H1N1 Vaccine Shot

Seven turns 4

Video: Kid pranks mom. Hillarious!!!

Bombshell Interview Reveals DNA Fragments Discovered 6 Months After Vaccination

Bombshell Interview Reveals DNA Fragments Discovered 6 Months After Vaccination

Interview With Norma Erickson, President, SaneVax, Inc. Catherine J. Frompovich,
Contributor Activist Post

Sin Hang Lee, MD, is a medical practitioner historically qualified to practice medicine in the People’s Republic of China, the District of Columbia, New York State, and the State of Connecticut in the USA, plus in Canada and British Commonwealth countries via his registration with the General Medical Council of the UK. Currently Dr. Lee holds a medical license in the State of Connecticut, USA.

Dr. Lee has staff privileges at the Milford Hospital in Milford, Connecticut. He was certified by the American Board of Pathology in anatomical pathology (1966); certified in general pathology by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (1966); and granted the F.R.C.P. degree by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (1966). Dr. Lee has practiced diagnostic pathology in Canada and the USA continuously since 1966 with a special interest in developing new technologies in laboratory medicine. His most recent research is the use of low temperature (LoTemp®) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and direct automated Sanger DNA sequencing to increase the sensitivity and specificity of the molecular diagnosis of infectious diseases.


Using Dr. Lee’s new methods, PCR can detect HPV L1 gene DNA bound to nanoparticles; it can detect HPV L1 gene DNA of vaccine origin present in human blood and tissue samples.

Norma, given the above professional bio about Dr. Lee, one has to assume he is more than qualified to discuss his findings with regard to the Jasmine Renata case in New Zealand. I understand Dr. Lee was one of numerous experts and witnesses to testify at the recent (August 9, 2012) two-day inquest held to determine the cause of death, which could not be determined officially by autopsy. This case has gathered local interest and coverage. I understand the New Zealand press covered the event in real-time and reported on it. Here are two links to that coverage. The Dominion Post Ostago Daily Times Since we cannot discuss the inquest until the coroner releases that information, let’s talk about some of what we know. Dr. Lee tested 16 samples of Gardasil® in use from 9 countries, each with a different lot number. The lot numbers of the 5 New Zealand samples, the cities of origin and the HPV genotypes of the L1 gene DNA found in each sample are listed below: Lot # Country/Source Results NL01490 New Zealand, Tauranga HPV-18HPV-16 NK16180 New Zealand, Northland HPV-18HPV-16 NK00140 New Zealand, Tauranga HPV-11HPV-18HPV-16 NM08120 New Zealand, Christchurch HPV-11HPV-18HPV-16 NL13560 New Zealand, Wellington HPV-11HPV-18HPV-16 There seems to be a potential problem that falls back on to the Renata case insofar as Dr. Lee’s findings in Jasmine’s blood and spleen tissue and the above findings. Can you please tell us about that?

Have you ever wondered why the people who always get vaccinated are the same people who always get sick?

In the US, if you have children, you are more than likely already aware of the official U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Immunization Schedules," which today recommend an astounding 29 vaccines be given between birth and six years of age, including yearly flu shots, as well as another five to 16 vaccines between ages seven and 18 (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). But a recent investigative report compiled by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., uncovers more than 30 years of hidden government documents exposing these vaccine schedules as a complete hoax, not to mention the fraud of the vaccines themselves to provide any real protection against disease.

Though her paper focuses primarily on the British health system's elaborate cover-up of the dirty truth about its own national vaccination program, the tenets of the study's findings still apply to vaccination schedules in general, which are typically designed for the purpose of serving corporate interests rather than public health. Government authorities, it turns out, in an ongoing bid to satisfy the private goals of the vaccine industry, have deliberately covered up pertinent information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines from parents in order to maintain a high rate of vaccination compliance. And in the process, they have put countless millions of children at risk of serious side effects and death.

Hiding the truth and covering up data to encourage vaccine compliance

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic's full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Read Full Report Here 

http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.html#ixzz2HkxHtj2T

Why the Flu Vaccine Doesn't Work

By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is looking at whether or not the flu vaccine is effective. Preliminary results indicate you'll get just as sick (with colds, flu, flu-like illnesses) if you got the vaccine than if you didn't. Why doesn't the vaccine work? In order to understand the answer, you'll need to understand some specifics about the flu vaccine and a bit about how immunity works.

