Some Doctors and Other Health Care Professionals Steer Clear of Flu Shots
By RADHA CHITALE
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 9, 2008
Every fall, the public is barraged by messages from doctors, nurses and other health care providers to get a flu vaccination to protect against the influenza virus.
But the truth is, some doctors and nurses might talk the talk without walking the walk.
According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus during the 2006-07 flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab. It's an "abysmal and profoundly sad" statistic, according to Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville, Tenn.
"Both the professional and ethical responsibility of all health care workers is to be vaccinated annually against influenza," Schaffner said.
Pains, Aches and Chills
One in five Americans get the flu every year, according to the CDC. Of these, 200,000 are hospitalized and about 36,000 die.
Schaffner added that, in the midst of an influenza outbreak, it is crucial to have healthy people on hand to take care of patients.
"We need health care workers on the line delivering medical care," Schaffner said. "We don't need them home sick."
There are legitimate reasons to steer clear of the needle. People with an egg allergy might avoid getting the vaccine because viruses for the flu shot are grown in eggs. People with Guillain-Barre syndrome -- a disease that results in nerve damage -- should avoid getting vaccinated as well, since respiratory illnesses can trigger an episode.
But for healthy individuals, the CDC recommends that all health care personnel, students in training for those professions, and other high-risk groups such as employees of assisted living communities be vaccinated against the influenza virus.
Professionals make a variety of excuses for not getting the influenza vaccine, chief among which are that they are too busy or that getting vaccinated is inconvenient. Others don't like needles or believe, mistakenly, that the vaccine will result in a bout of the flu.
To those professionals, Schaffner said, "Get over it."
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 9, 2008
Key concepts: Flu shots, Medical myths and Doctors
If flu shots are so good for you, then why do sixty percent of doctors and nurses refuse to get them? ABC News is reporting that only forty percent of health care professionals opted to be vaccinated against the flu last year.
It's yet another case of health professionals telling patients to do one thing while they do something entirely different themselves. For example, according to surveys published earlier this year, most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy.
Many doctors take vitamins and nutritional supplements, but they won't tell their patients to do the same because state medical boards have made it illegal for doctors to recommend nutritional therapies.
Thus, much of what medical professionals tell patients stands in contradiction to what they actually believe is best for their health. Flu shots have become the mad cry of quackery in modern medicine, which believes that the human immune system is useless to prevent infectious disease and must be artificially hijacked by invasive medical procedures (a shot) in order to function correctly.
Interestingly, related research just announced today reveals that half a flu shot produces the same results as a full flu shot. But they didn't test the "no flu shot but extra vitamin D" option, which would have been ever better.
Flu shots are pure quackery combined with clever hucksterism. And if you don't believe me, just check the medical records of the doctors themselves: Most of them aren't getting flu shots in the first place. Doctors aren't stupid people. If they're not getting flu shots, that tells you probably they think it's a waste of time.
Click to read:
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
From Abcnews.go.com: A significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus last flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab during the 2007-08 flu season.... more
Key concepts: Flu shots, Medical myths and Doctors
If flu shots are so good for you, then why do sixty percent of doctors and nurses refuse to get them? ABC News is reporting that only forty percent of health care professionals opted to be vaccinated against the flu last year.
It's yet another case of health professionals telling patients to do one thing while they do something entirely different themselves. For example, according to surveys published earlier this year, most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy.
Many doctors take vitamins and nutritional supplements, but they won't tell their patients to do the same because state medical boards have made it illegal for doctors to recommend nutritional therapies.
Thus, much of what medical professionals tell patients stands in contradiction to what they actually believe is best for their health. Flu shots have become the mad cry of quackery in modern medicine, which believes that the human immune system is useless to prevent infectious disease and must be artificially hijacked by invasive medical procedures (a shot) in order to function correctly.
Interestingly, related research just announced today reveals that half a flu shot produces the same results as a full flu shot. But they didn't test the "no flu shot but extra vitamin D" option, which would have been ever better.
Flu shots are pure quackery combined with clever hucksterism. And if you don't believe me, just check the medical records of the doctors themselves: Most of them aren't getting flu shots in the first place. Doctors aren't stupid people. If they're not getting flu shots, that tells you probably they think it's a waste of time.
Click to read:
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
From Abcnews.go.com: A significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus last flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab during the 2007-08 flu season.... more
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Mandatory Vaccination
Mandatory Vaccination
Source: Health Freedom Foundation
www.healthfreedom.org
Although vaccinations have essentially extinguished many illnesses that plagued our society, The American Association for Health Freedom believes children should not be forcefully subjected to unreasonable amounts of vaccinations to combat diseases that primarily affect adults. AAHF is concerned about the lack of urgency among regulators when vaccinations result in death or permanent disability in children. Additionally, AAHF seeks to ensure that freedom of choice is not taken away from parents.
In 1980, American children were vaccinated against six diseases. Today, the mandatory number is 10, with multiple shots. In the near future, there may be two dozen more new childhood vaccines. This estimate may be conservative, according to the National Institutes of Health.
There is at present a serious trend of deteriorating health among American children. Published in a 1994 JAMA article, a survey conducted by Dr. Michel Odent found that children receiving the whooping cough vaccine were six times more likely to develop asthma than children not receiving this vaccine.
Recently, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases counted 104 separate vaccines at various stages of research and development for everything from herpes to ricketts to stomach ulcers. Not all of the new vaccines in the pipeline are aimed at children, of course. The idea of a "super vaccine"-given at birth or shortly after, with time release particles dissolving over time–may become our reality in a few years.
The "super vaccine" would not only cover the existing childhood protections against mumps, measles, rubella, chicken pox, polio, whooping cough,tetanus, diphtheria, hepatitis B, and meningitis. It would target several varieties of other illnesses, including pneumonia, typhoid, encephalitis, diarrhea, strep, and influenza.
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former FDA research virologist, thinks undeveloped immune systems of those so young are particularly susceptible to damage from overload. "That is absolutely the wrong approach, to give so many new vaccines."
With two-year-olds facing as many as four injections in a single pediatric visit, we have created an atmosphere in which the costs far outweigh any perceived benefits. Representative John Mica, R-FL, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Drug Policy and Human Resources , has questioned the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine: "Is it possible the Preventive measure for this disease is riskier than the disease itself?"
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicated that one third of the nearly 80,000 reports filed between 1990 and 1997 involved the DPT, whooping cough, vaccine. A total of 876 deaths were recorded after children received the DPT vaccine, a vaccine that is still on the market although a safer alternative exists. Of those, 291, or 33 percent of the deaths reported after a DPT shot, were within 24 hours of the vaccination. Milwaukee immunologist Burton Waisbren, a veteran clinical investigator, told a H ouse oversight subcommittee on federal health policy that "an injustice is being done to the children of this country." He labeled infant hepatitis B vaccination "an experiment sponsored by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which is designed to determine if vaccination at birth of all babies in the United States will eventually decrease the frequency of cancer of the liver."
For many years, mercury was used as a preservative in vaccines, especially in the United States. In many cases, a preservative was only needed because multiple vaccinations were being given in one shot. Preservative free vaccines were available if taken one vaccination at a time. Why did the medical establishment push more and more vaccinations into one multiple shot? Because they thought that parents could not be trusted to come back to the doctor for a series of single shots spaced out over time. The result is not only potentially dangerous preservatives; it is also a greatly heightened risk of overloading the child's immune system by injecting too much in any one day. This approach does not put the child's welfare first.
