Dr. Green's Health Blog

The Facts About Fevers

2012-02-20T05:58:00.000+07:00

SOURCE: To Your Health ~ January 2012

By Claudia Anrig, DC

Our body’s first line of defense when invaded by any microbe, virus or bacteria is cells called microphages; a strong, healthy immune system may be able to eliminate the problem with this first step alone.
If these fail to contain the microbe/”bug,” then the body creates other pryogens and proteins to try to assist. Once these have been created, the hypothalamus in the brain recognizes there is an invader and raises the body temperature to assist in killing it off.

This elevated temperature will generally be just a couple of degrees, but the hypothalamus determines, based on the number of pryogens and proteins, what will be necessary to eliminate the microbe/bug. If the hypothalamus creates additional biochemicals to try to protect the body, then the temperature rises accordingly.

Defining a Fever

For all children above the age of 3 months, a fever is actually a good thing. It’s a sign that their immune system is functioning properly. Although many parents will panic when their child has a temperature above 98.6° F (37° C), and this is understandable since many health care providers have called this a “low-grade fever,” the reality is that children’s temperature may naturally run a little higher than what many consider the norm.

A true low-grade fever is anything between 100° F and 102.2° F (37.8° C and 39° C). This level of fever is beneficial; with most microbes/”bugs” that a child will be exposed to, this fever will assist the body in repelling the invader.

A moderate-grade fever is typically between 102.2° F and 104.5° F (39° C and 40° C). This temperature is still considered beneficial; if a child’s body has reached this temperature, it’s what’s needed to kill whatever bacteria or virus their body is attempting to fight.

A high fever is a fever greater than 104.5° F (40° C). This fever may cause the child some discomfort and result in a bit of crankiness. Generally indicative of a bacterial infection, this fever means that the body is fighting something a little more serious than the common cold. While it will not cause brain damage or any other harm to a child, it is wise to seek assistance from their medical provider.

A serious fever is one that is at or above 108° F (42° C); this fever can be harmful.

Can a Fever Be Dangerous?

Fevers that are caused by the body’s immune system are not dangerous, and the hypothalamus will control the body temperature and not allow it to get so high as to cause harm. While it can be frightening to have a child running a moderate to high fever, it is simply their body doing what it was designed to do.

The only body temperature that can actually cause brain damage, despite what many parents believe, is 108° F (42° C), and this body temperature cannot typically be achieved on its own, but requires extreme external environmental temperatures – for instance, if a child is left in a closed car in hot weather.

What About Fever Reducers?

Since it is a very rare fever that can actually cause any kind of harm to a child, the best response is to let it run its course; most fevers will resolve themselves in 24 to 72 hours.
Parents should be aware that fevers will naturally spike a little in the late afternoon and evening, so a slight increase in temperature during these times is not a cause for alarm. A wait-and-watch approach should be recommended, rather than turning to over-the-counter chemicals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend fever-reducing drugs: “Fever is not an illness, rather, it is a symptom of sickness and is usually a positive sign that the body is fighting infection.” Even in cases of high temperatures, the AAP says, “Fevers generally do not need to be treated with medication unless your child is uncomfortable or has a history of febrile convulsions. The fever may be important in helping your child fight the infection.”

The Best Response

The best response to a fever below 104.5° F (40° C) for children over the age of 3 years is lots of rest and clear fluids. Since fevers may cause the child to sweat, parents need to be aware that they will lose sodium and water, which must be replaced with proper fluids. (This does not include Gatorade or other sugary sports drinks.) Parents should contact the child’s health care provider right away if any of the following occur:

A child younger than 3 months is running any grade of fever.
A child between 3 months and 3 years has a temperature above 102.2° F (39° C) and appears ill (it should be noted that even teething may cause a slight increase in temperature).
A child of any age has a temperature over 104.5° F (40° C).

Additionally, since dehydration is a potential side effect of fever, encourage parents to watch their child for the following: dry mouth, lack of urine or wet diapers for 6-8 hours (or only a small amount of really dark urine), dry skin, lethargy, irritability, fatigue, or with an older child, dizziness. These signs of dehydration may be a concern and the child should be seen by a health care professional, especially if they are unable to keep down clear fluids.

It is important to note that in children under the age of 5 years, a fever can also lead to a seizure, known as a febrile seizure. However, while this can be frightening, it will typically have no lasting effects.

“Fever Phobia”

In 1980, Dr. Barton Schmitt published a now-classic article in which he coined the phrase “fever phobia.” Many parents believed that untreated fevers could actually rise to critical levels and that even low-grade fevers could have serious neurological effects. This is just not true.

In 2001, Dr. Michael Crocetti, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins, was the lead author of a study called “Fever Phobia Revisited: Have Parental Misconceptions About Fever Changed in 20 Years?” He found that 20 years later, not much had changed and that despite education, parents still believe that fevers are dangerous. Keep in mind that although they do increase the need for fluids, fevers in and of themselves are not harmful.

A fever is a natural part of a child’s immune response. When it is functioning at its absolute best, a child’s body will fight off most foreign invaders so swiftly that they will have no outward effect at all. However, when necessary, a child’s immune system will raise their temperature to create a hostile environment for that invader. It’s how a properly functioning body functions.

Claudia Anrig, DC, practices in Fresno, Calif., and is on the board of directors of the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, an organization that can answer your questions regarding the value of chiropractic care during and after pregnancy.

New Study Reveals That Back Surgery Fails 74% of the Time

2012-02-19T20:58:00.000+07:00

Editorial Commentary:

Researchers reviewed records from 1,450 patients in the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation database who had diagnoses of disc degeneration, disc herniation or radiculopathy, a nerve condition that causes tingling and weakness of the limbs. Half of the patients had surgery to fuse two or more vertebrae in hopes of curing low back pain. The other half had no surgery, even though they had comparable diagnoses.

After two years, just 26 percent of those who had surgery had actually returned to work. That’s compared to 67 percent of patients who didn’t have surgery. In what might be the most troubling study finding, researchers determined that there was a 41 percent increase in the use of painkillers, specifically opiates, in those who had surgery.

“The study [1] provides clear evidence that for many patients, fusion surgeries designed to alleviate pain from degenerating discs don’t work”, says the study’s lead author Dr. Trang Nguyen, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. [2]

Just a month after back surgery, Nancy Scatena was once again in excruciating pain. The medications her doctor prescribed barely took the edge off the unrelenting back aches and searing jolts down her left leg. “The pain just kept intensifying,” says the 52-year-old Scottsdale, Ariz., woman who suffers from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the chanel through which spinal nerves pass. “I was suicidal.”

Finally, Scatena made an appointment with another surgeon, one whom friends had called a “miracle worker.” The new doctor assured her that this second operation would fix everything, and in the pain-free weeks following an operation to fuse two of her vertebrae it seemed that he was right. But then the pain came roaring back.

Experts estimate that nearly 600,000 Americans opt for back operations each year. But for many like Scatena, surgery is just an empty promise, say pain management experts and some surgeons.

This new study in the journal Spine [1] shows that in many cases surgery can even backfire, leaving patients in more pain.

The study provides clear evidence that for many patients, fusion surgeries designed to alleviate pain from degenerating discs don’t work, says the study’s lead author Dr. Trang Nguyen, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. [3]

27 Million Adults With Back Problems

A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a federal organization, found that in 2007, twenty-seven million adults reported back problems, with $30.3 billion spent on treatments to ease the pain. While some of that money is spent on physical therapy, pain management, chiropractor visits, and other non invasive therapies, a big chunk pays for spine surgeries.

Complicated spine surgeries that involve fusing two or more vertebrae are on the rise. In just 15 years, there was an eight-fold jump in this type of operation, according to a study published in Spine in July. That has some surgeons and public health experts concerned. [4]

You may also want to review the recently published European Guidelines for the Management of Acute and Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain, which specifically states:

"Surgery for non-specific CLBP cannot be recommended unless 2 years of all other recommended conservative treatments — including multidisciplinary approaches with combined programs of cognitive intervention and exercises — have failed".

This study re-confirms the findings of the UK BEAM Trial, published in the British Medical Journal in 2004. [5] Those authors stated:

"Manipulation, with or without exercise, improved symptoms more than best care (medical care) alone after three and 12 months. However, analysis of the cost utility of different strategies shows that manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise" (page 1381).

You may also want to read these 3 recent Editorials:

Why Do Spinal Surgery Rates Continue To Rise?
Chiro.Org Blog ~ April 10th, 2010

New Study Finds Chiropractic Care Superior to Family Physician-directed Usual Care
Chiro.Org Blog ~ October 7th, 2010

If Not Chiropractic Care, Then What’s Your Alternative?
Chiro.Org Blog ~ September 25th, 2010

REFERENCES:

1.   Long-term Outcomes of Lumbar Fusion Among Workers' Compensation Subjects: An Historical Cohort Study
SPINE (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 (Feb 15); 36 (4): 320–331

2.   Study Says Back Surgery Often Makes Things Worse
The Daily Hit ~ Oct 14, 2010

3.   Back Surgery May Backfire On Patients In Pain
MSNBC.com ~ Oct 14, 2010

4.   Why Do Spinal Surgery Rates Continue To Rise?
Chiro.Org Blog Editorial ~ April 10th, 2010

5.   Findings from the: “United Kingdom Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (UK BEAM) Randomised Trial”
British Medical Journal 2004 (Dec 11); 329 (7479)

Send all comments or additions to: Frankp@chiro.org

Body clock 'alters' immune system

2012-02-17T11:04:00.000+07:00

By James GallagherHealth and science reporter, BBC News

The time of the day could be an important factor in the risk of getting an infection, according to researchers in the US.They showed how a protein in the immune system was affected by changes in the chemistry of the body through the day.

The findings, published in the journal Immunity, showed the time of an infection changed its severity.

An expert said drugs were likely to take advantage of the body clock in the near future.

Plants, animals and even bacteria go through a daily 24-hour routine, known as a circadian rhythm. Jet lag is what happens when the body gets out of sync with its surroundings after crossing time zones.

It has been known that there are variations in the immune system throughout the day. Researchers are now drilling down into what causes the details.

The immune system needs to detect an infection before it can begin to fight it off. Researchers at Yale University School of Medicine were investigating one of the proteins involved in the detection process - Toll-like receptor nine (TLR9), which can spot DNA from bacteria and viruses.

In experiments on mice, the scientists showed that the amount of TLR9 produced and the way it functioned was controlled by the body clock and varied through the day.

Immunising mice at the peak of TLR9 activity improved the immune response, the researchers said.

They said humans with sepsis, blood poisoning, were known to be at a greater risk of death between 02:00 and 06:00.

Time link

When testing mice, the severity of sepsis depended on the time of day infection started and coincided with changes in TLR9 activity.

Prof Erol Fikrig, who conducted the study at Yale University, said they had found a "direct molecular link between circadian rhythms and the immune system", which could have "important implications for the prevention and treatment of disease".

He added: "It does appear that disruptions of the circadian clock influence our susceptibility to pathogens."

Dr Akhilesh Reddy, who is researching circadian rhythms at the University of Cambridge, said it was "known long ago" that timing had an impact on the immune system, but this was "one of the first forays" into the reasons why.

The implications for healthcare could mean that drugs need to be given at certain times of day in order to make them more effective, or drugs could be made which actually target the body clock to put the immune system into its most active phase.

Dr Reddy said drug companies were "all switching onto this" and were "now screening drugs at different times of the day".

He could see the body clock impacting medicine "within 10 years".

Medical Funnies

2012-02-13T09:03:00.000+07:00

Is Mercedes Benz, Jaguar, Maserati, etc. the "alternative" to GM?

Truth is Chiropractic is the #2 form of healthcare on the planet. We are not alternative although that name gets used to insult and demean us.

Fortunately, our patients know better.

Our patient generally come from the swollen ranks of the failures of medicine. People that took the drugs, went to the physio, had the surgery and STILL they got no relief. With chiropractic they got the relief they needed.

Have a chuckle at this, it's not anti-chiropractic, but keep everything in perspective. What chiropractic does it does the best.

How can I prevent neck strain while sleeping?

2012-02-08T05:33:00.000+07:00

Without even realizing it, you may be putting stress and strain on your neck muscles at night. But there are steps you can take to prevent neck pain, even as you sleep.

If your neck could talk, what position would it tell you it wanted to be in while you slept? It would say please keep me in gentle flexion (chin towards chest) in a neutral position. When I roll on my side, keep my head straight, don't make me bend my neck. Definitely don't let my head drop down to the mattress.

If you don’t use a pillow, use one: You need one to give your neck muscles support. Specifically, use a pillow that supports your neck.

“Memory foam” that molds to the curve of your head and neck is one of the worst choices. It lets the weight of your head press the foam down, bending your neck sideways and putting a strain on your muscles.

