Health 1-2-3

Congressman Rogers statements about Health care plan

2009-11-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

Thought provoking speech on the present Health Care plan under consideration...

H1N1 vaccine flu mist package insert - SHOULD READ before taking vaccine

2009-10-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

Please read the following excerpts from the package insert for the H1N1 vaccine (delivery - flu-mist) and then, read the insert itself. I have referenced the sections the excerpts were taken from for your convenience. The insert is a PDF file on the FDA website.

Package insert for H1N1 vaccine:

Contraindications:

Do NOT give to Children less than 24 months old

5.1 Risks in Children <24 Months of Age

DO NOT give to people with asthma - has not been studied in individuals with severe asthma!

5.2 Asthma/Recurrent Wheezing
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist should not be administered to any individuals with asthma or children < 5 years of age with recurrent wheezing because of the potential for increased risk of wheezing post vaccination unless the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.
Do not administer Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist to individuals with severe asthma or active wheezing because these individuals have not been studied in clinical trials.

DO NOT GIVE TO Immune challenged (was studied in 57 people who were HIV positive but they say not enough data to justify administering in this group)

5.4 Altered Immunocompetence
Administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, or FluMist live virus vaccine, to immunocompromised persons should be based on careful consideration of potential benefits and risks. Although FluMist was studied in 57 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic adults with HIV infection [see Clinical Studies (14.3)], data supporting the safety and effectiveness of FluMist administration in immunocompromised individuals are limited.

"May not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine"

5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.

Later, they admitted the vaccine had not been evaluated for effectiveness (way down in the document!) Different story from what we have read on the news, right?

Clinical trials - adverse reactions:

6.1 Adverse Reactions in Clinical Trials

Increased hospitalizations in children receiving "flu mist"

Most hospitalizations observed were gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections and occurred more than 6 weeks post vaccination. In post hoc analysis, rates of hospitalization in children 6-11 months of age (n = 1376) were 6.1% in FluMist recipients and 2.6% in active control recipients.

Adverse reactions in adults: (same section as above)

In adults 18-49 years of age in Study AV009, summary of solicited adverse events occurring in at least 1% of FluMist recipients and at a higher rate compared to placebo include runny nose (44% FluMist vs. 27% placebo), headache (40% FluMist vs. 38% placebo), sore throat (28% FluMist vs. 17% placebo), tiredness/weakness (26% FluMist vs. 22% placebo), muscle aches (17% FluMist vs. 15% placebo), cough (14% FluMist vs. 11% placebo), and chills (9% FluMist vs. 6% placebo).
In addition to the solicited events, other adverse reactions from Study AV009 occurring in at least 1% of FluMist recipients and at a higher rate compared to placebo were: nasal congestion (9% FluMist vs. 2% placebo) and sinusitis (4% FluMist vs. 2% placebo).

Post marketing experience: adverse reactions i.e. these are side effects of the vaccine noticed after they started marketing the vaccine!

6.2 Postmarketing Experience

Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome).
Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria)
Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash

This vaccine is NOT approved for people, over 50 years old:

8.5 Geriatric Use
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is not approved for use in individuals .65 years of age. Subjects with underlying high-risk medical conditions (n=200) were studied for safety. Compared to controls, FluMist recipients had a higher rate of sore throat.

8.6 Use in Individuals 50-64 Years of Age
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is not approved for use in individuals 50-64 years of age. In Study AV009, effectiveness of FluMist was not demonstrated in individuals 50-64 years of age (n=641). Solicited adverse events were similar in type and frequency to those reported in younger adults.

They don't really understand HOW it works: (and how well it works)

12.1 Mechanism of Action
Immune mechanisms conferring protection against influenza following receipt of FluMist vaccine are not fully understood. Likewise, naturally acquired immunity to wild-type influenza has not been completely elucidated. Serum antibodies, mucosal antibodies and influenza-specific T cells may play a role in prevention and recovery from infection.

They don't know if this vaccine will cause infertility or cancer:

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal nor FluMist have been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or potential to impair fertility.

This vaccine has not been found effective in people over 50 years old. In a subgroup of adults, 18-49, the vaccine reduced illness with fever from 10 percent to 23 percent. This was a study in non high risk adults i.e. adults with no other medical conditions.

14.2 Study in Adults

Effectiveness for any of the three endpoints was not demonstrated in a subgroup of adults 50-64 years of age. Primary and secondary effectiveness endpoints from the age group 18-49 years of age are presented in Table 5.

While in a double blind study (57 in experimental group) of adults with HIV, the vaccine did not cause any worsening of their condition, they did not know whether or not it was effective in proventing the swine flu:

14.3 Study in Adults with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection
Safety and shedding of vaccine virus following FluMist administration were evaluated in 57 HIV-infected [median CD4 cell count of 541 cells/mm3] and 54 HIV-negative adults 18-58 years of age in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial using the frozen formulation. No serious adverse events were reported during the one-month follow-up period. Vaccine strain (type B) virus was detected in 1 of 28 HIV-infected subjects on Day 5 only and none of the HIV-negative FluMist recipients. No adverse effects on HIV viral load or CD4 counts were identified following FluMist. The effectiveness of FluMist in preventing influenza illness in HIV-infected individuals has not been evaluated.

Medical providers were told that they can receive the shot and immediately go back to their patients without worrying about transmitting the viruses to their patients. But that's NOT what the package insert says... on the contrary, they DO NOT KNOW whether or not these viruses can be transmitted:

14.5 Transmission Study
FluMist contains live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients. The relationship of viral replication in a vaccine recipient and transmission of vaccine viruses to other individuals has not been established.

Although the PDF distributed to medical providers (containing a bunch of myths about the safety and efficacy of this vaccine) never mentioned this, look what *I* found on the LAST PAGE of the package insert information... basically MEDICAL PROVIDERS SHOULD GIVE INFORMED CONSENT about this vaccine:

That is, the package insert says on the last page that your provider of the vaccine should let you know ALL OF THE ABOVE BEFORE you consent to take the vaccine!

17 PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATION
Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider of the potential benefits and risks of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, and should be advised that there are two influenza vaccine formulations for this influenza season, the monovalent vaccine against disease caused by pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus and seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine.

Convenient URL to share to read this package insert which is on the FDA website:

http://tinyurl.com/H1N1-pkg-insert (copy into email or blog)

testing a new vaccine - H1N1 but not telling you about it

2009-10-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

ABC has a video on their site showing several doctors who have the same concerns many people have about the swine flu vaccine - fast tracked, untested, too new - and are telling their patients to wait on this one. ABC news "medical expert" stated pretty much the same inaccuracies that our state health dept stated in the PDF below... "oh no, it's totally pure, been throughly tested" (in three months of testing?) And "it's the same as the regular flu vaccine" which is totally inaccurate - it's a totally NEW vaccine in concept, formulation and delivery.

Following are the inaccuracies the CDC in conjunction with the media and health depts are telling people all over the USA - this seems one step further than just not giving us informed consent that they are actually testing a new vaccine on US!

This is taken from a document released from our state health dept, a PDF to medical providers and contains pretty much the same inaccuracies I've heard from several places - here is the "informed consent information" people SHOULD be given about this new vaccine:

1. "You cannot get the flu from attenuated virus vaccines"

Inaccurate: you CAN get the illness from ANY LIVE virus vaccine.... do health care workers really not know this fact?

2. "Fact 6: The H1N1 vaccine has been properly and rigorously tested for safety and efficacy."

Inaccurate: This vaccine was "fast tracked" meaning it's not been well tested for EITHER safety OR efficacy. That's impossible with a fast tracked medication. Furthermore, its delivery as "flu mist" inhaled is controversial because concerns have been raised about the viruses attenuated or other (there are ALWAYS SOME WHICH DO NOT GET WEAKENED in live virus vaccine) crossing the blood / brain barrier and causing problems. Which is why "flu mist" has never been a real popular delivery... despite it being more "attractive" than an injection.

A friend of mine saw a CDC person interviewed on TV - he admitted that they were basically testing this on the public who will receive the vaccine. That's a no brainer with a very different vaccine which has been "fast tracked" to FDA approval.

3. "Fact 7: Multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine contain safe amounts of thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, which prevents contamination with bacteria and fungi."

Partially accurate. Thimerosal which is a type of mercury, is used as a preservative but there has been NO SAFE amount established and some studies have linked the receiving of a yearly flu shot with higher risk of neurological disease and Alzheimers. Mercury is highly toxic even in minute amounts.

4. "Fact 8: No causal connection has been found linking the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative and the incidence of autism, speech or language delay, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder"

Not accurate - some studies have found a link between the MMR and autism which has SUDDENLY greatly increased in incidence, including a well done clinical study of several years duration in the UK which has been ignored by the American media. (You know like the 38 worldwide studies suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer have been ignored by the AMC and the AMA?)

