3.26.2012

'ONLY TRUSTED RESEARCH WILL QUELL VACCINE FEARS'


from Portland Tribune, Mar 8, 2012
MY VIEW • Parents, others worry that the next bad drug is being used now •

Peter Latham once said, “Truth in all its kinds is most difficult to win and truth in medicine is the most difficult of all.”
For just a moment, can all those in and out of medicine who consider themselves knowledgeable and informed say to themselves, “so true.”

Problems that plague medicine, medical science and research have created an enter-at-your-own-risk system to health and well being. Dysfunctional peer-review, dangerous and unnecessary interventions, ghost writing, conflicts of interest, the revolving door between industry and regulation, clinical trials designed by marketing departments, medical journals that serve their pharmaceutical industry advertisers and statistical manipulations all contribute to dangerous problems for the consumer.

Yet parents are asked, in spite of all the above, to believe that the mass vaccination program is immune from medicine’s plague. The grab ‘em and stab ‘em, as one physician puts it, the one-size-fits-all approach to vaccinating every child in this country with 49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 6 is not pristine or pure as fallen snow.

When a parent questions the methodology of a vaccination study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, touted in the media as safe and effective, the pejoratives of “anti-vaccine” or “anti-science” darts fly.

Why should anyone accept these studies after they compare adverse reactions for a new vaccine vs. placebo and buried in the study is the fact that the “placebo,” usually a biologically inert substance, is another experimental vaccine?

Were similar characterizations applied to those who questioned the safety of Vioxx, Avandia, PhenPhen or HRT? Are those questioning repeated concussions in football, anti-football? Are those who recognize there are problems for some with yoga, anti-yoga? In spite of the Hippocratic oath, to do no harm, the next Vioxx is likely, already being prescribed by physicians.

One in four parents think vaccines cause autism, and aren’t buying the scientifically irrelevant, methodologically flawed studies. Riddled with conflicts of interest, studies supposedly exonerating the vaccination connection to neurological, behavioral, immune and gastrointestinal disorders don’t match what parents see in real life.

Fifty-four percent of parents are worried about serious adverse effects caused by vaccines. At the same time, an interesting comment was made at a recent international vaccination conference: “By recognizing that the two groups that know the most about immunization are the policy makers on the one hand and the anti-vaccination [there’s that pejorative again] lobby on the other ...” First, there is no lobby. Second, there is only a growing number of educated, scientifically literate parents who know the most about the science and politics of vaccines. They also know the most about their children.

These parents are dedicated to the safety of their children and are entrusted to above all else, “first do no harm.” They aren’t going to allow their children to be “Vioxxed” or “Gardasized” by Merck or by mass vaccination products and policies which pose a reckless disregard for the long-term health of each and every child.

The parents aren’t the problem. The problem is the problem. It’s not the parents.
For example, blaming parents and unvaccinated children for the recurrent cyclical nature of bordetella pertussis (whooping cough) infections is scientifically unsupportable. The more likely explanation can be attributable to 1) the temporary short-term immunity of as little as three years, for the pertussis vaccine, 2) studies suggesting the occurrence of the natural evolution of b. pertussis and 3) the misapplied concept of herd immunity because of the first two reasons.

For evidence that this is happening, look to the story that received national attention. The 2010 Southern California outbreak of whooping cough found, “the bulk of the outbreak was in vaccinated and fully vaccinated up-to-date children.”
Research in the Netherlands suggests that b. pertussis is in a process of evolution, adapting to the pertussis vaccination.

When public health officials or pediatricians pressure parents for their children to join “the herd,” many parents see a herd with increasing numbers of children afflicted with chronic disease, children with a multitude of learning disabilities, severe neurological and behavioral disorders, immune system impairment, and chronic and novel inflammatory gastrointestinal disease in staggering numbers unseen 20 years ago.

School budgets are collapsing under the weight of services for special education. By no stretch of the imagination is “the herd” healthy.