Avoid pillows that are too high or stiff. These will keep your neck flexed overnight and can cause morning pain and stiffness.

The double-humped, wave-like pillow works just as well for side-sleepers as back-sleepers. I've used one for years. remember that no pillow is designed for more than 6 months use. Replace your pillows at least twice a year.

DO NOT sleep on your stomach, you probably wouldn’t want to hear your neck’s views about that. Since it’s unwise to sleep with your face buried in a pillow, given the need to breathe, you’ve got to twist your head. If you’ve been a lifelong stomach sleeper, it might be tough to switch sleeping positions now. Still, start the night sleeping in a well-supported back or side position. I've found the change can be made in less than 2 weeks and will give you back a life time of healthy sleeping.

If it seems like an extravagance to buy a specially shaped pillow, consider these two points. First, a good night’s sleep is really important for your health. Second, we spend a third of our lives sleeping. Why skimp on how you live a third of your life? Your bed is important too.

Grains Contain Anti-Nutrients

2012-01-26T05:44:00.000+07:00

In the United States, we're told that grains (especially whole grains) are an important part of a balanced diet, necessary for obtaining our daily requirement of healthy nutrients and fiber.
However, according to a growing number of experts, including Dr. Loren Cordain, a professor at Colorado State University and an expert on Paleolithic lifestyles, humans are NOT designed to eat grains, and doing so may actually be damaging to your gut.
Dr. Cordain explains:
"There's no human requirement for grains. That's the problem with the USDA recommendations. They think we're hardwired as a species to eat grains. You can get by just fine and meet every single nutrient requirement that humans have without eating grains. And grains are absolutely poor sources of vitamins and minerals compared to fruits and vegetables and meat and fish."
Ironically, since we're often told that whole grains are the best for our health, the high-fiber bran portion of grain – a key part that makes it a whole grain -- actually contains many of the anti-nutrients.But the problem isn't only that there are superior sources of nutrients; grains actually contain anti-nutrients that may damage your health. Dr. Cordain states:
"Grains are the seeds of a plant. They're its reproductive material, and plants don't make their reproductive material to give away for free to other animals. If they did they'd become extinct, and so the evolutionary strategy that many plants, particularly cereal grains have taken to prevent predation is to evolve toxic compounds so that the predator of the seeds can't eat them, so that they can put their seeds in the soil where they're meant to be to grow a new plant and not in the gut of an animal to feed it."

Grains -- Especially Whole Grains -- Increase Intestinal Permeability

There is a growing body of scientific evidence showing that grains, as well as legumes, contain anti-nutrients and other problem substances that may increase intestinal permeability. This includes:
Gliadin
Gliadin is the primary immunotoxic protein found in wheat gluten and is among the most damaging to your health. Gliadin gives wheat bread its doughy texture and is capable of increasing the production of the intestinal protein zonulin, which in turn opens up gaps in the normally tight junctures between intestinal cells (enterocytes).
In celiac disease the body will make antibodies to gliadin after it is digested by the intestinal enzyme tissue transglutaminase, resulting in severe autoimmune damage to the delicate, absorptive surfaces of the intestines. It does not, however, require full blown celiac disease to suffer from the adverse effects of this protein. In fact, it is likely that our intolerance to gliadin and related wheat proteins is a species-specific intolerance, applicable to all humans, with the difference being a matter of the degree to which it causes harm.
This helps to explain why new research clearly shows gliadin increases intestinal permeability in both those with, and thosewithout, celiac disease.
Lectins
Lectins are a key mechanism through which plants protect themselves against being eaten, and are found in highest concentrations in their seed form -- which makes sense, considering that seeds are the plants' "babies" and whose survival ensures the continuation of their species.
When animals consume foods containing lectins, they may experience digestive irritation, along with a wide range of other health complaints. The degree to which the adverse effects are expressed depends largely on how long that species has had to co-evolve with that particular form of plant food it is eating. Since humans have only been consuming unsprouted grains and beans in large amounts for approximately 500 generations, we still suffer far more than certain rodents and birds, who have had thousands of generations longer to adapt to this way of eating.
We are mostly exposed to lectins from grains, beans, dairy products and nightshade plants, such as potato, tomato, and chili peppers. However, bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has a prominent role to play in lectin-induced adverse effects, due to the fact that it is a relatively new form of wheat, and contains wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) – a particularly resilient and problematic lectin, considering it is not eliminated through sprouting and is actually found in higher concentrations in whole wheat.
Studies indicate that it has the potential to contribute to a wide range of adverse health effects, including gut inflammation and damage to your gastrointestinal tract:

Pro-inflammatory--WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory chemical messengers (cytokines) in intestinal and immune cells, and has been shown to play acausative role in chronic thin gut inflammation.	Immunotoxicity--WGA induces thymus atrophy in rats , and anti-WGA antibodies in human blood have been shown to cross-react with other proteins, indicating that they may contribute to autoimmunity . In fact, WGA appears to play a role in celiac disease (CD) that is entirely distinct from that of gluten, due to significantly higher levels of IgG and IgAantibodies against WGA found in patients with CD, when compared with patients with other intestinal disorders.
Neurotoxicity-- WGA can cross your blood-brain barrier through a process called "adsorptive endocytosis," pulling other substances with it. WGA may attach to your myelin sheath and is capable of inhibiting nerve growth factor, which is important for the growth, maintenance, and survival of certain target neurons.	Excitotoxicity-- Wheat, dairy, and soy contain exceptionally high levels of glutamic and aspartic acid, which makes them all potentially excitotoxic. Excitotoxicity is a pathological process where glutamic and aspartic acid cause an over-activation of your nerve cell receptors, which can lead to calcium-induced nerve and brain injury. These two amino acids may contribute to neurodegenerative conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, and other nervous system disorders such as epilepsy, ADD/ADHD and migraines.
Cytotoxicity—WGA has been demonstrated to be cytotoxic to both normal and cancerous cell lines, capable of inducing either cell cycle arrest or programmed cell death (apoptosis).	Disrupts Endocrine Function—WGA may contribute to weight gain, insulin resistance, and leptin resistance by blocking the leptin receptor in your hypothalamus. It also binds to both benign and malignant thyroid nodules , and interferes with the production of secretin from your pancreas, which can lead to digestive problems and pancreatic hypertrophy.
Cardiotoxicity—WGA has a potent, disruptive effect on platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1, which plays a key role in tissue regeneration and safely removing neutrophils from your blood vessels.	Adversely Affects Gastrointestinal Functionby causing increased shedding of the intestinal brush border membrane, reducing the surface area, and accelerating cell loss and shortening of villi. It also causes cytoskeleton degradation in intestinal cells, contributing to cell death and increased turnover, and decreases levels of heat shock proteins in gut epithelial cells, leaving them more vulnerable to damage.

As we noted earlier, the highest amounts of WGA is found in whole wheat, including its sprouted form, which is touted as being the most healthful form of all ... The traditional ways of addressing many of these anti-nutrients is, in fact, by sprouting, fermenting and cooking. However, lectins are designed to withstand degradation through a wide range of pH and temperatures. WGA lectin is particularly tough because it's actually formed by the same disulfide bonds that give strength and resilience to vulcanized rubber and human hair.

New Report Warns of the Sugar in Cereals Marketed to Kids

One of the most common ways we consume grains is in the form of cereal, many of which are marketed to kids and adults alike as "health foods." But cereal is anything but healthy, not only because of the grain it contains but also because many (particularly those for kids) contain excessive amounts of sugar.
A new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that many popular children's cereal brands contain more sugar than snack cakes and cookies. For instance, one cup of Kellogg's Honey Smacks, which is nearly 56 percent sugar by weight, has more sugar than a Twinkie, while a one-cup serving of 44 other children's cereals analyzed contain more sugar than three Chips Ahoy! cookies.
If you need a recap of why sugar is a health disaster, you can find one here. However, as it pertains to leaky gut, you should know that sugar, like grains, can upset the balance of bacteria in your digestive tract, encouraging damage to your intestinal lining that can lead to leaky gut. So, sugary children's cereals are a double-edged sword, assaulting your fragile gastrointestinal tract with both damaging sugar and grains. Please do your kids a great favor and offer them a healthier breakfast instead.

Are Grains Causing Your Leaky Gut Symptoms? This Food is the "Antidote"

As you might suspect, leaky gut can cause digestive symptoms such as bloating, gas and abdominal cramps, but it can also cause or contribute to many others you may not, such as fatigue, skin rashes, joint pain, allergies, psychological symptoms, autism and more.
It's a vicious cycle because once your digestive tract has been damaged, it allows various gut contents to flood into your bloodstream where they wreak havoc on your health. The key to preventing this lies in altering your diet to eliminate the offending foods -- including sugars and grains -- as well as introduce healthier ones that will support a proper balance of bacteria in your gut. To restore gut health, and prevent leaky gut from occurring, eating traditionally fermented foods is essential.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride explains:
"Fermented foods are essential to introduce, as they provide probiotic microbes in the best possible form … fermented foods will carry probiotic microbes all away down to the end of the digestive system. Fermentation predigests the food, making it easy for our digestive systems to handle, that is why fermented foods are easily digested by people with damaged gut. Fermentation releases nutrients from the food, making them more bio-available for the body: for example sauerkraut contains 20 times more bio-available vitamin C than fresh cabbage."
On Dr. Campbell-McBride's web site you can find recipes for many traditionally fermented foods, including sauerkraut, yogurt, kefir, kvass and more.
If you regularly eat fermented foods such as these that have not been pasteurized (pasteurization kills the naturally occurring probiotics), your healthy gut bacteria will thrive. If these foods do not make a regular appearance in your diet, or you've recently taken antibiotics, a high-quality probiotic supplement will help give your gut bacteria the healthy boost it needs. Once your gut flora is optimized, your leaky gut should improve naturally. As Dr. Cordain explains:
" … when we have a healthy flora of bacteria in our gut, it tends to prevent leaky gut."

Is a Return to the Paleo Diet Right for You?

During the Paleolithic period, many thousands of years ago, people ate primarily vegetables, fruit, nuts, roots and meat—and a wide variety of it. Today, these staples have been largely replaced with refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, cereal, bread, potatoes and pasteurized milk products… and a much narrower selection of fruits, vegetables, roots and nuts.
This is precisely the recipe for a leaky gut, and all of its associated health problems, which is why simply returning to a Paelo diet by eating foods that are concordant with your genetic ancestry may help you become healthier. This includes focusing on whole, unprocessed foods including vegetables (except corn and potatoes) and free-range organic meats, while avoiding sugars and grains.
As Dr. Cordain states:
"The nutritional qualities of modern processed foods and foods introduced during the Neolithic period are discordant with our ancient and conservative genome. This genetic discordance ultimately manifests itself as various chronic illnesses, which have been dubbed "diseases of civilization." By severely reducing or eliminating these foods and replacing them with a more healthful cuisine, possessing nutrient qualities more in line with the foods our ancestors consumed, it is possible to improve health and reduce the risk of chronic disease."

For Neck Pain, Chiropractic and Exercise Are Better Than Drugs

2012-01-04T04:15:00.000+07:00

Seeing a chiropractor or engaging in light exercise relieves neck pain more effectively than relying on pain medication, new research shows.

The new study is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of various treatments for neck pain, a problem that affects three quarters of Americans at some point in their lives but has no proven, first-line treatment. While many people seek out spinal manipulation by chiropractors, the evidence supporting its usefulness has been limited at best.

But the new research, published in The Annals of Internal Medicine, found that chiropractic care or simple exercises done at home were better at reducing pain than taking medications like aspirin, ibuprofen or narcotics.

“These changes were diminished over time, but they were still present,” said Dr. Gert Bronfort, an author of the study and research professor at Northwestern Health Sciences University in Minnesota. “Even a year later, there were differences between the spinal manipulation and medication groups.”

Moderate and acute neck pain is one of the most frequent reasons for trips to primary care doctors, prompting millions of visits every year. For patients, it can be a difficult problem to navigate. In some cases the pain and stiffness crop up without explanation, and treatment options are varied. Physical therapy, pain medication and spinal manipulation are popular options, but Dr. Bronfort was inspired to carry out an analysis because so little research exists.

“There was a void in the scientific literature in terms of what the most helpful treatments are,” he said.

To find out, Dr. Bronfort and his colleagues recruited a large group of adults with neck pain that had no known specific cause. The subjects, 272 in all, were mostly recruited from a large HMO and through advertisements. The researchers then split them into three groups and followed them for about three months.