Flu Vaccine Facts
There is no single virus that causes the flu; there is no one flu vaccine that protects against all of them. A flu vaccine is designed to confer immunity against the strains of flu that are expected to be most common and most serious. The vaccine is a sort of one-size-fits-all solution, even though there are more types of flu than covered by the vaccine and the flu types vary according to region. It takes time to produce vaccines, so a new vaccine can't be instantly produced when a new type of flu starts to cause problems.

The Vaccine and Immunity
The flu vaccine gives your body parts of inactivated flu viruses. These virus parts correspond to parts of proteins floating around in your body. When the virus part contacts a chemical 'match', it stimulates the body to produce the cells and antibodies that can remove this particular intruder. Antibodies are proteins that float in body fluids and can bind to specific chemical markers. When an antibody binds to a substance, it essentially marks it for destruction by other cells. However, an antibody for one type of flu won't necessarily bind to a virus part from another type of flu. You don't get protection against other viruses. A flu vaccine can only stimulate your immune system to protect you against the viruses in the
vaccine, with some lesser protection against very similar ones.

Incomplete Protection Against Intended Targets

Full Report Here

EXPERTS are questioning whether diet drinks could raise depression risk

EXPERTS are questioning whether diet drinks could raise depression risk, after a large study has found a link.

The US research in more than 250,000 people found depression was more common among frequent consumers of artificially sweetened beverages.

The work, which will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's annual meeting, did not look at the cause for this link.

Drinking coffee was linked with a lower risk of depression.

People who drank four cups a day were 10% less likely to be diagnosed with depression during the 10-year study period than those who drank no coffee.

But those who drank four cans or glasses of diet fizzy drinks or artificially sweetened juice a day increased their risk of depression by about a third.

Lead researcher Dr Honglei Chen, of the National Institutes of Health in North Carolina, said: "Our research suggests that cutting out or down on sweetened diet drinks or replacing them with unsweetened coffee may naturally help lower your depression risk."

But he said more studies were needed to explore this.

There are many other factors that may be involved.

And the findings - in people in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and living in the US - might not apply to other populations.

The alleged safety of sweeteners, like aspartame, has been 'extensively' tested by scientists and is 'assured by regulators.'

Gaynor Bussell, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "Sweeteners used to be called 'artificial' sweeteners and unfortunately the term 'artificial' has evoked suspicion. As a result, it is said that sweeteners have been very widely 'tested and reviewed for safety' (not) and the ones on the market have an excellent safety track record. (not and not)

Read here why not

"However, the studies on them continue and this one has thrown up a possibly link - not a cause and effect - with depression."

She said the study was a "one-off" and did not mean that sweeteners caused depression.

"For a start, people who suffer from depression may latch on to the idea that it is their sweetened beverages that caused it and so add a bias to their reporting of past intake, especially as 'soda' in the US is demonised even more than in the UK. Also, it may be that drinking 'diet' drinks is a marker for obesity or diabetes which in themselves can cause depression.

"Non-calorific sweeteners can play a useful role in the diets of those trying to lose weight and diabetics and it is certainly not advocated that people should replace their diet sodas with more coffee."

Beth Murphy, at the mental health charity Mind, said: "We would urge anyone who is affected by depression to follow the advice of their GP or other medical professional in regards to their treatment."

- BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20943509

4 minute video - shows 200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics

This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.

The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water.  Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research:

• “The questionable contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century“. McKinlay JB, McKinlay SM, Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer; 55(3): 405-28.

• “Symposium: Accomplishments in Child Nutrition during the 20th Century.  Infant Mortality in the 20th Century, Dramatic but Uneven Progress” Myron E. Wegman School of Public Health, University of Michigan: J. Nutr. 131: 401S–408S, 2001.

 Full Report

SourSop or hongmowlaulin

The 5 Most Repeated Health Myths That Medical Doctors Have No Intention on Abandoning

There are more health myths propagated by the media and conventional medicine today than there ever have been throughout history. In large part, this is due to a lack of public education and a broadening of the corporate powers who promote myths to achieve very specific and malicious goals all in the name of profit.

Myth #1
Conventional medicine and the healthcare system helps sick people.

Perhaps the biggest health myth today is the public’s misconception that mainstream medicine and the healthcare system helps sick people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The freedom of people to choose natural healing, alternative medicine and methods of disease prevention could soon be threatened by corporate lobbyists who will do anything to protect their wealth at the expense of your health.

