Wellness 4 Life Chiropractic

No, We Don’t Vaccinate

2011-07-14T07:36:00.000-07:00

No, We Don’t Vaccinate
Posted by katetiejte on May 13th, 2011 at 10:00 am

It’s been mentioned a few times on here that I don’t vaccinate my kids. And it’s true: I don’t. My reasons are pretty complicated, but since I’ve been sharing my reasons for a bunch of my decisions this week (like why I need to breastfeed, and why I’m choosing home birth), I thought I might address this one too.

Most babies are given their first vaccine when they’re only hours old: the Hep B shot. And obviously, we’ve skipped it. A lot of parents are on the fence about this, even if they do choose to vaccinate for the most part. Keep reading to find out what my pediatrician said about this…and why we personally choose not to vaccinate.

I know, I know: it’s an extremely hot issue right now. There are people who say you’re basically killing your children if you don’t…or if you do. I’m not going to tell you that. I know every parent has their own reasons for the decisions that they make and that they are trying to do their absolute best based on what they know and what they believe. The answer’s not the same for every family.

There was a point where we didn’t question vaccines, before I got pregnant with my first. But we were working then as therapists for children with autism. I know, it’s so cliche. But the moms we talked to basically said they had concerns…and encouraged us to look into it more. Although it started over a potential concern with autism, that’s actually very low on our list of reasons for choosing not to vaccinate now.

Then we thought we’d just do selective and delayed vaccines. We thought that we’d get vaccines for the “scary” diseases, like measles, but we’d definitely leave out chicken pox, rubella, and others that we knew weren’t so bad. (Rubella’s not, unless you happen to contract it in the middle of your first trimester of pregnancy.) But, I wasn’t satisfied to take anyone’s answers. I need to do the research for myself. I set out with a long list of questions I wanted answered, and I began searching through every book, journal article, health website (both mainstream, like WHO, and non-mainstream), and so on that I could get my hands on.
What I found was very interesting…and shocking. The more I read, the more I became convicted that I did not want to inject my children with vaccines, ever. I know that places me on the far, far outer edges…most people are willing to consider some vaccines, under some circumstances. I really can’t think of any situation in which I’d allow a vaccine. But, of course, this is up to each family to choose.
So here is a (very) brief summary of my reasons (please note I’m not a doctor or medical professional; I’m trying to explain these to the best of my knowledge but I’m sure I’ll make some mistakes along the way. Always do your own research and talk to your doctor):

1) The way they work – This is a super, super long explanation being very condensed here. Most natural infections enter the body through the mouth or nose, and are fought off by the mucous membranes, the gut flora, etc. It’s called the TH-1 system. This is bypassed when a vaccine is administered directly into the body and only the TH-2 system is stimulated (the body’s secondary defenses). This doesn’t produce permanent immunity (and in some doesn’t produce immunity at all). The body, when the TH-2 system is activated, is more susceptible to future disease. And although typically the system would “calm down” soon after a vaccine, when a baby is born, it is TH-2 dominant (so it’s mother’s body won’t reject it), and vaccines prolong the time before the immune system matures. There’s some evidence to suggest that the immune system never learns to work properly and this places the child at risk to more serious illnesses like cancer. There’s a lot more to this, but this is my primary concern.

2) Ingredients: I know that most people are concerned with thimerosal, and it’s been removed from most vaccines. Not all, and it is used in the production of the vaccines and then removed later (i.e. there are still trace amounts). But the vaccines also contain tissue from monkey kidney cells, human diploid cells (read: aborted fetal tissue), or chicken embryos, depending on what the vaccine was cultured in. Regarding the human cells, they’ve been using the same ones since around the 1950s, and I’m not convinced they haven’t mutated or in some way become contaminated. Vaccines also contain adjuvants to boost their efficacy, and most of these are based on aluminum, which is another heavy metal toxin. There are also antibiotics and various other ingredients. To me, this just doesn’t sound like something I’d want in my body…or my children’s bodies.

3) Natural Immunity: I’m concerned with my children gaining natural immunity. Vaccines don’t last forever and their efficacy is in question since they work differently at different ages, weights, immune system development and other individual body chemistry differences. Some studies I’ve read suggest they are far less efficacious than we think they are, and that immunity does wane significantly after 10 – 20 years (so, the adults who don’t get boosters — almost all — probably aren’t protected from most diseases anymore). In contrast, for most people, natural infection does offer protection/immunity forever (in a few rare cases it doesn’t). It has also been shown to “train” the immune system to fight off more complex illnesses, although this research is very sparing. For children with strong immune systems, many of these illnesses are just not that bad. We all had chicken pox as kids and it wasn’t a fun week; but we’re fine. Parents today are terrified of chicken pox! (That vaccine was created primarily so parents wouldn’t have to miss work and suffer “lost productivity” as a society while caring for sick children — not over any concern that chicken pox was a dangerous illness.) Looking into what the likely course and worst-case scenario (and what would likely lead to the worst-case scenario) of each disease was a major part of my research. It’s always interesting to me, however, to note that the children I know who aren’t vaccinated (several) are usually not the children who are sick very frequently. While some people I know brag that their kids have “only” had a few ear infections, a few bouts of croup or bronchitis or needed antibiotics a couple times a year, I can say that mine have never had any of these things. Do vaccines play a role, or am I just lucky? I don’t know, but I’ll take it.

4) Potential environmental issues: Kids today have skyrocketing rates of asthma, allergies, ADHD, and yes, autism. I don’t believe that vaccines are the sole cause of any of these conditions. But I do believe, along with many other factors, they play a role. Children who are born with fragile health or are genetically “sensitive” could be at risk for developing one of these things because a vaccine was the trigger or final straw. Cases before the so-called vaccine court have paid many families under conditions like this. If I can minimize my children’s exposure to toxins in any way, then I will.

5) Little research: What I’ve found as far as research hasn’t been extremely comforting. A lot of research is reaching pretty far, like studies that we say “we assume protection is lifelong” but cite no proof (have they tested people who were vaccinated several years ago? In a large study? No.). Studies compare vaccines against previously licensed versions or against the same chemical combo without the virus itself, not a true placebo (saline solution). Kids are usually followed for only 6 weeks. Long-term or late-arriving reactions aren’t documented. The medical community appears to have a very cavalier attitude towards all drugs and vaccines, at least as far as I’ve seen: that they just aren’t that bad. But how many times have we later seen these same “miracle” drugs recalled? How many parents have said “I think my child is having a vaccine reaction” and been reassured it’s ‘normal?’ I just don’t think the research is adequate. I couldn’t even find journal articles to answer all of my questions, and the figures stated on the WHO or CDC’s websites were not linked to any actual research. That, to me, is a big red flag.
Suffice it to say, we’ve chosen, for these reasons and many more (these being the most important) not to vaccinate. It’s a very personal choice, which each family must make.

If you’re curious what our pediatrician said, he recommends Hep B in the teen years (when the child might actually be at risk under ordinary circumstances), and will also mention HiB and Pertussis if asked. But he doesn’t push any on families and he said that he thinks the current schedule is “definitely too much, too soon.” Yes, this is a mainstream, board-certified pediatrician, not an alternative doctor.

http://blogs.babble.com/being-pregnant/2011/05/13/no-we-dont-vaccinate/

Pediatricians turn away kids who aren't vaccinated

2011-07-14T07:35:00.000-07:00

Pediatricians turn away kids who aren't vaccinated
by Jessica Ashley, Shine staff, on Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:17pm PDT
When an investigation proved early this year that research linking autism and vaccines was fraudulent, it seemed the debate over when or whether to immunize children might quiet down. But new voices have piped up in the vaccine controversy, and this time, they belong to pediatricians.

While most parents do choose to vaccinate their children on schedule with their doctors' recommendations, the trend of delaying or opting out of scheduled shots worries many pediatricians. And some pediatric practices are responding by requiring patients to get immunized on schedule or to find another doctor -- no shots, no service.

Why would a pediatric practice show anti-vaccine families to the door? Dr. Scott J. Goldstein of the Northwestern Children's Practice in Chicago, where a vaccine policy was implemented June 1, said they do it to protect children and to provide better care for all the patients he and the seven other staff pediatricians see.

Pointing to a strong scientific record supporting vaccinations, Goldstein said his practice's policy serves the most vulnerable children -- like infants and those with critical illnesses who are not able to be immunized -- by protecting them from diseases. All of those children could be in the waiting room together, some pediatricians note, and the unvaccinated ones could be putting the more vulnerable ones at risk.

"Vaccines are safe and have been studied for a long time and continue to be studied," Dr. Goldstein told Shine. "Vaccines are responsible for saving millions of lives and keeping millions of other children safe and healthy."

Vaccinating most children contributes to "herd immunity," which helps kids who are too ill to be on the recommended schedule and lowers the overall risk of disease outbreaks.

"It is a minority of our patients who opt to go off the schedule recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and CDC (Centers for Disease Control) or not have vaccines at all," Dr. Goldstein said. "This makes it very complicated for our staff to follow. We don't just ask those families to leave. We give them every opportunity to ask questions, to schedule vaccines, to work with us."

Some parents may not feel the need to put the brakes on vaccines, but do want to compromise by slowing the schedule. Dr. Goldstein said this also poses a danger.

"Vaccines are scheduled to be given at the time when children are most vulnerable to that disease. Slowing down the process only puts the child at a higher risk of contracting the illness," Dr. Goldstein said.

The main fear of vaccinating children, he said, is that kids will contract autism, even though research has put to rest those concerns. Other parents are simply afraid that their child will be exposed to too many things early on in their life. Dr. Goldstein said it will take better communication with parents to change the fear-based mindset against vaccinations.

So far, Dr. Goldstein's practice has mostly heard positive reactions from parents about the new vaccine policy.

"They are happy we are taking a stand," he said.

This stand might seem harsh but the wording and the strictness varies among pediatricians. One Massachusetts-based practice puts it bluntly in the policy that takes up a full page of their website: "Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are not a good fit for our practice and will be referred elsewhere."

The policy goes on to offer parents who "insist on diverging from the recommended vaccine schedule" a waiver taking responsibility for any risks that result from delaying or opting out of vaccines and offers research, literature, and further conversation to parents on this "worrisome subject." They also thank parents for entrusting the practice with the care of their children, but the pro-vaccination message is clear.

A pediatric practice in New York takes a gentler, storytelling approach to explaining the historic debate and reasoning around vaccinating, but makes its position very clear (in bolded print on its website): "If, despite our recommendations, you feel you cannot follow the CDC and AAP recommendations for these vaccines, we will ask you to find another health care provider who shares your views."

