DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!
Concerns Over Swine Flu:
Potential Life-Threatening Allergies
Updated: Tuesday, 24 Nov 2009, 11:10 AM EST
Published : Tuesday, 24 Nov 2009, 8:19 AM EST
LONDON - The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline says it has advised medical staff in Canada to not use one batch of swine flu vaccine for fear it may trigger life-threatening allergies.
Fox 5 News spoke with a GlaxoSmithKline official who says the batch is on a 'voluntary hold' and does not affect the United States.
Spokeswoman Gwenan White said Tuesday the company issued the advice after reports that one batch of the swine flu vaccine might have caused more allergic reactions than normal.
She says the affected batch contains 172,000 doses of the vaccine. She declined to say how many doses had been administered before the advice to stop using them was given.
White says GlaxoSmithKline wrote to Canadian healthcare professionals advising them to stop using the batch on Nov. 18. She says a total of 7.5 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed in Canada.
Update On Swine Flu Vaccine Recall
Medical Headlines
Updated: Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009, 7:58 AM EST
Published : Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009, 7:58 AM EST
MYFOXNY.COM - Medical headlines for Wednesday, December 16.
Text of Dr. Sapna Parikh's report:
SWIN FLU VACCINE RECALL: Thousands of swine flu shots for children are recalled. I spoke with officials at the FDA and the Director of Immunizations at the CDC. Here's the deal-- this is not a safety issue. The issue is the vaccine's strength. Routine testing of the vaccines showed that the strength or potency of the vaccines had fallen slightly below required levels. The shots were made by Sanofi Pasteur and were distributed across the country including some in New York city and Nassau County.
All the doses are for kids-- aged 6 months to three years. What does this mean? Parents- if your child received the recalled vaccine, top health officials say nothing else needs to be done. The vaccine still works and kids who got it are still protected against the swine flu. Doctors who still have these recalled vaccines are being told to stop giving them. There is one important issue-- all the recalled vaccines were Thimerosol free. These are sought after by many parents who are concerned about links to autism. After this recall, there will be no Thimerosol- free vaccine option for kids under the age of two.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
DRX 9000 a Hoax??!
As I have been telling patients for years......
AG: Firm fleeced docs for $100M
By Carol Gentry
12/1/2009 © Health News Florida
Florida’s Attorney General’s office has filed suit against a Tampa firm that it says made and sold more than 1,000 pricey back-pain therapy machines to physicians nationwide through “false, deceptive or misleading advertising.” Most of the doctors were chiropractors.
Defendants are Axiom Worldwide, President and CEO James J. Gibson Jr. and Vice President Nicholas Exarhos. The complaint says they co-founded the company and both participated in unlawful sales practices.
Among other misleading statements, the complaint filed Nov. 19 in Hillsborough Circuit Court says, Axiom called its DRX 9000 spinal decompression system “the eighth wonder of the world.”
Atty. Gen. Bill McCollum seeks an injunction barring Axiom from continuing to market the machine under false pretenses and also seeks a court order forcing almost $100 million in repayment to consumers and the state – the amount that Axiom received for the machine in 2005 and ’06.
Gibson told Health News Florida this morning that he cannot comment on the suit because the company hasn't received it yet.
The DRX 9000 package that is at issue in the suit cost $95,000, or $125,000 if a neck attachment is included, the complaint says.
Among the false statements, the complaint says, were that Axiom had a patent on DRX 9000, that the system was “approved” by FDA, and that NASA engineers developed it through “space age technology.”
The chiropractors who bought the system were led to believe that Medicare and private insurers would cover the treatments, when the defendants knew claims were being denied, the complaint says.
Also, it says, Axiom falsely led doctors to believe there were scientific trials showing an 86 percent success rate for the DRX 9000 in treatment of degenerative disc disease, disc herniations, sciatica and post-surgical pain.
The price included materials the doctors could use in marketing the system to the public through brochures and ads. So far, the complaint says, 12 chiropractors who used the Axiom marketing materials have been accused of false advertising by the state health department.
The company’s Web site, https://axiomworldwide.com, was not in operation today, but a lot of information was available on a related site, www.AxiomPainSolutions.com.
There, the system was said to “provide relief of pain and symptoms associated with herniated discs, bulging or protruding …discs, degenerative disc disease, posterior facet syndrome, and sciatica.”
The site also offers videos of patient testimonials and a map of practitioners who use the DRX system. In Florida, there are 68 listed.
In July 2006, North American Medical Corp. sued Axiom for trademark infringement regarding DRX 9000, but Axiom kept making false claims, the attorney general’s complaint says.
AG: Firm fleeced docs for $100M
By Carol Gentry
12/1/2009 © Health News Florida
Florida’s Attorney General’s office has filed suit against a Tampa firm that it says made and sold more than 1,000 pricey back-pain therapy machines to physicians nationwide through “false, deceptive or misleading advertising.” Most of the doctors were chiropractors.
Defendants are Axiom Worldwide, President and CEO James J. Gibson Jr. and Vice President Nicholas Exarhos. The complaint says they co-founded the company and both participated in unlawful sales practices.
Among other misleading statements, the complaint filed Nov. 19 in Hillsborough Circuit Court says, Axiom called its DRX 9000 spinal decompression system “the eighth wonder of the world.”
Atty. Gen. Bill McCollum seeks an injunction barring Axiom from continuing to market the machine under false pretenses and also seeks a court order forcing almost $100 million in repayment to consumers and the state – the amount that Axiom received for the machine in 2005 and ’06.
Gibson told Health News Florida this morning that he cannot comment on the suit because the company hasn't received it yet.
The DRX 9000 package that is at issue in the suit cost $95,000, or $125,000 if a neck attachment is included, the complaint says.
Among the false statements, the complaint says, were that Axiom had a patent on DRX 9000, that the system was “approved” by FDA, and that NASA engineers developed it through “space age technology.”
The chiropractors who bought the system were led to believe that Medicare and private insurers would cover the treatments, when the defendants knew claims were being denied, the complaint says.
Also, it says, Axiom falsely led doctors to believe there were scientific trials showing an 86 percent success rate for the DRX 9000 in treatment of degenerative disc disease, disc herniations, sciatica and post-surgical pain.
The price included materials the doctors could use in marketing the system to the public through brochures and ads. So far, the complaint says, 12 chiropractors who used the Axiom marketing materials have been accused of false advertising by the state health department.
The company’s Web site, https://axiomworldwide.com, was not in operation today, but a lot of information was available on a related site, www.AxiomPainSolutions.com.
There, the system was said to “provide relief of pain and symptoms associated with herniated discs, bulging or protruding …discs, degenerative disc disease, posterior facet syndrome, and sciatica.”
The site also offers videos of patient testimonials and a map of practitioners who use the DRX system. In Florida, there are 68 listed.
In July 2006, North American Medical Corp. sued Axiom for trademark infringement regarding DRX 9000, but Axiom kept making false claims, the attorney general’s complaint says.
Monday, November 23, 2009
MORE SWINE FLU LIES!!
WHAT THEY TELL US:
Each day the media reports additional cases of H1N1 infections and rising death tolls attributed to the pandemic disease.
WHAT THEY DON’T TELL US:
In July of 2009, the World Health Organization issued a press release stating that it will no longer release the global table of H1N1 infections because it is “extremely difficult, if not impossible” to determine swine flu cases in laboratory testing. “Even in countries with limited laboratory capacities, WHO recommends that the initial virological assessment is followed by the testing of at least 10 samples per week in order to confirm that disease activity is due to the pandemic virus and to monitor changes in the virus that may be important for case management and vaccine development.”
