Posts tagged ‘Health’

November 29, 2019: Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish?

I want to share this important article by a medical expert. It confirms what I have been saying for years: medical “research” is not to be relied upon, especially when motivated by politics or connections to the pharmaceutical companies. I have often pointed out that the vaunted peer review process is nothing more than medical censorship. Read on for more important evidence.

By John Dale Dunn

I have repeatedly questioned the validity of medical journal claims in regards to politically charged issues like air pollution and climate change, as well as global warming here at AT.  More recently, I showed how a major medical journal violates basic rules on scientific inquiry.

There is another important problem with medical research as reported in medical journals and then often expanded by the lay press as big news: that medical journal articles are often proven wrong for unreliable results or promotion of treatments that are not beneficial or not any more efficacious than treatments they propose to replace.

I was reminded recently of this problem by an article in Emergency Medicine News, a medical specialty newspaper, that reported on a study by Dr. Vinay Prasad, a comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials in the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine identifying 396 medical reversals.  Reversals are cases where medical journal articles are found to be faulty, misleading and just plain wrong.

When high-flying medical researchers on environmental issues use bad methods and report false results, it is motivated by political agendas usually, but when medical researchers report what end up being unreliable results in other areas, it is often due to biases and fallacious thinking and lack of effort to assiduously test their results and repeat them to assure that the hypothesis is valid and reliable and the results are testable and verified.

Some “rules” turned out to be wrong, for example tight blood sugar control, mechanical chest compressions, protocols for treatment of sepsis (infections with severe complications).  The unreliability problem is troublesome, since the study shows that many recommended treatments and strategies are not efficacious.

Here are some additional specifics from the Prasad study:

  • Mechanical compression was not better than manual compressions for CPR. (JAMA. 2014;311[1]:53)
  • Early and aggressive methods for care of patients with sepsis (severe infection) were no better than usual care. (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1233)
  • The REACT-2 trial found that routine use of an immediate total-body CT did not impact mortality or benefit compared with conventional imaging and selective CT scanning in patients with severe trauma. (Lancet. 2016;388[10045]:673)
  • Platelet transfusion after acute hemorrhagic stroke was found by the 2015 PATCH study to worsen survival in the platelet transfusion group (68%) compared with the standard care group (77%). (Lancet. 2016;387[10038]:2605)

The authors were so alert to the problem that they created a website for best practices that, like other such practice websites, intends to alert physicians to the realities of the research mistakes and misinformation.

Medical reversals and rejection of medical protocols and suggested treatments are too common and the result of bad methods and scientific dishonesty.  Real science honesty would identify the problems and discover the unreliable information, and the studies would not be published.

The reports of this or that new breakthrough should be assessed with care by the public and medical professionals.

In 2005, an obscure Greek physician, John Ioannidis, published a groundbreaking article on the unreliability of medical research, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” and he became famous — so famous that he is now at Stanford, heading a study project on scientific integrity, funded by a philanthropist.  What Ioannidis found was that medical research is driven by ambition, intellectual passion, and fallacious thinking.  He didn’t say researchers are dishonest; he just said they often put out false claims and make false assertions.

I have, in these articles at AT, tried to warn the readers of the problems of dishonesty and malfeasance in medical research — the lay reader is warned to apply these rules as a way to avoid being taken in by bad research methods or just plain cheating and dishonesty.

There are some basic rules to help avoid being taken in by charlatans.

  1. The study should be a human study, or, if it is an animal study, the limits of such a study should be declared.
  2. The study should follow basic rules about how to determine causation, and avoid the trap of claiming that “association” or “coincidence” is proof of causation.
  3. The study should avoid surveys and questionnaires as a source of “evidence” since recall bias is always a problem in survey or response studies.
  4. The study should always be measured in terms of the magnitude of the “effect,” and the rule is that magnitude of effect should be “robust” — at least 2 or 3 times the increase in effect over the baseline.
  5. The study should establish a mechanism to explain the causal effect asserted — for example, ice cream consumption is associated with an increase in drowning deaths, but it is not a cause of those deaths.
  6. Although I could argue that peer review and publication are not a good standard for reliability, the source of the research and the reputation of that source as well as the reputation of the journal the research was published in is often worth something.  How much it is worth is the question.

The important thing is that professionals and citizens should be careful to question and evaluate what is pronounced by medical journals.  Too often, they are overwhelmed by self-esteem and ambition.

John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. is an emergency physician and inactive attorney in Brownwood, Texas.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/can_you_trust_what_medical_journals_publish.html#ixzz66gLJbxwC
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

November 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm Leave a comment

An Aspirin a Day Can Give You Cancer

This article is from 2003 and was somehow deleted from my blog. I restored it today. I also did additional internet research. The data from the nurses study is being buried in claims that aspirin prevents cancer. However, there is very little data to buttress those claims.

I want to share a health alert with you. So many people today are taking an aspirin a day – many upon the recommendation of their doctors and many simply because they think it is the “healthy” thing to do. However, a recent study involving 88,000 nurses revealed a 58% increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer among those who took 2 or more aspirins per week for 20 years or more. (“Daily aspirin use linked with pancreatic cancer,” Reuters Health News, 10/27/03)(and, http://www.doctoryourself.com/safety.html)  I expect the standard disclaimers from the medical profession – something about balancing the risks with the rewards. However, pancreatic cancer is a doctor’s nightmare. It is very hard to diagnose and there is no cure. And, there are natural, safe alternatives to reduce the risk of inflammation and clot formation.

If you are taking an aspirin daily to prevent the formation of blood clots, I recommend a daily dose of vitamin E, high potency bromelain and gamma linolenic acid (found in evening primrose oil, black currant seed oil and borage oil). Some authorities also recommend a daily dose of fish oil. If you want to know more about how much you should take (since the dose is individualized to body weight), call the office for a brief consultation and I can give you your exact dosage.

