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

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 also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit,"the JAMA author said.

^"Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.

"The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are 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 adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?

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

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

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.

Continue reading the main story

“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

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

Say Goodbye to Low-Back Pain with Regular Chiropractic Care

 

It is estimated that in the United States, the annual costs associated with the treatment of low back pain (LBP) total approximately $100 billion.  High recurrence rates and chronic disability are believed to play a large role in the overall cost of back pain, and studies have shown that only a fraction of LBP patients remain pain free and recover completely, even one year after the problem first occurred. 

In a recent study, 30 patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain lasting at least six months were separated into two groups. The first group received 12 treatments over a one-month period, but no treatments for the subsequent nine months; the second group received 12 treatments over a one-month period, along with "maintenance spinal manipulation" every three weeks for the following nine months.  

Results: Patients in both groups experienced significant decreases in low back pain scores after the first series of treatments. The greatest difference, however, was seen in disability scores over the duration of the study. Analysis of the data showed that in patients who received maintenance spinal manipulation, "the disability scores were significantly lower after the 10-month period than before the initial phase of treatment." In the other group, however, "the mean disability scores went back to their pretreatment level."

Based on these results, it is clear that regular chiropractic care not only helps reduce  LBP and disability associated with LBP, but that continued chiropractic treatment following the acute treatment phase assists in keeping pain from recurring. If you suffer from LBP or any other dysfunction, your doctor of chiropractic can design an effective treatment plan. 

For more information on the benefits of chiropractic, visit  www.chiro.asia     

Reference: Descarreaux M, Blouin JS, Drolet M, et al. Efficacy of preventive spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain and related disabilities: a preliminary study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics; October 2004;27(8):509-514.

Ultrasound: Pretty Much Worthless

Is Therapeutic Ultrasound Effective for Musculoskeletal Problems

By Warren Hammer, MS, DC, DABCO

The answer to the above question is still in doubt. According to Wong, et al.,1 if clinicians based their decision to use ultrasound on clear demonstration of effectiveness in the scientific literature, then many would not use it based on lack of supporting evidence.

How many times have we heard this statement about much of what soft-tissue clinicians do, or for that matter, about what practitioners do in all of the healing professions? Yet ultrasound has been widely used and well-accepted as a physical therapy adjunct modality throughout the world since the '50s.1

What the Research Says

Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted; 10 of 35 RCTs were judged to have acceptable methods. Two of these 10 trials suggested that ultrasound was more effective for calcific tendinitis of the shoulder and carpal tunnel than placebo, but the other eight trials did not recommend its use.2 In the journal Pain,3 a systematic review of 38 studies was performed; the review authors also concluded that there seemed to be little evidence to support the use of ultrasound in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders.

That said, does this mean we should abandon the use of ultrasound? Not necessarily. Most of these studies do not consider dosage, treatment time and the type of tissue it is used on. Like many things we do that seem to help patients, the final word is not yet in. There are studies that conclude ultrasound works. One paper concluded that the results of high-quality studies indicated there was evidence (albeit weak) in favor of ultrasound for lateral epicondylitis.3 I wonder if insurance decision-makers are aware of this literature. Regardless, at present, you have to make up your own mind.

How to Make Ultrasound More Efficient

Ultrasound is thought to exert both a thermal and non-thermal effect. Early on, many perceived its effect primarily as thermal, but studies have shown that the warmth felt by the patient is mostly in the thermal skin receptors and does not create a significant thermal affect in the deeper tissues, even when continuous ultrasound is administered at a relatively high power.4 Some studies have revealed no advantage between ordinary heat therapy and ultrasound with regard to tissue extensibility and stretching; the effect of ultrasound on extensibility lasted only 3 minutes immediately following treatment.5

Non-thermal effects refer to its effect in relation to soft-tissue injury. Rather than thermal, the physical mechanisms thought to be involved are cavitation and acoustic streaming.6 Before discussing non-thermal effects, it is important to note that the absorption of ultrasound into the tissues depends on the particular tissue's ability to absorb the energy.4

Tissues with a higher protein content absorb ultrasound more than tissues with high water content and low protein content. Therefore, tissues with the high collagen content such as ligaments, tendons, fascia, joint capsule and scar tissue are the best absorbers. Immediately after injury (in the bleeding phase), ultrasound is not recommended since it is thought that it may increase blood flow. After the acute bleeding phase, ultrasound is considered pro-inflammatory by stimulating mast cells, platelets, and white cells, which is necessary in the early phases of the repair process.

Some studies4 have shown the possibility that ultrasound may aid in the remodeling scar-tissue phase by influencing collagen fiber orientation. There are even studies involving techniques similar to friction massage and Graston Technique that suggest ultrasound creates increased fibroblastic proliferation and collagen formation.7

There is still a debate regarding dosage of ultrasound in relation to therapeutic effects. Also, while continuous ultrasound may cause a more rapid delivery of energy, pulsed ultrasound may be more effective in the early inflammatory and proliferative inflammatory stages. In comparison to other modalities, Watson4 states that there is an overlap with laser therapy and some pulsed EM fields (short wave). Ultrasound is best on tissues made of dense collagenous tissues, but less effective than these other modalities in tissues like muscle, nerve and edematous tissue.