One group was assigned to visit a chiropractor for roughly 20-minute sessions throughout the course of the study, making an average of 15 visits. A second group was assigned to take common pain relievers like acetaminophen and — in some cases, at the discretion of a doctor — stronger drugs like narcotics and muscle relaxants. The third group met on two occasions with physical therapists who gave them instructions on simple, gentle exercises for the neck that they could do at home. They were encouraged to do 5 to 10 repetitions of each exercise up to eight times a day. (A demonstration of the exercises can be found at www.annals.org).

After 12 weeks, the people in the non-medication groups did significantly better than those taking the drugs. About 57 percent of those who met with chiropractors and 48 percent who did the exercises reported at least a 75 percent reduction in pain, compared to 33 percent of the people in the medication group.

A year later, when the researchers checked back in, 53 percent of the subjects who had received spinal manipulation still reported at least a 75 percent reduction in pain, similar to the exercise group. That compared to just a 38 percent pain reduction among those who had been taking medication.

Dr. Bronfort said it was a “big surprise” to see that the home exercises were about as effective as the chiropractic sessions. “We hadn’t expected that they would be that close,” he said. “But I guess that’s good news for patients.”

In addition to their limited pain relief, the medications had at least one other downside: people kept taking them. “The people in the medication group kept on using a higher amount of medication more frequently throughout the follow-up period, up to a year later,” Dr. Bronfort said. “If you’re taking medication over a long time, then we’re running into more systemic side effects like gastrointestinal problems.”

He also expressed concern that those on medications were not as empowered or active in their own care as those in the other groups. “We think it’s important that patients are enabled to deal with as much control over their own condition as possible,” he said. “This study shows that they can play a large role in their own care.”

High Fat Low Carb

2012-01-03T20:21:00.000+07:00

High Fat diets are good for you. Just ditch the carbs.

Junk food really DOES mess with your brain! Research shows trans fats causes brain damage

2012-01-02T13:19:00.000+07:00

Not only does it rot your teeth and add inches to your waistline, but now researchers have discovered that junk food actually hurts your brain.

By consuming trans fats, found often in fried or processed food, the chemicals send mixed and damaging signals to the brain and lessens its ability to control appetite.

Essentially, by eating junk food, your brain becomes less and less able to tell what you have eaten and continues to make you fee as if you are hungry so that you proceed to eat more.

It's clear that trans fats are bad -- both for your heart and now, we see, for your brain,' said Dr Gene Bowman of Oregon Health & Science University.

Given the somewhat complicated nature of trans fats, it is harder for shoppers to spot goods that contain loads of the molecule. Trans fat is the common name for unsaturated fats which are harder for the body to digest given its double carbon-carbon bond.

Brain injury comes as the latest addition to a long list of health problems that stem from the consumption of unsaturated fat. Coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes.

The battle against trans fats is not a new one.

While restaurants in New York and Switzerland have been banned from serving dishes that have high levels of trans fats, there are still plenty of everyday foods that are stealthily hiding the destructive ingredients.

Cinnabon rolls, Girl Scout cookies, microwavable popcorn, and crackers- like Saltines and Ritz- are some of the worst offenders, and that's ignoring the obvious choices like French fries or fried chicken.

Though Mr Bowman conducted a relatively limited study among elderly white Oregonians, his findings have been backed up by countless earlier studies that highlight the difference between the yummy taste and disgusting after-effects of junk food.

Low-Carbohydrate Diets More Successful Than Standard Dieting

2011-12-09T17:15:00.000+07:00

Intermittent, low-carbohydrate diets were superior in lowering blood levels of insulin, which can lead to cancer.
Low-carbohydrate diet two days per week resulted in greater weight loss than standard daily dieting.

SAN ANTONIO — An intermittent, low-carbohydrate diet was superior to a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and lowering blood levels of insulin, a cancer-promoting hormone, according to recent findings.

Researchers at Genesis Prevention Center at University Hospital in South Manchester, England, found that restricting carbohydrates two days per week may be a better dietary approach than a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for preventing breast cancer and other diseases, but they said further study is needed.

“Weight loss and reduced insulin levels are required for breast cancer prevention, but [these levels] are difficult to achieve and maintain with conventional dietary approaches,” said Michelle Harvie, Ph.D., SRD, a research dietician at the Genesis Prevention Center, who presented the findings at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, held Dec. 6-10, 2011.

Harvie and her colleagues compared three diets during four months for effects on weight loss and blood markers of breast cancer risk among 115 women with a family history of breast cancer. They randomly assigned patients to one of the following diets: a calorie-restricted, low-carbohydrate diet for two days per week; an “ad lib” low-carbohydrate diet in which patients were permitted to eat unlimited protein and healthy fats, such as lean meats, olives and nuts, also for two days per week; and a standard, calorie-restricted daily Mediterranean diet for seven days per week.

Data revealed that both intermittent, low-carbohydrate diets were superior to the standard, daily Mediterranean diet in reducing weight, body fat and insulin resistance. Mean reduction in weight and body fat was roughly 4 kilograms (about 9 pounds) with the intermittent approaches compared with 2.4 kilograms (about 5 pounds) with the standard dietary approach. Insulin resistance reduced by 22 percent with the restricted low-carbohydrate diet and by 14 percent with the “ad lib” low-carbohydrate diet compared with 4 percent with the standard Mediterranean diet.

“It is interesting that the diet that only restricts carbohydrates but allows protein and fats is as effective as the calorie-restricted, low-carbohydrate diet,” Harvie said.

Dietitians Are Buying Coke’s Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!

2011-12-07T23:52:00.000+07:00

The credentialing arm of the American Dietetic Association, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR), has approved a program created by the The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness.This covers what it calls “urban myths” about the safety of food ingredients. Participating in this program will earn registered dietitians Continuing Professional Education unit credits.

“Children’s Dietary Recommendations: When Urban Myths, Opinions, Parental Perceptions & Evidence Collide,” tells dietitians that fluoride, sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners have been “carefully examined for their effects on children’s health, growth, and development.” The presenter, Dr. Ronald Kleinman, “explores prevalent misconceptions about these food ingredients” and suggests ways the dietitian can help quell unnecessary “concern among parents about their children’s health.”

At first glance, Dr. Kleinman should know what he is talking about. He is physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, chief of the Pediatric Gastrointestinal and Nutrition Unit, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Couldn’t sound better, could it? But he has also received a great deal of money from industry sources—like artificial infant formula manufacturers Mead Johnson and Nestle Ltd. His study on optimal duration of breastfeeding was funded by Gerber Products. He also served as a paid expert witness for Gerber when they were sued for deceptive advertising. And he contributed to a brochure intended for children entitled “Variety’s Mountain” produced by the Sugar Association.

Now he’s being sponsored by the Coca-Cola Company and telling dietitians that the ingredients in Coke which everyone is alarmed about are safe. The dietitians, in turn, will be telling parents that their fears are unfounded, and Coke can sell more Coke to kids.

Program materials include gems like “[a] majority of studies so far have not found a link between sugar and behavior in children generally or children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” This is certainly news to us, since we have seen many studies that say the opposite. Apparently the dietitians are to teach us that any connection between artificial colors and neurotoxicity, or fears of the dangers of fluoride, are imaginary and come from hysterical (or at least unduly concerned) parents.

As we reported recently, sugar and artificial sweeteners are anything but safe. Fluoride poses a significant risk to the kidneys. And commonly used food dyes pose risks which include hyperactivity in children, cancer (in animal studies), and allergic reactions. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that supports nuking food, agrees with this. And the British government and European Union have taken actions that are virtually ending the use of dyes throughout Europe.

The ADA is sponsored by the soda and junk food industries—which we feel greatly tarnishes the organization’s credibility. And you may recall that the ADA has mounted a state-by-state campaign to make sure that its Commission is the only one which will be accepted as a credentialing body for both registered dietitians and nutritionists.

There are, of course, significant philosophical differences between nutritionists and dietitians—they represent two different fields of study and practice. By accepting only a single credentialing agency—one run by the dietitians, not nutritionists—state boards are establishing a “one-size-fits-all” standard which removes all competition, essentially handing the ADA a government mandated monopoly over nutritional therapy.

Unfortunately, the Nevada bill we told you about last month passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by the governor on June 5th. While some amendments were made, the most troubling parts of the bill still remain: only registered dietitians can practice “dietetics,” which is defined by the law to include nutrition assessment, evaluation, diagnosis, counseling, intervention, monitoring and treatment—everything that a good nutritionist does and should do.

We also told you about an ADA bill in New York, S.3556. The state’s Senate Finance Committee met on June 13 and decided to pass the bill to the Rules Committee so that it could be considered on the Senate floor. They are trying to rush these bills through, because next week the Assembly is scheduled to finish its work for the year, unless the chair calls a special session in the fall. Please click on our New York Action Alert here.

The ADA’s power grab is a complete travesty. We will keep fighting it state by state until we restore competition in nutritional counseling and stop gagging PhD-trained nutritionists who don’t become dietitians.

2011-11-11T15:29:00.000+07:00

Dr. Green says: Yesterday I posted about Vitamin D being involved with chronic pain. Today, here is more about this important nutrient.

Vitamin D is essential for much more that just building bones and teeth. In addition to enabling normal mineralization and health of the skeleton, Vitamin D helps the body do a number of things including:

• Assists in cell growth
• Aids neuromuscular function
• Reduces inflammation
• Reduces the risk of breast cancer in women
• Boosts your immune system

Additionally, Vitamin D helps to prevent the following medical issues:
• Osteoporosis
• Multiple Sclerosis and other autoimmune conditions
• Rickets in children
• Osteomalacia in adults

Considering the numerous health issues it is linked to, getting too little vitamin D will cause your body to will operate far below its potential.

In the world of pain and chiropractic, one of those in particular is of interest to us: inflammation reduction.

When you injure yourself, your body has a natural healing process that begins with the acute healing phase.

During the acute phase, your body ships specialized cells into the area to clean up the debris and damage and set the stage for new healthy growth. As the vascular permeability increases to allow the needed chemicals in, up to 10x the blood volume comes to that area and swelling occurs. Through the healing process, the swelling should reduce back to its pre-injury size.

You can assist your body in decreasing the swelling with rest, ice, compression, elevation (RICE), soft tissue massage toward the body’s core, and by consuming foods that have anti-inflammatory effects. Vegetables consistently have anti-inflammatory properties as well as some spices and foods high in Vitamin D!

How much to consume?

Researchers have found many people to have low levels of this essential vitamin, and a deficiency in vitamin D is not something you want to have.

As of November 2010, the recommended baseline vitamin D intake for those over 70 is 800 International Units per day to stay healthy.

Those under 70 years old should take 400 IU per day with an upper limit of 4,000 IU per day, kids between 4 and 8 years should take in up to 3,000 IU per day, and children 1 to 3 years should not have more than 2,500 IU per day.

So how do you get enough?

The Institute of Medicine set a recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D from a combination of diet, supplements, and sun exposure. The best source of natural vitamin D is sunlight (Fine by me!!). Just 10 to 15 minutes of exposure without sunscreen each day usually gives you enough.

Know, though, that because of the melanin in dark skinned people, it is more difficult to produce vitamin D up to 90 percent. Also, during Norway Winters, it's hard to get enough Vitamin D. You many have to supplement.

It is also naturally found in butter, eggs, salmon (Yay!), cod, mackerel, fish liver oils and added to fortified foods such as milk, orange juice, and cereal.

More on Vit D coming soon.

Salt is A-OKAY!

2011-11-10T08:40:00.001+07:00

Dr Green says: Anyone with a basic knowledge of human physiology knows if you eat too much salt, you urinate it out. Eat a lot of cholesterol and your body simply makes less. The advice you get from the government via tv, radio and print is designed to do only one thing: MAKE MEDICAL COMPANIES RICH!

Want to get sick and lose all your money? Just keep following government medical advice.

New Research Calls Salt Guidelines Into Question

Study Suggests Reducing Sodium May Increase Unhealthy Blood Fats; Critics Say Study Is Flawed

By Brenda Goodman, MA
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

Nov. 9, 2011 -- Everyone knows that too much salt is bad for you, right? Well, according to new research, not everyone is convinced.

Reducing dietary sodium (salt) helps lower blood pressure a little, but it also may increase levels of some hormones and unhealthy blood fats, a new review of studies shows.

Researchers say that means cutting back on sodium may not have a substantial health benefit.

But critics say the review draws faulty conclusions because it relies on too many small, short-term studies. They say the weight of research evidence shows clear health benefits when people cut back on sodium.

The review is an analysis of data from more than 167 studies of people with normal or high blood pressure who were randomly assigned to eat either high- or low-sodium diets.

It found that eating less than 2,800 milligrams of sodium a day helped lower blood pressure. But the reductions were small -- an average of 1% for people who had normal blood pressure to begin with and 3.5% for people with high blood pressure.

But cutting back on salt appeared to have other effects, too.