March 2, 2017 at 5:41 pm Leave a comment

Microcirculation Protocol for Heart Disease, Erectile Dysfunction,Venous Insufficiency and Kidney Failure

Health – or disease – begins at the level of the microcirculation. The following is presented with thanks to Dr. Kerry Bone:

  1. Microcirculation consists of the small arteries, leading into the arterioles, then to the capillaries and back out the venules and small veins.
  2. This is the level at which Neurovascular Dynamics (NVD) operates via the pre-capillary sphincters. NVD is the reflex technique that I teach which directly addresses organ function. However, this protocol nutritionally supports the correction(s) provided by NVD.
  3. Recent research has elucidated the importance of the microcirculation to a variety of disease states. The medical research has focused on nitric oxide.
  4. “The fundamental role of microvessels is to supply target tissues with oxygen and nutrients; therefore, it appears logical that microvascular disorders will impact on tissue function, given the close coupling between flow and metabolism.” (Ref: Wiernsperger N, Rapin JR. “Microvascular Diseases: Is a New Era Coming?” Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem 2012; 10(2): 167-183.) In summary, any disease problem comes down to the tissue state. (i.e., ischemia is the root of all pathology)

 

Conditions that are related to poor Microvascular Function

Overweight/obesity Cardiometabolic syndrome
Diabetes Non-alcoholic steatotic hepatitis*
Hypertension* Polycystic ovarian syndrome*
Low birth weight Gestational diabetes
Sleep disorders Acromegaly
Alzheimer’s disease Rheumatoid arthritis*
Gout* Scleroderma*
Erythromelalgia Behcet Disease
Venous insufficiency* Hyperdynamic circulation (RSD)*
Lupus Mycardial infarct, stroke*
Hemochromatosis* Beta-thalassemia*
High ferritin HIV
Liver disease, generally* Kidney disease*
Neuropathies, neuralgias Restless Leg Syndrome*
Retinal disease* Poor tissue healing, including arteriosclerosis*
Erectile dysfunction*  

You will notice that NVD treats several of these conditions. (see *, as the ones I have had personal experience with treating.)

A key factor in the health of the microcirculation, in addition to working with the pre-capillary sphincters, is the quality of the blood, which includes: hematocrit, blood viscosity and RBC deformability and aggregation. Essentially, thin blood is good and elastic RBCs are good.

So, the following 5-point nutritional protocol is helpful in supporting the health of your microcirculation and optimizing your NVD treatments.

I have included the herbal options if the you don’t want to change your dietary habits. However, the only herb that is absolutely essential is Medi-Herb Gotu Kola Complex, 3 to 4 per day.

Gotu Kola Complex contains gotu kola, grape seed and gingko biloba. This combination strengthens connective and epithelial tissue, promotes tissue healing, supports blood vessel health, provides anti-oxidant activity and promotes lymphatic drainage from the tissues. In particular, gingko works at the level of the capillaries, by improving RBC deformability, allowing better transit of red blood cells through small vessels.

5-POINT DIETARY PLAN

  1. Boost dietary nitrate: green leafy vegetables and especially beets. With regard to beets, they may be juiced, eaten raw or baked. Steaming or boiling removes the nitric oxide; however, they can be cooked into a soup because the nitric oxide is stable in the broth. Portion size: 8 oz. For diabetics, whole beets contain a lot of sugar. An excellent option is the powdered product Super Beets; it has an excellent effect on increasing nitric oxide without raising blood sugar. It is what I use myself.
  2. Raw, freshly crushed garlic: ½ to 1 clove per day. Swallowing the clove whole is useless. Deodorized garlic is useless. Alternate: 1 Medi-Herb Garlic Forte tablet is the equivalent of 1 clove of garlic.
  3. Eat 2 to 3 oz per day of berries with high anthrocyanin: blueberries, strawberries, raspberries and blackberries. Alternate: Bilberry tablets, 4 per day (particularly important in eye disorders)
  4. Increase intake of herbs and spices; especially, green tea, turmeric and ginger. Use Japanese green tea, which is steamed, not fermented (3-4 cups per day). (N.B.: in hypertension, add hibiscus tea, as well.) Use chopped ginger, not the tea, and only cook lightly. Lots of yellow curry. Alternate: 2 Medi-Herb Vitanox tablets per day.
  5. 2/3 oz 85% dark chocolate per day. Green & Black organic chocolate is best.

In addition, the patient needs to STOP refined sugar and refined carbohydrates; and s/he needs to STOP smoking. Add 5-10 minutes of aerobic exercise daily.

With regard to erectile dysfunction: Use the above protocol, PLUS the following herbs (all Medi-Herb):

Rhodiola & Ginseng, contains Panax ginseng, 2 to 4 in the a.m.

Tribulus, 3 to 4 throughout the day

Additional Gingko, if needed

 

With regard to venous insufficiency: the above protocol PLUS Horsechestnut Complex (2-3 per day).

In extreme cases, with ulceration, add 2 to 4 Echinacea Premium per day.

The primary symptom of venous insufficiency is brown discoloration around the ankles.

 

For chronic kidney failure, the following protocol has proven helpful: The above protocol, PLUS

Echinacea Premium, 4 per day

Vitanox, 2 per day

High potency fish oil (2 gms of omega 3 per day)

 

In the case that Dr. Bone shared, the patient went from an eGFR of 35 (kidney failure) to 74 after 18 months. A medical miracle! Two years later, his kidney function is still normal. His nephrologist said that he had never seen anyone recover like that in 20 years of practice. I add diathermy and NVD to the protocol. Remember: natural health care has much more to offer this condition than the medical profession does.