The Centers for Disease Control issued a similar statement on October 2, 2009. “Influenza diagnosis will not distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza vs. infection with A-H1N1. Furthermore, it will not be confirming influenza infections with a diagnostic test, but rather, will rely upon the clinician’s judgement to determine flu infection if the patient presents with flu-like symptoms.”
The nasal spray vaccine by MedImmune has demonstrated evidence in clinical trials of shedding the live virus for 3-21 days post-vaccination. Vaccinating large populations, especially school children, with the live nasal-spray vaccine will cause a rise in the number of those infected.
HEALTHANGEL ASKS:
Then, how are health officials “confirming” and media outlets “reporting” the numbers of actual swine flu cases and swine flu-related deaths if they are no longer testing nor distinguishing between seasonal flu, swine flu, rhinovirus and pneumonia? And will these arbitrary and inflated figures then be used as statistics to drive future vaccination programs?
How can a public health initiative aimed at reducing the spread of H1N1 infections, engage in a vaccination program (administration by live-virus nasal spray) that has been clinically demonstrated to increase the actual rate of infection?
Each day the media reports additional cases of H1N1 infections and rising death tolls attributed to the pandemic disease.
WHAT THEY DON’T TELL US:
In July of 2009, the World Health Organization issued a press release stating that it will no longer release the global table of H1N1 infections because it is “extremely difficult, if not impossible” to determine swine flu cases in laboratory testing. “Even in countries with limited laboratory capacities, WHO recommends that the initial virological assessment is followed by the testing of at least 10 samples per week in order to confirm that disease activity is due to the pandemic virus and to monitor changes in the virus that may be important for case management and vaccine development.”
The Centers for Disease Control issued a similar statement on October 2, 2009. “Influenza diagnosis will not distinguish between infection with seasonal influenza vs. infection with A-H1N1. Furthermore, it will not be confirming influenza infections with a diagnostic test, but rather, will rely upon the clinician’s judgement to determine flu infection if the patient presents with flu-like symptoms.”
The nasal spray vaccine by MedImmune has demonstrated evidence in clinical trials of shedding the live virus for 3-21 days post-vaccination. Vaccinating large populations, especially school children, with the live nasal-spray vaccine will cause a rise in the number of those infected.
HEALTHANGEL ASKS:
Then, how are health officials “confirming” and media outlets “reporting” the numbers of actual swine flu cases and swine flu-related deaths if they are no longer testing nor distinguishing between seasonal flu, swine flu, rhinovirus and pneumonia? And will these arbitrary and inflated figures then be used as statistics to drive future vaccination programs?
How can a public health initiative aimed at reducing the spread of H1N1 infections, engage in a vaccination program (administration by live-virus nasal spray) that has been clinically demonstrated to increase the actual rate of infection?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Less Mammograms: Less Overdiagnosis
Have We Harmed More Women than We Helped?
Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.
In its first re-evaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the panel that sets government policy on prevention recommended the radical change, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefits.
"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does save lives," said Diana Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in today's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."
The task force's new guidelines, which also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams of their breasts and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74, immediately triggered intense debate.
Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts praised the shift, saying it represents a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
Basis for guidelines
The new guidelines were based on a comprehensive analysis of the medical literature that included an update of a Swedish study involving 70,000 women, new results from a British trial involving more than 160,000 women and data from more than 600,000 women from the U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
In addition, the task force commissioned an unusual study funded by the National Cancer Institute that involved six independent teams of researchers conducting separate mathematical modeling studies of the risks and benefits of 20 different screening strategies.
While annual mammography for all women beginning at age 40 reduced the death rate from breast cancer by at least 15 percent, the modeling studies indicated that the added benefit of starting before age 50 was modest, the researchers concluded.
For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented while 480 women would get a false-positive result and 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.
"What isn't in the model but is an issue is how many extra imaging tests are done to follow up on things that turn out to be falsely positive and the harm of the anxiety that goes along with that," Petitti said. "Then there's the whole other line of problems that come into play, which is where there are some breast cancers detected that grow very slowly and would never have killed you."
Cutting back to biannual screening of women age 50 and older would maintain 81 percent of the benefits of screening annually while reducing by half the number of false positives, the computer modeling study estimated.
Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.
In its first re-evaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the panel that sets government policy on prevention recommended the radical change, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefits.
"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does save lives," said Diana Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in today's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."
The task force's new guidelines, which also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams of their breasts and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74, immediately triggered intense debate.
Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts praised the shift, saying it represents a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
Basis for guidelines
The new guidelines were based on a comprehensive analysis of the medical literature that included an update of a Swedish study involving 70,000 women, new results from a British trial involving more than 160,000 women and data from more than 600,000 women from the U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
In addition, the task force commissioned an unusual study funded by the National Cancer Institute that involved six independent teams of researchers conducting separate mathematical modeling studies of the risks and benefits of 20 different screening strategies.
While annual mammography for all women beginning at age 40 reduced the death rate from breast cancer by at least 15 percent, the modeling studies indicated that the added benefit of starting before age 50 was modest, the researchers concluded.
For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented while 480 women would get a false-positive result and 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.
"What isn't in the model but is an issue is how many extra imaging tests are done to follow up on things that turn out to be falsely positive and the harm of the anxiety that goes along with that," Petitti said. "Then there's the whole other line of problems that come into play, which is where there are some breast cancers detected that grow very slowly and would never have killed you."
Cutting back to biannual screening of women age 50 and older would maintain 81 percent of the benefits of screening annually while reducing by half the number of false positives, the computer modeling study estimated.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
How Can We Stop Kids From Taking Drugs When We Are "Drug Nation"?
Teens find their highs in parents’ drug chest
After Special Agent Douglas Collier of the Drug Enforcement Administration spoke at a conference on the abuse of prescription drugs, a sobbing woman came to him and told of her daughter’s near death from an overdose of the painkiller fentanyl.
“She said to me, ‘Agent Collier, now I understand,’” Collier said. The woman said her daughter had never had a particularly close relationship with her grandmother, but started visiting regularly in the last months of the dying woman’s life when she was being heavily medicated.
During those visits, Collier said, the young girl was raiding her grandmother’s trove of powerful
painkillers and using the medication to get high. “And the access point for that was the medicine cabinet,” Collier said.
Each year, experts say, a growing number of teenagers quietly turn to a seemingly unlikely source to score drugs: their parents’ medicine cabinets.
We are bombarded every day with TV, internet, and print ads that espouse the benefits of all kinds of drugs; for stomach ache, headache, backahe, depression, fibromyalgia-from birth control to sleepiness to sleeplessness to erectile dysfunction-yup, there's a pill for that!
We are such a drug culture, no one ever notices that almost 70% of TV ads and 80% of print ads are for.....DRUGS! Medicine is killing us....stop the madness NOW!
After Special Agent Douglas Collier of the Drug Enforcement Administration spoke at a conference on the abuse of prescription drugs, a sobbing woman came to him and told of her daughter’s near death from an overdose of the painkiller fentanyl.
“She said to me, ‘Agent Collier, now I understand,’” Collier said. The woman said her daughter had never had a particularly close relationship with her grandmother, but started visiting regularly in the last months of the dying woman’s life when she was being heavily medicated.