People on lower-sodium diets had an average 2.5% increase in cholesterol and a 7% increase in bad blood fats called triglycerides compared to people who were eating more than 3,450 milligrams of sodium -- an amount that's close to what the CDC says the average American eats every day.

Higher cholesterol and triglyceride levels are thought to be associated with an increased risk of heart disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

Researchers say it's not clear why cutting back on sodium may affect blood fats.

Lower-sodium diets also boosted levels of the hormones renin and aldosterone, which can raise blood pressure. Researchers say that may be one reason that slashing salt from the diet has only modest effects on blood pressure.

"The theory that you can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by reducing salt intake and thereby blood pressure is tempting. But our study shows that the effect of reduced salt intake on blood pressure in healthy persons is only 1%," says study researcher Niels A. Graudal, MD, DrMedSci, in an email to WebMD.

"Furthermore, reduced salt intake leads to an increase in lipids [blood fats], which is bigger than the reducing effect on blood pressure. Therefore it is likely that reduced salt intake does not have a beneficial effect. On the contrary the net effect may be harmful," says Graudal, who is a senior consultant in the departments of rheumatology and internal medicine at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

The study is published in the American Journal of Hypertension.

Vitamin D And Your Pain

2011-11-09T11:56:00.000+07:00

It might not surprise you to hear that I've treated a lot of low back pain in my practice, but what might surprise you is that a vitamin deficiency might be contributing to the pain that many people experience.

A recent study out of Canada looked at patients who had chronic back pain and found that there was a significant rate of vitamin D depletion in these patients. When given Vitamin D supplementation patient showed improvement in reported pain levels.

Who is deficient is Vitamin D?

It is estimated that 60% of people are deficient in vitamin D.

Why is this?

Vitamin D is obtained from two sources: the sun and food.
Because we are spending more time indoors and in the Winter there isn't much sun, people are not getting exposed to the sunshine and therefore not getting vitamin D.

As far as food sources go, the good news is that fish is one of the best sources of vitamin D and most Norwegians consume fish on a regular basis but it still might not be enough.

Are you deficient?

Most people don’t know if they are vitamin D deficient. You can obtain a blood test that will test your levels of vitamin D. You can ask your medical doctor about this test next time you see them or your next physical.

What can you do?

You might considering increasing your vitamin D intake. Prevention is better than cure. As we get more into the winter it is going to be harder to get outside and more of our bodies will be covered preventing sun exposure. Vitamin D can easily be obtain in food and supplement form. You need to supplement for a couple of months in order to feel any difference. Vit D is fat soluble so it takes time to build up in the body.

For a list of foods with the highest levels of vitamin D click HERE.

If you don’t find yourself eating many of the foods on the vitamin D list you can get vitamin D through supplementation. Vitamin D3 has been found to be the most beneficial.
Most of the studies done on vitamin and pain have looked at lower back pain, but it would stand to reason that if you have other pains such as neck, upper back and shoulder pain that vitamin D might also help. There are numerous benefits from getting a healthy dose of vitamin D and very few risks if taken appropriately.

Many dieters 'finish up heavier'

2011-10-01T12:10:00.001+07:00

Dieting is unlikely to lead to long-term weight loss and may put a person's health at risk, a study says.

US researchers found people typically lose between 5% and 10% of their weight during the first six months of a diet.

But the review of 31 previous studies, by the University of California, said up to two-thirds put more weight on than they had lost within five years.

Repeatedly losing and gaining weight is linked to heart disease and stroke, the American Psychologist journal reported.

Keeping weight off is a life-long challenge

Dr Ian Campbell, of Weight Concern

Lead researcher Traci Mann said: "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus more.
"Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the majority of people.
"We concluded most of them would have been better off not going on the diet at all.
"Their weight would have been pretty much the same, and their bodies would not suffer the wear and tear of losing weight and gaining it all back."
And she added some diet studies relied on participants to report their weight rather than having it measured by an impartial source while others had low follow-up rates which made their results unrepresentative.

Diets
She said this might make diets seem more effective than they really were as those who gained weight might be less likely to take part in the follow-ups.
In one study, 50% of dieters weighed more than 4.99kg (11lbs) over their starting weight five years after the diet.
The study did not name any diets in particular, but looked at a broad spectrum of approaches.
Professor Mann said in her opinion eating in moderation was a good idea for everybody as was regular exercise.
Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of Weight Concern, said too many people approached dieting as a short-term measure.
"Keeping weight off is a life-long challenge. It is just like heart disease or mental health problems, if you stop taking your medicine you can get worse.
"People who are overweight often don't have a balanced lifestyle and after losing weight too many stop keeping active or eating healthily."

Dirt Can Make You Happy

2011-08-30T09:39:00.000+07:00

Submitted by Naomi Sachs on January 25, 2011 – 11:53 am

3 Comments

Many people, including me, talk about the restorative benefits of gardening and the reasons why it makes us feel good. Just being in nature is already therapeutic, but actively connecting with nature through gardening is value-added. And why is that? All sorts of reasons have been posited: It’s a meditative practice; it’s gentle exercise; it’s fun; it allows us to be nurturing and to connect with life on a fundamental level.

And some recent research has added another missing piece to the puzzle: It’s in the dirt. Or to be a little more specific, a strain of bacterium in soil, Mycobacterium vaccae, has been found to trigger the release of seratonin, which in turn elevates mood and decreases anxiety. And on top of that, this little bacterium has been found to improve cognitive function and possibly even treat cancer and other diseases. Which means that contact with soil, through gardening or other means, is beneficial.

How did this discovery come about? Mary O’Brien, an oncologist at Royal Marsden Hospital in London, first stumbled upon these findings while inoculating lung cancer patients with a strain of M. vaccae(pronounced “emm vah-kay”) to see if their symptoms improved. She noticed that in addition to fewer cancer symptoms, patients also demonstrated an improvement in emotional health, vitality, and even cognitive function.

Dr. Chris Lowry, at Bristol University, decided to explore O’Brien’s discovery. He hypothesized that the body’s immune response to the bacterium causes the brain to produce seratonin. Lack of seratonin is one symptom, or perhaps even cause, of depression. He injected mice with the M. vaccae and then observed both physiological and behavioral changes. He found that cytokine levels rose – cytokines are part of chain reaction, the end result of which is the release of seratonin. To test behavioral stress levels, Lowry put the mice into a miniature swimming pool, knowing that although stressed mice get even more stressed by swimming, unstressed mice actually enjoy it. And voila! His M. vaccae mice swam around like happy little ducklings.

Could M. vaccae be used as a sort of vaccination to treat depression? Possibly, and it is still being explored as a treatment for cancer, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. For a more detailed but still understandable summary, see this article in The Economist, “Bad is Good.”

More recently, Dorothy Matthews and Susan Jenks, at the Sage Colleges in Troy, NY tested the findings, again on mice, but this time by feeding the bacterium to them rather than injecting it. They fed the mice tiny peanut butter sandwiches with a little M. vaccae smeared on. Yummm.

Then they ran the mice through a difficult maze. Compared to those that did not ingest the bacterium, the M. vaccae mice “navigated the maze twice as fast and exhibited half of the anxiety behaviors.” Seratonin is also thought to play a role in learning, so it may have helped the mice not just by making them less anxious but by facilitating greater concentration. Once the bacterium was removed from their diet, they continued to perform better than the control group for about three weeks. As the bacterium left their system, the superhero effects tapered off and by the third week, the difference was no longer statistically significant.

This research is important because it indicates that the bacterium can affect us through normal everyday contact and not just injection. “Gardeners inhale these bacteria while digging in the soil, but they also encounter M. vaccae in their vegetables or when soil enters a cut in their skin,” says Matthews. “From our study we can say that it is definitely good to be outdoors–it’s good to have contact with these organisms. It is interesting to speculate that creating learning environments in schools that include time in the outdoors where M. vaccae is present may decrease anxiety and improve the ability to learn new tasks.”

Matthews and Jenks shared their results at the 110th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in San Diego. For a more detailed summary of this research, see the Cosmos Magazinearticle, “How gardening could cure depression.”

Interestingly, with gardens and horticultural therapy in healthcare facilities, practitioners often use sterile soil, in which all bacteria has been removed, to reduce risk of infection. This has been thought to be particularly important in people with immune disorders like cancer and AIDS. But what if bacteria were found to have more of a benefit than a risk? Further research might change the types of soil that are specified for certain populations and activities.

In the meantime, gardeners have one more excuse to root around in the dirt, and parents and teachers have another incentive to let their kids play in the great outdoors.

Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review

2011-08-24T08:57:00.000+07:00

This study considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.

The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled"Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.

Ratajczak's article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination[emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."

The article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. "What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, "the body's immune system being thrown out of balance."

University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak's review, he told us he doesn't find it remarkable. "This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant."

Helen Ratajczak, author "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review."

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."

Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.

A number of independent scientists have said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can write what I want."

We wanted to see if the CDC wished to challenge Ratajczak's review, since many government officials and scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC officials told us that "comprehensive review by CDC...would take quite a bit of time." In the meantime, CDC provided these links:

Interagency Autism Coordination Committee: http://iacc.hhs.gov

Overview of all CDC surveillance and epi work: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html

CDC study on risk factors and causes: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/seed.html

+74% Failure Rate For Surgery - FAIL FAIL FAIL !!

2011-08-23T18:09:00.001+07:00

Researchers reviewed records from 1,450 Low Back Pain patients. Half of the patients had surgery. The other half had no surgery.  

After two years only 26 percent of those who had surgery had returned to work.

That’s compared to 67 percent of patients who didn’t have surgery and did return to work.

Even more shocking: there was a 41 percent increase in the use of narcotic painkillers in those who had surgery.

Surgery leads to heavy drug use.

“The study provides clear evidence that fusion surgeries don’t work”, says the study’s lead author Dr. Trang Nguyen, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

  Just a month after back surgery, Nancy Scatena was once again in excruciating pain. The medications her doctor prescribed barely took the edge off the unrelenting back aches and searing jolts down her left leg. “The pain just kept intensifying,” says the 52-year-old Scottsdale, Ariz., woman who suffers from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the channel through which spinal nerves pass.

“I was suicidal.”

  Finally, Scatena made an appointment with another surgeon, one whom friends had called a “miracle worker.” The new doctor promised her that this second operation would fix everything, and in the pain-free weeks following an operation to fuse two of her vertebrae it seemed that he was right. But then the pain came roaring back.

Surgery failed AGAIN!

  Experts estimate that nearly 600,000 Americans opt for back operations each year. But for many like Scatena, surgery is just an empty promise, say pain management experts and some surgeons.  

This new study in the journal Spine shows that in many cases surgery can even backfire, leaving patients in more pain.  

The study provides clear evidence that for many patients, fusion surgeries designed to alleviate pain from degenerating discs don’t work, says the study’s lead author Dr. Trang Nguyen, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.   

27 Million Adults With Back Problems

  A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a federal organization, found that in 2007, twenty-seven million adults reported back problems, with $30.3 billion spent on treatments to ease the pain.

A big chunk pays for spine surgeries.

  Complicated spine surgeries that involve fusing two or more vertebrae are on the rise. In just 15 years, there was an 800% jump in this type of failed operation, according to a study published in Spine in July. That has some surgeons and public health experts concerned.  

European Guidelines specifically states:
"Surgery for non-specific Low Back Pain cannot be recommended unless 2 years of all other recommended conservative treatments have failed".

This study also re-confirms the findings of the UK BEAM Trial, published in the British Medical Journal in 2004. Those authors stated:
"Manipulation, with or without exercise, improved symptoms more than best care (medical care) alone after three and 12 months. However, analysis of the cost utility of different strategies shows that manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise" (page 1381).

Dr. Gary says: "This is what I've seen over and over again but surgeons recommend surgery every chance they get. They are happy to take the money and leave the patient in pain and will charge again for another surgery and another. Chiropractic is the best treatment for low back pain and this proves it."

Ten Snacks You Thought Were Healthy but Really Aren't

2011-08-17T10:13:00.000+07:00

Bad news: Drenching your salad in fat-free dressing or eating granola by the handful isn't doing you any favors. The good news? We're here to bust some snacking myths—and provide you with truly healthy alternatives

Health Impact II Study Finds Seniors Who Take Certain Dietary Supplements Live Longer, More Independent Lives

2011-08-04T03:54:00.000+07:00

As the American population ages and U.S. healthcare costs skyrocket, taking certain dietary supplements could help seniors live independently longer, and offset healthcare expenditures by billions of dollars, a new study by The Lewin Group finds.

The supplements studied—omega-3 fatty acids and lutein with zeaxanthin - have reported savings of $3.1 billion and $2.5 billion respectively over five years, resulting from reduced hospitalizations, physicians' visits and avoided transitions to dependency, the report shows.