If you suffer from any of these problems and need help, please call for a consultation, so that I may assess your condition with appropriate lab testing and get you started on the road to recovery. Visit my web site for contact details:  http://www.RichardsFamilyHealth.com.

February 4, 2017 at 5:52 pm Leave a comment

Protect Yourself from Unnecessary and Damaging Medical Intervention (Part 2)

This is my second article based on Dr. Hadley’s book, Rethinking Aging. To access the first installment, click here.

In his book, he devotes a great deal of thought and analysis to the incestuous relationship between “thought leaders” in medical research and the pharmaceutical companies who fund that research. He makes two excellent points: researchers in universities are almost totally dependent upon pharmaceutical grants to fund their work; and those self-same companies are unlikely to continue funding a center that doesn’t “deliver the goods.” (I.e. A favorable outcome with regard to a potential cash cow.) I’ll leave it to your good judgment to understand the enormous conflicts of interest this paradox generates. (pp. 36 – 43) {Side bar: It is also the reason the argument “more research is needed” is so disingenuous. No pharmaceutical company will fund research into natural therapies. There is no profit margin!}

His skepticism is confirmed by the recent revelation that the sugar industry paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of today’s average American yearly income to review heart health studies that made sugar look less unhealthy than it really is – and to paint fat as the villain instead. The Sugar Research Foundation (the perpetrator of this hoax) cherry picked a handful of studies that they wanted spotlighted. The result has been a “low fat” craze that has serious consequences for our health. The article referenced above doesn’t even make the point that high cholesterol is a result of excess sugar consumption, not ingesting fat. Simply put: The American public has been subjected to so-called “scientific” data that is completely erroneous thanks to the infusion of large amounts of cash by interested parties. This misinformation seriously impacts the food that is available to you in the grocery store. It is almost impossible to find dairy products that are whole fat. Removing the fat increases the sugar content — increasing our cardiovascular risk.

Returning now to Dr. Hadley, he then pursues an in depth discussion of the evidence for “tight control” of blood pressure parameters. Would you be surprised to learn that no evidence of benefit to you, the patient, exists? This is particularly true with regard to so-called “essential hypertension.” He agrees with what I have been preaching for years: at age 45, a pressure of 140/90 is borderline hypertension, and both of those numbers increase by 5 points with each decade of life. In essence, what we have done by insisting everyone’s blood pressure reading be less than 120/80 is turn normal aging into a disease, which must be treated aggressively. (p.45) The problem with this model is that no one benefits except Big Pharma.

The actual curve when death rate is plotted against blood pressure is an inverted “J.” Death rates rise at both ends of the curve. Blood pressure that is too low increases the death rate in the elderly, just the way extremely high blood pressure does. (p. 25)

I have a personal anecdote that illustrates this issue. Currently, the medical protocol for Type II diabetes includes prescribing both a statin and a blood pressure medication, regardless of your actual blood pressure. This happened to a friend of mine. She was in her mid-70s, and the drop in her pressure caused her to fall in the kitchen, putting her head through the cabinet she fell against. She also was involved in a major car accident and developed hydrocephalus, increased intracranial pressure. Her doctor decided she needed a shunt to drain the excess fluid, a procedure he expected to be fairly straightforward. However, when they opened her skull, the area of her brain that had absorbed the impact was a tangle of indecipherable blood vessels. The surgery took four times longer than anticipated, and she never recovered. She developed a major brain infection that took her life. Without the blood pressure medication she would never have sustained the injury that complicated the surgery.

I personally believe that far too little attention is given to the maxim, “First, do no harm.”

To further illustrate the problem with high blood pressure medications, I think Dr. Hadley’s statement on pages 46 and 47 of his book is very important. “All [the drugs] on the market are licensed by the FDA because the agency was convinced that the drug actually lowers blood pressure without undue short term toxicities. None are licensed because of data showing that a meaningful reduction in untoward cardiovascular outcomes results over time.” {emphasis added}

To put it succinctly, the drugs may lower blood pressure, but they don’t improve health. Does that seem reasonable to you? Particularly in light of the side effects, which include heart failure and kidney failure, depending upon the class of drug you are given. In fact, multiple studies have been launched to demonstrate a health benefit. None were successful, although the authors did their best to massage the data to make it appear like there was a benefit.

On page 48, Dr. Hadley discusses the cognitive dissonance with regard to salt restriction – a much touted lifestyle change to control high blood pressure. In fact, it has now become a staple of federal health policy; the mandate has been to get sodium out of our food chain, restricting salt intake to 2 gms daily. This approach was shown to be ineffective in a study conducted and published by Dr. Hadley’s father in the prestigious Journal of the American Geriatrics Society in 1984. So much for research!

The problem with this recommendation for the general public is that it is only a small subset of the population who has the genetic predisposition that requires them to avoid salt. Dr. Hadley doesn’t mention this cutting edge genetic testing; perhaps it was not yet available when he published his book. However, I can highly recommend it if you have a family history of severe heart disease and are worried about your own health. The genetic test is extremely simple – a cheek swab – and offers you a wealth of information about how to manage your own risk. It is called CardiaX and is offered by Vibrant Wellness. Although it is not reimbursable by insurance, it offers you information unavailable any other way. It has recently had a profound benefit for one of my patients.