Today protests have led to the removal of mercury from most childhood vaccines. But mercury is still used in flu vaccines for children and adults. In the past, children were inoculated against flu from birth to five years of age. This puts mercury into very immature bodies and immune systems. But the new recommedation, just out, is to continue inoculating until age 18. Is this for the children? No, it is supposed to provide better protection for the adults around the children. Meanwhile how much highly toxic mercury will our children be exposed to by age 18?
AAHF believes parents should be informed of their right to omit or simply postpone shots like the hepatitis B and flu vaccines. I nformed consent to any medical procedure carrying the risk of injury or death, such as vaccination, has been the prevailing ethical standard in medical care since the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declarations became part of international law after World War II. With increasing numbers of vaccines for non-life threatening conditions being developed and mandated for school-age children, we believe parents should have the right to philosocphical or conscientious belief exemptions for their children.
Source: Health Freedom Foundation
www.healthfreedom.org
Although vaccinations have essentially extinguished many illnesses that plagued our society, The American Association for Health Freedom believes children should not be forcefully subjected to unreasonable amounts of vaccinations to combat diseases that primarily affect adults. AAHF is concerned about the lack of urgency among regulators when vaccinations result in death or permanent disability in children. Additionally, AAHF seeks to ensure that freedom of choice is not taken away from parents.
In 1980, American children were vaccinated against six diseases. Today, the mandatory number is 10, with multiple shots. In the near future, there may be two dozen more new childhood vaccines. This estimate may be conservative, according to the National Institutes of Health.
There is at present a serious trend of deteriorating health among American children. Published in a 1994 JAMA article, a survey conducted by Dr. Michel Odent found that children receiving the whooping cough vaccine were six times more likely to develop asthma than children not receiving this vaccine.
Recently, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases counted 104 separate vaccines at various stages of research and development for everything from herpes to ricketts to stomach ulcers. Not all of the new vaccines in the pipeline are aimed at children, of course. The idea of a "super vaccine"-given at birth or shortly after, with time release particles dissolving over time–may become our reality in a few years.
The "super vaccine" would not only cover the existing childhood protections against mumps, measles, rubella, chicken pox, polio, whooping cough,tetanus, diphtheria, hepatitis B, and meningitis. It would target several varieties of other illnesses, including pneumonia, typhoid, encephalitis, diarrhea, strep, and influenza.
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former FDA research virologist, thinks undeveloped immune systems of those so young are particularly susceptible to damage from overload. "That is absolutely the wrong approach, to give so many new vaccines."
With two-year-olds facing as many as four injections in a single pediatric visit, we have created an atmosphere in which the costs far outweigh any perceived benefits. Representative John Mica, R-FL, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Drug Policy and Human Resources , has questioned the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine: "Is it possible the Preventive measure for this disease is riskier than the disease itself?"
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicated that one third of the nearly 80,000 reports filed between 1990 and 1997 involved the DPT, whooping cough, vaccine. A total of 876 deaths were recorded after children received the DPT vaccine, a vaccine that is still on the market although a safer alternative exists. Of those, 291, or 33 percent of the deaths reported after a DPT shot, were within 24 hours of the vaccination. Milwaukee immunologist Burton Waisbren, a veteran clinical investigator, told a H ouse oversight subcommittee on federal health policy that "an injustice is being done to the children of this country." He labeled infant hepatitis B vaccination "an experiment sponsored by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which is designed to determine if vaccination at birth of all babies in the United States will eventually decrease the frequency of cancer of the liver."
For many years, mercury was used as a preservative in vaccines, especially in the United States. In many cases, a preservative was only needed because multiple vaccinations were being given in one shot. Preservative free vaccines were available if taken one vaccination at a time. Why did the medical establishment push more and more vaccinations into one multiple shot? Because they thought that parents could not be trusted to come back to the doctor for a series of single shots spaced out over time. The result is not only potentially dangerous preservatives; it is also a greatly heightened risk of overloading the child's immune system by injecting too much in any one day. This approach does not put the child's welfare first.
Today protests have led to the removal of mercury from most childhood vaccines. But mercury is still used in flu vaccines for children and adults. In the past, children were inoculated against flu from birth to five years of age. This puts mercury into very immature bodies and immune systems. But the new recommedation, just out, is to continue inoculating until age 18. Is this for the children? No, it is supposed to provide better protection for the adults around the children. Meanwhile how much highly toxic mercury will our children be exposed to by age 18?
AAHF believes parents should be informed of their right to omit or simply postpone shots like the hepatitis B and flu vaccines. I nformed consent to any medical procedure carrying the risk of injury or death, such as vaccination, has been the prevailing ethical standard in medical care since the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declarations became part of international law after World War II. With increasing numbers of vaccines for non-life threatening conditions being developed and mandated for school-age children, we believe parents should have the right to philosocphical or conscientious belief exemptions for their children.
FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children
David Gutierrez
Natural News
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008
For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” reads a statement that has been added to the agency’s Web site. “Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”
The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.
“Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.
“It’s a watershed moment,” said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.
So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.
Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.
Even the FDA’s new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.
Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.
In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency’s position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.
The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.
Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA’s failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.
“This is your classic failure to act,” federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.
As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.
“This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings,” Brown predicted.
But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely
“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski said.
Natural News
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008
For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” reads a statement that has been added to the agency’s Web site. “Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”
The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.
“Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.
“It’s a watershed moment,” said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.
So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.
Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.
Even the FDA’s new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.
Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.
In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency’s position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.
The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.
Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA’s failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.
“This is your classic failure to act,” federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.
As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.
“This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings,” Brown predicted.
But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely
“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski said.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Government bailout hits $8.5 trillion
Global Research
December 2, 2008
The federal government committed an additional $800 billion to two new loan programs on Tuesday, bringing its cumulative commitment to financial rescue initiatives to a staggering $8.5 trillion, according to Bloomberg News.
That sum represents almost 60 percent of the nation’s estimated gross domestic product.
Given the unprecedented size and complexity of these programs and the fact that many have never been tried before, it’s impossible to predict how much they will cost taxpayers. The final cost won’t be known for many years.
The money has been committed to a wide array of programs, including loans and loan guarantees, asset purchases, equity investments in financial companies, tax breaks for banks, help for struggling homeowners and a currency stabilization fund.
Most of the money, about $5.5 trillion, comes from the Federal Reserve, which as an independent entity does not need congressional approval to lend money to banks or, in "unusual and exigent circumstances," to other financial institutions.
To stimulate lending, the Fed said on Tuesday it will purchase up to $600 billion in mortgage debt issued or backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government housing agencies. It also will lend up to $200 billion to holders of securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.
All but $20 billion of that $800 billion represents new commitments, a Fed spokeswoman said.
About $1.1 trillion of the $8.5 trillion is coming from the Treasury Department, including $700 billion approved by Congress in dramatic fashion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The rest of the commitments are coming from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Housing Administration.
Only about $3.2 trillion of the $8.5 trillion has been tapped so far, according to Bloomberg. Some of it might never be.
Relatively little of the money represents direct outlays of cash with no strings attached, such as the $168 billion in stimulus checks mailed last spring.
Where it’s going
Most of the money is going into loans or loan guarantees, asset purchases or stock investments on which the government could see some return.
"If the economy were to miraculously recover, the taxpayer could make money. That’s not my best guess or even a likely scenario," but it’s not inconceivable, says Anil Kashyap, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
The risk/reward ratio for taxpayers varies greatly from program to program.
For example, the first deal the government made when it bailed out insurance giant AIG had little risk and a lot of potential upside for taxpayers, Kashyap said. "Then it turned out the situation (at AIG) was worse than realized, and the terms were so brutal (to AIG) that we had to renegotiate. Now we have given them a lot more credit on more generous terms."