During those visits, Collier said, the young girl was raiding her grandmother’s trove of powerful
painkillers and using the medication to get high. “And the access point for that was the medicine cabinet,” Collier said.
Each year, experts say, a growing number of teenagers quietly turn to a seemingly unlikely source to score drugs: their parents’ medicine cabinets.
We are bombarded every day with TV, internet, and print ads that espouse the benefits of all kinds of drugs; for stomach ache, headache, backahe, depression, fibromyalgia-from birth control to sleepiness to sleeplessness to erectile dysfunction-yup, there's a pill for that!
We are such a drug culture, no one ever notices that almost 70% of TV ads and 80% of print ads are for.....DRUGS! Medicine is killing us....stop the madness NOW!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Guard your daughters from Gardasil!
Gardasil & Swine Flu Vaccines: Inconvenient Truths
by Barbara Loe Fisher
The summer of 2009 revealed two inconvenient truths about vaccination: first, the Gardasil vaccine is not as safe for girls as the government, medical organizations and Merck have said it is; 1 and second, the H1N1 influenza pandemic is not as serious as health officials are telling us it is. Which means that fast tracked swine flu vaccines children will get in schools this fall may end up being more risky than getting the flu.
Doctors Question Benefits & Merck Marketing Tactics
On August 19, the Journal of the American Medical Association published two important articles written by doctors questioning whether HPV vaccine benefits outweigh the risks of recommending it for all young girls. The intellectually honest doctors publicly criticized the aggressive marketing of Gardasil vaccine by Merck and certain Merck-funded U.S. medical organizations 5 and asked for more scientific evidence that universal HPV vaccination is necessary, safe and effective. 6
Bad Outcome Report After 1 In Every 1,855 Gardasil Shots
In the third article, written by government health officials, it was revealed that 1 in every 1,855 Gardasil shots is followed by a bad health outcome report to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
These bad health outcomes reported after Gardasil shots include lots of girls suddenly passing out and having seizures within minutes or hours of getting vaccinated and suffering head injuries and broken bones when they hit the floor. In fact, there is a larger than expected rate of girls passing out after getting Gardasil vaccine.
Girls Passing Out & Having Car Accidents
Back in 2007, the National Vaccine Information Center warned that many girls given Gardasil shots were losing consciousness within minutes or hours. 7 8 9 Some girls have left doctors offices and fallen unconscious while driving and had car accidents. 10 This brings up the little known fact that four girls who got Gardasil in Merck’s pre-licensure clinical trials died in car accidents. 11 How many of those girls suddenly collapsed while driving?
Clearly, Gardasil vaccine should be given while girls are lying down and they should be warned that sudden collapse can occur without warning within 24 hours of getting vaccinated.
Blood Clots Reports After Gardasil
What else did the recently published government study on Gardasil reveal? Well, we now know that there is a greater than expected rate of reported blood clots in girls who get the vaccine. Some blood clots can lead to pulmonary embolism or stroke, which means the blood clot ends up in the lung or in the brain. In fact four girls have died after they developed a blood clot that traveled to the lung after Gardasil vaccination.
Most Bad Outcome Reports Merck Files FDA Can’t Analyze
But the most shocking fact in this study is that, although nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review of what happened to the girls who fell unconscious or had convulsions, developed blood clots or inflammation of the brain and nerves, including Guillain Barre syndrome that causes paralysis, or those who suddenly developed serious autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and more.
There were 32 reports of Gardasil-related deaths between 2006 and the end of 2008 but only 20 of these death reports had enough information to be followed up. There are now a total of 43 deaths that have been reported. 12 How many of those Gardasil related deaths cannot be evaluated because of incomplete information?
1986 Law Requires Reporting of Vaccine Injuries & Deaths
This is an outrage. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 13 it is a federal legal requirement for any person – a doctor, nurse or any person who gives a vaccination in America – to file a report with the federal government whenever a vaccination is followed by a bad health outcome, especially a hospitalization, injury or death. Vaccine providers are NOT supposed to be notifying the vaccine manufacturer – which clearly is like flushing the vaccine reaction report down the toilet – they are supposed to be notifying the government. And health officials at the FDA and CDC are supposed to be analyzing each and every report of a serious vaccine injury or death.
Massive Underreporting of Vaccine Bad Outcomes
FDA and CDC officials admit that there is underreporting of vaccine-related bad health outcomes. In fact, some studies say that less than 10 percent or even less than 1 percent of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported. 14 15
Closed Government Databases Used to Deny Vaccine Risks
But health officials are quick to downplay the significance of this. They tell us not to worry because the closed government databases, which the CDC operates with vaccine manufacturers and HMO’s they pay to participate in them, can be relied upon to reassure us that all those seizures and blood clots and cases of brain inflammation, paralysis, lupus and deaths in girls who get Gardasil shots are really – mostly - just a coincidence.
In 2005, the National Vaccine Information Center and other parent groups called on the CDC and FDA to open up those closed government vaccine monitoring databases to public scrutiny. 16 17 So far, most of that vaccine reaction data is still hidden from public view so it can’t be independently verified.
Will H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Risks Be Hidden From Public?
If the government can let vaccine manufacturers fast track Gardasil vaccine 18 but can’t compel the drug company that makes the vaccine or doctors giving the vaccine - who are shielded from liability 19 - to report each and every death and serious injury that follows vaccination, why should we believe anything government health officials tell us about the safety of vaccines?
Why should we believe that the experimental swine flu vaccines being fast tracked with only a few weeks of study in healthy children and adults 20 are going to be safe and that all vaccine reactions will be reported to the government and then properly followed up? 21
No Way To Monitor H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Side Effects In Schools
It is far more likely that, when children get swine flu vaccine in schools and then get really sick or even die like the Gardasil girls, that all those bad health outcomes will be written off as a coincidence by health officials. That is, IF any reports are made to the government at all! Because few school nurses or other people giving children swine flu vaccines in the schools will be taking medical histories; or have a way to record vaccine information in children’s medical records, much less monitor children for signs of a vaccine reaction and then file a reaction report to the government.
This is not the way to run a national vaccine program. This is not what we expect from doctors in positions of authority who have accepted responsibility for protecting our individual health or the health of our nation.
Doctors & Drug Companies Shielded From Liability Ignoring the Law
In the early 1980’s, parents of DPT vaccine injured children worked very hard on getting informing, recording and reporting safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. We wanted to make sure everything was being done to help prevent vaccine injuries and deaths. Little did we know then that those safety provisions would be blown off by doctors and vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability in that law. 22
The federal vaccine safety provisions should be codified into every state vaccine law with legal sanctions for doctors and drug companies who fail to file a complete vaccine reaction report.
What Public Health Emergency?
And now, today, we have swine flu vaccines that are being rushed to market 23 with even less testing that the fast tracked Gardasil vaccine had, with the justification that there is a public health emergency. 24 25 26 What public health emergency?
As everyone knows by now, the swine flu is no more serious than the garden variety influenza that goes around every year. 27Just like everyone knows by now that most cervical cancer can be prevented with regular Pap screening and that the very expensive HPV vaccine is questionable at best. 28
Why are we letting employees working for government agencies and pharmaceutical companies stampede us into taking vaccines that may not be necessary, safe or effective and – certainly - are not properly monitored for safety after they are given to tens of millions of children and adults?
