1 IN 95 MILLION?
AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM?
THE FILTHY COMBINATION OF ANTIBIOTICS AND A HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE
Your body has to have a steady / level / even supply of blood sugar. When you eat carbohydrate-based foods (grains, sugars, white potatoes, etc), your blood sugar goes up. The more starch or sugar a meal / snack contains, the faster and higher the jump in blood sugar. Sometimes this jump is so sharp, on a graph it is is actually a "spike".
It is no new revelation that high blood sugar is not only toxic, but deadly as well. However, there is a great deal of research coming out of the scientific community that when combined with abnormal Gut Function, it is particularly hard on the nerve and ENDOCRINE (hormonal) systems --- most particularly the female hormones & THYROID. Your body will do everything (and I do mean everything) it can to control it and keep it within a specific and tight range (be aware that the medical community's suggestions for what constitutes "normal" blood sugar ranges are too liberal). Many young people can seemingly defy this fact by eating whatever they want without the consequences of weight gain. Sooner or later it will catch up with them. But weight gain is only a small part of the problem.
Eventually the pancreas cannot keep pace with the amount of insulin needed to handle surges and spikes of blood sugar; and blood sugar values begin to get too high (Metabolic Syndrome / Diabetes). Or, on the back side of a "spike", blood sugar drops below baseline. This is called REACTIVE HYPOGLYCEMIA, and is just as serious as Diabetes. After a while, the adrenal glands are mobilized to help the overworked pancreas, and the result is our epidemic of ADRENAL FATIGUE (what doctors today call Fibromyalgia).
MONEY AND SPINAL SURGERY
WHAT HAPPENED TO CARING FOR THE GERIATRIC PATIENT?
The truth is, when it comes to back surgeries, even a significant number of doctors and surgeons admit that there is a serious lack of evidence-based support for more complicated and risky spinal fusion surgeries that are commonly done for elderly stenosis patients. There is, however, a significant financial incentive to both hospitals and surgeons to perform these low back fusions.
SPINAL STENOSIS (the typically age-related narrowing of the spinal canal --- usually due to to enlarging of bone or ligaments) is the most frequent cause for spinal surgery in the elderly. Although there was a slight overall decrease in spinal surgeries between 2002 and 2007, there was also an utterly shocking 1,500% increase in spinal fusions. Could this massive increase in a dangerous and typically-ineffective spinal surgery be just about the money? Many doctors believe it is. The Journal of the American Medical Association concluded.....
It is unclear why more complex operations are increasing. It seems implausible that the number of patients with the most complex spinal pathology increased 15-fold in just 6 years. The introduction and marketing of new surgical devices and the influence of key opinion leaders may stimulate more invasive surgery, even in the absence of new indications… financial incentives to hospitals and surgeons for more complex procedures may play a role…”
There is a significant difference in average hospital costs for simple decompression spinal surgery versus complex surgical fusion. The cost of the less invasive surgery is $23,724 compared to an average of $80,888 for a spinal fusion. Despite the much higher cost, there is no scientific evidence of superior outcomes. And while there are significant risks associated with the cheaper surgery, there are much greater risks of adverse events associated with the spinal fusion. So why perform these surgeries? Can anyone say "MONEY"? The surgeon is typically reimbursed $600 to $800 for the less invasive back surgeries and approximately ten times more ($6,000 to $8,000) for the complex fusions. In an accompanying JAMA editorial written by Dr. Carragee of Stanford University School of Medicine, the following comment was made.
In 2007, the final year of data reported in the study, Consumer Reports [the magazine] rated spinal surgery as number 1 on its list of overused tests and treatments. This was a harsh rebuke..... The findings from the study should not only remind patients, surgeons, and payors that the efficacy of basic spinal techniques must be assessed carefully against the plethora of unproven but financially attractive alternatives, but also should serve as an important reminder that as currently configured, financial incentives and market forces do not favor this careful assessment before technologies are widely adopted. When applied broadly across medical care in the United States, the result is a formidable economic and social problem.
Thanks Dr. C. But why don't we just call a spade a spade and admit to the general population (in plain English) that it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust anyone in the medical field? There is just too much money as stake (HERE)! Just take a look at my posts on EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE.
When the earliest clinical trials begin to appear in the early-mid fifties, serious doubts were raised about cortisone’s seemingly "magic" powers. For instance, in one early experiment (1954), more than half the patients who received a cortisone shot for tennis elbow or other tendon pain suffered a relapse of the injury within six months. But that cautionary study (as well as others) didn’t slow the ascent of cortisone injections as a mainstream treatment because of their propensity for immediate pain relief. Here we are in 2011, and believe it or not, cortisone shots continue to be the gold standard for TENNIS ELBOW, SHOULDER PAIN, and other MUSCLE / TENDON problems, as well a WHOLE HOST OF OTHERS. Why do I bring all of this up?
In a study scheduled for publication in the December issue of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, researchers reported that lower doses of corticosteroids were just as effective as higher doses in terms of reduction of pain, improved range of motion, and duration of effectiveness. But what does this really mean? Are these patients really improving, or is the whole thing a house of cards ---- an illusion built with smoke and mirrors? I would contend that the question the researchers are attempting to answer is not a valid question to be asking in the first place. Allow me to explain.