For more than a decade, parents have been asking for genuine independently conducted health outcome studies comparing the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated which, to date, has fallen on deaf ears. There is not one single study demonstrating that the current recommended vaccination schedule is safe for all children.

Until such studies are conducted, free of the multitude of corrupting influences in science, parents will be well advised to do their own thorough research on all vaccines that the U.S. Supreme Court has described as “unavoidably unsafe.”


Michael Framson of Medford does volunteer work in Oregon for the National Vaccine
Information Center.

Copyright 2012 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-226-6397

12.10.2010

Vit.D - what do we do?

If you haven't seen it yet, the NIH (National Institute of Health) has just come out with some research questioning whether or not it truly is good or needed to take higher doses of Vit.D. The gov't current recommendations are around 400 IU (international units) per day. It is currently being considered to be increased from 400 to 600. (i think it's funny, cause they still can't agree on what a good amount is to recommend, but they question/criticize others for trying more...)

Basically, the current thought is that if we are only getting 400-600 IU of Vit-D per day, whether through food or sun, then we are already in the category of Vit-D deficient (we are not getting enough). They site studies that show populations of people who have high & low levels of Vit-D, and those with lower levels have a significantly higher risk of heart disease, cancer, flu infections, and a host of other diseases. Obviously, this doesn't prove correlation, since there are many other variables, including the activities of these same people (exercise, diet, etc...)

VIT-D PREVENTS CANCER & HEART DISEASE?

The newer articles and discussions on the web that just came out, have questioned the claims that high doses of Vit-D will PREVENT said diseases. I would agree that it would be difficult to make that claim and have good evidence from dbl-blinded, clinical-controlled trials (since there's not much done yet, but they are working on some now...), however I feel that it is a very important correlation that needs to be looked at closely. I've read quite a few peer-reviewed research articles on the correlation between Cancer rates & Vit-D deficiency. Basically, we don't have a population of Americans who have cancer, but we have a population of Americans who are Vit-D deficient who have cancer. Just google "Cancer & Vit D" and see for yourself.

SO, HOW MUCH DO WE NEED?

They also question the total amount of Vit-D we should be getting. I feel strongly that the gov't recommendations of only 400-600 IU is not enough, but I also recognize that there is a toxic level of Vit-D that we need to be aware of. When someone refers to taking 'Large' doses or 'high' levels of Vit-D, they can be taking up to 50,000 IU/week, for long period of times. This still isn't near the level of toxicity.

OKAY, SO WHAT DO I DO?

Well, this is just a quick glance down some of the articles I've seen on NPR, Mercola, specifically this new article/video, and other mainstream media sites. I am still currently taking 5,000 IU almost daily (i'm human, and I forget some days!), especially during the winter months, when I hardly get any direct sunlight on my skin for more than a minute or two. Please take some time to read some of those articles yourself, and research, research, research. If there are any special circumstances or health concerns, you can easily get tested for Vit-D levels by a simple blood test. If there is any concern for extreme deficiency or toxicity levels, it's always a good idea to know for sure by getting tested. Besides that, know your body, and pay attention to how you feel, eat really well, get enough sleep, and have fun. Here's to your health.

Dr. Nick

10.13.2010

Repost: This is why I do what I do



Whether you are a parent or not, this type of thing should open your eyes a little to the choices we make, and the choices that are often 'forced' upon us. We need to think critically and challenge those who don't. Even if they are doctors. They are humans too.

Also, please click on the video and go to YouTube to read the comments to this video. Max isn't the only kid this has happened to.