It is time to demand that government officials and drug companies stop conducting national vaccine experiments on the American people.
Come To Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination
If you want to learn more about vaccines and how to be a vaccine safety and informed consent advocate in your community, come to the Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination being held October 2-4, 2009 in Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.NVIC.org.
by Barbara Loe Fisher
The summer of 2009 revealed two inconvenient truths about vaccination: first, the Gardasil vaccine is not as safe for girls as the government, medical organizations and Merck have said it is; 1 and second, the H1N1 influenza pandemic is not as serious as health officials are telling us it is. Which means that fast tracked swine flu vaccines children will get in schools this fall may end up being more risky than getting the flu.
Doctors Question Benefits & Merck Marketing Tactics
On August 19, the Journal of the American Medical Association published two important articles written by doctors questioning whether HPV vaccine benefits outweigh the risks of recommending it for all young girls. The intellectually honest doctors publicly criticized the aggressive marketing of Gardasil vaccine by Merck and certain Merck-funded U.S. medical organizations 5 and asked for more scientific evidence that universal HPV vaccination is necessary, safe and effective. 6
Bad Outcome Report After 1 In Every 1,855 Gardasil Shots
In the third article, written by government health officials, it was revealed that 1 in every 1,855 Gardasil shots is followed by a bad health outcome report to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
These bad health outcomes reported after Gardasil shots include lots of girls suddenly passing out and having seizures within minutes or hours of getting vaccinated and suffering head injuries and broken bones when they hit the floor. In fact, there is a larger than expected rate of girls passing out after getting Gardasil vaccine.
Girls Passing Out & Having Car Accidents
Back in 2007, the National Vaccine Information Center warned that many girls given Gardasil shots were losing consciousness within minutes or hours. 7 8 9 Some girls have left doctors offices and fallen unconscious while driving and had car accidents. 10 This brings up the little known fact that four girls who got Gardasil in Merck’s pre-licensure clinical trials died in car accidents. 11 How many of those girls suddenly collapsed while driving?
Clearly, Gardasil vaccine should be given while girls are lying down and they should be warned that sudden collapse can occur without warning within 24 hours of getting vaccinated.
Blood Clots Reports After Gardasil
What else did the recently published government study on Gardasil reveal? Well, we now know that there is a greater than expected rate of reported blood clots in girls who get the vaccine. Some blood clots can lead to pulmonary embolism or stroke, which means the blood clot ends up in the lung or in the brain. In fact four girls have died after they developed a blood clot that traveled to the lung after Gardasil vaccination.
Most Bad Outcome Reports Merck Files FDA Can’t Analyze
But the most shocking fact in this study is that, although nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review of what happened to the girls who fell unconscious or had convulsions, developed blood clots or inflammation of the brain and nerves, including Guillain Barre syndrome that causes paralysis, or those who suddenly developed serious autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and more.
There were 32 reports of Gardasil-related deaths between 2006 and the end of 2008 but only 20 of these death reports had enough information to be followed up. There are now a total of 43 deaths that have been reported. 12 How many of those Gardasil related deaths cannot be evaluated because of incomplete information?
1986 Law Requires Reporting of Vaccine Injuries & Deaths
This is an outrage. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 13 it is a federal legal requirement for any person – a doctor, nurse or any person who gives a vaccination in America – to file a report with the federal government whenever a vaccination is followed by a bad health outcome, especially a hospitalization, injury or death. Vaccine providers are NOT supposed to be notifying the vaccine manufacturer – which clearly is like flushing the vaccine reaction report down the toilet – they are supposed to be notifying the government. And health officials at the FDA and CDC are supposed to be analyzing each and every report of a serious vaccine injury or death.
Massive Underreporting of Vaccine Bad Outcomes
FDA and CDC officials admit that there is underreporting of vaccine-related bad health outcomes. In fact, some studies say that less than 10 percent or even less than 1 percent of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported. 14 15
Closed Government Databases Used to Deny Vaccine Risks
But health officials are quick to downplay the significance of this. They tell us not to worry because the closed government databases, which the CDC operates with vaccine manufacturers and HMO’s they pay to participate in them, can be relied upon to reassure us that all those seizures and blood clots and cases of brain inflammation, paralysis, lupus and deaths in girls who get Gardasil shots are really – mostly - just a coincidence.
In 2005, the National Vaccine Information Center and other parent groups called on the CDC and FDA to open up those closed government vaccine monitoring databases to public scrutiny. 16 17 So far, most of that vaccine reaction data is still hidden from public view so it can’t be independently verified.
Will H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Risks Be Hidden From Public?
If the government can let vaccine manufacturers fast track Gardasil vaccine 18 but can’t compel the drug company that makes the vaccine or doctors giving the vaccine - who are shielded from liability 19 - to report each and every death and serious injury that follows vaccination, why should we believe anything government health officials tell us about the safety of vaccines?
Why should we believe that the experimental swine flu vaccines being fast tracked with only a few weeks of study in healthy children and adults 20 are going to be safe and that all vaccine reactions will be reported to the government and then properly followed up? 21
No Way To Monitor H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Side Effects In Schools
It is far more likely that, when children get swine flu vaccine in schools and then get really sick or even die like the Gardasil girls, that all those bad health outcomes will be written off as a coincidence by health officials. That is, IF any reports are made to the government at all! Because few school nurses or other people giving children swine flu vaccines in the schools will be taking medical histories; or have a way to record vaccine information in children’s medical records, much less monitor children for signs of a vaccine reaction and then file a reaction report to the government.
This is not the way to run a national vaccine program. This is not what we expect from doctors in positions of authority who have accepted responsibility for protecting our individual health or the health of our nation.
Doctors & Drug Companies Shielded From Liability Ignoring the Law
In the early 1980’s, parents of DPT vaccine injured children worked very hard on getting informing, recording and reporting safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. We wanted to make sure everything was being done to help prevent vaccine injuries and deaths. Little did we know then that those safety provisions would be blown off by doctors and vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability in that law. 22
The federal vaccine safety provisions should be codified into every state vaccine law with legal sanctions for doctors and drug companies who fail to file a complete vaccine reaction report.
What Public Health Emergency?
And now, today, we have swine flu vaccines that are being rushed to market 23 with even less testing that the fast tracked Gardasil vaccine had, with the justification that there is a public health emergency. 24 25 26 What public health emergency?
As everyone knows by now, the swine flu is no more serious than the garden variety influenza that goes around every year. 27Just like everyone knows by now that most cervical cancer can be prevented with regular Pap screening and that the very expensive HPV vaccine is questionable at best. 28
Why are we letting employees working for government agencies and pharmaceutical companies stampede us into taking vaccines that may not be necessary, safe or effective and – certainly - are not properly monitored for safety after they are given to tens of millions of children and adults?
It is time to demand that government officials and drug companies stop conducting national vaccine experiments on the American people.
Come To Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination
If you want to learn more about vaccines and how to be a vaccine safety and informed consent advocate in your community, come to the Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination being held October 2-4, 2009 in Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.NVIC.org.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Who is "Saving" us from the FDA?
The Great Swine Flu Hoax of 2009,
Part II
I find it interesting....and alarming...that the FDA and our government spend so much time "saving" us from people who make claims that staying healthy to prevent infections ia better than "crisis treatment" of them. Read on!
Air "sterilizers." A photon machine. Supplement pills to boost the immune system. Protective shampoos and face masks. Even fake Tamiflu.
