Japan Halts Use of Pfizer and sanofi Vaccines

Japan suspended the use of two pediatric vaccines, one made by Pfizer and one by sanofi, following the deaths of four children in three days. 

The deaths occurred shortly after vaccination with Pfizer’s Prevenar vaccine (known as Prevnar in the United States) and sanofi’s ActHIB vaccine. 

Although a panel of experts at Japan’s Health Ministry have found no link between the deaths and vaccination, the suspension will remain in place while further studies are conducted.

 In Hong Kong, the Department of Health said in astatement that it has “no record of untoward event report[s] associated with Prevenar, but we will inform all medical practitioners of the Japanese incident and request them to bring up any anomaly detected." sanofi’s vaccine is not used in Hong Kong, but both are widely used in the US. 

According to Reuters, FDA is monitoring the safety of both vaccines, but has not observed any safety concenrs in the US.

This is not the first time that Prevenar has faced safety suspicions. In 2009, a batch of Prevenar was pulled from the market in the Netherlands following the deaths of three infants after vaccination. In February 2010, however, it was announced that there was no link between the deaths and vaccination.

It’s OK to let fevers run their course

A fever can be a scary thing, especially in children. For parents of young children, the first impulse is to treat a child’s fever with an over-the-counter medication, and get the child’s temperature back down to normal — around 98.6 degrees.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidance to pediatricians and other health care providers who look after children cautions against “fever phobia.” The AAP emphasizes that fever itself is not an illness but rather a beneficial reaction to infections. However, any newborn or infant aged 3 months or younger with a fever should be evaluated by their pediatrician or health care provider.

Through their advertising campaigns, pharmaceutical companies who make fever-reducing and pain-relieving medications have convinced most Americans that a fever is a serious problem that must be promptly and thoroughly treated.

But, the reality is that a fever isn’t a problem in and of itself. Fevers are the body’s natural reaction to an illness or infection. They are a sign the body’s immune system has recognized a problem and is actively fighting it off.

There is a growing amount of research showing that fever helps slow the reproduction of viruses and bacteria, and stimulates the production and effectiveness of infection-fighting cells in the body. Leaving fevers untreated has been shown to shorten the duration of an illness. In the case of chicken pox, children whose fevers were allowed to run their course recovered one day faster than children whose fevers were treated with medication.

These days, parents are likely to get this advice: “treat the child, not the fever.” If a normally healthy child has a fever but isn’t uncomfortable, it is not necessary to give fever-reducing medication. The goal should be the comfort of the child during an illness. There is no reason to wake a sleeping child to give him or her this type of medication — rest will likely do the child more good.

Over-the-counter medications such as acetaminophen and ibuprofen have dual action: they lower fevers and are pain relievers, too. Viral illnesses, such as the flu, often cause headache and body aches — so these medications are helpful for this type of pain.

For many years, parents have been counseled to give acetaminophen or ibuprofen or both to children with fevers. Although these are generally safe medications, calculating the dose according to the weight of the child and giving them at the correct time intervals can be complicated, especially if multiple caregivers are involved. Overdosing children on these medications can harm the liver and kidneys.

A common misconception is that treating high fevers in children prevents seizures — and that seizures can cause brain damage or epilepsy. The AAP studied this topic and found that giving children fever-reducing medication does not reduce the risk of a febrile seizure. Also, febrile seizures in children — though very disturbing to witness — cause no long-term effects and do not cause epilepsy.

So, the next time you or your child has a fever, it’s OK to not to rush to treat it. Pay attention to other symptoms and get medical advice if needed. Rest and fluids are always a good idea. If a fever is due to a cold or the flu, give medication if needed for comfort — but don’t focus too much on the number on a thermometer.

Glass of wine a day 'cuts dementia risk

Scientists followed 3,200 over 75s, who had no signs of dementia when they enrolled on the study, for three years. Of those, 217 went on to develop dementia.

They found those who drank between two and three units a day (20 to 30ml) were 29 per cent less likely to have started developing dementia by the end of the three-year period than those who were teetotal.

Two to three units is equivalent to a medium-sized (175ml) glass of wine (2.3 units) or a pint of beer (2.8 units).

The results for Alzheimer's, which accounts for two-thirds of dementia cases, were even more striking: such drinkers were 42 per cent less likely to have developed the disease.