The AAP warns that vaccination policies may undermine children's access to health care, stating: "Families with doubts about immunization should still have access to good medical care, and maintaining the relationship in the face of disagreement conveys respect and at the same time allows the child access to medical care. Furthermore, a continuing relationship allows additional opportunity to discuss the issue of immunization over time."

Although instituting a policy has been working well for Dr. Goldstein's practice, he said he hopes that refusing to see unvaccinated children does not become a trend nationwide.

"I know the AAP has cautioned against these policies. If I was the only doctor around, I certainly wouldn't want to throw these families to the wind. In our case, in a neighborhood and city with many pediatricians and options for families, we are choosing to protect kids' health," Goldstein said. "We are not making them sick. We are not forcing them. We are not neglecting them."

Prescription drug deaths soar in Michigan

2011-07-11T05:36:00.000-07:00

Prescription drug deaths soar in Michigan
1:00 AM, Jul. 11, 2011

Michigan, like the nation, is experiencing a troubling increase in prescription drug abuse -- medicines for pain, hyperactivity and anxiety are triggering a rise in emergency hospital visits, overdose deaths and treatment for addiction.

In Michigan, more residents now die from prescription drug abuse than from heroin and cocaine combined, a federal registry shows. In 2009, the latest year data are available, 457 Michiganders died of overdoses from one or more prescription drugs, up from 409 deaths the year before.

"We're seeing an alarming trend that continues to increase," said Larry Scott, manager of the prevention section of Michigan's Bureau of Substance Abuse and Addiction.

Health officials and others say the drugs are easier to get now, and the rise mirrors rocketing rates of prescriptions written by doctors and dentists.

Nearly one in four seeking emergency care in Michigan for the abuse was younger than 25, particularly alarming because prescription drugs are a gateway to heroin and are being mixed by teens and young adults in potentially lethal combinations to get a more intense high, substance abuse experts say.

Parents, friends and doctors can be source of drugs to be abused
Kayla Westerman's entry into the world of drugs started at 13 with the painkiller Vicodin. She got it from a friend.

Others raid parents' and grandparents' medicine cabinets for unused pills, or they trade or sell narcotics prescribed by dentists and doctors.

By high school, Westerman added OxyContin, another prescription painkiller, and her habit grew so costly, she switched to the cheaper street drug heroin at age 15.

The street price for OxyContin ranges from $10 for a 10-milligram pill to $35-$80 for an 80-milligram pill.

Two years later, high on heroin, the teen from Pinckney tried to steal items from a Kohl's department store but was caught and jailed, her first of three sentences for retail fraud. She recently completed a 37-day jail sentence and said she has turned her life around. She credits a Livingston County program that uses drug-diversion money to counsel jail inmates.

"Young kids are dying," she said. "It's not a joke anymore."

Westerman's story mirrors many tales in America's prescription drug epidemic, a problem growing nationwide and particularly prevalent among younger people, according to federal statistics.

More people in Michigan are now dying each year from prescription drug overdoses than from cocaine and heroin combined.

And health and law enforcement officials said they've seen a disturbing trend of deaths from mixing three types of drugs -- ADHD drugs, narcotic painkillers and a muscle relaxant called Soma -- sometimes inducing a fatal coma.

The mixture has been dubbed the Holy Trinity, and health officials in Detroit say the number of reported overdoses in Michigan each year crept up to 104 last year, from 84 in 2007. With more than 69 recorded this year, including two deaths, the number is on track to break last year's record.

In Michigan, the latest data, from 2009, show:

• 457 Michiganders died of overdoses from one or more prescription drugs, up from 409 deaths the year before.

• Michigan's rate of emergency hospital visits for prescription drug abuse and misuse significantly exceeds national rates. Here, 310 of every 100,000 people who go to an emergency department for an overdose are there for prescription drug abuse, compared with a national rate of 238.

• Fatal overdoses of prescription drugs were the second-leading cause of unintentional deaths, after auto accidents. By comparison, 871 people were killed in Michigan car crashes in 2009. Of those accidents, 14% involved drugs or alcohol.

• Abuse of prescription drugs accounts for growing admissions into substance-abuse programs, sometimes again and again.

"We have people in the double digits" for attempts at rehab, said Dr. Mark Menestrina, a substance-abuse physician at Brighton Hospital, a leading treatment center in the region and part of the St. John Providence Health System.

How people get the drugs
Health officials and others said the prescription drug abuse problem closely parallels rocketing rates of prescriptions written by doctors and dentists.

Dentists and oral surgeons may prescribe as many as 20 painkillers for each patient undergoing extensive work, when "probably four or five" might work, said Carol Boyd, a nurse and University of Michigan researcher in teen substance abuse. Prescription drug abuse "is so far off the radar" of many dentists and oral surgeons, she said.

U-M research has found that nonmedical use of prescription drugs among 12th-graders in Michigan is the highest it has been in 15 years, she said.

Some teens try the drugs at "bowl parties, where you put your family's pills in a bowl and help yourself; it's a form of Russian roulette among teenagers," said Susan Smolinske, a Wayne State University pharmacist and professor of pediatrics who directs the Poison Control Center in Detroit.

Others buy drugs for study, test-taking and sleeping, a common problem among college and high school students. Even dental work brings opportunities.

The drugs most in demand
The federal Drug Abuse Warning Network, started in 2003, tracks emerging trends in drug use in America. The Poison Control Center, at Children's Hospital of Michigan, collects the information in Michigan from any hospital that voluntarily provides it.

Prescription drugs that are monitored by federal and state programs because of their high potential for abuse -- including OxyContin, Vicodin, Ritalin, Percocet, fentanyl and methadone -- are the second-leading category of drug abuse after marijuana. They also are the second-leading cause of unintentional deaths, after auto accidents, according to data from a federal registry of drug-related emergency department visits in large metro areas such as Detroit.

"Thirty thousand people a year are dying from prescription drug abuse in America; 10 years ago, it was half that," said Dr. David Kloth, a spokesman for the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians.

Nearly one-third of all abused prescription drugs are painkillers sold generically as hydrocodone, and as OxyContin, the leading brand name, according to Michigan data.

Even so, written prescriptions for nearly all other types of controlled drugs also are up in Michigan. Some of the biggest jumps have been for methadone, used for heroin addiction; amphetamines and stimulants such as Ritalin, for hyperactivity, and pain-relievers morphine and fentanyl.

With the increase in the drugs' legal use, access to them has gotten easier through friends, doctors and dentists and, of course, on the street.

"The common thing we hear is that they started using prescription drugs" in middle and high school, said Francine Sumner, the Livingston County probation office who started Project Opiates last year. It has an active public education campaign that taps inmates serving drug-related sentences to talk to the public. Its next forum is 7 p.m. Aug. 17 at Pinckney High School.

More accountability sought
Michigan has a statewide system that tracks prescriptions of controlled drugs. The system monitors all controlled drug prescriptions for more than two days of use that are written outside a hospital in-patient unit or nursing home.

Doctors and pharmacies identified as frequent-prescribers are followed closely, state officials said.

But savvy patients shop for doctors and hospitals. The worst example the Michigan system found was a patient who saw 27 doctors in a month for prescription drugs, said Mike Wissel, who oversees Michigan's controlled-prescription monitoring program.

Many emergency departments and pain doctors have new systems in place to identify drug-seekers. But it can be difficult to distinguish drug-seekers from "others with serious pain conditions," said Dr. Michael Mikhail, regional director for emergency medicine for the St. Joseph Mercy Health System just outside of Ann Arbor.

"Some people are very bold; they'll say, 'I was at Garden City Hospital yesterday for my back pain,' " said Joanne McKay, administrator of emergency services for the Oakwood system. The hospitals in the system now limit most patients to a three-day supply of controlled drugs, and "we are holding our medical staff accountable" for curbing the problem through quarterly data reviews, she said.

Others are calling for more accountability from drug companies.

"We're calling on drug companies to take responsibility for prescription drug abuse the way oil companies have to clean up their messes and auto companies have to improve their products every year," said Dr. Harry Leider, chief medical officer of Ameritox, which makes a new generation of urine drug tests to identify opioid prescription drug abusers.

Test results are fed into a database of 1,000 patients with chronic pain that "tell the doctor exactly what a person is taking," Leider said.

April Vallerand, a Wayne State nurse specializing in chronic pain issues, said other changes under way would require patients who get certain controlled drugs to undergo more-frequent tests. Pharmaceutical companies also are working on new forms of drugs that won't work when crushed and snorted, a method abusers often use to intensify or speed a drug's effect.

"We're all in limbo waiting to see what the companies come up with," she said.Pain specialists also are demanding more health care accountability. They lobbied Congress in Washington, D.C., last month for legislation requiring health care professionals to receive specialized training to prescribe controlled substances.

The problem will take years to fix, most specialists agree -- even in places such as Livingston County, which began extensive public education programs after 22 people there died of prescription drug or heroin overdoses in 2009. Livingston officials are working with several other counties to help them develop similar programs.

"This is killing people alarmingly," said Sumner, the Livingston County probation officer.

"Certainly alcohol does, too. But the number in just one county is too much. So many people have their heads in the sand and think it doesn't happen."

http://www.freep.com/article/20110711/NEWS06/107110334/Prescription-drug-deaths-soar-Michigan?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Find out alternatives to pain medication at www.Wellness4LifeChiro.com

Chronic Tylenol Use May Be Linked to Blood Cancer, Study Suggests

2011-05-11T09:41:00.000-07:00

Chronic Tylenol Use May Be Linked to Blood Cancer, Study Suggests

Taking it most days of the week for years might increase risk, researchers say

Posted: May 10, 2011

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, May 10 (HealthDay News) -- Those who take acetaminophen -- best known as Tylenol -- regularly for some time might be putting themselves at an increased risk for developing certain blood cancers, University of Washington researchers report.
Click here to find out more!

The results of earlier studies looking at the association between over-the-counter painkillers or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and blood cancers have been mixed, but this study suggests a risk tied to acetaminophen, the scientists noted.

"We found that high use of acetaminophen, one of the most frequently used medications worldwide, was associated with an almost twofold increased risk of incident hematologic malignancies," said lead researcher Dr. Roland Walter, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology.

The report was published in the May 9 online edition of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

While the research found a potential association between acetaminophen use and blood cancers, it did not prove a cause-and-effect. And several experts called for follow-up studies.

