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!!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
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??)
Friday, December 12, 2008
Some Asthma Drugs Too Risky, FDA Told
WASHINGTON (Dec. 11) - Government health advisers Thursday called for restrictions on some long-acting asthma drugs, but spared Advair, a top-selling medication used by millions of patients.
Outside experts advising the Food and Drug Administration recommended that Foradil and Serevent no longer be used for asthma. But they said the benefits of Advair and Symbicort clearly outweigh the risks.
All the medications contain an ingredient that relaxes muscles around stressed airways. But that may mask symptoms that can trigger life-threatening asthma attacks. Advair and Symbicort contain a second ingredient that reduces inflammation inside breathing passages and may help patients avoid such problems.
The FDA's own drug safety experts had recommended restrictions on all four drugs, including that none of them be used to treat asthmatic children. But the agency's respiratory specialists said the risks were manageable and no curbs were needed.
With its own experts deadlocked, the FDA called in an unusually large panel of 27 outside advisers. The medical and scientific experts said Advair and Symbicort should continue to be used with all patients, including children. The vote on Advair was 27-0; on Symbicort it was 26-0. On Foradil nine voted "yes" and 18 said "no," with a "no" vote meaning the risks were greater than the benefits. For Serevent the vote was 10-17.
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its outside experts.
About 22 million people in the United States suffer from asthma, which claims nearly 3,600 lives. Children account for nearly one out of every three patients. An FDA analysis showed that the risks of long-acting asthma medications were greater in children.
The four medications contain a kind of drug called a long-acting beta agonist, or LABA. It relaxes the muscles around stressed airways to help patients breathe.
In recent years, millions of asthma patients have turned to the long-acting drugs to help them breathe more normally, allowing adults to get nights of uninterrupted sleep, and kids, for instance, to join a soccer team. Advair dominates the market, with almost 4 million patients.
But in rare cases, the drugs can increase the risk of serious asthma complications and send patients to the emergency room gasping for air.
Some experts believe that using a LABA alone can mask developing symptoms, and unexpectedly get patients in trouble. That's why treatment guidelines call for LABA medications to be used with a steroid. Asthma patients also carry a "rescue" inhaler for emergencies.
Bottom line: Unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, do not pump your body full of drugs, especially steroids, as they can kill you.
If you suffer from severe asthma, emergecy inhalers are far safer and more efffective than prophylactic steroids.
Outside experts advising the Food and Drug Administration recommended that Foradil and Serevent no longer be used for asthma. But they said the benefits of Advair and Symbicort clearly outweigh the risks.
All the medications contain an ingredient that relaxes muscles around stressed airways. But that may mask symptoms that can trigger life-threatening asthma attacks. Advair and Symbicort contain a second ingredient that reduces inflammation inside breathing passages and may help patients avoid such problems.
The FDA's own drug safety experts had recommended restrictions on all four drugs, including that none of them be used to treat asthmatic children. But the agency's respiratory specialists said the risks were manageable and no curbs were needed.
With its own experts deadlocked, the FDA called in an unusually large panel of 27 outside advisers. The medical and scientific experts said Advair and Symbicort should continue to be used with all patients, including children. The vote on Advair was 27-0; on Symbicort it was 26-0. On Foradil nine voted "yes" and 18 said "no," with a "no" vote meaning the risks were greater than the benefits. For Serevent the vote was 10-17.
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its outside experts.
About 22 million people in the United States suffer from asthma, which claims nearly 3,600 lives. Children account for nearly one out of every three patients. An FDA analysis showed that the risks of long-acting asthma medications were greater in children.
The four medications contain a kind of drug called a long-acting beta agonist, or LABA. It relaxes the muscles around stressed airways to help patients breathe.
In recent years, millions of asthma patients have turned to the long-acting drugs to help them breathe more normally, allowing adults to get nights of uninterrupted sleep, and kids, for instance, to join a soccer team. Advair dominates the market, with almost 4 million patients.
But in rare cases, the drugs can increase the risk of serious asthma complications and send patients to the emergency room gasping for air.
Some experts believe that using a LABA alone can mask developing symptoms, and unexpectedly get patients in trouble. That's why treatment guidelines call for LABA medications to be used with a steroid. Asthma patients also carry a "rescue" inhaler for emergencies.
Bottom line: Unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, do not pump your body full of drugs, especially steroids, as they can kill you.
If you suffer from severe asthma, emergecy inhalers are far safer and more efffective than prophylactic steroids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