The academics, led by Siegfried Wayerer of the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim in Germany, concluded that "light-to-moderate" alcohol consumption could have a "protective effect" against dementia.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Up to three-quarters of dementia sufferers undiagnosed 
  01 Mar 2011
• Dementia 'not normal part of ageing' say scientists 
  10 Feb 2011
• Britain faces dementia catastrophe 
  09 Feb 2011
• Dementia sufferers forced out of homes 
  25 Jan 2011

They wrote in the journal Age and Ageing: "We found that alcohol consumption ... is significantly associated with lower incidence of overall dementia and Alzheimer dementia."

They believe alcoholic drinks could work to stave off dementia in a number of ways.

The alcohol itself could work by lowering cholesterol levels, stopping blood from clotting too much and improving insulin sensitivity to blood sugar levels.

The non-alcoholic elements "may have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and vaso-relaxant [blood vessel relaxant] properties", they wrote.

"It is still an open question whether different alcoholic beverages, such as beer, wine and spirits, have a similar effect," they noted.

"Some studies have shown a positive effect of wine only, which may be due either to the level of ethanol [alcohol], the complex mixture that comprises wine or to healthier life-style ascribed to wine drinkers."

Interestingly, there was no such protective effect for vascular dementia and cognitive decline, two other common types of dementia.

This could be because they cause dementia - just an umbrella term for a range of mental symptoms - in very different ways to Alzheimer's.

The study supports previous research which found that alcohol appears to cut the chance of dementia and Alzheimer's in the younger retired.

However, the authors noted that prolonged heavy drinking is thought to be responsible for about one in 10 cases of dementia.

In Britain about 750,000 people are thought to suffer from dementia, although less than half has received a diagnosis. The number is expected to top one million by 2021.

Dr Anne Corbett, research manager at the Alzheimer's Society, said: "The idea that a drop of your favourite tipple could reduce risk of dementia will come as welcome news to many. This latest study adds real punch to the growing argument that this could be the case.

"However, it is still unclear whether all types of alcohol bring the same benefits and it is likely other lifestyle factors have a part to play."

She added: "What is important is that this is not seen as a green light to hit the bottle. As well as many other health dangers, heavy drinking has been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The best way to reduce your risk of dementia is to eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly."

The German academics said they could not prove that drinking in moderation had a causal effect on protecting against dementia, because to do so would require a randomised controlled trial where the volunteers did not know if they were receiving an alcoholic drink or a non-alcoholic one.

Such a trial would be "neither ethical nor practically feasible", they conceded.

A drink a day is good for the heart: Lancet

LONDON: Here's a perfect excuse to go out for a drink tonight — a tipple a day keeps the doctor at bay, say researchers. A new study, published in 'The Lancet' journal, has found that people who down a drink or two daily are not only healthier, they also possess a lower risk of developing heart disease than those who abstain from alcohol.

In fact, for some people this risk could be reduced by as much as a quarter, the study says, boosting that far from damaging health, modest drinking will improve it. The study also revealed that low alcohol intake can actually improve blood cholesterol levels and reduce other important compounds in blood linked to inflammation; it is this process that may help protect heart and blood vessels from clogging up, the 'Daily Express' reported.

The study is actually a review of 84 researches into alcohol and deaths from heart disease. In the study, the researchers at the Calgary Institute for Population and Public Health in Canada showed that a drink a day reduced the risk of heart disease by between 14 and 25%. It also reduced the risk of dying from heart disease by a quarter and of having a stroke by 2%.

Read more: A drink a day is good for the heart: Lancet - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/A-drink-a-day-is-good-for-the-heart-Lancet/articleshow/7560002.cms#ixzz1EqY6Pio7

Don't Stop Chiropractic Treatment

New Study Confirms That Maintenance Care Delivers!

 By Frank in Cost-Effectiveness, on January 26th, 2011 at 2:36 pm

This new, single blinded placebo controlled study, conducted by the Faculty of Medicine at Mansoura University, conclusively demonstrates that maintenance care provides significant benefits for those with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SMT) is a common treatment option for low back pain. Numerous clinical trials have attempted to evaluate its effectiveness for different subgroups of acute and chronic LBP previously, but the efficacy of maintenance SMT in chronic non-specific LBP has never been studied.