4.06.2010

Few Medical Studies Actually Compare One Treatment to Another


A study released in the March 10, 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) noted that most other studies in medical journals do not compare one type of treatment to another. According to the study, and several news articles written about this study, most medical studies are testing a new drug and not looking to see how it compares to drugs already on the market, or to non-drug care.
It is the lack of "comparative effectiveness" studies that makes it hard for patients and doctors to evaluate which course of treatment or care is best for a patient. A March 10, 2010, article on this study in the Los Angeles Times noted that this is the reason that there is such a large discrepancy between the way medical doctors care for patients with the same ailments.
Coauthors of the study and the LA Times article, Drs. Danny McCormick and Michael Hochman, explained how they conducted their study in the Times article by saying, "In the study, we analyzed 328 medication studies recently published in six top medical journals and found that just 32% were aimed at determining which available treatment is best. The rest were either aimed at bringing a new therapy to market or simply compared a medication with a placebo. Whether the therapy was better or worse than other treatments was simply not addressed."
In an attempt to explain why very few studies are done to check existing treatments against new drugs, the authors explained, "So why, then, did only a third of medication studies focus on helping doctors use existing therapies more effectively? The answer lies in the fact that pharmaceutical companies fund nearly half of all medication research, including the lion's share of large clinical trials. For obvious reasons, commercially funded research is primarily geared toward the development of new and marketable medications and technologies. Once these products have won approval for clinical use, companies no longer have incentives to study exactly how and when they should be used."
Not surprisingly, the research showed that most of the studies done are funded by drug companies trying to get approval for their new drugs. The study also showed that the few studies that actually do "comparative effectiveness" and look at one type of care as compared to another, were mostly funded by the government or received other non-drug company related funding.


:: nW
.

Do Your Best to Stay Out of Hospitals...


The above is a headline from the February 23rd, 2010 issue of the New York Daily News. The article reports on a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine on February 22, 2010. The study and resultant articles point out that approximately 48,000 patients die each year from pneumonia or blood poisoning picked up in hospitals.
In this study, hospital discharge records were looked at on 69 million patients who were in hospitals in 40 US states between 1998 and 2006. The records were examined to look for blood infections or pneumonia. Problems of these types that were acquired from outside the hospital were excluded, so that the data only showed problems resulting from a stay at the hospital.
The results of this large study brought forth some alarming data. The study revealed that hospital-acquired illnesses were responsible for 2.3 million extra patient days in hospitals. These extra days in a hospital resulted in a cost of $8.1 billion in the year 2006 alone. Overall, 1.7 million healthcare-associated infections are diagnosed every year.
Ramanan Laxminarayan, spokesperson for Resources for the Future, the group that sponsored the study, reacted to the high rates of infection by saying, "In many cases, these conditions could have been avoided with better infection control in hospitals."
One of the researchers on the study, Anup Malani, from the University of Chicago, added, "That's the tragedy of such cases. In some cases, relatively healthy people check into the hospital for routine surgery. They develop sepsis because of a lapse in infection control and they can die."


:: nW
.

Low Back Pain Surgeries, Though More Dangerous & Expensive, Are Increasing


We have a problem in America when surgeries for uncomplicated low back pain are rising in frequency, when conservative treatments, such as Chiropractic, have been proven to be more cost-effective and safer.

CHICAGO – A study of Medicare patients shows that costlier, more complex spinal fusion surgeries are on the rise — and sometimes done unnecessarily — for a common lower back condition caused by aging and arthritis.
What's more alarming is that the findings suggest these more challenging operations are riskier, leading to more complications and even deaths. Read More...


:: nW

Study: Breast-feeding would save lives, money


Brief, but short and good article about the benefits of Breast-feeding.

The lives of nearly 900 babies would be saved each year, along with billions of dollars, if 90 percent of U.S. women fed their babies breast milk only for the first six months of life, a cost analysis says.
Those startling results, published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, are only an estimate. But several experts who reviewed the analysis said the methods and conclusions seem sound.


:: nW

3.23.2010

Movie Reviews: Shrink


I'll start by saying that I'm no movie critic. However, this movie was very good. It stars Kevin Spacey, Keke Palmer, and Robin Williams. It's a sad, kinda melancholy film about grief, specifically regarding Spacey, and his inability to deal with a personal tragedy while turning to smoking pot to cope with the pain and despair. The story travels between 4 or 5 characters, all of whom are intertwined in some way (sometimes that 'web' is cheesy and predictable in some movies, but it was used well here). The soundtrack was very good, a lot of instrumental music - created a very good tone for the movie. I'd caution you to watch this if you are experiencing any level of despair yourself, due to the obvious story, but the movie line allows the watcher to accept grief, and the realities of pain and loss, while making just enough room for the real possibility of hope and well... not the absence of grief, but the moving forward with grief. Two thumbs up.