Kashyap says the worst deal for taxpayers could be the Citigroup deal announced late Sunday.
The government agreed to buy an additional $20 billion in preferred stock and absorb up to $249 billion in losses on troubled assets owned by Citi.
Given that Citigroup’s entire market value on Friday was $20.5 billion, "instead of taking that $20 billion in preferred shares we could have bought the company," he says.
It’s hard to say how much the overall rescue attempt will add to the annual deficit or the national debt because the government accounts for each program differently.
If the Treasury borrows money to finance a program, that money adds to the federal debt and must eventually be paid off, with interest, says Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist with the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that aims to eliminate federal deficits.
The federal debt held by the public has risen to $6.4 trillion from $5.5 trillion at the end of August. (Total debt, including that owed to Social Security and other government agencies, stands at more than $10 trillion.)
However, a $1 billion increase in the federal debt does not necessarily increase the annual budget deficit by $1 billion because it is expected to be repaid over time, Rogers said.
Annual deficit
A deficit arises when the government’s expenditures exceed its revenues in a particular year.
Some estimate that the federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year as a result of the economic slowdown and efforts to revive it.
The Fed’s activities to shore up the financial system do not show up directly on the federal budget, although they can have an impact. The Fed lends money from its own balance sheet or by essentially creating new money. It has been doing both this year.
The problem is, "if you print money all the time, the money becomes worth less," Rogers says. This usually leads to higher inflation and higher interest rates. The value of the dollar also falls because foreign investors become less willing to invest in the United States.
Today, interest rates are relatively low and the dollar has been mostly strengthening this year because U.S. Treasury securities "are still for the moment a very safe thing to be investing in because the financial market is so unstable," Rogers said. "Once we stabilize the stock market, people will not be so enamored of clutching onto Treasurys."
At that point, interest rates and inflation will rise. Increased borrowing by the Treasury will also put upward pressure on interest rates.
Deflation a big concern
Today, however, the Fed is more worried about deflation than inflation and is willing to flood the market with money if necessary to prevent an economic collapse.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "has ordered the helicopters to get ready," said Axel Merk, president of Merk Investments. "The helicopters are hovering and the first cash is making it through the seams. Soon, a door may be opened."
Rogers says her biggest fear is not hyperinflation and the social unrest it could unleash. "I’m more worried about a lot of federal dollars being committed and not having much to show for it. My worst fear is we are leaving our children with a huge debt burden and not much left to pay it back."
Economic rescue
Key dates in the federal government’s campaign to alleviate the economic crisis.
March 11: The Federal Reserve announces a rescue package to provide up to $200 billion in loans to banks and investment houses and let them put up risky mortgage-backed securities as collateral.
March 16: The Fed provides a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase & Co. as part of its purchase of investment bank Bear Stearns.
July 30: President Bush signs a housing bill including $300 billion in new loan authority for the government to back cheaper mortgages for troubled homeowners.
Sept. 7: The Treasury takes over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting them into a conservatorship and pledging up to $200 billion to back their assets.
Sept. 16: The Fed injects $85 billion into the failing American International Group, one of the world’s largest insurance companies.
Sept. 16: The Fed pumps $70 billion more into the nation’s financial system to help ease credit stresses.
Sept. 19: The Treasury temporarily guarantees money market funds against losses up to $50 billion.
Oct. 3: President Bush signs the $700 billion economic bailout package. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says the money will be used to buy distressed mortgage-related securities from banks.
Oct. 6: The Fed increases a short-term loan program, saying it is boosting short-term lending to banks to $150 billion.
Oct. 7: The Fed says it will start buying unsecured short-term debt from companies, and says that up to $1.3 trillion of the debt may qualify for the program.
Oct. 8: The Fed agrees to lend AIG $37.8 billion more, bringing total to about $123 billion.
Oct. 14: The Treasury says it will use $250 billion of the $700 billion bailout to inject capital into the banks, with $125 billion provided to nine of the largest.
Oct. 14: The FDIC says it will temporarily guarantee up to a total of $1.4 trillion in loans between banks.
Oct. 21: The Fed says it will provide up to $540 billion in financing to provide liquidity for money market mutual funds.
Nov. 10: The Treasury and Fed replace the two loans provided to AIG with a $150 billion aid package that includes an infusion of $40 billion from the government’s bailout fund.
Nov. 12: Paulson says the government will not buy distressed mortgage-related assets, but instead will concentrate on injecting capital into banks.
Nov. 17: Treasury says it has provided $33.6 billion in capital to another 21 banks. So far, the government has invested $158.6 billion in 30 banks.
Sunday: The Treasury says it will invest $20 billion in Citigroup Inc., on top of $25 billion provided Oct. 14. The Treasury, Fed and FDIC also pledge to backstop large losses Citigroup might absorb on $306 billion in real estate-related assets.
Tuesday: The Fed says it will purchase up to $600 billion more in mortgage-related assets and will lend up to $200 billion to the holders of securities backed by various types of consumer loans.
Source: Associated Press
Net Worth runs Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. E-mail Kathleen Pender at kpender@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL
Vaccines With Mercury Are Safe - WTF???
This is madness. If you think mercury is safe like they're telling us now, then put that poison in your baby's body. That is a blatant lie. Mercury is dangerous!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Gardasil Approved to Target More Cancers
FDA Expands HPV Vaccine Gardasil to Prevent Certain Cancers of the Vulva and Vagina
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Sept. 12, 2008 -- The FDA today announced that the vaccine Gardasil may be used to prevent some cancers of the vulva and vagina in girls and women ages 9-26.
Gardasil is already approved to help prevent a leading cause of cervical cancer in women of that same age range.
Gardasil targets four strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause most cases of cervical cancer. Two of those HPV strains can also cause some vulvar and vaginal cancers.
"There is now strong evidence showing that this vaccine can help prevent vulvar and vaginal cancers due to the same viruses for which it also helps protect against cervical cancer," Jesse L. Goodman, MD, MPH, director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, says in a news release.
"While vulvar and vaginal cancers are rare, the opportunity to help prevent them is potentially an important additional benefit from immunization against HPV," Goodman says.
Gardasil and HPV
Gardasil first gained FDA approval in 2006 for use in girls and women aged 9-26 to help prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions, and genital warts.
The CDC recommends Gardasil for all girls aged 11-12. Girls can get Gardasil when they're as young as 9. If they miss vaccination at ages 11-12, they can get vaccinated by age 26.
To be most effective, Gardasil should be given before a girl becomes sexually active. There are more than 100 strains of the HPV virus, and more than 30 of those strains can be spread through sex. According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S, with some 6 million Americans becoming infected with genital HPV each year.
HPV doesn't always cause cervical cancer. For most women, the body's own defense system will clear HPV, preventing serious health problems. But some HPV types can cause abnormal cell growth in areas of the cervix, vagina, vulva, and other areas that years later may turn into cancer.
Men can also carry HPV. But Gardasil isn't approved for use in men.
Gardasil vs. Vulvar, Vaginal Cancers
The FDA approved Gardasil to help prevent vulvar and vaginal cancers based on a follow-up report from Merck, the drug company that makes Gardasil, on more than 15,000 participants from Gardasil's original studies.
Merck followed those participants for two extra years and found that Gardasil was highly effective at preventing precancerous vulvar and vaginal growths related to HPV types 16 and 18, which the vaccine targets.
But Gardasil only showed that benefit in women who hadn't been infected with HPV before getting Gardasil.