For the study, Walter's team collected data on 64,839 men and women aged 50 to 76, who took part in the Vitamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) study. Among these individuals, the researchers identified 577 cases of blood cancers.

The researchers found that those who used acetaminophen at least four days a week over four years had almost a twofold increased risk for some blood cancers. These cancers included: myeloid neoplasms, non-Hodgkin lymphomas and plasma cell disorders.

However, acetaminophen use was not associated with an increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, Walter's group noted.

This risk was not seen with the heavy use of other painkillers such as aspirin, other NSAIDs or ibuprofen, the researchers said. However, there was also no association between other painkillers and decreased risk, implying that these drugs are unlikely to be useful for prevention of blood cancers, Walter noted.

"Acetaminophen use on the majority of the days over many years appears to be associated with this new adverse effect," Walter said. "However, the study does not allow one to conclude a causal relationship," he added.

According to the researchers, animal studies have linked acetaminophen to toxic effects on bone marrow, which could be why there is a greater risk for blood cancers with long-term use of the drug.

Bonnie Jacobs, a spokeswoman for McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of McNeil-PPC, Inc., the maker of Tylenol, noted that "Tylenol has over 50 years of clinical history to support its safety and efficacy."

She added, "We appreciate the assessment of the authors that further studies would be needed before it is possible to draw any conclusions about the use of acetaminophen, and we welcome additional research in this area."

Walter noted that the risk of blood cancers is relatively small; an estimated combined total of 137,260 people in the United States were diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma or myeloma in 2010. "New cases of leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma are expected to account for 9 percent of the new cancer cases diagnosed, so even a doubling of that risk is still relatively small," he said.

Deborah Banker, vice president of research communications at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said that "it is unclear why chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma should have different risk associations with acetaminophen use."

Eric Jacobs, strategic director of pharmacoepidemiology at the American Cancer Society, said that "there is no evidence from this study that less frequent or shorter-term use might raise risk of these cancers. Replication of this finding in additional high-quality studies is needed."

More information

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2011/05/10/chronic-tylenol-use-may-be-linked-to-blood-cancer-study-suggests

Autism and Vaccines Researcher for CDC, Indicted for Fraud and Money-Laundering

2011-04-18T07:10:00.000-07:00

Autism and Vaccines Researcher for CDC, Indicted for Fraud and Money-Laundering

SafeMinds demands long-overdue independent review of vaccine/autism research for data manipulation and conflicts of interest. Vaccine safety remains questionable.

ATLANTA, April 14, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Poul Thorsen, the principal coordinator of multiple studies funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used to deny a vaccine/autism link was indicted on April 13th on 13 counts of fraud and 9 counts of money-laundering. The charges relate to funding for work he conducted for the CDC, which claimed to disprove associations between the mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, and increased rates of autism.

SafeMinds first voiced concerns in 2003 regarding a series of epidemiology studies out of Denmark and under the jurisdiction of Thorsen that provided the basis for the Institute of Medicine's claim that there was no association between thimerosal and autism. That claim has been responsible for the continued unsafe use of mercury in influenza vaccines in the United States and infant vaccines around the world.

"The quality of this epidemiological research has always been questionable," states Sallie Bernard, SafeMinds president. "Many biological studies support a link between mercury and autism, but these Danish studies have been used to suppress further research into thimerosal. With clear evidence of Dr. Thorsen's lack of ethics, it is imperative to reopen this investigation."

From August to October of 2003, three articles on the autism-mercury controversy were published in close succession, all of which used data from a Danish registry for psychiatric research to assess the relationship between autism trends and the use of thimerosal. SafeMinds accessed the registry at the time and reported that a large percentage of diagnosed autism cases are lost from the Danish registry each year and that most of those lost cases were older children. Since the studies were based on finding fewer older thimerosal-exposed children than younger unexposed children, the validity of their conclusion exonerating thimerosal in autism was questionable and likely a result of missing records rather than true lower incidence rates among the exposed group.

In addition, internal emails obtained via FOIA document discussion between the Danish researchers and Thornsen which acknowledge that the studies did not include the latest data from 2001 where the incidence and prevalence of autism was declining which would be supportive of a vaccine connection.

The emails also include requests from Thornsen to CDC asking that the agency write letters to the journal Pediatrics encouraging them to publish the research after it had been rejected by other journals.

A top CDC official complied with the request sending a letter to the editor of the journal supporting the publication of the study which they called a "strong piece of evidence that thimerosal is not linked to autism."

As fraud charges regarding Thorsen surface, and as we believe the registry was unreliable, SafeMinds is calling for an independent federal investigation of these studies for data manipulation and scientific misconduct. Further background information on these studies, the charges against Dr. Thorsen, and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that support SafeMinds' concerns are available on our website, www.safeminds.org.

SOURCE SafeMinds

Researchers Boost Cholesterol To Treat Autism

2011-04-18T07:09:00.001-07:00

Researchers Boost Cholesterol To Treat Autism

POSTED: Friday, April 15, 2011

COLUMBUS -- Researchers at the Ohio State University Nisonger Center are expanding research to see if boosting cholesterol levels could help ease the symptoms of autism.

“Up until a few years ago, I thought of cholesterol as being a bad thing,” said Dr. L. Eugene Arnold, the principal investigator. “I mean, we spend a lot of money on a lot of treatments to try to reduce cholesterol. But then I realized that it's kind of like blood pressure -- too much is bad for you. But if you don't have enough, that could also be bad.”

To much cholesterol is bad for the heart, but not enough can affect brain development and function.

“There is a great tendency for children with autism to have cholesterol below the normal range,” said Arnold. “In fact, it appears to be twice as much from our preliminary look, at what we've screened so far.”

To better understand the potential link between autism and low cholesterol, researchers at Ohio State University Medical Center teamed up with the National Institutes of Health. In a randomized, double-blind study, doctors will enroll children with autism between the ages of 4-11 who have lower levels of cholesterol. For 12 weeks, half of the children will be given extra cholesterol to see if it helps ease their symptoms.

"It's possible that too-low cholesterol could be one of several causes of autism, affecting a subgroup of children with autism," said Arnold.

One family said the treatment has already helped their 5-year-old daughter.

WATCH: Doctors Boost Cholestorol To Treat Autism

“Rose was about 18 months old when we started noticing almost a digression of skills” said Rose's mother, Angela Barker. “She started losing eye contact; she never did begin to talk; her motor skills seemed to decline. She never hugged me or kissed me until she was 3.”

Rose Barker was part of the first round of studies involving cholesterol. The Barkers added small packets of cholesterol to Rose's yogurt twice a day.

“Personally, for us, the cholesterol has changed our life, said Angela Barker. “It was exactly what she needed. Her development started almost immediately. She smiles again; she runs; she has awesome motor skills. She can keep up with her siblings; she can learn; she can write her name. It's truly, truly, truly been life-changing.”

"The nice thing about this is that we can do a test, a blood test, to find out if a youngster is likely to respond to this particular treatment," said Arnold.

But researchers have a word of caution for parents.

"It's important that we not just rush out and try to give everybody with autism cholesterol, because for some of them it may be harmful," said Arnold.

For additional information about the current study at Ohio State, contact Stacey Moone at 614-292-3971 or email Stacey.Moone@osumc.edu.

Copyright 2011 by ClickOnDetroit.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

St. Joseph Health System Employees Must Get Flu Shots

2011-01-07T05:04:00.000-08:00

St. Joseph Health System Employees Must Get Flu Shots

Updated: Thursday, 06 Jan 2011, 9:23 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 06 Jan 2011, 9:23 PM EST

By ROBIN SCHWARTZ
WJBK | myFOXDetroit.com

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (WJBK) - Every year the Centers for Disease Control recommends it. Everyone six months of age or older is urged to get a flu shot.

However, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System is taking that recommendation a step further. They are requiring all employees to get vaccines for flu and whopping cough or lose their jobs.

"I heard numerous stories, very sad. A pregnant woman was sitting there waiting to get her vaccine very nervous, crying. When they called her name, she ended up just running out of the room. She just couldn't do it," said Audra Arndt.

She is an attorney for several employees that say the new policy violates their rights.

The health system said about 50-percent of workers do not get a flu shot when given the option. Some, such as Arndt's brother-in-law, have never had one.

"He just does not want to get a flu shot. We don't know the long-term effects of these flu shots. Every year, the flu shot is something different. It contains antibodies for a different strain," Arndt said.

The new policy was first outlined in a memo back in November. In it, the health system said they rarely issue mandatory requirements like this, but they believe this is necessary to protect the health and well-being of everyone they serve.

A statement issued Thursday called the vaccines "clinically proven preventive measures against these highly infectious and potentially fatal viruses." It went on to say they are the "most effective way to prevent the spread of illness and create a healthier environment."

Employees have until January 10 to role up their sleeves or pack up their desks.

"Nobody wants to lose their job in today's economy, and I think as the clock keeps ticking and it comes down to the wire … I think most people probably end up giving in like it or not," said Arndt.

Similar policies have led to lawsuits in other states. Hospital employees across the country are watching to see what will happen.

St. Joseph Health System Employees Must Get Flu Shots: MyFoxDETROIT.com

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/st.-joseph-health-system-employees-must-get-flu-shots-20110106

Antibiotics have little impact on ear infections

2010-11-17T14:12:00.000-08:00

Study: Antibiotics have little impact on child ear infections
By Miriam Falco, CNN Medical Managing Editor
November 17, 2010 10:04 a.m. EST

(CNN) -- Giving children antibiotics for ear infections does little to speed their recovery while raising the risk of some side effects, according to a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study found that 80 out of 100 otherwise healthy children would recover from an acute ear infection within a few days if given medication only to relieve pain or fevers. If all 100 were given antibiotics instead, 92 would be better in the same period, said Dr. Tumaini Coker, the study's lead author.

"But we would also expect three to 10 kids to develop rash and five to 10 to develop diarrhea," said Coker, a pediatrician at Mattel Children's Hospital at the University of California-Los Angeles.

Coker noted that the increased number of children in the study who benefited from treatment with antibiotics was similar to the number that could be expected to get side effects from the antibiotic treatment.

"Clinicians and parents need to know the benefits and side effects on how to manage their child's ear infection," Coker said.

The study was designed to review existing research on the topic for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is in the process of revising its guidelines for treating uncomplicated acute otitis media -- ear infections that cause pain and fever. The pediatricians' group and the American Academy of Family Physicians have suggested since 2004 that "observation" -- avoiding antibiotics -- is an option for treating ear infections in otherwise healthy children between the ages of 2 and 12.