These and other products making bogus claims to prevent or treat swine flu are flooding the Internet as scam artists prey on the public's fears while the vaccine is delayed and real Tamiflu — made by Switzerland's Roche Group — is rationed.
Every problem, it would seem, is a sales opportunity. Some of the products appear to have been pitched for other emergencies, such as one called "Quake Kare" and masks and purifiers sold during the SARS scare.
Federal officials have sent warning letters to promoters of more than 140 swine flu-related products, including well-known alternative medicine advocate Dr. Andrew Weil for his "Immune Support Formula."
Really? Who, then, gets to send letters to the Big Pharma corporations that are making billions on the unnecessary and ineffective flu vaccines??
Part II
I find it interesting....and alarming...that the FDA and our government spend so much time "saving" us from people who make claims that staying healthy to prevent infections ia better than "crisis treatment" of them. Read on!
Air "sterilizers." A photon machine. Supplement pills to boost the immune system. Protective shampoos and face masks. Even fake Tamiflu.
These and other products making bogus claims to prevent or treat swine flu are flooding the Internet as scam artists prey on the public's fears while the vaccine is delayed and real Tamiflu — made by Switzerland's Roche Group — is rationed.
Every problem, it would seem, is a sales opportunity. Some of the products appear to have been pitched for other emergencies, such as one called "Quake Kare" and masks and purifiers sold during the SARS scare.
Federal officials have sent warning letters to promoters of more than 140 swine flu-related products, including well-known alternative medicine advocate Dr. Andrew Weil for his "Immune Support Formula."
Really? Who, then, gets to send letters to the Big Pharma corporations that are making billions on the unnecessary and ineffective flu vaccines??
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
You Can Scare All of the People Some of the Time...
THE GREAT SWINE FLU "HOAX" of 2009...
Why is there never any reference made to the last swine flu "epidemic" 20 years ago in the US when 50 million people got the swine flu vaccine and more people died from the vaccine than the swine flu itself -- and that's not counting all those that developed permanent neurological damage.
Urgent and vital information you need to know about the massive amount of disinformation that the media has recently escalated as best demonstrated by 60 Minutes segment on Swine Flu which aired this past Sunday.
This past Sunday's 60 Minutes segment did ask some hard questions to the Assistant Surgeon General. However, what was missing is that they didn't ask why CDC officials persist in telling the public that this H1N1 strain of influenza is quite dangerous when the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season, is in direct conflict with what the CDC is telling the American people.
Overall 60 Minutes did a fairly good, objective piece of journalism that told the truth. They even pressured the Assistant Surgeon General about the vaccine's safety. On one hand, she's hitching her safety statements to the fact that the H1N1 vaccine is similar to seasonal influenza vaccine, and therefore "safe," even though she realistically CAN'T say that the new H1N1 swine flu vaccine is safe, or that it has been thoroughly tested because it only has been tested for a few weeks.
On the other hand CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated to prevent a deadly pandemic. This is completely inconsistent and irrational logic.
Come on CDC, you simply can't have it both ways.
Interestingly, the 60 minutes segment acknowledges that many people born before 1950 have antibodies to the new H1N1 influenza and are naturally protected.
WAKE UP AMERICA, this is before ANY vaccine was available!
If influenza vaccines are so effective, then why don't they work to protect people that have been getting their flu shots all these years?
(There is a new Canadian study that suggests those who have gotten seasonal influenza vaccines in the past may be at greater risk for getting H1N1 swine flu. This information reinforces NVIC's call for a comparison of the long term health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children).
The answer is, of course, that vaccines do not offer long term immunity. Natural immunity is what you gain when you recover from influenza and natural immunity is what is protecting older Americans, who have recovered from exposure to H1N1 strains of influenza in the past.
What is unknown is whether the massive amount of vaccine exposure in the US population has critically weakened people's ability to mount an effective immune response to novel infections like H1N1.
It was discouraging to see 60 Minutes end their segment on H1N1 influenza vaccine with an encouragement to go to their website to find out where to get a swine flu vaccination...
But HealthAngel, don't 36,000 people a year die from the Flu?? Don't we need to get vaccinated?? Bull puppies, I say!
Dr. David Rosenthal, Director of Harvard University's Health Services, brings clarity to this confusion:
Most of these so-called influenza deaths are in fact bacterial pneumonias -- not even viral pneumonias -- and secondary infections. Furthermore, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Academy shows that many of these deaths are a result of pneumonias acquired by patients taking stomach acid suppressing drugs.
So, for example, if we are to take the combined figure of influenza and pneumonia deaths during the flu season of 2001, and add a bit of spin to the figures, we are left believing that 62,034 people died from influenza.
The actual figures are 61,777 died from pneumonia and only 257 from influenza.
Even more amazing, in those 257 cases, only 18 were lab confirmed as positive for the influenza virus!
In my opinion, there's a vast difference between 257 deaths and 36,000 deaths from influenza..
For more complete information on AMERICA's FLU VACCINE HOAX, go to our friends at: The National Vaccine Information Center
Go ahead....get vaccinated. Don't blame me when you get sick....
Why is there never any reference made to the last swine flu "epidemic" 20 years ago in the US when 50 million people got the swine flu vaccine and more people died from the vaccine than the swine flu itself -- and that's not counting all those that developed permanent neurological damage.
Urgent and vital information you need to know about the massive amount of disinformation that the media has recently escalated as best demonstrated by 60 Minutes segment on Swine Flu which aired this past Sunday.
This past Sunday's 60 Minutes segment did ask some hard questions to the Assistant Surgeon General. However, what was missing is that they didn't ask why CDC officials persist in telling the public that this H1N1 strain of influenza is quite dangerous when the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season, is in direct conflict with what the CDC is telling the American people.
Overall 60 Minutes did a fairly good, objective piece of journalism that told the truth. They even pressured the Assistant Surgeon General about the vaccine's safety. On one hand, she's hitching her safety statements to the fact that the H1N1 vaccine is similar to seasonal influenza vaccine, and therefore "safe," even though she realistically CAN'T say that the new H1N1 swine flu vaccine is safe, or that it has been thoroughly tested because it only has been tested for a few weeks.
On the other hand CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated to prevent a deadly pandemic. This is completely inconsistent and irrational logic.
Come on CDC, you simply can't have it both ways.
Interestingly, the 60 minutes segment acknowledges that many people born before 1950 have antibodies to the new H1N1 influenza and are naturally protected.
WAKE UP AMERICA, this is before ANY vaccine was available!
If influenza vaccines are so effective, then why don't they work to protect people that have been getting their flu shots all these years?
(There is a new Canadian study that suggests those who have gotten seasonal influenza vaccines in the past may be at greater risk for getting H1N1 swine flu. This information reinforces NVIC's call for a comparison of the long term health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children).
The answer is, of course, that vaccines do not offer long term immunity. Natural immunity is what you gain when you recover from influenza and natural immunity is what is protecting older Americans, who have recovered from exposure to H1N1 strains of influenza in the past.
What is unknown is whether the massive amount of vaccine exposure in the US population has critically weakened people's ability to mount an effective immune response to novel infections like H1N1.
It was discouraging to see 60 Minutes end their segment on H1N1 influenza vaccine with an encouragement to go to their website to find out where to get a swine flu vaccination...
But HealthAngel, don't 36,000 people a year die from the Flu?? Don't we need to get vaccinated?? Bull puppies, I say!