"To receive Gardasil's full potential for benefit, it is important to be vaccinated prior to becoming infected with the HPV strains contained in the vaccine," states an FDA news release.
Gardasil's label has been revised to note that current information is insufficient to support use beyond age 26, the current FDA-approved age. Also, new information has been added showing that Gardasil doesn't protect against diseases caused by HPV types not contained in the vaccine.
No vaccine is 100% effective, and Gardasil doesn't protect against HPV infections that a woman may already have at the time of vaccination. So the FDA recommends that all women get regular Pap tests, even after they have been vaccinated. Routine Pap screening remains critically important to detect precancerous changes, which would allow treatment before cancer develops.
The FDA notes that since Gardasil was approved, most reported adverse events haven't been serious. The most common reports have been of pain at the injection site, headache, nausea, and fever.
Fainting is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented with simple steps, such as keeping the vaccinated person seated for up to 15 minutes after vaccination. The FDA recommends that observation period to watch for severe allergic reactions, which can occur after any immunization.
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Sept. 12, 2008 -- The FDA today announced that the vaccine Gardasil may be used to prevent some cancers of the vulva and vagina in girls and women ages 9-26.
Gardasil is already approved to help prevent a leading cause of cervical cancer in women of that same age range.
Gardasil targets four strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause most cases of cervical cancer. Two of those HPV strains can also cause some vulvar and vaginal cancers.
"There is now strong evidence showing that this vaccine can help prevent vulvar and vaginal cancers due to the same viruses for which it also helps protect against cervical cancer," Jesse L. Goodman, MD, MPH, director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, says in a news release.
"While vulvar and vaginal cancers are rare, the opportunity to help prevent them is potentially an important additional benefit from immunization against HPV," Goodman says.
Gardasil and HPV
Gardasil first gained FDA approval in 2006 for use in girls and women aged 9-26 to help prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions, and genital warts.
The CDC recommends Gardasil for all girls aged 11-12. Girls can get Gardasil when they're as young as 9. If they miss vaccination at ages 11-12, they can get vaccinated by age 26.
To be most effective, Gardasil should be given before a girl becomes sexually active. There are more than 100 strains of the HPV virus, and more than 30 of those strains can be spread through sex. According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S, with some 6 million Americans becoming infected with genital HPV each year.
HPV doesn't always cause cervical cancer. For most women, the body's own defense system will clear HPV, preventing serious health problems. But some HPV types can cause abnormal cell growth in areas of the cervix, vagina, vulva, and other areas that years later may turn into cancer.
Men can also carry HPV. But Gardasil isn't approved for use in men.
Gardasil vs. Vulvar, Vaginal Cancers
The FDA approved Gardasil to help prevent vulvar and vaginal cancers based on a follow-up report from Merck, the drug company that makes Gardasil, on more than 15,000 participants from Gardasil's original studies.
Merck followed those participants for two extra years and found that Gardasil was highly effective at preventing precancerous vulvar and vaginal growths related to HPV types 16 and 18, which the vaccine targets.
But Gardasil only showed that benefit in women who hadn't been infected with HPV before getting Gardasil.
"To receive Gardasil's full potential for benefit, it is important to be vaccinated prior to becoming infected with the HPV strains contained in the vaccine," states an FDA news release.
Gardasil's label has been revised to note that current information is insufficient to support use beyond age 26, the current FDA-approved age. Also, new information has been added showing that Gardasil doesn't protect against diseases caused by HPV types not contained in the vaccine.
No vaccine is 100% effective, and Gardasil doesn't protect against HPV infections that a woman may already have at the time of vaccination. So the FDA recommends that all women get regular Pap tests, even after they have been vaccinated. Routine Pap screening remains critically important to detect precancerous changes, which would allow treatment before cancer develops.
The FDA notes that since Gardasil was approved, most reported adverse events haven't been serious. The most common reports have been of pain at the injection site, headache, nausea, and fever.
Fainting is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented with simple steps, such as keeping the vaccinated person seated for up to 15 minutes after vaccination. The FDA recommends that observation period to watch for severe allergic reactions, which can occur after any immunization.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Needless vaccine can have deadly consequences
Dear Friend,
What will it take for Big Pharma to stop pushing their dangerous and useless vaccines? Apparently, one death a month is not going to be enough.
That's the rate at which women who have had Merck's cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, are dying, according to a new report. This is especially tragic because Gardasil is far and away the most unnecessary vaccine that's currently on the market (and that's really saying something).
An FDA report on Gardasil was recently obtained by Judicial Watch, a public interest group that campaigns against government corruption. They used the Freedom of Information act to show that the FDA has received reports of 10 deaths associated with Gardasil since September of 2007. Merck has come under fire for "fast-tracking" Gardasil to market without proper testing in order to be the first to offer this repulsive, needless vaccination.
In addition to the deaths, the report unearthed by Judicial Watch also noted a large number of other medical incidents involving Gardasil, including 140 serious adverse reactions (which included such pleasantries as anaphylactic shock, grand mal seizures, foaming at the mouth, coma, and paralysis – of these, 27 cases were considered life threatening), 10 spontaneous abortions, and six cases of Guillian-Barre Syndrome, a debilitating nerve disorder.
Sounds great, huh? But the above description is incredibly sanitized. The report found by Judicial Watch is a catalogue of horrors that includes the near instant death of many otherwise perfectly healthy women who died soon after their inoculation with Gardasil.
In one sickening case, a 14-year-old girl (who, I'll remind you, doesn't NEED a vaccination to avoid HPV), received her Gardasil shot, took six steps and then collapsed into unconsciousness, and began to foam at the mouth before coming out of it a minute later. Other patients weren't so lucky; one went into a coma and emerged paralyzed.
A 20-year-old with no medical history died four days after her Gardasil shot. Seven other women died within two days. And in one stunning instance, a woman died of a blood clot (the most common diagnosis in the case of the Gardasil-related deaths) within THREE HOURS of her inoculation.
In all, Judicial Watch says that at least 18 deaths are linked to the Gardasil vaccine, and it could be as many as 20.
All of these tragedies, and Merck has still had the nerve to put big bucks into getting every state in the country to MANDATE Gardasil to school girls as young as 11 years old. If it comes to that, believe me I'll be leading the revolution and storming the Capitol steps myself!
You can lay the blame for these horrors at the door of the idiots in the FDA, who allowed Merck's Big Pharma bucks to influence their decisions. As a result, they've turned all of America's young women into guinea pigs for their massive vaccine test.
"In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to re-evaluate its safety and prohibit its distribution to minors."
Amen to that. But I'll go a step further: let's get the FDA to prohibit the use of Gardasil! It's a long shot since we don't have Big Pharma's money – but we can start by flooding those morons with letters! Who's with me!?
Guarding against the dangers of Gardasil,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
What will it take for Big Pharma to stop pushing their dangerous and useless vaccines? Apparently, one death a month is not going to be enough.
That's the rate at which women who have had Merck's cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, are dying, according to a new report. This is especially tragic because Gardasil is far and away the most unnecessary vaccine that's currently on the market (and that's really saying something).
An FDA report on Gardasil was recently obtained by Judicial Watch, a public interest group that campaigns against government corruption. They used the Freedom of Information act to show that the FDA has received reports of 10 deaths associated with Gardasil since September of 2007. Merck has come under fire for "fast-tracking" Gardasil to market without proper testing in order to be the first to offer this repulsive, needless vaccination.
