Monthly Archives: October 2011

CDC panel recommends HPV shot for boys

Judith L. Schaechter, MD gives an HPV vaccination to a 13-year-old girl on 21 September 2011 A third of adolescent girls in the US have received all three shots of the vaccine.

A US government medical committee has recommended the human papillomavirus vaccine for boys, to tackle the spread of the sexually-transmitted virus.

While the vaccine has been available to boys before, the vote means that injections are now likely to be covered under medical insurance.

Officials said a lower than expected rate of vaccination in girls encouraged them to reconsider the policy.

In boys, the vaccine protects against cancers associated with the virus.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, which advises the Centers for Disease Control, voted unanimously on Tuesday to recommend the vaccine for males ages 11 and 12.

Vaccination confusion

Dr Anne Schuchat, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters vaccinating boys would both provide a direct benefit against various cancers and genital warts, but would also potentially reduce the spread of the virus from males to females.

“[The] HPV vaccine is not being highly taken up among teen girls,” she said.

As of last year, 49% of adolescent girls had received at least the first of the recommended three HPV shots, while only a third had had all three doses.

Dr Schuchat attributed the low rates for girls to confusion by parents that the vaccination is appropriate only when their daughter becomes sexually active. The vaccine works best if the shots are given before having sex.

According to the CDC, an estimated 50% to 80% of men and women are infected with HPV at some point in their lifetime, although most never develop symptoms.

But HPV is linked to almost 13,000 cases of cervical cancer yearly in US women, recent studies have shown increases in head and neck cancers linked to the virus.

The vaccine was drawn into the Republican presidential debates in September when candidate Michele Bachmann attacked Texas governor Rick Perry’s executive order to require HPV vaccination for girls in the state.

Ms Bachmann told the audience she had heard it could cause mental retardation.

However, no such cases have been documented by US health authorities

Advertisements

Cancer Research Fraud.

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings.

His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don’t address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars.

Much of the support comes from flawed and biased “research” studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles.

Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments).

But, as with many areas of medical research, it’s important to read between the lines of “scientifically proven” studies, even those that are well accepted.

Often what you’ll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

“The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers.”

This includes:

  • Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a “central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer.”
  • Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found “reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells.”

Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.

Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it’s very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …”

Fabricated Research is More Common Than You Might Think

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many, if not most, of the findings are incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé’s into this muddled system came from none other than Dr. Marcia Angell, who was the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, and said flat out:

“Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time.”

For instance, in 2009 Dr. Scott Reuben, who was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University’s medical school, allegedly fabricated the data for 21 studies!

Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, and those studies were accepted as fact and swayed the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.

So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become worthy of being published? Part of the problem may be the peer-review process itself, as this puts researchers in charge of policing other researchers’ results, and most do not want to insult a fellow researcher’s work with negative comments.

As written in Gaia Health:

“It’s all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That’s what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don’t want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.

Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we’ve had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It’s been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it’s nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science.”

It’s almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process, as peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.

Given that cancer research is such a lucrative business right now — the National Cancer Institute, which gave the grant money to support Dr. Sheng Wang’s fabricated research, had a $5.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 — the stakes are exceptionally high. So it stands to reason that it may be subject to even more fraud and manipulation than less lucrative research prospects.

As The Economist reported, there were more new cancer drugs in development in 2010 than any other therapeutic area. Drug makers are well aware that a blockbuster cancer drug could easily earn them profits in the billions, even if the drug is only borderline effective. It is abundantly clear that profit is a primary motive of these companies so it should not be a surprise that they have moved in this direction, and this is where the abundance of research is focused as well.

Why You Might Want to Think Twice Before Donating to Anti-Cancer Charities

A lot of people put their faith in charity organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS), dutifully donating money to help in the “war on cancer.”  But in the report titled American Cancer Society—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that’s just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!

The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

“Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding,” Dr. Epstein writes.

Many also do not realize that when you donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.

Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their “war on cancer” strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies, the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution. We CAN turn this trend around, but to do so the medical and research communities must stop focusing on drug treatments and overlooking the methods that can actually have a significant impact on preventing this disease.

6 Medical Myths Even Your Doctor May Still Believe

Posted: 10/18/11 08:16 AM ET

 

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” This couldn’t be truer of our health care delivery system. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I have experienced firsthand the explosion of medical technology, much of which has dramatically changed the way we diagnose pathology and the way we surgically and medically treat pathology. I will admit that this has served patients and doctors well, yet recent history has seen an explosion of illness and morbidity in our society.