The researchers were trying to determine which dose of corticosteroid is best for the shoulder ---- a 20 mg injection or a 40 mg injection. The question is moot. It's kind of like asking which will make you sicker, drinking one gallon of turpentine, or drinking two. If you think that I am over-exaggerating the situation, jump in my time machine and allow me to take you back just one short year.
The biggest ever meta-analysis of its kind appeared in one of the world's oldest and most respected medical journals, The Lancet, one year ago last month. Listen to the results of this study, which was essentially a study of numerous other previously done studies on the same thing (say that three times fast!). "3,824 studies were identified and 41 met inclusion criteria, providing data for 2,672 participants. We showed consistent findings between many high-quality randomized controlled trials that corticosteroid injections reduced pain in the short term compared with other interventions, but this effect was reversed at intermediate and long terms... Despite the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections in the short term, non-corticosteroid injections might be of benefit for long-term treatment."
Here is what is almost comical about these conclusions. Some of these "non-corticosteroid injections, that according to the authors, "might be of benefit for long-term treatment," include things like BOTULISM TOXIN (Botox), Prolotherapy (sugar water injections), Apropitn (The drug was temporarily withdrawn worldwide in 2007 after studies suggested that its use increased the risk of complications or death, and was entirely and permanently withdrawn in 2008, when follow up studies confirmed the original result), PLATELET RICH THERAPY INJECTIONS (which I have never one single time seen work), and even saline (salt) solution --- or nothing at all (HERE).
What did the researchers actually have to say about these "wonderful" non-steroidal injection therapies that they are at least on some level, promoting via their mere mention? "Lauromacrogol (polidocanol), aprotinin, and platelet-rich plasma were not more efficacious than was placebo for Achilles tendinopathy, while prolotherapy was not more effective than was exercise." Unfortunately, none of this even begins delving into the fact that the study also stated (not surprisingly) that, "Adverse events were also reported". Or should I say, "UNDER-REPORTED"?
The reviewers determined that, for most of those who suffered from tendinopathies, cortisone injections did bring fast and significant pain relief. However, when the patients were re-examined at 6 and 12 months, the results were substantially different. Over all, people who received cortisone shots had a much lower rate of full recovery than those who did nothing or who underwent therapy. They also had a 63 percent higher risk of relapse than people who adopted the time-honored wait-and-see approach. Great stuff, that cortisone! It doesn't work, but has ugly side effects. Just what we all wanted! Just like the good ole days in 1954!
Why cortisone shots would even be imagined to be of benefit in the healing process of tendon problems in light of current medical knowledge is beyond me. But this question was essentially answered in a Lancet-published response to the study. For decades it was widely believed that tendon-overuse injuries were caused by inflammation, said Dr. Karim Khan, a professor at the School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia and the co-author of a response to the above response. The injuries were, as a group, given the name tendinitis, since the suffix “-itis” means inflammation. Cortisone is an anti-inflammatory medication. Using it against an inflammation injury was logical.
But in the decades since, numerous studies have shown, persuasively, that these overuse injuries do not involve inflammation. When animal or human tissues from these types of injuries are examined histologically, they do not contain the usual biochemical markers of INFLAMMATION. Instead, the injury seems to be degenerative. The fibers within the tendons fray. Today the injuries should be referred to as tendinopathies, or "TENDINOSIS". Although you will see this reflected in the ICD-10 codes found on the HCFA forms doctors use to submit to insurance companies, it has certainly not filtered down to EVERYDAY DOCTORS treating patients with shoulder, knee, elbow, wrist, or other joint / tendon problems.
Why then does a cortisone shot (an anti-inflammatory drug) seemingly work in the short term in regards to non-inflammatory injuries? The injections seem to have "an effect on the neural receptors" involved in creating the pain in the sore tendon, Dr. Khan said. “They change the pain biology in the short term,” but, he said, cortisone shots do “not heal the structural damage” causing the pain. Instead, they actually “impede the structural healing.”
So the question of whether cortisone shots still make sense as a treatment for tendinosis, depends, as Dr. Khan said, on how you choose “to balance short-term pain relief versus the likelihood” of longer-term negative outcomes. In other words, is reducing soreness now worth a significantly increased risk of delayed healing and possible relapse within the year?
To many patients and their all-too-ready-to-inject doctors, that answer frequently remains yes. There has always been and always will be the desire for a magic bullet --- that elusive cure-all that will take care of anything and everything (HERE'S MINE). My goal for all of my patients is to GIVE THEM A GOLD BRICK, hopefully leaving them much better off than when they came in. I feel like I am accomplishing this as well as anyone out there. Because I believe in a different kind of "EVIDENCE", you can view some of our PATIENT TESTIMONIALS, by just clicking the link.
FASCIAL ADHESIONS, CHRONIC PAIN, AND CHIROPRACTIC
For those of you who are uninitiated in skinning a deer, note the picture on the left. When you skin a deer (or anything else for that matter), you will find that just underneath the skin is a tough, clearish-white, cellophane-like membrane that clings tightly to the meat. This is what the hunters in these parts call "Striffin" (sometimes pronounced "striffing"). What is striffin? It is actually one of the most abundant connective tissues in your entire body, and it's real name is Fascia.