:: nW

3.17.2010

Longrunning Controversy on Autism and Vaccines - by Dr. Redwood

From his blog, the www.dailyhitblog.com,

"I do not hold a firm opinion on this topic. This controversy has swirled for an extended time and allegations of falsifying data by both sides have muddied the waters to the point where uncertainty seems a reasonable response.

If one is to believe the preponderance of evidence in the peer-reviewed literature, a causal link is hard to find.

But in this article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, a man whose intelligence and integrity I trust, a series of very serious questions are raised about the quality of that evidence and the honesty of the central figure behind the research used to attack claims of a vaccine-autism link.

A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC’s claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen’s 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.

His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury — a potent neurotoxin — at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits.


I encourage you to read the whole article. I hope it is not true that researchers (and possibly the CDC itself) have engaged in fraudulent activity. This article leads me to keep an open mind on the topic and await further developments."

1.02.2010

1 Soda/day, 10+ pounds/year... Gotta Give It Up!



Scientists have proved for the first time that fructose, a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks, can damage human metabolism and is fueling the obesity crisis.

Fructose, a sweetener usually derived from corn, can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease.

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a controlled diet including high levels of fructose produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.


.

12.17.2009

Mom has to fight to avoid C-section


Even when it is not in a mother's best interests, C-sections are often the method of choice by hospitals for births. Despite a much increased risk of morbidity and mortality for mother and baby, C-sections simply give the doctors complete control of the delivery, allowing most aspects of the birth to be managed. Many hospitals require women to have a C-section for subsequent births after she's already had one, preventing her from attempting a vaginal birth. This is called VBAC = vaginal birth after cesarian. They site that there is an increased risk for the mother as the reason for this mandate, but reality often shows quite the opposite. Here is a story of how one mother choice to fight for her right to have the birth she desired.

(CNN) -- Seven months into her pregnancy with her fourth child, Joy Szabo's obstetrician gave her some news she didn't want to hear: Because she'd had a previous Caesarean section, the hospital where she planned to deliver was insisting she have another one.
Szabo wanted a vaginal delivery, and argued with hospital executives, but they stood firm: They refused to do vaginal births after Caesareans (VBACs) because they have a slightly higher risk for complications.
After they lost that fight, Szabo and her husband, Jeff, made an unusual decision. About three weeks before her due date, Szabo moved nearly six hours away from their home in Page, Arizona, to Phoenix to give birth at a hospital that does permit women to have VBACs.
In the end, the Szabos got the birth they wanted. On December 5, their son Marcus Anthony was born in Phoenix via an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, weighing seven pounds and 13 ounces.
"It was such an easy birth," Szabo says. "I was in the pains of labor for about four or five hours, then I pushed once, and he popped out."


For more info about VBACs, Birth, or just info on Natural childbirth, CLICK HERE.

.

11.28.2009

Pregnancy and Vaccines? Leading to miscarriages?

Pregnant women are considered among the high risk market for vaccines, including all the new H1N1 vaccines. However, there is absolutely NO SAFETY RESEARCH DONE on pregnant women and these vaccines. It says it directly in the package insert. It might seem self evident, but we must remember that whatever the mom takes in (food, drug, beverage) the baby gets as well. Also, we must understand that the vaccine given to an adult is much more than a vaccine given to a child. Henceforth, an unborn baby is experiencing the dosage from mom's shot that's intended for an adult (let's say 150 lbs, not 6 lbs.). Not all, but about half of the new H1N1 vaccines contain some level of mercury (you can see specifically which ones here... and amazingly several will give you a dose of mercury or aluminum that is several times the safety limit set forth by the EPA for human ingestion). That's a problem, not only for the person getting that vaccine, but also for a fetus that weighs anywhere between 1-7 lbs. More and more reports of miscarriages are coming out after getting an H1N1 vaccine. Read articles here and here.

