26 February 2012

Smoking Gun: JAMA Reports Vaccine Seizure Risk Increased for Babies

(NaturalNews) If you choose to have your baby vaccinated with the combination diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio and Haemophilus influenzae type 2 vaccine, a mega-jab collectively known as the DTap-IPV-Hib, your child may be at an increased risk of having a vaccine-induced seizure. A new study published in theJournal of the American Medical Associationhas identified a clear link between the vaccine and the onset of fever-related seizures, which the authors claim will not cause long-term damage.

Yuelian Sun from Aarhus Universityin Denmark and her colleagues evaluated data on roughly 380,000 babies born in Denmark between 2003 and 2008. Children in that country are recommended to get the vaccine at three different times -- once when they are three months old, again when they are five months old, and a third time on their first birthday. Upon analysis, the researchers determined that about 7,800 of these children, or just over two percent, had been diagnosed with a fever-related seizure by the time they reach one-and-a-half years old.

The risk of having a fever-related seizure appears to increase after each subsequent jab with the vaccine, and particularly on the same day that it is administered. And yet the study authors and others insist the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine is safe because such seizures allegedly do not cause brain damage or other permanent harm. Dr. Eugene Shapiro, a pediatrics and infectious diseases researcher atYale University, actually purports that these findings are "reassuring," and that parents should not be concerned.

Clink here for more ..


_________

Risk of Febrile Seizures and Epilepsy After Vaccination With Diphtheria, Tetanus, Acellular Pertussis, Inactivated Poliovirus, and Haemophilus Influenzae Type b

  1. Yuelian Sun, PhD
  2. Jakob Christensen, PhD
  3. Anders Hviid, PhD
  4. Jiong Li, PhD;
  5. Peter Vedsted, PhD
  6. Jørn Olsen, PhD
  7. Mogens Vestergaard, PhD
  1. JAMA. 2012;307(8):823-831.doi:10.1001/jama.2012.165
  1. Author Affiliations: Department of Public Health (Drs Sun, Li, Olsen, and Vestergaard) and Research Unit for General Practice (Drs Vedsted and Vestergaard), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Pharmacology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Dr Christensen); Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark (Dr Hviid); and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (Dr Olsen).

ABSTRACT

Context Vaccination with whole-cell pertussis vaccine carries an increased risk of febrile seizures, but whether this risk applies to the acellular pertussis vaccine is not known. In Denmark, acellular pertussis vaccine has been included in the combined diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis–inactivated poliovirus–Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib) vaccine since September 2002.
Objective To estimate the risk of febrile seizures and epilepsy after DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccination given at 3, 5, and 12 months.
Design, Setting, and Participants A population-based cohort study of 378 834 children who were born in Denmark between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2008, and followed up through December 31, 2009; and a self-controlled case series (SCCS) study based on children with febrile seizures during follow-up of the cohort.
Main Outcome Measures Hazard ratio (HR) of febrile seizures within 0 to 7 days (0, 1-3, and 4-7 days) after each vaccination and HR of epilepsy after first vaccination in the cohort study. Relative incidence of febrile seizures within 0 to 7 days (0, 1-3, and 4-7 days) after each vaccination in the SCCS study.
Results A total of 7811 children were diagnosed with febrile seizures before 18 months, of whom 17 were diagnosed within 0 to 7 days after the first (incidence rate, 0.8 per 100 000 person-days), 32 children after the second (1.3 per 100 000 person-days), and 201 children after the third (8.5 per 100 000 person-days) vaccinations. Overall, children did not have higher risks of febrile seizures during the 0 to 7 days after the 3 vaccinations vs a reference cohort of children who were not within 0 to 7 days of vaccination. However, a higher risk of febrileseizures was found on the day of the first (HR, 6.02; 95% CI, 2.86-12.65) and on the day of the second (HR, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.18-7.10), but not on the day of the third vaccination (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.73-1.57) vs the reference cohort. On the day of vaccination, 9 children were diagnosed with febrile seizures after the first (5.5 per 100 000 person-days), 12 children after the second (5.7 per 100 000 person-days), and 27 children after the third (13.1 per 100 000 person-days) vaccinations. The relative incidences from the SCCS study design were similar to the cohort study design. Within 7 years of follow-up, 131 unvaccinated children and 2117 vaccinated children were diagnosed with epilepsy, 813 diagnosed between 3 and 15 months (2.4 per 1000 person-years) and 1304 diagnosed later in life (1.3 per 1000 person-years). After vaccination, children had a lower risk of epilepsy between 3 and 15 months (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.79) and a similar risk for epilepsy later in life (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.66-1.56) vs unvaccinated children.
Conclusions DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccination was associated with an increased risk of febrile seizures on the day of the first 2 vaccinations given at 3 and 5 months, although the absolute risk was small. Vaccination with DTaP-IPV-Hib was not associated with an increased risk of epilepsy.

25 February 2012

Homeopathy: Swiss Government review


The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine

The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.
In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program. 

The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program.
It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.
Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).
The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment"
The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).
And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).
After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006) 

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).
The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.
In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

19 February 2012

Hepatitis C Version 1.0 Frequencies

    Hepatitis C electron micrograph - Wikipedia
The swine flu virus complex circulated many viruses and bacteria including Hepatitis C. If you were infected with the Swine flu you may have a latent Hepatitis C infection. At the request of subscribers, frequencies for this virus have been pulled together from research during 2004-2012. Those who click on the subscribe button on this page will have access to the subscribers list.
Hepatitis C is an infectious disease affecting primarily the liver, caused by the hepatitis C virus (HCV).[1] The infection is often asymptomatic, but chronic infection can lead to scarring of the liver and ultimately to cirrhosis, which is generally apparent after many years. In some cases, those with cirrhosis will go on to develop liver failureliver cancer or life-threatening esophageal and gastric varices.[1]
HCV is spread primarily by blood-to-blood contact associated with intravenous drug use, poorly sterilized medical equipment andtransfusions. An estimated 130–170 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis C. The existence of hepatitis C (originally "non-A non-B hepatitis") was postulated in the 1970s and proven in 1989.[2] It is not known to cause disease in other animals.
The virus persists in the liver in about 85% of those infected. This persistent infection can be treated with medication; peginterferon andribavirin are the current standard therapy. Overall, between 50–80% of people treated are cured. Those who develop cirrhosis or liver cancer may require a liver transplant. Hepatitis C is the leading cause of liver transplantation though the virus usually recurs after transplantation.[3]No vaccine against hepatitis C is currently available. (from Wikipedia)

05 February 2012

TED TALK: Shows how electrical fields destroys themselves

TED TALK: Bill Doyle
Treating Cancer with Electrical Fields

Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are the best-known methods for treating cancer. At TEDMED, Bill Doyle presents a new approach, called Tumor Treating Fields, which uses electric fields to interrupt cancer cell division. Still in its infancy -- and approved for only certain types of cancer -- the treatment comes with one big benefit: quality of life.

-------
FDA has now approved treatment with electrical fields for certain types of cancer. Make sure to read the comments on this talk. The talk and some comments show that most of the work in this area is done outside the United States and that the U.S. is at least 25 years behind some other countries.