Now just a few words about open heart surgery and stents. I know you know someone who has had open-heart surgery and probably a stent as well. These interventions have become standard operating procedure (pun intended). Would you be surprised to learn that, despite a growing number of studies attempting to prove their benefits, no one can find any advantages to these invasive therapies? (p. 51) As Dr. Hadley puts it, “No patient is rewarded in terms of longevity, the incidence of heart attacks, or likelihood of chest pain for having submitted to these expensive technical and technological feats, and many suffer harm in the course of the procedure.” (p. 51) These procedures are so ineffective that, were they drugs, the FDA would never license them. However, procedures are not subject to licensing and devices (like a stent) are held to much lower standards than drugs. They must be safe in the short term, but there doesn’t need to be a demonstration that they actually work! (p. 53)

So, why are they so prevalent, you may ask? The answer is simple: profit. There is an enormous incentive to market them aggressively since an enormous industry has grown up in support of these procedures. Dr. Hadley calls it “a behemoth.” (p.51)

So, what can you do? First of all, find a doctor with a good understanding of natural, drug-free alternatives to standard medical care. There are herbal tonics that improve your quality of life without poisoning you.

Secondly, question every recommendation you receive. Always ask for evidence that the treatment will actually benefit you. Become informed; don’t just blindly go along with whatever the doctor says. Unfortunately, the medical profession operates on fear. It is standard for the doctor to warn you that you will die without treatment. He or she may honestly believe that to be true. He may not be aware of the information and statistics contained in Dr. Hadley’s book. Once doctors leave school, much of their information comes from drug company representatives.

You need to educate yourself with material like I’ve presented here and not become embroiled in a medical system where one procedure leads to another and then another. It’s a vicious circle and the goal is not your good health. Doctors are taught to “manage” whatever diagnosis you have been labeled with. There is no medical model for cure. That’s why you are expected to take pharmaceuticals for the rest of your life. Remember that and you will be much better off in the long run.

February 4, 2017 at 5:40 pm Leave a comment

Protect Yourself From Unproven and Dangerous Medical Therapies (Part 1)

I have been reading an outstanding book entitled, Rethinking Aging, Growing Old and Living Well in An Overtreated Society, by Nortin M. Hadler, M.D. While he is very medical in his approach and doesn’t have much knowledge regarding natural therapies, his warnings about medical care are very on-point.

The second chapter of his book, “The Golden Years,” is an indictment of many of the most commonly prescribed medical interventions. I will touch on some of the highlights in this brief article:

  1. Aging is a normal part of the life cycle and it comes with its own challenges. Not every symptom of aging needs to be labeled a “disease” requiring medical intervention. This is a direct contradiction of our pharmaceutical, profit-driven “health care” industry.
  2. “The . . . assertion – that one is more likely to promote physical health by attention to social cohesiveness than by attention to human biology – is counterintuitive. . . [F]or every darkening shadow there are diagnostic tests, screenings for risk, and treatments galore. . . .America’s elderly swallow the prescribed remedies, often many simultaneously, to bring their laboratory numbers to heel. America’s elderly are hell bent to be normal. . . It’s all so sad. They are on a fool’s errand.” [p. 13]
  3. The obesity “epidemic” has no basis in scientific fact, and is in fact a political construct. There are many studies that indicate that there is no difference in life expectancy between “normal” BMI and “obese” individuals. In fact, the risk of death was 13% lower for overweight elderly people than for those of normal weight. [p. 15] However, there is a huge financial incentive for the pharmaceutical companies and weight loss industry to bury these findings.
  4. You have undoubtedly seen the Crestor commercials about how wonderful it is for reducing cReactive Protein (cRP). However, the touted benefit is not as great as you are led to believe. The abstract of the research paper in the New England Journal of Medicine announced a 56% reduction in adverse outcomes. Sounds impressive, yes? However, that’s not even close to the truth. The outcome of the study was that, after 2 years, about 2% of the 18,000 subjects had suffered any of the cardiovascular adverse events. Of those on Crestor, 1.6% were stricken; while 2.8% of the control group (not taking Crestor) were affected. This is a difference of 1.2%. At this point, it gets complicated due to the structure of the study. To summarize the data, the “composite outcome” is 0.77 on Crestor and 1.36 without Crestor. This is the 56% reduction that’s being touted. What it actually means is that 400 well people would have to take Crestor for a year to spare one a nonfatal heart attack, and about 600 to spare one a stroke. There is no evidence there is any life-saving benefit. So, the relative reduction of 56% turns out to be an absolute reduction of 0.59%. [pp.29-30]

I side with Dr. Hadler who said, “I am unwilling to let anyone test my cholesterol until I see unequivocal data that taking a statin yields meaningful benefit for me.” [p.27]

  1. Hadler then addresses antihypertensive therapy for diabetics, specifically Actos & Avandia. He discusses at length the conflict of interest and financial incentives of both the researchers and the pharmaceutical houses to “prove” the efficacy of these substances. The data actually suggested that “[these drugs] were associated with an increase in the incidence of serious cardiovascular complications, including heart failure, heart attacks and death.” [p.37] The drugs were outlawed in the European Union; our FDA only saw fit to place a warning label on the packaging insert.
  2. Part of his discussion regarding diabetes highlights the fact that current diabetic therapies, including insulin and oral hypoglycemics, are ineffective in preventing any of the adverse effects of diabetes. Please, read that sentence again. Does that make you wonder what is going on? According to a respected medical publication, A H R Q News and Numbers (issue no. 288, July 25, 2009), purchases of cholesterol and diabetes prescription drugs by elderly Medicare beneficiaries reached nearly $19 billion in 2007 – approximately 1/4th of the $82 billion spent for medications for the elderly. [p. 35]

My personal experience with diabetes has convinced me that the important criterion that medical treatment completely ignores is the health of the micro-circulatory system. I have had Type II diabetes for more than 15 years, yet I have no circulatory pathology. My retinal fields are perfectly healthy and there is not a sign of atherosclerosis, based upon an exam I had just last week. I attribute this to my aggressive supplement program that prevents arterial plaque and lowers inflammation. I also have a protocol to improve microcirculation. This is incredibly important both to your vascular tree and to your kidneys – two areas that develop pathology with diabetes. I would be glad to share my insights with you if you care to make an appointment.