In this study, 60 patients with chronic, nonspecific LBP lasting at least 6 months were randomized into 3 groups:

1. One third of them received 12 treatments of sham SMT over a one-month period.

2. One third of them received 12 treatments of SMT during a one-month period, with no follow-up care during the next nine months, and

3. One third of them received 12 SMT visits during the first month, followed by “maintenance” SMT every two weeks, for the next nine months.

To determine any difference among these 3 care groups, researchers measured pain and disability scores, generic health status, and back-specific patient satisfaction at baseline, and at 1-month, 4-months, 7-months, and at 10-months

RESULTS: Patients in manipulative groups (groups 2 & 3) experienced significantly lower pain and disability scores than the sham group at the end of the first 1-month period.

At the 10-month follow-up, only the maintenance group maintained improvements in pain and disability, while the group that only received 1-months care had reverted to their pretreatment pain and disability levels.

CONCLUSIONS: This is the first medically managed trial that clearly demonstrates that maintenance care provides significant benefits to those who suffer from chronic low back pain.

---

This study re-confirms Descarreaux’s virtually identical 2004 JMPT study, which concluded that “This experiment suggests that maintenance spinal manipulations after intensive manipulative care may be beneficial to patients to maintain subjective post-intensive treatment disability levels”.

It also confirms the findings of Dr. Ron L. Rupert, in his ground-breaking JMPT article, titled: 
Maintenance Care: Health Promotion Services Administered to US Chiropractic Patients Aged 65 and Older, Part II which found that:

“The cost of health care for patients receiving MC in this study was far less than that for patients of similar age in the general population, despite the doubling of physician visits (medical plus chiropractic). The greatest difference in health care costs with patients receiving MC was in the areas of nursing care and, especially, hospital care. This reduced need for hospital and nursing home services has recently been corroborated by the research of Coulter et al..” [22]

You may also want to review the Wellness and Chiropractic Page for more information on this topic.

SOURCE: Does Maintained Spinal Manipulation Therapy for Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain Result in Better Long Term Outcome?
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jan 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Developmental Disability More Common in Vaccinated Boys

Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years 

Authors: Carolyn Gallagher^a; Melody Goodman^a

Abstract This study investigated the association between vaccination with the Hepatitis B triple series vaccine prior to 2000 and developmental disability in children aged 1-9 years (n = 1824), proxied by parental report that their child receives early intervention or special education services (EIS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000 data were analyzed and adjusted for survey design by Taylor Linearization using SAS version 9.1 software, with SAS callable SUDAAN version 9.0.1. The odds of receiving EIS were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n = 46) as for unvaccinated boys (n = 7), after adjustment for confounders. This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys.

Diet free of processed foods reduced symptoms of ADHD

According to this new study published in Lancet, a restrictive diet free of processed foods significantly reduced symptoms of ADHD in 78% of children 4-8 years old. The 5-week study found with 100 subjects also found that upon re-introduction of problem foods into the diet, 63% experienced a relapse in ADHD symptoms.

Background   The effects of a restricted elimination diet in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have mainly been investigated in selected subgroups of patients. We aimed to investigate whether there is a connection between diet and behaviour in an unselected group of children.

Methods   The Impact of Nutrition on Children with ADHD (INCA) study was a randomised controlled trial that consisted of an open-label phase with masked measurements followed by a double-blind crossover phase. Patients in the Netherlands and Belgium were enrolled via announcements in medical health centres and through media announcements. Randomisation in both phases was individually done by random sampling. In the open-label phase (first phase), children aged 4—8 years who were diagnosed with ADHD were randomly assigned to 5 weeks of a restricted elimination diet (diet group) or to instructions for a healthy diet (control group). Thereafter, the clinical responders (those with an improvement of at least 40% on the ADHD rating scale [ARS]) from the diet group proceeded with a 4-week double-blind crossover food challenge phase (second phase), in which high-IgG or low-IgG foods (classified on the basis of every child's individual IgG blood test results) were added to the diet. During the first phase, only the assessing paediatrician was masked to group allocation. During the second phase (challenge phase), all persons involved were masked to challenge allocation. Primary endpoints were the change in ARS score between baseline and the end of the first phase (masked paediatrician) and between the end of the first phase and the second phase (double-blind), and the abbreviated Conners' scale (ACS) score (unmasked) between the same timepoints. Secondary endpoints included food-specific IgG levels at baseline related to the behaviour of the diet group responders after IgG-based food challenges. The primary analyses were intention to treat for the first phase and per protocol for the second phase. INCA is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 76063113.