Promoters of conventional medicine claim that all the drug studies, approvals, surgical procedures, all other treatments are based on scientific evidence. But is it really science? What passes for “science” today is a collection of health myths, half-truths, intellectual dishonesty and fraudulent reporting to help serve higher interests. 

90 percent of all diseases (cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, etc.) are easily preventable through diet, nutrition, sunlight and exercise. None of these solutions are ever promoted by conventional medicine because they make no money.

No pharmaceuticals actually cure or resolve the underlying causes of disease. Even “successful” drugs only manage symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other physiological functions that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

There is no financial incentive for anyone in today’s system of medicine (drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc.) to actually make patients well. Profits are found in continued sickness, not wellness or prevention.

Almost all the “prevention” programs you see today (such as free mammograms or other screening programs) are nothing more than patient recruitment schemes designed to increase revenue and sickness. They use free screenings to scare people into agreeing to unnecessary treatments that only lead to further disease. Mammography is a very good example. Chemotherapy is another.

Nobody has any interest in your health except you. No corporation, no doctor, and no government has any desire to actually make you well. This has served the short-term financial interests of higher powers in the west very well. The only healthy, aware, critically thinking individuals are all 100% free of pharmaceuticals and processed foods.

MYTH #2
Vaccines prevent diseases and increase immunity.

The term “immunization”, often substituted for vaccination, is false and should be legally challenged. Medical research has well established that the direct injection of foreign proteins and other toxic material (particularly known immune-sensitising poisons such as mercury) makes the recipient more, not less, easily affected by what he/she encounters in the future. This means they do the opposite of immunize, commonly even preventing immunity from developing after natural exposure.

The actual frequency of health problems has been estimated by authorities to be possibly up to 100 times, or more, greater than that reported by government agencies. That difference is due to the lack of enforcement or incentive for doctors to report adverse effects. With the anti-vaccination movements now exposing the truth on the internet, the medical community is now on high alert, defending their claims and being told by vaccine manufacturers that they must never let their patients (or parents) think that the risks could outweigh the benefits, when in reality, it is precisely the opposite that is true.

The benefit risk ratio is an important decision in anyone deciding whether to vaccinate or not. Contrary to popular belief and marketing, childhood diseases in a developed country are not as dangerous as we are led to believe. Catching a particular disease does not mean you will die from it. Vaccines were actually introduced at a time when diseases had already declined to a low risk level. This fact is proven, scientifically.

The main advances in combating disease over the last 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water…not vaccines. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research which prove that vaccine did not save us.

All vaccines contain sterility agents, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, and carcinogenic compounds. Some examples include formaldehyde, a carcinogen found in almost every vaccine, neurotoxins such asmonosodium glutamate, potassium chloride, thimerosal, sterility agents such as Triton X-100, octoxynol-10, polysorbate 80, and immuntoxins such as neomycin, monobasic potassium phosphate,sodium deoxycholate to name a few of many.

It is no coincidence that the more educated you are, the less chance you will vaccinate which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don’t vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed. Those who become fully informed of the dangers of vaccines never see them in the same light again, as their motives then become clear.

MYTH #3

We must all focus on lowering bad cholesterol.

Perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States, is the misuse of an invented term “bad cholesterol” by the media and medical community. Moreover, a scientifically-naive public has been conned into a fraudulent correlation between elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause CVD. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

We have become a culture so obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat that many health experts are now questioning the consequences. Could we really maintain a dietary lifestyle that was so foreign to many of our ancestral populations without any ill effects on our health? Many researchers are now concluding that the answer to that question is “NO.” Current data is now suggesting that lower cholesterol levels predate the development of cancer.

The ‘noddy-science’ offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help ‘reduce cholesterol’. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a ‘typical ordinary’ product might cost. But is this apparent ‘blanket need’ to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the ‘transporters’ (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body’s delivery logistics to work effectively.

Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being ‘delivered’ around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

MYTH #4

Medical screening and treatments prevent death.

Even though the medical community advocates for regular screenings for those with illnesses, they may bring little benefit and may actually pose harm to your health. This applies to almost every type of medical screening for cancer and several other diseases. Medical screening carries an immense risk in itself, not only due to the damage inflicted by screening techniques on the human body, but by the very nature of medical follow-up protocols. These protocols usually encourage patients to enter deeper into more invasive techniques, which further cripple health and lead to a very high percentage of fatalities.