"With healthcare costs for Americans 65 and older expected to reach $16 trillion by the year 2030, the need for innovative and preventative healthcare solutions is clearer than ever," said Elliott Balbert, DSEA president. "More than 187 million consumers rely on daily use of dietary supplements, and the supplement industry is pleased that this study reinforces the efficacy and health benefits of their usage."

Underscoring the important health and cost benefits of dietary supplements for U.S. seniors, members of Congress took one step closer to recognizing the role of dietary supplements in the health regimen of Americans when Congressman Chris Cannon (R-Utah) today announced the creation of a bipartisan caucus on dietary supplements, which he will co-chair with Congressman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). Cannon introduced H.R. 1545 earlier this year, which would allow supplement costs to be paid by Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

"As more and more Americans start taking responsibility for their own health, it's important that the government acknowledge the positive impact dietary supplements have on disease prevention, and the substantial cost benefits to the healthcare system that result," said Cannon." Clearly, there's cause for additional research and sound public policy supporting these products, which greatly benefit American consumers and taxpayers alike."

The study's key findings centered upon how omega-3 fatty acids and lutein with zeaxanthin allow seniors to avoid common conditions such as coronary heart disease (CHD) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), helping them live independently longer and reducing the level ofdisability associated with these conditions.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a qualified health claimfor omega-3 fatty acids, and another qualified health claim is currently pending for lutein. The FDA has acknowledged that consumers will benefit from more information on food labels concerning diet and health and this, in turn, has prompted the agency to establish interim procedures whereby qualified health claims can be made for dietary supplements. Health claims characterize a relationship between a substance (specific food component or a specific food) and a disease or health-related condition, and are supported by scientific evidence. All health claims must undergo review by FDA through a petition process.

The Lewin Group's analyses of existing research studied the health effects of the two supplements as they relate to reduction in risk of disease progression for adults over age 65. Using Congressional Budget Office cost accounting rules, Lewin calculated a conservative five-year savings estimate.

Why Your Sperm Hate Second-Hand Smoke

2011-08-02T08:51:00.000+07:00

— By Jen Quraishi
| Tue Jul. 19, 2011 2:09 PM PDT

OFP Niota/Flickr

Over the past week, there's been a bunch of science stories about the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke to babies and teens. I don't think this represents a bona-fide trend, but it is interesting all these reports came out so close together.

This study, conducted by Stanford University researchers, found that even small exposure to second-hand smoke damages the DNA in sperm cells, which could lead to reproductive difficulties. Surprisingly, the effects of heavy second-hand smoke inhalation could be just as bad as smoking itself to men's sperm. One fertility expert has recommended men stop smoking in the three months before trying to conceive.

Pregnant women, on the other hand, have been cautioned for some years not to smoke because it leads to premature or underweight babies. University College London found an even more compelling rationale: a new study that links birth defects like missing limbs, clubfoot, and cleft palate to maternal smoking. Another report, this one from Peking University in China, tied severe and fatal fetal conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly to second-hand smoke inhalation. Approximately 20% of women smoke during pregnancy, especially if they are poor or are teenagers.

Even non-pregnant teens may want to steer clear of smokers if they can: New York University researchers found that exposure to second-hand smoke is tied to hearing loss in teenagers. Dr. Anil Lalwani, who worked on the report, says that this could explain some of the other problems tied to kids exposed to smoke. For example, if a child can't hear a teacher's questions or instructions, they could act in ways that would cause them to be diagnosed with ADHD or ADD. "We need to alter our public policies to protect the innocent bystanders who would otherwise be exposed to smoke," said Lalwani.

The Return of the 8x8 Myth

2011-07-23T10:05:00.000+07:00

Hooray! One of my favorite pet peeves is in the news again. It's the infamous — and endlessly debunked — 8x8 rule, namely that adults should be sure to drink at least 8 glasses of water per day.

I got interested in this several years ago because I'm a human camel: I don't drink anywhere near that much water and I feel fine. So I wondered where this myth came from.

Answer: after undoubtedly prodigious research, Heinz Valtin of Dartmouth concluded a decade ago that it most likely came from a single paragraph in an obscure government report in 1945. Here it is:

A suitable allowance of water for adults is 2.5 liters daily in most instances. An ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 milliliter for each calorie of food. Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods.

Note two things:

First, this is based on no actual research at all. It's just a casual guess.

Second, even if it's true, it was misinterpreted.

Everyone read the first sentence, which suggests that a 2000-calorie diet requires 2000 ml of water, or roughly 64 ounces. But they sailed right by the second sentence, which says that you get a lot of this automatically in the food you eat. So even if this was good advice, it really meant something like five or six glasses of water per day, not eight or more.

So how much water should you drink? Answer: as much as you want. If you're thirsty, drink some water. If you're not, don't bother. And "water" includes coffee, tea, soft drinks, and pretty much any other water-based beverage. Water with caffeine in it is just as good as water without it.

So why am I writing about this yet again? Because I'm amused by the fact that every couple of years someone rediscovers this myth, looks into it, and publishes a journal article debunking it. Valtin wrote about water requirements in 2002, the Institute of Medicine tackled the subject in 2004, and in 2008 Dan Negoianu and Stanley Goldfarb published a comprehensive piece in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology concluding that for normal, healthy people there's no evidence one way or the other that drinking lots of water has any health benefits. It doesn't clear your kidneys of toxins, it doesn't improve organ function, it doesn't help you lose weight, it doesn't prevent headaches, and it doesn't improve your skin tone. (On the other hand, it doesn't do any harm, either. If you're thirsty, feel free to drink some water.)

But that was three years ago, so it's time for another go-around. Jen Quraishi has the latest debunking today, reporting on a piece by Margaret McCartney in the current issue of the British Medical Journal.

While McCartney didn't see evidence backing up the 2-liter-a-day rule, she did see bottled water companies pushing the "water = health" idea to sell more of their products.

This time, though, there's a brand new source of dubious hydration nonsense to be debunked: the bottled water industry.

As McCartney wrote on her blog: "The bottled water industry is pushing the idea that we should drink more than we normally would with the promise of health benefits, and I don’t think there are any.

That's all.

And I would recommend tap rather than bottled water: cheaper, and far better for environment."

The bottled water companies were not happy with McCartney's attitude. In response, the European Federation of Bottled Waters wrote a letter to BMJ about McCartney's article and cited a recommendation that "at least two liters of water should be consumed per day."

McCartney, in fact, goes even further than other researchers I've read: according to Jen, "she found evidence that mental performance suffers when people drink more water than they're thirsty for." So take it easy on the Big Gulps, OK?

sitting Is Killing You: part 8/8

2011-07-21T10:18:00.000+07:00

sitting Is Killing You: part 7

2011-07-21T10:16:00.000+07:00

sitting Is Killing You: part 6

2011-07-21T10:15:00.000+07:00

sitting Is Killing You: part 5

2011-07-21T10:13:00.000+07:00

sitting Is Killing You: part 4

2011-07-20T05:26:00.000+07:00

Sitting Is Killing You: part 3

2011-07-20T05:24:00.000+07:00

Sitting Is Killing You: part 2

2011-07-18T06:52:00.000+07:00

Sitting Is Killing You: part 1

2011-07-18T06:46:00.000+07:00

Sitting really is the cause of much of people's aches and pains. For the next more than a few days I'm going to be putting out these nice cartoons explaining just how it's hurting you.

Government Lies, Some People Die and the Corporations Make the Big Money

2011-07-10T11:26:00.000+07:00

This Friday will mark the one year anniversary of the start of the H1N1 pandemic. A new joint report from the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism questions the pandemic and alleged conflicts of interest between confidential World Health Organization advisors and their reported financial ties to pharmaceutical companies producing the vaccines.

People are torn on whether the pandemic was all hype, one woman saying, "I got tired of hearing it” and another man saying, "I believed it was serious at the time. I truly believed that." Others were surprised to hear we are still in "pandemic" status. "I'm always worried about transmitting diseases, but I thought the risk had passed,”.

A pharmacist says he hasn't had a customer ask for an H1N1 vaccine in months. In March, he shipped back his last 100 doses to the manufacturer because they'd expired.

CMC has 450 doses on hand, and says its seeing "very few cases." And the Mecklenburg County Health Department is currently storing 20,000 doses. The health department's Dr. Stephen Keener says, "We have a theory, whenever there's a shortage, people are interested in it. But as soon as there's adequate supply, it's just lost."

Keener expects the WHO to drop the pandemic status in the next month or so. As for all the H1N1 vaccines that expired or sit unused, he says this year, they won't be necessary. "The seasonal influenza vaccine this year will contain H1N1 in it.”

The WHO's director general has responded to the British Medical Journal report, saying her organization never provoked unjustified fear and did not declare a pandemic for financial gain. (Dr. Green says: Do you believe her? I don't.)

To read the entire British Medical Journal report, click here:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912

Chiropractic Cures Headaches Better

2011-06-29T01:59:00.000+07:00

Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J

  Institute of Medical Biology (Biomechanics), Faculty of Health Science, University of Odense, Denmark 

Of 53 individuals who were diagnosed with cervicogenic headaches, 28 individuals in the group received high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation in the cervical spine two times a week for three weeks.

The rest of the group received low-level laser to the upper cervical region and deep-friction massage in the lower cervical/upper thoracic region two times a week for three weeks.

For those who received spinal manipulation treatment, the amount of headache hours per day decreased 69 percent;

for those receiving laser treatment, the decrease was only 37 percent.

Intensity of headache decreased 36 percent for those receiving manipulations and 17 percent for those receiving laser treatment. The use of pain relievers went down 36 percent for those receiving manipulations and was unchanged for those receiving laser treatment.

PURPOSE: To study whether the isolated intervention of high-speed, low-amplitude spinal manipulation in the cervical spine has any effect on cervicogenic headache.   DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial with a blinded observer.   

SETTING: Ambulatory outpatient facility in an independent research institution.

  PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three subjects suffering from frequent headaches who fulfilled the International Headache Society criteria for cervicogenic headache (excluding radiological criteria). These subjects were recruited from 450 headache sufferers who responded to newspaper advertisements.   

INTERVENTION: After randomization, 28 of the group received high-velocity, low-amplitude cervical manipulation twice a week for 3 wk. The remaining 25 received low-level laser in the upper cervical region and deep friction massage (including trigger points) in the lower cervical/upper thoracic region, also twice a week for 3 wk.

  MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The change from week 1 to week 5 in analgesic use per day, in headache intensity per episode and in number of headache hours per day, as registered in a headache diary.   

RESULTS: The use of analgesics decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, but was unchanged in the soft-tissue group; this difference was statistically significant (p = .04, chi 2 for trend). The number of headache hours per day decreased by 69% in the manipulation group, compared with 37% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .03 (Mann-Whitney). Finally, headache intensity per episode decreased by 36% in the manipulation group, compared with 17% in the soft-tissue group; this was significant at p = .04 (Mann-Whitney).   

CONCLUSION: Spinal manipulation has a significant positive effect in cases of cervicogenic headache.

Dietitians Are Buying Coke’s Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!

2011-06-25T03:26:00.000+07:00

Registered dietitians are now being given formal education by the Coca-Cola Company on how safe its ingredients are.

The credentialing arm of the American Dietetic Association, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR), has approved a program created by the The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness.This covers what it calls “urban myths” about the safety of food ingredients. Participating in this program will earn registered dietitians Continuing Professional Education unit credits.

“Children’s Dietary Recommendations: When Urban Myths, Opinions, Parental Perceptions & Evidence Collide,” tells dietitians that fluoride, sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners have been “carefully examined for their effects on children’s health, growth, and development.” The presenter, Dr. Ronald Kleinman, “explores prevalent misconceptions about these food ingredients” and suggests ways the dietitian can help quell unnecessary “concern among parents about their children’s health.”

At first glance, Dr. Kleinman should know what he is talking about. He is physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, chief of the Pediatric Gastrointestinal and Nutrition Unit, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Couldn’t sound better, could it? But he has also received a great deal of money from industry sources—like artificial infant formula manufacturers Mead Johnson and Nestle Ltd. His study on optimal duration of breastfeeding was funded by Gerber Products. He also served as a paid expert witness for Gerber when they were sued for deceptive advertising. And he contributed to a brochure intended for children entitled “Variety’s Mountain” produced by the Sugar Association.

Now he’s being sponsored by the Coca-Cola Company and telling dietitians that the ingredients in Coke which everyone is alarmed about are safe. The dietitians, in turn, will be telling parents that their fears are unfounded, and Coke can sell more Coke to kids.