Dr. David Rosenthal, Director of Harvard University's Health Services, brings clarity to this confusion:
Most of these so-called influenza deaths are in fact bacterial pneumonias -- not even viral pneumonias -- and secondary infections. Furthermore, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Academy shows that many of these deaths are a result of pneumonias acquired by patients taking stomach acid suppressing drugs.
So, for example, if we are to take the combined figure of influenza and pneumonia deaths during the flu season of 2001, and add a bit of spin to the figures, we are left believing that 62,034 people died from influenza.
The actual figures are 61,777 died from pneumonia and only 257 from influenza.
Even more amazing, in those 257 cases, only 18 were lab confirmed as positive for the influenza virus!
In my opinion, there's a vast difference between 257 deaths and 36,000 deaths from influenza..
For more complete information on AMERICA's FLU VACCINE HOAX, go to our friends at: The National Vaccine Information Center
Go ahead....get vaccinated. Don't blame me when you get sick....
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Best Treatment for Prostate Cancer is .............NO TREATMENT!!
In the largest analysis of its kind, new research pinpoints how long older men who are diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer can expect to live if they opt for a conservative, "watchful waiting" approach to their cancer treatment — as opposed to seeking immediate, aggressive therapies such as surgery and radiation.
Epidemiologists at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey examined national cancer-registry data involving 14,516 men over age 65 who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (that which has not spread beyond the prostate) from 1992 to 2002 and delayed surgery or radiation for at least six months after the diagnosis — the wait-and-see strategy commonly referred to as watchful waiting.
In the majority of these patients — those who were diagnosed with early-stage disease at a median age of 78 — the 10-year risk of cancer-related death was less than 10%.
Researchers also calculated the risk of death in a smaller group of watchful waiters who were diagnosed between ages 66 and 74, an age group for whom comparable data existed in past research. These patients' 10-year risk of death from prostate cancer was just 6% — a significant improvement over the risk in a similar group of men who were diagnosed from 1949 to 1992.
The new findings confirm what oncologists have long known, (and I HAVE BEEN TELLING MY PATIENTS FOR YEARS!!!) — that, in general, aggressive treatment for older prostate-cancer patients does not significantly improve survival. Indeed, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS), the 10-year survival rate for prostate-cancer patients over age 65 who pursue aggressive treatment (surgery, radiation or chemotherapy) is 97%, slightly higher than the survival rate of the 66-to-74-year-old patients in the current study who chose no treatment.
"Cancer is the scariest word in medicine for many patients. The first thought is, Oh, my God, I'm going to die. The next thought is, What can we do to get rid of this? But we've known for quite some time that many men — especially those in their advanced age — don't need aggressive therapies," says Dr. Durado Brooks, director of prostate and colorectal cancers at the ACS.
My analysis: Another case of the treatment being more likely to cause harm than the disease itself. Too many men rush into radiation and, even worse, radical surgey and find they are either incontinent or impotent or both! Now the scientists have finally caught up with me!
Epidemiologists at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey examined national cancer-registry data involving 14,516 men over age 65 who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (that which has not spread beyond the prostate) from 1992 to 2002 and delayed surgery or radiation for at least six months after the diagnosis — the wait-and-see strategy commonly referred to as watchful waiting.
In the majority of these patients — those who were diagnosed with early-stage disease at a median age of 78 — the 10-year risk of cancer-related death was less than 10%.
Researchers also calculated the risk of death in a smaller group of watchful waiters who were diagnosed between ages 66 and 74, an age group for whom comparable data existed in past research. These patients' 10-year risk of death from prostate cancer was just 6% — a significant improvement over the risk in a similar group of men who were diagnosed from 1949 to 1992.
The new findings confirm what oncologists have long known, (and I HAVE BEEN TELLING MY PATIENTS FOR YEARS!!!) — that, in general, aggressive treatment for older prostate-cancer patients does not significantly improve survival. Indeed, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS), the 10-year survival rate for prostate-cancer patients over age 65 who pursue aggressive treatment (surgery, radiation or chemotherapy) is 97%, slightly higher than the survival rate of the 66-to-74-year-old patients in the current study who chose no treatment.
"Cancer is the scariest word in medicine for many patients. The first thought is, Oh, my God, I'm going to die. The next thought is, What can we do to get rid of this? But we've known for quite some time that many men — especially those in their advanced age — don't need aggressive therapies," says Dr. Durado Brooks, director of prostate and colorectal cancers at the ACS.
My analysis: Another case of the treatment being more likely to cause harm than the disease itself. Too many men rush into radiation and, even worse, radical surgey and find they are either incontinent or impotent or both! Now the scientists have finally caught up with me!
Monday, July 20, 2009
You are What You Eat....Forever...
Why is it so difficult for people to understand what makes them live long and prosper?
If there is one subject my patients are most interested in, it's diet and nutrition. More than ever, people want to know:
1. What can I eat to make me live longer?
2. What foods are the healthiest to eat?
3. What do I need to do to make my children healthier, better eaters?
.....and the most asked question: HOW DO I LOSE WEIGHT?
I will soon be publishing a book entitled: Organic Joe's Guide to a Healthy Life.
Until then, just follow these 3 important rules:
1. EAT LESS
2. MOVE MORE
3. DO NOT PUT ANY FOOD IN YOUR MOUTH THAT DOES NOT EXIST NATURALLY ON EARTH.
Healthangel
If there is one subject my patients are most interested in, it's diet and nutrition. More than ever, people want to know:
1. What can I eat to make me live longer?
2. What foods are the healthiest to eat?
3. What do I need to do to make my children healthier, better eaters?
.....and the most asked question: HOW DO I LOSE WEIGHT?
I will soon be publishing a book entitled: Organic Joe's Guide to a Healthy Life.
Until then, just follow these 3 important rules:
1. EAT LESS
2. MOVE MORE
3. DO NOT PUT ANY FOOD IN YOUR MOUTH THAT DOES NOT EXIST NATURALLY ON EARTH.
Healthangel
Thursday, June 18, 2009
WHY NJ NEEDS VACCINATION CHOICE
As demonstrated by the lack of effective protection against Swine Flu in this current pandemic by our previous mandatory vaccination, as well as the fact that THERE WERE FEWER CASES OF FLU DURING THE FLU VACCINE "SHORTAGE "2 YEAR'S AGO than during any previous year when there was plenty of vaccine available, consider the following:
The New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice is a network of parents, physicians, holistic organizations and autism support groups, concerned with the lack of parental rights regarding health care, and the overwhelming number of mandated vaccinations.
We believe that vaccination choice and informed consent is a key ethical medical standard. It is crucial that the NJ legislature pass A260/S1071 (http://njvaccinationchoice.org/A260.pdf), The Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization. 19 other states already provide a similar exemption; parents in NJ also deserve this right.
In December 2007, the NJ Public Health Council, a group of eight volunteers, unelected, governor-appointed officials, including lawyers and dentists, voted to add four new vaccine mandates, beginning Sept. 2008. Shortly thereafter, this mandate was signed into law.
The four new mandatory shots are now added to the already crowded schedule of vaccines as a requirement to attend daycare or school in New Jersey.
NJ REQUIRES MORE SHOTS THAN ANY OTHER STATE.
The new mandates are as follows along with reasons to question their mandatory status:
1. Annual influenza shot for children 6 to 59 months
* Where are the studies comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of administering annual flu shots to children as young as six months old?