In addition to the deaths, the report unearthed by Judicial Watch also noted a large number of other medical incidents involving Gardasil, including 140 serious adverse reactions (which included such pleasantries as anaphylactic shock, grand mal seizures, foaming at the mouth, coma, and paralysis – of these, 27 cases were considered life threatening), 10 spontaneous abortions, and six cases of Guillian-Barre Syndrome, a debilitating nerve disorder.
Sounds great, huh? But the above description is incredibly sanitized. The report found by Judicial Watch is a catalogue of horrors that includes the near instant death of many otherwise perfectly healthy women who died soon after their inoculation with Gardasil.
In one sickening case, a 14-year-old girl (who, I'll remind you, doesn't NEED a vaccination to avoid HPV), received her Gardasil shot, took six steps and then collapsed into unconsciousness, and began to foam at the mouth before coming out of it a minute later. Other patients weren't so lucky; one went into a coma and emerged paralyzed.
A 20-year-old with no medical history died four days after her Gardasil shot. Seven other women died within two days. And in one stunning instance, a woman died of a blood clot (the most common diagnosis in the case of the Gardasil-related deaths) within THREE HOURS of her inoculation.
In all, Judicial Watch says that at least 18 deaths are linked to the Gardasil vaccine, and it could be as many as 20.
All of these tragedies, and Merck has still had the nerve to put big bucks into getting every state in the country to MANDATE Gardasil to school girls as young as 11 years old. If it comes to that, believe me I'll be leading the revolution and storming the Capitol steps myself!
You can lay the blame for these horrors at the door of the idiots in the FDA, who allowed Merck's Big Pharma bucks to influence their decisions. As a result, they've turned all of America's young women into guinea pigs for their massive vaccine test.
"In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to re-evaluate its safety and prohibit its distribution to minors."
Amen to that. But I'll go a step further: let's get the FDA to prohibit the use of Gardasil! It's a long shot since we don't have Big Pharma's money – but we can start by flooding those morons with letters! Who's with me!?
Guarding against the dangers of Gardasil,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
The truth about vaccine defenders
Dear Friend,
I've told you for years that many of the pro-vaccine crowd are hardly as unbiased and independent as they claim. I've long contended that many of these "independent" vaccination advocates are financially tied to Big Pharma and other pro-vaccine lobby groups. And now, finally, the mainstream media has started to follow the trail of pennies to the source of the vaccination issue. And guess what? Turns out I was right.
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkinson discovered that some of the most prominent proponents of vaccination safety have "strong financial ties" to the Big Pharma companies that produce the vaccines they so vehemently defend.
In particular, CBS's Attkinson found significant financial connections between the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two (an organization that promotes early childhood vaccination), and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
Nobody seems to have paid much attention to my accusations over the years. Now that CBS News is on the case, maybe people will start to take notice. Then again, this kind of financial corruption and paid advocacy is so common these days (believe me, congressmen and senators are routinely courted by special interest lobbyists who make massive campaign contributions in order to influence votes), it's likely that people will just shake their heads in disgust and move on.
How bad are these financial ties? Judge for yourself:
The American Academy of Pediatrics received $342,000 from pharmaceutical giant Wyeth, producers of the vaccine pneumococcal (a product which generates a whopping $2 billion in annual sales for the company). And the year that the AAP endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine, they received a $433,000 "contribution" from Merck. Hmmm… do you think that "contribution" would have been as generous if the AAP had spoken out against the HPV vaccine?
Personally, these facts show another distasteful side to Big Pharma: they're as cheap as the day is long. The HPV vaccine makes $1.5 billion in sales, and all they gave for the AAP's "endorsement" is less than half a million bucks? Wonder if they said, "don't spend it all in one place?" I'm being facetious, of course; where there is one $433,000 payment, my guess is there are surely others.
As for Every Child By Two, they wouldn't even admit to the amount of contributions that they receive from Big Pharma, though they did admit that they do take money from the vaccine industry. A spokesman for Every Child By Two claimed that "there are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." Oh yeah? Then why is one of the group's treasurers an official from Wyeth Pharmaceutical?
But organizations are one thing; individuals quite another. And that's why to me the worst of the three on the Big Pharma payroll is Dr. Offit. This man has been quoted as saying that babies can tolerate – get this – "10,000 vaccines at once." Sickening, right? Well, Attkinson found that he also holds a Merck-funded $1.5 million research chair at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Oh, and he also personally HOLDS THE PATENT on an anti-diarrhea vaccine that's produced by – who else? – Merck! The future royalties on this vaccine just sold for a staggering $182 million… no wonder Dr. Offit loves vaccines so much — he's apparently fully immunized himself against poverty.
Shining the light on Big Pharma's pro-vaccine roaches,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
I've told you for years that many of the pro-vaccine crowd are hardly as unbiased and independent as they claim. I've long contended that many of these "independent" vaccination advocates are financially tied to Big Pharma and other pro-vaccine lobby groups. And now, finally, the mainstream media has started to follow the trail of pennies to the source of the vaccination issue. And guess what? Turns out I was right.
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkinson discovered that some of the most prominent proponents of vaccination safety have "strong financial ties" to the Big Pharma companies that produce the vaccines they so vehemently defend.
In particular, CBS's Attkinson found significant financial connections between the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two (an organization that promotes early childhood vaccination), and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
Nobody seems to have paid much attention to my accusations over the years. Now that CBS News is on the case, maybe people will start to take notice. Then again, this kind of financial corruption and paid advocacy is so common these days (believe me, congressmen and senators are routinely courted by special interest lobbyists who make massive campaign contributions in order to influence votes), it's likely that people will just shake their heads in disgust and move on.
How bad are these financial ties? Judge for yourself:
The American Academy of Pediatrics received $342,000 from pharmaceutical giant Wyeth, producers of the vaccine pneumococcal (a product which generates a whopping $2 billion in annual sales for the company). And the year that the AAP endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine, they received a $433,000 "contribution" from Merck. Hmmm… do you think that "contribution" would have been as generous if the AAP had spoken out against the HPV vaccine?
Personally, these facts show another distasteful side to Big Pharma: they're as cheap as the day is long. The HPV vaccine makes $1.5 billion in sales, and all they gave for the AAP's "endorsement" is less than half a million bucks? Wonder if they said, "don't spend it all in one place?" I'm being facetious, of course; where there is one $433,000 payment, my guess is there are surely others.
As for Every Child By Two, they wouldn't even admit to the amount of contributions that they receive from Big Pharma, though they did admit that they do take money from the vaccine industry. A spokesman for Every Child By Two claimed that "there are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." Oh yeah? Then why is one of the group's treasurers an official from Wyeth Pharmaceutical?
But organizations are one thing; individuals quite another. And that's why to me the worst of the three on the Big Pharma payroll is Dr. Offit. This man has been quoted as saying that babies can tolerate – get this – "10,000 vaccines at once." Sickening, right? Well, Attkinson found that he also holds a Merck-funded $1.5 million research chair at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Oh, and he also personally HOLDS THE PATENT on an anti-diarrhea vaccine that's produced by – who else? – Merck! The future royalties on this vaccine just sold for a staggering $182 million… no wonder Dr. Offit loves vaccines so much — he's apparently fully immunized himself against poverty.
Shining the light on Big Pharma's pro-vaccine roaches,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Gardasil linked to epilepsy
Dear Friend,
The anti-vaccination movement – as you know, one of my pet causes – has finally turned its sights on Gardasil, the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine manufactured by the pharmaceutical giant Merck. And it's about time.