Program materials include gems like “[a] majority of studies so far have not found a link between sugar and behavior in children generally or children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” This is certainly news to us, since we have seen many studies that say the opposite. Apparently the dietitians are to teach us that any connection between artificial colors and neurotoxicity, or fears of the dangers of fluoride, are imaginary and come from hysterical (or at least unduly concerned) parents.

As we reported recently, sugar and artificial sweeteners are anything but safe. Fluoride poses a significant risk to the kidneys. And commonly used food dyes pose risks which include hyperactivity in children, cancer (in animal studies), and allergic reactions. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that supports nuking food, agrees with this. And the British government and European Union have taken actions that are virtually ending the use of dyes throughout Europe.

The ADA is sponsored by the soda and junk food industries—which we feel greatly tarnishes the organization’s credibility. And you may recall that the ADA has mounted a state-by-state campaign to make sure that its Commission is the only one which will be accepted as a credentialing body for both registered dietitians and nutritionists.

There are, of course, significant philosophical differences between nutritionists and dietitians—they represent two different fields of study and practice. By accepting only a single credentialing agency—one run by the dietitians, not nutritionists—state boards are establishing a “one-size-fits-all” standard which removes all competition, essentially handing the ADA a government mandated monopoly over nutritional therapy.

Unfortunately, the Nevada bill we told you about last month passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by the governor on June 5th. While some amendments were made, the most troubling parts of the bill still remain: only registered dietitians can practice “dietetics,” which is defined by the law to include nutrition assessment, evaluation, diagnosis, counseling, intervention, monitoring and treatment—everything that a good nutritionist does and should do.

We also told you about an ADA bill in New York, S.3556. The state’s Senate Finance Committee met on June 13 and decided to pass the bill to the Rules Committee so that it could be considered on the Senate floor. They are trying to rush these bills through, because next week the Assembly is scheduled to finish its work for the year, unless the chair calls a special session in the fall.

Please click on our New York Action Alert here.

The ADA’s power grab is a complete travesty. We will keep fighting it state by state until we restore competition in nutritional counseling and stop gagging PhD-trained nutritionists who don’t become dietitians.

America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

2011-06-13T10:30:00.000+07:00

This Journal of theAmerican Medical Association article illuminates the failure of the U.S. medical system in providing decent medical care for Americans.
In spite of the rising health care costs that provide the illusion of improving health care, the American people do not enjoy good health, compared with their counterparts in the industrialized nations. Among thirteen countries including Japan, Sweden, France and Canada, the U.S. was ranked 12th, based on the measurement of 16 health indicators such as life expectancy, low-birth-weight averages and infant mortality. In another comparison reported by the World Health Organization that used a different set of health indicators, the U.S. also fared poorly with a ranking of 15 among 25 industrialized nations. Although many people attribute poor health to the bad habits of the American public, Starfield (2000) points out that the Americans do not lead an unhealthy lifestyle compared to their counterparts. For example, only 28 percent of the male population in the U.S. smoked, thus making it the third best nation in the category of smoking among the 13 industrialized nations. The U.S. population also achieved a high ranking (5th best) for alcohol consumption. In the category of men aged 50 to 70 years, the U.S. had the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among 13 industrialized nations. Therefore, the perception that the American public’s poor health is a result of their negative health habits is false. Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans. According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments:

		• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals • 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals • 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals • 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs Thus, America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
One of the key problems of the U.S. health system is that as many as 40 million people in the U.S. do not have access to healthcare. The social and economic inequalities that are an integral part of American society are mirrored in the inequality of access to the health care system. Essentially, families of low socioeconomic status are cut off from receiving a decent level of health care. By citing these statistics, Starfield (2000) highlights the need to examine the type of health care provided to the U.S. population. The traditional medical paradigm that emphasizes the use of prescription medicine and medical treatment has not only failed to improve the health of Americans, but also led to the decline in the overall well-being of Americans. Starfield’s (2000) comparison of the medical systems of Japan and the U.S. captures the fundamental differences in the treatment approach. Unlike the U.S., Japan has the healthiest population among the industrialized nations. Instead of relying on sophisticated technology and professional personnel for medical treatment as in the U.S., Japan uses its technology solely for diagnostic purposes. Furthermore, in Japan, family members, rather than hospital staff, are involved in caring for the patients. The success of the Japanese medical system testifies to the dire need for Americans to alter their philosophical approach towards health and treatment. In the blind reliance on drugs, surgery, technology and medical establishments, the American medical system has inflicted more harm than good on the U.S. population. Starfield’s (2000) article is invaluable in unveiling the catastrophic effects of the medical treatments provided to the American people. In order to improve the medical system, American policymakers and the medical establishment need to adopt a comprehensive approach and critically examine the failure of the richest country in the world to provide decent health care for its people. The reason that they have difficulty doing that is explained on the following page. Starfield, B. (2000, July 26). Is US health really the best in the world? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4), 483-485. Obtain full reprint.

A Few Things I Know

2011-06-06T12:24:00.000+07:00

Dr. Green Says: "This is an edited version or the article. Please click and go to the full article. It's worth your time to read."

Suzanne Humphries, MD

February 5, 2011

I am a Medical Doctor with credentials in internal medicine and nephrology (kidneys). I received a bachelor’s degree in theoretical physics in 1987 from Rutgers University. I mention the college degree in case any doubtful readers question my mental prowess. One can doubt my intellectual ability less if they first realize that I know how to figure out difficult things.

Like most doctors, I held a blind belief for many years, that vaccines were necessary, safe and effective.There are certain things that I can now say with no uncertainty.

Vaccines did not save humanity and never will.

Vaccines have never been proven truly safe except for perhaps the parameters of immediate death or some specific adverse events within up to 4 weeks.

Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines as many doctors readily say it was. They say this out of conditioning rather than out of understanding the history or science.

Polio virus was not responsible for the paralysis in the first part of the 20th century. Polio vaccine research, development, testing and distribution has committed atrocities upon primates and humanity. Bill Gates is not a humanitarian.

Vaccines are dangerous and should never be injected into anyone for any reason. They are not the answer to infectious diseases. There are many more sustainable and benevolent solutions than vaccines.

Medical authorities should not have the final word on how doctors treat individual patients in the privacy of their own offices and should not be able to dictate injections into our private hospital patients.

The list goes on,

2011-06-05T09:29:00.000+07:00

Look at this MRI. Those screws are supposed to go into the bone. The one on the left is going into the muscle, tendons, ligaments and surrounding fascia.

Surgical fusion and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome due to horribly wrong pedicle screw insertion. The patient is permanently and profoundly disabled.

This is why surgery should always be the last option. In the vast majority of cases, chiropractic care is superior to the results from surgery.

Chiropractic first.

Childhood Tobacco Smoke Exposure Ups Risk of ADHD

2011-05-28T13:48:00.000+07:00

Hispanics and other races at higher risk than non-Hispanic whites and blacks

MONDAY, Sept. 20 (HealthDay News) -- Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in childhood increases the odds of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but the magnitude of risk seen with elevated serum cotinine levels varies by race, according to research published online Sept. 20 in Pediatrics.

Xiaohui Xu, Ph.D., of the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues examined the association between postnatal environmental tobacco smoke exposure, measured with serum cotinine levels, and ADHD among children 4 to 15 years of age. After controlling for prenatal exposure, the interactions of race and serum cotinine levels with ADHD were also studied.

Overall, the researchers found that ADHD prevalence increased as serum cotinine levels increased, but the magnitude of the cotinine effect varied by race. Comparing same-race children with the highest and lowest cotinine levels showed an ADHD odds ratio of 2.72 for Mexican-American children and 5.32 for children of races designated as "other." For non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, there were no significant associations between cotinine level and ADHD.

"Although it is impossible to control for all confounders and/or biases in measurements of outcome and covariates in our analysis, this study supports the hypothesis that postnatal environmental tobacco smoke exposure, independent of prenatal smoking exposure, is an important risk factor for ADHD. Moreover, our study suggests that the effects of postnatal environmental tobacco smoke exposure on ADHD may differ according to race. The findings warrant further investigation

Children Convulse from Dangerous Vaccines

2011-05-28T11:15:00.000+07:00

An unusually high number of children under five years of age experienced fevers, vomiting and seizures after having the flu shot in March and April last year, prompting a call for an inquiry.

The federal government's response to a large number of adverse reactions to the flu vaccine last year has been deemed appropriate by an independent auditor.

Former chief medical officer Professor John Horvath conducted the review, which pointed to a more coordinated plan to quickly and effectively deal with concerns about vaccines.

Just over a month after commencing the program in March last year, the chief medical officer of Australia suspended the vaccine for all children under five after a number of seizures were reported by hospital staff.

Within days, the Therapeutic Goods Association received "a lot of calls" from immunisation service providers about children having high temperatures and being unwell, some with seizures, immediately following the vaccine.

Staff in South Australian hospitals and clinics reported making calls to their WA counterparts to compare the children's adverse reactions.

The report detailed 14 convulsion episodes reported by April 19 in WA as well as several in South Australia and Queensland; four days later the program was suspended.

The independent review found that the actions of the TGA and chief medical officer were appropriate, timely and proportionate, following the extensive investigation.

The fact that there was insufficient data on the vaccines, particularly as there was no clearly identifiable reason to explain the seizures, was much of the reason behind its suspension.

Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing Catherine King said the review noted there was no standard operating procedure for responding to a vaccine safety issue in large groups of people.

"The review identified that the arrangements for vaccine safety issues are complex and, while the Therapeutic Goods Administration has the key responsibility in monitoring adverse events, many other organisations, including Commonwealth and state health authorities, also have a role," Ms King said.

"The 2010 flu vaccine health alert highlighted a lack of clarity of the relationships between these groups and their roles and responsibilities in vaccine safety monitoring and responding to the identification of a possible safety signal."

Other recommendations cover surveillance, the need for timely reporting of adverse reactions following immunisation, raising awareness and more transparency by the TGA to ensure better access to vaccine safety information.

Head of Clinical Research at the National Centre for Immunisation and Research and Surveillance at the Westmead Children's Hospital in Sydney, Professor Robert Booy, welcomed the findings and said they addressed some crucial points.

"There is no doubt that improving communication about health matters with the public and profession, as well as increasing the transparency of the regulatory agency, the TGA, will be of benefit," Professor Booy said.

"The best way we could get early signal of a safety concern would be to have active surveillance; linking records generated about vaccine uptake, GP presentation and hospital admission in real time.

Medical Errors Kill 15,000 Patients a Month

2011-05-24T07:00:00.000+07:00

Thirteen [13] percent of Medicare patients in the U.S. experience an adverse event each month in American hospitals, and some 15,000 of them die as a result according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General

The report points out that 44 percent of adverse incidents occurring in hospitals are avoidable. And all-together, these adverse events are costing Medicare more than $300 million a MONTH.

Kevin K. Golladay, regional inspector general for evaluation and inspections with OIG thinks hospitals need to have greater incentives to reduce errors and adverse events, and the OIG report suggests that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could perhaps create this incentive by denying payment for conditions acquired while in the hospital setting.

Editorial Comment: (from Chiro.org, edited)

The unfortunate truth is that Medicare balks at the prospect of paying chiropractors for all the services they are trained (and licensed) to provide.

This costs Medicare $300 million a MONTH from injuring patients (or 3.6 Billion per year). How many are for conditions that could have been safely and successfully treated with Chiropractic care? According to the most in-depth review article written on the topic, the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year, at a cost of $282 billion dollars.

• That’s 2147 people dying per DAY

• That’s two 9-11 events happening every three days…forever.

Sitting Will Kill You

2011-05-23T06:41:00.000+07:00

This is just sooooo cute. Click on the link to go to the page and see the rest of this very scary graphic. Sitting is bad and now you can really feel nervous about it.

Click Here To Be Very Scared!!

Scientists Lie AGAIN. Vaccines and Autism.

2011-05-22T15:52:00.001+07:00

American prosecutors are attempting to extradite a Danish scientist.
Poul Thorsen has been charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering; a federal grand jury alleges that Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008.
Thorsen is said to have used the proceeds to buy a home in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson. He is said to have stolen the money while serving as the 'principal investigator' for a program that studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines.
The Copenhagen Post reports:
"... [O]ver the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account ...
Thorsen's research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as 'The Danish Study', is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection."
Another prominent name in vaccine medicine, Dr. Paul Offit, well-known shill for the vaccine industry, has also been called out for making false and unsubstantiated statements about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report looking into the ties between vaccine supporters and the vaccine industry.
On April 18, 2011, the California Orange County Register issued a retraction of an August 4, 2008 article containing disparaging statements made by Dr. Offit about Attkisson.
According to Adventures in Autism:
"Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit's statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report 'How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?'"
The unsubstantiated statements included a claim that Attkisson "lied", and a claim that CBS News sent a "mean spirited and vituperative" email. Offit also told the OC Register that he provided CBS News "the details of his relationship ... with pharmaceutical company Merck", but documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose all of his financial relationships with Merck.