* Seasonal reformulation of flu shots precludes any long term safety data. The CDC does comment each year, however, on the ineffectiveness of the vaccine because circulating strains don't match the vaccine. (CIDRAP News, Feb. 8, 2008, "CDC says influenza B flu strain doesn't match vaccine." AP Medical News, April 7, 2008, "CDC: Flu season worst in 4 years; vaccine didn't work well.")
* More than 90% of the flu shots given in the 2007-08 flu season contained high levels of thimerosal/mercury. [FluLaval (Glaxo-Smith Kline), Fluvirin (Novartis) and Fluzone (Sanofi Pasture) all contain 25 micrograms (mcg) of mercury per .5 ml dose. Fluarix (Glaxo-Smith Kline) contains trace amounts (less than 10 mcgs, however, mercury remains toxic even in miniscule amounts)]
* The amount of mercury in a typical pediatric dose of flu shot, which will be given each year, exceeds the safety limit established by the EPA for a 550 pound person. (EPA standard for "safe" mercury levels in the human body; point 1 (.1) microgram of mercury per 2.2 pounds of body weight.)
* The first time flu shot for anyone, including 6 month olds, is a double dose, 2 shots * Flu shots contain egg albumin and egg protein. There is potential for anaphylactic reaction if a child has an egg allergy, which is not commonly known at 6 months of age.
* According to package inserts for various influenza vaccines, No formulation of the flu vaccine has ever been tested for
1)carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer),
2) Affect on reproductive capacity,
3) Safety in pregnant women and fetal harm,
4) Safety in children under 4 years of age
New Jersey is the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to make flu shots and meningococcal shots compulsory. Many in this Coalition believe it is medically and scientifically irresponsible to mandate such vaccination.
NO CLINICAL TRIALS HAVE EVER BEEN DONE TO STUDY THE COLLECTIVE EFFECTS OF ALL THESE VACCINES!
Vaccination is a medical procedure which carries the risk of adverse reactions and side effects. Therefore, vaccination choice and informed consent is imperative. We call for passage of A260/S1071 (http://njvaccinationchoice.org/A260.pdf), the Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization.
Go to http://NJVaccinationChoice.org to learn more!!
The New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice is a network of parents, physicians, holistic organizations and autism support groups, concerned with the lack of parental rights regarding health care, and the overwhelming number of mandated vaccinations.
We believe that vaccination choice and informed consent is a key ethical medical standard. It is crucial that the NJ legislature pass A260/S1071 (http://njvaccinationchoice.org/A260.pdf), The Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization. 19 other states already provide a similar exemption; parents in NJ also deserve this right.
In December 2007, the NJ Public Health Council, a group of eight volunteers, unelected, governor-appointed officials, including lawyers and dentists, voted to add four new vaccine mandates, beginning Sept. 2008. Shortly thereafter, this mandate was signed into law.
The four new mandatory shots are now added to the already crowded schedule of vaccines as a requirement to attend daycare or school in New Jersey.
NJ REQUIRES MORE SHOTS THAN ANY OTHER STATE.
The new mandates are as follows along with reasons to question their mandatory status:
1. Annual influenza shot for children 6 to 59 months
* Where are the studies comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of administering annual flu shots to children as young as six months old?
* Seasonal reformulation of flu shots precludes any long term safety data. The CDC does comment each year, however, on the ineffectiveness of the vaccine because circulating strains don't match the vaccine. (CIDRAP News, Feb. 8, 2008, "CDC says influenza B flu strain doesn't match vaccine." AP Medical News, April 7, 2008, "CDC: Flu season worst in 4 years; vaccine didn't work well.")
* More than 90% of the flu shots given in the 2007-08 flu season contained high levels of thimerosal/mercury. [FluLaval (Glaxo-Smith Kline), Fluvirin (Novartis) and Fluzone (Sanofi Pasture) all contain 25 micrograms (mcg) of mercury per .5 ml dose. Fluarix (Glaxo-Smith Kline) contains trace amounts (less than 10 mcgs, however, mercury remains toxic even in miniscule amounts)]
* The amount of mercury in a typical pediatric dose of flu shot, which will be given each year, exceeds the safety limit established by the EPA for a 550 pound person. (EPA standard for "safe" mercury levels in the human body; point 1 (.1) microgram of mercury per 2.2 pounds of body weight.)
* The first time flu shot for anyone, including 6 month olds, is a double dose, 2 shots * Flu shots contain egg albumin and egg protein. There is potential for anaphylactic reaction if a child has an egg allergy, which is not commonly known at 6 months of age.
* According to package inserts for various influenza vaccines, No formulation of the flu vaccine has ever been tested for
1)carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer),
2) Affect on reproductive capacity,
3) Safety in pregnant women and fetal harm,
4) Safety in children under 4 years of age
New Jersey is the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to make flu shots and meningococcal shots compulsory. Many in this Coalition believe it is medically and scientifically irresponsible to mandate such vaccination.
NO CLINICAL TRIALS HAVE EVER BEEN DONE TO STUDY THE COLLECTIVE EFFECTS OF ALL THESE VACCINES!
Vaccination is a medical procedure which carries the risk of adverse reactions and side effects. Therefore, vaccination choice and informed consent is imperative. We call for passage of A260/S1071 (http://njvaccinationchoice.org/A260.pdf), the Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization.
Go to http://NJVaccinationChoice.org to learn more!!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
If we can't treat 'em...KILL 'EM
Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death
The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.
The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer.
Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).
The National Academies website published an article titled "Preventing Death and Injury From Medical Errors Requires Dramatic, System-Wide Changes." which you can read online at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068371?OpenDocument or the book "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/ - These show medical errors as a leading cause of death.
Based on the findings of one major study, medical errors kill some 44,000 people in U.S. hospitals each year. Another study puts the number much higher, at 98,000.
Even using the lower estimate, more people die from medical mistakes each year than from highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. And deaths from medication errors that take place both in and out of hospitals are aid to be more than 7,000 annually.
The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.
The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer.
Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).
The National Academies website published an article titled "Preventing Death and Injury From Medical Errors Requires Dramatic, System-Wide Changes." which you can read online at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068371?OpenDocument or the book "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/ - These show medical errors as a leading cause of death.
Based on the findings of one major study, medical errors kill some 44,000 people in U.S. hospitals each year. Another study puts the number much higher, at 98,000.
Even using the lower estimate, more people die from medical mistakes each year than from highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. And deaths from medication errors that take place both in and out of hospitals are aid to be more than 7,000 annually.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
ARE WE DRUG NATION???
Did you know American physicians write 4,000,000,000 prescriptions a year and the United States accounts for nearly 50% of worldwide pharmaceutical spending?
That the Institute of Medicine states that preventable medication errors result in 7,000 deaths in hospitals each year and tens of thousands in out -patient settings?
And that the FDA admits that 80% of all new drugs they approve offer no substantial improvement over time tested drugs already on the market?
That the Institute of Medicine states that preventable medication errors result in 7,000 deaths in hospitals each year and tens of thousands in out -patient settings?
And that the FDA admits that 80% of all new drugs they approve offer no substantial improvement over time tested drugs already on the market?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
AstraZeneca's weight gain and diabetes side effect...
AstraZeneca's weight gain and diabetes side effect cover up, and the sleazy Seroquel sex scandal
In the staid world of drug research, this is about as scandalous as it gets. The antipsychotic drug quetiapine, or Seroquel, is coming under fire.