Gardasil is marketed as a vaccine that combats cervical cancer, but the fact that it does so by guarding against a sexually transmitted disease is played down. After all, the only way to get HPV is by having sex. Yet Merck's commercials for Gardasil routinely depict girls as young as 11! Maybe it's just me, but I think it's better to step up as a parent and teach my daughter that sex is an adults-only activity, instead of just giving her a vaccine and hoping for the best.
But moral qualms aside, there now appear to be cases of negative reactions to the vaccine. A report in a recent edition of the Dallas Morning News told the tale of Katherine Kimzey, a 14-year-old girl who experienced headaches, fainting, and stiff joints after receiving the second shot of her three-dose Gardasil vaccine battery. A few weeks later, Katherine had a seizure and was eventually diagnosed with epilepsy. After reading VAERS (which stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), a government database run by the CDC and the FDA that monitors vaccine safety, Katherine's mother was convinced that her daughter's troubles could be traced to the Gardasil shots she received.
"When you read everybody's stories, they're too similar not to be related," Michelle Kimzey said. The story of Katherine Kimzey has helped the anti-Gardasil movement gain a lot of momentum on the Web, especially in the anti-vaccine community.
If you look carefully, you might see Merck starting to break a sweat. After all, they've been pushing the Gardasil product worldwide to the tune of $1.5 billion in sales – a much-needed boon for the company after it was forced to withdraw its anti-arthritis drug Vioxx (which, you may recall, caused an increased risk of heart attacks). Of course, they're not going to go down without a fight. Dr. Jessica Kahn, a pediatrician and HPV researcher from Children's Hospital in Cincinnati pooh-poohed civilian misuse and misinterpretation of raw data on the VAERS system.
"It is very important to note that anyone can report a side effect to VAERS," Kahn said. "And just because it is reported it does not mean it was caused by a vaccine." Wouldn't you feel better if Dr. Kahn was looking for ways the vaccine might be linked to these terrible side effects, instead of trying to find ways that it's not? Thankfully, this hasn't stopped the cautionary tale of Katherine Kimzey from making its rounds on the Web and sounding the alarm about Gardasil.
So far, the CDC claims that they have not found a "causal link" between Gardasil and the serious side effects that are listed on VAERS. But they do admit that the fainting spell experienced by Katherine Kimzey is common. In fact, the Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study of VAERS reports about Gardasil and fainting, which led to a recommendation that Gardasil recipients be kept seated or lying down for 15 minutes after receiving the shot.
Unfortunately, just taking 15 minutes off your feet will do nothing for the lifetime of epileptic seizures that could be caused by Gardasil. But I guess the CDC can't quite find that "causal link" yet… that is, if they're even looking for it. Giving the battle against vaccines a needed shot in the arm, William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. P.S. What do you think? Is the FDA taking the health risks of vaccines seriously enough?
Click here to participate in the Weekly Poll.
The anti-vaccination movement – as you know, one of my pet causes – has finally turned its sights on Gardasil, the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine manufactured by the pharmaceutical giant Merck. And it's about time.
Gardasil is marketed as a vaccine that combats cervical cancer, but the fact that it does so by guarding against a sexually transmitted disease is played down. After all, the only way to get HPV is by having sex. Yet Merck's commercials for Gardasil routinely depict girls as young as 11! Maybe it's just me, but I think it's better to step up as a parent and teach my daughter that sex is an adults-only activity, instead of just giving her a vaccine and hoping for the best.
But moral qualms aside, there now appear to be cases of negative reactions to the vaccine. A report in a recent edition of the Dallas Morning News told the tale of Katherine Kimzey, a 14-year-old girl who experienced headaches, fainting, and stiff joints after receiving the second shot of her three-dose Gardasil vaccine battery. A few weeks later, Katherine had a seizure and was eventually diagnosed with epilepsy. After reading VAERS (which stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), a government database run by the CDC and the FDA that monitors vaccine safety, Katherine's mother was convinced that her daughter's troubles could be traced to the Gardasil shots she received.
"When you read everybody's stories, they're too similar not to be related," Michelle Kimzey said. The story of Katherine Kimzey has helped the anti-Gardasil movement gain a lot of momentum on the Web, especially in the anti-vaccine community.
If you look carefully, you might see Merck starting to break a sweat. After all, they've been pushing the Gardasil product worldwide to the tune of $1.5 billion in sales – a much-needed boon for the company after it was forced to withdraw its anti-arthritis drug Vioxx (which, you may recall, caused an increased risk of heart attacks). Of course, they're not going to go down without a fight. Dr. Jessica Kahn, a pediatrician and HPV researcher from Children's Hospital in Cincinnati pooh-poohed civilian misuse and misinterpretation of raw data on the VAERS system.
"It is very important to note that anyone can report a side effect to VAERS," Kahn said. "And just because it is reported it does not mean it was caused by a vaccine." Wouldn't you feel better if Dr. Kahn was looking for ways the vaccine might be linked to these terrible side effects, instead of trying to find ways that it's not? Thankfully, this hasn't stopped the cautionary tale of Katherine Kimzey from making its rounds on the Web and sounding the alarm about Gardasil.
So far, the CDC claims that they have not found a "causal link" between Gardasil and the serious side effects that are listed on VAERS. But they do admit that the fainting spell experienced by Katherine Kimzey is common. In fact, the Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study of VAERS reports about Gardasil and fainting, which led to a recommendation that Gardasil recipients be kept seated or lying down for 15 minutes after receiving the shot.
Unfortunately, just taking 15 minutes off your feet will do nothing for the lifetime of epileptic seizures that could be caused by Gardasil. But I guess the CDC can't quite find that "causal link" yet… that is, if they're even looking for it. Giving the battle against vaccines a needed shot in the arm, William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. P.S. What do you think? Is the FDA taking the health risks of vaccines seriously enough?
Click here to participate in the Weekly Poll.
Hepatitis B Vaccine Linked to Onset of Diabetes
WebMD Health News
June 13, 2000 (San Antonio) -- Faced with an ever-growing list of required and recommended vaccinations for children -- as well as occasional reports of safety problems linked to vaccines -- many parents understandably feel confused. No doubt adding to that confusion are reports that the vaccine against hepatitis B, a blood-borne illness that can cause liver cancer, may actually lead to the development of type 1 diabetes in children.
Type 1 diabetes is the form where the body doesn?t make the insulin it needs. An Italian study presented here at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association suggests that children who get the hepatitis B vaccine are at greater risk for developing type 1 disease than those who have never been vaccinated. On the basis of their research, Paolo Pozzilli, MD, and colleagues say doctors should exercise caution in giving the vaccine to children who have close relatives with type 1 diabetes.
But because type 1 diabetes is relatively rare in the overall population, thorough studies involving several hundred thousand participants are needed to prove a solid link, says Marion Rewers, MD, who was not involved in the study. So the jury is still out, he says.
"The possibility of a link between hepatitis B vaccine [and type 1 diabetes] is an interesting research area and has been recognized as such by a number of investigators across the world," he tells WebMD. He says that at two recent meetings, researchers "were in unanimous agreement that there was no association. We need a monitoring system, so that if an association is found in the future, it can be promptly identified." Rewers, a pediatric endocrinologist, is a professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver and chair of the ADA council on epidemiology and statistics.
The CDC recommends that the hepatitis B vaccine be a part of routine vaccination schedules for U.S. infants.
The hepatitis B vaccine is now required in Italy, says Pozzilli, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Rome. Further, there is a low, relatively stable rate of type 1 diabetes there. These conditions allowed the researchers to compare the rate of diabetes in vaccinated children with that in unvaccinated groups.