5. "Fact 9: Healthcare workers can safely receive the live attenuated (“weakened”) Influenza virus vaccine (Flumist) and go back to work immediately without risk of spreading the weakened virus to their patients UNLESS they work directly with bone marrow transplant patients."

May be inaccurate as flu can take 7-10 days to incubate and in that period, a person is said to be the most contagious.

6. "Fact 10: There is a much higher risk of getting Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) from having influenza illness than from getting vaccinated for influenza."

The CDC has admitted in other places, that there IS a risk of Guillain Barre with the H1N1 vaccine, specifically, and that it is unknown what that risk is. In 1976, they had 4000 cases of GBS FROM the vaccine and, by the way, the "great pandemic" predicted, never hit.

Australia ordered a version of the H1N1 vaccine without Thimerosal, without squalene and with DEAD viruses.... (i.e. their National Health Service).

The H1N1 vaccine also contains an adjuvant called "squalene" which is supposed to enhance the immune system however this has been poorly tested if at all and some studies have suggested it as a factor in the "Gulf war syndrome" (the vaccines given the soldiers had this in it and vaccines have not contained it since).

OK, Here's my take on this. The vaccine for H1N1 is TOTALLY new in every way for a flu vaccine, even the delivery. They are beta testing it on the public and if they pull it off i.e. do not have disastrous side effects, then think of what they will have... a vaccine which (1) enhances the immune system, (2) delivers a better immunity than a dead virus vaccine (though so far NONE of them deliver more than a couple of years immunity) and (3) has an attractive delivery system.... no shot!

Doing the math... a BIG SELLER! If they do have disastrous side effects, then they will say "oh well" because you know what.. the American public has a very short memory and so not much damage will be done... No one will remember it a couple of years down the line. So not really much of a risk for the pharmaceutical but a big risk for the American public who is NOT getting "informed consent" not even the medical providers... and if they JUST can test it on medical providers that will be enough of a test base for them. thousands. (a large segment of the public is NOT getting the H1N1 vaccine).

There was an article in Scientific American detailing this process - the fact that the pharmaceuticals (and surgeons) have to do this sort of thing with beta testing new procedures and drugs on the public largely because experimentation on human beings is against the law. They took the example of giving O2 to premies on the theory that it would help them... this blinded thousands of kids. They stated that if they had done a double blind study - 600 receive O2 and 600 do not, they would have found out within a year that o2 can cause blindness and you would have had no more than 600 blind babies instead of the thousands blinded over the 10 years they were testing this. But then, even if human experimentation WERE legal, who would volunteer?

They have done this sort of "beta test" several times... it's not a new concept and if Americans READ more instead of getting most of their info from TV, they would know this process... "who does not study history, is doomed to repeat it"

John McCain plain talks on the "Today Show"

2009-09-10T08:47:00.001-07:00

As we all know, the President made a passionate speech to a joint session of Congress yesterday which was televised to the American people, at times, yelling at them to stop bickering and pass the darned bill already. He then tried to de-bunk what he called the "myths" going around. "This bill will strengthen your insurance if you have insurance and offer insurance to you if you don't have insurance." "There are no death panels," he said, criticizing Sarah Palin's remark. Continuing, Obama said "of course there are some details to be ironed out..." a comment which got quite a laugh from the Congress persons in attendance, obviously surprising the president who apparently did NOT make that comment in jest.

And at one point, a Republican Congressman did the unbelievable. He interrupted the President, yelling "You're lying!"

He of course, apologized to the White House later, saying his conduct was inappropriate but this seemed to leave the media with the question of "was Obama lying?", a question never even asked about Bill Clinton who was known to spin a tale or two.

So this morning, the "Today Show" filmed a live interview with Vice President Biden and John McCain. First they talked to Biden and asked him "was the president lying?" Biden backed up the president but basically just reiterated what the president had said, as if he had, if not written the speech, then at least, was very familiar with it because he used basically the same words the president did.

Vice President Biden, when asked if the interrupting Congressman had represented some feelings among other Congress persons, emphatically said that he didn't believe it did, since John McCain and the rest distanced themselves from the remark. "I believe there is some real unity about this," said the VP, "and that we will have a bill before Thanksgiving."

But the shocker came when John McCain, specifically named by VP Biden, for being "in unity" with the President, was interviewed.

Matt Lauer asked McCain about several points in the President's speech - was he lying, Lauer wanted to know (this is interesting in itself because I have never remembered the media even THINKING that a president would be lying).

First about illegal immigrants... will they be covered in the present bill, asked Lauer. McCain answered, "Illegal immigrants are not covered," adding that it changes the number of uninsured in the USA from 47 million down to about 30 million.

Huh? You want to tell me that with all the bucks proposed to be spent, the govt getting into our health care etc, the bill will only insure 17 million more than are insured now?

But it gets better.

Matt Lauer asked if Palin's remark about "death panels" had any truth to it. John answered that the current bill does not establish death panels BUT added that a $500 billion dollar cut in Medicare spending is planned - he pointed out that in other countries when that large a cut in spending was done, rationing DID happen which could lead to the "death panels" so the concern of seniors was definitely appropriate.

Matt Lauer asked if the President was truthful about the three basics the bill established: ensure those who do not have insurance, provide stability to those who are insured i.e. guarantees that they can keep the insurance they already have and cuts costs.

McCain had aleady said that it does not provide health insurance for all - only 17 million of the 47 million uninsured. He now added that it did NOT cut costs -

"According to the Congressional budget office it's going to cost an additional TRILLION dollars - I have yet to see any REAL MEANINGFUL reductions in cost - in fact the Congressional Budget office said that there will be cost increases..."

He also pointed out that if your employer switches to the government option (which might be cheaper than their current insurance contracts), and you are getting insurance through your employer then you will NOT be able to keep your present insurance but will have to go on the government plan.

"The president keeps saying if you like your Health Insurance policy you can keep it - well if the govt option is adopted by an employer and you have employer provided insurance then you're not going to be able to keep it so that's false also. It's certainly not accurate."

It should be noted that 2 of my friends' employers have already said if they pass a government plan, they will switch.

So much for our choice in keeping our present insurance.

Will the Plan add to the deficit and will there be spending cuts, asked Matt Lauer.

McCain's answer was:

"We've now gone from a 7 trillion dollar deficit to a 9 trillion dollar deficit just in the last few weeks over a 10 year period. There is very little if anything in this package that calls for real spending reductions and a trillion dollars is basically what it's going to cost. And that's according to the Congressional budget office!"

John McCain added that pork barrel spending and earmarking continues despite the President's promise to curve this.

And is it true as VP Biden said, that there was cohesiveness on this bill or should we start from scratch, Lauer asked.

McCain said that it had NOT been, (as the President told the American people) a bipartisan effort at all and in fact, so far, NOT ONE Republican had been present at the negotiation sessions.

"Perhaps we should start over and really BE bipartisan. The president mentioned that it has gone through 4 of the 5 committees but it has done so, without a single Republican negotiator in the room! There has been NO bipartisanship in addressing the Health Care Issue! I've BEEN in bipartisan negotiations. I know what they are and it has been totally absent from the addressing of this issue. Maybe we ought to really sit down and negotiate which we haven't done. Facts are stubborn things."

McCain concluded that he hoped Congress WOULD have a bill soon because we needed reform and there were many areas of agreement, but that it should be a REAL bipartisan effort and it should NOT lay another trillion dollars to the deficit, the real brunt of which would be felt by the next generation.

Thanks to John McCain for having the courage to speak out on the "Today Show". He is an American hero who is admired on both sides of the fence and known to be a "Plain talker". But today, he became even more of a hero to me and perhaps many other Americans who want to hear the real story on this.

New York Times says seniors' concerns are real

2009-08-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

I've been studying the pro's and con's of the proposed health care bill and it is confusing.

The most voiced fears are those of seniors who fear health care rationing, a restriction on expensive procedures to prolong life for a few years and limited access to specialists.

I have said since all the debating began that a financially sustainable single payer healthcare system MUST, in fact, include the above and even WITH including the above, did anyone add the price of covering "everyone"? No, I'm sure they didn't but no one has noticed that the income taxes in countries with single payer healthcare are THREE TIMES higher than they are in the USA.

And of course, the President has said several times that we would all have to sacrifice and that he did not agree with a knee replacement for his grandma etc.

And if we had any doubts of this, there is a well researched book by medical ethicist, Daniel Callahan called "FALSE HOPES" where after researching all the single payer, govt systems in the world, he states the same sobering facts (even though he states up front, he feels a single payer system is the way to go).

But many have listened blindly to the politicians telling us that these worries are a "myth". Those were the nice politicians. The nasty ones tell us that the concerns and questions (which were NOT answered in the so called "Town Halls") are a conspiracy by the Republicans and/or Conservatives and/or religionists or whatever.

But now, those of us who have had concerns have had a breakthrough. The New York Times printed a story which included a statement that these concerns of rationing, limited access to specialists and restricting of expensive procedures for the elderly are NOT unreasonable at all.