What I feel compelled to take issue with, and the reason I am writing this treatise, is that the actual paradigm of medical care has not changed much in spite of all of our technological advances. Physicians have been extensively trained and have held steadfast in the belief that presenting symptoms are entities unto themselves. These symptom complexes have been treated as if they have a life of their own, separate and apart from the innocent bystander host, the person with the medical problem. We have divided the human body into a jigsaw puzzle of component parts. We’ve taken the jigsaw puzzle apart and assigned a specialist to address each one of these pieces of the whole, losing sight of the fact that everything is part of the whole, and everything we do as physicians to each little part affects the whole person. This has fostered the current allopathic paradigm of “symptom care” in lieu of the more important issue of “health care.”

In order to establish a system that is truly focused on health care, we need to expose some “myths” that will allow us to unlock the door to creating a more efficient and successful healthcare delivery system.

Myth #1- Technology has improved healthcare

Ask any physician if he believes that technology has improved health care and you will get a resounding “Yes!” Advances in medical technology now enable us to look inside the human body with relative ease and with great detail. Our surgical tools allow us to operate on all parts of the body with a minimum of trauma and blood loss. Technology has helped us improve the quality of life for millions of patients every year. It has enabled us to save countless lives as well. Therefore, it is certainly a foregone conclusion that technology has, in fact, improved our health. Or has it?

Statistically, since the age of technology, there has been an onslaught of increasing pathology. The amount of illness and morbidity in our society is dramatically rising. There are now more cases of cancer, heart disease, arthritis, auto-immune illnesses, endocrine disorders, developmental disorders, allergies, respiratory problems, infectious diseases, neurological problems, musculo-skeletal pathology, gastro-intestinal disorders, psychological illness, etc., than ever before.

While it is true that our technology has enabled us to better handle the enormity of disorders now facing mankind, it has done literally nothing for “health care.” If it had, we would have seen a decrease in the amount of illness and pathology in society. We would have experienced a drop in the amount of people requiring intervention from the medical community. Pharmaceutical companies would not be as rich and powerful as they are if people would be less dependent on medication to “feel well”. If anything, advances in technology have fostered a narrow field of vision, focused more on early detection and intervention than on prevention. If, by definition, health care means “the maintenance of good health,” then technology has failed miserably to produce any measurable improvement in the overall state of health of mankind.

Myth #2 – Inflammation is bad

Ask any doctor what to do about inflammation and the answer will be a uniform, “Take an anti-inflammatory.” While it is true that taking medication to suppress inflammation can certainly lead to increased comfort, should we be doing that in the first place? Is inflammation bad? Is it something that occurs by freak accident, some physiologic aberration, that occurs and causes great distress and suffering amongst mankind? We have been conditioned to think of inflammation as something bad because it causes pain and makes us miserable, therefore it should be medicated and suppressed. Right? Wrong.

Inflammation is a directed response by the immune system designed to detoxify, repair and protect tissues under any form of functional or metabolic stress. It is important to understand the purpose of inflammation in order to see why we should not work to suppress it, but rather to support it.

Whenever there are tissues in our body under any form of functional or metabolic stress, the problem will be immediately identified by the immune system. It first recruits a pathway called primary inflammation. This pathway is employed by the body in order to detoxify the tissues under stress (as tissues under stress increase their metabolic rate and produce more toxic by-products) as well as facilitate the repair of any injured cells. A primary inflammatory response will produce no symptoms in low-level stress situations, as long as it is efficient in managing the problem. You would not even know that this process is going on because there are no identifiable symptoms such as pain, swelling, redness and heat. Cardinal signs of inflammation will occur only when there is rapid, high level stress in an area such as in acute trauma, repetitive stress episodes, allergic/toxic reactions and metabolic disease.

In situations where the stress on the tissues is beyond the capability of the primary pathway, or in situations where there is an inefficient inflammatory response (we will discuss this later in the treatise), the immune system will then incorporate the secondary, or chronic, inflammatory pathway. This pathway is a protective pathway. It prevents rapid tissue destruction by allowing for cellular adaptation to the stress as well as the release of pain-causing chemicals to prevent continued “overuse and abuse” of the involved part. Therefore, the patient becomes aware that there is a problem because they are in pain.