Investigators compared 150,000 children who had been vaccinated at age 3 months to an equal number of unvaccinated children. To assess the risk of developing type 1 diabetes in children who got the vaccine later, after vaccination became mandatory in Italy, 400,000 children who were vaccinated at age 12 were compared with children who had not been vaccinated.
In the group as a whole, the rates of type 1 diabetes were 46 per 100,000 for children who had been vaccinated and 34 per 100,000 for children who had not. For those vaccinated at age 12, the rates were 17.8 per 100,000 for vaccinated children and 6.9 per 100,000 for unvaccinated children.
Although these may seem like large groups to study, they are not big enough for scientists to see clear patterns for type 1 diabetes, Rewers says. For a study like this to have value, the database should involve as many as 250,000 people in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, he says.
"Caution is necessary when the potential of vaccine-related risks is studied," Rewers tells WebMD. "Without sound supportive data, [parents] can become unduly alarmed and stop immunizing their children." When immunization rates drop, diseases that can cause serious illness -- and death -- return, he tells WebMD.
The National Institutes of Health and the CDC are jointly establishing a system known as "sentinel monitoring areas," Rewers tells WebMD. The agencies will track the rate of type 1 diabetes in these areas -- consisting of selected counties in the U.S. -- and will determine whether the rate is related to things like immunizations, recommended infant feeding schedules, and outbreaks of infection.
Rewers has not been involved with the development of any vaccine and has no ties to any company that manufactures vaccines.
© 2000 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.
June 13, 2000 (San Antonio) -- Faced with an ever-growing list of required and recommended vaccinations for children -- as well as occasional reports of safety problems linked to vaccines -- many parents understandably feel confused. No doubt adding to that confusion are reports that the vaccine against hepatitis B, a blood-borne illness that can cause liver cancer, may actually lead to the development of type 1 diabetes in children.
Type 1 diabetes is the form where the body doesn?t make the insulin it needs. An Italian study presented here at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association suggests that children who get the hepatitis B vaccine are at greater risk for developing type 1 disease than those who have never been vaccinated. On the basis of their research, Paolo Pozzilli, MD, and colleagues say doctors should exercise caution in giving the vaccine to children who have close relatives with type 1 diabetes.
But because type 1 diabetes is relatively rare in the overall population, thorough studies involving several hundred thousand participants are needed to prove a solid link, says Marion Rewers, MD, who was not involved in the study. So the jury is still out, he says.
"The possibility of a link between hepatitis B vaccine [and type 1 diabetes] is an interesting research area and has been recognized as such by a number of investigators across the world," he tells WebMD. He says that at two recent meetings, researchers "were in unanimous agreement that there was no association. We need a monitoring system, so that if an association is found in the future, it can be promptly identified." Rewers, a pediatric endocrinologist, is a professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver and chair of the ADA council on epidemiology and statistics.
The CDC recommends that the hepatitis B vaccine be a part of routine vaccination schedules for U.S. infants.
The hepatitis B vaccine is now required in Italy, says Pozzilli, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Rome. Further, there is a low, relatively stable rate of type 1 diabetes there. These conditions allowed the researchers to compare the rate of diabetes in vaccinated children with that in unvaccinated groups.
Investigators compared 150,000 children who had been vaccinated at age 3 months to an equal number of unvaccinated children. To assess the risk of developing type 1 diabetes in children who got the vaccine later, after vaccination became mandatory in Italy, 400,000 children who were vaccinated at age 12 were compared with children who had not been vaccinated.
In the group as a whole, the rates of type 1 diabetes were 46 per 100,000 for children who had been vaccinated and 34 per 100,000 for children who had not. For those vaccinated at age 12, the rates were 17.8 per 100,000 for vaccinated children and 6.9 per 100,000 for unvaccinated children.
Although these may seem like large groups to study, they are not big enough for scientists to see clear patterns for type 1 diabetes, Rewers says. For a study like this to have value, the database should involve as many as 250,000 people in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, he says.
"Caution is necessary when the potential of vaccine-related risks is studied," Rewers tells WebMD. "Without sound supportive data, [parents] can become unduly alarmed and stop immunizing their children." When immunization rates drop, diseases that can cause serious illness -- and death -- return, he tells WebMD.
The National Institutes of Health and the CDC are jointly establishing a system known as "sentinel monitoring areas," Rewers tells WebMD. The agencies will track the rate of type 1 diabetes in these areas -- consisting of selected counties in the U.S. -- and will determine whether the rate is related to things like immunizations, recommended infant feeding schedules, and outbreaks of infection.
Rewers has not been involved with the development of any vaccine and has no ties to any company that manufactures vaccines.
© 2000 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.
Hemophilus Meningitis Vaccine Linked To Diabetes Increase
BALTIMORE, MD -- May 7, 1999 -- The British Medical Journal published a Research Letter written by Dr. J. Bart Classen, an immunologist at Classen Immunotherapies, supporting a causal relationship between the hemophilus vaccine and the development of insulin dependent diabetes.
The data is particularly disturbing because it indicates the potential risks of the vaccine exceeds the potential benefit. The findings are expected to allow many diabetics to receive compensation for their injuries and lead to safer immunisation.
The data pertains to a study initiated and funded by Classen Immunotherapies which was performed using medical records of Finnish children. The study looked at the rate of diabetes in children receiving four or one dose of a weak, early generation, hemophilus vaccine and compared to the rate in children who received no vaccine. The children were followed for 10 years.
In the group receiving four doses of vaccine the rate of diabetes was elevated by 26 percent after seven years compared to children receiving no doses. There were an extra 58 cases of diabetes per 100,000 children immunised in the group receiving four doses of vaccine compared to children receiving no doses. This is equivalent to 2,300 cases of diabetes a year in the US, which has an annual birth rate of about four million children. However, even more cases of diabetes are expected with newer hemophilus vaccines which are in use today.
By contrast, immunisation against hemophilus is expected to prevent seven deaths and seven to 26 cases of severe disability per 100,000 children immunised in Finland.
The data shatters the prevailing myth that the benefits of vaccines far exceed the risks. The data is expected to allow many diabetic children to receive compensation for their illness. Each case of insulin dependent diabetes is estimated to cost on average over $1 million US in medical costs and lost productivity.
"Unfortunately, many public health officials and researchers funded by groups threatened by the findings continue to try to deny the association. This may prolong the financial burden of diabetics deserving compensation," Classen added.
In a letter published by the British Medical Journal, Classen describes analytical methods used by public health officials which may give readers the perception that the effect is smaller than it really is.
The news is not all bad for the vaccine field. The findings are expected to lead to changes in immunisation practices which will lead to a decline in childhood diabetes. Immunisation starting in the first month of life has been associated with a decreased risk of diabetes and is one method being considered to make immunisation safer.
Related Link: British Medical Journal
The data is particularly disturbing because it indicates the potential risks of the vaccine exceeds the potential benefit. The findings are expected to allow many diabetics to receive compensation for their injuries and lead to safer immunisation.
The data pertains to a study initiated and funded by Classen Immunotherapies which was performed using medical records of Finnish children. The study looked at the rate of diabetes in children receiving four or one dose of a weak, early generation, hemophilus vaccine and compared to the rate in children who received no vaccine. The children were followed for 10 years.
In the group receiving four doses of vaccine the rate of diabetes was elevated by 26 percent after seven years compared to children receiving no doses. There were an extra 58 cases of diabetes per 100,000 children immunised in the group receiving four doses of vaccine compared to children receiving no doses. This is equivalent to 2,300 cases of diabetes a year in the US, which has an annual birth rate of about four million children. However, even more cases of diabetes are expected with newer hemophilus vaccines which are in use today.