As MedPage Today reports, damning e-mails from the past are resurfacing, implicating the drug maker for "burying" studies linking the drug to weight gain and diabetes.But here's where it gets juicy.AstraZeneca's former US medical director has admitted prior sexual relationships with both a researcher involved with the Seroquel studies, as well as with a ghost-writer who helped write journal articles involving the drug.
Psychiatrist Daniel Carlat comments further, and points to public court documents, which say the relationships with the women were "relevant and highly probative evidence of one high level AstraZeneca employee's determination to exploit his sexual relationships with these women in order to elevate Seroquel's status in the prescribing medical community through supposedly 'independent' publications of Seroquel safety and efficacy data .
Moreover, the mere existence of these relationships calls into question the integrity of the scientific work product of those involved. "Sex for positive drug spin? That's a first, and I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this scandal.
In the staid world of drug research, this is about as scandalous as it gets. The antipsychotic drug quetiapine, or Seroquel, is coming under fire.
As MedPage Today reports, damning e-mails from the past are resurfacing, implicating the drug maker for "burying" studies linking the drug to weight gain and diabetes.But here's where it gets juicy.AstraZeneca's former US medical director has admitted prior sexual relationships with both a researcher involved with the Seroquel studies, as well as with a ghost-writer who helped write journal articles involving the drug.
Psychiatrist Daniel Carlat comments further, and points to public court documents, which say the relationships with the women were "relevant and highly probative evidence of one high level AstraZeneca employee's determination to exploit his sexual relationships with these women in order to elevate Seroquel's status in the prescribing medical community through supposedly 'independent' publications of Seroquel safety and efficacy data .
Moreover, the mere existence of these relationships calls into question the integrity of the scientific work product of those involved. "Sex for positive drug spin? That's a first, and I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this scandal.
MRI and needless mastectomies: Perfect Together!
MRI Scans as Overtreatment for Breast Cancer
Yesterday, while scouring KevinMD, I stumbled across a post from “Respectful Insolence,” a blog authored by an academic surgeon/scientist who dubs himself “Orac.” In the post, Orac reports that this Wednesday at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2008 Annual Meeting,researchers from the Mayo Clinic will be reporting on a disturbing correlation between the use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a rise in the number of women having mastectomies.
In this context, Orac offers a cogent, compelling perspective on why too much cancer screening can harm patients. Orac’s worries specifically relate to using MRI scans to detect breast cancer. Advocates of the procedure rightly claim that MRI scans can detect more growths than other techniques, including mammography [i.e. an x-ray] and a clinical examination.
The MRI technology detects so much that, as the New York Times put it last year, the scans reveal “all sorts of suspicious growths in the breast, leading to many repeat scans and biopsies for things that turn out to be benign.”
In other words, breast MRI scans are so sensitive that if you have breast cancer, there’s an almost 100 percent chance that they’ll detect it; but the technology produces many false positives because it’s not as good at distinguishing between malignant and benign growths. As Orac puts it: “…MRI [scans] now routinely "section" people into "slices" much thinner than 1 cm, making our imaging sensitivity considerably higher than it was 14 years ago.
The problem is that while many people undergo malignant changes in various organs as they grow older than most will never actually develop “clinically apparent cancer.” In fact, some studies have shown that MRI scans accurately detect breast cancer just 30 percent of the time. Though most studies place this rate at a higher level, they also show that mammographies (using x-rays to examine the breast) lead to fewer false positives than MRI scans.
Yesterday, while scouring KevinMD, I stumbled across a post from “Respectful Insolence,” a blog authored by an academic surgeon/scientist who dubs himself “Orac.” In the post, Orac reports that this Wednesday at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2008 Annual Meeting,researchers from the Mayo Clinic will be reporting on a disturbing correlation between the use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a rise in the number of women having mastectomies.
In this context, Orac offers a cogent, compelling perspective on why too much cancer screening can harm patients. Orac’s worries specifically relate to using MRI scans to detect breast cancer. Advocates of the procedure rightly claim that MRI scans can detect more growths than other techniques, including mammography [i.e. an x-ray] and a clinical examination.
The MRI technology detects so much that, as the New York Times put it last year, the scans reveal “all sorts of suspicious growths in the breast, leading to many repeat scans and biopsies for things that turn out to be benign.”
In other words, breast MRI scans are so sensitive that if you have breast cancer, there’s an almost 100 percent chance that they’ll detect it; but the technology produces many false positives because it’s not as good at distinguishing between malignant and benign growths. As Orac puts it: “…MRI [scans] now routinely "section" people into "slices" much thinner than 1 cm, making our imaging sensitivity considerably higher than it was 14 years ago.
The problem is that while many people undergo malignant changes in various organs as they grow older than most will never actually develop “clinically apparent cancer.” In fact, some studies have shown that MRI scans accurately detect breast cancer just 30 percent of the time. Though most studies place this rate at a higher level, they also show that mammographies (using x-rays to examine the breast) lead to fewer false positives than MRI scans.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
As our Blog title states:
Man in Coma Has 'Miracle' Recovery
Wakes Up After Doctors Decided to Pull Plug
(Feb. 18) - A California man astounded his family and doctor alike when he awoke from a coma 96 hours after suffering a heart stoppage -- and just after the decision was made to take him off life support.
Mike Connolly, 56, , developed an arrhythmia on Jan. 31, California's North County Times reported. His heart stopped beating, and his wife, Loris, called 911.
Paramedics worked on Connolly for 35 minutes, performing CPR and shocking him with a defibrillator, before his heart re-started. Pulmonary physician Martin Nielsen told the North County Times that it's likely Connolly went without oxygen for at least 10 minutes -- which usually causes severe brain damage.
Doctors had deemed his condition hopeless, and his family decided to disconnect life support. Then he woke up.
"When we get a guy like Mike Connolly, it's almost like a miracle," pulmonary physician Martin Nielsen said. "I've never seen anybody come back like he has."
(Yeah-I bet they couldn't wait to get their greedy little hands on all those nice, fresh organs for expensive organ transplants! I bet the Docs are actually pissed-off! The perfect candidate....too bad they didn't get to the plug fast enough. Who is guarding YOUR plug??)
Wakes Up After Doctors Decided to Pull Plug
(Feb. 18) - A California man astounded his family and doctor alike when he awoke from a coma 96 hours after suffering a heart stoppage -- and just after the decision was made to take him off life support.
Mike Connolly, 56, , developed an arrhythmia on Jan. 31, California's North County Times reported. His heart stopped beating, and his wife, Loris, called 911.
Paramedics worked on Connolly for 35 minutes, performing CPR and shocking him with a defibrillator, before his heart re-started. Pulmonary physician Martin Nielsen told the North County Times that it's likely Connolly went without oxygen for at least 10 minutes -- which usually causes severe brain damage.
Doctors had deemed his condition hopeless, and his family decided to disconnect life support. Then he woke up.
"When we get a guy like Mike Connolly, it's almost like a miracle," pulmonary physician Martin Nielsen said. "I've never seen anybody come back like he has."
(Yeah-I bet they couldn't wait to get their greedy little hands on all those nice, fresh organs for expensive organ transplants! I bet the Docs are actually pissed-off! The perfect candidate....too bad they didn't get to the plug fast enough. Who is guarding YOUR plug??)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