Now that you understand this simplified explanation of inflammation, you can see that inflammation is actually a good thing. It is the body’s way of trying to help itself deal with these kinds of issues. It should be obvious then, that anti-inflammatory medications actually impair the body’s ability to detoxify, repair and protect itself. Additionally, these medications add toxic load to the body and are responsible for many varied side effects.

What makes more sense, empirically, is to treat these problems mechanistically and supportively. In other words, we want to work to help make the pathway of primary inflammation more efficient, with supportive, rather than suppressive, protocols. There are many natural medicines that can help accomplish the task of supporting our bodies, be they homeopathic, nutritional or herbal. Additionally, we want to be able to identify the reason(s) that this pathway is not functioning efficiently.

It is imperative that we look more comprehensively into our patient’s physiology in order to detect reasons why the immune system is not up to the task it is being called upon to perform. To do this, we need to understand our patient’s lifestyle, diet, adrenal health, the presence of food sensitivities, free-radical levels (free-radicals being compounds that essentially are responsible for cellular damage and degeneration over time), metabolic function analysis and perhaps other tests. In other words, we must work to comprehensively understand our patient’s total health picture and not just concentrate on the body part involved in the pathology.

Myth #3 – Genetically coded diseases are unavoidable

How many times have you heard someone say, “My mother had arthritis, that’s why I have it”? We now believe, through scientific technology, that many diseases are inherited. Genes for specific diseases have been recognized via gene mapping. Many of you may know or have heard of women who have had total bilateral mastectomies, completely prophylactically, because their mothers died of breast cancer, firmly believing that they could not avoid the same fate.

Let’s take a closer look at this issue. If having a gene for any illness condemns you to having that disease, then why are you not born with the disease you are coded to have? Why isn’t every person who carries a gene for disease suffering at all times from that disease? The answer is that all genes do not express themselves at all times and many never do. There must be a reason why the body would call upon a gene to express itself. Otherwise, none of us would be able to survive the onslaught of genetic expression. So what is it that causes a gene to express itself? If you consider for a moment that diseases are just a complex of symptoms being incorporated by the body in an attempt to protect itself from tissue destruction and/or imminent death, you may begin to get a clearer understanding of what I am trying to say. Once we begin to pay attention to the reasons that a gene might express itself, we may be able to prevent that gene from releasing its code for illness.

To do this, one must look again at the lifestyle of the patient. As stated earlier, degenerative illness is a function of free radical damage to our cells over time. If someone carries the gene for arthritis, for example, one would expect genetic coding to foster storage of free radicals in their joint tissues. The prolonged exposure to these free radicals over time will cause progressive vicariations, which lead to cellular damage and eventual joint destruction.

But what if we intervene on behalf of gene expression by controlling the formation and liberation of free radicals in the body? Would there then be a need for the gene to express itself? I contend that there would be no need for this gene to express because, as I stated earlier, disease is the body’s way of protecting itself from rapid destruction of tissues and/or imminent death. If it doesn’t have to go to extraordinary lengths to protect itself, the gene remains dormant and no disease ensues.

So, again, we must look at the lifestyle and diet of the patient to discover why their body is failing to control the formation, liberation and damage caused by free radicals. You have all heard the term “antioxidants” and for good reason. Antioxidants are the nutrients we require in order to neutralize free radicals so they can then be eliminated from the body in a harmless form. Many people in our society live on nutrient deficient diets from highly processed and refined foods that do not supply essential nutrient protection.

You should be beginning to see the pattern here. Are we treating cancer by cutting it out? Are we treating arthritis by suppressing the protective inflammation brought about by years of free radical damage? Does coronary artery bypass grafting cure cardiovascular disease? Of course not. Our goal should be in maximizing understanding of cause and effect and employing life affirming, nutrient-rich diets with a healthy, wholesome, natural lifestyle. This is the way to “prevent” genetically coded diseases.

Myth #4 – Medications improve health

We are, in this country, the most heavily medicated society on the planet. People are taking medications to control the symptoms of countless diseases. These medications are either prescribed by their physicians or purchased over the counter by the patient. I have seen, in my practice, thousands of elderly patients taking upward of 10 prescription medications as well as a few over-the-counter ones. If you ask the average senior how they are feeling, most will say that they feel awful in spite of their medications. How could this be? If the medications are supposedly “keeping them healthy,” how come they feel so bad? There are a number of reasons for this.