In fact the Medicare advisory committee, concerned that Medicare is going broke, this week, suggested .... rationing, limited access to specialists (GPs are just as good they say - which we know is a crock) and restriction of expensive procedures as a way to save Medicare!

And we all know that if the New York Times prints it, people will believe what we have been saying for a couple of months now. Because people believe the New York Times like it's the gospel.

Here is another statement in another story in the New York Times (Gospel again, right?). This comes from a story called "Tackling the Mystery of what it costs".

"Under health insurance reform, insurance plans will be required to give consumers much more information about what is covered and what is not. They will be expected to warn consumers that if they go out of network, they can be hit with some very high costs."

To someone not involved with one of the large insurance companies, this may not mean much but I, being thus involved myself, can attest to the fact that we HAD to go "out of network" because the IN network providers were not only "not too good" but absolutely horrendous - wrong diagnosis, unneeded surgeries, wrong treatment etc.

So I HAD to go out of network. And the idea of "high costs" is not a nice one to me.

And then, there are things like the place where you are supposed to get your blood work, looks kind of like you are going to catch something. That is, IF they can get the needle IN. Most always I've gone there, there is a new person just learning - on me. Hence, we finally are paying the doctor's assistant to do the draw!

The pundits tell us that the in network providers will have to be improved. Anyone holding their breath for this to happen?

Anyway, there are REAL concerns for seniors - you can believe it because the New York times printed it. :)

figures, statistics and lies

2009-08-19T17:43:00.000-07:00

Today, I got an "alternate health" ad in the mail. It claimed that the number 36,000 deaths a year from flu was a false figure and in fact only about 750 people died a year from the flu and "that was from the CDC".

I didn't believe it. I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu and had quoted the figure myself because it came from the CDC.

But the ad got my curiosity going. Easy enough to look up. I looked up "FLU DEATHS" CDC" and got this page.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

As you can see, it IS on the CDC website. Turns out that the truth (according to the CDC) is no one KNOWS how many die from the flu so the estimations were made from a percentage of those who die from respiratory disease deaths and other mathematical constructs.

The CDC writes:

Does CDC know the exact number of people who die from flu each year?

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year. There are several reasons for this: First, states are not required to report individual flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications [12]. Third, many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as a staph infection) [1,8,11] or because influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [3]. Also, most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of flu-related deaths. ***

Oh - that's enlightening! No one KNOWS so they use a mathematical model to come up with the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu. Here is it, right from the horse's mouth! But when this figure is quoted, have you ever heard they say they really DO NOT KNOW how many a year die from the flu and that the deaths are usually from something else? hmmmm

This even shocked ME....Somehow I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths they were claiming...

So why DOES the CDC "ESTIMATE" the number of deaths from flu (and puff it up... hmmm)

Here is their answer to that one:

Why does CDC estimate deaths associated with flu?

CDC feels it is important to convey the full burden of flu to the public. Flu is a serious disease that causes illness and deaths nearly every year in the United States. CDC estimates of annual influenza-associated deaths in the United States are made using well-established scientific methods that have been reviewed by scientists outside of CDC [10]. CDC feels that these estimates are a timely representation of the current burden of flu on the United States.

But these numbers are used by the media etc to scare folks into getting the vaccine which is BIG MONEY for the manufacturers....

Enlightening. That's why it's good to read EVERYTHING. I didn't believe the alternate health ad but that claim was bold enough for me to question something I might have never questioned and which, I guess, should have been questioned in the first place.

So let's talk about the proposed Health Care program. Obama tells us that the concerns of the public are all because of the evil Republicans and all a bunch of lies.

For example, abortion won't be paid for in the Health care bill, he tells us. But the bill says different. ALL SURGERIES are paid for and abortion is a surgery. So some Democrats and Republicans tried to introduce amendments that made sure abortion was EXCEPTED out of surgeries. And the amendments failed.

If abortion is not paid for, why didn't the amendments pass? We all remember the youtube video how Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would not deviate from his total abortion stance (from conception to birth).

Seniors are concerned that the Health Care bill might mean rationing of care for seniors. Obama answers us with "there is no rationing in the bill" and that seniors are not to worry but seniors were not born yesterday. Treating seniors is expensive and they suspect unless there is an amendment which GUARANTEES them treatment, they don't trust Obama's reassurance, especially when he admitted that it was right to not give his grandmother a joint replacement and has talked about how expensive it was to treat seniors when they might only have a few years of life left. Seniors know that the expensive health care program has to be paid for in some manner and that in other plans, care IS rationed to save bucks.

This is not the "evil Republicans" or "insurance companies". This is just people finally beginning to do what they should have done in the first place. Question - everything and trust - no one.

You know the old "In God we trust - all others pay cash" idea?

Multiple Sclerosis- Tysabri - miracle drug?

2009-06-30T03:38:00.000-07:00

Biogen, the manufacturer of Tysabri, saw its stock fall this week when 3 people taking the medication for Multiple Sclerosis, recently, came down with a potentially deadly brain infection called "progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy", or PML. This was a disappointment because Biogen had hoped to make its mint off Tysabri since its other drug, Avonex has a lot of competition from similar drugs like Rebif. Biogen apparently is already doing damage control with a video on Fox news promising great results for the medication.

But if we listen closely, even the video tells us some rather unsettling things:

How it works: this medication prevents immune cells from crossing into the brain (probably why it can cause that severe brain disorder - how many OTHER brain disorders can it cause which may not have yet, been connected to tysabri?)

The patient said it was nice she didn't have to do daily or every other day injections like with the other medications she had tried, but the picture of how Tysabri is administered was quickly flashed with no explanation. It is INFUSED which is done in the oncology ward - an outpatient procedure in the hospital which comes with some issues of its own.

Tysabri gives many patients a 70 percent improvement in symptoms said the video - but remember the placebo effect with MS is 85 - 90 percent (i.e. 85-90 percent of MS patients get better even if given sugar pills!) so that means not only is Tysabri NOT effective but since it doesn't even match up to the placebo effect, it must be making some patients worse.

Because several in the Tysabri trials also got PML (2 of whom died which is really bad because Multiple Sclerosis does NOT kill its victims), the medication was shelved by the FDA in 2005 pending more research. However pressure from several including a couple of celebs who wanted to take the drug and probably Biogen, caused the FDA to conditionally approve it the following year with a warning label.

And unfortunately many people with MS who are desperate (and feel they would rather be dead than totally paralyzed) flock to DO SOMETHING, take SOME medication even though with NONE of the MS medications is anything like a "cure" promised. The available drugs are called "disease modifying" which in plain English means it MAY make your symptoms better (but no guarantees), something we are hearing more and more often from the medical profession which no longer promises to "first do no harm".

The truth about the slowly progressive MS (which is the only type the medications are supposed to help) is that if you live healthy, do not smoke or drink, do NOT take any drugs or have any surgery for it and get your head together, reduce stress and other healthy things, MS will likely not progress to the point of causing much disability until you are VERY elderly (if at all).

One study by the MS society found that 10 years after diagnosis, the majority of MS patients were still walking and medical treatment of which the side effects are worse than the disease, has traditionally been that which causes early disability as do bad health habits like smoking, party drugs etc. (Note: this study was long before the so called "disease modifying" drugs many MSers take now)

When Sylvia Lawry was alive, and president of the MS society (which she founded - her brother had MS) the society was not real well funded and did not advocate any medical treatment, repeatedly assuring members that the best treatment for MS was good nutrition, good health habits and "some walking, some sitting, some standing and some lying" (i.e. rest periods during the day).

And as many folks who got sick from medical treatments, people still flocked to each new one. There was for example, the Medrol treatment which initially lightened symptoms but in the long run made patients worse and caused tuberculosis in some,and surgery like stereo-tactic brain surgery which Annette Funnicello had - despite the fact that it was condemned as a too risky not effective treatment for MS tremors at the 1972 symposium for MS at UCLA. There were the less risky quack treatments also, like the guy who sold small trampolines and said if you jumped on them facing east every day, the earth's magnetic field would cure your MS.

But when Lawry died, the MS Society took a different turn, perhaps one which Lawry would NOT have agreed with and formed alliances with several pharmaceutical corporations which yielded them millions of research bucks, and bucks for glitzy monthly magazines but had the down side of causing patients to be "strongly encouraged" to buy the medications from the pharmaceutical companies, most of which had not even been tested on diagnosed patients (they were tested on people who were thought to be coming down with MS) and were not shown very effective. (why they call the drugs "disease modifying").

I once asked one of the researchers why no "double blind studies" had been done on the medications offered for MS and he said "well, because they do show improvement in patients, it would be considered unethical to deny the controls the help." Sounded lame to me. Especially as the "improvement" is judged by the number of white patches in the brain which show on the MRI which are thought to be MS related, but the doctor admitted that these can change by the hour and one patient having a lot of white patches in one MRI could have several of these move or disappear in the next MRI. He also admitted that the white patches seen on the brain could be NON MS related.