Of the three basic types of ear infections, acute otitis media may benefit from antibiotics because it is often caused by a bacteria. But it also can be caused by a virus, which won't respond to antibiotics.

Another type of ear infection, otitis media with effusion, causes a buildup of fluid in the middle ear. That is also caused by a viral infection, against which antibiotics are ineffective. But antibiotics usually work for the third type, otitis externa, or "swimmer's ear."

It is the academy's policy to review guidelines every three to five years, according to Dr. Allan Lieberthal, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente in the Los Angeles area and chairman of the academy's committee revising the guidelines.

Lieberthal said that while he is not in a position to say what the new guidelines will be, the results of this study, which summarizes a much larger report on existing data, will factor into the new recommendations.

"We're hoping to be finished with the new guidelines by this spring," Lieberthal said.

The study found that it doesn't matter which antibiotic is used to treat an ear infection when antibiotics are warranted. It found older types such as amoxicillin work as well as newer and more expensive antibiotics. Coker said for a child who weighs 44 pounds (20 kilograms), a seven-day course of cefdinir costs about $96, while the same course of amoxicillin costs $34. The cheaper drug was prescribed in 49 percent of cases, according to the research. Lieberthal said newer antibiotics generally produce more side effects because they are more complex drugs.

Using antibiotics only when absolutely necessary may allow continued use of antibiotics for future generations, because overuse of the drugs is contributing to antibiotic resistance, the doctors said.

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched a campaign called "Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work." Educating parents about ear infections is one of the targets of the campaign, said Lauri Hicks, the campaign's medical director. Hicks said antibiotic resistance "represents a community problem" because every time bacteria get exposed to antibiotics, "they put on a new coat of armor that reduces the effectiveness of antibiotics."

Hicks said she understands parents want their children to feel better, but they can always ask their doctor or pharmacist if there are alternatives to antibiotics.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/16/antibiotics.ear.infections/index.html?hpt=C2
www.wellness4lifechiro.com

Tylenol's 9th recall this year

2010-10-29T11:49:00.001-07:00

Johnson & Johnson Recalls Yet More Tylenol Products
Strange Odor Caused by Chemical Leads to Another Recall
By KIM CAROLLO, ABC News Medical Unit
Oct. 19, 2010

The trouble continues for Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Tylenol. More of its adult pain relievers have been recalled voluntarily because of complaints about a strange, musty odor. It's the ninth time in a year that Johnson & Johnson's products have been taken from store shelves.

In a statement, Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Consumer Health division announced it is recalling one product lot of 50-count bottles of Tylenol 8 Hour Caplets. That's about 128,000 bottles.

"McNeil is taking this acdtion following a small number of complaints of a musty or moldy odor," McNeil said in the statement. The company said it believes the odor is caused by a chemical called 2,4,6-tribromoanisole (TBA).

It's not the first time this chemical has caused a Tylenol recall. In December and January, McNeil recalled nearly 60 million bottles of Tylenol Arthritis Relief Caplets and a number of other products after consumers complained of stomach problems linked to the same chemical. TBA comes from the breakdown of a chemical in wood pallets used to transport and store the packaging materials for the bottles.

According to ABC News Senior Medical Editor Dr. Richard Besser, the stomach problems some people experienced are not serious.

"They're not that severe - we're talking about vomiting, diarrhea," Besser said after news of the December recall.

When asked whether more product could be recalled as a result of contamination with TBA, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman would not comment. She did say that it's a different recall, but related to the same issue as the one in December.

The spokeswoman also said no other lots containing TBA have been identified and the company will continue surveillance for the chemical.

Back in July, McNeil announced a recall of 21 different product lots, including Children's Tylenol, Benadryl and Motrin.

And in the largest recall of children's medicine in history, Johnson & Johnson pulled more than 136 million bottles of Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl -- more than 40 products in all -- in April.

There have also been accusations of shady practices by the drug giant, including a "phantom recall," during which employees of a company hired by Johnson & Johnson were allegedly sent to buy affected Motrin off store shelves in lieu of a product recall. In September, a deputy commissioner at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration testified before Congress that the agency did not act quickly enough to stop the phantom recall.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/tylenol-recall-hour-caplets-recalled-johnson-johnson-ninth/story?id=11917374
www.wellness4lifechiro.com

When medications cause problems they are supposed to prevent

2010-10-18T11:17:00.000-07:00

News Analysis
When Drugs Cause Problems They Are Supposed to Prevent
By GINA KOLATA
Published: October 16, 2010 New York Times

In the past month, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that in some cases two types of drugs that were supposed to be preventing serious medical problems were, in fact, causing them.

One is bisphosphonates, which is widely used to prevent the fractures, especially of the hip and spine, that are common in people with osteoporosis. Those drugs, like Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva, will now have to carry labels saying they can lead to rare fractures of the thigh bone, a surprising new discovery that came after another surprise — that they can cause a rare degeneration of the jawbone.

The other is Avandia, which is widely prescribed for diabetics, whose disease puts them at risk for heart attacks and heart failure. Two-thirds of diabetics die of heart problems, and a main reason for taking drugs like Avandia is to protect them from that.

But now the F.D.A. and drug regulators in Europe are restricting Avandia’s use because it appears to increase heart risks.

In the case of bisphosphonates, the benefits for people with osteoporosis still outweigh the risk, bone experts say. And no one has restricted their use.

But the fact remains that with decades of using drugs to treat chronic diseases, the unexpected can occur.

Something new is happening, said Daniel Carpenter, a government professor at Harvard who is an expert on the drug agency. The population is aging, many have chronic diseases. And companies are going after giant markets, huge parts of the population, heavily advertising drugs that are to be taken for a lifetime.

And the way drugs are evaluated, with the emphasis on shorter-term studies before marketing, is not helping, Dr. Carpenter said.

“Here is a wide-scale institutional failure,” he said. “We have placed far more resources and requirements upon premarket assessment of drugs than on postmarket.”

Dr. Jason Karlawish, a University of Pennsylvania ethicist who studies the ways new treatments are developed and disseminated, expressed a similar concern.

“The point is not that the drugs are bad, but that drugs for these chronic diseases present a novel set of challenges about how to assess their safety,” he said.

But such discussions make Dr. Ethel Siris, an osteoporosis expert at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, nervous. Bisphosphonates have been extensively studied, she said, and the thigh fractures from bisphosphonates — while surprising — are very rare. Dr. Siris’s fear is that people who really need the drugs will turn away from them.

It is not clear how the nation should respond to the new era of widespread drug use for chronic diseases.

“The basic underlying theme is that we don’t have good long-term safety indices for common chronic diseases that we are treating with major drugs,” said Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, director of the Maine Center for Osteoporosis Research. Dr. Rosen, in addition to studying osteoporosis, was on an advisory committee of the drug agency that examined the evidence that Avandia was linked to heart risks.

The difficulty is in figuring out how to assess the safety of drugs that will be taken for decades, when the clinical trials last at most a few years.

Today’s system, which largely consists of asking doctors to report adverse reactions and of researchers’ attempts to look at patient experiences in a variety of diverse databases, like records of large health plans, is ineffective, medical experts agree.

“There has to be a better system,” Dr. Rosen said.

Congress recently gave the drug agency the power to require studies after drug approval, but the agency has used it sparingly.

Some, like Dr. Rosen and Dr. Carpenter, would like large clinical trials after a drug is approved and continuing for years, even for drugs that met all the premarket requirements.

Dr. Karlawish questions whether this is practical. Once a drug is approved, it can be difficult to persuade doctors to assign their patients randomly to one approved treatment or another, and the sort of studies being suggested would go on for many years, making them difficult.

He favors something different — the development of a national electronic drug database that would reveal drug use and complications. In the meantime, Dr. Karlawish said, he could not help marveling at the paradox of drugs causing what they were supposed to prevent.

“This is priceless,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/health/policy/17drug.html?_r=2&hpw

www.wellness4lifechiro.com

Vaccinated People getting Whooping Cough

2010-10-18T11:11:00.001-07:00

Vaccinated People Getting Whooping Cough In SD

By Joanne Faryon

September 7, 2010

SAN DIEGO — A KPBS investigation has raised questions about how effective the whooping cough vaccine is in preventing people from getting sick. Nearly two out of three people diagnosed with whooping cough in San Diego County this year, were fully immunized.

California is in the midst of the worst whooping cough epidemic in 50 years. Thirty six hundred people in the state have been diagnosed with the disease. Eight babies have died since January.

KPBS examined data from San Diego County’s Health and Human Services Agency. Of the 332 confirmed cases of whooping cough in the county so far this year, 197 of the people who got sick were up to date with their immunizations. That's nearly 2 out of 3 cases.

Dean Sidelinger is the county’s deputy health officer.

“It’s a little higher then we expected, but certainly we do still feel the vaccine provides protection and it’s an important health tool to try and prevent this disease.”

Research in the Netherlands suggests the bacterium which causes whooping cough, or pertussis, may be mutating and contributing to whooping cough outbreaks worldwide.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/sep/07/vaccinated-people-getting-whooping-cough-sd/

www.Wellness4lifechiro.com

How to Brand a disease

2010-10-11T05:54:00.000-07:00

How to brand a disease -- and sell a cure
By Carl Elliott, Special to CNN
October 11, 2010 7:38 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: Dr. Carl Elliott, an M.D. and Ph.D., is the author of "White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine" (Beacon Press, 2010).

(CNN) -- If you want to understand the way prescription drugs are marketed today, have a look at the 1928 book, "Propaganda," by Edward Bernays, the father of public relations in America.

For Bernays, the public relations business was less about selling things than about creating the conditions for things to sell themselves. When Bernays was working as a salesman for Mozart pianos, for example, he did not simply place advertisements for pianos in newspapers. That would have been too obvious.

Instead, Bernays persuaded reporters to write about a new trend: Sophisticated people were putting aside a special room in the home for playing music. Once a person had a music room, Bernays believed, he would naturally think of buying a piano. As Bernays wrote, "It will come to him as his own idea."

Just as Bernays sold pianos by selling the music room, pharmaceutical marketers now sell drugs by selling the diseases that they treat. The buzzword is "disease branding."

To brand a disease is to shape its public perception in order to make it more palatable to potential patients. Panic disorder, reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, restless legs syndrome, bipolar disorder, overactive bladder, ADHD, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, even clinical depression: All these conditions were once regarded as rare until a marketing campaign transformed the brand.

Once a branded disease has achieved a degree of cultural legitimacy, there is no need to convince anyone that a drug to treat it is necessary. It will come to him as his own idea.