The next section of Dr. Hadler’s book deals with how badly the medical therapies mismanage coronary artery disease via antihypertensive meds, surgical interventions and stents. I will cover these in my next installment of my newsletter. If you don’t want to wait, you can always look for Dr. Hadler’s book on amazon.com. One word of warning, it is very heavy going.

September 8, 2016 at 3:51 pm Leave a comment

Alarming Developments in Healthcare – What They Mean to You

Get ready for a health care police state. There are many trends that you need to know about, and that I find alarming. A recent article (The Bakersfield Californian, Wednesday, December 7, 2011) highlights a few of the more alarming developments.

Continue Reading December 16, 2011 at 11:56 pm Leave a comment

Chondroitin, Arthritis and Heart Disease

There is more exciting news about chondroitin sulfate (CS). If you have been reading the newsletters regularly, you already know how effective it is in removing the plaque of atherosclerosis.

Continue Reading October 7, 2011 at 2:00 am 2 comments

The Truth About Calcium Supplements and Heart Disease

Perhaps the most important piece is to remember that drug companies have a huge financial interest in discrediting natural remedies, since they perceive supplement sales as cutting into their bottom line.

Continue Reading March 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm Leave a comment

VACCINES & THE INFORMATION BLACKOUT

If you pay attention to health “news,” as I do, you must have noticed the current spin. Anyone who opposes vaccination is a kook and is putting the general public in danger. If you have any experience with adverse vaccine reactions, as I have had in my practice, the question immediately arises: “Why are this devastating products still on the market?” This article attempts to shed light on what is going on behind the scenes.

Let me elaborate on what I have seen in my practice. Two or three examples will give you a window into what can happen. Several children in my practice developed severe cerebral palsy after being vaccinated – either at birth or at the age of 2 months. Several other children developed autistic symptoms after being vaccinated in infancy. In every case, the medical professionals claimed that the symptom pattern bore no relationship to the disability, leaving the parents without recourse or any help for the expensive and life-changing challenges they now faced.

In one particularly severe instance, the medical profession wanted to vaccinate the family’s second son, as well. Happily, the mother did extensive research on the Internet, discovering the increased incidence of adverse reactions in siblings of impaired children. This research completely changed her view on vaccine dangers. Happily, their second son is perfectly healthy – and unvaccinated. Of course, they’ve had to take a lot of heat from the medical profession, as a result.

So, how is this vital information concealed from the public at large? It is important to understand that, in America, we have an enormous conflict of interest in health care. And, this conflict severely limits your health care choices. The problem is: American medical practice doesn’t acknowledge that there are any other authorities, except American research. The examples are endless, but I’ll provide a compelling one. There are literally thousands of research articles demonstrating the efficacy of herbs in human health. However, this research was all done outside of the U.S. — Europe, Australia and Japan are prime sources. But, herbs are dismissed in American medical practice. They are regarded as mere panaceas (although lately we’ve been hearing more and more about the “dangers” of these supposedly useless plants). The American medical profession always falls back on the old chestnut, “More research is needed.” As though no one knows anything about herbs! In effect, American hubris completely discounts all other professionals and the research they do. If an article on non-traditional medicine isn’t published in the United States, any research result is automatically suspect.

The mechanism for this information blackout is “peer review,” the gold standard of scientific and medical publishing in the U.S. This means that a research article must be approved by a panel of “experts” before it can be published in an accepted medical journal. (The word used to refer to these journals is “reputable,” automatically categorizing all other publications as “disreputable.” Clever, isn’t it?) In actuality, this process provides an excellent tool to control what is accepted “truth,” becoming the basis for our entire health care industry, including acceptable treatments and what claims insurance companies will honor.

This same scenario applies to chiropractic research. Where chiropractic is concerned so much has been lost. I have a garage full of research done in the 1950’s and 1960’s by well-trained scientists. However, no peer reviewed medical journal would accept their findings. And, thus, these research results are no longer in the public knowledge pool. The work done is a total loss. Today, a similar process is at work. Chiropractic research is only accepted for publication if it conforms to the medical model of mechanical alleviation of low back pain. The truly revolutionary effects that can be achieved — everything from NVD for neurological injury and internal disorders to cranial adjusting for head injuries and cerebral palsy or ADD — are dismissed out of hand because they don’t fit the prevailing medical paradigm. And, no amount of data will convince the powers that be otherwise.

This is not the fault of individual doctors. It is the result of a system dominated by drug companies and attorneys. Doctors are constrained by liability worries. Always wondering when the next resourceful young lawyer will discover a unique — and heretofore unknown — cause of action, a new way to sue for malpractice. Adhering to well-established standards of care protects the individual doctor to some degree from these overzealous entrepreneurial lawsuits.

However, it is the public that suffers. Have you ever wondered why a physician is so anxious to establish a diagnosis? Because once your illness has a name, the doctor knows exactly what to expect — how to treat it, how it will progress, whether you will live or die. Everything he or she needs to be protected from a potential malpractice lawsuit. The trouble is, in many instances, medical texts define many diseases as “incurable.” For these illnesses, your doctor knows that you can’t get better. She knows this because no one else treated for the same condition has ever gotten better, except for those rare cases labeled “spontaneous remission.” Voila! A self-fulfilling prophecy — one with no room for other options.

Of course, the missing piece is that there may be another treatment that offers hope. There’s a hint in those pesky, unexplained, “spontaneous” remissions, if only the medical community would pay attention. But, since the prevailing belief is that only a medical approach has any value, all other bodies of knowledge and treatment modalities are automatically excluded. Any patient who was treated by unorthodox means automatically gets dumped into the “spontaneous remission” category – thus, totally eliminating any chance to broaden the medical landscape. What a vicious circle!