US Quietly Paid Families For Vaccine-Linked Autism Cases

2011-05-17T23:39:00.000+07:00

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — Federal health officials may have only recently called autism a “national health emergency”, but a new study released Wednesday showed the U.S. has been quietly compensating families with autism for nearly two decades.

The report from SafeMinds.org — a group that believes scientific evidence has linked autism to vaccinations – alleges that a fund set up by the U.S. government to compensate those injured by vaccines has paid out claims to dozens of families of autistic kids.

The study conducted by the Pace Environmental Law Review revealed that since the late 1980s, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid money for 83 cases involving autism out of approximately 1,300 cases of vaccine injury that resulted in childhood brain injury.

In that same time period, federal officials have maintained that autism — which now affects an estimated one in 110 individuals — is still “rare” and has publicly conceded to only one vaccine-induced autism case involving nine-year-old Hannah Poling.

But Dr. Elizabeth Evans, a pediatrician and specialist with Northridge Hospital Medical Center, told KFWB 980′s Maggie McKay she disputes the study’s findings.

“The important thing for the American public to know is that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is very unique,” said Evans. “It is in no way related to a court case or something in a court of law.”

“There is no proof that an injury has been caused by a vaccine,” she added.

The study’s authors stand behind the findings and warn they are only “the tip of the iceberg.”

Currently, there are over 5,000 vaccine court cases pending that claim autism as a result of vaccine injury.

Malaria mosquitos like sweaty feet

2011-05-08T08:59:00.000+07:00

Mosquitos carrying malaria are attracted to sweaty feet, according to doctoral student Remco Suer of Wageningen University.

The Volkskrant says malaria mosquitos detect humans by the carbon dioxide they exhale from dozens of metres away. However, the smell given off by bacteria causing sweaty feet takes over as the mosquito nears its target.

Suer says the finding shows why mosquitos tend to bite feet and ankles rather than faces and could provide a clue to changing their behaviour.

Medical Research Supports Chiropractic Maintenance Care

2011-04-20T08:54:00.000+07:00

Two research studies generated by the medical profession this year add evidence in support of the value of chiropractic maintenance care.

The first study published in January 2011 in Spine concluded that “SMT is effective for the treatment of chronic non specific LBP. To obtain long-term benefit, this study suggests maintenance spinal manipulations after the initial intensive manipulative therapy.”

The second study in April 2011, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, provides additional support for the value of chiropractic maintenance care for post injury low back pain patients. The study followed 894 injured workers for a period of one year. During that year there were four different types of therapy available to the workers: medical management, physical therapy, chiropractic, and no therapy. Episodes of repeat disability were recorded during the year following the initial injury. Physical therapy had the highest percentage of reinjured workers followed by those receiving medical management or no treatment at all. The lowest incidence of repeat injury was found among those workers who had received chiropractic maintenance care.

The results of published surveys given to chiropractors have documented the profession’s belief in the value of maintenance care. Furthermore, during the last decade there have been a dozen peer reviewed papers on the subject. There are far more questions to be answered, but it is heartening to see medical research corroborate the studies and beliefs of the chiropractic profession.

Children told to be tested for HIV after flu vaccines reused

2011-04-13T14:10:00.000+07:00

FORT COLLINS - A clinic in Northern Colorado is advising parents of children who received a pediatric flu shot from their offices to get tested for some blood-borne diseases including HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C after their vaccine syringes were shared between patients.

Med Peds Clinic of Fort Collins sent out a letter on April 6 stating a medical assistant at the office took the pre-measured children's influenza vaccine and only gave half to each child, assuming it was the adult dosage. Children between 6 months and 35 months are only supposed to receive half of the recommended dosage for adults.

Since children are supposed to receive two doses of the pediatric influenza vaccine within a month of each other, the assistant removed the needle from each half-full syringe, assuming it was an adult dose, and replaced it with a sterile needle, but not a new syringe.

Med Peds says she then placed the used syringes in a box marked "second doses," which also contained unused, fully-filled pediatric vaccines.

The clinic says some of the half-used vaccines were then used inadvertently on children returning for their second shot.

The medical assistant has been fired, Med Peds says.

"Apparently, somebody wasn't following policy and procedure and it puts infants in danger, so [I'm] not a big fan of them right now," father Cary Bergeron, whose infant was vaccinated at Med Peds, said. "She [my daughter] was born flawless, and now, by someone else's mistake, something bad could happen."

Med Peds says the first concern for patients is they didn't receive a full influenza vaccine. They say children between 6 months and 35 months who received two does during the 2010-2011 flu season may need two shots again during the 2011-2012 flu season to be fully vaccinated.

"We are handling this with our patients directly. We have talked to majority of our patients in person. We are a little dismayed that one of our former medical assistants did not follow procedure when handling this," Dr. Mark S. Simmons with Med Peds said.

The clinic, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and The Children's Hospital says the chances of a child who was vaccinated with the tampered shot has a very low chance of contracting an infectious disease. The CDPHE still suggests the children who received the tampered vaccines be tested now and again six months from the date of the second dose for blood-borne pathogens like Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV.

"We are looking into this incident and their practice is cooperating. We have directed the office to notify all patients. We do not believe there is any public health risks outside of the risks to the patients treated at Med Peds. Even that risk we believe to those patients is extremely low," Mark Salley with the CDPHE said.

The clinic says they are taking precautions to make sure this doesn't happen again in the future.

"We are writing this letter to express our sincere apology for the mistake this former employee made. Please be confident we have carefully evaluated the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter and have taken steps to prevent future incidents from happening," the letter that went out to patients said.

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

2011-04-12T09:12:00.000+07:00

A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis."

Sources:

Journal of the American Dental Association October 14, 2010; 141(10):1190-1201

CDC May 28, 2010

Don't Give This to Your Daughter - Despite What Your Doctor Says

2011-04-11T20:08:00.000+07:00

Posted By Dr. Mercola

It's been four years since Gardasil debuted as a blockbuster vaccine with sales that rocketed to over $1.1 billion in its first nine months.
Touted as a wonder vaccine that would end cervical cancer, it was supposed to be the savior of both mankind and Merck's Vioxx-damaged bottom line. But now, according to CNN Money, it's a dud.
It just posted $219 million in sales. But in the pharma world, that's a paltry pittance, nothing short of an in-flight explosion that's caused Merck stock to drop 3 percent, with analysts and investors scrambling to figure out what went wrong.
So what happened?
How did a vaccine that was supposed to be Merck's beacon for higher profits in the 21^stCentury go from flagship to flop?

The Science Speaks for Itself

CNN Money calls Gardasil's crash a "design flaw" and faults the economy, puritanical parents, bad press, and Merck itself for contributing to the fallout.
The article ends with the hypothesis: "Or, maybe people just aren't ready for a cancer vaccine when it's for a sexually transmitted disease."
I think they're way off the mark.
The real reason Gardasil is a flop is that people have become educated about this vaccine.
They've looked at the science and weighed the risks vs. the supposed benefits, and have made a choice not to get it for themselves or their children.
The word is out: despite what the CDC would have you believe, Gardasil's safety record is in serious question. As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths.
As a vaccine used in the developed world, the science speaks for itself: Gardasil can't – and never will -- replace Pap smears, which are the reason that the incidence of cervical cancer is so low in the United States after decades of including pap smears in routine medical care for women.
Today, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year.
As a vaccine for children, it doesn't make sense to vaccinate to try to prevent an infection that is cleared from your body without any negative effects within two years in most healthy persons, and is not transmitted in a school setting like other airborne diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded conditions.
Gardasil is designed to prevent only two of at least 15 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in those who do not clear the virus from their body within two years and become chronically infected.
There is also some evidence that Gardasil-induced immunity may wane after about five years. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to find out if the vaccine does, in fact, prevent cervical cancer.
What went wrong with Gardasil is that this may be a vaccine that set many more health care consumers on a course of self-education that helped them make an informed decision about whether or not to take it – and there are several good reasons why many are deciding NOT to take it.

Science vs. Politics

First, the science: Peer-reviewed journal articles widely available on the Internet show that Gardasil is not what it was made out to be in the "one-less" TV commercials that jumped into people's living rooms a few years ago.
Consumers now know that:
Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is simply a vaccine for two strains of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) that in some instances can lead to cancer in some women (Gardasil's other two HPV strains are for genital warts, which don't cause cancer).
Since there are at least 15 HPV strains that can lead to cancer, Gardasil-vaccinated girls can still get cervical cancer from other 13 HPV strains not contained in the vaccine.
The vaccine doesn't work if you've already been infected with the HPV strains in the vaccine.
But the politics of this information is that you won't hear it or read it in the mainstream press. Instead, what you get is a repetition of the politically charged mantra that parents don't want their young daughters or sons to get a vaccine associated with sexual behaviors, and complaints about the vaccine's high cost.
However, the real truth is that Gardasil's downfall has nothing to do with sex or money.

The Truth about HPV and Cancer

It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.
HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.
Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:
Smoking
Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
Long term birth control use
Multiple births
In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.
The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.
Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.
Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.
Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to CervicalCancerCampaign.org:
"Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.
Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women".
These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.
Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.
About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.
According to the CDC's report on HPV to Congress in 2004:
"Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.
The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent."
A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.

The Truth About Gardasil

According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline's two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.
According to Merck's package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine's efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).
There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.
In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil's protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.
And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.
Additionally, according to the manufacturer's package insert:
Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening
It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers
And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees
An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.
The "replacement" effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.

The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials

Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine's series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a "reminder" program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.
CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine's high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.
But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.
In any drug trial, whether it's for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil's safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.
But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the "placebo."
Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing "placebo" to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.
Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.
When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the "placebo" results nearly the same as the vaccine's – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.
This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is "safe" because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing " placebo."
Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.
A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.
This could be critical information in determining the vaccine's true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.

The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths

The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.
Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Gardasil was a "fast tracked" vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.
These tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn't right with this vaccine – and what isn't right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.
The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a "coincidence."
And now, since those adverse reactions aren't listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.
For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more "did not recover" reports; and 7 times more "disabled" reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.
What's disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can't follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.
As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!

Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?

An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck's marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:
"When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is alsoappropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit,"the JAMA author said.
^"Patients and the public logically expect that only medical andscientific evidence is put on the balance. If other mattersweigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professionalgains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance iseasily skewed.
"The balance will also tilt if the adverse eventsare not calculated correctly."
The commentary is so poignant that it's a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn't' picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.
The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverseeffects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potentialbenefits?
It's apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.
What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.
And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.

Link Between Antidepressants and Heart Trouble

2011-04-04T07:17:00.000+07:00

Men taking antidepressants may be at risk for atherosclerosis, which can increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke, a small, preliminary study suggests.

Antidepressants were associated with about a 5 percent increase in the thickness of the large artery in the neck called the carotid artery, which carries blood to the brain, the researchers from Emory University found.

Yet experts not involved with the study noted that it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between antidepressant use and heart trouble, and added that depression itself can increase the risk of cardiovascular problems.

"Antidepressant medications may decrease cardiovascular risk by treating depression," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Since the new findings are very preliminary, Fonarow said, "Patients should not be concerned or stop taking antidepressant medications on the basis of this study."

Results of the research were scheduled to be presented Saturday at the American College of Cardiology's annual scientific session, in New Orleans. Experts note that studies presented at medical conferences do not undergo the same vetting as research published in peer-reviewed journals. The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

For the study, a team led by Dr. Amit Shah, a cardiology fellow at Emory, collected data on 513 middle-aged male twins who were part of the Vietnam Era Twin Registry. Sixteen percent of the men were taking antidepressants, and of these, 60 percent were taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as Prozac, Lexapro and Zoloft. The others were taking older antidepressants.

To try to isolate the effect of antidepressants on blood vessels, the researchers measured the thickness of the carotid artery -- called carotid intima-media thickness. The study authors found that a twin taking an antidepressant had a greater intima-media thickness than a brother not taking the drugs.

The finding held true, regardless of the antidepressant taken, the researchers said.

"There is a clear association between increased intima-media thickness and taking an antidepressant, and this trend is even stronger when we look at people who are on these medications and are more depressed," Shah said in a news release from the American College of Cardiology.

"Because we didn't see an association between depression itself and a thickening of the carotid artery, it strengthens the argument that it is more likely the antidepressants than the actual depression that could be behind the association," he added.

The findings also held true after compensating for such factors as age, diabetes, blood pressure, current or previous smoking, cholesterol and weight. Other factors weighed included depressive symptoms, history of major depression and heart disease, alcohol and coffee use, statin use, physical activity, education and employment, the researchers said.