First of all, every medication swallowed is perceived by the immune system as a “poison,” because there is nothing in nature that would ever present to the G.I. tract in that form of chemicals. This added “toxic load” places additional stress on the body. These chemicals must be detoxified and eliminated by the body. This need to detoxify causes stress in the liver and kidneys and can damage these vital organs.

Additionally, all medications, because they are designed to interfere with natural body physiology, will produce inevitable side effects. Why? In every situation where a drug is used to block symptoms (the roadblock), the body will undergo physiologic compensations in an effort to get around the roadblock. So, the body will recruit different physiologic pathways in an attempt to bypass the roadblock. Hence, the patient will experience new symptoms as these other pathways elicit undesired effects. Some of the side effects can be potentially more disabling than the symptoms they are being used to treat.

Many side effects are treated with additional drugs, further increasing the toxic load. The other issue most important to understand is that the symptoms are a directed response by the body to solve whatever issue needs to be dealt with. If you inhibit these symptoms with medications, symptoms will return when the drug is withdrawn if the body has not successfully solved the problem.

So, what am I saying here? Quite simply, if a patient has high blood pressure and is taking medication to control it, and then they cease taking it, they will see their blood pressure rise again. If they are suffering with an inflammatory problem and are taking anti-inflammatories to control their discomfort, and cease taking their meds, they will again be in pain. If they are suffering with sinus congestion and take a decongestant, they will feel congested again if the drug is withdrawn. Empirically then, we see that the medication has not at all improved their health, just their symptoms.
Myth #5 – Childhood immunizations protect us from serious disease

It’s a foregone conclusion that upon the birth of your new baby, immunizations will start as soon as possible to protect your child from many serious childhood illnesses that can devastate his/her health. Pediatricians set up important immunization schedules to be adhered to so that the baby is not left unprotected. In years gone by, many children were afflicted with polio, measles, mumps, Rubella, influenza, small pox, diphtheria, whooping cough and others. Of course, the majority of these children recovered without incident (other than polio, which caused permanent nerve damage most of the time), but there were some children who had serious sequelae and even some who died from these diseases. Modern science discovered a way to confer immunity on these children so that they would never become afflicted with these diseases, and for the most part, it has been successful. The question is, at what price?

If we think for a moment that we are taking infants with immature thymus glands (the main gland responsible for proper immune system function does not mature until around five years of age) and exposing them to numerous live and attenuated viruses, much more frequently than the child could possibly be exposed to any of these diseases, we may begin to understand some of the very discomfiting statistics that have evolved since the age of immunization. Rather than decreasing childhood morbidity and improving the health of all subsequent generations being immunized against these diseases that have affected mankind for thousands of years, we have instead seen a dramatic rise in childhood illness in the form of ADD, ADHD, autism, allergies, learning disabilities, infectious diseases, auto-immune illnesses and, most importantly, cancer. Cancer has been on a frighteningly dramatic rise in small children over the past decades and shows no signs of letting up. Mortality rates for childhood cancers are unacceptably high although technology has slowed the course of death.

Is there anyone out there, like myself, who is not convinced these childhood morbidity statistics have nothing to do with immunizations? Have we traded off less serious illness for more devastating disease? How did mankind survive and thrive through thousands and thousands of years without being immunized? Are we interfering in a way that has created a weakening, rather than a strengthening, of the human immune system? Is it possible that we are interfering with the natural course of genetic mutation that would have rendered authentic immunity to these diseases? There are too many unanswered questions here for my comfort level.

It is my opinion that it is incumbent upon epidemiologists to delve deeply into this possibility and definitively rule out a link between immunization and childhood morbidity from the aforementioned conditions.
Myth # 6 – The double blind – placebo controlled study guarantees safety and efficacy in drug therapy

At this point in the history of mankind, we have been conditioned to abhor symptoms of any kind. Headaches, sneezing, coughing, colds, allergies, pain, infections, hypertension, etc., are no longer tolerated as a part of the process of living. Rather than look into the mechanisms that may be causing these symptoms, we are reaching for the medicine that will suppress them. In so doing, we may feel better, but we now have no motive to look at causes and correct for the issues that may be impairing our health, thus increasing our “need” for more medications over time.

Well, what about these drugs? How do they make it to the market for public consumption? The answer is the “gold standard” double blind, placebo controlled study. Without this approach, there can be no FDA approval and hence, no way to market a drug. So let’s look at this approval process more closely.

