration/index.html), n’ont jamais démontré qu’il existât une augmentation du risque de cancer avec l’utilisation du glyphosate chez les agriculteurs, personnes les plus exposées. Une autre évaluation globale des pesticides dans l’AHS a été réalisée en 2010 et à nouveau le glyphosate a été mis hors de cause concernant le risque de cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920083/). Les études concernant les personnes indirectement exposées (familles d’agriculteurs ou d’ouvriers de production) ou les consommateurs n’ont pas mis en évidence d’augmentation de risque. La FAO et l’OMS en 2015 concluent:

“Compte tenu de l'absence de potentiel cancérigène chez les rongeurs à des doses significatives pour l'homme et de l’absence de génotoxicité par voie orale chez les mammifères et compte tenu des preuves épidémiologiques des expositions professionnelles, la réunion a conclu que le glyphosate est peu susceptible de poser un risque cancérigène pour les humains par ingestion alimentaire” (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5693e.pdf). Devant ces résultats et d’autres études expérimentales l’IARC a annoncé en Juin 2015 que le glyphosate est probablement cancérigène pour les humains (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8). K. Guyton, toxicologue et un des auteurs de l'étude, a déclaré: «Dans le cas du glyphosate, parce que la preuve chez les animaux de laboratoire était suffisante et que la preuve chez l'homme était limitée, cela le place dans le groupe 2A". Une des études souvent citée à propos du glyphosate (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767) démontre une action génotoxique faible et transitoire chez les travailleurs agricoles mais sans qu’un lien de causalité puisse être établi. L’EFSA a un avis différent (https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/4302_glyphosate_complementary.pdf) considérant que chez l’humain le risque observé de cancer induit par le glyphosate est très faible et que les liens de causalité sont inexistants.

Les avis contradictoires des agences sont ils le signe d’un risque caché?

Il n’y a en réalité pas de contradiction entre ces deux avis, si l’on considère les missions et les critères retenus par l’IARC d’un côté et les agences européennes et américaine de l’autre. Tout d’abord les agences en question ne font pas de recherche. La première a la responsabilité d'identifier un risque potentiel de cancer sans le quantifier mais en établissant une échelle de vraisemblance; les autres ont la responsabilité de définir quel est le risque réel pris par la population. Cette question de la différence entre le risque absolu en laboratoire ou dans des études limitées et le risque réel dans la vie humaine est essentielle. Par exemple le café a été réévalué par l’IARC en juin 2016 alors qu’il était considéré précédemment comme cancérigène (https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2016/pdfs/pr244_E.pdf).

Dans le cas du Glyphosate et contrairement à d’autres pesticides il n’existe aujourd'hui que des suspicions concernant un type particulier de cancer (les lymphomes non hodgkiniens) et ces suspicions n'ont jamais été prouvées par les meilleures études dont nous disposons. Le Glyphosate comme tous les biocides est sous surveillance toutefois son bénéfice-risque est certainement un des meilleurs de tous les herbicides issus de la chimie organique. C'est d'ailleurs une des raisons pour lesquelles il est le plus utilisé.

La société civile a besoin d’une recherche de qualité et de données ouvertes

Dès lors que la recherche publique et académique est faible, il n'est pas étonnant que la médiatisation soit irrationnelle voire hystérique et que des groupes de pression s’en emparent pour faire avancer leur cause (https://www.generations-futures.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/GLYPHOSATE_1_0604172.pdf) (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-europe-glyphosate-idUSKBN17F0S1). C’est ce que l’on observe. Un des arguments des opposants aux pesticides est bien évidemment le principe de précaution. Il ne peut y avoir de principe de précaution universel contre toute incertitude née de l’action humaine en général. Une telle approche condamnerait toute évolution économique, scientifique et in fine pourrait entraîner des crises graves dans des populations où l’abondance alimentaire n'est pas la règle.

A la vérité nous sommes, concernant le glyphosate en face de ce que l’on appelle la suspicion d’un faible risque concernant un cancer particulier, risque qui n’est pas observé dans les cohortes les plus importantes. La meilleure réponse à l'incertitude sur les faibles risques c'est bien évidemment l’innovation. L’innovation organisationnelle qui permet de recueillir des données exhaustives et l’innovation fondamentale qui permet de tracer l’action cellulaire des biocides chez l’humain en exposition réelle (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589117/).

-->

N'oublions pas que s'il y a aujourd'hui des molécules particulièrement surveillées ce sont les pesticides. La pollution environnementale est pourtant riche d'un grand nombre d’autres molécules dont la présence est parfois insoupçonnée dans certains milieux ce qui entraîne des biais importants. Pour un consommateur d'aliments le glyphosate ne représente pas un risque significatif de cancer à la différence des causes reconnues que sont le tabac, l’alcool, les radiations, les virus, l’obésité, les traitements hormonaux, l’inflammation chronique et le manque d'exercice. Pour les carcinogènes chimiques il est préférable de se concentrer sur les carcinogènes certains dont la liste fait l’objet d’un consensus (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html).