Findings   Between Nov 4, 2008, and Sept 29, 2009, 100 children were enrolled and randomly assigned to the control group (n=50) or the diet group (n=50). Between baseline and the end of the first phase, the difference between the diet group and the control group in the mean ARS total score was 23·7 (95% CI 18·6—28·8; p<0·0001) according to the masked ratings. The difference between groups in the mean ACS score between the same timepoints was 11·8 (95% CI 9·2—14·5; p<0·0001). The ARS total score increased in clinical responders after the challenge by 20·8 (95% CI 14·3—27·3; p<0·0001) and the ACS score increased by 11·6 (7·7—15·4; p<0·0001). In the challenge phase, after challenges with either high-IgG or low-IgG foods, relapse of ADHD symptoms occurred in 19 of 30 (63%) children, independent of the IgG blood levels. There were no harms or adverse events reported in both phases.

Interpretation   A strictly supervised restricted elimination diet is a valuable instrument to assess whether ADHD is induced by food. The prescription of diets on the basis of IgG blood tests should be discouraged. 

Nutrient Depletion Charts

Find out which nutrients are depleted by a particular drug. By supplementing, you can get the best of both worlds.

The following pages identify which nutrients are depleted by specific types of drugs.   You will also want to refer to the Nutrient–Drug Interaction Page to explore many other interactions.   The principal benefit of this page is that they list “brand names” for drugs as well as their “generic” names.   You will also find value at the Drug-Nutrient Interactions & Depletions Page.   Sadly, this site doesn't sort drugs by their brand name... for example, you'd need to know that Zoloft was actually called Sertraline if you wanted complete information. 

This section was compiled by Frank M. Painter, D.C.

Click Here to go to Charts 

Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong

Illustration by Jacob Thomas

If you follow the news about health research, you risk whiplash. First garlic lowers bad cholesterol, then—after more study—it doesn’t. Hormone replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, until a huge study finds that it doesn’t (and that it raises the risk of breast cancer to boot). Eating a big breakfast cuts your total daily calories, or not—as a study released last week finds. Yet even if biomedical research can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.

But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Gallery: Medical Breakthroughs: The Good and the Bad

Breakthroughs and Breakdown

It’s a disturbing view, with huge im-plications for doctors, policymakers, and health-conscious consumers. And one of its foremost advocates, Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, has just ascended to a new, prominent platform after years of crusading against the baseless health and medical claims. As the new chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center, Ioannidis is cementing his role as one of medicine’s top mythbusters. “People are being hurt and even dying” because of false medical claims, he says: not quackery, but errors in medical research.

This is Ioannidis’s moment. As medical costs hamper the economy and impede deficit-reduction efforts, policymakers and businesses are desperate to cut them without sacrificing sick people. One no-brainer solution is to use and pay for only treatments that work. But if Ioannidis is right, most biomedical studies are wrong.

In just the last two months, two pillars of preventive medicine fell. A major study concluded there’s no good evidence that statins (drugs like Lipitor and Crestor) help people with no history of heart disease. The study, by the Cochrane Collaboration, a global consortium of biomedical experts, was based on an evaluation of 14 individual trials with 34,272 patients. Cost of statins: more than $20 billion per year, of which half may be unnecessary. (Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, responds in part that “managing cardiovascular disease risk factors is complicated”). In November a panel of the Institute of Medicine concluded that having a blood test for vitamin D is pointless: almost everyone has enough D for bone health (20 nanograms per milliliter) without taking supplements or calcium pills. Cost of vitamin D: $425 million per year.

Click to Read Entire Article

Medical Errors Kill 15,000 Medicare Patients a Month

Medical Errors Kill 15,000 Medicare Patients a Month

 By Frank in Iatrogenic Injury, on January 28th, 2011 at 5:38 pm

SOURCE: AOL Health

A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General reveals that 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. [1]

The news is startling, particularly since 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.

Read Whole Story Here