I have come to believe very strongly that the most serious threat to the health of the American public is the number of doctors trained to know that you can never get well.

And, there are consequences to the medical profession’s assumption of omnipotence. Not only are some medical treatments ineffective; some of them are downright dangerous. This is certainly true of the medical model of “prevention through vaccination.”

Were you aware that, according to the Centers for Disease Control web site, all the cases of polio in the U.S. in the 1990s were the result of the attenuated virus vaccine? (When I recently went back to the CDC web site to provide a link for this article, I was unable to find it again.  Interesting, don’t you think?)  The “attenuated” virus still had the ability to infect. It was transmitted through exposure to infected fecal matter. So, who was most at risk? Parents changing dirty diapers and those individuals who were exposed to recently vaccinated people where there was a lack of hygiene. In 1999, the CDC and the United States government finally took action and mandated that only inactivated virus be used in polio vaccines.

The full story about vaccines is well documented. If you are interested in more detail, I highly recommend Dr. Tim O’Shea’s book “Vaccination I$ Not Immunization; The Sanctity of Human Blood.” You can obtain a copy of this book on Amazon.com or by contacting Dr. O’Shea directly at thedoctorwithin.com, or by calling his San Jose, California office at 408/298-1800. It contains hundreds of references — all documenting the dangers of vaccines. When last I was updated, the book was in its tenth edition, and I recommend it highly.

Although the side effects of vaccines are bad enough in themselves (brain damage, including cerebral palsy and mental retardation, and in extreme cases even death), we are creating a public health nightmare for the future. There are three examples that I believe will clearly illustrate the dangers.

The first is flu vaccine and Alzheimer’s Disease. There is a single documented study of the effect of the flu vaccine on cognitive abilities. It was done retrospectively for the decade 1970 to 1980. (Fudenberg, H., MD, “Hazards of vaccines.”, J Clin Investigation, vol 4, p. 97-105, 2000) The researchers found that adults given the vaccines five consecutive times in that ten-year period had a nine-fold increase in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. In drug research, a statistically significant effect may be as little as 15% or 20%. Here, we are talking about 800%! Why hasn’t anyone raised a hue and cry about the need for more studies to look into this potential threat? Why hasn’t the information been reported? Have you seen it anywhere?

My personal experience may be illuminating. You may be aware of Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld, who is the medical expert on Fox News every Sunday morning. In October of 2009, after one of his morning broadcasts wherein he routinely touts drugs and vaccines, I called this study to his attention. In his nasty and dismissive email, he said that since the CDC doesn’t acknowledge that study, it is meaningless. But why would the CDC dismiss such a potentially alarming side effect? More on that topic in a moment.

This nasty effect on the brain is probably the result of the mercury used to preserve the vaccine. Although, nobody knows for sure since no further research has ever been done. An additional word of caution: Some of my patients have been told that a vaccine is “mercury free.” Maybe that’s because the person they asked — a nurse or nurse’s aid — didn’t know that thimerosal, the preservative in vaccines, is actually an organic mercury compound; and, therefore, much more easily absorbed than the inorganic mercury that we all played with as children. The CDC web site actually states that a vaccine may be labeled “preservative free” if the thimerosal is “diluted out” during the purification process, even though the vaccine still contains traces of the chemical! No one knows if a safe level of thimerosal even exists; it is that toxic. And, in 2009, there was no mercury-free version of the swine flu vaccine available. After all, without mercury, the vaccine has a very short shelf life.

The second example I want to illuminate really makes me angry, because the “at risk” population is unborn babies and infants. Let me explain a few inconvenient background facts first. The vaccine under discussion is MMR — short for mumps, measles and rubella. More about mumps later — that’s my third example. Right now, I want to focus on measles and rubella.

Both of these are normal, self-limited childhood diseases. A case in childhood imparts lifelong immunity — an immunity that protects the fetus in the womb and that can be passed through mother’s milk to the breastfed infant. Why is this important? Because these viruses are very damaging to the nervous system of underdeveloped humans. Rubella (or, German measles) can pass through the placenta and severely damage the child within, resulting in blindness, deafness, heart defects and mental retardation. Measles (or rubeola) is a relatively minor disease when contracted during childhood, but in infancy — while the immune and nervous systems are underdeveloped — measles can cause life-threatening pneumonia and encephalitis. (The Merck Manual, 16TH Ed.)

And, the unacknowledged, and unpublicized, fact is that vaccination does not impart this type of lifelong, transmissible immunity. I say “unpublicized” because vaccination is routinely referred to as “immunization,” leading to the false impression that a vaccinated little girl has a lifelong immunity that will protect her — and also her future babies — from further exposure to these viruses during the infants’ most vulnerable life stage. Not so! A young woman vaccinated in childhood has no immunity to protect either herself or her unborn child, unless she gets “booster” shots.

But, there’s an additional problem: Giving the MMR vaccine to teenage girls has caused severe arthritic side effects. The Ontario, Canada, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care reports, “Up to one in four teenage girls and adult women may get painful swelling of some joints within one to three weeks after vaccination. . . . . chronic arthritis may occur.” So, 25% of women may have an arthritic effect from the MMR, attributable to the Rubella vaccine. For many it is transitory, but do you want your daughter to be the one who develops permanent, rheumatoid-like arthritis? So, another shot is not the answer.