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glyphosate-cancer-data-specialreport/special-report-cancer-agency-left-in-the-dark-over-glyphosate-evidence-idUSKBN1951VZ?utm_campaign=Storylift+-+1LPNZ-O5&utm_source=Storylift&utm_medium=1LPNZ-O5&utm_content=A

About ACL in athletes

http://www.jospt.org/doi/abs/10.2519/jospt.2017.7227?platform=hootsuite&code=jospt-site

Richard H. Thaler NP

http://www.businessinsider.fr/richard-thaler-couts-irrecuperables

Légitime défense en France

http://resistancerepublicaine.eu/2017/10/08/servian-honte-au-procureur-yvon-calmet-qui-accuse-la-victime-daniel-malgouyres-dhomicide-volontaire/

Is healthcare truly complicated?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/upshot/why-health-care-policy-is-so-hard.html


http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.fr/2017/09/health-care-policy-isnt-so-hard.html


My opinion?
Rather Cochrane

France and Econ freedom

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/map?page=map&year=2015

Trump and healthcare

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/health-care/

Vaccins

"Rappelez-vous pour en discuter avec un gauchiste invétéré que le vaccin DTP vaut 5,70 € et que de mémoire le vaccin de l'hépatite B 18 €. Les marges sur les vaccins sont tellement faibles que beaucoup de labos abandonnent ou n'investissent plus. C'est trop compliqué et trop risqué.


Mes amis ne vous épuisez pas, Madame Buzin ne fait pas cela pour une raison scientifique. C'est uniquement pour échapper à la sentence du conseil d'État qui lui a donné six mois, jusqu'au 8 août pour trouver des producteurs de vaccins faisant en sorte par leur offre que l'obligation soit opposable aux Français.
Comme les états par leurs régulation leurs tarifs et l'anarchie qui règne dans les calendriers vaccinaux en Europe ont désorganisé la production de vaccins, les labos produisent plutôt des hexavalent ou des vaccins contenant les 11 ou 12 vaccinations majeures. Dans ces conditions rendre obligatoire 11 vaccins c'est du même coup rendre l'obligation opposable aux Français puisqu'il existe sur le marché des vaccins qui répondent à cette obligation.



Bref, un bon gros coup de capitalisme de connivence ! 


Pas vraiment, c'est tout simplement un coup de pur étatisme. Les labos en ont assez de devoir produire à des tarifs très bas, pour les calendriers complètement hétérogènes, avec des recommandations et des législations totalement différentes les unes des autres. Et par-dessus tout le conseil d'État est venu se mêler de cette affaire.
Il faut arrêter avec cette présomption d'omniscience de la part de l'État.
La vaccination est une affaire médicale.
Bien évidemment il y a des questions de santé publique dans une collectivité alors traitons les de manière équitable et parlons des tuberculose résistante du aux centaines de milliers de migrants qui arrivent en Europe autant que de la rougeole qui fait résurgence ici et là.
L'État doit émettre et peut émettre des recommandations, mais plus ils émettent d'obligations moins elles sont respectées.
Enfin et surtout une bonne partie de la suspicion vis-à-vis des vaccinations disparaîtra quand nous aurons accès par open data aux complications réelle des vaccins qu' enregistre la sécurité sociale. Pour l'instant personne ne peut y accéder sauf la secu.
Toute cette omerta qui concerne le système de soins et pas uniquement les complications des vaccins nourri le complotisme le plus divers.
Il est absolument surprenant que nous n'ayons pas accès aux complications des traitements et en particulier les infections nosocomiales En chiffre absolu établissement par un établissement. Il est très étonnant que nous n'ayons pas accès au nombre d'indemnités journalières pour toute localisation géographique sur le territoire et les DOM-TOM. Etc. etc.


https://leprixdelavie.medecinsdumonde.org/fr-FR/landing/22c8abff9fd9c39ffec2b296c097c566

C'est une honte d'écrire cela. Il y a déjà de nombreuses ruptures en France car l'État a imposé des prix pour certains médicaments qui sont très bas et qui ne permettent pas de maintenir les chaînes de production. Nous avons aussi un problème avec les vaccins notamment l'hépatite B qui n'est plus disponible car le prix a été fixé trop bas et qu'une chaîne de production de vaccins c'est très compliqué.
En réalité c'est un peu comme la consultation à 25 €. Vous n'en trouverez plus. C'est un peu comme au Venezuela, en ne payant pas les factures les hôpitaux n'ont même plus de quoi soigner. Cette idéologie collectiviste est mortifère. Elle a déjà fait beaucoup plusque 100 millions de morts.

Pour l'hépatite B le problème est ailleurs
GSK a racheté TOUS les brevets de l'hépatite B et dans un souci de profit réserve ce vaccin aux associations aux vaccins obligatoires"

Why Europeans were not not black and the beginning of humanity: an alternative theory og human evolution

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

Amazing

Facts are facts but theories are falsifiable

Just to point out the fall of quality in french journalism...

https://www.bibamagazine.fr/lifestyle/sante/le-regime-paleo-c-est-quoi-71366

https://www.culture-generale.fr/divers/16370-alimentation-cro-magnon

ESSURE: Nickel versus hormones mais surtout dispositif intra-tubaire...

http://www.lemonde.fr/sante/article/2017/07/08/soupcons-autour-des-implants-contraceptifs-essure_5157668_1651302.html

https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/EssurePermanentBirthControl/ucm452250.htm