So, after at least 50 years of use, ultrasound has not yet reached a high level of evidence-based acceptance. Newer methods are often rejected by insurance companies because they are considered to still be in the "experimental" phase. The question of what is responsible for healing continues.

Chiropractic: It Works and It's Safer than Physiotherapists or Medical Doctors

I Love Research!

The real kind done by real scientists not the kind done by companies to prove their product works best.

Another New LBP Study Reveals Chiropractic Is Superior to PT and MD Care. This study revealed you are twice as likely to end up disabled if you got your care from a PT, rather than from a DC.  Thank you Dr. Frank Painter from Chiro.org

OBJECTIVES:   To compare occurrence of repeated disability episodes across types of health care providers who treat claimants with new episodes of work-related low back pain

CONCLUSIONS:   In work-related nonspecific LBP, the use of health maintenance care provided by physical therapist or physician services was associated with a higher disability recurrence than in chiropractic services or no treatment.

Way Cool!!!

ObamaCare Gives Even More To The Rich

"There is nowhere this greed is more pervasive than among those companies responsible for the health of roughly 300 million of Americans - Big Pharma" [AP]

During the ultimate scene of betrayal in the movie Wall Street, a young stockbroker named Bud Fox learns that his idol, the golden-calf worshipping Gordon Gekko, has not only lied to him but left his father’s company exposed to the whims and hunger of the wolves of Wall Street. In a climactic moment, Fox asks Gekko, “how much is enough? How many yachts can you water ski behind?”

Even though this film was mid-1980s fare, one can once again repeat that old refrain, the more things change the more they stay the same. Perhaps not for the actor who played Bud Fox, Charlie Sheen, who should share Natalie Portman’s Oscar for real-time transformation into the Black Swan.

But for the rest of us, who have watched as greed has become the foundational structure upon which much of our modern economy is built, it is often difficult to see how we might close the Pandora’s Box and return to saner times. You know, back when being Donald Trump wasn’t considered an asset in a hair-club-for-men commercial, much less a race to be President of the United States.

There is nowhere this greed is more pervasive than among those companies responsible for the health of roughly 300 million of Americans - Big Pharma. You know, the guys who got a better sweetheart deal from George Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit than Ana Nicole Smith did from that old rich guy.

Later, re-importation from Canada and bulk negotiation for Medicare prescription drugs were written out of any Obama healthcare plan, even though each was at the heart of Democratic Party campaign promises in 2006 and 2008.

Maybe money can not buy you love - but the halls of Congress have a more Heidi-Fleiss-kind-of ethic to them.
Steve Lendman of RINF.com, in providing a summary of David Sirota’s bestselling book, Hostile Takeover, clarifies:

This industry is one of the most profitable in the country making about 18 cents profit on every dollar of sales; it is aided by government using our tax dollars to fund about one third of all research on new drugs the industry gets at no charge; the industry spends about twice as much on advertising, promotion and administrative costs as they do on R & D to develop new drugs; the prices charged for prescription drugs in the US are inordinately high compared to the rest of the world and are rising at about four times the rate of inflation; these rising costs plus those for most all health services are rising so fast, companies are forcing their employees to pay a greater share of them or are reducing overall health care benefits.

Ever feel like you are the bank and they are Dillinger? If not, you probably should.
I can attest to their greed personally, from working with preeminent plaintiff’s lawyer Ed Blizzard, who has challenged the right of pharmaceutical companies to poison Americans, like it is part of their business model. It is Blizzard who made Vioxx drug-maker Merck pay dearly - to the tune of $4.85 billion - for the scores of Americans who lost mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, because Vioxx promised to help with arthritis and instead delivered sudden cardiac arrest.

Now, because a lack of any regulation, Americans are being poisoned by hip implants created by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Depuy Orthopaedics Inc., that are not only not tracked by any regulated registry, but in many cases were never even tested before being put into people’s bodies - so the inside of victims hips could come to resemble a post-Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico.
You can tell they’re confident that their 93,000 recalls, which they had been warned about as early as 2008, but did not do anything to address until 2010, aren’t proof of any wrongdoing. That is probably why Depuy’s President, David Floyd, just resigned.

Even worse, the chromium poisoning that is destroying victims’ bone and muscle is nothing new, in fact, you may remember a town of people who got cancer due to its ill effects from the movie Erin Brockovich. Now, they have Depuy and Johnson & Johnson to thank for this honor.

So one understands we are talking about real people here, one of Blizzard’s clients, 58 year-old construction worker Larry Barnett of Modesto, Illinois, “suffered debilitating pain - he had trouble even walking or standing after receiving the part” and now is “at much greater risk for cancer.” Barnett told reporter Mike Cronin of The Daily, that Depuy’s ASR hip replacement has "screwed up my life for three years." This man was a hard-working construction worker, who “only wants to get back to work".

One wonders if any pharmaceutical company had to give up income for three years, which they would do first - hand off the bill to American taxpayers or make Canada to accept re-importation of drugs from the United States for 150 per cent of the price.

As Blizzard has said, “nobody signed up for an oil spill in their body.” They did not sign up for cancer either.
So let me ask the question this time, as Sheen is a bit preoccupied with other matters: When is enough, enough?

Cliff Schecter is the President of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.
Follow Cliff Schecter On Twitter: @Cliffschecter