All seems a bit of a house of cards to encourage patients to put a chemical into their bodies which is known to challenge the immune system thus making them more susceptible to illness INCLUDING cancer.

As shakey as the research was on the so called "ABC" drugs (Avonex,Betaserone and Copaxon), Tysabri was a different case because even their less than great research found the deadly repercussion of PML. (Other side effects include flu like symptoms, infusion-site reactions, fatigue, headaches, joint pain and Increased Susceptibility to Infections.)

It might be prudent for MS patients to rewind back to the society's advice before their marriage with the pharmaceutical companies - live healthy, de-stress and don't overdo - still the best "treatment" for Multiple Sclerosis.

It seems that only miracle about Tysabri is how MS patients flock to take it!

NOTE: a certain number of people diagnosed with MS may be actually suffering neurological symptoms from other disorders including aspartame allergies and/or B12 shortages. Newly diagnosed patients should quit drinking diet soda and other things with aspartame/nutrasweet in them and also consider taking B12 supplements or even B12 shots.

History repeats - swine flu scare campaign to sell flu shots

2009-06-23T02:12:00.000-07:00

This video of a CNN "60 minutes" show on the swine flu shot propaganda in 1976.... 4000 people got Guillan Barre (French Polio) from the shot for the "pandemic" which never hit, is a MUST SEE. The show exposes the propaganda, how the tested shot wasn't the one that was eventually given to the people, how the names of celebrities were used to sell the shot. Also interviews one of the victims who survived Guillian Barre. One lady in our church was made a widow by her husband getting Guillian Barre from that flu shot! This show is important considering the propaganda machine is again ramping up to sell us the THREE flu shots for the oncoming flu season.

http://tinyurl.com/swinelie

It should be noted that so far, the swine flu virus seems to be a very mild flu - most of the deaths were in Mexico and we know that 4 of the deaths in the USA were ill people to begin with.

Additionally, the flu vaccine apparently requires a lot of preservative and they use a substance called "Timerisol" which is a form of mercury and very toxic. Some studies have suggested that people who regularly got flu shots are more likely to come down with neurological disease and alzheimers etc.

I took a flu shot the year I was carrying our son in pregnancy and STILL got the flu! Right then and there, I decided that the flu shot didn't work.

It doesn't because there are some 22 flu viruses circulating, any one of which can hit you and cause you to become ill and only 5 or 6 of which are covered in the vaccine.

This Fall we will be pushed to take 3 shots, one for flu, one for Swine Flu and a third booster. As Obama is again buying TV time to push his "fix" for Health care, he has ALREADY stated that he is planning "an aggressive education" of the American people to sell us the flu shots in the Fall.

Finally, to compare the 1918 pandemic to now is ridiculous! In 1918, they had NO INDOOR PLUMBING, no anti biotics, very little idea of sanitation and no idea of nutrition or vitamins (people still died of Beri Beri). The swine flu in 1918 killed 10 percent of the public which means that 90 percent LIVED from it.

Since then, we have been through several "pandemic" (which just means that the same flu hit all around the world during flu season). In the less developed countries with less sanitation, there are more deaths. Here in the USA, most deaths from flu are actually from opportunistic bacteria and we have anti biotics for that.

Bottom line, don't panic... watch this video:

http://tinyurl.com/swinelie

Then perhaps visit the national vaccine information center to make an informed choice. Best way to handle flu is a healthy lifestyle, and if you get sick, rest, lots of liquids and antibiotics if you need them.

Swine Flu Primer - myths and realities

2009-05-06T10:26:00.000-07:00

Since the Swine Flu craze started I have been studying it and finally, have enough information to give you a feel for what to expect, what is true, what is a myth or misunderstanding and how to figure out what is happening. Here for your edification is a FAQ. Save this because as you see, you will need it this Fall also, when the swine flu might (or might not) hit hard. (Flu viruses cannot live in the heat of summer).

1. The Swine Flu virus is a new virus so you have no immunity to it. True?

Well, yes but it isn't as bad as it sounds.

A virus is different from a bacteria which used to be called a member of the plant kingdom but now has it's own kingdom. A virus is something inbetween a protein molecule and a simple form of one celled life like a bacteria. It looks kind of like a soccer ball (but is so small it cannot be seen without a very powerful microscope). A virus doesn't eat but it reproduces. That's why it doesn't exactly fit the explanation of "life" (must eat and reproduce)

The way your body recognizes a virus is by its "cover" and when a virus mutates, it changes its cover - think of a pillow - someone changes the pillow cover while you are not looking and you wouldn't recognize it as a pillow you know, would you? This is a simple explanation but without getting into the 50 dollar words, this is similar to your immune system and a mutated virus. That is, ANY mutated virus looks brand new to your body and can get you sick before you have time to make antibodies to fight it. (Antibodies latch on to each virus and disable it).

So it doesn't matter whether it's an old re-worked virus or a new one like the swine flu virus - it's all the same to your body. The body has to make new antibodies to disable it and until it gears up, you might get sick (or you might NOT get sick!). Our body's immune systems make antibodies a whole lot faster than the pharmaceuticals can make a vaccine! Thank Heavens!

2. What does "level 5" pandemic mean?

Well, that doesn't mean it's a killer flu. It doesn't really have much to do with how sick any flu virus will make you, says the CDC. On "the Doctors" TV Show, Dr Stephen Galson, acting surgeon general stated that

"The level 5 is how public health officials communicate with each other on how they will prepare for the flu as far as vaccines etc."

He added:

"The levels do not tell about the severity of the outbreak and people should not pay attention to the levels..."

3. But shouldn't I worry? There have been 2 deaths from the swine flu in the USA now!

Let's look at the 2 deaths. The first was a 22 month old baby who had "other health issues" that is he'd been ill for a while - he was born in Mexico. The second is a lady who had "chronic health issues" (something like MS or Lupus or ?).

38,000 people die each year, as a repercussion of the several flu viruses going around. Now that sounds like a lot but consider that 25 to 50 million GET the flu every year and so those who die are a very small percentage - 1.5% to less than 1% of those who get the flu.

To put this into prospective, Malaria kills 1.5 to 3 million people a year and affects 40 percent of the world's population, about 2400 million. ref: Malaria what it is

So it's not that the swine flu is necessarily deadly (it seems to be not real contagious or deadly but the public health dept has to be ready just in case) but that next flu season, some of the 38,000 deaths from the repercussions of the flu might be from the swine flu.

As Dr Frank Joseph, MD stated in a recent letter to his mailing list (and you can ask any medical provider about this - they will tell you the same thing!):

People do NOT die from the flu, it's the complications that are deadly --mostly pneumonia. In 1918, there were no antibiotics. The people who have currently died from the flu probably waited too long to seek treatment.
Personally, I do not believe in giving antibiotics for every little thing that comes along but in this case they are warranted.

Which brings us to our next question:

4. I worry that a pandemic of flu will kill thousands of people like it did in 1918.

Ever wonder why we have not had such a pandemic since? We had NO ANTIBIOTICS back in 1918. Also no indoor plumbing, no central heating and not a real good idea of vitamins or nutrition. All of which would contribute to people getting pneumonia or some other repercussion of the flu and dying. As the Junkfood science blog pointed out, we have lived through many "pandemics" since then without them killing huge numbers of people.

NOW IS DIFFERENT. Don't worry about it. Tell your friends. This is one of the biggest misconceptions I've heard from many people.

5. Can you catch the flu from a toilet seat?

OK, I'm being silly here but it got your attention, right? :) There seem to be many misconceptions about how you catch the flu. You don't catch it from shaking hands with someone or touching your dog although you can pick up bacteria that way.

Viruses travel through the air when someone coughs or sneezes. That's why flu is so contagious. Being in the same room with a person with flu will expose you.

Another misconception is that if someone coughs at you, and you go home and get sick the next day, you caught whatever that person had.

WRONG. It takes about 2 weeks for you to come down with the flu after you have been exposed to it. (So think about who coughed on you two weeks ago!)

Worse yet, the person is the MOST contagious JUST BEFORE they actually come down with the flu. Nice huh? Viruses are sneaky.

6. So what's the best thing to do if I come down with flu?

Remember the old fashioned remedy? Go to bed, drink plenty of liquids - juice not coffee (and yes vitamin C does help), get lots of rest, eat veggies. If you are a person who works out regularly (I hope you are! Exercise is the best way to help your health!) then continue to work out but do a shorter lighter work out. Why? A workout wil,l believe it or not, help you get better faster. But DO NOT OVERDO IT or you will make things worse. If you are a runner, for example, just walk slowly on the treadmill for a half hour or so.

And if it hangs on or you start getting major chest congestion, see your medical provider! Whatever you do, DO NOT IGNORE IT. This is the best way to get a bacterial infection which can be very nasty.