It is imperative that a drug be tested for two main issues in clinical trials, the first being safety and the second, efficacy. Of course we want to know that if a drug proves to control the symptoms it is being designed to control, it can it do it safely, (e.g., with a minimum of “tolerable” side effects).

We then want to be able to establish that it is the drug that is working and not the “mind over matter” phenomenon. To ensure this, the drug is given to half of the test subjects and a placebo is given to the other half, who believe that they are actually being given the medication. Both groups are also instructed to refrain from taking other medications so that a “synergy” effect does not confuse the results. It would be harder to know if side effects and/or efficacy are being affected by these other meds so they are eliminated from the trials. The expectation is that there should be a great discrepancy between the medicated group and the control group (placebo) in the relief of symptoms being reported. This establishes the drug’s efficacy.

All through the clinical trials, all side effects are being reported and catalogued. The side effects are rated as to severity and frequency. The FDA will then look at this “safety” profile and decide whether or not the drug is safe enough to be approved for marketing.

So let’s assume that a drug has passed the stringent testing requirements and is now FDA approved. Soon, the drug will begin to be prescribed by an ever-increasing number of doctors who believe that new is better. Now, this is where the bigger, broader issues become revealed. Firstly, we mentioned that the medicated group in the study takes the test drug in isolation of other drugs. That is not what happens in real life. As soon as the drug hits the market, it is going to be mixed with lots of other prescription and over the counter medicines, as well as herbal and homeopathic medicines. We now begin to see drug interactions that will cause previously unreported side effects, some of them severe and some of them causing deaths. It is actually after the marketing of the drug that the public becomes the “test subjects” for drug interactions. The Department of Health will quickly respond by informing doctors of these “new” side effects, but it is too late for some people.

In addition, as the public use of the drug increases, there is now a much larger population of people using the drug and the statistics begin to change. What may have been reported to occur in 2 percent of the original test group may now be seen to be occurring in 6 percent of a broader population. Additionally, new side effects, not previously reported in clinical trials, become apparent. This is because there are so many variables in human physiology that results are often skewed by small populations of people who live in and around the same geographic location.

Lastly, clinical trials do not reveal the effects of long-term use. This, again, is something that turns the public into human guinea pigs. The recent Vioxx debacle bears this out.

So, in fact, this double blind placebo controlled study does not guarantee safety or efficacy because the test leaves far too many questions unanswered.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The focus on optimization of health not only depends on a working knowledge of genetics, but a deeper understanding of cause and effect through a working knowledge of epigenetics. Integrative medicine (the practice of conventional and holistic medicine) seeks to relate cause and effect in the treatment and prevention of illness by addressing the causative factors in the patient’s diet, lifestyle and environment. When the medical profession embraces the duality of symptom care and the optimization of health by addressing epigenetic influences on gene expression, we will begin to see a decrease in morbidity and an overall improvement in quality of life.

Our goal is to educate the public on how to stay as healthy as possible. Correcting mechanisms of pathology requires a receptive public, one that is willing to alter diet and lifestyle for their own benefit. One can easily extrapolate that in order to have a clean, natural, chemical free diet, issues of environmental toxicity can no longer be tolerated. We would now have a society of proactive people whose goal is to protect their health, the health of their children and grandchildren as well as preserve nature so we can be a part of it rather than a detriment to it.

The future of our health depends on knowledge and action. The future of our survival depends on knowledge and action. We can no longer afford to be innocent bystanders of our own health. The system is bursting at the seams. It is costing us far too much money to administer medical/surgical care. True, we have technology that can facilitate early detection, but this technology by no means confers prevention of disease on any of us. As such, we have become masters of symptom control and disease management but unfortunately, we are losing the battle to increasing morbidity and suffering.

Follow Dr. Robert A. Kornfeld on Twitter: www.twitter.com/holfoot153

UK doctors advised gonorrhoea has turned drug resistant

By Michelle Roberts Health reporter, BBC News

gonorrhoea Gonorrhoea rates had been declining in recent yearts the UK until a slight increase in 2010

UK doctors are being told the antibiotic normally used to treat gonorrhoea is no longer effective because the sexually transmitted disease is now largely resistant to it.

The Health Protection Agency says we may be heading to a point when the disease is incurable unless new treatments can be found.

For now, doctors must stop using the usual treatment cefixime and instead use two more powerful antibiotics.

One is a pill and the other a jab.

The HPA say the change is necessary because of increasing resistance.