Disease branding works especially well for two kinds of conditions. The first is the shameful condition that can be destigmatized. For instance, when Pharmacia launched Detrol in the late 1990s, the condition the drug treated was known to doctors as "urge incontinence." Patients called it "accidentally peeing in my pants" and were embarrassed to bring it up with their physicians.

Pharmacia fixed the problem by rebranding the condition as "overactive bladder." Whereas "incontinence" suggested weakness and was associated mainly with elderly women, the phrase "overactive bladder" evoked a supercharged organ frantically working overtime.

To qualify for a diagnosis of "overactive bladder," patients did not actually have to lose bladder control." They simply needed to go to the bathroom a lot.

The vice president of Pharmacia, Neil Wolf, explained the branding strategy in a 2002 presentation called "Positioning Detrol: Creating a Disease." By creating the disease of "overactive bladder," Wolf claimed, Pharmacia created a market of 21 million potential patients.

Another good candidate for branding is a condition that can be plausibly portrayed as under-diagnosed. Branding such a condition assures potential patients that they are part of a large and credible community of sufferers. For example, in 1999, the FDA approved the antidepressant Paxil for the treatment of "social anxiety disorder," a condition previously known as "shyness."

In order to convince shy people they had social anxiety disorder, GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil, hired a PR firm called Cohn and Wolfe. Cohn and Wolfe put together a public awareness campaign called "Imagine being allergic to people," which was allegedly sponsored by a group called the "Social Anxiety Disorders Coalition."

GlaxoSmithKline also recruited celebrities like Ricky Williams, the NFL running back, and paid them to give interviews to the press about their own social anxiety disorder. Finally, they hired academic psychiatrists working on social anxiety disorder and sent them out on the lecture circuit in the top 25 media markets.

The results were remarkable. In the two years before Paxil was approved for social anxiety, there were only about 50 references to social anxiety disorder in the press. But in 1999, during the PR campaign, there were over a billion references.

Within two years Paxil had become the seventh most profitable drug in America, and Cohn and Wolfe had picked up an award for the best PR campaign of 1999. Today, social anxiety disorder, far from being rare, is often described as the third most common mental illness in the world.

It is hard to brand a disease without the help of physicians, of course. So drug companies typically recruit academic "thought leaders" to write and speak about any new conditions they are trying to introduce. It also helps if the physicians believe the branded condition is dangerous.

When AstraZeneca introduced Prilosec (and later Nexium) for heartburn, for example, it famously repositioned heartburn as "gastroesophageal reflux disease," or GERD. But it also commissioned research to demonstrate the devastating consequences of failing to treat it.

If all drugs were harmless, disease branding would be relatively harmless, too. But no drug is completely benign.

For example, Detrol can make elderly people delirious and may cause memory problems. Paxil is associated with sexual dysfunction and dependence. It also carries a black-box warning for suicide in children and adolescents. Side effects like these are a part of every drug. But they are never part of the brand.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Carl Elliott.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/11/elliott.branding.disease/index.html?hpt=C2

www.Wellness4LifeChiro.com

Vitamin D fights the Flu

2010-09-22T11:43:00.001-07:00

Vitamin D proven far better than vaccines at preventing influenza infections
Thursday, September 16, 2010by Mike Adams, the Health RangerEditor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) If scientists discovered something that worked better than vaccines at preventing influenza, you'd think they would jump all over it, right? After all, isn't the point to protect children and adults from influenza?

A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a "rigorous" scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence.

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...).

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups:

Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo
Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day)
Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine injection
Group #4 receives an inert injection

Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines.

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won't subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D.
Vitamin D also significantly reduced asthma in children
Getting back to the study, another fascinating result from the trial is that if you remove those children from the study who were already being given vitamin D by their parents, so that you are only looking at children who started out with no vitamin D supplementation before the trial began, the results look even better as vitamin D reduced relative infection risk by nearly two-thirds.

More than six out of ten children who would have normally been infected with influenza, in other words, were protected by vitamin D supplementation.

Also revealed in the study: vitamin D strongly suppressed symptoms of asthma. In children with a previous asthma diagnosis, 12 of those receiving no vitamin D experienced asthma attacks. But in the vitamin D group, only 2 children did.

While this subset sample size is small, it does offer yet more evidence that vitamin D prevents asthma attacks in children, and this entirely consistent with the previous evidence on vitamin D which shows it to be a powerful nutrient for preventing asthma.
Vaccine pushers aren't followers of real science
Now, given that vitamin D3 shows such a powerful effect in preventing influenza -- with 800% increased efficacy over vaccines -- shouldn't CDC officials, doctors and health authorities be rushing to recommend vitamin D before flu season arrives?

Of course they should. But they won't. Because for them, it's not about actually preventing influenza and it never has been. The vaccine pushing camp is primarily interested in using influenza as an excuse to vaccinate more people regardless of whether such vaccines are useful (or safe).

Even if vitamin D offered 100% protection against all influenza infections, they still wouldn't recommend it.

Why? Because they flatly don't believe in nutrition! It runs counter to their med school programming which says that nutrients are useless and only drugs, vaccines and surgery count as real medicine.

The vaccine pushers, you see, aren't followers of real science. You could publish a hundred studies proving how vitamin D is many times more effective than vaccines and they still would never recommend it.

They are promoters of medical dogma rather than real solutions for patients. They promote vaccines because... well... that's what they've always promoted, and that's what their colleagues promote. And how could so many smart people be wrong, anyway?

But that's the history of science: A whole bunch of really smart people turn out to be wrong on a regular basis. That's usually how science advances, by the way: A new idea challenges an old assumption, and after all the defenders of the old (wrong) idea die off, science manages to inch its way forward against the hoots and heckles of a determined dogmatic resistance.

This attitude is blatantly reflected in a quote from Dr John Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine in London, whose reaction to this study was: "This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin D at the same time as we vaccinate." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...)

Did you notice his concluding remark? He wasn't even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace vaccines. Rather, he's assuming vitamin D only has value if given together with vaccines!

You see this in the cancer industry, too, with anti-cancer herbs and nutrients. Any time an anti-cancer nutrient gains some press (which isn't very often), the cancer doctor will say things like, "Well, this might be useful to give to a patient after chemotherapy..." but never as a replacement for chemo, you see.

Many mainstream doctors and medical scientists are simply incapable of thinking outside the very limiting boxes into which their brains have been shoved through years of de-education in medical schools. When they see evidence contrary to what they've been taught, they foolishly dismiss it.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell
Medical journals as guardians of ignorance
Medical journals largely function not as beacons of scientific truth but as defenders of pseudoscientific dogma. To have your paper published in most journals, your paper must meet the expectations and beliefs of that journal's editor. Thus, the advancement of scientific knowledge reflected in each journal is limited to the current beliefs of just one person -- the editor of that journal.

Truly pioneering research that challenges the status quo is almost always rejected. Only papers that confirm the presently-held beliefs of the journal's editorial staff are accepted for publication. This is one reason why medical science, in particular, advances so slowly.

Studies that show vitamin D to be more effective than vaccines will rarely see the light of day in the scientific community. It is to the great credit of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in fact, that it accepted the publication of this paper by Mitsuyoshi Urashima. Most medical journals wouldn't dare touch it because it questions status quo beliefs about vaccines and influenza.

Medical journals, you see, are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. And Big Pharma doesn't want to see any studies lending credibility to vitamins, regardless of their scientific merit. Even if vitamin D could save America billions of dollars in reduced health care costs (which it can, actually), they don't want vitamin D to receive any scientific backing whatsoever because drug companies can't patent vitamin D. It's readily available to everyone for mere pennies a day.

In time, it will be recognized as superior to vaccines for seasonal flu, but for now, we must all suffer under the foolish propaganda of an industry that has abandoned science and now worships a needle.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html

www.Wellness4LifeChiro.com

Car Wash This Saturday

2010-08-17T12:45:00.000-07:00

This saturday from 9 am to 1pm, the Huron Soccer Valley Soccer Club is going to be having a car wash at Wellness 4 Life Chiropractic! Bring your cars! Proceeds going to a great organization. For more details call 810-632-5252

Drug Recalls Surge

2010-08-16T13:54:00.000-07:00

Drug recalls surge

Drug recalls hit a new record in 2009, with one company accounting for more than 1,000 of them. By Parija Kavilanz, senior writerAugust 16, 2010: 12:01 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Recalls of prescription and over the counter drugs are surging, raising questions about the quality of drug manufacturing in the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration reported more than 1,742 recalls last year, skyrocketing from 426 in 2008, according to the Gold Sheet, a trade publication on drug quality that analyzes FDA data.

One company, drug repackager Advantage Dose, accounted for more than 1,000 of those recalls. Even excluding Advantage Dose, which has shut down, recalls jumped 50% last year.

"We've seen a trend where the last four years are among the top five for the most number of drug recalls since we began tallying recalls in 1988," said Bowman Cox, managing editor of the Gold Sheet. "That's a meaningful development."

The fast pace of drug recalls seems to be continuing in 2010. Drug recalls totaled 296 from January through June of this year, said Cox. "If we continue at this same rate, we could get 600 or more recalls by the end of the year," he said. "That's still a very high rate of recalls."

High-profile recalls of Tylenol and other products by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a unit of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, Fortune 500), have drawn attention to quality concerns in manufacturing.

The mounting problems over recalls have also drawn attention from lawmakers. Two bills introduced this year would impose stricter regulations on the industry and give the FDA authority to mandate recalls.

The spike in recalls, especially of generic and over-the-counter drugs, is being driven by manufacturing lapses, experts say. Some of the biggest culprits: the quality of raw materials, faulty labeling and packaging and contamination.

Increased FDA scrutiny of drug production facilities may also be triggering recalls.

For its part, the FDA maintains that it hasn't identified any alarming patterns in last year's recalls.

An FDA official told the Gold Sheet that 2009 saw no increase in recall "incidents" -- or recalls involving one product problem at a company -- just more recalls per incident.

"Since every recall situation is unique, it would be difficult to assess whether there are any trends or increases in recalls this year," FDA spokeswoman Elaine Gansz Bobo told CNNMoney. "At this time, however, we have not identified any trends."
Cause for concern

A number of factors are fueling the recall surge. The stampede by drugmakers to be first to bring generic versions to market, after drugs lose patent protection, is one of them.

"The first applicant typically gets the lion's share of the business for the new drug," said Cox.

Generic drugs account for about three quarters of all prescription drug sales, according to industry group PhRMA.