FASCIA surrounds individual muscles, muscle bundles within individual muscles, groups of muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. It binds these structures together in much the same manner that plastic wrap is used to hold the contents of a sandwich together. Fascia consists of several extremely thin layers, and is the tissue where the musculoskeletal system, circulatory system, and nervous system all converge together. It extends uninterrupted from the top of the head to the tip of the toes, and like LIGAMENTS and TENDONS, it contains closely packed bundles of wavy collagen fibers that are oriented in a uniform and parallel fashion. Subsequently, healthy fasciae are flexible structures that are able to resist great uni-directional tension forces and have great elasticity. However, when fascia become injured, whether repetitively, traumatically, or both, it ends up in a tangled and twisted mess. As you can imagine, this can cause severe restrictions as well as pain.
Is it effective? I will let someone else answer this question for me with this powerful testimonial we received on Friday. Cassie was hurt in a cheerleading accident almost 6 years ago, and has suffered with terrible pain and spasms ever since --- despite the myriad of ineffective and irrelevant (and expensive) medical tests and treatments she received during that time. If you found Cassie's testimonial interesting, I literally have hundreds more (HERE).
FAST FOOD AND BRAIN FUNCTION
AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP
Researchers have found that there's a part of your body that might actually shrink when you eat too much fast food. Unfortunately, it's your brain. People with diets high in trans fats are more likely to experience the kind of brain shrinkage associated with Alzheimer's disease than people who consume less of the artery-damaging fats. Sharon Kirkey from a December 29, 2011 Postmedia News story called, Fast Food May Damage Your Brain. The article was summarizing a study recently published in the journal Neurology.
For the mathematics tests, students who consumed fast food 4 to 6 times each week had scores 6.55 points below average. Daily consumption equated to a drop of 14.82 points, while the three-”junk food”-meals-a-day students scored 18.48 points below average.
This is not rocket science people! For information on how to eat healthier, visit my WHOLE FOODS PAGE. Oh, what do I recommend diet-wise? Try going PALEO for a month and watch your INFLAMMATION and CHRONIC PROBLEMS start to dissipate.
ARE THEY REALLY BEING OVER-PRESCRIBED?
WHAT ARE DOCTORS SAYING ABOUT ANTIBIOTICS?
- TRAINING: Unless your doctor graduated from medical school very recently, he / she will still see antibiotics as a "savior" of sorts.
- ABILITY TO CONFRONT: Even when doctors realize they should not be prescribing antibiotics, they do because patients "demand" them. It's easier to write the script than take a few minutes to educate a patient. By writing the script, the doctor does not have to confront the patient in any meaningful manner.
On their website, world-famous Mayo Clinic lists health problems that are almost always viral in nature ---- but are commonly treated with antibiotics. Which health problems that you or your family face are almost always viral?
- Most Ear Infections (HERE)
- Influenza (FLU)
- Most Coughs (HERE)
- Most Sore Throats
- Stomach Flu
At a recent seminar, Dr. Stuart B. Levy of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts reported that "more than 80% of the physicians present admitted to having written antibiotic prescriptions on demand against their better judgment." This is a real problem because the website of the American College of Physicians (Internal Medicine) says that, "The only true way to know if your cold or sickness is a bacterial infection is for your physician to test it. If you have a sore throat your physician should take a throat culture test..... There is no sure way of knowing whether a cold or sickness is a bacterial infection without a test."
The problem is that "the problem" is not really getting smaller ---- it's getting bigger. Even though doctors are at least paying lip service to this issue, mis-prescribed antibiotics are beyond out of control. A recent study by the Center for Disease Control said that, "In the United States, 1.7 million hospital-associated [hospital-caused]infections, from all types of microorganisms, including bacteria, combined, cause or contribute to 99,000 deaths each year." But prescription habits for antibiotics do not seem to be changing. Oh, and by the way, this problem is contributing to the largely American phenomenon of DYSBIOSIS ----- a problem that is at the root of untold amounts of suffering and ill health. Is Dysbiosis a brand new problem? Of course not! The problem of misprescribing antibiotics has been around for decades.
- "It is clear that there is no role for antibiotics in the management of simple upper respiratory infection and bronchitis. This statement is data-based, uncontroversial, and supported by every expert panel and management guideline. Why then do physicians continue to prescribe antibiotics – of wider and wider spectrum – for these syndromes? The scope of the problem is immense. A large 1997 survey indicated that antibiotics were prescribed for 52 percent of patients with URIs and 66 percent of patients with bronchitis. This practice did not vary by geographical area, physician specialty or patient sociodemographic or insurance status. These data are consistent with other U.S. surveys and with data collected in other industrialized countries. Antibiotics unnecessarily prescribed for URIs and bronchitis represent 31 percent of total antibiotic prescriptions in the U.S." Miriam Rabkin (M.D. M.P.H.), Medical House Staff Training Program in Internal Medicine for the Department of Medicine - Columbia University Medical Center.