In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

A prostate (PSA) blood test looks for prostate-specific antigen, a protein produced by the prostate gland. High levels are supposedly associated with prostate cancer. The problem is that the association isn’t always correct, and when it is, the prostate cancer isn’t necessarily deadly. Only about 3 percent of all men die from prostate cancer. The PSA test usually leads to overdiagnosis — biopsies and treatment in which the side effects are impotence and incontinence. Repeated biopsies may spread cancer cells into the track formed by the needle, or by spilling cancerous cells directly into the bloodstream or lympathic system.

News coverage of many diseases focus too much on treatments and not enough on prevention, a trend that could prove risky in the long run for most people who don’t understand how to take care of their health.

The biggest single type of story we usually hear about on the news involves treatment, and narratives lend themselves much better to that kind of story. Stories about prevention, about people exercising and eating right, just don’t make great copy.

If our current treatment approach to health continues, hundreds of years from now, mankind may look back at today’s “modern medicine” and think: “How could they have been so primitive in ideology and so wrong? What lack of humanitarianism in government allowed the medical industries to kill people with economically driven false beliefs and ideas? Why didn’t government stop them? Who were the people in charge of protecting those citizens?

Preventive education demands increased funding for research into new dietary, physical activity, behavioural, socioeconomic, environmental and medical approaches for the prevention of chronic disease. Children who grow into teenagers and then adults require more accountability for their own well-being through health conscious decisions which are motivated by proper practical and theoretical applications. They need to know that treatment modalities and pharmaceutical applications may not save their health in the future. Substantial political and financial contributions are also imperative to invest in prevention more effectively to regulate revisions and mandate policies which affect the governing bodies of health and education. Any procrastination or failure to resolve these matters in the next decade will only lead to the further deterioration of human health and healthcare systems. Proper leadership and effective communication regarding these preventive measures may still reverse screening/treatment trends and consequently reverse this thinking to ultimately promote a healthier aging population.

MYTH #5

Fluoride prevents tooth decay.

Water fluoridation is a hoax. Drinking any amount of fluoride is dangerous to your health and has NEVER been proven to prevent tooth decay. It’s actually the biggest scientific fraud ever to be promoted by national and international Governments. Fluoride has been linked to osteoporosis, cancer, auto-immune diseases, and even very small concentrations can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%.

The fluoride added to our water is a waste product of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer processing. And it’s not even calcium fluoride that appears naturally in water, but sodium fluoride, which is a whole different thing–and loaded with bad news.

In fact, sodium fluoride has no good news. Except for a few suspect reports by the people selling the stuff, study after research study proves that sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth, and it does a number on our bones. And on other body parts, too, including our thyroid gland.

- Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.

- Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women.

- Infertility in women was found to increase with water fluoridation. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and 49, and increasing fluoride levels.

- Fluoride has never been found to effectively reducing tooth decay by any notable margin. No causation or even correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries in any study.

- Fluoride also attacks the pineal gland. The pineal controls our inner clock, provides good sleep, works with our adrenal glands to handle stress, keeps the thymus gland fed and cared for, and communicates 24/7 with the rest of the endocrine system about how things are going. Fluoride calcifies our pineal gland into a non-functioning rock.

- The government classifies sodium fluoride as environmentally hazardous waste. Anybody handling it must wear HazMat protective gear. Dumping it into rivers is a crime.

Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

It seems that the healthiest people on the planet right now are those that have deviated from the norms of conventional medical quackery, and have migrated towards natural health. The proof is in the pudding. Find the healthiest 5 people you know and you’ll find they typically don’t subscribe to the health myths promoted by mainstream medicine. Your longevity and aging gracefully depends on it.

About the Author

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Malaysian journalism has lost its seat of nobility and honor because of one-sided reporting

No media organization should ever publish untruths or lies. On top of that, no media organization can, after doing it, claim justification by saying it had no time to check its facts.

Not checking facts before publication is a cardinal sin in journalism. And no self-respecting journalist or media could absolve themselves by saying they did not have the “luxury of time”.

If the truth cannot be verified, the report should not be published. That’s the first principle of journalism. “When in doubt, leave it out” is the mantra of responsible media editors. It is the responsibility of a media organization to tell the truth, not spread untruths to the public.