7. What about the flu vaccine?

Unfortunately, the last vaccine for swine flu was a disaster. The swine flu never really hit but the vaccine ended up killing about 500 or more people.

The CDC assures us that they have a good system for testing in place and the new vaccine should be safe but no one can be sure, they disclaim.

If you are a person who gets a chill and gets pneumonia, you should probably get a jab. If you are a person with a normal immune system (or reasonably normal), it's your choice.

They have announced that for Fall (the start of flu season) they cannot add the swine flu virus to the flu vaccine already in production, so they will have a separate jab or two for it. Three shots they are talking about.

"That's a hard sell" observed Meredith Vierra of "The Today Show" and the official answer was that President Obama is planning "an aggressive education of the public through TV" in favor of getting the shots. (We know President Obama can do 'aggressive TV campaigns" very well!)

In other words, expect a scare campaign from the media which makes our present scare look like kids stuff.

That's why you might need to look at this blog again to remind yourself of the myths and misconceptions.

You might also want to bookmark the National Vaccine Information site. It's your choice, remember and scare tactics are scare tactics. They rarely resemble the truth.

As for me, I took a flu shot when I was pregnant, figuring I didn't want to get the flu then. I still got the flu. I figured the flu shot didn't work and that was my last flu shot and it was a while ago, since the baby I was carrying, our son, is approaching his 40th birthday.

Which brings us to the last question...

8. Why is it that some years I get the flu vaccine and I STILL get the flu?

As I explained before, it takes the pharmaceuticals several months to make a flu vaccine. Here's how they do it. They look at Asia and see what type of flu is going around. Then, out of some 22 flu viruses available, they select 5 or 6 which they think will be THE BIG pandemic or epidemic of the coming flu season and they start making the vaccine for the Fall. That's why there will be several jabs necessary this Fall to protect against the regular AND swine flu. Because they've already picked the 5 or 6 viruses and are producing this Fall's vaccine as we speak and it would be too costly to add the swine flu virus to the vaccine in production.

But of course, as luck will have it, typically the flu which hits the hardest might not be included in the vaccine. It's kind of a game of chance whether it will be included or not. Viruses aren't that predictable unfortunately.

And of course, having the vaccine won't guarantee that another one of the unpicked viruses won't hit. That happened this year - the stomach flu virus which was a really nasty flu hit hard and had not been included in the shot so everyone got that one! (me too!)

As they say, education is our greatest tool in any fight including the fight for good health.

Also, consider a healthy lifestyle - not for weight or size but just for health! I know - that's a strange concept. Bear with me. :) You know, no fast or junk food, no chemicals like aspartame, lots of veggies and EXERCISE.

Some must reading on influenza and scares
Swine Flu update April 29, 2009 - scare tactics and reality

All humanity under threat - not really - Junk Food Science blog

link between anti depressants and sudden death?

2009-03-12T12:42:00.000-07:00

Anti depressants are very common prescribed. In fact, most folks I know are taking one of the SSRI's considered to be among the "safe medications".

That being said, Dr Joseph Glenmullen, MD in his "PROZAC BACKLASH" book stated that there is a possibility that long term use of the SSRI's can cause damage to the brain and even Parkinsonism. He should know - he's a psychiatrist and has done research as well as years of observation.

However, what did come as a bit of a surprise is a new research study which suggested that these anti depressant drugs might be linked to sudden cardiac death. The study was published in the American College of Cardiology Journal (J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 53:950-958, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.060).

This was an epidemiologal study using the famous "Nurse's study data" (i.e. a "data dredge" study) so I was about to dismiss it except for when I read the last paragraph of the blog which reported the study.

The author reminded that the prescribing information from Eli Lilly for Prozac listed the following side effects:

* Frequent: hemorrhage, hypertension, palpitation
* Infrequent: angina pectoris, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, hypotension, migraine, myocardial infarct, postural hypotension, syncope, tachycardia, vascular headache
* Rare: atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, cerebral embolism, cerebral ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, extrasystoles, heart arrest, heart block, pallor, peripheral vascular disorder, phlebitis, shock, thrombophlebitis, thrombosis, vasospasm, ventricular arrhythmia, ventricular extrasystoles, ventricular fibrillation.

That definitely changed my opinion of the research as just another "data dredge study" to a HMMMM, might be some truth in it.

How many people taking Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft et al, have seen the physician prescribing information.

Kevin Trudeau in his newest book, "More Natural Cures" has a solution which I've seen some folks follow... don't take ANY medications. But truly, there are times when medications can be a lifesaver.

The best approach may be to study things like the prescribing information and to weigh the risks vs the benefits. Since we have only one heart, perhaps the SSRI's should be a last resort rather than so often prescribed (a solution which may not be popular with those who manufacture these medications).

Abortion and Breast cancer

2008-12-14T02:39:00.000-08:00

"Abortion does not cause breast cancer" states several news media articles and now, a new health site.

There is one problem with this - it's unproven. In the article I read on the health site, they did not specifically name their cites upon which they are wanting to risk YOUR life but they talked of an (unnamed) 2004 study which is likely the "Melbye study". In this study, Dr Melbye admitted that any woman who had had an abortion before computer records was likely listed as "not having abortion" since ONLY computer recorded abortions were noted in the study AS aborted women. One estimate puts the number of aborted women "overlooked" as 60,000! And these were, of course, the older women who were more likely to have breast cancer. If these 60,000 women were (correctly) recorded as HAVING HAD abortions, the Melbye Study would suggest a STRONGER link between breast cancer than some of the other 38 world wide studies which suggest a link.

Another study they may have used to "prove" that abortion does not cause breast cancer was the Beral study. This study not only used an inappropriate group for comparison (women who had never been pregnant who were known to have a higher risk for breast cancer) but omitted several studies which suggested a link including three of the study author's OWN studies! About this type of study, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S. wrote:

>>>>Studies that take data from many previous studies and reanalyze” them (or put them into a meta-analysis) need to have sound scientific reasons for excluding some published studies. Without valid exclusion and inclusion criteria, the results can be skewed and inaccurate because they may allow an author’s personal bias to consciously or subconsciously enter the selection process, thus corrupting the conclusion. Undoubtedly, this sort of bias is what has led some observers to call epidemiology a pseudoscience.<<<< (Ethics and Medicine, Vol 29, 11 November 2004)

Just another example of the media perpetuating bad science to the American people to support a billion dollar industry which does NOT care about your body.

More information:
Breast Cancer Faq

Crestor reduces heart disease by 50 percent

2008-11-27T00:30:00.000-08:00

The latest study on statin drugs boasts that the medication, Crestor, reduces heart attacks by 50 percent.

As several have pointed out, this study called "The Jupiter Study" was financed by the manufacturer of Crestor and in the FenPhen trials, Wyeth petitioned to not have to testify in court about their removal of negative results from the FenPhen studies because the removal of negative study results was "common practice" in the pharmaceutical field. Their petition was granted and this aspect was never saw the light in court.

Additionally, several (including Dr Mercola and Dr Linda Bacon, in "HEALTH AT EVERY SIZE") have cited studies which suggest that the corporation which finances a study is likely to find positive results FROM the study for THEIR product. In the post graduate class about de-coding studies, students were taught that the first step is to ask who is financing the study.

Supposedly according to Dr Mercola, in the group of 17,000 participants in the Jupiter study, less than 2 perent had a cardiovascular incident (these were generally healthy people with high C Reactive protein levels). That is, 2 percent in the control group and 1 percent in the Crestor group.

True that can be expressed as a 50 percent less chance of heart disease in those on Crestor but in reality the percentage is only 1 percent less which isn't exactly astounding.

It is enough to create a splashy headline though and sell lots of Crestor, even to people of normal cholesterol levels. (As if they are not selling enough already - I guess never too much in sales is the rule here). :)

But for a 1 percent less chance of heart attack is it really worth it to deal with the side effects of Crestor which include (according to Dr Mercola):

• Anemia
• Acidosis
• Frequent fevers
• Cataracts
• Muscle pain and weakness
• An increase in cancer risk

But many will rush out and ask their doctors for Crestor and the cha-ching of the money coming in, will be heard 'round the world. Another successful endeavor by the pharmaceuticals...

Doctors knew the dangers of cigarettes in 1900?

2008-08-24T14:04:00.000-07:00

Today I got quite a shock when someone sent me an article from a website about Lucy Page Gaston. Apparently she waged quite a battle against cigarette smoking, even almost managing to get it prohibited in Illinois in 1907. Wait a minute. 1907? But didn't we see the cover of the American Medical Association Journal (JAMA) in 1938, featuring a group of doctors, all smoking cigarettes and telling folks how healthy smoking was? And what about all the doctors in the 1950's who advocated this or that brand of cigarette in TV ads.

So how exactly DID Ms Gaston almost get smoking banned in 1907. Well, it seems that she was supported by quite a few doctors who had noticed that their patients who smoked had more respiratory disease and heart disease than those who did not smoke!