Since each additional year of life is associated with a small increase in intima-media thickness, a brother taking antidepressants is physically 4 years older than the brother not taking antidepressants, Shah's team contended. They also said that even a small increase in intima-media thickness can increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke by 1.8 percent.

It's not clear why there might be an association between antidepressant use and heart disease, the study authors noted. These drugs increase levels of the brain chemicals serotonin and norepinephrine, which are often low in depressed individuals.

Shah said increased levels of these chemicals may cause blood vessels to tighten, and this may lead to reduced blood flow to organs and higher blood pressure, which is a risk factor for atherosclerosis.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Dominique L. Musselman, an associate professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, underscored that the findings show an association between antidepressant use and atherosclerosis, but not a cause-and-effect relationship.

"This finding is somewhat counterintuitive since it is well known that SSRIs enhance a tendency to bleed," she said, adding that more rigorous studies are needed to see if a cause-and-effect relationship exists.

Musselman also strongly advises patients not to stop taking antidepressants based on this study. Not treating depression can have serious consequences for quality of life, survival after a heart attack or other cardiovascular events, she said.

"This is an important finding that needs to be replicated," she added.

Prostate screening has no benefit

2011-04-01T20:52:00.000+07:00

Prostate cancer screening does not save lives, according to a 20-year study, published in the British Medical Journal.

One in four newly diagnosed cancers in UK men is prostate cancer.Last year, the body which regulates screening in the UK advised against routine screening. The UK National Screening Committee said this study provided further evidence that the harms outweigh the benefits. Prostate cancer kills 10,000 people in the UK every year.

Screening

This latest study was carried out in Norrkoping in Sweden. It followed 9,026 men who were in their 50s or 60s in 1987.

“Start Quote

The potential harms significantly outweigh the benefits of screening”

Dr Anne MackieUK National Screening Committee

Nearly 1,500 men were randomly chosen to be screened every three years between 1987 and 1996. The first two tests were performed by digital rectal examination and then by prostate specific antigen testing.

The report concludes: "After 20 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer did not differ significantly between men in the screening group and those in the control group."

The favoured method of screening is the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.

However, around 15% of men with normal PSA levels will have prostate cancer and two-thirds of men with high levels of PSA do not in fact have prostate cancer.

One study has suggested that to prevent one death from prostate cancer you would have to screen 1,410 men and treat 48 of them.

Dr Anne Mackie, programmes director of the UK National Screening Committee, said: "This evidence provides further support for the recommendation the Committee made in November not to screen for prostate cancer at this time.

"At the moment the potential harms significantly outweigh the benefits of screening. We will re-assess the evidence for prostate cancer screening against our criteria again in three years, or earlier if new evidence warrants it."

Dr Sarah Cant, head of policy and campaigns for The Prostate Cancer Charity, said: "Whilst this research suggests that screening men for prostate cancer doesn't reduce the number of men dying from the disease, this was a relatively small study and not all the screening rounds used the PSA test, which is the most effective test we have at the moment to indicate prostate problems that might be cancer.

"We know from another larger study that screening using the PSA test can reduce mortality rates.

"However, this previous trial showed that screening can lead to many men undergoing unnecessary treatment for a harmless prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Charity therefore doesn't believe there is enough evidence yet to support a screening programme."

Medical No Good For Low Back Pain

2011-03-23T17:54:00.000+07:00

Acute low back pain patients demonstrate significantly greater improvement with chiropractic than "usual care."

By Editorial Staff

With the publication of the Chiropractic Hospital-based Interventions Research Outcomes (CHIRO) Study1 in The Spine Journal, one of the most frequently cited spine research journals in the world,2 the health care community at large may finally appreciate what the chiropractic profession has known for more than a century: Patients with acute mechanical low back pain enjoy significant improvement with chiropractic care, but little to no improvement with the usual care they receive from a family physician.

Published in the December 2010 edition of The Spine Journal, the study found that after 16 weeks of care, patients referred to medical doctors saw almost no improvement in their disability scores, were likely to still be taking pain drugs and saw no benefit with added physical therapy - and yet were unlikely to be referred to a doctor of chiropractic.

The study is "the first reported randomized controlled trial comparing full CPG [clinical practice guidelines]-based treatment, including spinal manipulative therapy administered by chiropractors, to family physician-directed UC [usual care] in the treatment of patients with AM-LBP (acute mechanical low back pain)." (Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been established for acute mechanical low back pain in many countries around the world, but sadly, most primary care medical doctors don't follow these guidelines.) Researchers found that "treatment including CSMT [chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy] is associated with significantly greater improvement in condition-specific functioning" than usual care provided by a family physician.

Study Parameters

The Chiropractic Hospital-based Interventions Research Outcome (CHIRO) initiative was "designed to evaluate the outcomes of spinal pain patient management strategies that involve a component of chiropractic assessment and/or spinal manipulative therapy, administered in a hospital-based spine program outpatient clinic." The study utilized the CHIRO framework "to examine the effectiveness of current evidence-based CPG-recommended treatments for patients with AM-LBP pain."

CPG "study care" (SC) was compared with the usual care (UC) provided by family physicians. Patients were first seen by a spine physician and then randomly assigned to either the SC group or the UC group.

Patients in the SC group received acetaminophen, a "progressive walking program" and up to four weeks of lumbar chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy. The manipulative therapy was provided "using conventional side-posture, high-velocity, low-amplitude techniques" to the lumbar region only, and only by a chiropractor.

Patients assigned to the UC group were referred back to their family physician, who was "simply advised to treat at their own discretion." Patients in this group received treatment from "a variety of professionals including family physicians, massage therapists, kinesiologists, and/or physiotherapists."

All care was provided at a hospital-based spine program outpatient clinic. The primary outcome measure was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), administered at the beginning of care and at 16 weeks, when acute low back pain is considered to become chronic. The RDQ was also administered at eight and 24 weeks.

Other Important Findings

After 16 weeks, "78% of patients in the UC group were still taking narcotic analgesic medications on either a daily or as needed basis." (Only 6 percent of this group received chiropractic care.)

Condition-specific improvement after 16 weeks "clearly favored the SC group, with mean RDQ improvement scores of 2.7 in the SC group compared with only 0.1 in the UC group (p=.003)."

While the difference in improvement "was not quite significant at 8 weeks," it was found to be "clearly significant at 24 weeks of follow-up (0.004)."

Both groups showed improvement in bodily pain and physical functioning, but "patients in the UC group uniquely showed no improvement whatsoever in back-specific functioning (RDQ scores) throughout the entire study period."

The inclusion of NSAIDs and manipulation/mobilization performed by physical therapists were no more effective in treating patients than family doctors who offered patients advice and acetaminophen. The study found: "[T]he addition of NSAIDs and a form of spinal manipulative therapy or mobilization administered by a physiotherapist to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, sacroiliac joint, pelvis, and hip (compared with a detuned ultrasound as placebo manipulative therapy), to family physician 'advice' and acetaminophen were shown to have no clinically worthwhile benefit when compared with advice and acetaminophen alone."

The study criticizes a 2007 report that had derided the efficacy of spinal manipulation by pointing out that the older report based its conclusions on the outcomes of therapies performed by non-chiropractors. The 2007 study concluded that patients "do not recover more quickly with the addition of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy."3 By contrast, the CHIRO study noted: "Although spinal-manipulative therapy is currently administered by many different healthcare professionals, including: chiropractors, osteopaths, orthopedic surgeons, family physicians, kinesiologists, naturopaths, and physiotherapists, the levels of training and clinical acumen vary widely. The study design used by Hancock, et al., therefore, differs from our study because [their study] did not use chiropracticspinal manipulation, and current guideline based care does not endorse any forms of spinal manipulation administered by any other practitioners."

References

1. Bishop PB, Quon JA, Fisher CG, Dvorak MFS. The Chiropractic Hospital-based Interventions Research Outcomes (CHIRO) Study: a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines in the medical and chiropractic management of patients with acute mechanical low back pain. Spine Journal, 2010;10:1055-1064. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889389

2. Brunarski D. "Impact of the Chiropractic Literature." Dynamic Chiropractic, Dec. 2, 2010;28(25).

3. Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, McLachlan AJ, Cooper CW, Day RO, Spindler MF, McAuley JH. Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2007 Nov 10;370(9599):1638-43. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17993364

Dr. Green's Health Blog

The Facts About Fevers

New Study Reveals That Back Surgery Fails 74% of the Time

Body clock 'alters' immune system

Medical Funnies

How can I prevent neck strain while sleeping?

Grains Contain Anti-Nutrients

Grains -- Especially Whole Grains -- Increase Intestinal Permeability

New Report Warns of the Sugar in Cereals Marketed to Kids

Are Grains Causing Your Leaky Gut Symptoms? This Food is the "Antidote"

Is a Return to the Paleo Diet Right for You?

For Neck Pain, Chiropractic and Exercise Are Better Than Drugs

High Fat Low Carb

Junk food really DOES mess with your brain! Research shows trans fats causes brain damage

Low-Carbohydrate Diets More Successful Than Standard Dieting

Dietitians Are Buying Coke’s Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!

Salt is A-OKAY!

Want to get sick and lose all your money? Just keep following government medical advice.

New Research Calls Salt Guidelines Into Question

Vitamin D And Your Pain

Many dieters 'finish up heavier'

Dirt Can Make You Happy

Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review

+74% Failure Rate For Surgery - FAIL FAIL FAIL !!

Ten Snacks You Thought Were Healthy but Really Aren't

Bad news: Drenching your salad in fat-free dressing or eating granola by the handful isn't doing you any favors. The good news? We're here to bust some snacking myths—and provide you with truly healthy alternatives

Health Impact II Study Finds Seniors Who Take Certain Dietary Supplements Live Longer, More Independent Lives

As the American population ages and U.S. healthcare costs skyrocket, taking certain dietary supplements could help seniors live independently longer, and offset healthcare expenditures by billions of dollars, a new study by The Lewin Group finds.

The supplements studied—omega-3 fatty acids and lutein with zeaxanthin - have reported savings of $3.1 billion and $2.5 billion respectively over five years, resulting from reduced hospitalizations, physicians' visits and avoided transitions to dependency, the report shows.

Why Your Sperm Hate Second-Hand Smoke

— By Jen Quraishi| Tue Jul. 19, 2011 2:09 PM PDT

The Return of the 8x8 Myth

sitting Is Killing You: part 8/8

sitting Is Killing You: part 7

sitting Is Killing You: part 6

sitting Is Killing You: part 5

sitting Is Killing You: part 4

Sitting Is Killing You: part 3

Sitting Is Killing You: part 2

Sitting Is Killing You: part 1

Government Lies, Some People Die and the Corporations Make the Big Money

Chiropractic Cures Headaches Better

Dietitians Are Buying Coke’s Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!

America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

A Few Things I Know

Childhood Tobacco Smoke Exposure Ups Risk of ADHD

Children Convulse from Dangerous Vaccines

Medical Errors Kill 15,000 Patients a Month

Thirteen [13] percent of Medicare patients in the U.S. experience an adverse event each month in American hospitals, and some 15,000 of them die as a result according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General

The report points out that 44 percent of adverse incidents occurring in hospitals are avoidable. And all-together, these adverse events are costing Medicare more than $300 million a MONTH.

Editorial Comment: (from Chiro.org, edited)

The unfortunate truth is that Medicare balks at the prospect of paying chiropractors for all the services they are trained (and licensed) to provide.

• That’s 2147 people dying per DAY

• That’s two 9-11 events happening every three days…forever.

Sitting Will Kill You

Scientists Lie AGAIN. Vaccines and Autism.

US Quietly Paid Families For Vaccine-Linked Autism Cases

Malaria mosquitos like sweaty feet

Mosquitos carrying malaria are attracted to sweaty feet, according to doctoral student Remco Suer of Wageningen University.

Medical Research Supports Chiropractic Maintenance Care

Children told to be tested for HIV after flu vaccines reused

CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Fluoride

Sources:

Don't Give This to Your Daughter - Despite What Your Doctor Says

Posted By Dr. Mercola

The Science Speaks for Itself

Science vs. Politics

The Truth about HPV and Cancer

The Truth About Gardasil

The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials

The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths

Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?

Link Between Antidepressants and Heart Trouble

Prostate screening has no benefit

“Start Quote

Medical No Good For Low Back Pain

Acute low back pain patients demonstrate significantly greater improvement with chiropractic than "usual care."

By Editorial Staff

Study Parameters

CPG "study care" (SC) was compared with the usual care (UC) provided by family physicians. Patients were first seen by a spine physician and then randomly assigned to either the SC group or the UC group.

— By Jen Quraishi
| Tue Jul. 19, 2011 2:09 PM PDT