If you’re wondering why I am quoting Canadian statistics, it’s because the American health care system has not made this information available. The first hit on a Google search is the Ontario web site. When I searched the web site of the CDC, there was NO information concerning these effects of the Rubella vaccine. When I looked at the tab entitled “Vaccine Safety and Adverse Events Reporting,” there was no information concerning actual adverse effects, but a great deal of reassuring double-talk about how safe vaccines are. In fact, the first topic is “How do you know if vaccine information you find on the internet or in other sources is accurate?” The article then goes on to discredit all other sources of information. The CDC is the official American government source for public health information. So, why such an effort to discredit well-documented research? Do you think there may be something else going on here? Read on, for more detail regarding the power behind the scenes. For me, what comes to mind is the old saying, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

My third example concerns mumps and adult males. All little boys should be exposed to mumps, so that they develop lifelong immunity prior to puberty. In little boys, mumps is a self-limiting, febrile disease of approximately two weeks’ duration. In men, it can be devastating. In adults, the target organ is not the salivary glands in the cheeks, but the glandular tissue in the testes. The testicles become hugely swollen, hot and excruciatingly tender. The end result can be sterility. So, I urge you, if you are a man who was vaccinated as a child, but who never had the mumps, to stay away from young children who could infect you. I don’t have enough data to comment upon whether exposure to children who have recently received the MMR vaccine could be a source of infection — as they are in polio. And, I wasn’t able to find any information in my on-line research. I just urge you to err on the side of caution.

What are the medical community’s solutions to these problems? More vaccines! Now, children are scheduled for upwards of 60 such injections before they start kindergarten! And, the number is rising. What are we doing? And, why aren’t we asking more questions? Particularly, in light of the fact that it has now been established in veterinary medicine that one of the side effects of veterinary vaccines is cancer? My cats’ vet explained that he only gives these shots in the extremities — so that he can amputate the malignancy. And, no, I still won’t let him vaccinate my animals.

One final comment on a subject that is no longer in the public awareness: When vaccines were first introduced, the loudest objections were raised by scientists in the field of virology. Their concerns were based upon the ability of viruses to splice themselves into DNA strands. I don’t believe that this concern has ever been adequately addressed – or that anyone has ever even examined it. We are, essentially, conducting an uncontrolled experiment on our children’s genetic future.

Now for the important questions: How many of the American public are aware of these facts? Why aren’t these devastating side effects common knowledge?

Because the media and the FDA are controlled by the drug companies and vaccines represent huge profits. I have first hand experience with the controlled media. In 2005, during the height of the West Nile virus incursion into Southern California, I wrote a well-documented article concerning the efficacy of medicinal quality St. Johns’ Wort in the prevention and treatment of West Nile virus. My publicist posted the article on a web site where media professionals look for material to publish. We got well over 100,000 hits, but no one picked it up for publication. When we shopped it around to broadcast outlets, the individual reporters were very interested in the herb for personal use, but we were flatly told, “Nothing gets on the air that isn’t AMA approved.”

Of course, if you think about it, there’s a big conflict here. The advertising dollars from drug companies represent a huge percentage of any station’s income. The medical profession and the pharmaceutical houses constitute a powerful (and wealthy) unholy alliance when it comes to what health information you are allowed to receive.

You may find it shocking that I assert that the FDA is controlled by the drug companies. But, think about it. First of all, the FDA is funded in large part by the fees paid by the drug companies for approval of their drugs. And, it is common knowledge that for many years directors of the FDA have typically retired to lucrative positions with major drug companies.

The disinformation campaign, disseminated via the media, has far-reaching tentacles. The bird flu scare is just the most recent example. SARS was the “disease of the year” in 2003. Were you frightened by all of the media announcements? Did you know that only slightly over 8,000 people worldwide contracted the disease, and only 774 died? No one in the United States died, and only 8 people became ill after traveling to a part of the world where SARS was endemic. Yet, if you listened to the news you would be certain that we were all going to die from an unstoppable pandemic. Yet, by October 6, 2004, there were no reported cases of SARS anywhere in the world. So, what was the point? Do you suppose the idea was to condition the American people into accepting the idea that a vaccine was their only protection?

In 2006 and 2007, we had the H5N1 virus (bird flu) hysteria. Again, I believe, this was a manufactured “epidemic” designed to frighten the populace into accepting vaccines. As of March 2007, The World Health Organization web site reported that there had only been 281 human cases worldwide. It’s true; there is a very high mortality rate — 169 of those individuals died. But, all of these cases occurred in parts of the world where people live with their poultry and are regularly exposed to their blood and feces. H5N1 is not transmissible from human to human, nor is there any evidence that, even if it does mutate to become transmissible between humans, it will still be so virulent. Mutations are unpredictable, at best.

So, what’s the point of all this media angst? With the litany of horrors and the reportage of how hard doctors are working to produce the vital vaccines that will save us all from the next pandemic, people become conditioned to accept vaccines unquestioningly. Gradually, vaccines become sacred icons whose efficacy can’t be questioned by any sane person. Only “kooks” raise objections to these scientific marvels.

There are many factors at work here, but one of the biggest ones is an economic consideration. Drug companies spend millions of dollars developing new drugs and vaccines — a good example is Tamiflu, developed by Roche Holding AG.

First a bit of historical background: Were you aware that in 1999 the drug manufacturer Roche Holding AG brought out the first patented drug to treat viral diseases? Perhaps you’ve heard of Tamiflu. As reported by WebMD in 2006, in most markets, sales of Tamiflu”were well below the company’s expectations. But that changed in 2005, when WHO recommended governments stockpile antiviral drugs, such as Tamiflu. . . . Consequently, sales of Tamiflu from January to June 2005, were nearly double the number in 2004.” It is also interesting that Roche is the sole manufacturer of Tamiflu and has stated that there was no question of relinquishing its patent, which is protected until 2016. This was in response to then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan’s suggestion that the usual patent rules may have to be suspended if there is an outbreak of avian flu. His suggestion was that other companies could also make the medicine, increasing the supply.

In the spring of 2007, media coverage was saturated with advertisements advising the public to “consult your doctor” at the first sign of flu symptoms. You see, one of the shortcomings of Tamiflu is that it’s only effective if taken during the first 48 hours of infection. During that time, most people are so miserable that they take to their beds. Furthermore, in the era of HMO health care, how many Americans can hope to schedule a doctor’s appointment within 48 hours? Dream on!

