I've done several webinars on the harm caused by eye injections. The summary is this.
If you get eye injections, it increases your likelihood of dying in 2 years by 270%.
That's MURDER!
What is the source of this information?
THE PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURER.
This is from their own package insert. Does your ophthalmologist read this, or just read their bloated bank account?
Here is an excerpt from my book, "Quarterback Your Own Health."
Risk of Death from Eye Treatments
Eye injections are deadly. Yes, DEADLY. The drugs that are injected in the eye do NOT stay in the eye and can cause very serious adverse events – heart attack, stroke, and death.
Warning: There is only ONE study that was NOT industry-funded. All the other studies underplay the severity of the risk of eye injections. The study to read and understand is titled “Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration, Two-Year Results.” Ranibizumab is better known as Lucentis, and Bevacizumab is better known as Avastin.
There are newer drugs, but DON'T BE FOOLED. They all operate under the exact DEADLY MECHANISM.
FORTY (40%, 2 in 5) of patients receiving Avastin had SERIOUS adverse events. 33% (1 in 3) of patients on Lucentis had SERIOUS adverse events, including stroke, heart attack, other bad vascular outcomes, and sudden death.
The final statistics look like this – in just 2 years of monthly or less frequent injections. Usually, adverse events from drugs take 5 years or more.
· Avastin: 34.5% increase in death, myocardial infarction (heart attack), and stroke.
· Lucentis: 28.4% increase in death, heart attack, and stroke.
IMPORTANTLY - a ~300% increased risk for death was the result found in a study on Lucentis and Eylea when compared to sham (no treatment) and laser. 233% increase in stroke was noted in this study as well.
Reference: No definitive increase in heart attack was noted. Please understand the vast difference between an industry-sponsored study and one funded and conducted by researchers without an agenda for financial gain. Contrary to data, criminals like Arseniy Hashkin, Paul Hahn, and Frank Sloan publish articles claiming no increased risk. When you dig into these people, you find Hahn is at NJRetina doing injections. Do you see the conflict?
-----------------------
So-called study participant "exclusion criteria" is a way drug companies lie. Remember Samuel Clements - "there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
The bias in reporting is baffling. Here are the “exclusion” criteria for one review article on this topic:
“Of 1126 articles reviewed, 598 were removed as duplicate studies and 524, for lack of monthly treatment data for 2 years, leaving 4 studies for the meta-analysis that met the search criteria: 2 trials using monthly aflibercept and 2 using monthly ranibizumab, representing 1328 patients.”
What is in those 1122 other studies that were excluded? You can be sure the four chosen presented the most positive spin on these drugs.
A 2014 paper titled "Ranibizumab and risk of hospitalization for ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with age-related macular degeneration: a self-controlled case-series analysis" discusses the hazards of Lucentis injections. Since 2014, just five (5) other researchers have cited this paper. The medical industry and ophthalmology are clearly in denial regarding the risks of this very dangerous drug.
VEGF is the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor. It’s not as complicated as it sounds. When your vessels start to plug up, your brain recognizes the drop in blood flow and signals your body to make new vessels. This process is often a lifesaver. If you have angina, praise God for VEGF because you didn’t die of a heart attack. Instead, your body quickly formed new vessels – like one of those temporary bridges – that saved your life. (references 1 and 2)
Sure, your doctor may “stent” you to improve blood flow because these temporary vessels are not as good as the original ones (just like one of those temporary bridges). But the stent does NOT address the cause of your good vessel going bad. The solution to fixing flawed vessels is covered throughout this book (Quarterback Your Own Health). Finding and addressing the root cause of vascular disease (and it’s not cholesterol – as discussed so many times) is fundamental to your healthy longevity.
These drugs hardly provide any eyesight benefits while causing extraordinary risk of death and vascular disease. Even the New York Times has fallen for the industry's deceptive ways of measuring eyesight in these studies. Ophthalmology and the drug industry use the concept of “letters.” What does “letters” mean in the context of visual acuity? We all know 20/20, 20/50, etc. So why are they using letters? Here is an article from the New York Times on the “benefits” of eye injections (that kill you) for your vision. (reference 3)
“After one year, those randomly chosen to be treated with Eylea had an average improvement of 13.3 letters on an eye chart, compared with 11.2 for Lucentis and 9.7 for Avastin.”
“For about half the patients, those with vision of 20/40 or better at the start of the study, all the drugs provided an average gain in vision of about 8 letters. But for the other half, with 20/50 or worse eyesight to start, the average improvement was 18.9 letters for Eylea compared with 14.2 for Lucentis and 11.8 for Avastin.”
“Among these patients with worse vision, 67 percent in the Eylea group had an improvement of at least 15 letters, or three lines on an eye chart, a level experts say is marginally meaningful. Only 50 percent of those treated with Lucentis and 41 percent treated with Avastin gained even that paltry improvement in vision.”
Here is your translation:
· Doctors say 15 letters is 3 lines on an eye chart – and this type of gain is meaningful.
· The eye injectables provide about 8 letters – which is NOT meaningful – and they kill you faster.
Worse news, these killer drugs don’t provide long-term benefits, even if you get your injection monthly. An article from the Association of Research in Vision and Ophthalmology titled “Anti-VEGF therapy did not maintain visual acuity gains in AMD patients at 5 years” explains the relatively poor results obtained from these harmful drugs. Here is the summary of the study from Dr. Daniel F. Martin:
"According to the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment trial results, patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with anti-VEGF therapy did not maintain visual gains at 5 years. The mean change in visual acuity was a loss of three letters from baseline and 11 letters over 2 years. This decrease in vision was accompanied by an expansion of the size of the total neovascular complex comprising neovascularization, scarring, and atrophy and by the persistence of fluid on OCT.”
References:
Chen HX, Cleck JN. Adverse effects of anticancer agents that target the VEGF pathway. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009; 6:465–477. [PubMed: 19581909]
Nalluri SR, Chu D, Keresztes R, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008; 300:2277–2285. [PubMed: 19017914]
3 Drugs for an Eye Disease, With Big Price Gaps, Are Found to Be Equals for Many, Permalink: http://nyti.ms/17smqRR
[1] No definitive increase in heart attack was noted. Please understand the vast difference between and industry-sponsored study and one funded and conducted by researchers without an agenda for financial gain. Contrary to data, criminals like Arseniy Hashkin, Paul Hahn, and Frank Sloan publish articles claiming no increased risk. When you dig into these people, you find Hahn is at NJRetina doing injections. Do you see the conflict?
More on the harm caused by big pharma.
Weekly Webinar Links: Join us for detailed health information - at no charge. All are welcome.
Monday at noon EST -
Wednesday at 8 pm EST -
Be Bold - Be Brave - Stay Well
Comments