In their hurry, drugmakers sometimes fail to spend enough time time learning how best to make the drug.

For example, Detroit-based Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories issued four "tablet-thickness" recalls on March 31, 2009, an additional one on June 8 and yet another recall on April 17 for products that might have been contaminated, said Cox.

"So they get the application. They make and market the drug, but they could still have problems down the road if they haven't really understood the optimum way to make that drug," said Cox.

Caraco could not be reached for comment.

Drugmakers aren't the only ones that have run into problems. Repackagers that relabel drugs into smaller units for resale or distribution to health care facilities, have also had serious lapses.

Advantage Dose, which led last year's recalls by far, is one such company. It issued 1,106 recalls last year following the FDA's inspection of its facility in late 2008. According to the Gold Sheet report, the FDA's inspection listed a wide range of manufacturing problems.
Cost pressures

Another reason for the recalls: Cost cutting that goes too close to the bone.

Drugmakers, facing intense competition, are trimming manufacturing investment or outsourcing production, said Prabir Basu, executive director of the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education, a nonprofit scientific and research organization.

"It is very expensive to make drugs. It also costs a lot of money to maintain adequate quality controls," Basu said. "You have to invest a lot."

And since generic and over the counter drugs aren't as lucrative for drugmakers as prescription drugs, companies may not be investing enough resources to make high-quality, safe products.

"We still have the best at drug manufacturing here in the United States. But if we're seeing signs of trouble, imagine what's happening outside of the U.S. in other countries from where we import drugs," said Basu.

The Gold Sheet report said that 165 recalls last year were of products made, or believed to be made, abroad. That was up 58% from 2008.

"Overall, I am concerned about the quality of drugs," said Basu.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/16/news/companies/drug_recall_surge/index.htm?hpt=T2

2010-08-11T06:06:00.001-07:00

Backpack Safety in Livingston Press and Argus 8-11-2010

2010-08-11T06:00:00.001-07:00

BACKPACK SAFETY

With the first day of school just around the corner, many children have already begun their annual end of summer tradition of back-to-school shopping. Whether it is the transformer notebook, twilight movie folder or Sponge Bob Square Pants eraser, many children are looking for latest and greatest school supplies. One of the essential back-to-school items is of course the backpack. Choosing a backpack should be about proper ergonomics, function and fit instead of “what’s cool”. Backpacks have the potential to cause a lifetime of back and neck ailments for your child if not chosen and worn correctly. Not all backpacks are created equal. Here are three important components to making sure your backpack won’t affect your child’s posture and health.

Backpack Features

Adjustable Shoulder Straps - Adjustable shoulder straps are important because they help align the backpack properly. It also takes unnecessary pressure off of your child’s back and neck.

Wide and Padded Straps - Straps that are wide and padded help to dissipate the weight of the pack over a larger area, creating less pressure points.

Padded Back - A padded back will provide increased comfort and also will protect your child from being poked by sharp edges on school supplies (pencils, rulers, scissors, notebooks, etc.) inside the pack.

Multiple Compartments Within the Backpack - A backpack with individualized compartments helps position the contents most effectively. It also helps prevent items from moving around which will affect the biomechanical stress put on your child’s back and shoulders.

Abdominal and Chest Straps/Buckles - These help to distribute the pack’s weight evenly on the back, waist and hips and therefore take some of the stress of the shoulders.

Reflectors or Reflective Fabric – This feature will add visibility to children when walking to and from the bus stop at dusk or dawn.

Wheels – Can the backpack be wheeled? This is a great feature if used that can help students by allowing them to wheel their supplies instead of having to carry them.

Proper Fit

Backpack Size – The bottom of the backpack should align with the curve of the lower back, and should not be more than 4 inches below the waistline. Last year’s backpack may not be a good fit this year. Plus over time backpacks get worn out and should be replaced as needed.

Shoulder Strap Size - A backpack’s shoulder strap anchor points should rest 1 to 2 inches below the top of the shoulders.

Comfort – It is important that the backpack feel comfortable to the child. The backpack should be evenly centered in the middle of your child's back.

Proper Use

It does matter if you have a backpack that fits properly and has all the bells and whistles if you do not use it correctly. Wearing a backpack properly is vital in preventing injury. It is important to use both shoulder straps, not just one. Lugging a heavy backpack by one strap can cause a disproportionate shift of weight to one side, leading to neck and muscle spasms, low-back pain, and poor posture. Using the belt and chest buckles will also help distribute the weight properly. Make sure that pointy or bulky objects are packed farthest away from your child's back, and place the heaviest items (text books) closest to the body. Finally and most importantly, a backpack should NEVER weigh more than 15% of the child’s weight. If possible, less than 10% of the child’s weight is ideal. A child that weighs 100 pounds should not carry a backpack of more than 15 pounds. Do you know how much your child’s backpack weighs?

Through the month of August, Dr. Rosner is offering complimentary backpack analysis. If you would like to have your child’s backpack checked for proper fit please give his office a call at 810-632-5252.

http://livingstoncounty.mi.newsmemory.com/default.php?pSetup=livingstoncounty_moms

Drug company get slap on the wrist

2010-07-26T14:23:00.000-07:00

Drug company to pay state $584,000 in settlement

Associated Press

Lansing -- Attorney General Mike Cox says a subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson will pay $584,000 to the state's Medicaid Trust Fund as part of a lawsuit settlement.

It was announced in April that Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims by the government that it illegally promoted the epilepsy drug Topamax for a variety of psychiatric uses.

Michigan's share of the settlement was decided Friday and announced today by the attorney general's office.

Cox's office says an additional $1 million will go to the federal government for its share of state Medicaid claims.

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals has said it's been cooperating with the government since the investigation began in December 2003.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100726/METRO/7260391/1361/Drug-company-to-pay-state-$584-000-in-settlement#ixzz0upGuhGgR

Analysis: Blue Cross, Blue Shield plans stockpiled surpluses while raising premiums

2010-07-26T04:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20100722/NEWS01/100722011/Analysis++Blue+Cross++Blue+Shield+plans+stockpiled+surpluses+while+raising+premiums

The Powers of Vitamin D

2010-07-06T16:22:00.000-07:00

Vitamin D deficiency on the rise

Research suggests it has health benefits, but doctors say many people not getting enough

Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News

Susan Waun remembers her doctor was skeptical when she asked for a vitamin D test.

That changed when the test showed she was deficient. Since then, Waun's doctor has given her a prescription dosage that increased her vitamin D level.

A growing body of research suggests the vitamin -- long known to ward off rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults -- also shows promise in fighting scores of ailments, including heart attacks, cancer, autism, arthritis, migraine headaches and even depression.

More doctors are testing patients' levels as a federal committee prepares a vitamin D report scheduled for release this year.

"I feel better that I've discovered something that could have a long-term effect" on preventing serious disease, said Waun, a Lathrup Village resident.

Vitamin D, found only in a limited number of foods such as salmon and tuna, is produced naturally in the body through sunlight.

But officials say the number of people deficient in vitamin D is reaching epidemic proportions, as more forgo the sun over fears of skin cancer and other skin damage.

Many also live in regions far away from the equator, making it more difficult to get adequate sun exposure to produce vitamin D naturally. The maximum amount of possible sunshine from sunrise to sunset with clear skies in Detroit is 53 percent annually, compared to 70 percent in Miami and 73 percent in Los Angeles, according to Comparative Climatic Data, a report by three federal agencies.

Federal officials issued guidelines for recommended daily vitamin D intake in 1997. The suggested amounts range from 200 to 600 units, depending on age.

But new recommendations could be on the horizon: The Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board has just completed its final meetings of a yearlong examination of vitamin D, and a report on recommended levels is expected later this summer or early fall, said Matthew Spear, senior program assistant.

Vitamin D technically is not a vitamin but a steroid hormone system in the skin. It is critical because it regulates more than 1,000 genes, said Dr. John Cannell, executive director and founder of the Vitamin D Council in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

"Treating vitamin D deficiencies has a good chance to profoundly change the practice of medicine," Cannell said.

More doctors are starting to test their patients' vitamin D levels with a blood test. Although data is not available for Michigan, Quest Diagnostics, one of the world's largest medical testing labs, which is based in Madison, N.J., reported a 50 percent growth in vitamin D tests during the last quarter of 2009 over the previous year, said spokeswoman Wendy Bost.

Vitamin D eases symptoms

Among the doctors who screen patients' vitamin D levels is Dr. James Dowd, a Brighton-based rheumatologist. He personally discovered an optimum level of vitamin D can make a difference when he was struggling with insomnia, muscle cramps and aching joints at age 40. Many of his patients were complaining of the same thing.

He started taking supplements and his symptoms vanished. He has since been testing all of his patients' vitamin D levels and prescribes supplements when necessary.

"It amazing how such a simple change made a difference in how they felt," said Dowd, who wrote the book "The Vitamin D Cure."

Dr. Paul Erhmann, a Royal Oak general practitioner, also tests patients for vitamin D deficiency.

He said it's important to monitor levels since too much of the fat-soluble vitamin can lead to neurological or kidney problems.

"We've been surprised by people who are vitamin D deficient," Erhmann said. "It's an important risk factor for a lot of preventable problems."

Tied to disease prevention

Research began decades ago when epidemiologists noticed fewer people suffered from chronic diseases who lived in regions with more sun exposure. Hundreds of studies have since shown links between optimum level of vitamin D and prevention of disease.

"It's one issue but it's a very, very important issue because it can be so easily addressed and so inexpensively addressed," Cannell said.

New federal research released last month is dashing hopes about the potential that vitamin D could have in reducing the risk of some cancers. Though some studies have shown a risk reduction in colorectal cancer with higher levels of vitamin D, a large study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute found adequate levels of vitamin D offered no protection against cancers such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or cancers of the esophagus, stomach, kidney, ovary or pancreas.

"We did not see lower cancer risk in persons with high vitamin D blood concentrations compared to normal concentrations for any of these cancers," said Demetrius Albanes, an investigator in the study that appeared online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Even so, many Metro Detroiters are turning to supplements or extra sunshine, just in case.

Leigh Anne Cutcher thought it was funny when she saw her cousin sprawled out in the sun, hoping to boost her vitamin D levels.

But not long after, Cutcher, 47, went to her doctor and found out she needed more of the "sunshine vitamin."

Cutcher, of Farmington Hills, has since been taking vitamin D regularly to give her body what it needs.

"When you have something low or out of balance," she said, "it's important to know it so you can proactively address it and avoid some of those health issues."