- "Even in the Netherlands there is an over-prescribing of antibiotics; about 50% of the antibiotic prescriptions for acute RT episodes are not in accordance with Dutch national guidelines." Dr. Hugg van Duijn of the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care from the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. The paper was published in the medical journal BMC Family Practice.
- French "Watchdog" group UFC-Que Choisir found 52 per cent of doctors automatically prescribed antibiotics for medical cases that did not merit them. January 2011 Report.
- Doctors are over-prescribing antibiotics for common sinus infections and related conditions, possibly in the false belief they may help in cases where symptoms are protracted, researchers reported recently. Bacteria can cause sinus infections, but viruses are a more likely culprit. "This is why antibiotics seldom work on sinus infections," reported researchers in the prestigious medical journal Lancet. Yet doctors still dole out the drugs more than they should. In the United States, for instance, 80 percent of sinus patients are prescribed an antibiotic while the proportion ranges from 72 percent to 92 percent in Europe. Analysis of nine previous studies described a false belief that antibiotics may help if symptoms are long-lasting. "What we can show is that the length of symptoms reported by the patient does not reliably distinguish between viral and bacterial infection. Antibiotics are not justified even if a patient reports symptoms for longer than 7-10 days," the researchers said.
- Pediatricians in the United States write more than 10 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions every year for conditions such as the flu and asthma reported the journal Pediatrics. In total, doctors prescribed an antibiotic at one in every five visits, with most dispensed for children with respiratory ailments such as sinus infections and pneumonia. Almost one-quarter of all antibiotic prescriptions were given to children with respiratory conditions that do not call for antibiotics, such as bronchitis, the flu, asthma and allergies. Half of all the antibiotics prescribed were "broad-spectrum" drugs, which act against a wide range of bacteria -- killing more of the good bacteria in the bodies as well and perhaps setting the child up for more serious infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria later on. "We think of antibiotics as being wholly beneficial, but they are not very specific, they hit everything in your body. By making our microbes that are supposed to be with us disappear, we can be causing other health problems we don't know about," said the researchers. My opinion is that this is essentially "Sugar Coating" the epidemic of Dysbiosis.
Overuse of antibiotics is a huge problem because it destroys gut function. To understand why Gut function is so critical to good health, you have to realize that 80% of your entire immune system is found in your gut. Go back and re-read my articles on GUT HEALTH.
TEEN VIOLENCE AND SODA POP
Those who drank five or more cans of soda pop every week were significantly more likely to have also used alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the previous month. The researchers also found that heavy consumption of soda pop was significantly associated with carrying a gun or knife, as well as violence toward peers, family, and partners.
Not quite a quarter of those who drank one or no cans of soda a week carried a gun or knife, and 15 percent had perpetrated violence toward a partner. In comparison, among those who consumed 14 or more cans a week, 43 percent carried a gun or knife and 27 percent had been violent toward a partner.
Think about it folks. As parents, we all know what soda does to the behavior of little children. Is there any reason to believe that older children (and even adults) are not affected as well?
ARE THE RISKS OF YOUR CHILD GETTING THE FLU GREATER THAN THE RISKS OF THEM GETTING THE FLU SHOT?
This is an interesting study because it talks about previous treatment with antibiotics. Because 80% of the immune system is in the gut (HERE), and antibiotics destroy normal gut flora (good bacteria) leaving the gut susceptible to overgrowths of bad bacteria, yeast, fungus, and other "nasties" (DYSBIOSIS), it would be interesting to see the relationship between morbidity / mortality (sickness and death) and the numbers of rounds of antibiotics these sick children had been on. My guess is that you would see a trend ---- the more ANTIBIOTICS a child was on, the greater the chances of all sorts of illness (HERE).
We already see where Immune System suppression tends to come from. Where do you think that non-genetic Neurological Problems come from? Try GLUTEN SENSITIVITY and VACCINATIONS on for size.
DYING TO QUIT?
Amazingly enough, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, 36 percent of the nation's smokers try to quit each year. But only 3 percent succeed in quitting for even six months (percentages go down from there). However, this number is said to go up to almost 10% if people use some sort of smoking cessation drug. Whenever you hear the word "drug" just start following the money. Enter the drug companies.
Although a recent scientific study stated that Pfizer's smoking cessation drug Chantix, "carries too many risks" it was still OK'd for public use. Exactly how bad were these risks ---- risks that PFIZER, the drug's manufacturer, vehemently denied? Chantix is a whopping eight times more likely to be linked with DEPRESSION and suicidal behavior than other nicotine replacement products (which themselves increase these problems as well). The findings directly contradict two studies released last month by the Food and Drug Administration that showed Chantix did not increase the risk of being hospitalized for psychiatric problems such as depression. The agency at the time acknowledged that those studies were flawed because they were too small, and they only captured cases that were severe enough to land people in the hospital.