Another shocker. Gaston wasn't connecting smoking with what one may THINK it might be connected back in the dark ages of the 1900's i.e. immorality, lack of courtesy etc. Gaston was connecting smoking with what it now is KNOWN to be connected with as a DIRECT cause. i.e. heart disease and COPD!

Lung cancer, which had been virtually unknown, was formally recognized as a disease for the first time in 1923 and became widespread in the 1930s.

So if many doctors had joined Gaston's movement, where was the mainstream medical establishment? It seems they ignored the Gaston crowd saying there was "no evidence based research suggesting the risks of smoking". But why when so many doctors had observational evidence, weren't some studies started?

Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the profits of the tobacco industry were an obscene 2.5 BILLION bucks at the turn of the 20th century. Can you imagine? When the average working man made $5-10 dollars a week for six 12 hour days of work?

Despite all of Gaston's efforts, annual cigarette sales in the United States had soared from 2.5 billion at the turn of the century to nearly 80 billion when she died. ... Cigarette consumption continued climbing, even after the U.S. Surgeon General issued a landmark report on its dangers in 1964.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2008/The-Smoking-Gun/

The conclusion we must draw is sad. Seems the medical industry could be bought even 100 years ago and excluding the few lives that Lucy Gaston saved through her hard work, many people died (including my own father) partially, due to a medical industry which apparently may not have had the best interests of the people at heart.

Even now, if a slim person who smokes goes to the doctor, they may or may not be told that "perhaps they should consider cutting down their smoking" but if an obese person goes to the doctor, the first thing they typically hear is "LOSE WEIGHT OR DIE" even though to date there is neither observational NOR evidence based research DIRECTLY connecting obesity and disease (only lifestyle in folks of all weights and disease).
http://obesitysurgery-info.com/fatoid.htm

We know about the profit motive there. The diet industry in the USA profits a whopping 50 BILLION yearly.

We as consumers should know about the possibility that some things being sold to us (or not sold to us) by our medical providers may or may not be tainted by profit interests. The AMA itself has written a lot about pharmaceutical companies enticing providers with gifts, dinners, trips etc to prescribe certain medications and even some surgeries sold, may be influenced by the profit motive. We do know that most medical providers allow the pharmaceutical companies to educate them about the latest and greatest in medicine because their overburdened schedules often do not allow them to read the books which are not tainted by the need to sell certain procedures and medications.

What we didn't know is that even in the "good old days" the profit motive loomed ominously behind medical care (or lack thereof).

But Lucy Page Gaston, in her blunt manner, lives on, in cyberspace, warning us from the distinct past to always remember even WITH medicine "let the buyer beware".

Poisoned tomatos?

2008-06-04T10:18:00.000-07:00

One of the top news stories for the last few days has been the salmonella cases resulting from eating fresh tomatoes. Salmonella is what commonly causes food poisoning or what we call "the green apple two step". Only 40 cases of salmonella have been identified throughout the USA - which is an infinitesimal percentage of the millions who eat fresh tomatoes on a daily basis. And we are never told if the 17 who were hospitalized were elderly or already ill from other things but I suspect they were. Most of us get food poisoning regularly and it just means we have to stay close to a toilet, a good excuse to stay home from school or work and play GTA or other video games while we "recuperate". (Oh the pain)

I remember in my fast food days many years ago, saying that certain places had the word "Express" in their names not because of the rapidity with which one was served but rather the fact that the food seemed to "express" more quickly than desirable from the South end of my body.

That this article about a small percentage of folks getting food poisoning from tomatoes has been headline news for three days now, is only nice in that it gives us a break from the usual election fighting and emphasizing how many deaths there have been of Americans in Iraq (which are reported and stressed even if the deaths had nothing to do with the fighting). The fact remains that many people do not wash their veggies before eating and most of them do not get food poisoning from it.

Many restaurants do not bother to take the time to wash the fruit or veggies before serving so the bottom line of this little piece of news may be something we all know already - one takes a risk of food poisoning every time one eats fast food or restaurant food.

My answer to seeing the article for the umpteenth time was lighthearted. I pointed out that if folks ate chocolate instead of fresh veggies they would not face this danger. (Chocolate is a veggie, you knew that, right?)

However, that being said, I have heard that one should wash the veggies with soap... I have a concern about that as soap is a chemical and may leave a residue or worse yet, be absorbed in the veggie. They have a non soap substance you can use to wash veggies in but who knows how safe that is (they advertise it in infomercials... which isn't exactly the greatest source of the truth).

And washing even with soap, may or may not help the salmonella issue - the little buggers may be living INSIDE the tomato anyway.

There is pretty good evidence that we cannot digest fresh veggies as well as we can cooked veggies, and if one is going to cook them, one can wash them with water - that gets the soil off etc - and then the cooking takes care of the rest including any nasty bacteria which are hiding within.

As the recent study suggested, we lack the enzyme to break down the cell walls of plant material so cannot access many of the nutrients of uncooked veggies. I learned that in biology also.

Since salads are such a staple among the weight conscious (that's probably most of us whether we are fat or slim), saying things like fresh veggies may not be as nutritious as cooked veggies may be an unpopular statement. However, from what I have studied, it certainly might be something to consider.

With regards to fresh fruit, further study however, in researching about the ill effects of methanol in aspartame/Nutrasweet, revealed to me that at least some fruit allowed to remain on the bush for even a short amount of time, builds up methanol in the cell wall - this apparently dissolves in cooking the fruit but if the fruit is eaten raw and the passage through the small bowel is slowed down for any reason, it can ferment and release the raw methanol which then DOES get into the system. The biochemist who showed me the studies was making an argument for saying that there is just as much methanol in fruit as in Nutrasweet (he loved Nutrasweet and didn't want to give it up). Though I was never much of a fruit eater anyway, that revelation rather killed my desires completely for uncooked fruit....

That being said, although the excuse of diagnosing better is used for everything (as in the reason why there are 1 million new cases of cancer each year now, as opposed to 100 in the early 1900's), there may be some basis for a case of over diagnosis in the case of the bacteria laden tomatoes. Many of us can get food poisoning (which is basically what salmonella can cause) from anything and not notice it because it's self limiting... As in "oh I have food poisoning today and have to be close to the toilet but I'll be back to work or school tomorrow".

Our wily news media has discovered that if folks are scared, they tend to watch the news more carefully (and also listen to the commercials which is the main point of TV anyway). So it's good to keep that in mind when listening to the news - or perhaps, better yet, when deciding it might be time to turn off the news.

Even thin people get diabetes

2008-05-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

An article carried on MSNBC (reprinted from the magazine "MensHealth") began with this promising headline.

Unfortunately, the headline of the article was probably the best and truest part. At least 33 percent of type II diabetics have never been fat in their lives.

But the article itself is typical from what can be expected from "MensHealth" magazine - MensHealth is a real pop science mag and not an accurate source at all. We KNOW that MSNBC would LIKELY NOT print a REALLY informative article about anything regarding obesity or diabetes and in that way, this article did not disappoint.

Most people will NOT slog through the verbiage which is very extensive ... I slogged through about 3/4 of it and then, decided the rest was more of the same.

The picture most people will take away with them from reading a couple of paragraphs, however, is the gaunt emaciated father (whom the author carefully avoids directly SAYING has diabetes by the way, so he may not even have the disease) who is in a nursing home and obviously suffering from Alzheimers. Well, news flash...Alzheimers is not only NOT related to diabetes (it's a gene also) but it's one of those diseases which fat people seldom get for some reason.... My FIL, a thin man who had diabetes and lost his legs to the illness, was intelligent and sharp up to the day he died just short of his 70th birthday. And my hubby's cousin is the same age as the author's gaunt father, has diabetes, takes medication and has a BMI which is in the high 50's or even the 60's - she travels all over the place, goes on cruises and doesn't even particularly adher to avoiding the sweets she's always liked. And she certainly is NOT senile in any way - she still lives on her own, having out lived her slim, health minded husband by several years, by the way.

Most people will just read the first couple of paragraphs and take with them the frightening picture of the senile father with Alzheimer's which the author has now connected with diabetes. But the media has that covered - most will scan the sub-headlines and get the message they want to convey anyway. One of these, is suggesting "low carb diet" for diabetes. But in reality that the reason even the ADA has NOT embraced low carb diets for diabetes is because there is NO PROOF that these diets are of ANY benefit to reducing sugar levels. It seems logical but people forget that EVERYTHING ends up glucose for energy. And I've seen my hubby, GG, a diabetic diagnosed 15 years ago, eat an all carb dinner and have a high reading in the morning and then the next night eat totally not only carb but fats and simple carbs and sugar and then have a low reading the following morning.

Diabetes sugar levels do apparently not rely on what you eat. They MAY rely on HOW MUCH you eat but the jury is still out on that one also. However there is certainly more observational evidence that eating less can bring down sugar levels but some of the slimmest diabetics have very high sugar levels so who really knows?