By contrast, immunisation against hemophilus is expected to prevent seven deaths and seven to 26 cases of severe disability per 100,000 children immunised in Finland.
The data shatters the prevailing myth that the benefits of vaccines far exceed the risks. The data is expected to allow many diabetic children to receive compensation for their illness. Each case of insulin dependent diabetes is estimated to cost on average over $1 million US in medical costs and lost productivity.
"Unfortunately, many public health officials and researchers funded by groups threatened by the findings continue to try to deny the association. This may prolong the financial burden of diabetics deserving compensation," Classen added.
In a letter published by the British Medical Journal, Classen describes analytical methods used by public health officials which may give readers the perception that the effect is smaller than it really is.
The news is not all bad for the vaccine field. The findings are expected to lead to changes in immunisation practices which will lead to a decline in childhood diabetes. Immunisation starting in the first month of life has been associated with a decreased risk of diabetes and is one method being considered to make immunisation safer.
Related Link: British Medical Journal
Vaccine Induced Inflammation Linked to Epidemic of Type 2 Diabetes and Metabolic...
Vaccine Induced Inflammation Linked to Epidemic of Type 2 Diabetes andMetabolic SyndromeJapanese and Other Ethnic Minorities at Increased Risk
BALTIMORE, April 4, 2008 /PRNewswire/ -- Newly published data by Dr. J.Barthelow Classen in The Open Endocrinology Journal shows a 50% reduction oftype 2 diabetes occurred in Japanese children following the discontinuation ofa single vaccine, a vaccine to prevent tuberculosis. This decline occurred ata time when there is a global epidemic of type 2 diabetes and metabolicsyndrome, which includes obesity, altered blood cholesterol levels, high bloodpressure, and increased blood glucose resulting from insulin resistance.
Classen proposes a new explanation for the epidemic of both insulindependent diabetes (type 1 diabetes), which has previously been shown to becaused by vaccines and non insulin dependent diabetes (type 2 diabetes). Uponreceipt of vaccines or other strong immune stimulants some individuals developa hyperactive immune system leading to autoimmune destruction of insulinsecreting cells. Other individuals produce increased cortisol, an immunesuppressing hormone, to suppress the vaccine induced inflammation. Theincreased cortisol leads to type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Japanesechildren have increased cortisol secretion following immunization compared toWhite children and this explains why Japanese have a relative high rate oftype 2 diabetes but low rate of insulin dependent diabetes compared to Whites.
The lower cortisol response attributed to type 1 diabetes and the highercortisol response attributed to type 2 diabetes explains why type 1 diabeticsare generally leaner than type 2 diabetics since elevated cortisol causesweight gain.
"The current data shows that vaccines are much more dangerous than thepublic is lead to believe and adequate testing has never been performed evenin healthy subjects to indicate that there is an overall improvement in healthfrom immunization. The current practice of vaccinating diabetics as well astheir close family members is a very risky practice," says Dr. J. Barthelow Classen.
Classen's research has become widely accepted. To view the publishedpapers and to find out the latest information on the effects of vaccines onautoimmune diseases including insulin dependent diabetes visit the VaccineSafety Web site www.vaccines.net/newpage11.htm
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.
6517 Montrose Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21212 U.S.A.
Tel: (410) 377-8526
Classen@vaccines.net
vaccines.net
SOURCE Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc., +1-410-377-8526, Classen@vaccines.net
BALTIMORE, April 4, 2008 /PRNewswire/ -- Newly published data by Dr. J.Barthelow Classen in The Open Endocrinology Journal shows a 50% reduction oftype 2 diabetes occurred in Japanese children following the discontinuation ofa single vaccine, a vaccine to prevent tuberculosis. This decline occurred ata time when there is a global epidemic of type 2 diabetes and metabolicsyndrome, which includes obesity, altered blood cholesterol levels, high bloodpressure, and increased blood glucose resulting from insulin resistance.
Classen proposes a new explanation for the epidemic of both insulindependent diabetes (type 1 diabetes), which has previously been shown to becaused by vaccines and non insulin dependent diabetes (type 2 diabetes). Uponreceipt of vaccines or other strong immune stimulants some individuals developa hyperactive immune system leading to autoimmune destruction of insulinsecreting cells. Other individuals produce increased cortisol, an immunesuppressing hormone, to suppress the vaccine induced inflammation. Theincreased cortisol leads to type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Japanesechildren have increased cortisol secretion following immunization compared toWhite children and this explains why Japanese have a relative high rate oftype 2 diabetes but low rate of insulin dependent diabetes compared to Whites.
The lower cortisol response attributed to type 1 diabetes and the highercortisol response attributed to type 2 diabetes explains why type 1 diabeticsare generally leaner than type 2 diabetics since elevated cortisol causesweight gain.
"The current data shows that vaccines are much more dangerous than thepublic is lead to believe and adequate testing has never been performed evenin healthy subjects to indicate that there is an overall improvement in healthfrom immunization. The current practice of vaccinating diabetics as well astheir close family members is a very risky practice," says Dr. J. Barthelow Classen.
Classen's research has become widely accepted. To view the publishedpapers and to find out the latest information on the effects of vaccines onautoimmune diseases including insulin dependent diabetes visit the VaccineSafety Web site www.vaccines.net/newpage11.htm
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.
6517 Montrose Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21212 U.S.A.
Tel: (410) 377-8526
Classen@vaccines.net
vaccines.net
SOURCE Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc., +1-410-377-8526, Classen@vaccines.net
Cancer Vaccine Linked to Pancreatitis
Sylvia Booth Hubbard
AOL Journals
September 2, 2008
Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine, which is being advised for all young women, may be causing pancreatitis, a painful, debilitating disease that can be fatal. Australian sources reported that three women developed pancreatitis shortly after receiving the vaccine.
Gardasil protects women from strains of the HPV (human papillomavirus) that cause 70 percent of all cervical cancer. But numerous cases of young women being stricken with various potentially deadly complications have arisen all over the world. Eighteen deaths have been reported as well as 8,000 adverse reactions which include paralysis and seizures. Australia alone reported over 1,000 suspected reactions to the vaccine, although most were not life-threatening and included headaches, dizziness and vomiting.
Acute pancreatitis is characterized by sudden, severe abdominal pain. Pancreatic enzymes burn and irritate the pancreas, then leak out into the abdominal cavity. Complications can include heart, respiratory or kidney failure, all of which can be fatal.
Dr. Amitabha Das, writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, said, “We suggest that pancreatitis be considered in cases of abdominal pain following HPV vaccination.
AOL Journals
September 2, 2008
Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine, which is being advised for all young women, may be causing pancreatitis, a painful, debilitating disease that can be fatal. Australian sources reported that three women developed pancreatitis shortly after receiving the vaccine.
Gardasil protects women from strains of the HPV (human papillomavirus) that cause 70 percent of all cervical cancer. But numerous cases of young women being stricken with various potentially deadly complications have arisen all over the world. Eighteen deaths have been reported as well as 8,000 adverse reactions which include paralysis and seizures. Australia alone reported over 1,000 suspected reactions to the vaccine, although most were not life-threatening and included headaches, dizziness and vomiting.
Acute pancreatitis is characterized by sudden, severe abdominal pain. Pancreatic enzymes burn and irritate the pancreas, then leak out into the abdominal cavity. Complications can include heart, respiratory or kidney failure, all of which can be fatal.
Dr. Amitabha Das, writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, said, “We suggest that pancreatitis be considered in cases of abdominal pain following HPV vaccination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)