"Our study contradicts the implications of a recent review by the FDA showing no difference in psychiatric hospitalizations. The FDA hospitalization studies were flawed because they could not capture most of the serious psychiatric side effects, including suicide, depression, aggression and assaults. These can be catastrophic events but do not normally result in hospitalization" said Dr. Curt Furberg, professor of Public Health Sciences at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, co-author of the study published online in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS One. He's right. How many sucessful suicide attempts are hospitalized? They're not hospitalized. They end up in the morgue!
The new study relies on adverse events reported via the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System from 1998 through September 2010. They compared 3,249 reports of serious self-injury or depression linked to
- Pfizer's Chantix
- Glaxo Smith Kline's Zyban --- an antidepressant that was approved for smoking cessation
- Nicotine Replacement Products (gum and patches).
They found that 2,925 cases, or 90 percent, of suicidal behavior or depression reported to the FDA were related to Chantix, even though the drug was only approved for four of the nearly 13 years of data included in the study. "We found that Chantix is associated with more suicidal behavior reports than any other smoking-cessation drug on the U.S. market. The risks simply outweigh the benefits".
Although Pfizer has strongly defended its drug, prior studies by Furberg and colleagues have shown Chantix increases the risk of other serious health issues including heart problems, unprovoked aggression, and sudden blackouts. "There were reports of people driving cars and blacking out," said Furberg. He and fellow researchers were so concerned about this side effect that they took their findings to the Federal Aviation Administration, which banned pilots from using Chantix in 2008.
NEUROPLASTICITY AND THE AMAZING BRAIN
| || |
THE AMAZING BRAIN
The other thing your brain needs in order to function properly is fuel. This fuel comes in the form of a steady supply of Glucose (BLOOD SUGAR), as well as oxygen. Maintaining proper levels of both these things is highly problematic here in America. With 70% of the population either overweight or plain obese, we are obviously not controlling our blood sugar. Weight issues are intimately related to blood sugar via numerous disease processes (INSULIN RESISTANCE, HYPOGLYCEMIA, Metabolic Syndrome X, TYPE II DIABETES). The mind-blowing thing about uncontrolled blood sugar (whether high or low) is that current research is tying it (causally) to almost every conceivable disease process imaginable, including LEAKY GUT SYNDROME, most AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES and INFLAMMATORY CONDITIONS, not to mention virtually all ENDOCRINE PROBLEMS including HYPOTHYROIDISM. Maintaining a proper blood sugar is critical to good health ---- and just remember that the values your doctor says are "normal" can actually be quite liberal (too high or too low).
Your body also needs oxygen. Most people in this country exist in a perpetually oxygen-deprived state. This is due to many factors including OBESITY, improper breathing techniques (shallow breathing or SLEEP APNEA), poor nutrition, and lack of exercise. Trust me, if you are not getting oxygen into your system, you will experience a myriad of health problems, including FIBROMYALGIA (and even CANCER). This is why our Fibromyalgia Program involves using OXYGEN THERAPY. For any chronic disease process that involves the nervous system, oxygen must be a part of the protocol if you expect to have good results, and have them in a timely fashion.
If you couple DYSBIOSIS, with a lack of fuel and activation, you are probably living a nightmare. Are you trying to break free? You do not need learn how to dance like the person in the first video, or stack cups like the person in the second, but you have to do some of the basics. For more information, learn how poor brain function can ruin your life (HERE), and then visit BRAIN-BASED THERAPY, MISSOURI.
SURE YOU CAN TRUST DRUG COMPANIES....
TO LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL!
GSK’s settlement will be the largest to date among federal cases against pharmaceutical companies accused of off-label marketing (research and marketing for things the drug is not designed to do), eclipsing the previous record of $2.3 billion paid by Pfizer in 2009 (see above link). GSK's previous record fine was $1 billion for birth defects caused by its ANTI-DEPRESSION MEDICATION PAXIL. However, in October 2010, it set another record, paying a fine of $150 million, the largest ever to settle criminal charges for knowingly marketing products produced at a contaminated facility (Puerto Rico), including Paxil, Avandia (which increases risk of heart failure by 60 percent, heart attack by 40 percent, and death in patients age 65 and over by 30 percent), Bactroban -- an ANTIBIOTIC OINTMENT; Coreg -- a heart drug; and Tagamet -- an ACID REFLUX drug. Hey; it's OK ---- they said they were sorry.
Thank you GlaxoSmithKline! Hey; I know people that would rat out their Grandma for fifty bucks. The government is offering better deals than that ---- much better. Ms. Eckard will collect $96 million from the federal government (10%), and she will collect additional millions from individual states for her "whistleblowing" against GSK in a previous case. Not yet sure who is going to collect money on the current case, but here is an interesting fun fact for you.
When I heard last week that the fine for GSK was set at 3 billion dollars, I was shocked. I figured that this kind of fine would break the company's back. Little did I know. That very day, GSK's stock actually rose on the news that they had known this fine was coming (the investigation had been going on since 2004), and had already set the money aside in a separate account ---- as cash. This was simply the price of doing business for another Pharmaceutical Giant.
If you think that drugs are safe, and that pharmaceutical companies are out for your best interest, you seriously need to think twice. These companies have proved time and time again that they put profits above all else (HERE). However, don't think that the FDA is really here to help you either. The very drugs that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline were fined for ---- they're still on the market. All of them!