There are other problems: Tamiflu has only been “proven” effective against influenza strains A and B, not the bird flu strain. Furthermore, a partial list of the side effects includes: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bronchitis, stomach pain, dizziness and headache. Forbes on October 14, 2005 (FoxNews) published an article that pointed out that the bird flu was showing resistance to Tamiflu.

However, none of that is important to the manufacturer. Their fortune is made; world governments are stockpiling their product while the patent is still active. No generic, low cost version here! I wonder whether those stockpiles are preserved with thimerosal? That’s the only way to maintain the doses in long-term storage.

I want to bring one, last disturbing fact to your attention. Are you aware that The Patriot Act contains provisions for mandatory mass vaccination in the event of biological attack? The penalties for refusal include federal prison. Since there is a strong underground of opposition in the U.S. to vaccination, I believe there is a planned public information (or, disinformation, if you agree with my views) campaign to accustom the American public to the notion that vaccines are harmless and lifesaving. However, as I hope I have made clear, this is far from the proven. I, for one, do not intend to be a casualty of vaccine hysteria.

December 2, 2010 at 7:27 pm Leave a comment

Unintended Consequences of Cholesterol Drugs

An important study in England and Wales that didn’t make much of a ripple here in the U.S. reveals the downside of statin prescription drugs. It turns out they cause more problems than they solve.

First, some background. More than 50 million prescriptions were written for statins in Britain in 2008, an increase of 80% from just 4 years earlier. see article: A Nation of Pill-poppers. However, it turns out that this avalanche of ingested chemicals entails some unintended consequences.

A study published in The British Medical Journal in May of 2010 revealed that for every 10,000 high risk women treated with statins, the plus side would be approximately 271 fewer cases of heart disease and 8 fewer cases of esophageal cancer. However, the negative impact included 74 patients with liver dysfunction, 23 with acute renal failure, 307 with cataracts and 39 with muscular weakness (myopathy). This totals 443 female patients with negative effects from these drugs. The figures were similar for men, except the rates of myopathy were higher. (BMJ 2010;340:c2197).

These risks persisted throughout the course of therapy and were highest in the first year. The risks of developing one of these problems decreased within 1 to 3 years after stopping use of the drug. Query: Do you know anyone who has ever been taken off a cholesterol-lowering drug? I certainly don’t. Besides which, many of the injured people have suffered irreversible damage.

Do you find this alarming? Apparently the medical profession doesn’t. In an editorial published in the same edition of The British Medical Journal two senior cardiologists opined that while statins are not entirely free of adverse events, when used according to prescribing guidelines, the benefits outweigh the risks.

This new research result needs to be assessed in light of other studies demonstrating memory loss and cognitive problems in fully 50% of patients taking statin drugs. 56% of patients in another case study noted improvement in their mental faculties when the statin was removed. [case report] There are a handful of “observational” studies – no parameters given – claiming that there was a lower risk of dementia among patients receiving statins. This is typical of what I see in the medical literature. Any studies that indicate pharmaceuticals may be harmful are quickly buried by “research” (paid for by the drug companies, of course} that seems to show the opposite. In many cases, actual adverse outcomes are buried by using parameters that are too broad to isolate a specific risk group.

With regard to statins, they are now being almost universally prescribed for lower and lower total cholesterol levels. In the medical world, there is no such thing as cholesterol levels that are too low. However, there is a correlation with an increase in malignant disease in patients whose cholesterol levels fall below 150. This is particularly true for men. Low Cholesterol & Increased Cancer Risk

I have commented on this before, but let me simply reiterate the down side of statins, in addition to the items mentioned above.

  1. Since these drugs not only limit cholesterol production, but also eliminate the production of enzyme CoQ10 in the body, they inevitably lead to heart failure. The drug companies are aware of this, but refuse to publicize these facts.
  2. Cholesterol is one of the most important chemical substances in our body. We use it to make all of our steroid hormones, including sex hormones and adrenal (stress) hormones. It is also found in every cell membrane in our body and is essential to the health of neurons. Remember, brain tissue is largely composed of fats; and cholesterol functions as an anti-oxidant for fats.
  3. Men taking these drugs suffer a decrease in their total testosterone levels, resulting in sexual dysfunction and the development of “man boobs.”

Atherosclerosis (blockage of the arteries) – cited as the primary problem caused by high cholesterol – is not really due to elevated cholesterol levels in itself. It is caused by oxidized, or damaged, cholesterol. Yet, the medical laboratories no longer offer the test for cholesterol oxidation.

In truth, the emphasis on cholesterol levels and statin medications is due to the fact that the pharmaceutical companies have found a compound to alter cholesterol production in the body. Despite the barrage of advertising, the truth is that the Framingham study (the single largest longitudinal study regarding heart disease in the U.S.) found almost no correlation between cholesterol levels and heart attacks. The authors of the study admitted as much in an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1987.

So, the choice is up to you. You can follow the accepted “wisdom,” or you can question the “experts” and take responsibility for your own health. There are natural, effective and healthful alternatives. The drug companies are now trying to capitalize on these natural remedies by offering patented, synthetic (and in, many cases, harmful) versions of beneficial compounds. Watch for my next newsletter wherein I will discuss this issue.

If you want assistance in customizing a program to optimize your health, please contact the Clinic and make an appointment for a consultation.

By the way, you can also download associated articles as pdf files:
A Nation of Pill-poppers  (use link above.  This link is coming)
Some Statins Have Unintended Effects and Warrant Closer Monitoring, Study Finds

July 8, 2010 at 4:50 pm Leave a comment

Older Posts


Categories