Untreatable strains

Tests on samples taken from patients and grown in the laboratory showed reduced susceptibility to the usual antibiotic cefixime in nearly 20% of cases in 2010, compared with just 10% of cases in 2009.


“This presents the very real threat of untreatable gonorrhoea in the future”

Prof Cathy Ison HPA

As recently as 2005, no gonorrhoea bacteria with reduced susceptibility to cefixime could be found in the UK.

The bacterium that causes the infection – Neisseria gonorrhoeae – has an unusual ability to adapt itself and has gained resistance, or reduced susceptibility, to a growing list of antibiotics – first penicillin itself, then tetracyclines, ciprofloxacin and now cefixime.

The World Health Organization recommends that the first-line antibiotic used is changed when treatment failure in patients reaches 5%.

But for cefixime, the change is being made pre-emptively, owing to the alarming rise in resistance that is emerging.

Prof Cathy Ison, a gonorrhoea expert at England’s HPA, said: “Our lab tests have shown a dramatic reduction in the sensitivity of the drug we were using as the main treatment for gonorrhoea. This presents the very real threat of untreatable gonorrhoea in the future.

“We were so worried by the results we were seeing that we recommended that guidelines on the treatment of gonorrhoea were revised in May this year, to recommend a more effective drug.

“But this won’t solve the problem, as history tells us that resistance to this therapy will develop too. In the absence of any new alternative treatments for when this happens, we will face a situation where gonorrhoea cannot be cured.”

She said patients who refuse the jab will be offered oral antibiotics instead.

She added: “This highlights the importance of practising safe sex, as, if new antibiotic treatments can’t be found, this will be only way of controlling this infection in the future.”

After genital chlamydia, gonorrhoea is the second most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the UK.

According to HPA figures, there were 16,145 new diagnoses of gonorrhoea in 2010, a 3% increase on 2009 when there were 15,606.

New Government Regulations Signify Crackdown on Natural Health

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

After much deliberation, new European Union regulations have come into place banning hundreds of traditional herbal remedies. Under the guise of “protecting” consumers from these “dangerous” supplements, the European Union has opened the flood gates to an onslaught of new legislation designed to cut off access to alternative health supplements worldwide, setting the precedent for the government to tell us what we can and cannot put in our own bodies.

The rules allow for only “long-established and quality-controlled medicines” to be sold to consumers, limiting the advancement of any new companies or establishments that the government does not deem to be “quality” by their own terms. This type of governmental regulation of nutritional supplements may soon spill over to the food industry, where government involvement may be even more cause for concern.

Until now, the herbal supplement industry was governed by the 1968 Medicines Act, which was created when there were very few companies selling herbal remedies. Presently, about a quarter of all adults in the UK have used herbal medicine in the past two years, predominately purchasing it over the counter in health food stores and pharmacies.

With the widespread use of alternative remedies that cost very little compared to expensive pharmaceuticals and surgeries, comes the intensive regulation of such natural products. The main targets under the new system include echinacea, St John’s Wort and valerian, as well as traditional Chinese and Indian medicines. These are supplements that pose almost zero risk to one’s health as long as they are taken correctly and from high quality sources. How then could these natural health ingredients possibly be seen as a threat to the health of the consumer?

The main claim by the government in regards to the “risk” that these natural herbs pose is that they can interfere with pharmaceuticals. Instead of allowing consumers to choose if they are willing to take potentially health-damaging pharmaceuticals, the government is banning anything that could “interfere” with mainstream medicine.

Even the so-called experts behind the ban are members of various pharmaceutical organizations, such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Since these organizations and individuals couldn’t find any real side effects of these herbs that have been in use for countless decades, they were forced to say that it could potentially cause harm when taken in combination with the very pharmaceuticals they are backing.

“Patients might not realise that in some cases they should not take other medicines with them, or if they’re going for surgery they should tell their doctors they are taking these particular medicines because there may be complications,” said Prof Jayne Lawrence, chief science adviser to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

The draconian ban on natural herbal supplements that have been in use since the dawn of mankind signifies a complete crackdown on natural health supplements by the European Union. This is a landmark ban, as many other governments may follow with similar regulations and restrictions. The reasons behind this ban are truly ridiculous, as the very organizations behind it are the same organizations that back “conventional” pharmaceuticals over any other form of proven medicine. It is integral to the world’s health freedom that consumers take a stand against such acts of herbal tyranny and demand that the government allow for consumers to address their own health conditions without the “helping” hand of governmental control.