FLU SHOTS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE FLU
According to a recent study published in the medical journal, Pediatrics, children critically ill with the pandemic H1N1 flu were at increased risk of death only if they had a pre-existing neurological condition or immune suppression. Among previously healthy children admitted to intensive care with pandemic flu, the only significant risk factor for death was a bacterial co-infection with antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) And where are people most likely to catch MRSA? In the hospital of course! Dr. Russell S. Schierling talking about a study done by Adrienne Randolph, MD and her team of researchers from Children's Hospital in Boston
1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children benefit from flu shots. How do we know this? A systematic 'Cochrane Review' of 51 studies, over a forty year period, involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Gulp! Same is true for old folks as well (HERE).
2.) Medical journals have published numerous studies revealing that injecting vaccines can actually lead to serious health problems including harmful immunological responses and a host of other infections. This further increases the body’s susceptibility to the very diseases that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.
3.) Ever noticed how within days of getting shots, vaccinated people develop runny noses, pneumonia, ear infections and / or bronchitis? This is because even though Flu Shots do not technically cause "The Flu", they do cause "Flu-like Symptoms" --- which are calculated into Flu Statistics just like The Flu. (SEE YESTERDAY'S BLOG POST)
4.) Its a known fact that FLU VACCINES contain strains of the flu virus along with lots of other "fun" ingredients. Now, think about the impact such a vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system (DYSBIOSIS, for instance)? If you have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the full effects of the flu, making you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. Interesting how the CDC fails to mention these common sense facts. Some of the ingredients contained in Flu Shots are so shocking that it is difficult to comprehend why they are in there in the first place (THIMEROSAL, for instance ---- or Phenol & Ethylene Glycol).
6.) The Center for Disease Control appoints a 15-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is responsible for deciding who should be vaccinated each year (their goal is always 100% of the population, although rates are falling instead of rising). Another of our government's dirty little secrets, is that almost all the ACIP have a financial interest in immunizations. Hey, read about John Rockefeller's lucrative foray into the vaccine business a century ago. It’s always been all about the money ---- having very little to do with your health and well being (HERE)! The very people pushing these vaccines the hardest stand to make millions (maybe even billions) of dollars. This itself creates a doubt on how effective these flu vaccines really are. If you do not think that Drug Companies will do anything (and I do mean anything) for financial gain, you are suffering from severe delusions. It was not long ago, that I blogged about two such multi-billion dollar fiascos by pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer (SEE HERE). All of this is why there is really no such thing as EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE.
7.) It is a well known fact that the shots are only able to protect against certain strains of the virus, which means that if you come into contact with a different strain you will still get the flu. Targeted vaccines only work against the target. If the CDC guesses wrong (which is more common than not because of increasingly rapid viral mutation patterns), the vaccine is all but 100% ineffective (HERE). Actually I am exaggerating. If you look at YESTERDAY'S BLOG by Ed Yazbak, MD, you see that the actual number is less than 8%.
8.) Does anyone remember the old adage, "Figures Never Lie, but Liars Figure"? This is the only constant when trying to decipher what is actually true about the Flu as well as the Flu Vaccine. How effective is it? Who really knows; but according to the research, not very. How dangerous is the Flu? Unless you are in poor health already, not very. However, if you spent much time listening to the CDC's current wave of "Flu Propaganda", you would think that the Flu was Black Death. My suggestion to you is to do some serious research into this and other vaccines. The choice to be vaccinated (or have your children vaccinated) it yours and yours alone. My advice is to weigh the pros and cons so that you can make an educated decision based on facts instead of fear. For all of our VACCINE POSTS, just follow the link.
HOW MANY ANNUAL DEATHS FROM THE FLU?
"Is this year's flu really deadlier than past years?" The headline of a January 2018 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune by Paul Sisson
"Earlier this month, a report from the CDC revealed that the 2014-15 flu season had already crossed the threshold for epidemic status, with 15 child deaths from the virus so far. Now, a new report from the organization estimates this season's flu vaccine is only 23% effective across all age groups." From Honor Whitman's January 16, 2015 story for Medical News Today (CDC: This Season's Flu Vaccine Only 23% Effective)
"This is what the Public Health Agency of Canada said in a recent press release: "Every year, between 2,000 and 8,000 Canadians die of the flu and its complications." In a CBC interview a few weeks ago an editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal said: "Four thousand to 8,000 people die every year of influenza. Did you ever wonder how they know that? The fact is, they don't know that. "This is a scientific guess. This is not the truth," Dr. Michael Gardam, director of the infection prevention and control unit at the University Health Network in Toronto and a longtime flu watcher, told me. The fact is, no one knows how many people die after being infected with the flu virus. The death estimates are not based on body counts, lab tests or autopsies. The "2,000 to 8,000" numbers are based on computer models — a statistical guess that comes out of the end of a mathematical formula that makes a range of assumptions about death and flu." From the November 25, 2015 issue of Canada's CBC News (Flu Deaths Reality Check)
"According to the National Vital Statistics System in the U.S., for example, annual flu deaths in 2010 amounted to just 500 per year -- fewer than deaths from ulcers (2,977), hernias (1,832) and pregnancy and childbirth (825), and a far cry from the big killers such as heart disease (597,689) and cancers (574,743). Even that 500 figure for the U.S. could be too high, according to analyses in authoritative journals such as the American Journal of Public Health and the British Medical Journal. Only about 15-20 per cent of people who come down with flu-like symptoms have the influenza virus -- the other 80-85 per cent actually caught rhinovirus or other germs that are indistinguishable from the true flu without laboratory tests, which are rarely done." From the January 24, 2014 issue of the Huffington Post (Don't Believe Everything You Read About Flu Deaths).