The media companies in Malaysia are mostly owned by parties in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

Among the influential newspapers, Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, Harian Metro and the New Straits Times are owned by Umno, while The Star is owned by the MCA, and Tamil Nesan and Makkal Osai belong to MIC stalwarts.

Media Prima, which controls TV stations: 8TV, ntv7, TV3 and TV9 and three radio stations, is also owned by Umno.

This means that with BN being in government and controlling the State-owned RTM, the television medium is virtually monopolized by the ruling coalition.

The upshot of all this, as we have experienced over the decades, has been extremely unhealthy. Political coverage has been biased towards the ruling party and unfavorable towards the Opposition. News that would embarrass the Government or make it look incompetent is blocked from dissemination.

In total, the ruling coalition has been able to indoctrinate the masses with its propaganda to a frightening extent. One manifestation of its effects is the inability of some Malaysians to differentiate between “government” and “party” or to believe that BN is corrupt or abuses its powers.

Full Story By Kee Thuan Chye  
http://www.malaysiandigest.com/opinion/212571-theres-no-excuse-for-not-reporting-the-truth.html

The Loaded Diaper

Doctors Make A Fast Buck Selling Big Pharma Drugs

By Pauline Wong / theSun

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/578716

MALAYSIA: Unscrupulous doctors and clinic operators are making a fast buck by reselling to third parties brand-name drugs sold to them at preferential prices by pharmaceutical companies.

This racket arises from a practice by some drug companies to sell certain products either exclusively to doctors or at much higher prices to pharmacies.

Because doctors are getting such drugs at much lower prices, some tend to order more than they dispense to their own patients, and sell off the excess to middlemen for a neat profit.

The middlemen or runners, who are usually former pharmaceutical tradesmen, will buy specific prescription medication from doctors to resell to pharmacies at profits as high as 20%.

End-users who buy such drugs from the pharmacies will end up paying more as the shops will also need to chalk up a profit.

Some of these drugs include medication for heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes.

A former chief pharmacist at a public hospital, who wished to be known only as Gan, alleged that the practice of drug companies selling drugs to doctors at lower prices has led to profiteering.

Gan said "excess" stock, bought by doctors at special discounts, often fall into the hands of middlemen, who then resell it to pharmacies.

Smaller, stand-alone pharmacies (community pharmacies) often buy from runners as the price is still lower than purchasing directly from the drug company.

"If these pharmacies buy only directly from the company, they will not be able to sell it to customers at a competitive price," he added.

He also lamented that community pharmacies which do not buy these "cheaper drugs" will be accused by their customers of overcharging.

Gan said the racket denies the public fair and equitable access to drugs, at more affordable prices, since prices of drugs, especially innovator (brand-name) drugs, vary widely.

"There needs to be a call for 'best price for all', and for drug companies to sell medicines at a standard price to everyone regardless of doctors, clinics or pharmacies.

"We need a 'watchdog' to put a stop to discriminatory inducement and such rackets," he said.

When contacted, Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) president Dr S.R. Manalan said there are bad apples in every profession and doctors are no exception.

"The drug companies are well aware of such practices, and there are unscrupulous doctors who sell to runners," he told theSun.

"However, the onus is on the drug companies to be vigilant as to whom and what amount of their drugs they sell. Drug makers should make doctors and clinics justify the amount they purchase," he said.

Asked if the MMA had taken any disciplinary action on such unscrupulous doctors, Manalan said it is extremely difficult to track down such transactions which are usually cash deals.

"We have brought the matter up to the health ministry, but it is hard to prove such practices. This is because a doctor in Kuala Lumpur who buys in bulk to sell to runners will not sell it back in KL, but perhaps to Johor," he said.

Meanwhile, a major player in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry explained that often drug makers do not supply some medicines directly to pharmacies because they are wary of instances where pharmacies have dispensed drugs to end-users without prescriptions.

"The reality is, the liability lies with drug companies if there are ill-effects to their products being used without prescriptions," the source said.

He added that drug companies tend to "push" drugs to doctors – especially new, patented drugs – because it is the only way to "advertise" the drugs.

He pointed out that discriminatory pricing does not arise with generic medication which are patent-free, so pharmaceutical companies can sell them at a standard price to both doctors and pharmacies.

-