I have a friend who BELIEVEEEESSSS in the low carb way... she is an apostle for low carb eating. But her husband on much more metformin than GG even though HER husband is newly diagnosed, and who eats faithfully low carb, has sugar levels which range in the 300's (morning reading). She is not deterred however. Low carb dieting has not been kind of her figure either - she's got a high BMI even with never touching sugar and seems unable to lose the weight which has bugged her for decades. (We know she IS upset about her weight because she had weight loss surgery which was a health disaster for her, many years ago)

The article has a short blurb about exercise and this is about its only saving grace however, in the length of it, I bet most folks will have missed the paragraph about exercise so here it is for your convenience:

*** Just how powerful an antidote is exercise? A study published recently in the American Journal of Physiology — Endocrinology and Metabolism revealed that insulin resistance in rats decreased more from exercise than from taking metformin, the leading diabetes drug.***

That's it... pretty slim for what probably is the ONLY thing they know of to help control sugar levels besides medication. And by the way, they have a lot more than RAT studies suggesting the benefits of exercise for everyone and specifically for diabetics (i.e. intentional cardio).

More inaccuracies of the article? Diabetes is NOT the fastest growing disease. In fact, levels have DECREASED slightly in the last decade or so. How they are proclaiming that the incidence of diabetes has increased, may be because they are now counting everyone with a slightly elevated sugar level as in the realm of diabetic. Also they count women with gestational diabetes however, it has been observed that only about 50 percent of those with gestational diabetes actually come down with the illness. Often fat people even those with normal sugar levels are counted among the "pre diabetics".

The statement about diabetes greatly rising in incidence among children is erroneous also. People are BORN with insulin resistance - what is rising in incidence is our ability to DIAGNOSE insulin resistance in kids - something we were not able to do a couple of decades ago. But are we using this to get ALL KIDS to exercise or re-instituting P.E. on a daily basis in the schools? NOPE! It's just used as a scare tactic to sell diets and diet foods and impose diets on our children in their most vulnerable years.

What IS scary is not the "shockers" this article promises but rather than there is so much misinformation floating around about diabetes, it's frightening. Few doctors REQUIRE exercise of diabetics even though that's the only thing which has been shown to help.

Luckily we have medications which are excellent like metformin and do not have to rely on the "pancreas" burners like our parents were stuck with.

Many diabetics die of heart disease (which the media is quick to blame on the disease thus forgetting that heart disease in general IS the leading cause of death of ALL Americans not only diabetics!). And the greatest help in preventing or healing heart disease... The big "E" word, exercise.

Only 25 percent of Americans exercise cardio (which is what strengthens your heart) 3 times a week. Only 5 percent of Americans do daily cardio which is really what you need.

That (and not this inane article) is sobering and scary. Have YOU done your cardio today?

Vaccines - how urgently do we need them?

2008-05-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

As people who know me, know, I am very against hard advertising of medical procedures and drugs to the public. As for vaccines, I don't know HOW I feel about them. I'm not totally against them but I feel perhaps, they are overused in our society and have become a cash cow.

Gardasil the so called HPV vaccine is being more heavily (and emotionally) advertised than many other drugs and I ask myself - why does the pharmaceutical company feel it has to spend this type of money on advertising this vaccine.

Perhaps because the side effects of the vaccine are a bit much for many people? Apparently the CDC has received thousands of complaints and some of them are serious things like serious illness and death.

Also according the ads, gardasil does NOT cover all the viruses causing HPV. According to one article I read, it only covers FOUR of the 100 some HPV viruses. That doesn't seem very many.

But another niggling doubt I have, is this business of "blaming" unvaccinated kids for the outbreaks of things like measles, AMONG vaccinated kids. We would think that if a kid was vaccinated, they would be IMMUNE to the viruses, right? I mean isn't that the idea of vaccination in the first place?

The only "excuse" I've heard is "well vaccines aren't 100 percent effective".

Well duh. If they have a measles outbreak among vaccinated kids, it seems they are a lot LESS than 100 percent effective. It seems they are not very effective at all.

This year's flu vaccine covered apparently none of the flu's going around. "OOPS" said the manufacturers.

But I've seen that the flu vaccine only seems to cover the prevailent flu about once in every 10 years. I experienced that myself when as a good girl, following my doctor's advice when I was pregnant, I took the flu vaccine that year. I still got the flu which was going around. I decided forget that vaccine and have never taken it again. So when the swine flu vaccine came around which was supposed to "protect us" from the threatened "pandemic", I skipped taking that one too. Good thing, because 40 percent of those who took it, got a serious complication from it, much worse than the flu it was supposed to protect against, like Guillan Barre or "French Polio". And the threatened pandemic like so many of the other "media crisis" never arrived.

So again, why take it especially when it's one of the vaccines that still contains mercury as a preservative?

And really I would like to hear more about how "not completely effective" these vaccines are because today's new born baby has received a bunch of vaccinations before he or she is even 3 months old. And some studies (which the pharmaceuticals have tried to discount) have found a connection between some vaccines like the MMR and autism.

Maybe there are good reasons to take vaccines but it seems that no one is talking to us - except the anti vaccine folks who have come up with some rather good reasons to say "no" to many vaccines.

And to those questioning like myself, seems that the pro vaccine folks ought to be able to answer some of my questions and doubts about vaccines if vaccines are REALLY as great as these folks are claiming.

I do remember when the Salk vaccine came out. We were shown photos of kids from the 1940's in the "iron lung" wards and sufficiently scared about polio. We were never told that modern sanitation and good medical care is all that is needed in most cases to prevent disability.

We knew a post polio guy who was a quadriplegic. One of his Dad's favorite tricks was to stick his head in the toilet where there was usually urine (Mom didn't flush the toilet after going most times). The house they lived in was more than filthy and he surely, an unwanted kid, didn't get much medical care when he GOT the disease.

But frankly I didn't know any kids in any school I went to who got polio. And my mother wisely kept us out of park swimming pools because in the 1950's they didn't know that chlorine didn't work if the water was not of an acid PH.

We just accepted that it was a "grave danger" based on the photos from the 1940's and early 1950's of the "iron lung" wards.

Later on, the Sabin vaccine came out. Our son had that but I had my doubts about it. We knew it caused a certain percentage of cases of polio because it was a "live virus" vaccine. And in the last decade, the Sabin vaccine (taken by mouth) has all but disappeared - why? Because they realized that most of the cases of polio they were seeing in the 1st world were CAUSED by the vaccine.

I do know that if a person wants to keep immune using the vaccine "system" they have to get the full compliment of vaccines every 2 years. And of course, that's something even the pharmaceuticals with heavy duty emotionally based advertising couldn't push down our throats.

But since vaccines have prevented some of us from HAVING those childhood diseases like measles and mumps and German measles which gave us a lifetime immunity, I think many folks are walking around and NOT immune to these diseases (because they are not getting vaccinated every 2 years to keep up their immunity) but in our modern sanitized society, it apparently isn't that much of a danger.

Great sell for the manufacturers, isn't it? Did anyone do the math about the profits on vaccinating babies (breast fed babies are immune and don't need vaccination because the mother's anti bodies are passed through breast milk) and lining up our kids for one time vaccinations? I suspect it even makes the diet industry profits pale by comparison.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against vaccines, but I think if they are so important as the media seems to feel, why can't those folks answer some of my questions better than "well, it's better than nothing" or "well vaccines aren't 100 percent effective". I think if they want us to take these jabs, they should give us better information than that? Unreasonable of me? So bite me! :)

Why was the diabetes study ACCORD halted?

2008-02-06T17:08:00.000-08:00

Halting a major study is not something done quickly because it can mean a drastic loss of money for those funding the study. But recently a huge study (named ACCORD) on aggressively treating diabetes by greatly lowering the blood sugar levels, greatly lowering the cholesterol and trigycerides and also blood pressure was halted.

The news stories were indefinite about why the study was halted and what WERE those treatments which proved to be too risky. I decided to research it.

First, I found that ACCORD has a website although nothing on there about halting the study!

I was curious about the treatments which turned out to be MORE dangerous than the standard treatment. From the protocol PDF, I found:

For blood sugar control: control group: metformin, and for the experimental group: glipozide and injected insulin (as an aggressive way to greatly lower A1C)

Lowering cholesterol and trigycerides: for the experimental group: higher doses of Zocor combined with fenofibrate (Tricor) and they did express some concern about the "adverse events" going in:

Because 40 mg of simvastatin may increase the risk for adverse events, particularly in the patients receiving fenofibrate, participants will be followed closely and CPK regularly measured.

The control group was just given Zocor. The experimental part was mixing Tricor with higher doses of Zocor. From websites on Tricor, I found the following general warnings:

Before taking fenofibrate, tell your doctor if you have
· liver disease,
· biliary cirrhosis,
· kidney disease,
· gallbladder disease,
· hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid gland), or
· diabetes.