"For as long as I can remember now, we've been saying 36,000 people die each year from the flu. When we've asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for updated figures, they told us 36K was the best they had. Didn't seem quite right that it never changed year after year. Now it turns out the 36K was calculated way back in 1999, when flu deaths hit a peak. In some years as few as 3,349 have died (back in 1986-7). But the highest annual average toll was 48,614, just seven seasons ago (2003-4)." From the August 26, 2010 edition of NPR (How Many People Die From Flu Each Year? Depends How You Slice The Data)
Dr. Yazbak (MD / FAAP) has been practicing pediatrics since 1963 and served as Pediatric Director of the Child Development Study at Brown University. He was the Assistant Clinical Director for Infectious Diseases at the Charles V. Chapin Hospital, and the Director of Pediatrics at the Woonsocket Hospital. Since 1998, Dr. Yazbak has conducted research into REGRESSIVE AUTISM, publishing extensively on AUTOIMMUNITY and autism in children whose mothers had repeated live virus vaccination, as well as THE SHEER NUMBERS OF NEW VACCINES. He and his wife, a pediatric nurse practitioner, live in Massachusetts.
In September of 2006 Yazbak published a scientific article called Calculating US Influenza Deaths. He started out mentioning the 36,000 annual flu-related deaths widely touted by our government (the other commonly-parroted figure is 56,000 as seen in YESTERDAY'S POST). Dr. Yazbak searched high and low but could not find where these stats actually came from, saying they magically appeared as if it were "a rabbit from a top hat". Using words like "propaganda," Yazbak then showed just how fuzzy CDC math really is.
When Yazbak wrote his paper twelve years ago, the last "hard" mortality statistics for flu were published on page 31 of the September 2001 issue of the National Vital Statistics Report. And as you might imagine, the majority of the deaths occurred in the geriatric (over-65) population. How many deaths from influenza are we talking about? Pay attention as Yazbak's quote comes directly from statistics on the CDC's site. "The calculated number of 284 (0.1/100.000) deaths from influenza would be close enough to the actual listed number of 257." Depending on how these deaths were calculated, either 284 or 257 Americans died of flu in 2001. So, where did the 36,000 come from? Dr. Y shows us.
"Testifying before the committee on government reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 12, 2004, CDC Director Julie L. Gerberding, MD, carefully stated that "CDC scientists estimate that an average of 36,000 people die from influenza-related complications each year in the United States."
Yazbak went on to talk about the difference between flu and flu-related complications. While one might argue that the flu vaccine can protect a person from the flu, everyone agrees that it can't protect a person from non-flu or viruses that are "flu-like" --- the vast majority of circulating viruses.
"Most people who have influenza-like illness, as the condition is fondly referred to by the CDC, do not have influenza; only a small percentage of them are ever confirmed by culture or other accurate laboratory means. For the period 2000-2005, influenza virus positive cultures were 11 to 18.9 percent of the obtained cultures with a mean of 12.5 percent. It is well known that the virus strains in the community may be different from those in the available vaccine. Because immunity is strain-specific, vaccination in such cases is essentially ineffective in preventing disease. The percent of antigenic match between 2000 and 2005 varied from 11 to 63.2 percent with a mean of 54.2 percent. The maximum effectiveness of the vaccination effort, therefore, ranged between 2.1 percent in 2003-2004 and 11.5 percent in 2002-2003 with a mean of 7.2 percent."
What's interesting is that according to the February 2018 COCHRANE REVIEW ON FLU, none of these stats from a decade and a half ago are better than what we are seeing today. And as for the ability to create next year's "strain-specific vaccine" this year --- HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO CALL THE EFFORT A PIPE DREAM! But here is the kicker; the CDC itself admits to all of this.
In a blistering editorial, Dr. Peter Doshi (professor at University of Maryland's School of Pharmacy, Ph.D from MIT, advanced degree from Harvard, postdoctoral research fellowship from Johns Hopkins, member of Cochrane, and associate editor of one of the oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical publications in the world --- the British Medical Journal) stated in his BMJ article called Are US Flu Death Figures More PR than Science?....
"US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The CDC acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu-associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts "predict dire outcomes" during flu seasons. The CDC website states what has become commonly accepted and widely reported in the lay and scientific press: annually "about 36,000 Americans die from flu" and "influenza/pneumonia" is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. CDC states that the historic 1968-9 "Hong Kong flu" pandemic killed 34,000 Americans. At the same time, CDC claims 36,000 Americans annually die from flu. What is going on?"