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13…
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/m…
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s…

New ARCHIVES material

 

 

 

 

http://homeopathyonline.org

New releases in original format.

One of the research tools we have included in the OpenRep SYNOPSIS is a program called ARCHIVES.  Originally a concept thought of a few years ago, and made a reality by Vladimir last year, it allows a person to search through the scanned pages of ORIGINAL printed editions of texts. It has become invaluable to researchers due to the ability to take information from the sources and from the language written in.

Recent additions to the ARCHIVES are as follows.:

Joseph Beer  Lehre von der Augenkrankheiten Volume.2
John Biddle  Materia Medica
William Boericke  Les Doce Remedios De Los Tejidos
John Henry Clarke  Life and Work of James Compton Burnett
John Henry Clarke  Dictionary of Domestic Medicine
John Henry Clarke  Diseases of the Heart and Arteries
John Henry Clarke  Haemorrhoids and Habitual constipation
John Henry Clarke  Homoeopathy Explained
John Henry Clarke  Indigestion
John Henry Clarke  Non-Surgical Treatment of Glands and Bones
John Henry Clarke  The Prescriber
John Henry Clarke  Rheumatism and Sciatica
John Henry Clarke  Whooping-Cough Cured with Pertussin
John Elliot  Complete Works of John Fothergill
Henry Guernsey  Key-Notes to the Materia Medica
Constantine Hering  Homoeopathic Domestic Physician
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 1)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 10)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 2)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 3)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 4)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 5)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 6)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 7)
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 8 )
Constantine Hering  The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica (Volume 9)
Worthington Hooker  Homoeopathy
Samuel Kimball  Repertory of Gonorrhoea
Hunting Sherrill  A Treatise on Homoeopathic Practice of Medicine
Arnold Wienhold  Seven Lectures on Somnabulism
James Compton Burnett  Curability of Cataract with Medicines
James Compton Burnett  The Change of Life in Women
James Compton Burnett  Delicate, Backward, Puny and Stunted Children
James Compton Burnett  The Prevention of Congenital Malformations
James Compton Burnett  Ecce Medicinus
James Compton Burnett  Fifty Reasons for Being a Homoeopath
James Compton Burnett  On Fistula and its Radical Cure by Medicines
James Compton Burnett  Five Years’ Experience in the New Cure of Consumption
James Compton Burnett  Gold as a Remedy in Disease
James Compton Burnett  Gout and its Cure
James Compton Burnett  The Greater Diseases of the Liver
James Compton Burnett  Natrum Muriaticum
James Compton Burnett  On Neuralgia, Its Causes and its Remedies
James Compton Burnett  The New Cure of Consumption by its own Virus
James Compton Burnett  Ringworm
James Compton Burnett  Diseases of the Skin
James Compton Burnett  Diseases of the Spleen
James Compton Burnett  Supersalinity of the Blood
James Compton Burnett  Enlarged Tonsils Cured by Medicines
James Compton Burnett  Curability of Tumours by Medicines (2nd Edition)
James Compton Burnett  Curability of Tumours
James Compton Burnett  Vaccinosis and its Cure by Thuja
James Compton Burnett  Diseases of the Veins
James Compton Burnett  Organ Diseases of Women
Cyrus Maxwell Boger 66 Lectures and Articles

 

One of my favourite authors of yester year is James Compton-Burnett. Vastly maligned as an “Organ prescriber” and criticized heavily in his day for the methodology employed in his practice, it has been my pleasure to have read everything he wrote and followed his career closely.  20 years ago, I took a day off from my Eastbourne Clinic and went to Brighton and looked at the rooms he rented and practiced from. In itself it means nothing yet it gave me a sense of perspective and a feeling of standing in his shoes and seeing the scenery through his eyes.

Compton-Burnett understood the Organon better than some gave him credit for, and did not deviate from the law of similars in practice. He was acknowledged as a master physician and has recorded many complete cures of difficult cases that the medical profession had given up on. The compilation of his works here, is recommended highly for reading and study.

The small Repertory of Gonorrhoea (Kimball) is worthy of consideration. A specialist work detailing the symptoms that we still see today in practice. For those cases that do not respond to indicated medicines and where a history of an infection is present, it may be that a dual disease state is active, and this repertory will help to differentiate what symptoms belong to which disease.

We will continue to bring more useful works to the community.