Fenofibrate apparently interacts adversely with the statin drugs and therein one suspects, lay one problem of this study:

Before taking fenofibrate, tell your doctor if you are taking any of the following medicines:
· an anticoagulant (blood thinner) such as warfarin (Coumadin);
· cyclosporine (Neoral, Sandimmune);
· lovastatin (Mevacor), simvastatin (Zocor), pravastatin (Pravachol), fluvastatin (Lescol), atorvastatin (Lipitor), or cerivastatin (Baycol); or
· cholestyramine (Questran) or colestipol (Colestid).
• You may not be able to take fenofibrate, or you may require a dosage adjustment or special monitoring during treatment if you are taking any of the drugs listed above.
• Drugs other than those listed here may also interact with fenofibrate. Talk to your doctor and pharmacist before taking any prescription or over-the-counter medicines.

On another website, there are extensive lists of medications which can interact adversely with Tricor.

According to the ACCORD website, ACCORD was heavily funded by pharmaceuticals:

Abbott Laboratories (and Fournier Laboratories)
AstraZeneca LP
Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MediSense Products (Division of Abbott Laboratories)
Merck & Company, Inc.
NetGroup Diabetic Services
Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Omron Healthcare, Inc.

According to one blog, the intensive treatment group (the experimental group) had more deaths than the controls:

The ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) study enrolled 10,251 participants. Of these, 257 in the intensive treatment group have died, compared with 203 within the standard treatment group.

The researchers stated they did not know why they had a higher death toll in the "intensive treatment" group.

The interesting thing about this is that if you read the protocol PDF, on paper, their ideas seemed well based in former studies and logic. And yet, in reality that wasn't the case at all.

My suspicions are it had something to do with mixing the statin (zocor) with fenofibrate since on the fenofibrate website, that's in the warnings as a definite "no no".

The fact that the news stories about the study were so indefinite about the nature of the treatments, intrigued me enough to research it further...

Mystery kind of solved.

the only way to prevent cervical cancer?

2008-01-07T09:32:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, someone (or someones) came up with the bright idea that they should force all 12 year old girls to have a vaccination against HPV. Well, actually we know who the someones were. The manufacturer which to date has made millions of bucks with this new vaccine, Gardasil.

Merck, has spent millions of dollars promoting this vaccine, using one of their best weapons, TV ads. Healthy slim smiling young ladies are shown in a PE class (in one of the ads) saying how happy they were to be "protected" against cervical cancer. In the background, one hears the necessary disclaimers "this vaccine does not protect against all types of cervical cancer nor does it prevent STD". But how many listen to the background disclaimers anyway?

The American College of Pediatricians came out with a statement against the forced vaccination of 12 year old girls with the HPV vaccine as a requirement to attend school in 2007. They brought up the following points:

1. the vaccine is tested but long term immunity is not known yet. The College suggests establishing data banks to trace how effective the vaccine is, on the long term. As the college stated "waning protection is an issue with almost every vaccine"

2. parents rights should be respected as to whether they want their girls to receive the vaccine or not. It may not be appropriate for MOST young girls unless it is known that they are very sexually active and having unprotected sex. Receiving the vaccine should be totally voluntary on the part of the individual, states the ACP and medical providers should inform parents that the ONLY TOTAL protection from infection is abstinence.

3. AT LEAST (that they know of) 30 percent of HPV is caused by strains NOT covered in the vaccine

4. the trials were only 2-4 years long - but the average time from infection with HPV to cervical cancer is 20 years (probably why some experts have opined that the vaccine may not be needed because pap smears identify atypical cells long before the person is in danger of cervical cancer and it can be treated at that time)

5. Basically the position of the ACP is that there are far too many questions yet to be answered about this vaccine, that cervical cancer can be prevented through regular pap smears and treatment of HPV long before there is a danger of cervical cancer and that parents rights and the right of the individual to make the decision whether or not to get the vaccine, should be respected.

It should be noted that in the double blind trials with the HPV vaccine, individuals in the vaccinated cohort showed 16.5 percent fewer procedures for cervical problems involving HPV and 25 percent fewer genital warts.... this is not exactly total protection considering that this vaccine can cause some rather serious repercussions like Guillian Barre' etc. We should also remember that these trials were run by the manufacturer of the vaccine - and in the Phen Fen trials, Ayrest-Wyeth admitted that removing negative results was "common practice in the pharmaceutical industry thus the less than impressive results from the Merck trials might have been "sanitized"....

The Chicago Sun Times also ran an OP-Ed against forced vaccination - their reasons were simple - parents should have the final say. The Sun Times pointed out that the jabs were expensive (about $120 bucks a piece) and that a series might consist of 3 of them.

Recently another news article described the vaccine injection as a big "OUCH" for many girls (some have fainted or gotten other reactions).

In this, as in all vaccines, parents should proceed with caution especially as the long term repercussions of the vaccine itself are not known (and many vaccines concern a type of mercury used for preservative, that some studies have suggested can raise the risk for certain disorders like Parkinson's). Also, most vaccines are only good for a couple of years and boosters are needed regularly to continue protection.

There is a much simpler way to protect our teens against HPV. This also protects teens against HIV, and STD as well as broken relationships. What is this magic bullet? Abstinence outside of marriage. The argument is, of course, that teens cannot abstain. I think this is underestimating our teens. I have yet to meet the teen who doesn't WANT to abstain after they really learn the repercussions of NOT abstaining. As the Gardasil vaccine has an "OUCH" factor and unknown protection and/or repercussions, shall we give teaching our teens about abstinence, a good try before allowing our daughters the Gardasil injection?

Santa Claus revisited

2007-12-26T13:58:00.000-08:00

When my mother tried to tell me about Santa Claus, I looked amazed. "How can one person visit ALL the homes in the world on Christmas eve especially when the way he comes (down the chimney) is not the quickest way to enter a home? And what about all the homes which HAVE NO chimney?" (I was thinking of our home, for example) I was 3 years old at the time. My mother was so amazed at the logical questions from a child this small that she walked away, muttering under her breath.

Of course, now in a time where sometimes superstition and science get confused, one sharp scientist, North Carolina State University’s Dr. Larry Silverberg, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, has come up with an explanation of how Santa can deliver all those presents to all the kids in the world in one night.

"Based on his advanced knowledge of the theory of relativity, Santa recognizes that time can be stretched like a rubber band, that space can be squeezed like an orange and that light can be bent," Silverberg says. "Relativity clouds are controllable domains – rips in time – that allow him months to deliver presents while only a few minutes pass on Earth. The presents are truly delivered in a wink of an eye."

Santa can also, using cell phone technology, listen to kids' thoughts and that way know what kids want, says Dr Silverberg.

There are some serious problems with his theory. To be outside earthtime, Santa would have to travel in space and unless he was not human, he could not do so unless he wore a space suit. Also, a reindeer pulled sled would NOT serve as a space worthy vehicle. (That's assuming that reindeer could fly of course, an assumption that a smart scientist like Dr Silverberg, could not, in true sanity, make). Everyone, reindeer and Santa alike, would run out of Oxygen to breathe way before they got to the place where they would be outside of earthtime! :)

And last I heard, cell phone technology could not read minds.

So even for space age kids, the idea of Santa delivering all the gifts in one night holds serious problems....

The problem might be, though that in a society which questions the age old wisdom of the Bible, popular myths like Santa or what purpose he serves (other than filling the stores' coffers) are not questioned.

I always felt the concept of the baby Jesus, lying in the humble manger in God's Act of giving Himself to the world, was something kids could much better relate to than the unbelievable story of Santa Claus (not withstanding, that myth making Christmas into a "gimme" instead of a GIVE TO OTHERS).

The other day I questioned whether "Toys for Tots" had to remain politically correct and not mention God or whether "the reason for the season" could be talked about while giving the gifts to kids. The Colonel I asked got very huffy and suggested I was questioning his own Christian beliefs (I wasn't at all) and when I tried to get back to my question, he got judgmental and questioned MY Christian beliefs. Should we as Christians give (indiscriminately) to any charity which gives out toys?

Well, not really. If one feels the story of the Christ child IS the greatest gift we can give to kids then we should seek charities which share this story along with the gifts (which ones like St Vincent De Paul and World Vision do). This was never saying I was knocking other charities but simply talking about supporting charities which perpetuate what I feel to be the truth.

I have been greatly criticized for denying our son the Santa myth. I simply didn't see a need for it and I also had a bit of a problem with lying to my son about Santa's existence. (OK more than a bit of a problem).

Our son felt so deprived about this that he not only did NOT do the Santa thing with our grandkids but also my daughter-in-law seemed to agree with this decision. They do the Advent wreath and family prayer instead and from the feedback I've gotten from the kids, they love it. (they also do the gifts).

Santa will live on, I suspect, although the fat phobes would have him change his appearance into a slimmer fitter Santa. Turns out they feel that as he is, he's a poor role model for kids because of his size. Poor Santa. :)