Doshi goes on to tell us what's going on --- something we were already aware of. He gives us yet another reason we cannot trust EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE.
"CDC is already working in manufacturers' interest by conducting campaigns to increase flu vaccination. At the 2004 'National Influenza Vaccine Summit, co-sponsored by CDC and the AMA, Glen Nowak spoke on using the media to boost demand for the vaccine. One step of a "Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination" occurs when 'medical experts and public health authorities publicly...state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)—and urge influenza vaccination'. Another step entails 'continued reports...that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.'"
Not only can we see that things have not gotten any better, go back and re-read the headlines at the top. The problem is arguably getting worse. Why? For any number of reasons that you can read about in my dozens of posts on FLU VACCINATIONS. But it goes deeper than that. Today's Americans are LESS HEALTHY THAN PREVIOUS GENERATIONS. If you want to see what you might do to get your life back, get healthy, and stay that way, HERE is a great place to start!
WORRIED ABOUT CATCHING THE FLU?
JUST REMEMBER THAT IT'S THE WORST
FLU SEASON EVER --- AGAIN
Basically, when a person dies, there has to be a "Cause of Death" on their Death Certificate. This group of doctors said that in the average case of a person who is labeled as dying because of the flu; their Death Certificate could have said just about anything ---- including old age. In other words, flu is a commonly used Cause of Death, when any number of other causes could have been used just as easily ---- and probably more accurately (TYPE II DIABETES, CANCER, HIV, Heart Disease, etc). For instance, the CDC reports that 90% of the deaths from influenza occur among the elderly. But for Pete's sake, nearly 70% of all death, regardless of cause, occur in the elderly population. Skewed stats are meant to scare people.
My guess is that skewing statistics in this direction is actually designed to cause the degree of panic seen in the geriatric population about this time each year ---- the panic that causes little old ladies to wait in line two hours to get their annual flu shot (SEE HERE). I recently had a conversation with an MD about the Flu. The most surprising thing about this conversation was that I was told ---- to my face ---- that it was highly unlikely that I had ever had the flu before (this in light of CDC statistics that claim that 1/3 of the American population has the flu each year --- Wikipedia says 15 - 20% of the population). How could this possibly be true? I can remember numerous times puking my guts out and thinking that I would be better off dead. This, I was told by the doctor, was not the Flu, but a "bug" ---- an intestinal virus that causes (here is one of my all time favorites) Flu-like Symptoms," which are in no way, shape, or form; The Flu.
I found this information interesting. Particularly in light of a 2010 article by Julie Steenhuysen called, "CDC Backs Away from Decades-old Flu Death Estimate". In the article, Steenhuysen quoted the Center for Disease Control as saying, "Instead of the estimated 36,000 annual flu deaths in the United States ... the actual number in the past 30 years has ranged from a low of about 3,300 deaths to a high of nearly 49,000". On top of this, I was doubly shocked to read on the CDC's website that only 257 people died from the flu in 2001. What gives? Someone is not telling the truth! CDC stats seem to be all over the place ---- in the same year! By all estimates, it appears that the 36,000 number is inflated ---- incredibly inflated.
So, not only are many people who are essentially ready to die from anything that comes along, frequently figured into these statistics when they finally do die, the stats actually include those with Flu-like Symptoms ---- whether it is really flu or not. This goes along with what one of these doctors told me as well. I asked why so many of my patients reported getting the worst case of the flu ever; shortly after getting a flu shot? His answer? He said that it is impossible to get the actual "flu" from a flu shot, but that flu-like symptoms are a fairly common side effect of the VACCINE.
WHAT DOES THE FLU REALLY LOOK LIKE?
- Aches and Pains
- Stomach Pain and Cramping
ANTIBIOTICS IN THE FIRST MONTH OF LIFE DOUBLES CHANCES OF ENDING UP WITH ALLERGIES AND ASTHMA
Case in point is a study that was published earlier this year in the February issue of The American Journal of Epidemiology. The study, done by four doctors at Yale University's School of Public Health's Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology, hit us with yet another example of the problems with current antibiotic prescription habits. This study looked at the relationship between early antibiotic use (1st 6 months of life), and the incidence of asthma & allergies at 6 years of age ---- in over 1,400 children. Antibiotic exposure was associated with a 52% increased risk of asthma overall. However, there was a staggering 89% increase in both problems in children with no prior family history! The authors concluded that early antibiotic use is associated with developing both ASTHMA and ALLERGIES. Is this information anything new? Not really.
In the June 2007 issue of CHEST, the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians, carried a similar study concluding that, "children receiving antibiotics in the first year of life were at greater risk for developing asthma by age 7 than those not receiving antibiotics". The risk for asthma doubled (100% increase) in children receiving antibiotics during their first year. Do you think that maybe its time to avoid antibiotics?
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
Brain Based Therapy
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Cold Laser Therapy
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Joint Disease
D's Of Chronic Pain
Evidence Based Medicine
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Ice Or Heat
Jacks Fork River
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Number One Health Problem
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Scar Tissue Removal
Sleeping Pills Kill
Stay Or Go
Stretching Post Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Whole Body Vibration