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100705/LIFESTYLE03/7050326/Vitamin-D-deficiency-on-the-rise

Livingston County Press and Argus Wellness Edition Published Article

2010-06-30T06:15:00.000-07:00

See page 19 for my article "Preventing Weekend Injuries"

http://livingstoncounty.mi.newsmemory.com/default.php?pSetup=livingstoncounty_life

MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine

2010-06-29T13:08:00.001-07:00

MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine

Posted by Tiffany O'Callaghan Monday, June 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm

New research published in the journal Pediatrics finds that giving children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and chicken pox vaccines in two separate shots reduces the risk for febrile seizures, or fever-related convulsions that are not associated with conditions such as epilepsy. The analysis was based on data for 459,000 children between 1 and 2 years old.

Researchers found that children given the two vaccines in one combination shot had twice the risk for febrile seizures compared with those who were given the two vaccines separately. But, as Katherine Hobson points out for the Wall Street Journal health blog, the risk for seizures still remains very low — the combination shot was associated with one additional seizure per 2,300 doses.

The total risk for seizure with either vaccine is less than 1 in 1,000 and febrile seizures are not indicative of more serious conditions involving seizures, such as epilepsy, but they can certainly be terrifying for parents. Based on preliminary data from this research, which was conducted by investigators at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, last year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended either the joint or separate vaccines for children between the ages of 1 and 4, but stated that if parents don't prefer one option to the other, pediatricians should give the vaccines separately.

Read more: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/06/28/mmr-chicken-pox-higher-seizure-risk-with-combo-vaccine/#ixzz0sH5pyzFw

MMR, chicken pox: higher seizure risk with combo vaccine

2010-06-29T13:08:00.000-07:00

U.S. studies conflict on Glaxo diabetes drug risk

2010-06-29T12:48:00.000-07:00

U.S. studies conflict on Glaxo diabetes drug risk

By Lisa Richwine – Mon Jun 28, 6:25 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two studies reported serious heart risks with GlaxoSmithKline Plc's diabetes pill Avandia while a third contradicted those findings, adding to a debate over whether the drug should stay on the market.

The conflicting results were released on Monday, two weeks before an advisory panel meets to sort through a vast amount of data and help decide Avandia's future. The medicine was Glaxo's second-biggest drug but is much smaller after a safety controversy erupted three years ago.

One analysis of 56 clinical trials found Avandia increased the chances of a heart attack by 28 percent to 39 percent, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio said in an update to a 2007 study that sparked debate about the drug.

Dr. Steven Nissen, the lead author and an outspoken Avandia critic, said the results from more than 35,000 patients gave a more complete picture that reinforced his earlier concerns.

"A drug that increases the risk of heart attack by a third or more in diabetics represents a huge public health burden," Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic's head of cardiology, said in an interview. He said the drug should come off the market.
U.S. Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro said the newly published data along with earlier findings "appear to confirm that Avandia is dangerous and should be pulled from the market.

But a study released at an American Diabetes Association meeting in Orlando, Florida, found diabetics taking Avandia were 28 percent less likely to die or have a heart attack or stroke compared with people who did not take a drug in the same class.

The National Institutes of Health-funded analysis looked at a clinical trial of more than 2,300 diabetics with heart disease. Glaxo provided some funding.

KEEPING OPTIONS

The lead researcher, Sheryl Kelsey of the University of Pittsburgh, said Avandia appears safe in high-risk diabetics whose other risk factors, such as smoking and high blood pressure, are under control.

Kelsey said many of her colleagues support keeping Avandia available. "There are people who want to have the choice of diabetes drugs be broad, and Avandia should be an option," she said.

Glaxo shares fell 0.9 percent to close at $34.30 on the New York Stock Exchange. The third study which showed benefits from Avandia was released after U.S. markets closed.

In another study released on Monday, government researchers said an analysis of more than 227,000 U.S. Medicare patients found Avandia was more dangerous to the heart than a rival pill, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd's Actos.

Those findings, reported earlier this month by Reuters and others, were published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association. The lead researcher is Food and Drug Administration reviewer David Graham, who has argued for years that Avandia is too risky.

Top FDA officials have disagreed and Glaxo has vigorously defended the drug, known generically as rosiglitazone.

In February, the FDA said it was again reviewing Avandia's risks. The new studies are "important contributions to the discussion of Avandia's safety," FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein said in an interview.

The agency and the advisory panel that meets in July will consider those findings plus others, including FDA analyses not yet made public, he said.

The panel could urge keeping the drug on the market with a warning, or it could suggest prescribing limits or a ban on future sales. The FDA usually follows panel recommendations.

The FDA, which approved Avandia 11 years ago, will "review all the available evidence," Sharfstein said.

In the meantime, the agency has advised patients to continue using Avandia as directed. The current FDA-approved warning on Avandia says heart attack data are "inconclusive."

Avandia's use fell sharply after Nissen's first study, but it remains widely prescribed with sales of $1.2 billion globally in 2009. For drug giant Glaxo, it is now a small product. U.S. sales for 2009 -- $663 million -- made up 1.5 percent of the company's $44.25 billion in total sales.

DAMAGE DONE

The new studies could further depress use, but "the damage has really been done," Morningstar analyst Damien Conover said. The bigger concern for Glaxo is liability lawsuits if the drug comes off the market, which Conover said was unlikely.
"It's hard for me to see anything incrementally that's come out since the FDA has already taken a look at this issue" to lead to a withdrawal, Conover said.
Capitol Street analyst Ipsita Smolinski estimated a 30 percent to 40 percent chance the FDA panel would urge severe limits or withdrawal, depending on who sits on the committee.

Glaxo said six randomized clinical trials, the gold standard for medical studies, showed Avandia did not increase the overall risk of heart attack, stroke or death.
The studies from Nissen and Graham are among the largest for Avandia, but they rely on a combination of multiple trials or past Medicare claims. Such studies are considered less reliable than randomized clinical trials.

In a commentary discussing Graham's findings, Dr. David Juurlink of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto argued for erring on the side of public safety.

"Accumulating concerns about (Avandia) make it difficult to advance a cogent argument why, exactly, a patient might want to receive the drug," Juurlink wrote.
Many of the 23 million U.S. diabetics take medicines to lower blood sugar. The goal is to prevent disease complications such as blindness, amputations and heart disease, the leading killer of people with diabetes.

But critics say Avandia seems to contribute to heart damage. Nissen's study, published by the Archives of Internal Medicine, estimated one more heart attack would occur for every 37 to 52 people who took the drug for five years.

Graham's analysis, done with researchers at the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, found a 27 percent higher stroke risk for Avandia over Actos, a 25 percent greater risk of heart failure and a 14 percent higher chance of dying.
"In older Americans with diabetes, taking Avandia is detrimental to your health" and patients "are far better off taking (Actos)," Graham said in an interview.

Both Graham and Nissen have been asked to speak to the FDA panel, Sharfstein said.
Diabetics have many alternatives as 12 classes of drugs are approved to lower blood sugar, Nissen said. They include older generic drugs such as metformin and newer medicines such as Merck & Co Inc's Januvia and AstraZeneca Plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's Onglyza.

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine, Susan Heavey, Maggie Fox and Julie Steenhuysen; editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Matthew Lewis)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/hl_nm/us_glaxosmithkline_avandia

Monsanto sues Dairy over advertising

2010-06-21T11:28:00.000-07:00

Monsanto sues Oakhurst Dairy over advertising
Submitted by Drew Kaplan on June 18, 2010 – 9:16 pm24 Comments
Share

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Oakhurst Dairy Inc. is being sued by Monsanto Co., which alleges that Oakhurst’s marketing campaign that touts its milk as being free of artificial growth hormones is misleading. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn’t sell milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels on its milk containers reading “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones.” Monsanto officials said Oakhurst’s ads and labels are deceptive and disparage Monsanto’s products with the inference that milk from untreated cows is better than milk from hormone-treated cows.

“We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they’re marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk,” said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto’s dairy business. “Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that’s unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc. are all the same.”

Oakhurst President Stanley Bennett II said his dairy sells milk without artificial growth hormones because of consumer demands. Oakhurst about five years ago began buying milk only from farms that pledge in writing that they won’t use artificial hormones.

“On principle, it’s also a question of free speech,” Bennett said. “The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing.”

Artificial growth hormone is a genetically engineered veterinary drug given to cows to increase milk production. Another name for the drug is recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST.

Many people oppose the use of rBST, believing it is linked to breast cancer and premature puberty in children. But Monsanto and others argue that no such link exists. Canada and the European Union have banned the use of the hormone, but the Food and Drug Administration has approved it for use in the United States.

Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis and is the leading producer of rBST, had revenues of $4.7 billion in 2002. Oakhurst, based in Portland, had sales of $185 million, according to Bennett.

Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said Monsanto has not filed similar lawsuits against other dairies, but wouldn’t say whether more were planned. Monsanto filed similar suits against two dairies in Illinois about 10 years ago, and both were settled out of court under confidential terms, he said.

The suit against Oakhurst claims unfair competition, unfair business practices and interference with advantageous business relationships.

According to the suit, the business relationships between Monsanto and dairy producers who use the artificial growth hormone have suffered because the farmers will stop using the treatments.

Bennett said his company makes no claims on the science involved with growth hormones. “We’re in the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto’s drugs,” he said.

Earlier this year, Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe rejected a request from Monsanto that Maine abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program that indicates when milk is free of artificial growth hormones.

Monsanto argued that the seal, which was adopted in 1994, misleads consumers into thinking that hormone-free milk is superior to milk using an artificial growth hormone.

http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/06/18/monsanto-sues-oakhurst-dairy-over-advertising/

Business Briefs: County chiropractor celebrates grand opening of Hartland office

2010-06-14T05:45:00.000-07:00

Business Briefs: County chiropractor celebrates grand opening of Hartland office

June 14, 2010

A Livingston County chiropractor and his staff recently celebrated the grand opening of their new office in Hartland Township.

Members of the Hartland Area Chamber of Commerce also helped Dr. Jeremy Rosner mark the opening of Wellness 4 Life Chiropractic, east of U.S. 23 at 11202 W. M-59.

Rosner grew up in West Bloomfield and practiced as an associate in Port Huron. He now calls Hartland Township home both professionally and personally. He and his wife, Hayley, an attorney, reside in Hartland Township.

Rosner aims to provide gentle chiropractic care for families in a friendly environment. The center also has two massage therapists on staff. Rosner has incorporated state-of-the-art technology including computerized assessment tools and digital X-rays into his care plan for patients.