11.24.2009

Women: What about Mammograms?


If you didn't hear it, you missed a great discussion about the new guidelines regarding routine mammograms on "Up To Date" with Steve Kraske of the KC Star, on NPR. Click Here for link and podcast but you'll now need to go to the ARCHIVES to find it...

Did you know, that the overall use of mammography has only decreased deaths from breast cancer 2% ( this number had believed to be as high 30%). Even so, 2% is still many mom's and grandma's and aunt's. However, there is concern for safety of repeated mammograms -- "According to the Dept of Energy, a typical mammogram applies 25 times the radiation of a standard chest x-ray." I would wonder how long it would take a 40 year-old women w/out breast cancer getting annual mammograms to develop breast cancer as a result? 10 years, 20 years, even 30? And according to Dr. David Bouda, of Menora Medical Center (one of the guests on the show), many of the types of cancers that could be detected by mammography, are not life threatening, and by diagnosing and undergoing a biopsy, etc... can just cause more problems than needed.

New guidelines for breast cancer screening are causing quite the commotion since the announcement last week that women should hold off getting annual mammograms by a decade. The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do self breast exams.

Today Steve Kraske talks with Dr. David Bouda, Medical Director, Midwest Cancer Care at Menorah Medical Center and Dr. Elizabeth Campbell, an Obstetrician/Gynecologist with the Avera Women's Clinic in Mitchell, SD. We'll discuss the debate for and against the new guidelines, how the guidelines might affect insurance, and why public opinion is largely against the change.

CBS Reporter Blows the Lid Off the Swine Flu Media Hype and Hysteria



Sharyl Attkisson is a CBS News correspondent and investigative reporter. She’s covered Capitol Hill since February 2006 and has been a Washington-based correspondent there since January 1995. She was also part of the CBS news team that received the Edward Murrow Award in 2005 for overall excellence. Additionally, she received an Outstanding Investigative Journalism Emmy in 2002 for a series on the Red Cross.

In case you didn't realize it, Sharyl Attkisson is the investigative reporter behind the groundbreaking CBS News study that found H1N1 flu cases are NOT as prevalent as feared.

In fact, they’re barely on the radar screen.

How did this startling information come about, and why is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) painting a different picture entirely? I spoke directly with Sharyl Attkisson to find out.

10.18.2009

Good Interview w/ Banksy [graffiti artist]


Here's a good interview * out of some magazine w/ graffiti artist, Banksy, from England. I've seen some of his work on the internet, and also in a coffee-table book. He's political, satirical, and very, very creative. Check his work out - just google Banksy.

*some relatively moderate usage of 4-letter dirty words (whatever that means)

10.01.2009

9.06.2009

United HealthCare Fined Half a Million Dollars for Illegally Denying Chiropractic Claims

Copied from www.dailyhitblog.com

This is the reason that private health insurance companies must be regulated. Efforts to exempt them from state laws (which UHC violated in this case) without substituting federal regulations that are as strong or stronger, constitute a recipe for continued injustice.

A pair of St. Louis, Mo-based subsidiaries of UnitedHealthcare will pay $536,000 in fines and review 50,000 chiropractic claims it denied in 2004 in an agreement with Missouri regulators.

Through a settlement between the insurer and the Missouri Department of Insurance, UnitedHealthcare will reexamine the claims filed by chiropractors who treated the company’s policyholders after regulators determined the company violated state law by limiting coverage to 26 visits per year.

In other cases, the insurance department says UnitedHealthcare failed to evaluate the medical necessity of treatment before denying claims. For any chiropractic claims it finds were improperly denied, UnitedHealthcare must reimburse the specialists for those claims, plus interest and in some cases, consumers may have paid the bills, rather than their specialists.


Private sector insurers, if beholden to no one but their shareholders and bottom line, will continue to behave in this manner unless forced by law to do otherwise.

.