Hours of operation for the new center are Mondays and Wednesdays from 8 a.m. to noon and 1-6 p.m.; Tuesdays from 1-6 p.m.; Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and Fridays from 8 a.m. to noon and 1-5 p.m. The office is open Saturdays and Sundays by appointment.

For more information, call (810) 632-5252 or see www.wellness4lifechiro.com.

2010-06-11T12:46:00.000-07:00

Tanning Beds Triple Melanoma Risk
Skin Cancer Risk Even Higher for Frequent Users of High-Pressure Tanning Beds

By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

May 27, 2010 -- Regular use of tanning beds triples or even quadruples the risk of developing melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, new research finds.

The study is the largest of its kind to examine whether indoor tanning causes skin cancer, and it comes as federal regulators are considering new rules designed to limit the use of commercial tanning by teens.

Compared to people who had never used a tanning bed, indoor tanners had a 74% increased risk for melanoma.

People who spent more than 50 hours tanning indoors had a threefold increase in risk, compared to people who never used a tanning bed, after adjusting for known risk factors for the deadly skin cancer.

The risk was four times higher among frequent users of high-pressure tanning beds, which emit mostly UVA radiation.

Researcher DeAnn Lazovich, PhD, of the University of Minnesota says the study was designed to address the limitations of past research, which have allowed the tanning industry to continue to deny that indoor tanning causes skin cancer.

“Our data would suggest that there is no safe tanning device,” she tells WebMD.

Melanoma, Indoor Tanning Increasing

The American Cancer Society predicted that in 2009, nearly 70,000 Americans would be diagnosed with melanoma and more than 8,500 people would die of the disease.

Melanoma is one of the fastest-growing cancers among whites, increasing by about 2% a year between 1997 and 2006.

During this time, the popularity of indoor tanning exploded, especially among women under age 30. Only a few tanning salons existed in the United States in the early 1980s. Today, by one industry estimate, more than 30 million Americans use commercial tanning beds each year.

Allan Halpern, MD, who is chief of dermatology at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, says the new study suggests a clear link between the increased popularity of indoor tanning and the rise in melanoma.

“One of the challenges in these studies has been that people who use tanning beds also tend to tan in the sun,” he tells WebMD. “That has allowed the industry to claim that indoor tanning isn’t to blame.”

Also, most previous studies did not distinguish between high-speed machines, which emit some UVB rays, and high-pressure machines, which emit almost exclusively UVA rays.

The latest study included nearly 1,200 melanoma patients and a similar number of age- and gender-matched people in a control group. Using questionnaires and telephone interviews, the researchers determined that 63% of the melanoma patients in the study had used a commercial tanning device at least once, compared to 51% of the people without cancer.

Among the other major findings:

* Melanoma risk increased with exposure, measured by total hours of indoor tanning, the number of individual sessions, or years of exposure.
* The increase in risk was seen for both high-speed and high-pressure machines, suggesting that no type of tanning device could be considered safe.
* Burns from indoor tanning were commonly reported.
* The strongest association was seen for melanomas originating on the trunk, which, in women at least, is an area of the body generally exposed to UV rays only during tanning.

The research showed no specific increase in melanoma risk associated with tanning bed use at a young age, but a clear association was seen for increased exposure over time.

The study appears in the June issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Overall exposure was the important thing,” Lazovich says. “Melanoma is the second most common cancer among young women. Young women are particularly vulnerable because they are the most likely to use these devices.”

Tanning Industry Responds

In response to the study, a tanning industry spokesman said the findings are misleading because the researchers did not distinguish between people with major risk factors for melanoma and the general population.

Those risk factors include having very fair skin, having many moles, and having freckles or red hair.

Melanoma patients in the study were five times as likely as non-patients to have very fair skin and nearly 14 times more likely to have many moles.

John Overstreet of the Indoor Tanning Association tells WebMD that the group’s own scientific analysis of the findings suggests that when high-risk groups are removed, indoor tanning may actually lower melanoma risk.

Overstreet also said indoor tanning may protect against cancer by increasing vitamin D, which is produced in the body in response to UV exposure.

Vitamin D researcher Michael Holick, MD, tells WebMD that although indoor tanning may boost vitamin D levels, he does not recommend it.

“I have never advocated tanning,” he says. “What I have said is that people who want to do it using tanning beds to increase their vitamin D in the winter should do it responsibly. That means protecting your face and staying in for 50% of the time recommended for tanning.”
Feds May Soon Restrict Indoor Tanning

Last year, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) weighed in, concluding that indoor tanning does cause melanoma.

In March, an FDA panel met to consider regulatory changes that could restrict access to tanning salons.

Although an outright ban is unlikely, many believe the group will require minors to have their parents' permission if they want to use commercial tanning devices.

Headache Prevention

2010-06-09T12:29:00.000-07:00

Headache Prevention
Avoiding your headache triggers – including stress, dehydration, and too little sleep -- can help you stay pain-free. You'll soon find that preventing a headache is a lot easier than treating one.
By Diana Rodriguez
Medically reviewed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH
September 14, 2009

When a headache strikes, especially a migraine headache, you might be out of commission for several hours or even days. While there are many effective headache treatment, headache prevention is the place to begin.
Headache Prevention: What You Can Control
There are headache triggers you can control, and those you can’t. Some triggers in the latter category are the weather and, if you’re female, the hormonal fluctuations that occur with menstruation, ovulation, and menopause.
"You're not going to be able to prevent all headaches,” says Mark Green, MD, director of the Headache Center at NewYork–Presbyterian and Columbia University Medical Center. “But you can minimize them with headache trigger management.”
Headache Prevention: Common Triggers
The following are common triggers for headaches and migraines, and many are within your control:
· Stress
· Drinking alcohol, and red wine in particular
· Sensory overload — exposure to lights that are too bright, sounds that are too loud, or smells that are overpowering
· Dehydration — not drinking enough water
· Too much sleep or not enough sleep
· Exercising too rigorously
· Hormonal changes
· Not eating frequently enough
· Smoking
· Straining your eyes reading or sitting at a computer
· A difference in your caffeine intake — just skipping your morning cup for one day can cause a caffeine-withdrawal headache
· Food additives or naturally-occurring substances, including nitrates in processed meats, MSG in fast food and Chinese food, tyramine found in certain aged cheeses and soy-based foods, and the artificial sweetener aspartame
Headache Prevention: Keeping a Diary
Knowing your headache triggers enables you to start your own headache prevention program. Keeping a diary will help you figure out which of the many possible headache triggers affects you personally. In your headache diary, you should record each day:
· All foods you eat
· All beverages you drink
· Medicines you take
· What time you wake up and go to bed
· All exercise and any other physical activities you undertake
Log each headache that you get, what time of day it occurred, and what you did to resolve it. It's also a good idea to track what the weather was like and any hormonal changes, such as when you ovulated and began your period.
After a while, you should begin to see patterns. For instance, do you notice headaches more on weekends when you sleep in? What happens on Mondays, when you have to get to work early? What happens on Friday nights when you drink wine?
This information will help doctors diagnose what's causing your headaches, and what you can do to prevent them. “Every day of the week gives us hints," says Dr. Green.
Headache Prevention: Easy Techniques
Practicing these easy steps will help you avoid many common triggers:
· Maintain good posture, and move around during the day. Make sure your neck isn't remaining stiff and that you're moving it around if you're doing desk work, says Green. Also, take your eyes away from the computer every so often to avoid eyestrain.
· Get the right pillows. "People should be careful to evaluate their pillows. A lot of people should travel with their [home] pillow because we don't often like changes in pillows," says Green.
· Stay consistent. Keep a regular schedule, and don't greatly vary your diet or your waking, sleeping, and exercise routines.
· Get an appropriate amount of sleep. Either too much or too little shuteye can leave your head pounding, so make sure you get a steady eight hours each night.
· Stick to a healthy diet and exercise regimen. Healthy foods and regular exercise help ward off headaches. Never skip meals, and have a small, healthy snack between meals so that you don't get too hungry.
· Drink water. Dehydration can lead to headache, so drink plenty of water throughout the day.
· Manage stress. Stress can build up and cause your head to pound, so find ways to deal with it. Take up a hobby, exercise, try yoga, and do some deep breathing when you feel stress creeping in.
Even if you can't stop every headache from happening, a few simple changes can help you avoid at least a few. Headache prevention is less painful than dealing with a headache, so make changes today to prevent a headache tomorrow.

Finally, Maintaining regular chiropractic care can also help reduce frequency and intensity of headaches.

June is Headache Awareness month

2010-06-09T05:34:00.000-07:00

June is headache awareness month. If you or a loved one is suffering needless from headaches or are tired of being on medication, we can help. We provide a painless alternative to medication. For more information on how chiropractic can help you with your headaches go to http://www.wellness4lifechiro.com/articles.htm and search "headache". Stop suffering and call us today. 810-632-5252

More Grand Opening Pictures

2010-05-28T11:23:00.000-07:00

Thank you!

2010-05-25T10:12:00.001-07:00

Thank you to all who attended Our Grand Opening / Ribbon Cutting. More pictures to come soon.
Sincerely,

Dr. Jeremy

Grand Opening Pictures

2010-05-25T09:38:00.001-07:00

X-ray Room 1

Xray Room 2

Spinalator 1

Spinalator 2

Sign 1

Sign 2

Patient Education

Grand Opening Party 1

Grand Opening Party 2

Grand Open Party 3

Grand Opening Party 4

Grand Opening Party 5

Grand Opening Party 6

Office

Front Desk

Front Desk 2

Front Entrance

Family

Exam Room 1

Exam Room 2

Consult Room

Consult Room 2

Demo 1

Demo 2

Demo 3

Demo 4

Demo 5

Grand Opening 1 week away!

2010-05-14T11:04:00.000-07:00

Our Grand Opening is one away. If you haven't RSVP yet, please do.

Hours

2010-05-12T10:42:00.001-07:00

We are open

M - 8am - noon 1pm - 6pm
T - 1pm -6pm
W - 8am - noon 1pm - 6pm
Th - 10am - 1pm
F - 8am - noon 1pm - 5pm
Sat - By Appointment
Sun - By Appointment

Grand Opening May 21

2010-05-12T10:35:00.000-07:00

Come visit us at Our Grand Opening / Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on Friday May, 21 from noon to 3pm. Lunch will be provided. We are located at 11202 Highland Rd. Hartland, MI 48353.

P.S. We are now accepting new patients.